Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, JANUARY 4, 1985
PAGE 9
Pension fund managers are deeply concerned. They are being forced to get
rid of high value "blue chip" investments, replacing them with stocks of
lesser value. Pension fund managers claim they may� be unable to buy
stocks of 29 of the top 50 Standard! Poors 500 corporations. Virtually
whole segments of industry are proscribed, such as automotive, electronics
and pharmaceuticals. Fund managers claim the disinvestment drive seriously
affects the balance their portfolios require. Hundreds of billions of dol
lars could be lost by the pension funds, experts claim. All for a "moral
cause."
But disinvestment could be a two-way street. What if South Africa chose to
halt its mineral exports, including chromium, manganese, industrial dia
monds, vanadium, platinum group metals and paladium, to the United States?
Or what if the U.S. had to purchase such metals from the USSR (the only al
ternate source for some metals) or from South Africa via the more costly
third party route? The U.S. stands to be the big loser in this almost in
sane campaign. Yet business leaders are afraid to speak out, lest they be
accused of racism. As the LOS ANGELES TIMES of January 1, 1985 reported:
For many of these [metals], South Africa is the world's largest
producer and owner of the largest reserves, rivaled only by the
Soviet Union; in most others, it ranks no lower than No. 3 or No.
4. Moreover, South Africa's role as the West's major supplier of
such metals and minerals is increasing, despite the West's at
tempts to diversify its sources••••
"Ready or not, we are in a resource war•••with the Soviet Union,"
says one South African pamphlet aimed at Americans and West Euro
peans. The mineral crisis that is coming, South Africa argues,
will be much� devastating than the energy crisis of� decade
ago. The United States, it asserts, must "stop treating South
Africa as a moral leper and look ori her as a necessary ally."
,
"Where would you rather buy--from South Africa or the Soviet
Union?" another government official here asked pointedly. "On
whom would you rather depend--us or the Russians? That is the
only choice you have."
On Sunday, December 16 (coincidentally, South Africa's "Day of the Cove
nent" holiday) the CBS public affairs program "60 Minutes" presented a
fairly objective 20-minute report on South Africa. President P.W. Botha
was given considerable airtime; he emphasized his government's commitment
to change--still with the bottom-line necessity of maintaining, as he said,
"orderly government." Mr. Botha briefly explained his government's unique
attempt at "devolving" power to the country's many ethnic groups. (It is
strange, but the principle of self-determination is held to be sacrosanct
everywhere in the world--except in South Africa, where all groups, so goes
the radical argument, must be kept together. Why? So that there can be
enough of the majority to effect majority rule by the self-appointed
leaders who covet power.)
Mr. Botha's views contrast sharply with those of the radicals, both inside
and outside of South Africa, who demand instant change NOW--an immediate
overturn of power. Of course power to command South Africa's wealth is the
bottomline, crux issue! Such wrenching, rapid transformation would lead to