Boycott of South African Goods

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29145, 4 March 1960, Page 10

Boycott of South African Goods

It is to be regretted that the New Zealand Federation of Labour has decided to support the one-month boycott by the British Trade Union Council and the British Labour Party of

South African goods in the

shops in protest against racial discrimination in South Africa The boycott cannot do good, and it might do grave harm. A widespread boycott of South African goods in Britain might cause South Africa a temporary economic draught—and if South Africa were provoked to retaliation Britain could be made to suffer to an equal or greater extent. A boycott in New Zealand does not even have the excuse that it could attract the South African Government’s attention to New Zealand views; the promoters acknowledge that it can be no more than a gesture, because few South African goods are in day-to-day demand in New Zealand shops. As an expression of personal protest, a refusal to buy South African goods might give some New Zealanders satisfaction, exactly as it might cause some Britons to feel that by boycotting South African goods they were making the only effective protest within their power. But what good does a morel protest of this sort do? It does not help those affected by South Africa’s segregation policies, because there is not the slightest chance that the South African Government will be moved to change its policies. Indeed, a boycott would probably strengthen the South African Government’s hand; even South Africans who have some misgivings about apartheid might resent what they could well regard as foreign interference in their own national affairs.

The gravest risk in the operation is Britain’s, though if the British boycott proves a fiasco the New Zealand boycott will certainly fail no less signally. The “ Economist ” points out that it is dangerously possible that, when it comes to ” voting “ with their shopping baskets ”. nothing like half the British public (the half Labour claims to represent) may make the gesture that Labour wants; the average British housewife, in so

far as she has heard of the boycott at all, probably thinks that it is “rather daft”. If so, South Africa may eventually be able to cite March’s trading figures as an argument that the British people refused to make any gesture against apartheid. This possibility might attract some support for the boycott for, as the “Economist” says, individual liberals must decide whether this fear provides a sufficient reason for privately joining the boycott even while deploring it. The “Economist” declares that it “ will not enjoy “the laughter that will ring “out from South Africa if Mr “ Gaitskell proves to have “ excitedly brought up his torch- “ lights to illuminate a nation “of British Levites passing by “ on the other side ”.