THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1980. F.O.L. and trade boycotts

Press, 9 May 1980, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1980. F.O.L. and trade boycotts

labour conference !"° Ugbt tWICe before implementing a trade boycott of South Africa. It must be hoped that restraint will prevail in me end after individual unions have considered what should be done. The intention of the F.O.L. was to express abhorrence of the system of apartheid. Although this abhorrence is shared by many, probably most, New Zealanders, considerable doubts must be cast on the idea that a boycott on trade will do anything effective to.bring about an end to apartheid. That should be the point to be borne in mind as the idea of boycotting trade is considered by the transport unions to which the F.O.L. has

passed the problem. If refusing to trade with a country whose policies offend were adopted as a general principle, New Zealand could find grounds for many refusals. Democracy is a fragile thing and few countries practise it. Once the countries of Western Europe are mentioned, and Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are added, the listing of countries that enjoy democratic government as it is understood in this country becomes awkward even if a number of small countries are appended fairly comfortably to the list. Those with a democratic system are a minority and reasons can be found to criticise the political systems and practices of all the rest. Yet it would be impracticable and pointless to decide to trade only with those countries whose political and social systems are like those of New Zealand. While some members of the unions affiliated to the F.O.L. might argue that, in the instance of South Africa, the Government there has prevented the formation of unions by black workers in the past, the present position is not as clear cut. In theory it may be argued that a trade boycott on South Africa would hurt South Africa commercially and that South Africa would be forced to change its ways in the treatment of its black population. The first condition for that has to be that the boycott is international and strictly and universally observed. On this point alone it is worth observing that the supposedly international boycott of the illegitimate regime in Rhodesia lasted for more than a decade and, without the war that sapped the. strength of the regime, probably would have had little result other than to strengthen the resolve of the Salisbury Government.

A small country such as New Zealand is unlikely to be an effective vanguard for such a boycott movement, especially when it would be New Zealand, not South Africa, that would be isolated. The trade does not amount to much—about Sl7 million in all and any move by New Zealand in isolation is clearly going to hurt New Zealand much more than it would South Africa. Even if the boycott were international and observed, it is highly probable that the have-nots of South Africa would be hurt far more and for a longer time than would the haves. The chances of an international boycott are improbable. South Africa has too many minerals that the world wants —not least of which is gold—to lend any credibility to the possibility of international self-sacrifice.

Nor can it be forgotten that the very strong economy of South Africa makes it an attractive trading partner for many of the poorer States on the African continent. Any international move which hurt South Africa as a country would also hurt those .'countries.' Some might, assume a willingness in the whole of Southern Africa’s black population to bear short-term hardship for long-term gain in South Africa itself. Yet there would seem to be grounds for scepticism about such a view on trade. Trade creates jobs and enables a country to import what it wants from its neighbours and other countries further afield. None of these have shown any marked interest, in a South African boycott.

The F.O.L. also decided to continue its boycott of trade with Chile. Again the question has to-be asked whether a trade boycott imposed by the F.O.L. in New Zealand can possibly achieve anything/Isabel Allende,, the daughter of the President who was killed when the present rulers came to power, and who is in New Zealand, obviously favours the continuation of the boycott. From her point of view it is a demonstration of support for principles she believes in; but it must be wondered whether she is the best judge of the effectiveness of the boycott. The F.O.L. needs to ask itself some questions about the moral worth of self-indicted injury that is doing nothing to alter events, in Chile. To the rest of the world, if it is interested at all. the Chile boycott must seem eccentric. ineffective, and perversely selfgratifying. A South African boycott would appear little different.