Apartheid by air http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.nizap1031 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 Apartheid by air Author/Creator Ruyter, Theo Publisher Komitee Zuidelijk Afrika (KZA) Date 1990-00-00 Resource type Pamphlets Language English Subject Coverage (spatial) South Africa, Tanzania, United Republic of, Netherlands Coverage (temporal) 1985 - 1990 Source NIZA Description On air links with South Africa and the international campaign against them; special attention paid to KLM and action initiated in 1985 by Dutch SNV volunteers working at Mazimbu (ANC’s Solomon Mahlangu Freedom College) and other places in Tanzania. Format extent 42 (length/size) http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.nizap1031 http://www.aluka.org Alp Alp A t. APARTH BY AIR., BY THEO RUYTER AMSTERDAM. APRIL 1990 ID Contents Sanctions 3 Ban on air traffic 6 Advocates 9 Ban adherents 11 The U.S. stand 13 Sanction busters 15 South Africa's favourite: British Airways 17 Lufthansa under pressure 20 Business as usual: Swissair 23 Psychological impact: Sabena 25 The others 26 The symbol of kinship: KLM 28 A growing coalition against KLM 33 In short 36 A campaign against air links with South Africa 38 Colofon. Publisher: Holland Committee on Southern Africa. Author: Theo Ruyter. Editor: Frank Hendriks. Correction: Rory Campbell, Ditty Eimers. Design: Erik Brouwer. Printing: Mebo. Amsterdam, April 1990 ISBN 90.70331.22.5 SANCTIONS Bishop Tutu 'It is obvious that sanctions can only be abolished after the establishment of a really democratic government, because only then can South Africa take its rightfull place as a respected member of the international community.' In this way, the anglican archbishop of Capetown Desmond Tutu concluded an article published in several newspapers abroad, after he and his fellow- churchleaders Frank Chikane and Alan Boesak had met South African president De Klerk on the 11 th of October 1989. More specifically he wrote: 'The United States, Commonwealth, European Community and the rest of the international community should not reduce their pressure on the South African government because of some fine words. They must continue to do what is necessary to maintain strict financial sanctions and to prohibit direct air traffic with South Africa.' Boycot measures International talks about the need for sanctions against the white minority regime in South Africa have been going on for over a quarter of a century. In 1963, three years after the Sharpeville massacre, the Security Council of the United Nations declared a voluntary arms embargo. Since then the Council has adopted several other resolutions meant to increase the pressure. They mostly dealt with the provision of arms to or the purchase of arms from South Africa, sometimes with other subjects as well like resolution 566 (1985) urging the 're-examination of maritime and aerial relations with South Africa'. As the internal repression in South Africa continued and even intensified, resulting in the declaration of the state of emergency in 1 985, international pressure for economic sanctions increased. One group of countries which has come out clearly in favour of sanctions is the Commonwealth, especially after the failure of the Eminent Persons' Group mission to South Africa to work out a peaceful solution (1986). In fact, the British government of prime minister Thatcher was ( and still is) the only member of the organization opposing sanctions. In September 1985, the ministerial council of the European Community (EC) agreed, for the first time, on a package of sanctions, restricting or prohibiting the import and export of arms, military and nuclear collaboration, the export of sensitive equipment destined for police or armed forces, oil exports and cultural, scientific and sporting contacts. Most of them were in line with earlier resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations. One year later, following a deterioration of the situation in South Africa, the EC council initiated the following additional measures: a boycott of South African iron, steel and gold coins (Krugerrands) and a ban on new investments in South Africa. The boycott of iron, steel and gold coins was enforced by the EC, whereas the ban on new investments was left to member-states to implement as they saw fit. Regarding the rest of the world-community, communist states have been consistent in restricting official relations with the apartheid regime. At present, however, they seem to step down from their policy of isolation. The Organization of African Unity (OAU) has been playing a prominent role in the international struggle against apartheid, though for economic reasons some of its members - especially in Southern Africa - have not broken all relations with South Africa. The United States has distinguished itself by adopting a comprehensive anti-apartheid act in 1986. Among the capitalist industrialized countries the Nordic States (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) have been most radical in the application of sanctions, applying total trade boycotts. A call from South Africa The main justification of sanctions is the call for such pressure from South Africa itself. Over the years a large number of mass organizations in South Africa with millions of members have expressed themselves to be in favour of sanctions. These are: the catholic and anglican bishops, the protestant Council of Churches, the unions of COSATU and NACTU, the United Democratic Front, the Mass Democratic Movement and the African National Congress. Archbishop Tutu, in his article refered to earlier, assured his readers that sanctions do work and that the concessions made by the De Klerk government so far would have been unthinkable without the international pressure that has already been exerted. And Nelson Mandela, after his release on the 11 th of February 1990, expressed the feelings of millions of South Africans when he declared: 'We call on the international community to continue the campaign to isolate the apartheid regime. To lift sanctions now would be to run the risk of aborting the process towards the complete eradication of apartheid'. Nelson Mandela. Foto: Defence and Aid Fund (Utrecht) BAN ON AIR TRAFFIC Economic effect Air traffic plays an essential role in the transport and communication within as well as between countries. This is certainly true in the case of South Africa, a country situated far from the other industrialized capitalist countries it is closely connected with. So if one was to look for vulnerable spots in the South African economy, the traffic of passengers and freight by air is certainly one of them. At present almost all regular air traffic between South Africa and the rest of the world is handled by 23 airlines. Of these, three are South African (South African Airways (SAA), Luxavia (registered in Luxembourg) and Commercial Airways). Nine are European (British Airways (BA), KLM (Holland), Swissair, Olympic Airways (Greece), Alitalia (Italy), Sabena (Belgium), TAP (Portugal), UTA (France) and Lufthansa (Germany)). One is based in South America (Varig- Brazil) and one in the Middle East (El Al-Israel). The rest consists of Air Mauritius and airlines from countries in Southern Africa, namely: Linhas Areas de Mozambique (LAM), Air Zimbabwe, Air Botswana, Air Malawi, Zambia Airways, Lesotho Airways, Royal Swazi National Airways and Namib Air. The number of passengers involved is about one million a year and the amount of freight runs into 80.000 tons, whereby more goods are imported into South Africa than exported by it. Other effects Besides the effect on the South African economy, a ban on air traffic is considered to have other significant advantages. First of all, there's a psychological effect, which reinforces the feeling in South Africa of being isolated by the international community. South Africa's Minister of Finance Barend du Plessis, in his budget speech of 1989, for instance, said: 'There can be little doubt that history will pronounce this era to have been not one in which the main question was the degree of progress that could be attained, but rather one where the first concern was economic survival in the face of an internationally organised assault on the economy'. Jan Smuts Airport (Johannesburg). Foto: Kadir van Lohuizen. Most whites now realize that their country cannot survive as a modern state without the benefit of good relations with other countries. Another consideration is that the underprivileged black majority in South