Donald Woods, a white South African newspaper editor, was "banned" [put under a form of house arrest] by the South African government on October 19, 1977 for his outspoken criticism of apartheid--South Africa's policy of separation of the races. Since his dramatic New Year's Eve escape, Woods has been vigorously performing what he calls his "political duty"--traveling the length and breadth of Britain and the U.S. speaking out against apartheid, and urging the West to withdraw its corporations from his country. He is currently a visiting Nieman Fellow at Harvard. This is the first of two Crimson interviews with Woods on Western investment policies in South Africa. The second will deal specifically with Harvard's financial ties to South Africa and the Corporation's position on divestiture as described in its statement of April 1978.

***

Crimson: Why do you think American corporations should leave South Africa?

Woods: The South African government has this belief that Uncle Sam will always bail it out. It looks upon Americans as basically white and believes that they'll think racially. It's my belief that until something is done that actually costs the United States, something that proves that the U.S. is not kidding around, the South African government will see no reason to change at all. The only things I can see that are non-violent, and that would constitute a strong pressure, are withdrawal of investment and loan money from South Africa, and recall of the ambassador. It will take something fairly dramatic, like withdrawal of economic and diplomatic support, to get it through to them, finally, that they either have to start negotiating with black leaders or face the whole thing on their own.

Q. Aside from the psychological impact, would corporate withdrawal have a significant economic effect?

A. The psychological impact would be the most powerful, but the economic one itself would be pretty powerful. The U.S. has over a billion invested there. And of course U.S. withdrawal would have a scare potential for European investors.

Q. So you don't think that European investors would come in and take up the slack if American corporations leave?

A. On the contrary, I think they'd start easing off. I know the British would; if the Americans do anything, the British tend to follow. I think already there's a perception that South Africa is not the wonderful investment it used to be, and that it's going to become increasingly less so.

Q. If American corporations withdraw, will the South Africans be able to take over their functions?

A. To a fairly large extent, yes. But I don't think that's enormously important, because American corporate withdrawal would still be a massive psychological blow against apartheid, a fairly considerable economic one, and would also help to clean up the U.S. image in Africa.

Q. Would U.S. withdrawal make the South African government less responsive to the liberalizing force of U.S. public opinion?

A. Where has it liberalized them? On the contrary, I think that South Africa is drawing aid and comfort from the West at the moment. I think Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's recent trip to Pretoria, as reported, was a grave setback to black liberation in South Africa. He is reported to have told Pieter Botha, the new Prime Minister, that if South Africa plays ball over Namibia, the U.S. will tone down its criticism of apartheid. If that is so, it means that bargaining for a million Namibians is at the cost of more than 20 million South African victims of apartheid. Generally, this whole flurry of diplomatic activity, trying to bring the South African government into an understanding over Namibia, is just playing into the hands of the apartheid regime--buying time, taking the heat off apartheid. I think the U.S. and Britain should just get right out of the scene. They should give Botha and company a deadline like next Tuesday and say, 'This is the end of the road. We're getting out now.'

***

Q. Why do you think the U.S. Government hasn't ordered U.S. corporations out of South Africa? Is the U.S. defending its corporate interests in South African uranium, gold, diamonds and cheap labor?

A. I've talked with both U.S. government and business officials; there's a lot of buck passing. The administration, I would guess, is nervous that the Republican Party would be able to gain politically by arguing that the federal government is hamstringing private enterprise by telling companies where they can and cannot invest. So the administration would rather the move came from the corporations. The corporations keep saying that they're not going to write foreign policy, and that the move should come from the administration. The corporations don't mean that, of course, because they'd squeal like hell if the government told them to get out. There's also a measure of truth in the argument that it's impossible to divorce U.S. government interests from U.S. corporate interests. I've been amazed at how often discussions with State Department people sound to me like discussions with directors of corporations.