HR 1580 I S 556 March 9, 1988 in February 1987, in Anticipation of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ACTION ALERT INFORMATION FOR ACTION ON SOUTHERN AFRICA ISSUES WASHINGTON OFFICE ON AFRICA• 110 MARYLAND AVENUE. NE.. SUITE 112 WASHINGTON. O.C 20002 • (202) 546-7961 March 9, 1988 SUPPORl' CCM>I~IEH>IVE SMCI'ICH> .1\G\Il61' SClJTB .AFRICA HR 1580 I s 556 In February 1987, in anticipation of the continued anti-sanctions position by the Reagan Administration and congressional conservatives, Representative Ron Dellums (D-CA) and Senator Alan Cranston (D~) introduced HR 1580/S 556, legislation to irrpose corrprehensive sanctions against South Africa. HR 1580/S 556 was introduced early in the lOOth Congress to begin building congressional and grassroots support for stronger sanctions against South Africa. Calprehensive sarx:tims, rather than the limited measures passed by the Cmgress in 1986, are the necessary response to the cootimiDJ apartheid violer.::e in saith Africa, to saith Africa's illegal oocupatioo of Namibia, and its eccnaaic and military assailts oo nei91i>oriDJ states. Cootent: HR 1580/S 556 mamates cooplete disinvestment of all u.s. corporaticms fran saith Africa am Namibia within six rronths of passage of the legislation. In addition, virtually all trade with saith Africa will be banned. The Dellurns/Cranston bill also includes some of the stronger sections of the present sanctions law, such as the termination of the treaty perrni tting air flights between South Africa and the U.S. Backgroum: While the present limited sanctions law enacted O:::tcber 2, 1986 was an important step towards ending U.S. support for the apartheid governrrent and economy, its provisions were limited and circumventable. '!be Reagan l\dministratioo has exploited the loq>boles in the law am weakened sane of the stronger provisims of the bill by illplementiDJ loose regulatims which permit business as usual in many sectioos of the saith African ecooaoy. Even the adq>t:ioo of selective, limited scn:tims by the u.s. bas bad sane .inpact oo saith Africa. White business, accrlernic and church groups have been encouraged to ~ discussions with the AN:. Confidence among some whites has been shaken. The apartheid governrrent, which arrogantly proclaims that it can ignore outside pressure, has been forced to allocate more resources to sanctions busting and anti-sanctions propaganda. Much of this reaction would ·never have occurred without U.s. sanctions and the threat of future stronger measures. However, • the apartheid government continues its brutal oppression of black South ,.Africans and its violent attenpts to destabilize the southern African reg ion .•"" Cb February 24, 1988, the saith African government annoura!d sweepiDJ new restricticms oo the activities of anti-apartheid organizatioos and lea'lers. The restrictions effectively ban 17 organizations, including the United Democratic Front, the Detainees Parents Support Corranittee, and the trcrle union federation COSA'IU, from any political activity whatsoever. In the face of this latest crackdown, it is even mre inportant that the United States resp<nl forcefully against South Africa's continued suppression of non-violent anti-apartheid qJpOSitim. We 1D1st pass the DelllDDS/Cranstm bill in the lOOth COOJress. Analysis: The anti-apartheid movement has never claimed that sanctions were the "quick-fix" for apartheid. But mly cooprehensive sanctims by the U.S., 9l00ally CJR>lied, can CJR>lY the maxim.Dn pressure m the Pretoria regime to raise the cost of maintainiDJ apartheid for white South Africans. Black organizations including COSA'IU, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) , the South African Council of Churches ( Sl\CC) , and individual leaders such as Alan Boesak and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, continue to call for disinvestment and stronger sanctions against the apartheid regime. The fact that the apartheid government still feels free to crack down m nm-violent anti-apartheid qlp<>Sitim shows that there has been insufficient intematimal pressure m South Africa. In fact, in its statement in response to the crackdown, COSA'IU placed explicit blame on the international comrrunity for its failure to fight apartheid, saying "it is clear that the government has been encouraged to opt for the path of increased repression through the support it has received from • • • right-wing governments of Thatcher, Reagan, and Kohl. •• " Status: HR 1580 currently has 82 co-sponsors. When it was introduced, the bill was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Comnittee. Hearings on South Africa and the Dellums bill will begin before the Africa Subcommittee on ~.arch 15, and will continue through the end of March. The bill is expected to be considered by the full House Foreign Affairs committee in mid-April, with a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives as early as May. S 556 was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations committee, and currently has 5 co-sponsors (Senators Kennedy, Levin, Weicker, Simon and Lautenberg). The Senate will be watching the House closely to see how the Dellums/Cranston bill is received there. Strong support in the House will encourage the Senat e to act on the bill. **WHAT YCIJ CAN J)()H * RICKJIT CCE?CJGlRS FOR HR 1580 I S 556. The Dellums/Cranston Bill needs additional co-sponsors immediately! Co-spmsors are especially needed in the Africa Subccmnittees of the Bruse am Senate. Cmtact C<nJressmen James Bilbray (D-NV) , James Clarke (IHC) , Fofo Sunia (D-ScmDa) am Senators Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY) , Terry Sanfom (IHC) am Narq Kassebaum (R-ICS) • Urge them to take lea:lership in the Africa Subconmittees by co-sponsoriDJ HR 1580/S 556 am work:inj for its passage. * caf.l2IC"l' Ml.MmRS CF 'mE 1DJSE FOREI~ AFFAIRS CCMfi'I"JEE. Express your support for HR 1580. Ask them to support the bill when it comes before their committee. SUW<>rt in the Foreign Affairs Ccmnittee is crucial to gett:inj HR 1580 to the floor for a vote. ":-- .... * P'i&n:c!PATE IN 'mE JUNE 16'm MTICEAL AN.l'I-APARI'HEID LCEm' DAY. A day of lobbying, demonstrations, vigils, church services, and other activities corranemorating the massacre of Soweto schoolchildren in 1976, and calling for the passage of HR 1580/S 556. For further information on the June 16th lobby day, contact the Washington Office on Africa. ·March 9, 1988 To: Danu From: Janet Re: Mozarrbique information for your Chicago trip Foreign Aid information: Mozanbique receives three kinds. of aid from the United States. The first two are bilateral: 1) Jt;mqnfc &n>ort PmlJs: in fiscal year 1987 we sent $10 million to Mozarrbique to be used in an agricultural develqment program targeted · at PE~ farmers. The same CIITOlnt has been apprq>riated for FY88. There are restrictions on this aid: a) US bilateral aid nust go to the private sector in Mozanbique "to the maxirum extent possible". In other words aid can go to Mozanbican government projects only if we can't fim private projects to give it to. b) In· the F!'88 Continuing Resolution, there is a provision that says,. that no aid can go to the governrrent of Mozarrbiqtie •unless the President · reports to Congress on the extent to which:.. (l) . the Government of Mozarrbique has entered into a dialogue w·ith the Catholic Church regazd~ ing the return of church property; 6-2}. .. tb,.e .Govemment ~ Mozarrbique _~ ~. taken steps to assure against future exprq>riation of private proper~ · ,. without due process am just conpensation1 (3) the nunber of Soviet-""afa·" F.astern bloc military arrl security personnel are being rErluced.• This provision started out as an amemment from Senator Bob Kasten (R-wI). It orginally said that no aid can go to the governrrent of Mozanbique unless the President certifies that •significant progress• has been made in the three areas mentioned . Wolpe amemed it so that now the President only has to submit a report, am it doesn't matter what the report says. 2) 'Prri:;gfn::y :Pg Nd In· F!'ffl we sent $75 million worth of food aid to Mozanb.ique. Emergency Food· Aid is disbursed as needed, so there is no set figure for how nuch will be sent in FYS-8. StflfJrPeliq• the Mozarrbique desk officer at the State Department, expects that the US will serrl about another $75 million in FY88. The other form of os_aid to Mozanbique is us aid to SADCC. US· aid to SADCC for FY88 was appropn.;e -eama ~-~~s as part of the continuing resolution in Decenber. ~, .. tinning Resolution appropriates $50 million ~ !ctions on this aid': a) At leaSt ·go to the transportation sector b) no us money to SN:JCC may be used for projects in Angola c t no, US roney to SHlCC may 9be mcde available for activities in M6Zarrbique unless the President certifies that it is in the national interest of the United States to do so•. Sime the Administration has thus far been SUR>Ortive of Mozarrbique, getting certification for FY88 is not expected to be a problem. Qtber Sl\DOC informatioo: United States fuming levels to SADCC are deplorable when you conpare them to what other Western countries (with rruch smaller economies!) give. Pledging levels at the 1986 SADCC fuming conference in Harare looked like this: (one year's worth of fuming) US: $30 million Belgium: $27 million Canooa: $120 million Cancdian (approximately $90 million US) Denmark: $90 million w. Germany: $100 million (~roximately) Finland: $44 million France: $400 million to be spreed out over seven years (approximately $59 million per year) Norway: $130 million U .K.: $37. 4 million Legislatioo: Bouse CCncurrent Resolution 189: introduced by -John Conyers (D111). The ,_ resolution currently has 52 co-sponsors. ~ of the hang-ups with getting>«more-·-" co-sponsors seems to be that merrbers aren't really clear about what RENNoD is, have some vague idea that RENAK) is •anti-corrmmist•, arx3 aren't willing w.