Lessons from the Case of Southern Rhodesia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United Nations Sanctions and South Africa: Lessons from the Case of Southern Rhodesia http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.nuun1987_01 Use of the Aluka digital library is subject to Aluka’s Terms and Conditions, available at http://www.aluka.org/page/about/termsConditions.jsp. By using Aluka, you agree that you have read and will abide by the Terms and Conditions. Among other things, the Terms and Conditions provide that the content in the Aluka digital library is only for personal, non-commercial use by authorized users of Aluka in connection with research, scholarship, and education. The content in the Aluka digital library is subject to copyright, with the exception of certain governmental works and very old materials that may be in the public domain under applicable law. Permission must be sought from Aluka and/or the applicable copyright holder in connection with any duplication or distribution of these materials where required by applicable law. Aluka is a not-for-profit initiative dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of materials about and from the developing world. For more information about Aluka, please see http://www.aluka.org United Nations Sanctions and South Africa: Lessons from the Case of Southern Rhodesia Alternative title Notes and Documents - United Nations Centre Against ApartheidNo. 1/87 Author/Creator United Nations Centre against Apartheid; Schmidt, Elizabeth S. Publisher United Nations, New York Date 1987-02-00 Resource type Reports Language English Subject Coverage (spatial) South Africa, Zimbabwe Coverage (temporal) 1987 Source Northwestern University Libraries Description THE CASE FOR UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA. Sanctions imposed by the General Assembly. Sanctions imposed by the Security Council. SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS. ARE SANCTIONS PRODUCTIVE? AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SOUTHERN RHODESIAN CASE. Southern Rhodesian sanctions chronology. Short-term effects of sanctions. Sanctions busting: oil and chrome. Collaboration of foreign Governments. Long-term effects of sanctions. Sanctions in conjunction with other factors. South Africa imposes sanctions. Will blacks suffer most. Comparative reflections on South Africa. Format extent 36 page(s) (length/size) http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.nuun1987_01 http://www.aluka.org UNITED NATIONS UNITED NATIONS CENTRE AGAINST APARTHEID NOTES AND DOCUMENTS* February 1987 AJG - 6 1987 UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS AND SOUTH AFRICA: LESSONS FROM THE CASE OF SOUTHERN RHODESIA by Elizabeth S. Schmidt [Note: This paper is published at the request of the against Apartheid. Ms. Schmidt has written extensively on southern Africa. studies were published in the Notes and Documents series in She conducted research in Zimbabwe in 1985 and 1986. Special Committee Two of her 1980 and 1983. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author.] 1/87 *All material in these Notes and Documents may be freely reprinted. Acknowledgement, together with a copy of the publication containing the reprint, would be appreciated. United Nations, New York 10017 8T-03834 -2 CONTENTS Page I. THE CASE FOR UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA 3 A. Sanctions imposed by the General Assembly 4 B. Sanctions imposed by the Security Council 5 II. SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS 6 III. ARE SANCTIONS PRODUCTIVE? AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SOUTHERN RHODESIAN CASE 7 A. Southern Rhodesian sanctions chronology 7 B. Short-term effects of sanctions 9 C. Sanctions busting: oil and chrome 12 D. Collaboration of foreign Governments 17 E. Long-term effects of sanctions 18 F. Sanctions in conjunction with other factors 19 G. South Africa imposes sanctions 22 H. Will blacks suffer most 22 I. Comparative reflections on South Africa 24 -3 - I. THE CASE FOR UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA For nearly three decades opponents of apartheid have advocated the imposition of comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa. Under international law, sanctions are defined as punitive measures economic, diplomatic, cultural, and others - imposed against a State that has violated international law. Their purpose is to pressure the violator to return to compliance with the law. If sanctions are abandoned as a means to achieve this end, military action is the only alternative. Therefore, sanctions are considered to be a non- violent substitute for war. 1/ The United Nations is the only organization that can mandate sanctions that are virtually universal - that is, sanctions that must be applied by all United Nations Member States. Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council may apply sanctions in order "to maintain or restore international peace and security". Such sanctions may be imposed against a Member State when that State is deemed a "threat to the peace", commits a "breach of the peace" or an "act of aggression" (Article 39). Acceptable measures of non-military coercion include: "complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations" (Article 41). The Security Council may also authorize other actions to be undertaken by air, sea, or land forces, including naval blockades (Article 42). In the case of South Africa, there are several grounds upon which United Nations sanctions should be imposed. Firstly, the system of apartheid, with its features of institutionalized racism, white minority rule, and the denial of fundamental human rights to the African majority and to other black South Africans, has long been considered by United Nations Member States to be a '"threat to the peace". Thus, perpetuation of the status quo is reason enough for sanctions. 2/ Secondly, South Africa's refusal to relinquish the Territory of Namibia, granting it independence under internationally acceptable terms, is a breach of the peace, an act of aggression, and a violation of international law. In 1966, the United Nations General Assembly voted to terminate the League of Nations mandate that had permitted South Africa to govern Namibia and ordered Pretoria to place the Territory under United Nations adminstration. 3/ Subsequent Security Council resolutions upheld the General Assembly's action. 4/ In June 1971, an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice declared South Africa's continued presence in Namibia to be illegal. 5/ In spite of these actions by the General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Court of Justice, South Africa has refused to grant independence to Namibia and has persisted in its illegal occupation of that Territory. The South African policy of regional destabilization is the third ground upon which United Nations sanctions should be imposed. Since the mid-1970s, South Africa has routinely violated the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors through aerial bombardments, cross border raids, the training and equipping of rebel armies, and full-scale military invasions. Although Angola and Mozambique have suffered most severely at the hands of South Africa and - 4 - its proxies, Botswana, Lesotho, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have also been regular victims of South African attacks. It is estimated that South African destabilization and sanctions against the region have cost the nine southern African States approximately $20 billion since 1980. 6/ South African acl'vities in the region clearly qualify as "acts of aggression" under the Ctiarter of the United Nations. Having established the legitimacy of imposing economic sanctions against South Africa, it is important to clarify the objectives of such action. No one who has seriously considered the question argues that sanctions alone will bring about the destruction of apartheid. Rather, sanctions are regarded as a means of weakening the South African economy, thereby rendering the system more vulnerable to pressure from within. Faced with a rapidly disintegrating economy, South Africa will be less able to finance a war against its own people, as well as against Namibia, and the neighboring States. Ultimately, the combined pressures of the internal political struggle and the constraints of economic sanctions will force Pretoria to negotiate a transfer of power from the minority to the majority. In such a context, the implementation of comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions would be, in the words of Chris Child, "the most effective and single most important contribution those outside South Africa can make to the cause of freedom". 7/ A. Sanctions imposed by the General Assembly The issue of South African sanctions has been on the agenda of the United Nations for nearly 30 years. In 1959, the African National Congress of South Africa appealed to the General Assembly to request that all Member States sever trade links with South Africa. 8/ Acting upon this request in 1962, the General Assembly called upon all members to: a) 1reak diplomatic relations with South Africa or refrain from establishing them; (b) Close ports to ships flying the South African flag; (c) Forbid their ships to enter South African ports; (d) Boycott South African trade; (e) Refuse landing or passage facilities to aircraft belonging to the Government of South Africa or companies registered in that country. The same resolution established the Special Committee against Apartheid to monitor South African policies and requested