Demands to divest still run strong

Scan page 4

Municipal bus drivers in San Francisco join labor-sponsored picketline CLEVELAND-The mounting campaign for colleges to divest their stock holdings in companies doing business in South Africa has forced trustees at Ohio State University and Oberlin College to take up the divestment issue in recent weeks.

Ohio State University trustees voted 6-3 to divest their $10.8 million investment in South African-related companies. The divestment will occur in stages with total divestment by 1991. Ohio State joins some 20 colleges that are eliminating such investments.

A university-sponsored committee's report recommended complete divestment "based on the belief that any financial presence economically supports apartheid and renders the university culpable of participating in the maintenance of the apartheid system."

In announcing the trustees' decision, OSU President Edward H. Jennings said, "We stand united in opposition to the racist policies of the government of South Africa. The Ohio State University unequivocally condemns apartheid as an unmitigated evil and as a system which is morally, socially, and economically bankrupt."

At Oberlin College, however, trustees voted not to divest $19 million worth of stock in South African-related companies. They stated:

"The trustees reviewed, reaffirmed and tightened the college's policy of limited divestments employing the Sullivan Principles as a basis for trying to influence affairs in South Africa before divesting of stock, which the trustees are not convinced is an effective means of bringing about change in the apartheid system.

"The college will actively work and try to convince corporations to adhere to the Sullivan Principles before it divests of those corporations' stock."

Some liberals, arguing that divestment hurts Black South Africans, support the Sullivan Principles, which require that U.S. corporations treat Black South Africans equally on the job. Like the Oberlin College trustees, they claim that positive change can be achieved by investing in "good" corporations.

Nevertheless, the anti-apartheid campaign continues to win growing support.

AND REAGAN against apartheid.

The United Auto Workers Executive Board last December endorsed demands to ban all further investments in or loans to South Africa, to bar the sale of krugerrands in the United States, and to enforce the ban on the sale of arms and nuclear technology to South Africa.

The United Steelworkers of America has published a pamphlet, "American Steel Jobs and South Africa: How U.S. support for South Africa affects your community,' that emphasizes the conhection between apartheid and the loss of jobs in the United States.

They explain how large U.S. corporations, including such well-known union busters as Phelps Dodge, take advantage of the low wages and slavelabor working conditions in South Africa to maximize profits.

The pamphlet states:

"The oppressed Black workers Caribbean" and to end U.S. support for of South Africa and American workers are figh ing a common enemy-corporate greed. Many of the U.S. firms profiting from apartheid are also guilty of racism here at home.

"By working to force these companies out of South Africa we can assist the struggle for democracy in South Africa, while strengthening the U.S. economy at the same time. Rather than investing in countries that deny democratic rule, like South Africa, U.S.

companies should help rebuild our neighborhoods, environment, and industries.

"Imposing economic sanctions on South Africa and divesting American pension funds from companies profiting from apartheid will benefit both the Black majority of South Africa and American workers."

"Embargo South Africa, not Nicaragua"' was a popular sign at rallies protesting the U.S. trade embargo against Nicaragua. However, not everyone agrees with this approach.

Divestment isn't protectionism

In a recent article in The Militant, the Socialist Workers Party criticizes the Steelworkers pamphlet, claiming that its emphasis on the connection between U.S. support to South Africa and loss of steel jobs at home is nothing but a reactionary, protectionist campaign linking the interests of U.S. steelworkers to those of the bosses.

Arguing against allowing South African steel into the United States-or refusing to unload South African ships as ILWU members did on the West Coast-is not the same as campaigning to exclude Japanese autos or French steel. Exclusion of South African products would hasten the downfall of the racist South African regime.

As Phiroshaw Camay, a Black South African trade-union leader, explained: South African workers are looking for the destruction of apartheid and all its racist structures-not cosmetic changes."

The growing anti-apartheid movement, involving trade unionists, students, civil rights organizations, and religious groups, can play an important role by forcing the United States government to end its support to South Africa.

----- pull-quotes -----

REAGAN SUN SUPPORTS APARTREND AF-EID 18T 12 BIG BUSINESS

LE ARL WRONGL

BACK Socialist Action/Joe Rvan