Southern Africa : peace or war?


<^? ^S<C><re&g^

Statement of the

Committee on Social

Development and

World Peace

SOUTHERN
AFRICA:

PEACE OR WAR?

United States

Catholic Conference



Statement of the

Committee on Social Development

and World Peace

SOUTHERN AFRICA: PEACE OR WAR?
July 7, 1976

In 1967, Pope Paul VI wrote, in his encyclical

letter on Africa:

The equality of all men is based, as is
well known, on their common origin
and density as members of the human
family. . . . This equality demands an
ever more explicit recognition in civil

society of every human being’s essen-
tial rights, even though this equality

does not cancel but rather acknowl-

edges and brings into harmony per-

sonal differences and the diversity of

function in the community. Conse-

quently, the aspirations of all men de-
siring to enjoy those rights which flow

from their dignity as human persons
are wholly legitimate.

Paul VI, Ad Afros par 19
Gremillion, p. 422-3

American awareness of the African continent

has been heightened in the past two years by

several events: the independence of Mozam-
bique and Angola, and especially the internal

struggle in the latter nation, and the participa-

tion of the U.S.A., Cuba, and the U.S.S.R. in that

struggle; the recent and initial visit of Secretary

of State Henry Kissinger to Africa and his be-

lated pronouncements of U.S. African policy.

Shortly before the Secretary’s journey, Bishop

James S. Rausch, General Secretary of the U.S.

Catholic Conference, addressed an open letter to

him in which several important suggestions were

made regarding United States policy and actions
in Africa. We fully endorse what Bishop Rausch
said therein and make it our own.

In this statement we wish to speak especially
about the Republic of South Africa (RSA), to



address some of the urgent moral issues raised
there, and to comment on the responsibility of
the American people and their government in

dealing with that nation. We address ourselves
particularly to the RSA not unmindful of the
urgency of achieving majority rule in Rhodesia

and the independence of Namibia. Nevertheless,

South Africa is clearly the most developed, most
influential nation in the southern part of the

African continent, and is the object of economic,

political, and military interest on the part of the
United States. The United States should conduct
its foreign policy toward the RSA, and influence

business activity there to change its racial pol-
icies, both to establish justice within that nation,

and to avoid international conflict. Even more
effective leverage would be achieved if the United
States, as the leader of the western nations, could

develop a coordinated policy with them regarding
the RSA.

For Black Africans, “South Africa is an obses-
sion," said Bishop James D. Sangu, Chairman
of the Tanzanian Catholic Bishops' Conference.
He explained that assertion in these words:

Its crude racialism is a continuous

insult to black Africans. It not only

keeps the races apart, as it claims, but
it shouts from the rooftops the superi-
ority of the White Race and the infer-
iority of the Black Race. As long as this
situation continues, there is really little

chance that the Black Africans will
ever live in brotherhood with White
Europeans.

Secretary Kissinger himself described South
Africa's apartheid system by which he said
“racial discrimination has been institutionalized,
enshrined in law, and made all-pervasive." But
Bishop Sangu maintains:

Not withstanding the half-hearted de-
nunciation of racialism by the West-
ern countries, South Africa feels
strong because she is convinced of
the backing she receives from the
Western countries, and because of the
strong economic ties she has with



these countries. As Christians we must
fight for justice for the oppressed, not

for financial gain and economic in-

terests.

This analysis is borne out by the contrast

between the Secretary’s severe condemnation of

Rhodesia and stern demands for internal reforms
and, on the other hand, his relatively mild stric-

tures against South Africa. He seemed even to
weaken the former U.S. position on South

Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia. He did
not call for majority rule in South Africa, as he

did in Rhodesia, but for “a clear evolution

toward equality of opportunity and basic human
rights for all South Africans.” The difference may
seem to be merely a subtlety, but in light of
Kissinger’s former African policy, which in-

cluded support for the white minority regimes,

anything less than a forthright denunciation of

apartheid and minority government is suspected

of support and collusion.

Implicated here is not only the question of

justice for black Rhodesians and South Africans,

but world peace itself. The existence of the

racist societies of the two nations (and Namibia,

occupied and controlled by South Africa), since

it is “an obsession” with black Africans, prom-

ises increased internal disorder, and activity of

guerilla freedom-fighters. This, in turn, raises the

possibility of external intervention by other Af-

rican nations, by the superpowers, or others.

Such intervention would be translated either

into racial terms—black against white—or ideo-
logical terms—communist against non-commu-
nist. Africa’s black leaders of nations and libera-

tion movements reject such a view. Many of
them have benefitted from Christian education

and are themselves Christians. Their vision is of

multi-racial societies in which the human dignity
of each person is respected. Their leaning toward

the U.S.A. and the West, or toward the U.S.S.R.

or China, is not so much an ideological stance

as an expression of their need for assistance as

they attempt to establish such societies, or to

promote the development of the nations they

represent.



South Africa, in contrast, plans to create

bantustans, “independent nations” within its

territory; all black persons will be assigned to

one of these, on the basis of tribal ancestry, re-

gardless of whether the person has even lived

there. In South Africa, where most blacks must

necessarily go to work, regardless of which ban-

tustan he or she is technically a citizen, citizen-

ship will be withdrawn, under the fiction that the

individual is a citizen of the black nation. Racial

segregation, in short, is so important that the

nation will be dismembered to preserve it; eco-

nomic superiority is so important that the terri-

tories assigned to blacks will comprise only

13% of the land, and are the least productive
areas.

The only course of policy and action for Amer-

icans to take is one consistent with our national

tradition of personal freedom and the Christian

principle of universal love, directed especially to

those who most need it. With such a policy, im-

plemented by substantial and realistic action, the

United States and the American people would

win the admiration of the African people; conside-

rations of economic and strategic interests would

then fall into perspective, both for us and for

them.

It is not enough to state such principles and

policy; they must be translated into positive

action. Hence, without attempting to draw up an

exhaustive listing, we suggest the following:

1. that the U.S. raise for discussion in the U.N.

Security Council the threat to world peace created

by the Republic of South Africa by its internal

policy of apartheid and its occupation of Namibia

(South West Africa), with a view to imposing

international economic sanctions against that

nation until substantial changes have been made.

2. that the U.S. use every available means to

restrict and discourage U.S. business and invest-

ment in the RSA, Namibia, and Rhodesia;

particularly, that exceptions, licenses, or mitiga-

tions in favor of these nations not be granted.

3. that the U.S. recognize and enforce the

decree of the U.N. Council for Namibia for the

protection of the natural resources of Namibia

Deae&flled



against exploitation by South Africa during its

illegal occupation of that territory. According to

that decree, approved by the U.N. General As-

sembly in 1974, “any animal, mineral, or other

natural resource produced in or emanating from

the Territory of Namibia,” taken without license

granted by the Council for Namibia, may be
seized, along with the vehicle or ship carrying it,

“forfeited to the benefit of the Council, and held

in trust by them for the benefit of the people of

Namibia.”

4. that the U.S. Congress give substance to

Secretary Kissinger’s promises by assisting those

frontier nations which may experience hardship
because of their compliance with the U.N. sanc-

tions against Rhodesia.

We suggest these actions not for political, eco-
nomic, or strategic reasons, but because they

would give assurance to the government of South

Africa, to its black citizens, and to the rest of

the world, that the United States still believes

that liberty and equality are unalienable rights of

every person; and that recognition of these rights

in practice in southern Africa will be conducive

to peace and prosperity in that part of the world.

1976

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
1312 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005