Don't Defer Judgement

A LONGTIME CORNERSTONE of arguments against disinvestment from South Africa has been the claim that the withdrawal of U.S. companies from that country would hurt Blacks in that nation more than whites.

Recently, this doctrine has been challenged by leaders of both Black South African groups and pro-divestment organizations in this country. They claim that if Blacks want disinvestment--regardless of the economic consequences--then the U.S. should honor their wish.

This assertion, well-intentioned as it is, relies on three questionable foundations.

First, advocates of disinvestment assume that it is possible to know accurately how many Blacks in South Africa want U.S. companies to disinvest.

In fact, there is little reliable information of this sort. The Pretoria government has made it a capital offense for any South African to publically support divestment, corporate disinvestment or any economic sanctions against the country. So foreigners must rely on hints from Blacks leaders that the people they claim they represent support the withdrawl of foreign corporations.

Second, disinvestment advocates assume that Black South Africans have access to complete and impartial information on disinvestment and its consequences.

Disinvestment has inherent risks for South Africa, and it might do nothing but make Pretoria even more economically independent, resistant to change, and angry about Western interference. Indeed, freedom for Blacks is only one of the many possible outcomes of U.S. disinvestment. Does the average Black understand these risks?

Third, even if we could acquire an accurate poll of Blacks which was based on informed opinions, should the U.S. be bound by Black sentiment in determining its foreign policy to South Africa?

The most obvious answer--and the one we hear from supporters of disinvestment--is yes. We want to help Blacks achieve their freedom, they say. Black South Africans know their own situation best. So they understand best what we can do to help them, and we should defer to their judgment.

However, this deferment theory eliminates America's ability to use its own morals, interest, and considerable expertise in determining its own policies. We did not reflexively give military aid to anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua because they asked for it. In fact, many people overrode the Contra sentiment, claiming that there were more effective and more moral ways to achieve much-needed reform in this repressive Central American country.

Suppose Afghan rebels, whose cause America supports, decided that its only hope was to suicide bomb Soviet embassies around the globe, and they asked the U.S. for explosives for that purpose?

Certainly, the Afghan rebels understand their own situation, but we would not support their plan, because past experience tells us that bombings would only risk greater Soviet violence and would damage America's image as a fighter against terrorism. Moreover, our morals would tells us that we could not support bombing--and perhaps killing--innocent people.

THE FACT THAT Blacks in South Africa support disinvestment should be a major factor in determining U.S. policy to this country. But it is only one factor.

The U.S. must take many others into account before reaching a decision. We must see whether there remain any less drastic policies to achieve reform without risking excess violence and revolution. There probably are.

We must also look at what Blacks hope to accomplish through U.S. withdrawal and see whether these goals can realistically, effectively, and morally be accomplished by disinvestment.

If Blacks simply want a show of support, then there are less risky ways to do this, like gradually tightening economic sanctions. These are policies which maintain U.S. leverage and do not dangerously destabilize the country. If Blacks want a U.S. policy which exerts greater pressure on whites to reform, then there are again less drastic and risky policies than total disinvestment.

But if Blacks want U.S. disinvestment as a means to destabilize the country and increase the chance for revolution, then the U.S. must seriously consider whether this goal is really the best or most moral action we can take. We have no assurance that a revolution would produce a democratic government in South Africa. Instead we could find South Africa under a new name with an equally repressive regime.

Instead of immediately deferring to Black opinion on divestment, the U.S. must determine on its own whether such full-blown economic sanctions are a responsible use of American power. It must balance Black opinion against what its own feelings are. That's not paternalistic, just responsible.