ECONOMIC ACTION AGAINST APARTHEID: an Overview of the Divestment Campaign and Financial Implications for Institutional Investors
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ECONOMIC ACTION AGAINST APARTHEID: An Overview of the Divestment Campaign and Financial Implications for Institutional Investors by Brooke Baldwin & Theodore Brown (associated with the American Committee on Africa) p1 198 Broadway 9 New York, NY 10038 ECONOMIC ACTION AGAINST APARTHEID An Overview of the Divestment Campaign TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. South Africa - Running Scared, by Brooke Baldwin ... 1 2. The Financial Implications of Divestment from South Africa on Major Institutional Common Stock Portfolios, by Theodore Brown ............... Appendix A. South Africa Free Portfolio ......... 36 Appendix B. South Africa Portfolio 3. Appendix C. Summary of College and University Divestment Actions ..................... 4. Press Reports 5. References This study was made possible by a grant from The New World Foundation Publication of this study was made possible by a grant from the Africa Office of the National Council of Churches INTRODUCTION U.S dollars play a critical role in propping up the apartheid system. By 1984 U.S. corporations had direct investments worth $2.3 billion in South Africa, and U.S. banks had outstanding loans to South Africa worth more than $4.5 billion. Because U.S. involvement provides capital and technology needed by the white majority to maintain its absolute domination over the black majority, millions of Americans are moving to divest their funds from the corporations and banks that continue to collaborate with apartheid. By the end of 1984, state and municipal actions across the U.S. had mandated the withdrawal of over $1.3 billion in public funds from such companies. Five states, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland, and Nebraska, and over twenty cities, including Boston, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C. and Wilmington, have enacted divestment legislation. Similar legislation is now pending in more than 28 other states, and Congress is debating legislation to restrict U.S. economic and military links with South Africa. The divestment campaign is being felt where it matters - in South Africa. A corporate apologist for South Africa reported recently: "In one respect at least, the divestment forces have already won. They have prevented ... billions of dollars in new U.S. investments in South Africa". SOUTH AFRICA - RUNNING SCARED by Brooke Baldwin On March 3, 1985, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the South African government announced the creation of a special post "to coordinate action against overseas campaigns for divestment from South Africa." This action followed only days after the resignation of the director of the American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa so that he could launch the American Association for Trade and Investment, a group dedicated to providing "an aggressive response" to the divestment campaign. Both of these actions within South Africa followed by less than a year the formation in the United States of two corporate committees devoted to lobbying against pending state and city divestment legislation. One, an unnamed committee of about 25 major U.S. companies, including Ford, General Motors, Mobil and others, has been organized to oppose divestment proposals at the state level. The other, the Corporate Committee for Change in South Africa, was recently formed by about a dozen U.S. corporations to lobby against divestment proposals before cities and other local governments. (The Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1984) The formation of these openly vocal opposition organizations by the South African government and the U.S. business community, establishes for the public record the position which they have occupied behind-the-scenes for years. Rather than a departure from past policy, this represents an opening up and stepping up of a defensive campaign designed to protect and maintain a U.S. corporate presence in South Africa. This report will address the question of what constitutes that corporate presence and why its supporters now perceive the threat of the divestment campaign to be so great as to require an increased and increasingly public defense. This will entail as a major focus an analysis of the extent and aims of the divestment movement as it is occurring on Capitol Hill and in the nation's churches, unions, universities, cities and states. U.S. financial involvement in South Africa currently stands at about $14 billion, including bank loans, shareholding and $2.3 billion in direct investment by some 300 U.S based multi-national corporations with on-ground subsidiaries. While the South African foreign ministry claims that this investment is "not of determinant political importance in a country which draws the lion's share of its investment capital from domestic and other foreign sources" (New York Times, Oct 28, 1984), the government's own actions and admissions are among the evidence which contradicts this claim. As early as 1982, Dr. Van der Merwe, head of the Reserve Bank's balance of payments section, admitted that increasing political pressure on foreign companies to limit their investments in South Africa had contributed to a shift in investment patterns away from direct investments toward loans: "Under these pressures, many institutions have begun to give preference to short and medium-term investments instead of those of a more permanent nature." (Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, Dec. 6, 1984). In March, 1984, the Finance Minister repeated this admission that loans had become of relatively greater importance in foreign investment than equity investment (Financial Mail, Johannesburg, Aug. 17, 1984). This finding was substantiated by U.S. Commerce Department reports that U.S. private investment in South Africa was down more than 10% from $2.6 billion to $2.3 billion from 1981 to 1983 (Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1984). Steve Bisenius, President of the American Association for Trade and Investment, has warned of the vulnerability of dependence on short-term loans, especially in the face of pending U.S. federal legislation prohibiting private bank loans to South Africa. He pointed out in an interview with the Financial Mail (Feb. 1, 1985) that if the 1985 bill sponsored by Senators Kennedy, Weiker, Proxmire and Sarbanes was passed, it would mean that the period of existing loans could not be extended, so that South Africa would face paying debts so staggering that it would result in default, ruin South Africa's international credit rating and "drop the rand through the basement". The Rand Daily Mail (Jan. 4, 1985) has reported that gross domestic fixed investment has been in decline since the end of 1981. This has partly been due to the business cycle, but also because the fear of disinvestment has diminished business confidence. In addition, John Chettle of the South Africa Foundation, a "foreign agent" registered with the U.S. Justice Department, who only two years ago was predicting the impossibilitiy of successful divestment legislation, told the South African press that this withdrawal of existent direct investment was only the tip of the iceberg. The real damage to the economy, he said, had come from the loss of incalculable new investment: In one respect at least, the divestment forces have already won. They have prevented - discouraged, dissuaded, whatever you call it billions of dollars of new U.S investments in South Africa. They have discouraged new companies, new investors who were looking for foreign opportunities from coming to South Africa. (Financial Mail, Feb. 1, 1985) Chettle's concession is borne out by financial analysts. The Financial Mail, to whom Chettle spoke in February of 1985, commented that trade has stagnated in South Africa since 1980, with fully twenty to thirty U.S. companies abandoning the South African market and only eleven new firms moving in. A month later, the Wall Street Journal, in an article about the influence of the divestment movement on investment, repeated the finding that there are "few exceptions to no new investments" and added the ironic note that one of those few exceptions has been an insurance brokerage firm which specializes in protecting corporations against "fires, revolutions and other calamities." (Wall Street Journal, March 11, 1985). Business Environment Risk Information (BERI SA), which specializes in risk analysis for international corporations, has confirmed the wisdom of both the general trend away from investments in South Africa and the decision of the corporate insurance "troubleshooter" to move in, by recommending against long commitments in a country which it sees as approaching high operational risk and prohibitive political risk. It would seem that the Foreign Ministry's claim that U.S. investment is of no "determinant political importance" lacks credibility in light of these facts. Far more credible is the Financial Mail's (Aug. 17, 1984) conclusion: The build-up of foreign political pressures, and the willingness of some foreign interests to liquidate long-standing South African investments, suggests that the disinvestment campaign could have a cutting edge that should not be lightly regarded [by a country where] imported capital will continue to be vital to economic growth in the foreseeable future. The South African government's own actions also belie its pretense of non concern with the importance of continued U.S. investment. Examples are plentiful. As the divestment movement has gained momentum, government lobbying has escalated in response, with almost 25 percent of its total $7 million lobbying expenditures for the the ten year period from 1974 to 1983 being spent in