This here will be about how American and British interest we’re in the draconian Apartheid regime in South Africa in 1970s and 1980s. I been looking into how businesses at the time went through hoops and not caring about the United Nations Sanctions and resolution 418 of 4th November 1977 states this:
“Determines, having regard to the policies and acts of the South African Government, that the acquisition by South Africa of arms and related material constitutes, a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security; Decides that all States shall cease forthwith any provisions to South Africa of arms and related materiel of all types, including the sale of transfer of weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, para military police equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and shall cease as well the provision of all types of equipment and supplies and grants of licensing arrangements for the manufacture of the aforementioned” (UN, 1977).
So with that in mind, we can see how businesses of United States and Britain started and worked as subsidiaries in South Africa during the Apartheid, where the instances of FORD Motors and Leyland Vehicles we’re produced and used by the Police under the worst atrocities of a regime who used their laws, security agencies to harass the majority; while keeping the minority rulers and their economic incentive intact by any means. So that big business and other ones defied the Sanctions and even collaborated with necessary arms, cars and other procurement for the totalitarian state; shows how far the Corporation goes for profit and serve even governments who has no quarrel with prosecuting innocent citizens. Therefore the history of these corporations and their dealings should come to light and be questioned. As business today does the same under regimes that are totalitarian and militaristic with the favor of elite and harassing the opposition. That is why we can see at the tactics of the 1970s and 1980s and see how they might be used today.
So with that introduction take a look at my findings and hope you find it interesting.
How to start the discussion:
“Johannesburg Star (South African daily), Nov. 26, 1977, at 15. See also 1978 Hearings, supra note 13, at 846 (statement of John Gaetsewe, General Secretary of the banned South African Congress of Trade Unions) (“The ending of foreign investment in South Africa … is a means of undermining the power of the apartheid regime. Foreign investment is a pillar of the whole system which maintains the virtual slavery of the Black workers in South Africa.”); Christian Sci. Monitor, Feb. 21, 1984, at 25 (statement by Winnie Mandela, wife of imprisoned African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela)” (Hopkins, 1985).
Some money earned by the SADF at the time:
“According to official SADF accounts, the money that would have been recouped from the sale of ivory would flow back into funding the Unita rebels. However, Breytenbach knew that in the year 1986/1987 alone, the SADF’s assistance to Unita through military intelligence totalled R400 million (ZAR2005=R2,5 billion) and this excluded the supply of almost all Unita’s hardware and fuel. It is therefore unlikely that this was the reason behind the SADF’s interest in ivory smuggling. It is more likely that the potential for self-enrichment that this presented to SADF officers was enormous. General Chris Thirion, Former Deputy Chief of Staff Intelligence, agrees and suspects that Savimbi was in fact over-funded at the time” (Van Vuren, 2006).
How much RSA used on Military Equipment during Apartheid in the 1980s:
“According to evidence presented to the UN Security Council arms embargo committee in 1984, out of its annual total arms procurement budget of some R1.62 billion over R900 million was to be spent on arms purchases from overseas” (…)”This R900 million is spent on the procurement of arms directly by the regime from overseas and via the private sector. No official figures are published about how much is actually spent on direct imports of armaments. However, it can be estimated from figures contained in an in-depth survey by the Johannesburg Sunday Times in July 1982 that imports from overseas were 15 per cent of defence spending which then stood at R3,320 million per annum” (AAM, 1985).
How that happen:
“Those breaches of the arms embargo which have been exposed have also revealed the myth of South Africa’s self-sufficiency. Equipment smuggled into South Africa include weapons such as machine guns, rifles and pistols as well as spares and components for them. In a trial at the Old Bailey, London, in October 1982, the Court was informed that South African efforts to produce components for pre-war machine guns had not been successful. This points to the serious deficiencies in the quality and reliability of even minor items manufactured in South Africa” (AAM, 1985).
Export of R.J. Electronics International:
“Britain’s refusal to strictly implement the UN arms embargo and its continuing military collaboration in various fields are not totally surprising since much of this arises out of its traditional relationship with South Africa” (…)”They failed to re-appear in Court on 22 October 1984 and the following weekend gave a press conference. At it, Colonel Botha disclosed that they had operated as undercover agents for five years and “had saved the country at least R5 million on purchases of vital equipment”. Metelerkamp claimed he was only a consultant to Kentron and was the Managing Director of R J Electronics International. However, it emerged that he had been employed by Kentron up to a month prior to his arrest, and R J Electronics International was “a company used to purchase illicit arms” (AAM, 1985).
“One cargo of FN rifles was initially exported by air to Red Baron Ltd at an address in Zurich before being forwarded to South Africa. This company, however, was not Swiss, but registered in England. Its directors were Mr Trinkler and two others who had also been directors of Kuehne and Nagel in Britain” (…)”The most controversial case was that of the British Aerospace naval reconaissance aircraft, the Coastguarder. In Hay 1984 it was disclosed that British Aerospace had been approached by the South African Government and that initial discussions had taken place concerning the purchase of eight aircraft. These were to replace the Shackleton aircraft which were having to be phased out. The South African authorities had sought to evade the arms embargo by forming a Coastguard service as a civilian authority through which the order for the aircraft would be placed. Repeated efforts to secure from the Government an undertaking that the Coastguarder would not be granted licence for export to South Africa met with the response that “it would not be proper for me to offer a definitive view now on the hypothetical question on the issue of a licence for the export of an aircraft such as the Coastguarder to South Africa” (AAM, 1985).
Shell Corporation working with the Regime:
“The South Africans agreed and supplied a cash advance that allowed the traders to purchase a tanker, shipping company and the required insurance. The tanker docked in Kuwait and filled its tanks with oil owned by Shell. The oil was registered for delivery in France. However, en route to Europe from the Gulf the tanker stopped in Durban and off-loaded almost all of its oil crude oil—almost 180,000 tonnes—with the South Africans paying the difference between the purchase price and the fees it had advanced for the purchase of the tanker. The Salem was then filled up with water in order to create the impression that it was still laden with oil. Off the coast of West Africa (Senegal), at one of the deepest points of the Atlantic, the ship was scuttled and the crew, who were prepared for the evacuation, were conveniently ‘rescued’. They had hoped to make an extra $24 million off the insurance claim for the lost oil. Following investigations by the insurance company the main perpetrators were prosecuted. The biggest loser next to Shell was South Africa, asit agreed to pay the Dutch multinational US$30 million (ZAR2005=R436 million) in an out-of-court settlement. Shell was left to carry a remaining loss of US$20 million. The use of corrupt middlemen had cost South Africa almost half a billion rand. There was no prosecution in South Africa of the officials at the SFF who had authorised South Africa’s procurement of a full tanker of oil from three novice (criminal) entrepreneurs” (Van Vuren, 2006).
British Subsidiaries in South Africa:
“Many of these subsidiaries are British. They include Leyland (Landrovers and Trucks); ICI (through its 40 per cent holding in AECI) (Ammunition and Explosives); Trafalgar House (through Cementation Engineering) (artillery shells); ICL (Computers); GEC including Marconis (Military Communications Equipment); Lontho (aircraft franchises); Plessey (Military Communications Equipment); BP and Shell (oil and other petroleum products for the military and police)” (…)”An impression of the full extent of the role of British subsidiaries in South Africa in undermining the arms embargo can be obtained from studying Appendix C. This is a list of British companies with subsidiaries in South Africa which are also known to be engaged in the manufacture of military and related equipment” (AAM, 1985).
“British mercenaries, some recruited. originally for the forces of the illegal Smith regime, are serving in a number of South African Defence Force units, including the infamous “32 Battallion” operating out of Namibia into Angola. A British mercenary was killed in the South African commando raid on the residence of South African refugees in Maputo, Mozambique, in January 1981” (AAM, 1985).
“British Government policy so far has been to grant permission for Officers to serve in the South African Defence Forces.” (…)”This was explained by Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Heseltine, in a letter to the Rt Hon Denis Healey:
“An Officer is required to resign his commission before joining the forces of a country that does not owe allegiance to the Crown, and if he did not do so then the commission would be removed. As you will appreciate, this is the only power that we can exercise over an officer who has already retired from the Services. Guidance is given to officers about these procedures before they retire, but no specific recommendations are made about which countries’ Armed Forces an officer should join; nor do I believe that it would be right to do so.” (AAM, 1985).
American Businesses under Apartheid:
“Approximately 350 of the most prominent companies in the United States, including more than half of the Fortune 500’s top one hundred firms, operate subsidiaries in South Africa . Another 6000 do business there through sales agents and distributers . The United States holds fifty-seven percent of all foreign holdings on the Johannesburg stock exchange, including gold mines, mining houses, platinum mines, and diamonds . The State Department estimated that U.S. direct investment amounted to $2.3 billion in 1983, down from the $2.8 billion calculated by the South African Institute of Race Relations for 1982 . Other estimates put overall American investment, including loans and gold stocks, at $14 billion ” (…)”rcent . U.S. exports to South Africa, however, grew from approximately R1.2 billion in 1979 to R2.7 billion in 1981 . As a result, the United States emerged as the Republic’s largest trading partner . Apart from its quantitative impact, U.S. business investment has a qualitative impact disproportionate to its financial value” (…)”John Purcell of Goodyear concurred, asserting that economic pressures will not encourage nonviolent social change in South Africa; rather, this will be brought about by “economic growth, expanded contact with the outside, and time” ((Hopkins, 1985)
Ford sold cars to the Apartheid regime:
“Ford Directed and Controlled its South African Policies from the United States, Exported Equipment from the United States, and Acted to Circumvent the United States Sanctions Regime: (New York Southern Cout Case, P: 65, 2014)
“Thus, despite the tightening of U.S. trade sanctions in February 1978, Ford U.S. still announced a “large infusion of capital into its South African subsidiary. Ford injected $8 million for upkeep and retooling” (New York Southern Court Case, P: 67, 2014).
“Ford support was significant: “[B]etween 1973 and 1977 [Ford] sold 128 cars and 683 trucks directly to the South African Ministry of Defense and 646 cars and 1,473 trucks to the South African police. Ford sold at least 1,582 F series U.S.-origin trucks to the police” (…)”Despite the prohibitions, Ford continued to supply vehicles to the South African security forces with the purpose of facilitating apartheid crimes. Ford denied that its continued sales to the South African security forces ran counter to the U.S. prohibitions, on the basis that the vehicles did not contain parts or technical data of U.S. origin” (…)”Notably, into the 1980s, Ford sold vehicles that did not need to be “converted” by the apartheid government for military or police use but were already specialized before leaving the plant in South Africa” (…)”Ford built a limited number of XR6 model Cortinas known as “interceptors” that were sold almost exclusively to the police. The XR6 was special because it had three Weber model double carburetors, as opposed to all other Cortinas that had only one double carburetor” (…)”Ford knew that the normal market for these vehicles was the security forces. The vehicles were deliberately pre-equipped with armor and military fixtures and designed for easy modification by the security forces to add additional defensive and offensive features” (…)”By making profits which they knew could only come from their encouragement of the security forces’ illicit operations through the sale of vehicles, parts, designs, and services, Ford acquired a stake in the criminal enterprise that was the apartheid regime” (New York Southern Case, P: 71-77, 2014).
Leyland under Apartheid:
“The British government now virtually owns British Leyland and therefore controls the company’s operations in South Africa. Yet it has done little in practice to press for the rights of black workers to organize through trade unions, or for the recognition of the unions for collective bargaining purposes” (…)”The South African “branch” is Leyland’s biggest operation in the world outside of the U.K. At present it is the 8th largest car manufacturer (holding approximately 5% of the market) and the 7th largest commercial vehicle manufacturer (holding approximately 5,5% of the market) in South Africa. Despite the depressed condition of the South African Market it sold 1959 vehicles in January-February of 1977 alone” (…)”B.L.S.A. has massive contracts with the South African state. It is one of the chief suppliers of the South African Defense Force, providing not only trucks and landrovers (which form the backbone of anti-guerrilla operations) but also armored personnel carriers. Of course, the figures for these contracts are never made public” (…)”For example, in June 1976 it was announced that B.L.S.A. had won a £1.9millon order for 250 trucks from the Cape Provincial Authority” (…)”As Leyland itself have argued , It “must conform, it not entirely” to South African government and established wishes” (Coventry Anti-Apartheid, 1977).
This here is not easy to finish up as the implications of this deals and arrangement used to support a government that oppressed and detained the majority. This Apartheid government did it all openly and with a clear message that the white minority should rule, while the rest should serve them.
In that context these businesses earned good amount of cash and profits for their stakeholders and their shareholders. While their products and procured services by the state we’re used to oppress majority of people in South Africa. We can surely see the amount of money and how this have affected the society and given way for the government of the time to continue with the process of detaining and harassing the majority of South Africans. This could not have happen if there wasn’t a helping hand from businesses and their subsidiaries. This here is just a brief look into it.
Certainly this should be studied even more and become clear evidence of how heartbreaking it is to know how certain businesses and people owning them will profit on suffering of fellow human beings. That is why I myself shed a light on it, to show the extent of disobedience of the UN Resolution and also what these corporations does in regimes that harassing and oppressing fellow citizens for their background, creed, tribe etc. It’s just ghastly and makes my tummy vomit. But that is just me, hope you got some indication of how they did their business and served the Apartheid government. Peace.
Anti-Apartheid Movement – ‘How Britian Arms Apartheid – A memorandum for presentation to her Majesty’s Government’ (1985)
Coventry Anti-Apartheid Movement – ‘Leyland in Britain and in South Africa’ (1977)
Hopkins, Sheila M. – ‘AN ANALYSIS OF U.S.-SOUTH AFRICAN RELATIONS IN THE 1980s: HAS ENGAGEMENT BEEN CONSTRUCTIVE?’ (1985) – Journal of Comparative Business and Capital Market Law 7 (1985) 89-115, North Holland
United States, New York Southern Court: Case 1:02-md-01499-SAS Document 280-1 Filed 08/08/14
Van Vuren, Hennie – ‘Apartheid grand corruption – Assessing the scale of crimes of profit from 1976 to 1994’ (2006)
“Uganda People’s Defense Force soldiers conducted explosive breaching and demolition familiarization range training with help of US Marines. The Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF), previously the National Resistance Army, is the armed forces of Uganda. From 2007 to 2011, the International Institute for Strategic Studies has estimated the UPDF has a total strength of 40,000–45,000, and consists of Land Forces and an Air Wing.” (…)”After Uganda achieved independence in October 1962, British officers retained most high-level military commands. Ugandans in the rank and file claimed this policy blocked promotions and kept their salaries disproportionately low. These complaints eventually destabilized the armed forces, already weakened by ethnic divisions. Each post-independence regime expanded the size of the army, usually by recruiting from among people of one region or ethnic group, and each government employed military force to subdue political unrest” (Military Zone, 2016).
There is a dream of TV-Debate between the three main candidates in Uganda: the NRM with Museveni, the Go-Forward Amama Mbabazi and the FDC Dr. Kizza Besigye! So what will that be, it should be sent on NBS, NTV and WBS at the same time. So that nobody can watch dubbed South American TV-shows for those who don’t care about the politics or elections.
I can’t expect the now gone away Maureen Faith Kyala or Joseph Mabirizi being a part of this. The same with Gen. Benon Biraaro or Abed Bwanika and Professor Bayramureeba; I am sure some people wont to see this candidates to! But, we know that they don’t have the suction yet to be viable combined with the trio who are really fighting to become the President. Even if the Electoral Commission (Now the Independent Electoral Commission), surely will work towards another term for the Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and his NRM! Still, would be fun to have him on the spot together with his arch-nemesis Besigye and new enemy Amama Mbabazi!
Why I discuss it:
“President Yoweri Museveni, also NRM flag bearer, says “he is ready to take on any of his fellow 2016 presidential candidates in a public debate” (…)”While addressing a press conference early Monday in Gulu at the State Lodge, Museveni said: “If Besigye or any other candidate wants to debate with me, I am ready. I don’t move without my mouth or brain…” (…)”The president’s comments today come days after Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) presidential candidate Dr. Kizza Besigye challenged him to a debate ‘to discuss issues affecting Ugandans’” (…)”Besigye became the second candidate to dare the president to a live televised debate after Venansius Baryamureeba” (NBS TV, 23.11.2015).
Though the Professor Barya we’re first touched it and Dr. Besigye we’re second. And then the President answered them. It’s a reason why he didn’t answer the Professor, he doesn’t see he as threat. That he do by Dr. Besigye. So that he sent shots and questioned in the public with other candidates. That is something new, because the NRM-Regime can’t control it or really stare the conversation, they can’t rule it. They can’t script it all. Neither can the other candidates. If it will happen there will be banter and change, even if they set certain terms for the discussion and the general debate between them.
Then the candidates can recharge their words they will stay in memory. Certain facts will be tested. The numbers they drop to each other will be discussed like they also are on the manifestos and speeches. The difference with speeches in campaigns is that the candidate can write it himself and conduct it himself. He will say his own words on the debate, but the forum and space will be different. It’s a place where you need your tongue check and in order. If you don’t do it well you will be political daft or naked by your own words. You can be praised if you have said and conducted yourself accordingly. That is an reaction that you can’t script in anyway, but they have to mobilize and anticipate accordingly to the debate. That will show if the politicians actually has any substance or is just some hot air.
The things that can be good about a debate is if the candidate really get tested. Touched and emotional and loses his cool. Even if many debates can end up in stale boring sadness, because none of candidates actually say something meaningful about the subjects at hand. Since there haven’t been in ages or ever been a presidential candidates debate there would be a breath of fresh air to the citizens. Might even see Mzee out of his comfort-zone! That is something that would be good. I think even Amama Mbabazi could be fired up. Dr. Kizza Besigye has been attacked so much that him I am sure would keep his composure in the debate.
Who is in the debate:
The Canidates are President Museveni, former PM Mbabazi and (rtd) Col. Dr. Besigye.
And an un-named TV-Host.
Museveni: “I and the NRM has ensured, secured and made this country safe, nobody except NRM and my government can keep UPDF under control. Then me and the NRM”.
Mbabazi: “You say you have kept the country safe, but not paid the veterans or made people safe, is that why you have hired crime preventers?”
Besigye: “There isn’t just one man who can control the UPDF; the people, the Government, the Parliament can hold the army under control!”
This is a segment we will show more time later in the debate! (the crowd clapping).
On media freedom:
Museveni: “I am revolutionary differs from Obote and Amin, we have given the freedom of the media, look at the Vision, the Monitors, the radios, they can speak their mind, unless it creates problems, they should not speak to much then they create problems for the country”
Mbabazi: “I will address that the media get more funding from the my new government, get digital and fresh new visions, not the secured media of the NRM that have secured in the past”
Besigye: “The media should be total free and not kept under surveillance from the NRM-Junta. There is too much Musveni-Media where his own propaganda get spread instead of the truth!”
“What are your thoughts on the balloting and election reforms? Are they ensuring the people of free and fair elections in Uganda?”
Museveni: “We have re-introduced free and fair elections, an independent Electoral Commission, that have delivered more than before 1986 when the government had fraudulent elections. If you see somebody who rigs the elections take it to the police and their will take care of it”.
Mbabazi: “After you have voted and not sure if the polls will matter and get the correct result. Ensure to stay at the polling station until they finish. So that the Election Officers can’t fix it! Don’t leave!”
Besigye: “We need a new Electoral Commission, now it is a Museveni-Commission. The culture is to rig for the NRM-Junta. There isn’t a way that this entity will give the will of the people. Until we reform it and change it, we will see that the will of the Ugandans will happen”.
On the Police:
Museveni: “The police are ensuring and securing the people, my people all of Ugandans which the revolutionary force that I have made since the 1980s. Obote or Amin never had the safety and security as the police is doing now. The police only acts, acts upon those forces in Uganda who works against the government, like ADF and LRA”
Mbabazi: “the Police under me and Go-Forward will be police for the Ugandans. The Police will not stop public gatherings and meetings. They will be going against criminals and fight corruption, will make a new commission to fight corrupt much better”
Besigye: “The Police needs reforms. They are not for the Ugandans, if not the Ugandans means the NRM and Museveni. They are a unit and ensure the regime to crackdown on anybody, anybody who speaks against them or acts towards them. We need a police reform that ensure that the IGP, DPP and Courts are independent and not loyal to Museveni, but according to laws to ensure safety for Ugandans”.
Now it’s time for a commercial break please don’t switch the channel, it’s more juicy quotes to come!”.
On Foreign Affairs:
Museveni: “We fought against sectarianism; we the NRM are a Pan-African Movement. We Move-Forward. We fight to liberate and have liberated Uganda and Ugandans. In the same way we will fight these guerillas, guerillas [who] will destroy the NRM and Uganda. We will continue to fight the LRA, the Al-Shabab and other force together with other African armies to secure Uganda and the movement”
Mbabazi: “We will continue to fight together with African Union in AMISOM and continue to have forces in C.A.R. to fight LRA. We in Go-Forward will re-evaluate the police to civic protection, not to fight Ugandans as they do now. The Armed forces will get better housing and better salaries”
Besigye: “We have to change the UPDF from a mercenary force which it has been in South Sudan, been hired to fight in C.A.R. but I will still continue to have forces in Somalia as part of the struggle of our fellow comrades in Somalia. But the NRM-Junta and have kept the UPDF to have seats in Parliament, that is something I will change!”
On the Economy:
Museveni: “We the NRM will continue to build a secure economy as we have done since 1980s. The NRM has built stability and we will over the next term, create a industrial economy, there will be more towns turned into city status, more villages turned into industrial towns, we will stop land grabbing and secure the development. We will focus on agriculture and cash-crops like coffee and tea. I myself as a farmer, a farmer knows the importance of cows and I got rich of agriculture myself! That is wealth creation which Ugandans can do himself. Parts of wealth creation that ensure our YOUTHS! Our Ugandan people we also will strengthen the NAADS and SACCO’s to assure that districts and counties get funding for their and our agricultural projects, agricultural projects who will ensure the Ugandan people and grow our economy”.
Mbabazi: “We will establish more of our economy to support our famers. Farmers are the main workforce. We will move forward to support our farmers. We will support growth with the cooperatives and ensure that districts get silos, follow up budget by the Mputo Declaration. That they get silos in every district and cheap fertilizers! Get more education on cash-crops and learn about more effective methods to earn more on their farm. We Go-Forward! ”
(Some guy in crowd scream: “WE GO FORWARD!”)
Besigye: ““This will be in recognition of the pivotal role of the Agricultural Sector in economic growth and development given the fact that the sector employs 70 percent of Uganda’s labour force. We boast that the backbone of our economy is agriculture yet the budget allocation is small, something that has curtailed the growth of the sector and poverty fight among the farmers. Once voted into power I will increase the budget allocation to agriculture to 15% Time to revive ourself from the NRM-theives”.
The host ends with asking:
“Does anybody in the crowd here have any questions for the candidates? Please grab the microphone so the candidate can try to answer you question, and please adress the one or who your asking the question!”
Like this I could have continued. Don’t you think it would be interesting! What do you think? It would be special with a TV-Debate between three Presidential Candidates. Who can address the public on TV and can’t make switches and changes to their statements and can’t retract quotes. Their banter will stay and they can’t stop the filming and their mouths from blabbering! That can be beautiful. Peace.