Meeting with Foreign Ministry Officials of Sweden

Stockholm, 15 April 1977, 10:30 a.m.

Mr. Orjan Berner, acting head of the Political Department, welcomed Amb. Harriman and suggested some matters for an exchange of views.

1. Divergence of views on how to apply pressure on South Africa. France was talking of negotiating tactics rather than sanctions. Sweden felt that that stage had passed and there was need to apply pressure on South Africa.
2. How far are economic partners of South Africa willing to move? The West German position had advanced and got close to the American.
3. Assessment of events since Soweto massacre. To what extent is it a turning point or is it a continuation of what had been going on?

Amb. Harriman said his information was limited. Sweden had an embassy in South Africa and can fill him in.

He explained consultations in the Security Council and the variety of approaches which were advanced.

Foreign investments in South Africa are used for the military and to build repressive machinery, and do not help blacks.

The least the international community can do, short of military confrontation, was to apply Chapter VII of the Charter and stop supporting the racist system.

We seem to have convinced the United States administration, he said, that it is not a question of human rights and civil rights alone.

Negotiations will not lead to change.

Mr. Berner referred to the carrot and stick policy. How can one define the purpose if nothing less than wholesale change is acceptable and when the stick is small?

What will happen to the white minority? The question is premature when things are not moving at all.

But he recalled that the Myrdal report recommended a national convention.

There were various means of pressure such as the arms embargo and the cessation of new investments. The United States felt that it would be far-reaching to apply Chapter VII of the Charter, although they were curbing new investment.

For Africans, the arms embargo and stopping of investments seem to be parallel actions. Is there a priority between the two?

Amb. Harriman said application of Chapter VII of the Charter can lead to far-reaching consequences, including economic blockade. Following the Swedish initiative, it was agreed by the non-aligned delegations to press both for Chapter VII action, and for stopping investments, knowing that proposals for application of Chapter VII would be vetoed.

The West is prepared to accept the arms embargo, but only a voluntary embargo. In order to get some progress, it is better not to link Chapter VII action and action on investments.

We have come a long way in not pressing for the maximum - in order to accommodate the Swedish position - and the proposal on new investments is an important joint initiative of Sweden and African States. He hoped that Sweden was not backpedalling on that.

The Foreign Minister said that action on investments would be counter-productive if all Western countries do not support it. But they should put principle before limited trade and investment. India took action although it is far away.

The trend in South Africa was bad. The organic link between the West and South Africa was growing economically. There will be greater commitment by West to preserve growing investments.

The opportunities will be growing in Africa as a market. There cannot be similar growth in South Africa because the four million whites are already the high consumers.

Mr. Berner said the Government was not backing down on the investment issue. It suggested different language only to get support of at least some of the Western Powers. If that does not work, it is possible to go back to stronger language. The position of the new Government was very clear.

The Palme Government had adopted the policy of dissuading investment in South Africa. Flow of investment had gone down to practically nil, perhaps also because of Soweto and the economic conditions in South Africa. There was no practical problem regarding new investments. The old investments were about 50-60 million dollars.

Discussion and dissuasion may not be enough in other countries where there is less cooperation between government and industry.

That was why the Government had been hesitant about new measures - e.g. the Socialist proposal to prohibit outflow of capital. The Government felt that legislation was superfluous. The Foreign Minister said that if there was an increase in capital outflow, the Government would need to consider action, including legislative action. The matter was being studied, but there was little likelihood of new investment in South Africa.

Mr. Abdul Minty, who accompanied the delegation at the request of Amb. Harriman, asked whether Sweden could explore the possibility of action to prohibit transfer of technology. We have been lagging behind South Africa on action, since we did not anticipate developments.

Mr. Berner said they would look into the matter.

He asked about possibilities of assistance to South African trade unions.

Amb. Harriman said that under the apartheid policy in South Africa, there was no room for trade unions. Trade Union education could not be productive.

Mr. Berner asked if better results could be expected on Namibia, in the second round of talks in June.

Amb. Harriman said he was somewhat out of touch with negotiations on Namibia. There was no optimism among Western countries after talks with Vorster. But he was hopeful about the Carter administration.

Since the Swedish initiative on investments, the South African statements reflect a fear of economic pressure.

If action is not taken to stop investment, there may be resumption of confidence in South Africa later and a flow of new investments.

The major Western powers argue that they cannot pressure South Africa because they need the cooperation of Vorster for a settlement in Rhodesia. But Rhodesia talks are a waste of time unless South Africa is pressured to withdraw support to Smith.

The meeting was also attended by trade union representatives on the Refugee Committee: Mr. T. Carisson, International Secretary of Confederation of Trade Unions (LO); Mr. Sven Fockstedt, International Secretary of Confederation of Salaried Employees’ Unions (TCO); and Ms. Kristian Persson, of Joint International Committee of LO-TCO. They were apparently on the Board of SIDA.

Amb. Harriman reviewed the situation in southern Africa and briefed them on the forthcoming World Conference for Action against Apartheid in Lagos.

If Namibia and Rhodesia were freed and confidence could be built between blacks and whites, that would greatly influence development in South Africa.

The colonial lines of communication built in southern Africa will need to be reoriented. He hoped for greater assistance to Lesotho.

Some African countries were delinquents. The BLS countries had no options, but Zaire and Mauritius do.

The Chairman (probably Mr. Michanek) said that the SIDA budget for assistance to BLS countries and Mozambique was about $50 million. He referred to the part played by trade unions in assistance.

Mr. Carlsson said that the two big trade union confederations - LO and TCO - sent a study delegation to South Africa in 1975 to gather information on the operation of the six Swedish manufacturing companies. (There are also some marketing companies.)

The recommendations of the delegation were accepted by LO and TCO. They decided to negotiate with the Swedish parent companies to see that their subsidiaries recognise and negotiate collective agreements with African trade unions. The parent companies agreed after pressure. However, at that time, there were no African unions in Swedish factories: the Africans were afraid of being fired. Gradually the African workers came to know that they would not be victimised and unions were being organised.

The delegation had also recommended provision of trade union education to African workers in Swedish companies. Projects for that purpose would be discussed by the SIDA Refugee Committee on 20 April.

Ja Otto of SWAPO had visited Sweden and proposed trade union education in Namibia. A project will need to be prepared for SIDA.

The trade unions were urging pressure on governments for more action against apartheid. The Nordic Trade Union Council met all Nordic governments and proposed 14 points for action.

There was need to counteract South Africa's economic influence on neighbouring countries; to provide economic support for education and training of refugees from South Africa; to stop all new investment in South Africa; to stop all exports and imports by governments to South Africa; to prohibit South African ships and planes from use of harbours and air space in Nordic countries; to protect Nordic workers from penalisation by employers for boycott of South Africa; to provide assistance for trade union education in South Africa, and legal and economic assistance to victims of apartheid to increase humanitarian assistance to liberation movements; to stop tourism and emigration to South Africa; to encourage schools in Nordic countries to spread education on apartheid, etc.

(South African Airways has one flight a week to Copenhagen.)

There should be conferences between governments and trade unions to discuss action.

Amb. Harriman said that as many trade unions as possible should be encouraged to attend the Lagos Conference.

Mr. Reddy spoke about various needs for assistance and Swedish contributions.

Mr. Frydenlund welcomed Amb. Harriman.

Amb. Harriman reviewed the situation in southern Africa.

Some African countries were dependent. But Mauritius and Zaire, for instance, were collaborating with South Africa. We try to avoid quarrels in OAU, he said, but we will have a showdown at next session.

Prohibition of new investments in South Africa was important. Investments had not benefited blacks. He stressed the importance of assistance to liberation movements. Also contributions to UN Trust Fund for Publicity against Apartheid which is used for a broad spectrum of information.

Quality of life in South Africa was worse than in 1960. There was more repression and more curbs on labour.

Multinationals were decreasing investments in Europe and increasing them in South Africa. The economies of West and South Africa become intermeshed.

He expressed appreciation to Norway for its votes at the United Nations.

He hoped that the Prime Minister could attend the World Conference for Action against Apartheid to be held in Lagos in August.

One cannot say that only the whites can keep the Cape route safe. NATO should come out with a clear statement of position on apartheid, not only on importance of Cape route for defence.

He said he had not believed in the talks on Rhodesia. The issues were clearer in Namibia and the West had more leverage. The West should press South Africa on Namibia and it should not cooperate with South Africa for peace in Rhodesia.

He also referred to developments in Shaba.

Mr. Frydenlund thanked Amb. Harriman.

He said he was worried about involvement of big Powers in African conflicts as in Shaba.

He agreed that it was not in the interest of NATO or its member States that the options of liberation movements should be limited in southern Africa. Norway would make it its own argumentation at the next meeting of NATO.

Mr. Stoltenberg, State Secretary who was present at the meeting, also thanked Amb. Harriman. He expressed concern over increased investments in South Africa.

The discussions were led on the Norwegian side by the Director of Political Department, Torsten Christiansen. Mr. Larsen, Political Secretary of the Foreign Minister, was also present.

Amb. Harriman said that capital flow into South Africa was underwriting growth of military budget and the oppressive machinery. He stressed the importance of stopping the flow.

He stressed that there should be no respectability to Vorster.

He also referred to possible action by Norway within NATO.

(No notes were taken of rest of discussion.)

The Chairman welcomed Amb. Harriman.

Amb. Harriman commended the vanguard position of Norway in the United Nations and the international community in support of the struggle for liberation in southern Africa. The role of Norway was based on the support of organisations such as those represented at the meeting, and he wished to thank them profoundly for their contribution.

He expressed satisfaction at decisions taken by all Nordic trade unions in Helsinki recently on action against apartheid.

Norway was the largest contributor to UN funds for southern Africans. Norway was the first country to take action to prevent new investments in South Africa.

He asked that they should make a clear declaration in support of the liberation struggle by all means possible. Co-ordinated action in the Socialist International and the labour movements would be very useful.

There was some movement already in international action and hope that Nordic example will be followed by the United States, France, etc.

He was happy to hear that the cooperative stores in Norway had collection boxes for assistance to victims of apartheid. They are also a means to educate people. He would visit a cooperative store next morning to take a photograph and commend the cooperatives. The example should be followed in other countries, especially bigger Western countries.

If we do not make progress in southern Africa, that would backfire in our own societies.

(Discussion followed.)

(The International Secretary of LO was Mr. K. Sandegren who was during 1960s in the UN division of the Norwegian Foreign Office.)

Mr. Nordli said he had appreciated the opportunity of meeting Amb. Harriman at the United Nations and welcomed him.

The Norwegian Government, he said, has tried to give support to certain parts of the work of the Special Committee. We will do so in the future in organisations in which we are represented in a way we think realistic and useful. It is useful for us to have broad contacts with the United Nations and the Special Committee - and with representatives of people fighting for their rights in southern Africa.

Amb. Harriman expressed the appreciation of the Special Committee to Norway which has given the lead in Western Europe. It has made the largest contributions to UN funds on southern

Africa and its votes on apartheid, Namibia and Rhodesia were ahead of those of other West European countries.

He was increasingly disturbed about the situation in southern Africa. The machinery of oppression was being built up at great cost. There was a great increase in investments from France, West Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. Israel was involved. The situation was getting more and more complicated. The Western Powers may become more interested in preserving the status quo.

He hoped that Norway could use its influence in NATO and Socialist International to convey these concerns to them.

He would appreciate it if Norway (and possibly Sweden) could become members of the Special Committee to give it more balance.

He had good contacts with the Carter administration in the United States. Its pronouncements have been encouraging. He was involved in the negotiations for a declaration on apartheid by the Security Council.

The non-aligned group was in support of a declaration which would call for the dismantling of apartheid, bantustans and Bantu education; call for full equality and majority rule; recognise that South Africa is the basic cause of the problems in Rhodesia and Namibia; declare non-recognition of any internal settlement; and call for a cessation of all sales of arms to South Africa.

The USSR was rather negative on such a declaration, as they see it in the context of the Vance-Gromyko talks.

He hoped the Norwegian Government would succeed in getting approval of Parliament for direct assistance to the liberation movement in South Africa. In South Africa, it was a movement of pressure, not of armed struggle. The movement needs money for underground trade union action, for sensitisation of the public, and for publicity abroad.

He invited Mr. Nordli to attend the World Conference for Action against Apartheid, to be held in Lagos in August, even for one or two days. The Conference would assess the situation and make a solemn declaration on principles.

Referring to Angola and Shaba, he said that European countries should not become involved in the heart of Africa. They should try to stabilise the Cape route through progressive policies.

Mr. Nordli said:

We will cooperate in any field in which there is possibility for realistic solutions.

The special points raised by you will be discussed further in the government - in the normal way.

We will try to cooperate. Norway’s membership in the Special Committee is an interesting question.

I really hope that in organisations in which we are members, such as NATO, we will again try, as we have done before, to give our contributions on policy.

We are willing to discuss with you any question at any time.

I hope that I can attend the Lagos Conference. We too are interested and we will do our best to be represented at a high level.

But general elections are coming up early in September and it is important to win the elections too.

Mr. Tor Oftedal (Labour Party) welcomed Amb. Harriman. Amb. Harriman made a statement.

Mr. Oftedal said all parties in Norway were agreed on opposition to apartheid, though there may be hesitation on various measures. There was an interest in supporting a peaceful solution.

Is there any possibility of a peaceful solution? Can multi-racialism exist after a conflict? Is the United States speaking with many voices?

Mr. Lyng (?) (Conservative Party) also said that there was no disagreement among parties on opposition to apartheid. Any effort by the world community towards liberation of black people would be supported by all parties.

He feared that settlement would result from military action.

Mrs. Os (Left Socialist) said James Stuart of SACTU had expressed same views as Amb. Harriman. Norway’s allies in NATO were not following Norway’s policy of not investing in South Africa. Were the whites getting weapons from NATO?

Amb. Harriman commended the Norwegian cooperatives for boycotting South African goods and placing notices in all stores.

Mr. Soiland said that the Norwegian cooperatives took a decision in September 1976 - after the Soweto massacre - not to import any South African goods. (The cooperatives in Norway have about 25 percent of the retail market.)

The cooperatives hoped that other traders would take similar action. There were discussions on Nordic and Western European levels. But results were disappointing.

A letter to the Norwegian Cooperative Society on the attitude of the Special Committee to boycotts, etc., would be helpful. He could send it to his Board and also to other Nordic cooperatives.

Amb. Harriman assured Mr. Soiland that he highly appreciated the action of Norwegian cooperatives and would take action to promote such action by others.

Amb. Ole Bjerring, head of the Political Department, chaired the meeting.

Amb. Harriman made a presentation based on the attached notes.

He referred to the need to stop investments in South Africa, and stressed the need for direct assistance to the liberation movements. He also asked for a contribution by Denmark to the UN Trust Fund for Publicity against Apartheid.

Amb. Bjerring said that there was no NATO codification system. It was an industrial list and dealings with South Africa were bilateral.

(No notes available on rest of meeting.)

Appendix:

Notes for Statement by Ambassador Harriman at Meeting with Foreign Ministry Officials in Copenhagen

21 April 1977, at 11:00 a.m.

I. Purpose of Visit

1. Expression of appreciation to Nordic Governments and organisations

Denmark has always supported action against apartheid.

It took initiatives in UN as early as 1952 and 1963 to define UN objective of non-racialism and press South Africa for a peaceful and just solution.

It has implemented arms embargo.

At the last session of the General Assembly, it voted for the resolution calling for mandatory arms embargo (although some clauses were unfortunate in naming some countries as arms suppliers, including West Germany which apparently protested Danish vote).

Denmark is a major contributor to UN funds for southern Africa. It also gives large contributions to the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa and the International University Exchange Fund.

It made a large grant to the World University Service to build a hostel in Lesotho to accommodate South African refugee students. The hostel is now almost completed.

It also decided to contribute to ANC of Rhodesia. But not yet for South African liberation movements.

2. Consultation on further action

The Special Committee has always been anxious for close consultation with Nordic countries on action in the United Nations.

We may not always agree, but we always take Nordic opinions into account.

Recent cooperation on investment resolution in General

Assembly and present discussions in the Security Council. Although Sweden moved the Assembly resolution, it was a joint Nordic initiative.

II. Lagos Conference

We hope Denmark will be represented at high level. I will personally invite Foreign Minister.

III. Some Specific Issues

1. Set the pace

The one matter I have been emphasising in all Nordic countries is that they should continue to set the pace among Western countries - and persuade others through NATO, EEC, Socialist International, Inter-Parliamentary Union, etc., to follow the example.

Finland and Norway contribute to this Fund.

Sweden has promised to consider a contribution.

But Denmark has not contributed, though Denmark moved the resolution in 1975 setting up the Fund.

3. Direct assistance to liberation movements

Denmark used to provide assistance to liberation movements in Portuguese territories.

It contributes assistance to South Africans through European organisations (IDAF and IUEF). While we welcome this, I feel that it is also important to contribute directly to liberation movements.

The intermediaries may have their views and they might in fact criticise liberation movements in order to get more funds for their own organisations. They might promote a leadership against liberation movements by providing large amounts of money.

If you want to promote "multi-racialism" of the right sort, ANC is the only body fighting for it against all odds.

In Norway, we suggested assistance to ANC for research and planning of a multi-racial society.

The liberation movement in South Africa did not want violence. Vorster leaves them no alternative. A conflict will come unless we do something.

The best way to reduce violence is to support trade union and student movement which has to be largely underground under present circumstances.

Amb. Harriman thanked Nordic countries for their lead among Western countries for freedom in southern Africa.

He hoped Nordic countries would champion cause of Africa in NATO, EEC, Council of Europe, etc.

He appealed to Denmark for a contribution to the UN Trust Fund for Publicity against Apartheid which had been set up by a resolution moved by Denmark. Information activity was important - especially in Africa.

He felt that giving contributions to peripheral agencies such as IDAF and IUEF and refusing direct contributions to liberation movements was not wise. That would undermine the authority and credibility of liberation movements.

He invited the Foreign Minister to attend the World Conference for Action against Apartheid in Lagos in August.

Mr. Anderson said he would discuss the matters with his colleagues.

At EEC meeting on 18 April, Denmark again reaffirmed its principled approach on apartheid.

Denmark had close contacts with liberation movements. Denmark would contact Sweden and Norway and would be represented at the Lagos Conference at high level.

(About 10 members of Parliament were present)

Amb. Harriman expressed appreciation to Nordic countries. Their initiatives had influence on other Western countries.

He was appealing to Nordic countries to use their influence in NATO, EEC, etc., for action against apartheid, and to give direct assistance to liberation movements rather than indirectly through IDAF, IUEF, etc.

He then reviewed the development of the situation in South Africa, the build-up of military and repressive apparatus, enmeshing of South African and Western economies, etc.

A Socialist M.P. asked if there was a change in United States policy.

Amb. Harriman said that Nordic initiatives had an influence. That is why the United States was negotiating on a Security Council declaration.

Nordic initiatives and the liberalism of Carter were the best hope for progress.

A Socialist M.P. said NATO was not a good forum for pressure for an arms embargo. The responsibility of NATO was only in Europe, and discussion of other issues would legitimise NATO involvement in other areas.

Denmark wanted to assist liberation movements. But the guidelines for the use of the money were strict. If the liberation movements use the money strictly for purposes indicated, they can get aid.

Amb. Harriman said the United States was looking at Cape route in terms of cold war strategy.

NATO strategy should not be in conflict with human rights.

Amb. Harriman said he felt highly honoured that the President found time to receive him. He expressed appreciation and gratitude to Nordic countries for their assistance to southern Africans and their liberation movements, and also for new dimensions given to the struggle for freedom. The initiative by Finland for a programme to prepare Namibia to statehood was very timely.

Dr. Kekkonen said they were in a position in which they had to take initiatives, and he was happy the initiatives were appreciated.

Our interest, he said, was not of short duration.

He asked if the Special Committee dealt mainly with southern Africa.

Amb. Harriman thanked Finland for sparing Mr. Ahtisaari for the post of Commissioner for Namibia.

He said the terms of reference of the Special Committee were to combat apartheid. The apartheid regime sustains Ian Smith in Rhodesia and forcibly occupies Namibia, so that the Committee is concerned with those territories.

He was also chairman of the Committee on Peace-keeping Operations.

Dr. Kekkonen said everyone had his own ideas as to how long the present system in Africa would prevail before humane conditions would be created. He believed it would be a long process.

He was more optimistic on Rhodesia. He asked for the opinion of Amb. Harriman.

Amb. Harriman said his Government felt that Kissinger was wrong in putting emphasis on Rhodesia, while the issues were clearer in Namibia.

Now the five Western Powers agreed on a concurrent approach. Their ambassadors jointly met Mr. Vorster to announce that they would not recognise the Turnhalle government.

Namibia was a greater threat to international peace and security. It was militarised and was used as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries.

But for the fact that South Africa invaded Angola, there would be no justification for Cuban troops in Angola. Cubans were doing very good work.

The involvement of France in Shaba, though brief, created a serious precedent.

South Africa’s presence in Namibia was creating problems further and further north.

He then reviewed the problem in South Africa.

Dr. Kekkonen said that unfortunately he had to interrupt.

We should, he said, continue to pursue the kind of policies that would give justice to the black people of southern Africa. These questions became obviously more and more central to the activities of the United Nations.

He wished success to the Special Committee.

Mr. Korhonen welcomed Amb. Harriman and said Finland, along with other Nordic countries, had been very much in favour of the activity of the Special Committee against Apartheid.

Amb. Harriman said that he was gratified at the continuity of policy in Nordic countries on southern Africa, because of unanimity among parties on the objective of human dignity.

Cooperation and assistance of Nordic countries was becoming more and more important. There was need for new initiatives - such as prohibition of new investments, mandatory arms embargo and preparation of Namibia for statehood.

The West, he said, cannot ignore the Nordic position. Any recent progress in Western positions was because of Soweto massacre and Nordic initiatives.

He explained the negotiations on a declaration on apartheid by the Security Council.

He briefly reviewed the situation in South Africa from the miners’ strike of 1946 to the Sharpeville massacre and the Soweto massacre, and of international action by governments and NGOs.

The main problem was the escapism by the major Western countries which avoided facing real issues.

Mr. Korhonen thanked Amb. Harriman for his assessment. Finland and other Nordic countries, he said, were trying to promote the goal of elimination of apartheid with no other interest except the human principles in which they believed. They hoped that the Security Council would take action on a mandatory arms embargo and discuss prohibition of new investments.

The Special Committee can count on the political support of the Nordic countries.

Finnish Government, he said, would consult other Nordic countries and would be represented at high level at the Lagos Conference.

Mr. Sternbach (?) welcomed Amb. Harriman.

Amb. Harriman explained the purpose of his mission and expressed appreciation for actions by Finland. He reviewed situation in South Africa.

He said foreign investments were leading to integration of industries of South Africa and Europe.

Some Nordic countries, he said, prefer to give aid to victims of apartheid through IUEF, IDAF etc., rather than directly through liberation movements. That was indirectly weakening liberation movements.

Mr. Sternbach thanked Amb. Harriman. He said he had just returned from a visit to Tanzania and Zambia.

(A brief discussion followed.)

(Note: The meeting was attended by two members of Parliament: Mr. Sternbach from the Swedish party, a member of the government coalition, and Mr. Tuomioja (?) from the Social Democratic Party in opposition. Both of them were leaders in the anti-apartheid movement in Finland in the 1960s.)