Document No. International Seminar on the Role of Transnational
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Document No. NS-12 International Seminar on The Role of Transnational Corporations in Namibia Sheraton Washington Hotel Washington, DC November 29- December 2, 1982 Report on Japan by: Ms Yoko Kotazawa Pacific Asia Resources Center Japan Organized by the American Committee on Africa 198 Broadway New York, NY 10038 (212) 962-1210 with the support of the United Nations Council for Namibia Report on Japan by !isYoko Kotazawa Pacific Asia Resources Center The role played by industrial powers such as Great Britain, the United Sates, West Germany and France in maintaining arjtheid in South Africa and i4rolonging the illegal occupation of Namibia by the Pretoria government is well known. Transnational enterprises, through their capital investments, bank loans, trade and oil shipments are the main economic forces responsible for keeping the economey of the racist South African regime running. Little is known, however, of Japan's role in supporting apartheid in Southern Africa. This is primarily because Japan is the only non-whifte ntation tn the industrializved world, and it is thought that non-whites 4,buld not knowingly support any regime which oppresses and discriminates against their ovn kind. Secpnd reason is that 4 United Nations sessions and in the meetings of its various opganizations, the Japanese government has in the past voted in favour of every resolution calling for the *ra dication of racism and colonialism in South Africa. Yet, even I was not fully aware of the reality and the extent of Japan's commitment to the white minority government in Pretoria and its apartheid system until I made a first-hand visit to South Africa in the summer of 1974. Japan is a latecomeV% to South Africa compared to the other industrial powers. Its busginess relations beg~an in the early 1960s and mainly took the form of trade, with Japan importing xa raw materials and exporting finished industrial goods. After 1970, when the South Africans launched their industiral development programme, Japanese inroads into the South African econmmy increased considerably. Japanese concerms made feries of massive long-term commitments to purchase mineral resources from Pretoria and at the same time agreed to supply Plants and heavy machinery in support of South African industrialization. Today, Japan buys natural resoutces such as iron ore, manganese, chrome, coal, uranium, sugaro and maize from South Africa and exports industrial goods such as machinery, vhhicles and textiles. Japan is now South Africa's third largest trading partner, with trade between the two contries running over US§2,000 million annualy, more than double -he trade volune for 1972, one year before the oil £ex crisis. This represents an alarming tr~nd when we compare Japan's balance of trace with the rest of Africa - 2 which since 1973 has been decreasing at a steady rate. Japan's exports to the Organization of African Unity(OAU) member states are now five times greater than its imports from these countries. These facts a re contrary to Japan's official position on racial discrimination and its repeated pledges of solidarity to the OAU nations. They tell us that Japanese business works closely with and strengthen the whitte minority regime in South Africa, therby sanctioning apartheid and Pretoria's illegal occupation a of Namibia, My commitment to the support of African national liberation movements began when I joined the office of *the secretariat of the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization in Cairo, Egypt where I worked from 1959 to 1967. Later I worked as a freelance journalist on international issues while researchir ng the activities of Japan-&ased transational enterpr*ses in Asia, Africa, Middle East a" Latin America^ceania- In 1974 I made a one-month trip to the Republic of South Africa to study Japan's business activities on the people of both South Africa and Namibia, xk a who are subjected to the apartheid system and to the illegal oCcupation q the South African minority government. On my return from the &Af trip, and again in July 1980, I was called upon to testify on the background and extent of Japanese uranium purchase in Namibia before the United Nations Concil for Namibia. In my November 1974 testimony, I revealed illegal purchase of Namibi6n uranium from Rossing Uranium Mine Ltd. the largest uranium mine in Southern Africa and a subsid!r of Rio Tinto Zinc. I noted at that time that Japan's purchase of foreign uranium is based on long-term contracts siamd on ha *behalf of Japanese electric power companies by seven ma.jor trading firms: Mitsubishi, Marubeni, Mitsui Sd.itomo , Nisno-Iwai, C. Itho and Tomen. All of these firms are leading financial contributors to the *ruling Liberal Democratic Pary. In 1970, Japan's electric power companies, all of them privately owned, began xuaa* pushing atomic Snergy as the only viable alternative power source to oil and organized a number of overseas missions to search out sources of low-priced uranium. This sale year, the Kansai Electric Power Company based in Osaka, the second largest powe compaany in Japan, signed through its business agent, the Nitsubishi Corporation, an advance purchase contract for 8,200 toms of uranium with Rossing Uranium of Namibiao The details of the contract are alfollows: Japan agreed to import 500 tons in 1977 and 1978, 600 tons in 1979 and 1980 and 1,000 tons annualy between 1984 and 1986 (these details *re recorded in the minutes of the Foreign -3 - Affairs Committee of the House of Representatibes on June 5, 1975). This particular contract was signed long before the Rossing mine was Wtually developed. I noted that this act constitutes a gtoss violation of the Council for Naibia' s Decree No. L guarantee~ing the proteation of Nal.bian resources, that any purchase of Rossing products only encourages South Africa in its illegal occupation of Namibia and that such dealings mia indicate that the nations of #the world are willing to do business as usual with Pretoria. Based on this analysis, I urged the Council to encourage kka the Japanese government to end the purchase of all Nnmibian resources by Japanese companies and to publicly announce that it has taken this step to set an example for other counties. I further arjued 1) that all parties daiin dealing with Rossing should Withdraw their investments 2) that the Council should hold hearings on the question of foreign economic investmenn Namiia and inv"ite the major tradeSand inVestorSto testify before it (at the vey least, these interests should recieve a public letter from the Council clearly outling its position) and 3) that concerned nations such as Japan, the US and UK should be asked publicly by the 9muma Council to approach thaese companies on the issue and add their support to# the Council's position. As a result of my 1974 testimony, the issV&tof Japan's illegal inpgorts of uranium from Namibia drew domestic and international attention. On December 19, 1974, the Japanese Diet put the question of Japanese uranium purchases up to debate in the Budget Committee of Ithe House of Representatives during tha its 74th session. In the couse of *the discussion , the aa head of the Natural Resourses and Energy Agency* othe Ministry of International Trade and Industry (:,"I) confirmed that an import contract for 8,200 tons of Namibian uranium had in fa~ct been signed by a Japanese company. Both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister pledged thlat the isst would be handled thereafter in accordance with the U0N. resolution on Namibia. (See Annex A) Between May 12 and 14, 1975, a delegation from the Countil for Namibia hE&&ed by Mr. Rupia Banda visited Japan. After many talks with government representatives and megbers of the business world, the delegation demandea that Japalcancel its uranium contracts with Namibian companies in light of South Africa's continuing illegal presence in the territory. The dele gation also warned the Japanese that they would be asked for compensation when Namibia becoms independentshould h they continue to purchaftNamibian - 4 - V, resotwes through South Africa. In response to the U.N. warning, 'Ir.Kono Fumihiko, the Ihen chairman of the Africa Committee of the Japan Economic Federation and former president of a i1itsubishi Heavy Ifdustries, asserted that such imports were essential as Japan had no natural resources of its own on which to fall back. Neither the government nor business ciwcles showed any intention of complying with the recommendation fA of the U.N. delegation. (See Asahi Shimbung. may 22, 1975). As for the Japanese government's response& 4e, to the visit of the U.N. delegation, the .ITI madepublic of the text of the Decree No. 1 translated into Japanese in its officla bulletin on ;.ay 31, 1975, which kadxkq was by no means the pzaxgnkizmx promulgation of decrees, and administrative regulations. At the grass-roots level, however, the response to these allegations was immediate4, and a movement opposing Kansai Electric' s uranium imports quickly formed. In Osaka, where the company has its headqutaters, the group was organized primarily by farmers4 and szmidld students and assisted by nuclear scientists, lawyeres, Christian activists and workers. It also declared itself opposed * to the construction of atomicreactors planned by Kansai Electric Pufr Company. In Tokyo, meetings and demonstrationU damzm denouncing the Namibian contract were organized by anti-apartheid groups which joined tith organizations in Osaka Pn sending open letteors and petitions demanding immediate cancellation of 6the _zmmnKNX contract. No reply has yet been recieged, However, despite mounting pressures from Aomestic and iximxan inter national opinion, the company has shown no sign of reconsidering its position.