|
|
The Case for Economic Sanctions Against South Africa
| Article
# : |
17277 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
2 / 1990 |
3,266 Words |
| Author
: |
Pearl-Alice Marsh
|
The use of economic measures as a tool of U.S. foreign policy is not unique to South Africa. Indeed, over the past twenty-five years, the United States has imposed some measure of economic sanction against a variety of countries. During the 1960s, the United States cut off aid to Ceylon (1962-65), Indonesia (1963), France and the Untied Kingdom (1963-64), and Peru (1965-66) over a properties dispute with Standard Oil of New Jersey. In 1967, the Untied States refused to deliver military aircraft to Israel in order to induce its leadership to work toward a Middle East settlement. In 1969, we cut off aid to Ecuador and Peru over a fisheries dispute. In 1971-72, we cut off aid to Chile in a dispute over compensation for nationalized properties of American firms and aid to India over its invasion of East Pakistan. Jimmy Carter imposed a grain embargo against the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan cut off imports from Nicaragua to this country.
Critics of sanctions against South Africa argue that our sanctions policies are used for the most part to "hurt our friends." A reading of Soviet behavior during the same period shows that it used economic sanctions primarily against its friends - Yugoslavia, China, Albania, and Poland, among others. It may be then, based on the evidence, that sanctions are an action taken primarily against those with whom you have the most influence - your friends - and less frequently against your enemies.
Economic leverage has been a constant part our foreign policy, in spite of the heated debates over its efficacy and its effectiveness. Everyone argues for it when it serves one's political ends and against it when it does not. Liberal Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-California) sponsors bills supporting sanction against South Africa but opposes them against Nicaragua. Conservative Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) advocates strong sanctions against Angola but considers them totally inappropriate for South Africa. That is politics.
On South Africa, there is no debate over a reassessment of the status quo; indeed, there has bee a virtual abandonment of that position both domestically within South Africa and internationally. Political change is a fact in South Africa. Blacks are demanding full political participation in the conduct of the country's affairs. Scholars who argue the status quo - that is, defend apartheid and white domination - operate on an analytical plane outside the parameter of sound scholarship and useful policy prescriptions. Those who choose to defend its racially stratified political system stand alone morally, intellectually, and politically in the world of international politics and are out of step even with the white political leadership in South Africa.
Former President P.W. Botha declared apartheid dead in 1982. Current President F.W. de Klerk is the new "hope" for resolving racial strife in South Africa. He, too, opposes apartheid. The business community in South Africa sees apartheid working against national economic interests and has expressed its opposition to race politics. In spite of the government's opposition, leading businessmen have held highly visible meetings with the popular exiled opposition group, the African National Congress. Henri de Villiers, chairman of the Standard Bank Investment Corporation, responded to the "go it alone" mentality in the following way in mid-1988:
“In this day and age there is no such thing as economic
...
Read Full Article
|
|
