Mobil Peace Prize

POOR MOBIL OIL. It seems that nobody appreciates the unceasing attempts of this humanitarian giant to bring justice to the world.

Mobil decided to let everyone know about its selfless crusade for human dignity last week. In a powerful ad on the op-ed page of The New York Times, Mobil had a "positive story to tell about its ten years of fighting apartheid in South Africa."

The hero of their story is, of course, the business community. "The business community in South Africa--including the affiliates of American corporations," Mobil so succinctly put it, "is a most effective instrument for social and economic change."

To document the effectiveness of the story's hero in securing justice for all South Africans, Mobil cites and ad which 90 major South African companies recently signed and placed in South African newspapers. The ad reads:

"As responsible businessmen committed to South Africa and the welfare of all its people, we are deeply concerned about the current situation. We believe that the reform process should be accelerated by:

* Abolishing statutory race discrimination whenever it exists;

* Negotiating with acknowledged Black leaders about power sharing;

* Granting full South African citizenship to all our peoples;

* And restoring and entrenching the rule of law."

Quite impressive. How can one, after reading the above ad, doubt the sincere commitment of corporations to change in the troubled nation? Anyone who had previously doubted that corporations were a positive force for reform--a "most effective instrument" for change--had better rethink his position in light of the ad.

But Mobil's success story does not simply end with their documented disapproval of apartheid. In the back of our minds, we all know that Mobil and fellow traveller corporations are involved in South Africa primarily for humanitarian reasons. Any profits gained from South Africa-related ventures are of course merely gravy.

The extent of Mobil's commitment goes above and beyond simple duty. The heroic oil giant and 151 other companies have signed the Sullivan principles. Their workplaces and facilities are not segregated. "All employees," the compassionate oil company tells us, "are desegregated. All employees are treated equally. All employees doing equal and comparable work receive equal pay."

These reforms, together with the ad placed in South African newspapers, would surely be sufficient. But corporate charity continues to pour forth; the signatories of the Sullivan principles have spent over $130 million since 1978 on "health, education, community development, training, and housing for blacks and other non-whites in South Africa." That amounts to over $120,000 per company per year. I hope that these bleeding-heart corporations aren't operating at a loss as a result.

Isn't it amazing how much reform has been brought about in South Africa by corporate generosity and pressure in the past 10 years?

AFTER DUTIFULLY SHARING with us the triumphs and glory of the hitherto unnoticed South African reformer (i.e. the corporation), Mobil's story adopts a darker tone. It seems that the forces of darkness--whose goals are "unproductive and unfairly punitive"--may thwart our hero's crusade.

Divestment, you see, "would render meaningless the gains [non-whites] have already made." Imagine all the progess in South Africa, after a decade of intense sacrifice and struggle in the corporate board room, down the drain.

Hence, the moral of Mobil's tale clearly emerges: "Forcing American companies to withdraw would end their constructive role." The constructive role of corporations in bringing about reform, of course, lies in their ability to pressure the government. By running ads in South African newspapers urging equal citizenship, they let the Botha regime know that they are mad as hell about apartheid and won't take it any longer. Well, at least not for too much longer.

Botha realizes that if they become too disenchanted with the nation's racist policies, they can pack their bags and take their industries elsewhere, bringing disaster to the South African economy. Mobil and friends, then, hold a trump card which South Africa cannot ignore.

However, if these corporations were to withdraw their South African investments, they would lose their ability to pressure South Africa's government, and heaven knows how slow the pace of reform would be without American corporations standing over South Africa, threatening to divest.

Mobil's story celebrates the success of the forces of good in South Africa. It urges Americans to reject the forces of ignorance, which seek to negate the charity of international corporations. Mobil seems a bit worried about the outcome of this struggle, but I believe without cause. American investors (including Harvard) grasp Mobil's point and, as usual, will remain on the side of right. Fear not, Mobil; we would never desert you in this, your time of need.