Investment in South Africa: Donald Woods Speaks Out

Donald Woods, a white South African newspaper editor, was "banned" [put under a form of house arrest] by the South African government on October 19, 1977 for his outspoken criticism of apartheid--South Africa's policy of separation of the races. Since his dramatic New Year's Eve escape, Woods has been vigorously performing what he calls his "political duty"--traveling the length and breadth of Britain and the U.S. speaking out against apartheid, and urging the West to withdraw its corporations from his country. He is currently a visiting Nieman Fellow at Harvard. This is the first of two Crimson interviews with Woods on Western investment policies in South Africa. The second will deal specifically with Harvard's financial ties to South Africa and the Corporation's position on divestiture as described in its statement of April 1978.

***

Crimson: Why do you think American corporations should leave South Africa?

Woods: The South African government has this belief that Uncle Sam will always bail it out. It looks upon Americans as basically white and believes that they'll think racially. It's my belief that until something is done that actually costs the United States, something that proves that the U.S. is not kidding around, the South African government will see no reason to change at all. The only things I can see that are non-violent, and that would constitute a strong pressure, are withdrawal of investment and loan money from South Africa, and recall of the ambassador. It will take something fairly dramatic, like withdrawal of economic and diplomatic support, to get it through to them, finally, that they either have to start negotiating with black leaders or face the whole thing on their own.

Q. Aside from the psychological impact, would corporate withdrawal have a significant economic effect?

A. The psychological impact would be the most powerful, but the economic one itself would be pretty powerful. The U.S. has over a billion invested there. And of course U.S. withdrawal would have a scare potential for European investors.

Q. So you don't think that European investors would come in and take up the slack if American corporations leave?

A. On the contrary, I think they'd start easing off. I know the British would; if the Americans do anything, the British tend to follow. I think already there's a perception that South Africa is not the wonderful investment it used to be, and that it's going to become increasingly less so.

Q. If American corporations withdraw, will the South Africans be able to take over their functions?

A. To a fairly large extent, yes. But I don't think that's enormously important, because American corporate withdrawal would still be a massive psychological blow against apartheid, a fairly considerable economic one, and would also help to clean up the U.S. image in Africa.

Q. Would U.S. withdrawal make the South African government less responsive to the liberalizing force of U.S. public opinion?

A. Where has it liberalized them? On the contrary, I think that South Africa is drawing aid and comfort from the West at the moment. I think Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's recent trip to Pretoria, as reported, was a grave setback to black liberation in South Africa. He is reported to have told Pieter Botha, the new Prime Minister, that if South Africa plays ball over Namibia, the U.S. will tone down its criticism of apartheid. If that is so, it means that bargaining for a million Namibians is at the cost of more than 20 million South African victims of apartheid. Generally, this whole flurry of diplomatic activity, trying to bring the South African government into an understanding over Namibia, is just playing into the hands of the apartheid regime--buying time, taking the heat off apartheid. I think the U.S. and Britain should just get right out of the scene. They should give Botha and company a deadline like next Tuesday and say, 'This is the end of the road. We're getting out now.'

***

Q. Why do you think the U.S. Government hasn't ordered U.S. corporations out of South Africa? Is the U.S. defending its corporate interests in South African uranium, gold, diamonds and cheap labor?

A. I've talked with both U.S. government and business officials; there's a lot of buck passing. The administration, I would guess, is nervous that the Republican Party would be able to gain politically by arguing that the federal government is hamstringing private enterprise by telling companies where they can and cannot invest. So the administration would rather the move came from the corporations. The corporations keep saying that they're not going to write foreign policy, and that the move should come from the administration. The corporations don't mean that, of course, because they'd squeal like hell if the government told them to get out. There's also a measure of truth in the argument that it's impossible to divorce U.S. government interests from U.S. corporate interests. I've been amazed at how often discussions with State Department people sound to me like discussions with directors of corporations.

Q. The U.S. has vetoed U.N. economic sanctions against South Africa. Do you support such sanctions?

A. Absolutely, yes. This question is complex, but there is a tendency by vested interests to make it more complicated than it really is. They throw out things like, 'Where would we get chrome from? Russia is the only other country that produces chrome.' My answer is, 'You get chrome from Russia.' They say, 'Why should Russia give it to us?' I say, 'Why should you give Russia all that wheat and corn?' And I have another answer, which I call my Elks-Rotarians argument: if chrome and gold and uranium are that important to the West, where's the West going to get them in a few years time when the blacks are running South Africa? They'll certainly remember who helped them and who didn't. It's a very short-term view that's being taken at the moment.

Q. What do you say to the argument that the labor practices of Western corporations make them a progressive force in South Africa?

A. They may be that, but it's a drop in the ocean. They affect so few black workers--much less than 1 per cent. I think that's irrelevant anyway because the black leaders themselves have discounted this. I think that claiming to be helping black South Africans is often the umbrella under which the corporations rationalize their participation in the South African economy.

Q. What is the position of the liberal white South Africans on corporate withdrawal?

A. The liberal white South Africans inside the country oppose withdrawal, but you must remember that to support withdrawal could be construed as a capital offense under the [South African] Terrorism Act. It's a political position that white liberals wouldn't even contemplate inside the country. Some who would like to see sanctions would never be able to risk saying that in public. While still in the country I myself had to avoid taking a public position on divestment--otherwise I knew I would get chopped. But I favored divestment, and all other kinds of pressure, from the morning we heard of Steve Biko's death.

Q. What is the position of the black political organizations?

A. The black organizations that count all want economic withdrawal and sanctions.

Q. What do you mean by the black political organizations that count?

A. There's an African rule. If you go right down from Kenya, through Angola, Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa, you can spot pretty well those black organizations which are saying the things that will have mass support. It's not always those who have the largest numbers on their membership lists at the moment. In South Africa it would be the African National Congress (ANC), the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), and the Black People's Convention.

It is true that the masses of the South African people probably don't know what corporations are, but give a leader 20 minutes of free speech, which they haven't got at the moment, and the people will want withdrawal. Go to the leaders: what have [Nelson] Mandela, [Robert] Sobukwe, [Albert] Luthuli, and Biko said? What they have said is what the people will unswervingly want. What they have said is that they want foreign corporations out of their country.

Q. Aren't there some prominent blacks who oppose corporate withdrawal?

A. There are a number of blacks who say they are against sanctions and divestment, but I suspect they're not--because of the Terrorism Act. You just have to remember that a person who lives there and supports corporate with drawal and economic sanctions puts himself in jeopardy.

[Zulu] Chief [Gatsha] Butelezi is one of those who genuinely opposes withdrawal. But he's been ambiguous on this issue. There was a time when he pleaded for economic pressure--in the days when he was hoping to retain links with the liberation movements. However, he found that the liberation movements weren't acknowledging him, so now he's gone in with the present power structure in terms of sticking with things they'll tolerate. Further than that I wouldn't like to knock him. He's a courageous man who has criticized apartheid consistently.

But now he's sunk because he accepts a bantustan [the land areas allocated to blacks under the South African government's policy of separate development] position and a bantustan salary as a leader of the bantustan Kwazulu. Nominally he has a lot of supporters, but I think his position is eroding every day. He's in the position [Bishop Abel] Muzerewa was in Rhodesia a year ago. Open that society up, and let them all talk freely--let Mandela come off Robben Island prison tomorrow and say that Buthelezi is a no-no, which he would--and Buthelezi's support would melt like the snow in summer.

Q. Do you believe, then, that the leaders of black South Africa overwhelmingly support corporate withdrawal and that they are the legitimate democratic leaders of the black South African people?

A. Absolutely. In fact at the moment I don't even think their names are known; they operate underground. They've seen what happens to publicly known leaders. The young blacks, who should most legitimately be regarded as the valid leaders, all emphatically want withdrawal. The black mood in Southern Africa is away from tactical compromise as expressed by Muzerewa, [Jerome] Chirau, [Ndabaningi] Sithole, and Buthelezi.

Q. Do you think that it is wrong for people in the U.S. to debate the issue of corporate withdrawal on its merits, as perceived by us, when the legitimate democratic forces in South Africa have made it clear that they want our corporations to leave their country? Is this anti-democratic?

A. It is. I think this is happening here because there is a lack of detailed knowledge about how this issue is viewed in South Africa. There are a lot of concerns in this country which tend naturally to obscure concerns in a country 8000 miles away. For instance you find many corporation people saying, 'But who are these democratic leaders?' And it's not convincing to them when you say, 'I can't give you any names.' They send fact-finding missions to South Africa, and they come back and say, 'The blacks we spoke to don't want withdrawal.' Naturally, the blacks they speak to don't want withdrawal, unless they swim to Robben Island and get through the prison bars and interview the real leaders.

Q. It is commonly asserted that the black liberation movements in South Africa are under Marxist control, and that if they succeed South Africa will become a socialist society. Is this true?

A. It may be true that the liberation movements are led by Marxists, but I don't believe that a black-ruled South Africa will be rigidly ideological. Of course, you're asking me for a prediction of a post-revolutionary situation in which the revolution hasn't even occurred. Sure there will be Marxist influences, but there will be capitalist influences, too. There will be all sorts of influences: it's going to be a real African mix, such as you encounter in most parts of Africa. If Africans embrace Marxism, you'll end up not recognizing Marxism. I think that post-revolutionary South Africa will end up with a mixed economy, with a lot of things like the mines nationalized, as they should be, and a fair amount of what is called free enterprise.

Q. Will Western policies on investment and economic sanctions influence the nature of a future black-ruled South Africa?

A. I think it boils down to how the post-revolutionary regime there perceives the aid it's had. If sufficient pressures can be marshaled in the West to remove that veto from the Security Council, to start getting the West to behave as if it believes what it says, then there would be a chance of a reasonably democratic constitution. On the other hand if there is a long, bitter, drawn-out racial civil war, with an ever-growing need for the black liberation groups to get their aid from Russia and China, the new government won't be all that interested in a Washington-type constitution.

This interview was conducted by Stephen A. Herzenberg and William A. Schwartz.