The Republic of South Africa and the Rhodesia Coalition

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Undated, June 1974?
2 pages
The report makes the case for extending the boycott of imports from Rhodesia to South Africa. The report says the Republic of South Africa is a stronghold of imperialism, and its record of oppression of black people is much greater and longer than Rhodesia; the emergence of Rhodesia as a racist power is more recent, and the armed liberation struggle is on a higher level than in South Africa; similar United Nations condemnations and sanctions exist in regard to South Africa; also, the survival of Rhodesia depends largely on South African support. The report says South Africa is Britain's second largest trading partner, and its national ruling class owns a substantial part of domestic industry. The report says that limiting the boycott to Rhodesia because in certain superficial ways it is more obvious ls opportunist, and it makes this effort appear less worthy of support to those who seriously supports African liberation; tactically, expanding the boycott will be more difficult, because of the large quantity of imports from South Africa; the longshoremen will have to be centrally involved in this discussion; possibilities including boycotts of particular shipping companies that handle South African freight, boycott of specific strategic items, or refusal to handle some merchandise originating in the U.S. and bound for South Africa The report discusses UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence), Ian Smith, Verwoerd, Caetano, U.S. investment, and internal educational responsibilities of the coalition. [Note: This document may have been one of the position papers distributed at the June 24 meeting of the Steering Committee. See “To: Steering Committee,” Coalition to Stop Rhodesian and South African Imports, June 21, 1974, available on this website.]
Used by permission of former members of the Coalition to Stop Rhodesian and South African Imports.
Collection: Vincent Klingler papers