Disinvestment from South Africa

The conference was not successful in persuading Britain to take up economic sanctions against South Africa though. Rather, the British government "remained firm in its view that the imposition of sanctions would be unconstitutional 'because we do not accept that this situation in South Africa constitutes a threat to international peace and security and we do not, in any case, believe that sanctions would have the effect of persuading the South African Government to change its policies".[4]

The AAM tried to make sanctions an election issue in the 1964 General Election in Britain. Candidates were asked to state their position on economic sanctions and other punitive measures against the South African government. Most candidates who responded answered in the affirmative. However, after the Labour Party sweep to power, commitment to the anti-apartheid cause dissipated. In short order, Labour Party leader Harold Wilson told the press that his Labour Party was "not in favour of trade sanctions partly because, even if fully effective, they would harm the people we are most concerned about – the Africans and those white South Africans who are having to maintain some standard of decency there".[4] Even so, Lisson writes that the "AAM still hoped that the new Labour Government would be more sensitive to the demands of public opinion than the previous Government." But by the end of 1964, it was clear that the election of the Labour Party had made little difference in the government's overall unwillingness to impose sanctions.

Lisson summarizes the situation at the UN in 1964:

At the UN, Britain consistently refused to accept that the situation in South Africa fell under Chapter VII of the [United Nations] Charter. Instead, in collaboration with the US, it worked for a carefully worded appeal on the Rivonia and other political trials to try to appease Afro-Asian countries and public opinion at home and abroad; by early 1965 the issue of sanctions had lost momentum.[4]

According to Lisson, Britain's rejection was premised on its economic interests in South Africa, which would be put at risk if any type of meaningful economic sanctions were put in place.

In 1977, the voluntary UN arms embargo became mandatory with the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 418.

An oil embargo was introduced on 20 November 1987 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted a voluntary international oil embargo.[5]

Richard Knight writes that the anti-apartheid movement in the U.S. found that Washington was unwilling to get involved in economically isolating South Africa.[6] The movement responded by organized lobbying of individual businesses and institutional investors to end their involvement with or investments in the apartheid state as a matter of corporate social responsibility. This campaign was coordinated by several faith-based institutional investors eventually leading to the creation of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. An array of celebrities, including singer Paul Simon, also participated.

The key instrument of this campaign was the so-called Sullivan Principles, authored by and named after the Rev. Dr. Leon Sullivan. Leon Sullivan was an African-American preacher in Philadelphia who, in 1977, was also a board member of the corporate giant General Motors. At that time, General Motors was the largest employer of black people in South Africa. The principles required that the corporation ensure that all employees are treated equally and in an integrated environment, both in and outside the workplace, regardless of race, as a condition of doing business. These principles directly conflicted with the mandated racial discrimination and segregation policies of apartheid-era South Africa, thus making it impossible for businesses adopting the Sullivan Principles to continue doing business there.

While the anti-apartheid movement lobbied individual businesses to adopt and comply with the Sullivan Principles, the movement opened an additional front with institutional investors. Besides advocating that institutional investors withdraw any direct investments in South African-based companies, anti-apartheid activists also lobbied for the divestment from all U.S.-based companies having South African interests who had not yet adopted the Sullivan Principles. Institutional investors such as public pension funds were the most susceptible to these types of lobbying efforts.

Public companies with South African interests were thus confronted on two levels: First, shareholder resolutions were submitted by concerned stockholders who admitted, posed more of a threat to the often-cherished corporate reputations than to the stock price. Second, the companies were presented with a significant financial threat whereby one or more of their major institutional investors decides to withdraw their investments.[7]

The disinvestment campaign in the United States, which had been in existence for quite some years, gained a critical mass following the black political resistance to the 1983 South African constitution which included a "complex set of segregated parliaments". Richard Knight writes:

In a total rejection of apartheid, black South Africans mobilized to make the townships ungovernable, black local officials resigned in droves, and the government declared a State of Emergency in 1985 and used thousands of troops to quell "unrest". Television audiences throughout the world were to watch almost nightly reports of massive resistance to apartheid, the growth of a democratic movement, and the savage police and military response.[6]

The result of the widely televised South African response was "a dramatic expansion of international actions to isolate apartheid, actions that combined with the internal situation to force dramatic changes in South Africa's international economic relations".[6]

Students organised a demand that their colleges and universities divest, meaning that the universities were to cease investing in companies that traded or had operations in South Africa. At many universities, many students and faculty protested in order to force action on the issue. The first organised anti-apartheid organization on university campuses in the United States was CUAA, founded by Ramon Sevilla at the University of California, Berkeley. Sevilla was a principal organiser that had support from Nelson Mandela, with whom Sevilla was in communication while Mandela was imprisoned at Maximum Security Prison, Robben Island as well as with the African National Congress (ANC) for committing 196 acts of public violence against apartheid.

Some of the most effective actions in support of the divestment of University investments in U.S. companies doing business in South Africa took place between the years of 1976–1985, as Sevilla travelled throughout the American Continent and Europe gathering support for the overthrow of the South African Apartheid Government, which also led to his arrest at U.C. Berkeley on several occasions in the successful effort to force the University of California to divest all of their investments in companies doing business in South Africa, which also became the driving force for divestment worldwide in all companies doing business in the country of Apartheid South Africa. For example, in April 1986, 61 students were arrested after building a shantytown in front of the chancellor's office at UC Berkeley.[8] A South Africa divestment activist at Occidental College in Los Angeles was future US president Barack Obama.[9]

As a result of these organised "divestment campaigns", the boards of trustees of several prominent universities voted to divest completely from South Africa and companies with major South African interests.

The first of these was Hampshire College in 1977.

These initial successes set a pattern that was later repeated and many more campuses across the country. Activism surged in 1984 on the wave of public interest created by the wide television coverage of the then-recent resistance efforts of the black South Africans.

Overall, according to Knight's analysis,[6] the numbers year over year for educational institutions fully or partially divesting from South Africa were:

The anti-Apartheid disinvestment campaign on campuses began on the West Coast and Midwest in 1977 at Michigan State University and Stanford University.[10][11] It had some early successes in 1978 at Michigan State University, which voted for total divestiture,[12][13] at Columbia University;[14] and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Following the Michigan State University divestiture in 1978, in 1982, the State of Michigan Legislature and Governor voted for divestiture by all of the more than 30 State of Michigan colleges and universities, an action later struck down as unconstitutional by the Michigan Court of Appeals in response to a suit against the Act by the University of Michigan.[15]

The initial Columbia divestment focused largely on bonds and financial institutions directly involved with the South African regime.[16] It followed a year-long campaign first initiated by students who had worked together to block the appointment of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to an endowed chair at Columbia University in 1977.[17] Broadly backed by a diverse array of student groups and many notable faculty members the Committee Against Investment in South Africa held numerous teach-ins and demonstrations through the year focused on the trustees' ties to the corporations doing business with South Africa. Trustee meetings were picketed and interrupted by demonstrations culminating in May 1978 in the takeover of the Graduate School of Business.[18][19]

Smith College, in Northampton, Massachusetts, which is connected to Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, through the Five College Consortium, engaged with divesting from South Africa several years later. In the spring semester of 1986 students at Smith College protested the board of trustees' decision not to fully divest[20] the college's endowment from companies in South Africa. Student protests included a sit-in in College Hall, the main administrative office which included nearly 100 students sleeping in overnight on 24 February 1986. The next day students staged a full blockade of the building, not allowing any staff into the building and anticipating arrest, though the president of the college at the time, Mary Maples Dunn, refused to have the students arrested.

A comprehensive list of the demands they made throughout the demonstration was published on 28 February 1986.[21] The "Women at College Hall" agreed to end the blockade of The Board of Trustees agreed to "issue a statement of intent to deliberate again, with a quorum, the issue of divestment" before Spring Break, and that the Investor Responsibility Committee would meet with representatives from the South African Task Force, the Ethical Investment Committee, and students from the Divestment Committee to look at "a restructuring of the investment policy". Students also demanded that the Board of Trustees "recognize the need for more dialogue with the Smith College community" and that they act on this with more meetings and transparency. In relation to the action, students demanded that a required teach-in be conducted to educate the college and the Board of Trustees on divestment, South African apartheid, and the College Hall Occupation, in addition, a booklet would be compiled by the demonstrators that would be distributed to the college to educate the community on the movement. They also demanded that the president grant amnesty to anyone who directly or indirectly participated in the occupation.

On 1 March 1986, the protest ended when negotiations with administrators led to an agreement that the trustees would re-evaluate their decision, a mandatory teach-in would be held, and amnesty would be granted to anyone involved in the demonstration.[21] After student pressures, Smith College voted to divest all $39 million in stocks that they held in companies working in South Africa by 31 October 1988.[22]

Harvard University only undertook a partial "divestment" from South Africa and only after significant resistance.[23] Adam Sofen and Alan Wirzbicki give this description:

Throughout the 1980s, Harvard professors for the most part avoided involvement with South Africa in protest of apartheid, and then president Derek C. Bok was a vocal supporter of work by the U.S. to prompt reform in South Africa. But the University was slow to pull its own investments out of companies doing business in South Africa, insisting that through its proxy votes, it could more effectively fight apartheid than by purging stocks from its portfolio. But after a decade of protests, Harvard did adopt a policy of selective divestment, and by the end of the 1980s was almost completely out of South Africa.[23]

At the University of California Berkeley campus, student organizations focused on a campaign of civil disobedience, with 38 students arrested in 1984,[24] a semester-long sit-in protest with 158 arrests in 1985, and a shantytown protest 1–4 April 1986 that resulted in a violent confrontation between protesters and police and 152 arrests.[25]

The University of California, in contrast to the limited action undertaken by Harvard, authorized in 1986 the withdrawal of three billion dollars worth of investments from the apartheid state. Nelson Mandela stated his belief that the University of California's massive divestment was particularly significant in abolishing white-minority rule in South Africa.[26][27]

In 1989, after a three-year review by the Gettysburg College Board of Trustees and a five-month campaign by the Salaam Committee—a campus group made up of students and faculty—the college voted to divest $5.4 million from companies connected to South Africa.[28]

A boycott South Africa sticker now housed at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.

In addition to campuses, anti-apartheid activists found concerned and sympathetic legislators in cities and states. Several states and localities did pass legislation ordering the sale of such securities, notably the City and County of San Francisco, which passed legislation on 5 June 1978 not to invest "in corporations and banks doing business in or with South Africa".[29] The result was that "by the end of 1989 26 states, 22 counties and over 90 cities had taken some form of binding economic action against companies doing business in South Africa".[6] Many public pension funds connected to these local governments were legislated to disinvestment from South African companies. These local governments also exerted pressure via enacting selective purchasing policies, "whereby cities give preference in bidding on contracts for goods and services to those companies who do not do business in South Africa".[6]

Nebraska was the first US state to divest from South Africa. The divestment was initiated by Ernie Chambers, the only Black member of the Nebraska legislature.[30][31] Chambers was angered when he learned that the University of Nebraska had received a donation of several hundred gold Krugerrands. He introduced a nonbinding resolution calling for state pension funds that had been invested directly or indirectly in South Africa to be invested elsewhere.[32] It became state law in 1980.[30]

According to Knight, the beginning of divestment in Nebraska caused little immediate change in business practices; David Packard of Hewlett Packard stated "I'd rather lose business in Nebraska than with South Africa."[6] The impact was magnified as other US state governments took similar measures through the 1980s. Nebraska passed stronger legislation in 1984, mandating divestment of all funds from companies doing business in South Africa. This resulted in the divestment of $14.6 million in stocks from Nebraska's public employee pension funds.[33]

The activity at the state and city level set the stage for action by the U.S. federal government.

This began when the Senate and House of Representatives presented Ronald Reagan with the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which had been introduced by Congressman Ronald Dellums, supported by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus in the House, and piloted through the House by Congressman Howard Wolpe, chairman of the House Africa Subcommittee. Ronald Reagan responded by using his veto, but surprisingly and, in testament to the strength of the anti-Apartheid movement, the Republican-controlled Senate overrode his veto. Knight gives this description of the act:

The Act banned new U.S. investment in South Africa, sales to the police and military, and new bank loans, except for the purpose of trade. Specific measures against trade included the prohibition of the import of agricultural goods, textiles, shellfish, steel, iron, uranium, and the products of state-owned corporations.[6]

The results of the act were mixed in economic terms according to Knight:[6] Between 1985 and 1987, U.S. imports from South Africa declined by 35%, although the trend reverses in 1988 when imports increased by 15%. Between 1985 and 1998, U.S. exports to South Africa increased by 40%.

Knight attributes some of the increase in imports in 1988 to lax enforcement of the 1986 Act citing a 1989 study by the General Accounting Office. Knight writes that a "major weakness of the Act is that it does little to prohibit exports to South Africa, even in such areas as computers and other capital goods".[6]

A second federal measure introduced by Representative Charles Rangel in 1987 as an amendment to the Budget Reconciliation Act halted the ability of U.S. corporations from attaining tax reimbursements for taxes paid in South Africa. The result was that U.S. corporations operating in South Africa were subject to double taxation. According to Knight:

The sums of money involved are large. According to the Internal Revenue Service, taxes involved in 1982 were $211,593,000 on taxable income of $440,780,000. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in South Africa has estimated that the measure increases the tax bill for U.S. companies from 57.5% to 72% of profits in South Africa.[6]

An additional and much harsher sanctions bill was passed by the House of Representatives (Congress) in August 1988. This bill mandated "the withdrawal of all U.S. companies from South Africa, the sale by U.S. residents of all investments in South African companies and an end to most trade, except for the import of certain strategic minerals".[6] In the end, the bill didn't become law as wasn't able to pass the Senate. (In the United States legislative system a bill must be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives before it can be signed into law by the President.) Even so, the fact that such a harsh bill made any progress at all through the legislature "alerted both the South African government and U.S. business that significant further sanctions were likely to be forthcoming" if the political situation in South Africa remained unchanged.

Four exchange control stamps in a South African passport from the mid-1980s allowing the passport holder to take a particular amount of currency out of the country. Exchange controls such as these were imposed by the South African government to restrict the outflow of capital from the country.

While post-colonial countries in Africa already had imposed sanctions on South Africa in solidarity with the Defiance Campaign, these measures had little effect because of the relatively small economies of those involved. The disinvestment campaign only impacted South Africa after the major Western nations, including the United States, got involved beginning in mid-1984. From 1984 onwards, according to Knight,[6] because of the disinvestment campaign and the repayment of foreign loans, South Africa experienced considerable capital flight. The net capital movement out of South Africa was:

• R9.2 billion in 1985
• R6.1 billion in 1986
• R3.1 billion in 1987
• R5.5 billion in 1988

The capital flight triggered a dramatic decline in the international exchange rate of the South African currency, the rand. The currency decline made imports more expensive which in turn caused inflation in South Africa to rise at a very steep 12–15% per year.[6]

The South African government did attempt to restrict the damaging outflow of capital. Knight writes that "in September 1985 it imposed a system of exchange control and a debt repayments standstill. Under exchange control, South African residents are generally prohibited from removing capital from the country and foreign investors can only remove investments via the financial rand, which is traded at a 20% to 40% discount compared to the commercial rand. This means companies that disinvest get significantly fewer dollars for the capital they withdraw."[6]