00:00:00.000 - 00:00:23.000

[no audio] We are more and more in the concept of totalitarianism as a way of looking at South Africa. And I think not for just semantic purposes, but for conceptual purposes, for academic purposes. I do not always equate totalitarianism, as many people have, with communism.

00:00:23.000 - 00:00:51.200

But if you look at the main concepts of what we call a totalitarian society, There are six of them. South Africa has every one of them as formulated by Brzezinski, Friedrich, and Hannah Arendt in the early 50s. And I'll simply list these and I think you'll see the comparison. I'll sit down. One is a one-party state. And for all practical purposes in South Africa, there's a one-party state if you look at it racially.

00:00:51.200 - 00:01:12.500

Regardless of whether we're talking about the Nationalist Party or the Federalist Party, there's one party. as far as blacks are concerned, that really rule and control the country. So only for analytical purposes or games that we want to play, as political scientists we might talk about the multi-party nature in South Africa. But practically speaking for blacks there's one party.

00:01:12.500 - 00:01:36.340

Two, in a totalitarian society you have control of the mass media. And it's very clear that from the reporting or lack of reporting, the restrictions that the Bolta regime has put into effect in South Africa, that there is definite control, especially of the coverage of events in South Africa.

00:01:36.340 - 00:01:44.900

Three, a totalitarian society has an ideology. I think that's very clear what that ideology is. It's apartheid. Four, terror.

00:01:44.900 - 00:02:06.300

terror. Terror, I think, in South Africa is well documented on a day-to-day basis. Terror means fear. You know, we break that word down. I think it's been overused in one sense, and in one sense we kind of lose the meaning of it because of how it's conceptualized only in the West, especially with regard to the PLO, the

00:02:06.300 - 00:02:27.640

Abu Naidil faction, and others. But terror, most importantly and most basically, means fear. Fifth, a centralized economy. If we take that concept of a centralized economy and break it up as was done this morning between what blacks get and what whites get, there's definitely a centralized economy not only in terms

00:02:27.640 - 00:02:45.400

of who gets what but who controls really the whole pot. And six, in a totalitarian society you have a secret police. There have been many documented instances of the use of informers, the use of agents in South Africa. You read almost daily where blacks in fact

00:02:45.400 - 00:02:59.560

killed black policemen or other black civilians who allegedly have been cooperating with both the regime. And I should also say that the police obviously in South Africa are always not secret.

00:02:59.560 - 00:03:10.380

Thank you. (audience applauding) - Two, maybe three minutes for questions. And if you have a question, we want

00:03:10.380 - 00:03:19.060

you to raise it forthrightly and let us deal with it. Move on. Remember that we're going to have a social hour at the conclusion of today's session.

00:03:19.060 - 00:03:32.020

And if you want to communicate with any of these presenters in a more detailed fashion, let me suggest that you wait until that time to do so. We must stay within the time limit.

00:03:32.020 - 00:03:43.420

And sir? I'll try to make this quick. I want to rise to the defense of black American theology. So I want to ignore South Africa for a second

00:03:43.420 - 00:03:56.180

because I'm not familiar with South African black theology and address Mr. Okamofi. I want to challenge you on your assertion that Western or the theology of the colonial power

00:03:56.180 - 00:04:05.460

has set the terms of discourse within which black theology operates. I know that black theology has, in some ways, comforted the oppressed.

00:04:05.460 - 00:04:16.300

I know that black theology has addressed questions of love and loving the oppressor. And I acknowledge the fact that the AME, when it's put off from the Methodist Episcopal Church,

00:04:16.300 - 00:04:27.900

adopted their doctrines and disciplines. But I'm wondering if that's more form than content. And I'm wondering if you can address the prophetic tradition that exists within Afro-American Christianity.

00:04:27.900 - 00:04:40.760

I want you to address the notion that Moses and Jesus become a single figure in much of black American theology, that not only a spiritual liberation is argued for and preached about, but it's also

00:04:40.760 - 00:04:49.420

a very physical liberation. Moses led the Jews out of Egypt. Jesus can release your soul from the bondage of sin. But it's a single concept.

00:04:49.420 - 00:04:59.340

It's not one without the other, but they're two at the same time. And I also want you to address the fact that black political leaders who have dressed relation--

00:04:59.340 - 00:05:07.920

black political leaders who have directly addressed relations of power, starting with Frederick Douglass and moving all the way up to Malcolm X were preachers. Malcolm was a preacher.

00:05:07.920 - 00:05:23.100

Frederick Douglass was a lay preacher, but were preachers. - Thank you. I don't think I have any basic disagreement with you. Maybe if I were allowed to push forward

00:05:23.100 - 00:05:32.540

what I was really trying to say, we probably would have met some here. And that is why I prefaced my comment with the statement that it is

00:05:32.540 - 00:05:48.780

what I call a borderline critique. But you have to remember that I'm only critiquing one kind, one kind of black theology. What I say is not about black theology in general.

00:05:48.780 - 00:06:06.280

So that is why I was quite specific. Remember, when you cite Freddie Douglass, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, those are individuals. I'm not interested in this question as individuals operate,

00:06:06.280 - 00:06:20.520

but as organizations operate. So, I agree, Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglass, in fact, he wanted the first, going back to South Africa, the first president of the African National Congress,

00:06:20.520 - 00:06:30.720

Gondwube, was a religious minister. So, either they were religious ministers or they were intimately connected with Christianity, the same with Alvaro Mutuli, and the same, of course,

00:06:30.720 - 00:06:49.360

with the advocate of the Johannesburg Tutu. But one more thing I need to add. Last January, Tutu playfully made a serious comment. He said that it was a difference,

00:06:49.360 - 00:07:02.200

a fundamental difference between him and Martin Luther King. And he jokingly said, well, I know that he's more handsome than I am, But that's not it.

00:07:02.200 - 00:07:13.880

He made a decision between what he called human rights and civil rights. When one examines the distinction, what he was actually saying is that

00:07:13.880 - 00:07:24.160

Martin Luther King was a pacifist. Of course, he was a pacifist. And Tutu is finding it difficult to make that move. He is not a pacifist.

00:07:24.160 - 00:07:35.240

Of course, in other words, by saying that the distinction he made between civil rights and human rights is really an artificial distinction.

00:07:35.240 - 00:07:50.080

He made that distinction in order not to be seen as condemning Martin Luther King. Again, this is where I'm most critical of black theology because of its position on the question of violence

00:07:50.080 - 00:08:01.640

in the question of, in the fight against apartheid on the fight for freedom. All right, thank you very much. We were so excited about all these questions,

00:08:01.640 - 00:08:13.160

but I've been informed that we must close this session out. Let me express my appreciation to all of the presenters and to you for coming. (audience applauding)

00:08:27.160 - 00:08:53.560

This is the panel, as your program indicates, on divestment. Participating on this panel are the following persons. Elambeg Bah, Betris Lumumba Coalition, New York. We have Derek Ujie, who is an undergraduate student here

00:08:53.560 - 00:09:21.520

University studying economics and government. On the end we have Michael Martin who says he doesn't want to make a statement but will participate in the Q&A which we will have after presentations. We will have joining us shortly Lucia Hamantinia, Office of the United Nations Commissioner for

00:09:21.520 - 00:09:44.720

Namibia and Mr. Brant would you like to begin by making a statement. Thank you very much. What I'd like to say since I spoke also earlier like Brother Martin just to make three points about divestment and I know that at this particular campus since

00:09:44.720 - 00:10:12.840

Brother Eugene is here from the Steve Biko group and I'm familiar with what happened here in regards to divestment and how brutal it has become is just to point out why I think it is a very important particular endeavor to get involved with. One is that we have heard about South Africa bragging how divestment does not hurt it and yet they say they don't believe

00:10:12.840 - 00:10:41.840

in it and we also realize what happened during the war against so-called Rhodesia how that sanctions against the Goldstein government did help to bring that government to the negotiating table along with the pursuits of the military campaign of the patriotic front but just recently the Bolsa regime showed you how they really believe in sanctions when they pressured Lesotho to be

00:10:41.840 - 00:11:09.160

after 21 days of economic embargo to the point where they were able to change the government there. I mean that in itself gives you an idea of what you know a campaign of divestment or embargo or comprehensive sanctions can do. The other is that Forster, the previous Prime Minister and State President, who I mentioned earlier gave you his opinion about Christian

00:11:09.160 - 00:11:27.920

nationalism and its relationship to national socialism and fascism, also made a statement David one time talking about an investment, and he said that each trade agreement, each investment is another brick in the wall of our continued existence. In other words, that he told you clearly that as far as South Africa is concerned, that

00:11:27.920 - 00:11:45.720

these particular investments helped to prop them up. And the third thing is something that we should never forget, because just recently we commemorated the 26th anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre. must remember that in 1960 on March 21st when the Sharpeville massacre occurred, that immediately

00:11:45.720 - 00:12:06.320

the condemnation of the world was so great that international capital started to be withdrawn from South Africa at the rate of 17 million dollars a month. Within six months the foreign reserve of South Africa went from 400 million dollars down to about half and the National Party government was on a state of collapse. What happened? What happened was intervention

00:12:06.320 - 00:12:19.080

by David Rockefeller and the Chase Manhattan Bank organized a consortium to develop a revolving credit to bring into the South African regime to tide them over. That was coupled with the repression

00:12:19.080 - 00:12:29.300

against the leadership of the African people there, the banning of organizations, and then following up subsequently the detaining of the leaders.

00:12:29.300 - 00:12:47.880

And as a result of the infusion of new capital into South Africa and the repression of the leadership, clamp down, and coupled it, South Africa was within a decade to become the economic marvel, so to speak, that it has been exhibited as today. So we feel that investment does prop up South

00:12:47.880 - 00:13:06.000

Africa and that divestment is something that should be worth pursuing. It's not an end-all, it will not actually completely bring about the end of the apartheid regime, but it would do a lot to weaken it. Thank you. [ Applause ]

00:13:06.000 - 00:13:15.140

>> Derek? >> Thank you, Professor Jordan. My presentation will focus on the student involvement in the divestment campaign.

00:13:15.140 - 00:13:26.640

The issue of divestiture has captured the hearts, minds, and imagination of students across the nation. The nation has watched as students have participated in actions and movements reminiscent of the '60s.

00:13:26.640 - 00:13:48.240

Just this week, we have seen the campus of Berkeley explode over the issue of divestment. Other schools have also taken direct action to divest. Organizations here at the University of Texas have also participated in this movement. What are the dynamics of this movement? Why has it taken different forms on different campuses? And what is the significance of divestment?

00:13:48.240 - 00:14:09.260

In my paper, I will attempt to share some light on these issues by relating the specifics of our movement here at the University of Texas. Hopefully an in-depth examination of the mechanics and process of our movement will provide us with the skeletal framework which can be fleshed out through further dialogue.

00:14:09.260 - 00:14:27.260

The drive for divestment at the University of Texas began in earnest with the formulation of the South African Liberation Action Committee, otherwise known as SALOC. SALOC's members demonstrated against apartheid, protested with editorials in the Daily Texan, and provided material aid to the South African refugees,

00:14:27.260 - 00:14:42.540

freedom fighters, and freedom fighters in Zimbabwe. In 1978, Sarlac called for the divestiture of the $152 million which the university had invested in companies that do business in or with South Africa.

00:14:42.540 - 00:14:54.120

Now that figure stands at over $772 million, representing approximately 27% of the permanent university fund. As a response to Sarlac's proposal,

00:14:54.120 - 00:15:08.300

the Board of Regents agreed to study the issue. The Black Student Alliance was formed in the spring of 1982 to deal with minority issues and improve minority recruitment. The Steve Biko committee followed in 1983

00:15:08.300 - 00:15:20.580

with an emphasis on educating the public about South Africa. Together, we acquired the necessary skills to stay afloat and work with the hierarchy of the university as well as the local media.

00:15:20.580 - 00:15:29.800

With the assistance of Trevor Perlman, former student government vice president and a native of South Africa, the Steve Biko Committee and the Black Student Alliance

00:15:29.800 - 00:15:40.780

sparked a new interest in the issue of South Africa by submitting a resolution to the University Council. This resolution called for the university to first condemn South Africa's policies

00:15:40.780 - 00:15:54.200

and second called for the Board of Regents to withdraw its investments from companies with subsidiaries in that country. While some 200 black students lived on, the council passed a resolution on April 16, 1984,

00:15:54.200 - 00:16:21.700

and overruled an attempt by then UT President Peter Flan to have it dismissed on the basis that it was not pertinent to their body. With this effort completed and similar proposals approved by other entities within the university, the issue of divestment was now ready to be taken to the Board of Regents, who were still involved in their study. The Steve Beagle Committee and the Black Student Alliance trails the University Board of Regents from city to city.

00:16:21.700 - 00:16:46.200

In August we met them in Austin. In October we met them in Dallas. In Dallas a presentation was made by Eddie Reeves, then chairman of the Steve Beagle Committee, to Chairman John Newton of the Board of Regents, where we asked them to establish a committee to look into divestiture. After Chairman Newton came out of the executive session, he decided to consider the issue of divestiture at the December meeting.

00:16:46.200 - 00:17:22.280

He also stated that students would be given an opportunity to voice their concerns at the Land and Investment Committee meeting that would be held in Austin, Texas on November 15, 1984. The Steve Beagle committee and the Black Student Alliance, the two organizations at the forefront of the divestment struggle, along with the Students Association, at their November 15th meeting, supplied the regents with a wealth of information supporting divestment. This information includes the testimony of Edward Swan, then senior vice president of Franklin Research and Development Corporation, who presented an

00:17:22.280 - 00:17:41.880

alternative investment portfolio showing the myriad investment opportunities the university could take without losing money. In November also, Jennifer Davis, director of the American Committee on Alphabet, showed the indisputable link between American investments, the white minority government, and the

00:17:41.880 - 00:18:00.020

infrastructure of apartheid. December 6, 1984 came and the Board of Regents again assembled to meet. Based upon the presentation by Michael Patrick, Executive Vice Chancellor for Asset Management, a position that had just been created in September of that year, and the presentation that had been made at

00:18:00.020 - 00:18:20.500

the Land Investment Committee, the Board of Regents decided not to divest. The following reasons were given. First, divestment will cost the University substantial amounts of money, thereby reducing the quality of education in the state of Texas. Second, the claim that the inability of economic sanctions to reach

00:18:20.500 - 00:18:40.960

desired objectives. Third, the inappropriate use of the university and accomplishing political objectives. However, Chancellor Hansmark did point out that the risk of making investments in the Republic of South Africa is likely to increase and that he and Vice Chancellor Patrick quote, "would

00:18:40.960 - 00:18:56.760

work to ensure that these dangers are understood and that the university does not suffer financial losses because they are ignored." To understand the true significance of that vote, certain characteristics of the Board of Regents must be understood and I would like to read to you a passage from an article I

00:18:56.760 - 00:19:19.040

wrote to the Daily Text. The Regents unfortunately have a long history of of impeding progress. Many will remember how in the mid-40s, they fired UT President Homer Rainey for merely suggesting that the university change its policy prohibiting Afro-Americans from attending the university. It was the Regents who thwarted efforts by students to integrate university housing

00:19:19.040 - 00:19:39.080

facilities in the early 60s, and it is the present board that has shown with its policies on divestment and expansion into East Austin that this kind of racism and neglect of students remains firmly entrenched in regental doctrine. Not only did the Steve Biko committee and the Black Student Alliance face this legacy of racism that past regents have

00:19:39.080 - 00:19:56.920

mastered, they also faced the vested interest and ideological intransigence of present regents such as Burrow Millburn, a former member of the Republican National Committee, and another, Tom Rhodes, who was at that time appointed to the board by former Republican Governor Bill Clements and

00:19:56.920 - 00:20:27.720

and who was also executive vice president and general counsel of CEDCO Oil, a company owned by Clements that has investments in South Africa and was also a non-Nottage Sutherland signatory. The regent's decision evidenced incredible bias. So as we bounce back from that meeting of December 6th, we decided to take our movement to the legislature, the Texas legislature, and during that winter we had various bills proposed by black legislators.

00:20:27.720 - 00:20:49.320

None of them were passed, but we were able to raise the consciousness and awareness of the apartheid issue in the state of Texas. Also, over the summer of 1985, the situation in South Africa escalated. the South African government had declared a state of emergency. International banks such as Chase Manhattan had suspended loans to South Africa and the

00:20:49.320 - 00:21:22.040

RAND had dropped precipitously. According to the board's own concerns, this gave us the necessary platform on which to petition the board to again consider divestiture. On July 26, 1985, a letter was forwarded to the Board of Regents stating the concerns of the Steve Beagle Committee. The Board of Regents, at the Board of Regents meeting on October 10th, 1985 at the University of Texas at Arlington, the Steve Beagle Committee was indeed given 30 minutes to make a presentation directly to the Board concerning divestiture.

00:21:22.040 - 00:21:45.000

Presentations were made by various Dallas politicians such as Councilwoman Ragsdale, Commissioner John Wiley Price, also there were presentations by students, faculty, and staff. These presentations represented a broad view of the university community. And again we requested that a committee be established to examine the divestiture

00:21:45.000 - 00:22:15.120

questions. However, no concrete proposals were to come until February 13, 1986 meeting. Further, at the October 10th, 1985 meeting, a change had been noticed in the board's posture towards divestment. This metamorphosis was stated clearly at the February 13th, 1986 meeting of the Board of Regents. Instead of rejecting out of hand the university's ability to influence the racial policies of the white minority regime in South Africa,

00:22:15.120 - 00:22:34.200

Africa, the Board of Regents as directed by Chairman Jess Hay now saw investment as the appropriate manner to eliminate apartheid, and I quote, "In seeking ways to dismount the grip of this system on the majority of the population of South Africa, we reject the claim that investing in US corporations with

00:22:34.200 - 00:22:54.180

withholding the operations in South Africa constitutes de facto indirect support of racism. Through compliance with the spirit of an execution of the Sullivan principles, U.S. firms operating in South Africa are opening enriched economic and social opportunities to blacks and other non-whites. Through these

00:22:54.180 - 00:23:12.440

actions such corporations can advance the cause of the elimination of apartheid and strengthen the skills required to implement a real democratic society in South Africa. Consequently, we strongly endorse the six key elements contained in the Sullivan principles." This statement was included in a proposal

00:23:12.440 - 00:23:31.340

which the board unanimously accepted. This proposal stipulated the following. The funds managed by the UT system shall not be used to purchase securities of the South African government agencies or firms. Two, it instructs the asset managers to semi-annually report to the Land and Investment Committee on the

00:23:31.340 - 00:23:52.020

status of those companies in the portfolio with South African assets. Three, the use of proxy votes to reflect the board's position. Four, the University of Texas system will join and participate actively in the South African Research Consortium. Finally, each of the general academic institutions in the University

00:23:52.020 - 00:24:08.320

of Texas system was encouraged to determine whether it should participate in the South African educational program. This is where the divestment movement in relation to the Board of Regents now stands. In addition to our petitioning the Board of Regents, the Steve Beagle Committee, and the Black Student Alliance has engaged

00:24:08.320 - 00:24:31.840

in activities to educate the Austin community about the atrocities of apartheid, and we continue to do so. Why divestment? As students of the 60s and of the work of Harold Cruz and others, we have learned that the key to a viable social movement is its institutionalization, and this process of institutionalization requires continual and relevant analysis. When focusing

00:24:31.840 - 00:24:52.400

on the anti-apartheid struggle, the divestment campaign, and the energies consumed in this campaign, the gains from such efforts must be compared to other tactics, such as direct assistance to the freedom fighters of the African National Congress and the Southwest African People's Organization, material aid to South African refugees, or assisting the frontline

00:24:52.400 - 00:25:13.040

states in their effort to combat South African regional aggression. Given these options, Why has divestment been so popular among student groups and student organizers? First, the question must be posed. What is the primary importance of the divestment issue to student organizers? Is it the effort to bring about peaceful change in South Africa by forcing

00:25:13.040 - 00:25:31.800

the white minority regime to change its policies? Or is it the effort to relieve the conscience of America by severing its involvement with this oppressive regime? Honestly, I must say that neither of these reasons are of primary concern. Certainly these are valid as long-range objectives and provide the foundation for the divestment movement,

00:25:31.800 - 00:25:50.160

however they are not of primary concern. The importance of divestment campaign lies in its significance as a mobilizing tool. Divestment is a tangible exercise, an issue around which people can rally, programs can be built, and resources can be mobilized.

00:25:50.160 - 00:26:16.040

In our particular case, the call for divestment has served to put the issue of divestment and apartheid on the university agenda and also gain the support of a significant portion of the university community. And we will continue our call for divestment despite the intransigence and lethargy of the Board of Regents. Though the ultimate goal is to bring about the end of apartheid by raising the price

00:26:16.040 - 00:26:32.160

which the white minority government of South Africa must pay for its continued oppression and exploitation of the people of Azania, we cannot overlook the political objective of accomplishing the process, i.e., heightened awareness, increased participation, and increased mobilization.

00:26:32.160 - 00:26:52.240

Thank you. Thank you very much, Derek. We have now been joined, as I told you we would be, by Lucia Hamantinya, Office of the United Nations Commission, Commissioner for Namibia.

00:26:52.240 - 00:27:08.800

And I would like for you to now present us with your remarks, and if you could limit that to about 10 minutes, we would appreciate that. Thank you, Mrs. Jordan. I will try to keep it ten minutes.

00:27:08.800 - 00:27:23.800

The transnational corporations are actually in complicity with apartheid. They follow the same... We can't hear. South Africans are actually in complicity with apartheid

00:27:23.800 - 00:28:01.400

because they follow the same apartheid laws and practices that are used by both the government in South Africa and other business institutions. At times, they have even fired employees who have participated in the resistance movement. In Namibia, which is occupied by over 100,000 South African troops, transnationals have

00:28:01.400 - 00:28:34.640

employed paramilitary police for "security reasons." They have also employed informants who provide information to these companies and also to the police as to who are the politically active employees. For instance, the transnational of Rosin,

00:28:34.640 - 00:28:47.700

Rio Tindosin Corporation in Namibia that is involved in mining uranium has employed commandos and paramilitary police that are actually on the premises.

00:28:47.700 - 00:29:08.780

daily, armed, and do take action against employees. Transnationals choose to invest in South Africa and in Namibia because of the cheap labor which they obtain, not only through the exploitation

00:29:08.780 - 00:29:35.940

of those who directly work for them, but also indirectly exploit the labor of their relatives. of those people who have to carry on the traditional subsistence economy in order to survive. Because without those, the starvation wages that the relatives bring home would not help them to make it.

00:29:40.940 - 00:30:09.940

In return for the cheap labor that they obtained from the black majority in South Africa and in Namibia, transnational corporations draw lucrative profits. Part of this are paid in form of substantial taxes to the colonial administration and to the Vitoria regime, which in turn uses this money to oppress and repress the African majority.

00:30:09.940 - 00:30:35.980

There are those who claim that divestment and disinvestment is not the answer, but it is also the same people who want to convince us that countries like the United States States do not have leverage over South Africa, that they cannot exert pressure on South Africa

00:30:35.980 - 00:30:54.400

to bring about change, but are forced by these circumstances or by this impotence to embrace South Africa in an attempt to convince South Africa to change in human policy, apartheid policies,

00:30:54.400 - 00:31:09.980

and its hold, stranglehold over Namibia. This is to be ridiculous because, particularly the United States government does not hesitate to put action to its words

00:31:09.980 - 00:31:24.800

when it feels that it wants to bring about certain changes. For instance, news reports recently told us that the United States imposed economic blockades

00:31:24.800 - 00:31:37.440

against Libya and in fact followed up with actual military attacks on that state. If that is believed to work in the case of Libya, then it should work elsewhere.

00:31:37.440 - 00:32:02.880

And we would like to force the United States government to impose mandatory sanctions on South Africa. On the other hand, we will go ahead and force the corporate tycoons to withdraw or withdraw our funds from, withdraw your funds from transnationals doing business in South Africa.

00:32:02.880 - 00:32:26.880

I just read this morning that 87 students were arrested at UCLA, Berkeley, California, because they were demanding that the university withdraw its portfolio of about three billion dollars invested in corporations doing business in South Africa. That is all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you very much.

00:32:26.880 - 00:32:56.880

We are now going to hear from Lynette Saransky. I will tell you about him. This is the only person who has furnished me with a kind of a mini bio. I, Leonard Saransky, was born in South Africa in 1942. He attended elementary and secondary school there, that education in South Africa,

00:32:56.880 - 00:33:27.880

received his BA from Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Masters of Science, London School of Economics, PhD, University of Michigan, taught political science at the University of Wittwatersrand, 1969 to '72. Did I pronounce that part right? I'm good, I think. Left South Africa, 1973, was a special branch, where? Oh, he left South Africa in 1973 when a special branch of the police in South Africa were following him.

00:33:27.880 - 00:33:43.880

And he's been in exile ever since. He's a faculty coordinator of the University of Michigan Committee on Southern Africa. Leonard Saratsky. [applause]

00:33:43.880 - 00:34:17.040

I've got a very short time in which I'd like to do quite a big job. My topic is the University of Michigan experience of divestment. But before I get to that story, and I heard from my colleague here at the University of Texas that you've gone through some of the similar experiences and you're still

00:34:17.040 - 00:34:40.280

on the way and I know how hard a struggle it is but before I get into that I'd like to speak a little bit about the kinds of arguments one gets in opposition to divestment and then the kind of arguments that are given back the kind of argument that I've come across most is that capitalism works and

00:34:40.280 - 00:34:55.200

And the thing to do is rather to invest in South Africa, because that's the way that it worked in the United States. That's the way we dealt with our civil rights problems. And the same thing should happen in South Africa.

00:34:55.200 - 00:35:06.760

Of course, that glib analogy between the United States and South Africa, which is sometimes correct, is not always correct. And what is often overlooked in the case of South Africa

00:35:06.760 - 00:35:14.140

is that it's not a civil rights struggle. never was a civil rights struggle, because there are no civil rights for black South Africans in South Africa.

00:35:14.140 - 00:35:30.020

There is no constitutional guarantee of anything for them. Another argument in favor of investment is that economic sanctions have never worked historically. And often people refer to Ethiopia in the '30s,

00:35:30.020 - 00:35:45.060

or more recently in the Southern African context, to Zimbabwe, where there were sanctions over the seven years of the struggle for liberation of Zimbabwe. And then of course we've heard people like our president say recently and all of a sudden,

00:35:45.060 - 00:36:02.580

and even the South African white government, minority government, that divestment will hurt blacks more than anyone else. And it's so strange to suddenly hear this tremendous concern for black South Africans after all these centuries of not taking much notice of them.

00:36:02.580 - 00:36:20.480

When the crunch comes, suddenly all kinds of reasonings and excuses emerge. South Africa is claimed to be one of the few economically viable countries in Africa, and one of the more democratic states in Africa, and the claim is that divestment will destroy this.

00:36:20.480 - 00:36:40.440

And then finally, these are the main ones that I've heard, that if we divest it doesn't make much difference because other companies from other states will just buy up and step into the breach. Now, those favoring divestment counter many of these arguments in the following way.

00:36:40.440 - 00:37:01.680

First of all, that economic sanctions is just about the only non-violent way for the United States to have an impact on a project, not only the United States, but also Western Europe, Japan. And that short of becoming militarily involved, which of course would be very dangerous and complicated,

00:37:01.680 - 00:37:11.960

this is one way that we can have an impact. And what is nice to talk-- to have the opportunity to talk about this in 1986 is that when we were fighting the struggle at the University

00:37:11.960 - 00:37:29.320

of Michigan in 1978, we couldn't say that indeed divestment has worked and has helped. Because the argument that economic sanctions don't work are not borne out by the experience of South Africa this last year.

00:37:29.320 - 00:37:50.680

There's no doubt and it's hard to explain in the light of the Ethiopian and Zimbabwean experience that sanctions are hurting South Africa today. We just heard a moment ago about how the RAND has slipped precipitously. We know that there's growing unemployment and a great economic crisis in South Africa.

00:37:50.680 - 00:38:12.320

And my main argument there would be that South Africa is an unusually sophisticated economy. It is a sort of giant in third world terms. And so for South Africa not to receive the loans that it needs, this sort of new money to keep the machine going, has turned out to be much more of a blow than any of the

00:38:12.320 - 00:38:33.560

people on either side of the investment issue had recognized. it is hurting and it is biting and South Africa, the South African government is doing its damnedest to try and reverse the trend. Legitimate black leadership of South Africa going back to 1950s, Albert Lutuli, who was

00:38:33.560 - 00:38:46.080

another Nobel Peace Prize winner, South Africa's got two Nobel Peace Prize winners, both of them black, we're very proud of them. He said the economic boycott of South Africa will entail undoubted hardship for Africans, We do not doubt that.

00:38:46.080 - 00:39:03.080

But if it is a method which shortens a day of bloodshed, suffering to us will be a price we are willing to pay. More recently, in '77, Steve Beaker, before he was murdered by the police in a very ugly way, said, "It should be understood in Europe and North America

00:39:03.080 - 00:39:19.240

that foreign investment supports the present economic system of political injustice. If Washington is really interested in contributing to the development of a just society in South Africa, it would discourage investment in South Africa. We blacks are perfectly willing to suffer the consequences.

00:39:19.240 - 00:39:29.480

We are quite accustomed to suffering. And that is a theme that has gone through since the '50s to this day until yesterday, because yesterday or the day before,

00:39:29.480 - 00:39:36.460

we heard Bishop Tutu finally come out and formally call for economic sanctions, and I'm sure that has been mentioned before in this conference.

00:39:36.460 - 00:39:54.600

Another very important change since when our struggle started in the 1977s in Michigan is that COSATU, this umbrella trade union of 500,000 people, half a million people, has called for economic sanctions and just straight after Bishop Tutu called

00:39:54.600 - 00:40:11.400

for sanctions, COSATU restated its call for sanctions. So the legitimate black leadership of South Africa has been consistently calling for its friends in the West to help. The Sullivan Principles, which are one of the most brilliant red herrings that I've

00:40:11.400 - 00:40:28.800

seen in my political career has palpably failed. Now we at the University of Michigan like you people here and elsewhere in the country had to deal with the Sullivan principles for three or four years before we could go back to our regents and say look it's not working and we know that Reverend

00:40:28.800 - 00:40:59.600

Sullivan is very embarrassed about his Sullivan principles and as time and time and time again try to change them and hedge them and threaten to give up on them and maybe one day he will because they certainly are not what is needed as Bishop Tutu said a few months ago in Detroit to, he said we don't want to reform apartheid, we want to dismantle it and the Sullivan Principles are a project which I believe was crafted in the

00:40:59.600 - 00:41:24.200

White House and the Embassy of South Africa in Washington in the Carter years. It was a project to reform apartheid and you can't reform will partake. Economic investment definitely reinforces the Southern African government, and we've got such good proof of it now, because for the first time when South Africa's been in a crisis, and this is a third major crisis, the first was 1960 Sharpeville, the second

00:41:24.200 - 00:41:52.760

1976, and four years afterwards the Soweto uprising, and now the 1985-86 revolt. For For the first time in one of these crises, the South African government wasn't fed with major massive loans from the West. If you look at the graphs of economic investment in South Africa in March 1960, for two or three months after March 1960, you see a big rise in the curve, a leap, a peak.

00:41:52.760 - 00:42:03.740

And the same thing happened in 1976. Because of pressure in this country, and largely thanks to the Trans-Africa Movement, and the Free South Africa Movement in this country. As we know, Ronald Reagan was forced

00:42:03.740 - 00:42:14.320

to do something very embarrassing for him, and that was to bring out his own sanctions against South Africa, and that has helped. Now, a few words about our Michigan experience very briefly,

00:42:14.320 - 00:42:22.920

and you can follow up with questions if you're interested in more detail. There were two phases. The first phase followed the 1976 Soweto Uprising

00:42:22.920 - 00:42:37.220

and the killing of some 1,000 black students, and the killing of Steve Beaker, so cruelly, in 1977, when he was driven with brain concussion, it turned out, in the back of a van for 700 miles

00:42:37.220 - 00:42:51.380

from Port Elizabeth to Pretoria in the winter, naked in the back of a police jeep. That somehow was one of those times which jogged the conscience of the Western world.

00:42:51.380 - 00:43:00.460

And that's when the notion of divestment took hold in this country. and we at the University of Michigan were not immune and jumped onto that bandwagon.

00:43:00.460 - 00:43:07.660

And as I mentioned earlier, we managed to persuade our Board of Regents to abide by the Sullivan Principles. Not that we wanted that,

00:43:07.660 - 00:43:19.820

but that's as far as they were prepared to go. Now, coming out of that struggle, and it was a hard one, we decided to do two things, and I hear you're doing something similar here in Texas,

00:43:19.820 - 00:43:31.940

and that was to get a state law passed which prohibited public educational institutions from investing their monies in companies doing business in South Africa.

00:43:31.940 - 00:43:40.440

That took two or three years, and it was by hair's breadth that we got it through our state senate by one vote, and then we had to persuade the Republican governor,

00:43:40.440 - 00:43:50.120

outgoing governor at the time, William Milliken, to sign it into law, which he did. That, of course, put new pressure on the University of Michigan,

00:43:50.120 - 00:44:00.200

and the whole issue came alive again. The university's response was that the state had no right to constitutionally force them to spend their money in any way.

00:44:00.200 - 00:44:15.400

So they took up the legal acts that the state couldn't tell them how to spend their money. Now the state of course provides the University of Michigan with one third of its rather large endowment.

00:44:15.400 - 00:44:35.420

We're talking about a budget in the University of Michigan half a million to six hundred million dollars a year, which is incredible to people like myself who come from other parts of the world to see that a university can be so well endowed and so rich. But they do receive some 150

00:44:35.420 - 00:44:58.440

million from the state and in fact subsequently this went to court and the first judgment was the University of Michigan was not correct, that they were not, their constitutional rights were not being abrogated, but the university is again appealing. But what the university did under pressure was to divest 45 million of its 50 million. Now I want to

00:44:58.440 - 00:45:21.060

warn those of you that are still fighting the struggle, one of the slacks of hand that we noticed there was that all of a sudden shares that were to the tune of 70 million disappeared into bonds. So look out for that, that's a trick that is used. At the time that divestment becomes absolutely necessary, your universities might try and move some of their shares into

00:45:21.060 - 00:45:44.500

stocks. Our state law only dealt with shares, it could not deal with stocks because there weren't enough votes to go after stocks. That's something that we're still pushing for. But the university in 1984 divested 45 million, undertook to do it over a year, and held on to another five million in order to protest their constitutional rights.

00:45:44.500 - 00:46:06.140

When the first ruling of their appeal was denied, they divested another 4.5 million leaving only a half a million to continue their appeal. The second important thing that we did in going into the second phase of our divestment struggle was to get another black regent onto our board.

00:46:06.140 - 00:46:21.580

We had one black regent who had been rather moderate and hadn't been able or prepared to take a stand. When we reinforced him with a black woman who knew the university very well, she'd been a political science professor there, she'd been an administrator there, Nellie Varner,

00:46:21.580 - 00:46:31.620

when she came on board, she raised hell. She banged the table. She said, "This is my issue, this is our issue, and we want it." And that made a hell of a difference.

00:46:31.620 - 00:46:49.840

We weren't able to force our regions to full divestment, it was a 4-4 vote, and so that's how we got the 45 million. What they said with the other 5 million at the time was that these were Michigan companies and they didn't want to hurt those companies that had helped build the University of Michigan.

00:46:49.840 - 00:47:15.400

Indeed, the day after the vote on divestment, a $3 million engineering building was opened up by Dow Chemical on our new campus. So one can understand the kind of constraints that the university is under, but it also reveals where the university's money comes from, and sometimes, to some extent, who calls the tune at the university, that university's like ours.

00:47:15.400 - 00:47:34.860

I don't want to go on much longer. What is important about the present day is that divestment has become a prairie fire across this country, and not only the United States, but Canada too. I was recently at the University of Windsor, which is just across the river from Detroit,

00:47:34.860 - 00:47:44.080

50 miles from Ann Arbor, and they divested their pension fund. Now that made me ask an important question. What about our faculty pension funds?

00:47:44.080 - 00:47:57.080

And some of you might know this, but TIAA-CREF, which is where most American universities hold their faculty pension funds and other administrative pension funds, is deeply involved in South Africa.

00:47:57.080 - 00:48:21.640

And so when we finish divesting our university's stocks and shares and bonds, we've got another struggle ahead of us, and that is to persuade our faculty to bring pressure to bear on TIAA CREP to not only abide by Sullivan principles, because TIAA CREP is now talking Sullivan principles and talking the same sort of nonsense that we heard so many years ago at the University

00:48:21.640 - 00:48:39.040

of Michigan, but to get the TIAA CREF funds out of South Africa. In Michigan now, my last point, we are working to get a law passed. It's passed the House. It's now in the Senate committee, and the Senate is now Republican majority.

00:48:39.040 - 00:48:54.040

It has a three-person majority, I believe. We're trying to pass a public pension fund bill, which would amount to $2.2 billion. It would be the biggest. The only state that I know of that has done that is Massachusetts, and that was something

00:48:54.040 - 00:49:04.360

like 150 million. It's been a very hard struggle, an uphill struggle. The kinds of compromises that we've agreed to is that it be done over five years or even over seven years.

00:49:04.360 - 00:49:18.240

But I think we've got a good chance of getting it through, especially with what has been going on in South Africa, and especially with the bravery of Bishop Tutu, who is liable to be in prison for what he said two days ago. Thank you very much.

00:49:18.240 - 00:49:42.120

[applause] All panelists have said something except your moderator and I will take a couple of minutes to give you my reflections on the issue of divestment. Early -- well, it was about September of last year, I was appointed by the Secretary General

00:49:42.120 - 00:50:10.040

of the United Nations and the Chairman of the Transnational Commission of the United Nations to serve as a member of a committee of the Transnational Commission and this committee is simply called the Committee of Imminent Persons to look at the role of transnational corporations in South Africa and that's United Nations lingo. I have learned they just you don't

00:50:10.040 - 00:50:40.220

have to do anything to be an eminent person. You just, you just, you're one. And so there were 11 of us and this was, we gathered together to hear about what these transnationals could do towards the elimination of apartheid. No CEO, no chief executive officer of a transnational corporation appeared before our committee.

00:50:40.220 - 00:51:05.380

There was only one United States businessman who appeared and he appeared as a representative of himself, Mr. Weiner, who said, "I want to come here because I want to say something, but I don't speak for anybody." There was representation from the International Chamber of Commerce and all transnational

00:51:05.380 - 00:51:29.700

corporations pretended that the International Chamber of Commerce spoke for them. Now, I don't know whether they knew what the representatives of the International Chamber of Commerce were saying to us, but they were saying things like, "We, in South Africa, we white businessmen realize that we are hurting and we're going to hurt more if something

00:51:29.700 - 00:51:41.080

doesn't change about the abominable system." And they called it abominable. They said we are for one man, one vote. And I don't know whether they know what that means.

00:51:41.080 - 00:52:00.640

But that is what they said, and we can assume that that was the case. My only statement that I will say to you, and then we'll get to your questions. Divestment must not take on a life of its own. I'll tell you what I mean by that.

00:52:00.640 - 00:52:24.080

We are becoming so focused on divestment as an issue that we somehow lose sight of whether we are impacting the goal. The goal is the elimination and dismantlement of apartheid. And if divestment will do that, then we take the highest moral position, which is complete

00:52:24.080 - 00:52:44.600

and total in an equivocal divestment, that is the highest moral position, or we do something else if it is not working to eliminate apartheid. That is what has to happen. The one last thing I will say is this issue is going to be resolved, hopefully not with

00:52:44.600 - 00:53:10.080

great blood, but probably with a sea of blood, and it is going to be solved by the people of South Africa. Let me have your questions now, all of us. [Applause] I think many of us that are involved in the struggle for divestment realize that your

00:53:10.080 - 00:53:25.080

point is totally correct, yet there is a role for people in countries like America to play. And that gets to my question. On Capitol Hill, the Congressional Black Caucus, even given the full, all the media hype

00:53:25.080 - 00:53:35.200

and the mass of public opinion on the issue on opposing apartheid, had to call in an unbelievable amount of political favors, had to do a lot of political manipulation

00:53:35.200 - 00:53:42.800

and make some unbelievable compromises to even get the Reagan administration to impose the limited slap on the wrist of sanctions that they did.

00:53:42.800 - 00:53:57.060

And one of the major compromises that they did, many of them put up with was a lifting of the Clark Amendment, which is going to end up, in my view, being worse for blacks in South Africa

00:53:57.060 - 00:54:10.880

than not imposing the sanctions. Likewise, here on the state legislative level, when we were down lobbying for the various divestment bills, we found that those few black elected officials in the state

00:54:10.880 - 00:54:22.220

legislature who have been there long enough who have enough, you know, whatever, to have committee, to be on good committees, to be on powerful committees, and to have powerful positions, were the very ones

00:54:22.220 - 00:54:29.860

that could do the least for us because of their own future political aspirations or because of the compromises they had to make to get those positions.

00:54:29.860 - 00:54:41.640

Given all that, what, if any, significant and real role can black elected officials in America play in the not only the anti-apartheid struggle, but in any of these types of things on the interests

00:54:41.640 - 00:54:57.640

of African derived people since a lot of these things are not compromise-able and by the very nature of their positions, they're compromised. >> That's a difficult question, Eddie, as you know. >> I'm actually impressed with your answer.

00:54:57.640 - 00:55:03.640

>> Oh, I. >> Sorry. I know what you think. [ Laughter ]

00:55:03.640 - 00:55:38.600

The answer is not much. Black elected officials cannot do much to make a difference toward the resolution of the problem we are meeting about today. And I don't care what the committee assignment is, there is not much that can be done. The Congress of the United States, as you well know, was moving inexorably toward doing some great, I thought, a very strong

00:55:38.600 - 00:56:04.440

position and they were blindsided by Roy Rogers. And that, and when that, (audience applauding) when that happens, you see what happened.

00:56:04.440 - 00:56:21.440

Everybody just kind of folded, not just black caucus members, but all other members of the United States Congress. So all we can do is to support the sisters and brothers

00:56:21.440 - 00:56:36.920

and tell them to do the best they can. But you know in your heart there's not much they can do. Can I speak to that? I'm not altogether clear whether or sure

00:56:36.920 - 00:56:53.520

that black politicians can play a critical role in this. I mean, when you look at, for example, the 1984 election, where the Democratic Party refused to deal with the issue of South Africa,

00:56:53.520 - 00:57:03.880

until the Congressional Black Caucus backed at least some sectors of it, backed the Jesse Jackson campaign, all of a sudden, the Democratic Party was confronted

00:57:03.880 - 00:57:15.220

with the issue of South Africa and the other two candidates, Mondale and Hart. Point here being that it brought it before national agenda as far as the Democrats are concerned.

00:57:15.220 - 00:57:33.460

Secondly, I think that if we restrict ourselves only to the caucus but not to elected officials at the state and local level, then we miss a potential power base. And to use the example of Atlanta,

00:57:33.460 - 00:57:46.740

where Andrew Young last year is now in the process of divesting the city's pension funds. And we're talking about literally billions of dollars. Excuse me.

00:57:46.740 - 00:58:01.300

The city council, rather, the city council-- OK, let me correct that. The point being that I think, one, the black politicians, certainly in the caucus itself, can

00:58:01.300 - 00:58:11.060

keep before the consciousness of the American people. They're playing a critical role there. They are making some compromises. And I'm not in a position to,

00:58:11.060 - 00:58:22.340

I'm not privy to the internal situation itself and therefore don't know. But they did, as far as the '84 elections is concerned, bring it before and force the Democratic Party

00:58:22.340 - 00:58:29.580

to deal with it. - Spratt? - I would also like to answer that question or try to deal with some of it.

00:58:29.580 - 00:58:37.220

You mentioned two things there I think are important and I use this opportunity to deal with it because we might not get another chance. One is the Clark Amendment.

00:58:37.220 - 00:58:47.780

The other thing is about the political maneuvers of involving South Africa in this country. First of all, we must remember that whether black politicians do what they're supposed to do

00:58:47.780 - 00:59:00.420

or not, that other people are targeting the US electorate. And it has had a very devastating effect, although most people don't know about it. For instance, South Africa has already intervened

00:59:00.420 - 00:59:09.140

into the electoral process of the United States on two occasions. One was that through the Sydney Barron Agency, they were able to funnel money into this country

00:59:09.140 - 00:59:25.180

to overturn the encumbrancy of Representative John Tunney in California by supporting higher college. This has been documented in 1976. In 1978, they were also successful again

00:59:25.180 - 00:59:41.700

using the same maneuver by funneling funds through the city baron agency again to overturn Dick Clark on the basis of giving help to Roger Jebson. Now, that's two people who were very, very important as far as legislation

00:59:41.700 - 00:59:56.220

dealing with the South African situation that little or nothing has been said about this. And now he has a foreign government intervening in the electoral process of the United States, depriving US citizens of actually having the representatives that they want so that they can have somebody

00:59:56.220 - 01:00:16.620

as beneficial. Now, when they got rid of Dick Clark, you got rid somebody who was, as I pointed out earlier today, was able to prohibit the funneling of money to UNITA and other counterrevolutionaries in Angola. Now just recently, on January the 31st, State President Bolton made a statement that many of you might have read but might not have been able to

01:00:16.620 - 01:00:41.100

put into proper context. He said that he would release Nelson Mandela if Sharansky and Sakharov were released and also he added another person should be released, a person that nobody knew about. The man's name was Captain Wynot Pretorius DuTroy. Now who was DuTroy? DuTroy was a person who was captured last May in an invasion of Corbinda, who was supposed to blow up the Gulf Oil

01:00:41.100 - 01:01:03.900

Facility and they killed one person, I think some others got away, but he was captured. DuTroy actually explained how South Africa had been supporting UNITA and actually they came by [BLANK_AUDIO]