home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- WORLD, Page 31Sanctions: What Spells Success?
-
-
- By BRUCE W. NELAN
-
-
- Now that F.W. de Klerk has promised "an end to white
- domination" and "a new era" in South Africa, anti-apartheid
- campaigners in the U.S. and Europe have begun to claim success
- for the economic sanctions they imposed during the 1980s. Such
- credit takers should beware of premature celebration; victory
- is not at hand, and foreign pressure on the land of apartheid
- has not had quite the effect that was predicted.
-
- All along there has been confusion about what would
- constitute success for sanctions. True, the U.S. ban on
- importing coal and agricultural products cost South Africa more
- than $400 million in lost trade (much of it replaced by
- increased sales to Asia), and the supension of most new
- investment from abroad has reduced the country's economic
- growth rate by about 30%, to the current 2.2%. But such
- statistics by themselves do not add up to success. There was
- never any doubt that punitive measures could damage the South
- African economy. The real question was whether hurting the
- economy could force the government to change its fundamental
- apartheid policies.
-
- The answer is no, or at least not yet. Pretoria's calls for
- change are not a recent concession to foreign pressure. As
- early as 1979, long before economic sanctions were considered,
- President P.W. Botha told his Afrikaner volk to "adapt or die."
- In 1986 he described apartheid as "outdated and unacceptable."
- It was only later that year, to push for faster change, that
- the U.S. enacted its comprehensive sanctions bill. Those
- measures hit South Africa where it hurts: in the economy, and
- in the keen sense among whites that they are pariahs in the
- world's eyes and will remain so until apartheid is abolished.
- That may be the most telling impact of the sanctions. Today
- most whites are eager to end the pain and regain a place among
- civilized nations. Yet they are also angry and resentful,
- blaming Americans in particular for what they see as rank
- hypocrisy. Many insist that the U.S. has lost, not gained,
- leverage over South African policies.
-
- And what is the government offering in exchange? De Klerk
- has released long-imprisoned black leaders and permitted black
- protest meetings, but these are relaxations of the security
- rules rather than political changes. In spite of sanctions and
- the new mood of optimism about negotiations for a new
- constitution, Pretoria remains essentially unyielding on the
- larger issue of one man, one vote. It insists that majority
- rule, the central demand of the African National Congress, is
- inherently "unjust" and would amount to black "domination" over
- the white minority.
-
- Neither external nor domestic pressure has managed to budge
- Botha or De Klerk from this basic position. National Party
- ministers say they see no point in trying to appease overseas
- sanctioners because nothing will satisfy them except handing
- over power to a black government, which Pretoria says it will
- never do.
-
- Well then, comes the natural response, more and tougher
- sanctions are needed. That too is open to question. A major
- slowdown in South Africa could halt the growth of the skilled
- black work force and the development of black economic power,
- which have already caused irreversible changes in the apartheid
- system -- legalization of black unions, abolition of the
- internal pass laws, legalization of some nonracial
- neighborhoods. These developments, more than sanctions, have
- helped change white thinking. And if broad new sanctions were
- to cut deeply into the South African economy, the government's
- probable response would be to abandon reform, crack down on
- black protest and make certain that whites got their slice of
- the shrinking pie first.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-