Apartheid's New Upheaval

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

In white-dominated South Africa a stern Dutch Calvinist concept of law-and-order still holds sway. But suddenly many of the country's segregated black townships are becoming ungovernable. After a brief period of relative calm in June, violence is again on the rise in the black residential areas, with outbursts being reported every day. Last week 13 blacks were killed in the Johannesburg area alone, both by police and by other blacks. In one 24-hour period, 23 violent incidents were reported. Throughout the racially divided country there were fire bombings and grenade attacks in black townships almost every night.

Thousands of miles away from this explosive unrest, another upheaval was under way last week, this one in Washington. It centered on a single word: divestiture. That technical term, meaning the forced sale of stock or other assets, ordinarily arouses emotions only among antitrust lawyers. But as applied to U.S. relations with South Africa, it has set off one of the most passionate and confused debates since the Viet Nam War. The issues: Should American companies be pressured to sell or close their operations in the land of apartheid? And should U.S. universities, pension funds, local governments and other groups dump their stock in companies that refuse to do so?

The debate, which flared last fall with angry campus protests against American investment in South Africa, is now heading toward a kind of interim compromise solution in the U.S. Congress. Its essence: try some less drastic economic sanctions against South Africa first and see if they shock the white-dominated government into moving faster to end repression of the country's 22 million member black majority. To that end, the Senate last week voted 80 to 12 in favor of a bill that would ban new bank loans to South Africa, cut off nuclear trade, prohibit the sale of computers to government agencies and deny federal aid to the exports of nearly all U.S. companies with facilities there unless they obey what are known as the Sullivan principles. These are a set of six guidelines drafted by the Rev. Leon Sullivan, a director of General Motors and the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh, that require companies to have integrated facilities, offer training programs for blacks and provide equal pay and treatment for both black and white employees.

The Senate bill is far less sweeping than one passed by the House in a 295-to-127 vote last month. That version would ban all new investment in South Africa. A compromise approach will probably be worked out by a conference committee.

Officially, the Reagan Administration clings to its policy of "constructive engagement," essentially the application of friendly pressure on South Africa to end apartheid. But one State Department official asserts bluntly that relations with South Africa right now "are lousy." Washington last month called home Ambassador Herman Nickel "for consultations" as a sign of displeasure with the government in Pretoria. Some White House aides have hinted that they will work in House-Senate conference for a sanctions measure mild enough to win President Reagan's reluctant consent.

Even Reagan's signature on a sanctions law, however, would not end the debate. For one thing, the Senate bill threatens further sanctions, including a House-style ban on all new investment, to be voted on in 18 months if President Reagan judges that the progress toward breaking down apartheid is still inadequate. For another, nothing in prospect seems likely to still the clamor of those advocating a complete U.S. economic pull-out from South Africa. That clamor is apt to grow in the fall as students return to university campuses for a new semester and, probably, new demonstrations.

Those demonstrations are bound to be fueled by continuing images of the unrest that has gripped South Africa for the past ten months, ever since militant opposition to the government's apartheid policy began taking root in the black townships. During that period, more than 400 blacks have died, some at the hands of police, others in a struggle between rival black factions, still others because of suspected loyalty to the white authorities.

One dramatic scene of anger and hatred last week involved Bishop Desmond Tutu, the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Tutu and a fellow Anglican bishop had gone to Duduza, a black township 30 miles east of Johannesburg, to officiate at the funerals of four young men who had accidentally blown themselves up with explosives. As the two churchmen left the cemetery after the burial, they were confronted by a mob attempting to kill a black man whom they suspected of being a police spy. The crowd had seized him, set his car afire and was trying to hurl him into the flames. Bishop Tutu, dressed in purple vestments, pushed his way into the shouting, jostling crowd of angry youths and, as he did, the bruised and beaten man broke free and ran to him. Cried Tutu: "Why don't we use methods of which we will be proud when our liberation is attained?" After Tutu waved the crowd aside, the terrified man was taken to a hospital.

Such violence only sharpens questions about what role American business--and, indeed, all foreign business--plays in South Africa. Direct investment by U.S. companies in factories, warehouses, offices and the like totals less than $3 billion. Some 350 publicly held American companies, including one-third of those listed in Standard & Poor's directory of 500 large American firms, have some ties with the country. Some 155 adhere to the Sullivan principles. Although U.S. companies employ only about 1% of all South African workers, they are mainly involved in such critical industries as autos, oil and computers.

The debate over these investments has pitted liberals against liberals, conservatives against conservatives and even South African blacks against South African blacks. At issue are two different forms of divestiture: forcing colleges and public bodies to sell their stock in companies that operate in South Africa, and forcing such companies to withdraw their investments from that country. The two ideas are allied but not quite the same, and different arguments apply to each.

The arguments about stock divestiture are the easier to follow. For most advocates, the issue is primarily moral. Says the Rev. Joseph Lowery, head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference: "People who own stock in companies that do business in South Africa become indirect participants in the repression."

Opponents argue that stock divestiture might salve the consciences of many Americans but would do nothing to help South African blacks. On the contrary, it might only transfer large blocks of corporate ownership from investors who are dedicated enemies of apartheid, and most responsive to a crusade against it, to others who would buy the divested stock for strictly financial reasons. Harvard President Derek Bok argues that advocates of stock divestiture are "counseling us to run from evil rather than work to overcome it." Harvard's policy is to use its $565 million worth of stock in companies that operate in South Africa as a lever to get them to observe the Sullivan principles.

The arguments for and against a pull-out by U.S. companies from South Africa, often called disinvestment, are more complex. In the view of many advocates, the hope that U.S. investment would spur an economic advance that in turn would undermine apartheid has turned out to be an illusion. "Since the founding of apartheid, there has been tremendous economic growth" in South Africa, says Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman William Gray. "But apartheid is stronger today than it was ten or 15 years ago."

Central to this view is a growing belief that the level of violence in South Africa proves that time has run out for any erosion of apartheid through prosperity. Opponents of a radical disinvestment policy argue that, on the other hand, although blacks are still denied the right to vote or to live where they please, significant changes have occurred. South Africa has repealed its laws against racial intermarriage, recognized black labor unions, suspended forced resettlement of blacks to so-called native homelands and is now considering giving them the right to settle legally in white areas.

American companies have taken the lead in this process. Ford Motor Co. openly trained black apprentices for skilled jobs that at the time were "reserved" by law for whites. IBM has earmarked $10 million of its South African profits to be spent on computer laboratories for black primary schools and teacher-training colleges, and General Motors is laying out $2 million to provide new houses, home improvements and scholarships to blacks. If American companies were forced out of South Africa, experts contend, they would not just close up shop; they would sell out. Says Jack Behrman, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce: "The Germans, French, Japanese and other potential buyers are not as antiapartheid as American companies. If U.S. interests were sold to South Africans, that would just strengthen apartheid."

Almost all of South Africa's leading white liberals warn that disinvestment would send a political message exactly the opposite of the one its advocates desire. The views of South African blacks are harder to ascertain. Some favor disinvestment but cannot say so publicly because that might violate security laws. Those who have spoken up are generally opposed to it. On a California speaking tour last spring, Bishop Tutu gave many the impression that he favored disinvestment. In Johannesburg after his return, however, he declared, "I am not as yet myself calling for disinvestment."

For many on Capitol Hill, the clinching argument against disinvestment is stated simply by Pennsylvania Republican Senator John Heinz: "If you want to maintain an influence there, you have to remain some kind of a player." At the same time, Heinz and like-minded legislators agree that the time has come for firmer U.S. pressure against apartheid.

Despite much of the simplistic rhetoric being bandied about, there is no simple way to bring about a quick reformation of South Africa's policies. About the only certainty is that whatever comes of the current sanctions campaign, the debate will probably intensify, fed anew by every account and picture of the continuing violence in South Africa. Says Georgia Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich: "Apartheid has become a permanent issue for the foreseeable future in this culture. It has replaced civil rights as the key vote on racial issues." --By George J. Church. Reported by Sam Allis/Washington and Bruce W. Nelan/Johannesburg, with other bureaus

With reporting by Reported by Sam Allis/Washington, Bruce W. Nelan/Johannesburg, with other bureaus