The Crisis of Apartheid in the 1980s PDF

The Crisis of Apartheid in the 1980s: External/ International Resistance and Opposition International movements played an important role in highlighting the injustices of apartheid and making it a worldwide issue. By isolating South Africa diplomatically, culturally and economically and so pressure...

The Crisis of Apartheid in the 1980s: External/ International Resistance and Opposition International movements played an important role in highlighting the injustices of apartheid and making it a worldwide issue. By isolating South Africa diplomatically, culturally and economically and so pressured the government to make changes and eventually negotiate with liberation movements. Reformers inside South Africa joined forces with overseas organisations to put pressure on the government for change. Business and professional delegations met with ANC leaders in Africa and Europe (e.g. Gavin Reilly of Anglo-American met with Tambo in Zambia; an opposition politician, Van Zyl Slabbert, met with the ANC in Dakar). A ‘Release Mandela’ Campaign was launched both at home and overseas. Afrikaans businessmen and academics (from Stellenbosch University) were also calling for the scrapping of Apartheid. The UN described apartheid as “a crime against humanity” and had called on its members to apply sanctions against SA. Sanctions and boycotts played an important role in the ending of apartheid (despite the fact that Maggie Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the USA were opposed to them). The NP was under intense pressure from the international community for reform. After Botha failed to promise meaningful reform in his ‘crossing the Rubicon speech“ of 1985, choosing instead a defiant isolationist position, a financial crisis began. International Anti-Apartheid movements in Britain and Ireland The British movement was founded in 1959 to encourage British people to stop buying South African goods, expanded to campaign against apartheid more generally In 1963 the UK stopped selling arms to South Africa, but progress in pressuring SA was slow The Irish movement was founded by Kader Asmal when he was a lecturer at Trinity college dublin Demonstrated against Springbok game in Dublin in 1970, and promoted a ban on all sporting contacts Became well known in 1984 when a cashier at the Dunnes Stores supermarket chain refused to accept South African fruit at the cash  register. Other workers followed this example and over two years, public opinion moved from apathy and anger at the strikers to support for a boycott. In 1986, the Irish government enforced a boycott on South African coal and food products and closed its tourist office in SA. Successes of Anti-Apartheid Movement: Worked with other organisations to oppose contact with SA: Pressured Barclays Bank and other British companies to sell subsidiaries in SA Started a consumer boycott of SA imports Organised a concert at Wembley Stadium for the release of Nelson Mandela, creating huge publicity Influenced the spread of the movement to other European countries. However, progress was slow and many companies, as well as the British and US governments, were reluctant to end links with SA until the mid-1980s. Boycotts and Sanctions When looking at the international actions taken against apartheid, the words sanction, embargo and boycott are frequently used. It is important to differentiate between them. A sanction is an action imposed by a government, or group of governments, which imposes legal restrictions on another country’s ability to interact economically or politically with them. A sanction, which is purely economic, for example, forbidding the import of produce from the country, is often called an “embargo”. So you may read of sports “sanctions” but an oil “embargo”. A boycott is an action taken by individuals or civil society groups, not governments. When ordinary people refuse to buy a product, even though it is legally imported and on sale in the shops, this is a boycott. Sportspeople or actors refusing to play/act in South Africa is also a boycott. Sports boycotts and sanctions South Africa was banned from the Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964, and then officially banned from the Olympics in 1970 The Anti-Apartheid movement forced the cancellation of the 1970 Springbok rugby tour In 1977 Commonwealth countries called for an end to all sporting ties with SA: the Gleneagles Agreement was signed to this end. In 1977 and 1985 the UN passed resolutions against sporting ties with SA, calling for an end to segregated sport. Irish Trade Unions refused to provide work and services to SA rugby teams in the 1980s which forced cancellation of many games. 1985: the Commonwealth Accord recommended sanctions against SA (e.g. sale and export of oil) and the following year more sanctions were suggested. 1986: the EEC imposed financial sanctions against SA — bans on investment and loans. 1986: The USA passed a Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act to encourage US firms to take money out of SA. US Congress banned all new investments and loans to SA and restricted the importing of SA products cg. Coal. and agricultural goods. SAA planes were not allowed to fly to the USA (or Australia). A seven member group from Commonwealth countries (the Eminent Persons Group) was sent to SA in 1985 and issued a report outlining the need for reform in SA. They also called for increased sanctions after Botha allowed fresh raids on Zambia and Zimbabwe. Unemployment in the townships doubled — by 1987 25% of Black workers were unemployed. This caused more unrest in the country. The issue of sanctions divided South Africans, both Black and White, with the ANC, the Anglican Church (e.g. Desmond Tutu) and Cosatu supporting it: whilst business, most White South Africans and Inkatha did not. The issue brought out extremism on both sides of the political spectrum. Obviously the poorest, the Black people, were the hardest hit in the wake of unemployment and the depression in SA, and in the increasing levels of violence and unrest that this would cause; but many argued that this was a price worth paying for freedom and the fall of the apartheid govt. (which would hopefully follow the collapse of the economy). Sanctions hit SA at a very vulnerable moment. Historians have argued that the worst problems SA faced was not keeping the lid on the struggle, but rather in keeping the economy stable. The economy needed to grow at a rate of 5% per year in order to meet its debts, and this was impossible with the massive sanctions and disinvestments. Cultural boycotts International artists were asked not to perform in SA, or to allow their plays to be performed unless the audience was unsegregated: 1963: 43 British playwrights declared in favour of this boycott The British Screenwriters Guild called for ban on distribution of films written by their members to SA The British Actors Union “Equity” would not allow its members to perform in SA. 60 American entertainers signed a declaration against apartheid and professional association with South Africa – eventually no international films could be shown in SA In 1981 Board of Associated Actors and Artists of America – covering 240 000 actors – decided that its members would not perform in South Africa Academic Boycotts From 1965, the AAM helped create an academic boycott of South Africa, signed by 496 university professors and lecturers stating that in protest against racial discrimination they would not accept academic posts in South African institutions that enforced racial discrimination. Several US publishers also imposed a book boycott, although many opposed a boycott on school materials. The academic boycott was controversial. Can you suggest reasons why this was so? Consumer Boycotts 1984: Irish workers refusal to handle SA produce finally persuading their government to ban all South African produce Many US companies imposed boycotts, importation of coal, iron, steel, uranium and agricultural products banned in US. Disinvestment Disinvestment started in the 1960s but was not significant until the 1980s. Many conservatives in the US opposed disinvestment, others suggested that US companies should stay in South Africa but stick to standards of non-racial employment. In the 1980s, Britain sold its interests in the Simonstown naval dockyards. General Motors and Barclays Bank pulled out of South Africa. Between 1985 and 1990 over 200 US companies cut ties with South Africa resulting in a loss of $1 billion of US investment. The South African economy floundered and inflation rose. Sanctions International trade was important to South Africa. In 1962, the UN passed Resolution 1761 calling for economic and other sanctions against South Africa. However, this was not very successful as many western countries opposed it. In 1973 an oil embargo was imposed on South Africa by Arab members of OPEC. In 1977 the UN imposed an arms embargo on SA in response to the Soweto Uprising and the death of Steve Biko. Why would this have been important? In 1977, the US Congress passed the Sullivan Principles, drawn up by Reverend Leon Sullivan, a member of the board of General Motors. These were guidelines for US companies that wanted to do business in South Africa, asking them to ensure their employees were treated equally and that they provided a racially integrated environment inside and outside the workplace. As having a non-segregated environment for the company’s workers or customers in South Africa (for example, think of workers and customers in a McDonald’s restaurant) would have been illegal under SA law, it made it difficult for US companies to stay in South Africa if they wished to follow the principles. US companies which followed the principles gradually disinvested from South Africa. The Republican Party consistently opposed sanctions against SA, preferring the US to “constructively engage” with SA to convince the government to change policy. Pressure increased in 1982 when the UN condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity and called for sanctions. In 1986, 1987 and 1988 the US passed increasingly harsher laws restricting investment in South Africa. For example, Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986 meaning all new investments to South Africa were banned, South African Airways was not allowed to land at US airports, it banned certain imports of South African goods and more. Britain under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also showed reluctance to pass sanctions. In 1986 there was a split between Britain and other members of the commonwealth over the issue of sanctions, meaning that each country had to decide their own policy towards South Africa. By the late 1980s – particularly as the Cold War was ending - the momentum for sanctions was growing. It became increasingly hard for western companies to do business in South Africa. The Release Mandela Campaign After the Rivonia Trial, the South African government had hoped that the imprisoned leaders would eventually be forgotten by their supporters. In 1963 the UN passed a resolution calling on South Africa to release political prisoners and the ANC in exile reminded people of specifically Mandela’s existence and agitated for his release. The Release Mandela Campaign was tied closely to the general anti-apartheid movement, but achieved a momentum of its own, with his release becoming a precondition to negotiations. When the UN passed a second resolution calling for the release of political prisoners in 1980, Mandela was mentioned by name. In 1985, Botha announced that the government would consider releasing Mandela if he would undertake to reject violence and “conduct himself in such a way that he will not have to be re-arrested”. Mandela’s response rejecting these conditions was read out at a public meeting in Soweto by his daughter Zindzi. The Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group visiting South Africa in 1986 described Mandela as a “living legend” and the campaign reached a public climax in 1988 when a concert to celebrate Nelson Mandela’s 70th birthday and call for his release was held in Wembley Stadium in London and televised to an audience of 600 million in 67 countries. Role of international trade unions (Non examinable) As in South Africa, trade unions in other countries played an important role in the anti-apartheid movement. Trade unions both imposed their own boycotts and influenced their governments to place sanctions on South Africa. The British Trade Union Congress called on the top 50 British retailers to remove South African goods. Liverpool dock workers refused to unload South African goods, causing 9 British retailers to stop stocking SA produce by 1985 The Finnish Transport Workers’ Union imposed a total ban on trade between Finland and South Africa. By allying with unions in other countries, they caught companies trying to evade the ban by routing goods through third countries. The consequences of the international response for the South African government Sanctions had a negative effect on the South African economy and this put pressure on the government. Disinvestment and trade isolation placed enormous pressure on South Africa as it relied on foreign loans and trade to function efficiently. Some 500 companies withdrew from South Africa including IBM, Coca Cola, General Motors and General Electric. The decision by Chase Manhattan Bank not to extend South Africa’s loans in 1985 resulted in the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) closing for four days after the announcement and the rand losing 35% of its value. The government was forced to freeze loan repayments for four months. Business leaders, increasingly worried about the economic effects, began to pressure the government to negotiate. Within South Africa, unemployment (particularly for Black South Africans) rose, as did prices. This resulted in increased anger within the country. The sporting ban was a psychological blow to White South Africans. This, along with the cultural boycott, created a growing sense of isolation from the world and increased pressure for change. Sanctions were an important cause of the collapse of Apartheid and