YES ON A & B/ BERKELEY OUT OF

2490 CHANNING WAY, ROOM 218, BERKELEY 94704- 642-9953

}1ULDERGATE REACHES BERKELEY?

On Friday, March 23, Mr. John Chettle, Director of the South Africa Foundation, addressed the Berkeley Commons Club on the subject of the Divestment Initiative. Mr. Chettle purportedly came to make an objective, unbiased analysis of the effects such an initiative would have on South Africans. The YES ON A & B/ BERKELEY OUT OF SOUTH AFRICA COMMITTEE feels it is critical that the nature of Mr. Chettle's visit as well as that of his organization be brought to light. (Extensive documentation for the following facts exists in The Great White Hoax, South Africa's international propaganda machine, published by Africa Bureau, 48 Grafton Way, London, in 1977.)

The South Africa Foundation was founded in 1960, soon after the Sharpesville Massacre, to restore overseas confidence in Sciuth Africa. It originated out of talks with Piet Meining, then Director of the South African Department of Information, and Eric Gallo, a wealthy South African businessman. The organization was designed to convince foreign investors thatSSouth Africa was a stable prosperous haven, worthy and desirous of their investments. To that end, the South Africa Foundation has established off ices world-wide.

The present Director of the North American office is Mr. John Chettle> a highly experienced and effective operator who left for a brief period and then returned - evidently because the more junior new director, Michael Christie, was unable to handle the important contacts involved. The budget for the office, which handles the whole of North and South America, is extensive. Travel, subsistence, and enter­ tainment are the major items. The lavishly funded Foundation receives large contri­ butions from corporations operating in South Africa.

The aim of the Foundation is, as described by the South African Financial Mail, to "appease critics abroad by applying a few cosmetics to the face of ". Great emphasis is given to any evidence of 'understanding' in westerp. countries of the government's policy, and to any events in South Africa, however trivial, which make it seem as if apartheid is disappearing. All negative information in this respect is excluded. Token Africans, Asians and Coloureds are brought into the Foundation's public activities, largely to appease liberal American consciences. Great stress has been placed on the policy, with particular emphasis (along with other propaganda agencies of the South African Government) on the sup­ posed "independence" of the .

The maintained link between the South African Department of Information and the South Africa Foundation is demonstrated by a statement by former Secretary of the Department of Information, (now in exile after the scandal) which described the South Africa Foundation as an organization "which tries to do on a private basis what the Department of Information is doing on an official basis". The key to the Foundation's operations, as distinct from the Department of Information's approach, is its low-key discretion; concentration on political, bureaucratic, and business circles; and special appeal to 'liberals' as well as to the staunch conser­ vative and frankly racist allies of South Africa. Yet Mr. Chettle maintains that the South Africa Foundation argument against divestiture is based upon non-partisan and critical perceptions of apartheid!

To refute Mr. Chettle's major points:

1) Most South African black leaders have called for the immediate withdrawal of foreign investments, although to do so is considered an act of treason. The late Stephen Biko, the Black People's Convention, the South African Council of Churches, the African National Congress, the Pan African Congress, and other major black organizations have long supported divestiture. Also, world organizations such as the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on African Affai.rs, the National Council of Churches~ the AFL-CIO, the Organization of African Unity, and the N .A.A.C.P. have endor.sed investment withdrawal from South Africa.

2) The short-term disadvantages of withdrawal affect the few (U.S. corporations only employ 100,000 workers, many of these white). They must be weighed against the long-term suffering which results from the political and economic discrimination under apartheid. The loans and investments which have been made have generally gone to government sectors which mainly serve the needs of the white population. Such loans do not go to social development programs in black communities. In fact, the cash flow creates more wealth and power in white hands, thus contributing to the growing income gap between blacks and whites.

3) The totalitarian repressiveness of the South African regime has been extensively documented. ALL black opposition groups have been declared illegal. As of 1977, ALL black journalists and newspapers have been banned. And through a series of acts, the right to hear charges, the right to trial, and the right to set sentencing have been abolished. Also the use of torture against prisoners has been widespread (note the circumstances of Biko's death).

4) The South African government has flatly stated its continued opposition to the granting of black political and civil rights, and has only marginally endorsed the lifting of 'petty apartheid' or Jim Crow laws. The official policy of the govern- ment is still that of "endorsing out" blacks to the impoverished and dependent (reservation) territories.

John Chettle's visit to the Berkeley Commons Club is yet another example of the Muldergate syndrome, which under cover of 'objectivity' seeks to sway the American public to support the unjust South African status quo. It!s important to note that it was the South African Consulate in San Francisco which originally con­ tacted the Commons Club. They suggested that Mr. Chettle would be an excellent person to objectively address their regular Friday meeting on the implications of the Divestment Initiative.

labor donated