Phillips sees its agreement as having little effect on the situation in Namibia. No major extraction could possibly take place until 1980. Phillips claims that there are a limited number of sedimentary basins and that another company will pick the lease up. Phillips only hires a small number of technical personnel, no blacks.

Phillips representatives maintain that the company is not in conflict with U.S. policy because the U.S. does not prohibit but merely discourages investment in Namibia. The effects of U.S. restraints on these companies are minimal.

Advocacy groups point out that the concession is illegal and that the possible participation of the South African government in production would be illegal. They claim that though the belief that other companies will take the place of Phillips and Continental is realistic, it is not responsive to the strong moral concerns of this case.

Investment by these companies provides incentives for the continued South African presence. The continuation of corporate activity is contrary to the stated desire of representatives of the Namibian people, who feel that corporations are depleting their natural resources.

Furthermore, advocates believe that the terms in which corporations discuss their positions are misleading. To discuss minor improvements in social conditions and the lack of positive harm being done obscures these companies' support for white minority rule, according to Timothy Smith, an associate of the Interfaith Committee on Social Responsibility in Investment.

So far, clear-cut issues of international law have enabled Harvard to avoid questions of political legitimacy and the morality of exploiting blacks, even when apartheid or colonial governments decree such exploitation is "legal." Harvard's vote this week on Exxon operations in Angola may reveal more clearly whether Harvard's idea of "shareholder responsibility" encompasses moral responsibility, as well