S. African Black Workers Seen as Victims of Divestiture

As the nationwide movement to withdraw public funds from corporations conducting business in South Africa gathers momentum, some blacks are expressing concern that the true victims of a U.S. business withdrawal from South Africa may be the companies’ black employees.

But divestiture still holds widespread support among prominent black individuals and organizations, many of whom argue that the black employees’ suffering may be the price of eradicating a system that discriminates against blacks in virtually every aspect of life.

“How could it get any worse?” asked Michelle Kourouma, executive director of the Atlanta-based National Conference of Black Mayors. “We have nothing to lose and everything to gain: freedom.”

Similarly, a spokesman for Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said: “There is some concern that the most immediate effect of divestment may be felt by the laborers themselves--but that’s never an excuse not to take action.”

Supported Divestiture

The black mayors conference supported divestiture at its April convention and called on its 288 members to actively oppose South Africa’s segregationist apartheid policy. “It is inappropriate that any public funds of American cities be invested in any institution doing business in South Africa,” the group declared.

Los Angeles and Philadelphia, major cities with black mayors, are pursuing divestiture, and Chicago is considering an ordinance calling for an end to public investment in banks with loans to South Africa and in corporations doing business there.

But not all black leaders support the divestiture idea. John Burroughs, a senior fellow at the Joint Center for Policy Studies, a Washington think tank that focuses on black issues, said: “My personal gut feeling is . . . (U.S. firms in South Africa) are doing more good by being there. Divestiture would be detrimental, not so much for black employment but as a force for social change.”

Former Ambassador

Burroughs, ambassador to the African nation of Malawi from 1981 to 1984, said: “If we pulled out, other countries wouldn’t hesitate to move in and take up the slack. I don’t think they would be as forceful for change. We need to find ways for corporations to bring about more change.”

Instead of having corporations pull out, Burroughs said he would favor making mandatory the so-called “Sullivan principles,” a code of conduct drawn up by a Philadelphia minister to push for social change in South Africa. Of the approximately 350 U.S. companies doing business in South Africa, 128 formally subscribe to the principles.

Like Burroughs, a spokesman for the National Urban League said: “We do not favor divestment. We favor the Sullivan principles and no further investment in South Africa.” But he added, “We believe that the workers would be the ones that would be hurt.”

The NAACP, however, has long favored divestiture, said Jerry Guess, executive assistant to the group’s executive director, Benjamin L. Hooks. Guess said the group’s members “support and laud” the call this week by Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley to remove up to $1 billion in city-controlled assets from banks and businesses with ties to South Africa.

‘An Anathema’

“A lot of people may not be happy if black people suffer,” Guess said, “but the system is such an anathema.”

But the chief of the National Assn. of Blacks Within Government--composed of federal, state and local government workers--said his group’s members were divided over divestiture. Such a move could “come down hard on black people,” Executive Director Ted Adams warned, and it could present the dilemma of “throwing the baby out with the bath water.”

Adams said he would like to see “a mounting move in that direction, but I would not like it to happen all at once. I’d like to determine over time whether it’s a good thing.”