South African sanctions stand, despite Bush's call

July 14, 1991|By Peter Honey | Peter Honey,Washington Bureau of The Sun

WASHINGTON -- The removal of core U.S. trade and investment sanctions against South Africa still leaves a maze of anti-apartheid measures at state, city and local levels that may well obstruct dealings with that country long after apartheid's demise.

From Baltimore to Los Angeles, Vermont to Louisiana, cities and states generally have spurned President Bush's urgings last week to follow his lead in lifting the strictures.

It is too early, they say. Full equality for black South Africans still is not in place.

Until that occurs, said Baltimore state Delegate Howard P. Rawlings, "there will be no effort to remove South Africa from the sanctions book in this state. We would fight any effort to do that tooth and nail."

It may yet come to that.

Administration officials have told The Sun that they are "actively reviewing" state and local sanctions to see if they amount to interference in U.S. foreign policy.

"The Justice Department is looking into the matter," said a senior government official who did not want to be identified. The administration, he said, is "not excluding the possibility of initiating such a challenge ourselves."

"Should such [an independent] challenge present itself," he said, "we would readily support it."

Such action would confirm the contention of independent analysts, such as the Washington-based Investor Responsibility Research Center, who believe that sanctions generated over the years from grass-roots pressure in the states, cities and counties may have had more impact than the federal restrictions in forcing U.S. companies to withdraw from South Africa.

Unlike the federal law, local government measures have tended to target the domestic markets of companies by refusing to do business with companies that did business with South Africa.

Anne Griffin of TransAfrica, a leading sanctions proponent, admits ruefully that the momentum for sanctions appears to have dissipated in the face of consistently positive publicity for the reforms of South African President F. W. de Klerk.

"It's going to be hard to reinvigorate public enthusiasm to the levels of the mid-1980s," she said. She said Mr. Bush's action had undermined the sanctions movement, but, she added, "I think we have the capacity to rev it up again."

Like most pro-sanctions lobbyists, she maintains that trade and diplomatic pressures should be maintained until full democracy is achieved in South Africa.

Maryland was one of the first states to act, slapping restrictions on banks that did business with the white government back in 1984. Since then it has written two companion measures: the elimination of pension fund investments from South African-linked companies and a conditional ban on state purchases of products from that country.

Many other states and cities -- 140 by last count -- set even tougher conditions, which the Investor Responsibility Research Center says has been a major factor in the number of U.S. companies in South Africa dropping from about 300 in 1984 to 104 today.

In April, Dean Witter Reynolds brokerage cited municipal divestiture pressures for its decision to end financial dealings with South Africa. In the same month, J. P. Morgan Guaranty announced it would stop handling shares in South African companies after Massachusetts warned that the bank was violating the state's selective purchasing policy. In June, Xerox Corp., under pressure from city governments across the country for selling in South Africa, allowed its distribution agreement in that country to lapse.

IRRC analyst Stephen Davis estimates that South Africa spent $15 billion to $27 billion on efforts to withstand sanctions. The money paid for: premiums to intermediaries in sanctions-busting operations, as, for example, in routing exports of fruit and other embargoed commodities through neighboring countries such as Swaziland; constructing gigantic petroleum-from-coal plants to lessen the blow of the international oil embargo; and a costly armaments industry to negate the U.N. ban on weapons to South Africa.

It was a heavy load for a country whose gross national product is little more than $100 billion -- scarcely larger than Maryland's.

Coinciding with a general recession, mounting labor unrest and civil strife, sanctions played a major part in the 25 percent decline in the South African economy since 1981, said Herman Cohen, assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

He backs the administration's case for increasing, rather than reducing, investment in South Africa with the calculation that 250,000 people have reached working age in the last 10 years, while not a single new job has been created.

However, Mr. Davis maintains that the success or failure of sanctions should not hinge on the amount of harm they do.

"They were not meant to inflict damage. They were meant to effect political change, and they should be judged in those terms," he said.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.