As a response to South Africa's apartheid policies, the international community adopted economic sanctions as a form of condemnation and pressure. Jamaica led the movement by being the first country to ban goods from apartheid South Africa in 1959.
While nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom were at first reluctant to place sanctions, by the late 1980s both countries, as well as 23 other nations, had passed laws placing various trade sanctions on South Africa.
Economic sanctions against South Africa placed a significant pressure on the government that helped to end apartheid. In 1990, President Frederik Willem (F.W.) de Klerk recognised the economic unsustainability of the burden of international sanctions, released the African nationalist leader Nelson Mandela and unbanned the African National Congress (ANC). In April 1991, The European Economic Community lifted economic sanctions on South Africa.[1] De Klerk and Mandela guided the country to its first democratic elections in 1994, which resulted in Mandela being elected president. When Mandela was asked if economic sanctions helped to bring an end to the apartheid system, Mandela replied "Oh, there is no doubt."
Following this passage of this resolution the UK-based Anti-Apartheid Movement spearheaded the arrangements for an international conference on sanctions to be held in London in April 1964. According to Lisson, "The aim of the Conference was to work out the practicability of economic sanctions and their implications on the economies of South Africa, the UK, the US and the Protectorates. Knowing that the strongest opposition to the application of sanctions came from the West (and within the West, Britain), the Committee made every effort to attract as wide and varied a number of speakers and participants as possible so that the Conference findings would be regarded as objective."[2]
One probable type of action against South Africa was economic sanction. If UN affiliates broke fiscal and trading links with the country, it would make it more difficult for the apartheid government to uphold itself and its policies. Such sanctions were argued frequently within the UN, and many recognised and backed it as an effectual and non-violent way of applying force, but South Africa's major trading partners more voted against mandatory sanctions. In 1962, the UN General Assembly requested that its members split political, fiscal and transportation connections with South Africa. In 1968, it suggested the deferral of all cultural, didactic and sporting commerce as well. From 1964, the US and Britain discontinued their dealings of armaments to South Africa. In spite of the many cries for sanctions, however, none were made obligatory.
In 1964, Japan banned direct investment in South Africa, and later excluded South Africa from the 1964 Tokyo Olympics.[3]
While international opposition to apartheid grew, the Nordic countries, and Sweden in particular, provided both moral and financial support for the African National Congress (ANC).[5]Pope John Paul II was an outspoken opponent of apartheid. In September 1988, he made a pilgrimage to countries bordering South Africa, while demonstratively avoiding South Africa itself. During his visit to Zimbabwe, he called for economic sanctions against the South African government.[6] Other Western countries adopted a more ambivalent position at first. The Nixon administration implemented a policy known as the Tar Baby Option, pursuant to which the US maintained close relations with the Apartheid South African government.[7]
Many criticised disinvestment because of its economic impact on ordinary black South Africans, such as BritishPrime MinisterMargaret Thatcher, who described sanctions and disinvestment as "the way of poverty, starvation and destroying the hopes of the very people – all of them—whom you wish to help."[8]John Major, then her Foreign Secretary, said disinvestment would "feed white consciences outside South Africa, not black bellies within it",[9] although in 2013, he said that the Conservative Government led by Margaret Thatcher was wrong to oppose tougher sanctions against South Africa during the apartheid era.[10] Thatcher and United States President Ronald Reagan favoured the "constructive engagement" policy with the apartheid government, the former vetoing the imposition of UN economic sanctions and the latter opposing pressure from Congress and his own party for tougher sanctions until his veto was overridden.[11]
Many conservatives opposed the disinvestment campaign, accusing its advocates of hypocrisy for not also proposing that the same sanctions be leveled on either the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China.[citation needed]LibertarianMurray Rothbard also opposed this policy, asserting that the most-direct adverse impact of the boycott would actually be felt by the black workers in that country, and the best way to remedy the problem of apartheid was by promoting trade and the growth of free market capitalism in South Africa.[12] The Reagan administration evaded international sanctions and provided diplomatic support in international forums for the South African government.."[13] U.S. government justification for supporting the Apartheid regime were publicly given as a belief in "free trade" and the perception of the anti-communist South African government as a bastion against Marxist forces in Southern Africa, for example, by the military intervention of South Africa in the Angolan Civil War in support of right-wing insurgents fighting to topple the government.[14] The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative lobbying organisation, actively campaigned against divesting from South Africa throughout the 1980s.[15]
While disinvestment, boycotts and sanctions aimed at the removal of the apartheid system, there was also considerable opposition from within the anti-apartheid movement within South Africa coming from both black and white leaders. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Chief Minister of KwaZulu and president of the Inkatha Freedom Party slammed sanctions, stating that "They can only harm all the people of Southern Africa. They can only lead to more hardships, particularly for the blacks."[16] Well known anti-apartheid opposition MPs Helen Suzman and Harry Schwarz also strongly opposed moves to disinvest from South Africa. Both politicians of the Progressive Federal Party, they argued that disinvestment would cause further economic hardships for black people, which would ultimately worsen the political climate for negotiations. Suzman described them as "self defeating, wrecking the economy and do not assist anybody irrespective of race". Schwarz also argued that "Morality is cheap when someone else is paying."[17] Contrary to this, sanctions were strongly favored by the ANC and by Nelson Mandela.[18] The views of the conservative Inkatha Freedom Party and of white minority anti-apartheid activists was not reflected by large sections of both the internal and international anti-apartheid movements and its influence on the subsequent abolishment is still debated. [19][20] Worth to note is that the use of sanctions have risen sharply since the end of the Cold War, and some studies seem to indicate at least a mild to moderate effectiveness.[21][22]
London bus in 1989 carrying the "Boycott Apartheid" message.
By the late-1980s, with no sign of a political resolution in South Africa, Western patience began to run out. By 1989, a bipartisan Republican and Democratic initiative in the US favoured economic sanctions (realised as the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986), the release of Nelson Mandela and a negotiated settlement involving the ANC. Thatcher too began to take a similar line, but insisted on the suspension of the ANC's armed struggle.[23]
By this time, after much debate, the United States, the United Kingdom, and 23 other nations had passed laws placing various trade sanctions on South Africa. A disinvestment from South Africa movement in many countries was similarly widespread, with individual cities and provinces around the world implementing various laws and local regulations forbidding registered corporations under their jurisdiction from doing business with South African firms, factories, or banks.[24] The UK's significant economic involvement in South Africa may have provided some leverage with the South African government, with both the UK and the US applying pressure and pushing for negotiations. However, neither the UK nor the US was willing to apply economic pressure upon their multinationals in South Africa, such as the mining company Anglo American.[25][26][27] The effect of Western influence in the anti-apartheid movement and specifically US/UK economic and political considerations in refusing many sanctions until the late 80s is still a debated topic.[28][29][30]
Economic effects
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 African countries had already 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.[failed verification] 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,[31] 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.[31]
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."[31]
Aftermath
The imposition of international sanctions on the country began economic pressure that saw the unravelling of apartheid. There were oil sanctions but South Africa continued to be able to buy oil on international markets and developed technology that allowed the conversion of coal into oil. A small gas field was discovered off the coast of the Cape. The most damaging isolation was the denial of investment funds and the boycott of South African investments particularly by influential universities and foundations in the United States. These boycotts limited the capital available to South African businesses. Ironically, during the 1980s gold reached its highest price as a result of international tensions reaping huge profits for the mining company conglomerates. However, because of currency restrictions and bans on the sales of Krugerrands in some countries, they were unable to invest abroad. The result was that they used their surplus funds to buy up businesses in virtually every activity in the economy. However, the financial benefit for the mining companies of continuing to support the system eroded as international capital stopped flowing into the country.[citation needed]
In 1990 the president Frederik Willem (F.W.) de Klerk recognised the economic unsustainability of the burden of international sanctions and released Nelson Mandela the nationalist leader and unbanned the African National Congress (ANC) that Mandela led. Although there were some fears that the country could become unmanageable because of tribal conflict, or even a military take over by the white-dominated armed forces, de Klerk and Mandela guided the country to democratic elections in 1994 with Mandela as president. Despite socialist rhetoric and support from socialist countries in its early years the ANC maintained the mixed economy and encouraged the market economy including relaxing foreign exchange controls.[citation needed]
In 1993, Time magazine asked Nelson Mandela if economic sanctions helped to bring an end to the apartheid system. Mandela replied "Oh, there is no doubt."[32]
Frederik Willem de Klerk was a South African politician who served as state president of South Africa from 1989 to 1994 and as deputy president from 1994 to 1996. As South Africa's last head of state from the era of white-minority rule, he and his government dismantled the apartheid system and introduced universal suffrage. Ideologically a social conservative and an economic liberal, he led the National Party (NP) from 1989 to 1997.
Pieter Willem Botha, was a South African politician. He was the head of government of South Africa from 1978 to 1989, serving as the last prime minister of South Africa from 1978 to 1984 and the first executive state president of South Africa from 1984 to 1989.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1761 was passed on 6 November 1962 in response to the racist policies of apartheid established by the South African Government.
Disinvestment refers to the use of a concerted economic boycott to pressure a government, industry, or company towards a change in policy, or in the case of governments, even regime change. The term was first used in the 1980s, most commonly in the United States, to refer to the use of a concerted economic boycott designed to pressure the government of South Africa into abolishing its apartheid regime. The term has also been applied to actions targeting Iran, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Myanmar, Israel, China and Russia.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) was a British organisation that was at the centre of the international movement opposing the South African apartheid system and supporting South Africa's non-white population who were oppressed by the policies of apartheid. The AAM changed its name to ACTSA: Action for Southern Africa in 1994, when South Africa achieved majority rule through free and fair elections, in which all races could vote.
Apartheid was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa from 1948 to the early 1990s. It was characterised by an authoritarian political culture based on baasskap, which ensured that South Africa was dominated politically, socially, and economically by the nation's minority white population. Under this minoritarian system, white citizens held the highest status, followed by Indians as well as Coloureds and then Black Africans. The economic legacy and social effects of apartheid continue to the present day, particularly inequality.
The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 was a law enacted by the United States Congress. The law imposed sanctions against South Africa and stated five preconditions for lifting the sanctions that would essentially end the system of apartheid, which the latter was under at the time. Most of the sanctions were repealed in July 1991, after South Africa took steps towards meeting the preconditions of the act, with the final vestiges of the act being repealed in November 1993.
Israel–South Africa relations refer to the current and historic relationship between the Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel. As of January 2024, South Africa maintains only “limited political and diplomatic interaction” with Israel due to the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Disinvestmentfrom South Africa was first advocated in the 1960s in protest against South Africa's system of apartheid, but was not implemented on a significant scale until the mid-1980s. A disinvestment policy the U.S. adopted in 1986 in response to the disinvestment campaign is credited with playing a role in pressuring the South African government to embark on negotiations that ultimately led to the dismantling of the apartheid system.
United Nations Security Council resolution 591, adopted unanimously on 28 November 1986, after recalling resolutions 418 (1977), 421 (1977), 473 (1980) and 558 (1984), the Council strengthened the mandatory arms embargo against apartheid South Africa imposed by Resolution 418, and made it more comprehensive. Resolution 591 sought to clarify vague terms from previous resolutions on the topic.
The United States and South Africa currently maintain bilateral relations with one another. The United States and South Africa have been economically linked to one another since the late 18th century which has continued into the 21st century. United States and South Africa relations faced periods of strain throughout the 20th century due to the segregationist, white minority rule in South Africa, from 1948 to 1994. Following the end of apartheid in South Africa, the United States and South Africa have developed a strategically, politically, and economically beneficial relationship with one another and currently enjoy "cordial relations" despite "occasional strains". South Africa remains the United States' largest trading partner in Africa as of 2019.
Internal resistance to apartheid in South Africa originated from several independent sectors of South African society and took forms ranging from social movements and passive resistance to guerrilla warfare. Mass action against the ruling National Party (NP) government, coupled with South Africa's growing international isolation and economic sanctions, were instrumental in leading to negotiations to end apartheid, which began formally in 1990 and ended with South Africa's first multiracial elections under a universal franchise in 1994.
Malawian-South African relations refers to the bilateral relationship between Malawi and South Africa. South Africa's first formal relationship with an independent African country was established with Malawi, beginning in 1967.
Foreign relations of South Africa during apartheid refers to the foreign relations of South Africa between 1948 and 1994. South Africa introduced apartheid in 1948, as a systematic extension of pre-existing racial discrimination laws. Initially the regime implemented an offensive foreign policy trying to consolidate South African hegemony over Southern Africa. These attempts had clearly failed by the late 1970s. As a result of its racism, occupation of Namibia and foreign interventionism in Angola, the country became increasingly isolated internationally.
The Commonwealth of Australia and the Republic of South Africa formally established diplomatic relations in 1947. Australia is home to one of the largest South African communities abroad with approximately 189,230 South Africans living in the country. Both countries are members of the Cairns Group, Commonwealth of Nations, G20, Indian Ocean Rim Association and the United Nations.
Have You Heard from Johannesburg is a 2010 series of seven documentary films, covering the 45-year struggle of the global anti-apartheid movement against South Africa's apartheid system and its international supporters who considered them an ally in the Cold War.
South Africa–United Kingdom relations are the current and historical relationships between the United Kingdom (UK) and the Republic of South Africa. South Africa is the most important trade partner in Africa for the United Kingdom and an important partner for the UK in a number of areas.
On 2 February 1990, the State President of South Africa F. W. deKlerk delivered a speech at the opening of the 1990 session of the Parliament of South Africa in Cape Town in which he announced sweeping reforms that marked the beginning of the negotiated transition from apartheid to constitutional democracy. The reforms promised in the speech included the unbanning of the African National Congress (ANC) and other anti-apartheid organisations, the release of political prisoners including Nelson Mandela, the end of the state of emergency, and a moratorium on the death penalty.
South Africa–Sweden relations refers to the bilateral relations between Sweden and South Africa. Formal relations between the two countries began with the opening of a South African legation in the 1930s with relations being upgraded to ambassadorial level in 1994 following South Africa's first non-racial democratic elections. In 2000 a South African - Swedish Binational Commission was established by President Thabo Mbeki and Prime Minister Göran Persson.
The anti-apartheid movement was a worldwide effort to end South Africa's apartheid regime and its oppressive policies of racial segregation. The movement emerged after the National Party government in South Africa won the election of 1948 and enforced a system of racial segregation through legislation. Opposition to the apartheid system came from both within South Africa and the international community, in particular Great Britain and the United States. The anti-apartheid movement consisted of a series of demonstrations, economic divestment, and boycotts against South Africa. In the United States, anti-apartheid efforts were initiated primarily by nongovernmental human rights organizations. On the other hand, state and federal governments were reluctant to support the call for sanctions against South Africa due to a Cold War alliance with the country and profitable economic ties. The rift between public condemnation of apartheid and the U.S government's continued support of the South African government delayed efforts to negotiate a peaceful transfer to majority rule. Eventually, a congressional override of President Reagan's veto resulted in passage of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986. However, the extent to which the anti-apartheid movement contributed to the downfall of apartheid in 1994 remains under debate.
↑ International Labour Office (1991). Apartheid: Special Report of the Directed General on the Application of the Decoration Concerning the Policy of South Africa.International Labour Organization. p. 46.
↑ Davies, J. E. (2008). Constructive Engagement? Chester Crocker and American Policy in South Africa, Namibia and Angola 1981–1988. Melton, Woodbridge, Suffolk: James Currey. ISBN978-1847013040.
↑ Rothbard, Murray. "The Crusade Against South Africa". Making Economic Sense. Chapter 90. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute, 1995. Online Edition. Retrieved 19 November 2009.
↑ Joseba Zulaika and William Douglass, "Terror and Taboo" (Routledge, 1996), p. 12
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
