Compiled by Craig Jungwirth
President Ronald W. Reagan announced limited sanctions against South Africa Sept. 9. Reagan banned the sale of computers to South African security agencies, barred most loans to the Pretoria government, halted the importation of the Krugerrand, South Africa's gold coin, and stopped exports of nuclear technology until South Africa signs an accord to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Reagan condemned apartheid and expressed concern over the increasing violence in South Africa in the executive order outlining his sanctions. Reagan said he was not abandoning his policy of "constructive engagement," which seeks to influence the South African Government through negotiations. He now refers to his policy as "active, constructive engagement."
The Senate Republican leadership blocked a Democratic effort Sept. 12 to force the Senate to vote on the Congressional version of economic sanctions against the government of South Africa.
The Senate's proposed measures were generally stronger than the sanctions Reagan ordered Sept. 9. The Congress banned exports of $100,000 or more of US-made computers and software to South African agencies that administer apartheid, as did the president.
The Senate proposed a ban on new loans to the South African government, except to those educational, housing or health agencies that are open to all South Africans, regardless of race. Reagan's<>
(Please turn to page 12)
Reagan and Senate
(Continued from page 1)
ban on loans carried similar restrictions, but permitted him to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to grant exceptions to the prohibition that would improve the conditions of South Africans "disadvantaged by apartheid."
The Senate, as well as the president, banned the sale of nuclear power equipment and technology to South Africa unless Pretoria signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.
Both plans called for a ban on the importation of Krugerrands and ordered the Department of Treasury to investigate the feasibility of minting a new US gold coin.
Reagan and the Senate required that all US businesses with more than 25 employees in South Africa adhere to the "Sullivan Principles," named after the Rev. Leon Sullivan. The principles call on American companies doing business in South Africa to treat all employees equally and support the ending of apartheid.
The Senate also proposed a choice of sanctions for the president. Reagan would have to impose sanctions within 12 months if he determined that South Africa had not made "significant progress" toward eliminating apartheid. A set of penalties for violations of the proposed sanctions, ranging from a $50,000 fine or five years in prison for individuals to a $1 million fine for businesses, was also proposed by the Senate.
Republican leadership in the Senate defeated a motion to close debate Sept. 12. The motion, if passed, would have averted a threatened filibuster and forced a Senate vote on the sanctions.
Several nations around the world reacted to Reagan's sanctions with their own actions. The government of Austria announced economic and cultural sanctions Sept. 26. A halt to investment in South Africa by government-owned companies, a ban on imports of Krugerrands and a suspension of sports contacts were included in Austria's announcement.
Israel's Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir announced Sept. 26 that the country would not impose sanctions against Pretoria. The approximately 120,000 Jews in South Africa were a primary concern in maintaining ties, according to the Israeli government. Shamir cited the large volume of trade between the two countries as another factor in deciding not to enact sanctions.
Dr. Jean Mayer, president of Tufts University, was quoted in the Sept. 27 issue of The New York Times as saying that he would soon recommend to his board of trustees that Tufts and its trustees lobby federal government officials and others to help stop South Africa's policy of apartheid.
Willard Johnson, MIT professor of political science, was also quoted as agreeing with Mayer, even if divestiture were not accomplished. "The energy and drive that have characterized the divestment movement over a decade show no inclination to walk away," Johnson said.