Refugees From Apartheid

The violence in South Africa continues. With some reluctance, the Reagan Administration has imposed economic sanctions on President Pieter W. Botha’s government. There is another action of unquestionable efficacy, however, that this Administration has so far resisted--granting refuge to South African conscientious objectors who oppose apartheid.

As disturbances have grown in South Africa, the South African Defense Force has been mobilized and been active in quelling riots in the black townships. One consequence of this activity has been a growing stream of draft resisters from South Africa seeking refuge abroad. White South African males can be conscripted for military service up to age 55.

Many of the war resisters have come to the United States. They have not, however, been welcomed or even tolerated by this government. Earlier this year the State Department specifically recommended the denial of asylum to several South African war resisters. The department explained its opposition on the ground that U.S. law provides that draft resisters can be imprisoned on conviction for up to five years, and therefore that the six-year possible sentence under South African law was not “disproportionately severe.”

It noted that conscientious-objector status was available in South Africa only for individuals who refuse military service on religious but not moral grounds, and acknowledged that while the treatment of objectors “can be harsh,” there was no evidence suggesting that objectors are subjected to conditions that are “significantly harsher than other persons detained for similar periods of time in South African prisons . . . .” Equal mistreatment, however, is not a basis for denying asylum.

The State Department’s resistance is based on a selective reading of the asylum claims. Many white South Africans have declined military service because they believe that such service supports the system of apartheid that they oppose. These individuals have political views that they believe give them cause to refuse to serve in the South African Defense Force. It is their views that make them refugees, not the refusal to serve. They have simply acted on their beliefs in a way that confirms the entitlement to refuge under our law.

In 1978 the United Nations adopted a General Assembly resolution that called on member states to grant asylum or safe transit to persons who refuse to render service in military forces used to enforce apartheid. The United States supported this resolution. It does little credit to this Administration now to dismiss this position as “not legally binding.” Our traditions and obligations compel a much more compassionate approach to these refugees.