When was disinvestment from South Africa first advocated, and when did it gain significant implementation?

Disinvestment from South Africa was first advocated in the 1960s as a protest against the apartheid system. However, it was not implemented on a significant scale until the mid-1980s.

What role did the U.S. disinvestment policy adopted in 1986 play in South Africa's political landscape?

The disinvestment policy adopted by the U.S. in 1986 is credited with pressuring the South African government to begin negotiations that eventually led to the dismantling of the apartheid system.

What was the significance of UN General Assembly Resolution 1761 passed in November 1962?

UN General Assembly Resolution 1761 established the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid and called for economic and other sanctions against South Africa.

How did Western nations and major trading partners of South Africa react to UN Resolution 1761?

Western nations and South Africa's major trading partners opposed the call for sanctions and boycotted the Special Committee against Apartheid.

What was the primary objective of the international conference on sanctions held in London in April 1964, organized by the Anti-Apartheid Movement?

The aim of the 1964 conference was to determine the practicability of economic sanctions against South Africa and to analyze their potential implications on the economies of South Africa, the UK, and the U.S., as well as the Protectorates.

What were the key findings of the International Conference for Economic Sanctions Against South Africa regarding the effectiveness of sanctions?

The conference concluded that internationally organized sanctions against South Africa were necessary, legal, and practicable, viewing apartheid policies as a threat to global peace. It also highlighted that Britain and the U.S. needed to actively participate for sanctions to be effective, noting their role as obstacles to implementation.

Why did the British government refuse to implement economic sanctions against South Africa following the 1964 conference?

The British government maintained that imposing sanctions would be unconstitutional because they did not believe the situation in South Africa constituted a threat to international peace and security, nor did they think sanctions would persuade the South African government to change its policies.

How did the Anti-Apartheid Movement attempt to influence the 1964 UK general election regarding sanctions against South Africa?

The movement asked candidates to state their positions on economic sanctions and other punitive measures against the South African government, with most respondents supporting sanctions.

What was the impact of the Labour Party's victory in the 1964 UK general election on the anti-apartheid cause?

Despite Labour's victory, their commitment to the anti-apartheid cause dissipated. Prime Minister Harold Wilson stated the party was not in favor of trade sanctions, arguing they would harm the very people the movement aimed to help. By the end of 1964, it was clear the election had made little difference to the government's unwillingness to impose sanctions.

How did Britain's stance at the UN in 1964 reflect its economic interests concerning South Africa?

Britain consistently refused to acknowledge that the situation in South Africa fell under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Instead, in collaboration with the U.S., it focused on a carefully worded appeal regarding political trials to appease other nations and public opinion, indicating a prioritization of economic interests over implementing sanctions.

When did the voluntary UN arms embargo against South Africa become mandatory, and what other embargo was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1987?

The voluntary UN arms embargo became mandatory with the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 418 in 1977. In 1987, the UN General Assembly adopted a voluntary international oil embargo.

What was the purpose of the Sullivan Principles, introduced in 1977?

The Sullivan Principles, authored by Rev. Dr. Leon Sullivan, required corporations doing business in South Africa to ensure all employees were treated equally regardless of race and in an integrated environment, directly conflicting with apartheid's segregation policies.

Who was Leon Sullivan, and what was his connection to the Sullivan Principles?

Leon Sullivan was an African-American preacher from Philadelphia and a board member of General Motors. He authored and lent his name to the Sullivan Principles, which aimed to promote equal treatment and integration for employees in South Africa.

How did anti-apartheid activists in the U.S. lobby institutional investors regarding South African interests?

Activists lobbied institutional investors to end their involvement with or investments in South Africa as a matter of corporate social responsibility. They also advocated for divestment from U.S. companies with South African interests that had not adopted the Sullivan Principles.

What were the two main ways public companies with South African interests were pressured by activists?

Companies were pressured through shareholder resolutions, which could affect corporate reputations, and by the threat of major institutional investors withdrawing their investments.

What event in 1984 is cited as a catalyst for the disinvestment campaign in the United States gaining critical mass?

The campaign gained critical mass following black South African resistance to the 1983 South African constitution, which further solidified racial segregation and discrimination.

How did black South Africans mobilize in response to the 1983 constitution, and what was the international impact?

Black South Africans mobilized to make townships ungovernable, leading to resignations of black local officials and the government declaring a State of Emergency in 1985. Televised reports of this resistance and the police response dramatically expanded international actions to isolate apartheid.

What was the role of student activists in the higher education divestment campaigns?

Student activists demanded that their colleges and universities divest from companies trading or operating in South Africa, pressuring boards of trustees to take action.

Who founded the first anti-apartheid organization on U.S. university campuses, and who did he communicate with?

Ramon Sevilla founded CUAA at the University of California, Berkeley. He communicated with Nelson Mandela while Mandela was imprisoned and also with the African National Congress (ANC).

Which university was the first to divest completely from companies with major South African interests in 1977?

Hampshire College was the first institution to completely divest from companies with major South African interests in 1977.

How did the number of educational institutions divesting from South Africa change between 1984 and 1988?

The number of institutions divesting increased from 53 in 1984, to 128 in 1987, and then to 155 in 1988.

When did the disinvestment campaign begin at Michigan State University and Stanford University?

The disinvestment campaign on campuses began in 1977 at Michigan State University and Stanford University.

What was the outcome of the Michigan State University divestiture efforts in 1978 and the subsequent legislative action in 1982?

Michigan State University had some early successes in divestiture in 1978. Following this, the Michigan Legislature voted in 1982 for divestiture by all of Michigan's public colleges and universities, though this action was later struck down as unconstitutional.

What was the focus of the initial Columbia University divestment campaign, and what event preceded it?

The initial campaign focused on bonds and financial institutions directly involved with the South African regime. It followed a year-long student campaign in 1977 to block Henry Kissinger's appointment to an endowed chair at Columbia.

How did students at Smith College protest the Board of Trustees' decision not to fully divest in 1986?

Students protested through a sit-in in administrative offices and blockaded the building the following day, preventing staff from entering.

What agreement did administrators reach with Smith College students to end their protest in March 1986?

Administrators agreed that the trustees would re-evaluate their divestment decision, a mandatory teach-in would be held, and amnesty would be granted to those involved in the protest actions.

By what date had Smith College divested all its stocks in companies working in South Africa, and what was the value?

By October 31, 1988, Smith College had divested all $39 million in stocks held in companies operating in South Africa.

How did Harvard University initially justify its reluctance to fully divest from South Africa?

Harvard insisted that through its proxy votes, it could more effectively fight apartheid than by purging stocks from its portfolio.

What significant action did the University of California take regarding divestment in 1986, and why was it considered particularly significant?

In 1986, the University of California authorized the withdrawal of three billion dollars worth of investments from South Africa. Nelson Mandela remarked that this massive divestment was particularly significant in pressuring for an end to white-minority rule.

What was the outcome of the three-year review and campus campaign at Gettysburg College regarding South African investments in 1989?

Gettysburg College divested $5.4 million from companies connected to South Africa after a three-year review by its Board of Trustees and a five-month campaign by a campus group.

When did the City and County of San Francisco pass legislation prohibiting investment in corporations and banks doing business with South Africa?

San Francisco passed this legislation on June 5, 1978.

By the end of 1989, how many U.S. states, counties, and cities had taken economic action against companies doing business in South Africa?

By the end of 1989, 26 states, 22 counties, and over 90 cities had taken some form of binding economic action against companies doing business in South Africa.

What were 'selective purchasing policies' used by cities in the context of the disinvestment campaign?

These policies involved cities giving preference in bidding on contracts for goods and services to companies that did not conduct business in South Africa.

Which U.S. state was the first to divest from South Africa, and who initiated the effort?

Nebraska was the first U.S. state to divest from South Africa, with the effort initiated by Ernie Chambers, the sole Black member of the Nebraska legislature.

What prompted Ernie Chambers to introduce a resolution for divestment in Nebraska?

Chambers was angered upon learning that the University of Nebraska–Lincoln had accepted a donation of Krugerrands, which are South African gold coins.

When did Nebraska's divestment resolution become state law, and what was the initial impact?

The nonbinding resolution became state law in 1980. Initially, it caused little immediate change in business practices, with David Packard of Hewlett Packard stating he'd rather lose business in Nebraska than with South Africa.

How did Nebraska strengthen its divestment legislation in 1984?

Nebraska passed stronger legislation in 1984, mandating the divestment of all funds from companies doing business in South Africa, resulting in the divestment of $14.6 million from public employee pension funds.

What was the name of the federal act passed in 1986 that imposed sanctions on South Africa, and who introduced it?

The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 was introduced by Congressman Ronald Dellums.

How did President Ronald Reagan's veto of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 play out?

President Reagan vetoed the Act, but the Republican-controlled Senate overrode his veto, demonstrating the strength of the anti-apartheid movement.

What specific trade measures were included in the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986?

The Act banned new U.S. investment in South Africa, sales to its police and military, and new bank loans (except for trade purposes). It also prohibited the import of agricultural goods, textiles, shellfish, steel, iron, uranium, and products from state-owned corporations.

What were the economic results of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, according to Richard Knight?

The results were mixed; U.S. imports from South Africa declined by 35% between 1985 and 1987 but increased by 15% in 1988. Knight attributed some of this increase to lax enforcement and noted the Act did little to prohibit exports to South Africa.

What change did Representative Charles Rangel's amendment to the Budget Reconciliation Act in 1987 introduce?

The amendment removed the ability of U.S. corporations to obtain tax reimbursements for taxes paid in South Africa, effectively subjecting them to double taxation.

What was the impact of the Rangel amendment on U.S. corporations operating in South Africa regarding taxation?

The amendment increased the tax bill for U.S. companies from 57.5% to 72% of their profits in South Africa, involving large sums of money.

What was the nature of the harsher sanctions bill passed by the House of Representatives in August 1988, and why did it not become law?

This bill mandated the withdrawal of all U.S. companies from South Africa, the sale of all South African investments by U.S. residents, and an end to most trade, except for strategic minerals. It did not become law because it failed to pass the Senate.

What was the significance of the failed 1988 sanctions bill, despite not becoming law?

The bill's progress through Congress alerted both the South African government and U.S. businesses that significant further sanctions were likely if the political situation in South Africa did not change.

When did the disinvestment campaign begin to significantly impact South Africa's economy, and what was the primary cause?

The campaign began to impact South Africa significantly after major Western nations, including the United States, became involved starting in mid-1984. This led to considerable capital flight and the repayment of foreign loans.

What were the net capital movements out of South Africa from 1985 to 1988?

The net capital movements were R9.2 billion in 1985, R6.1 billion in 1986, R3.1 billion in 1987, and R5.5 billion in 1988.

How did capital flight affect the South African rand and inflation?

Capital flight triggered a dramatic decline in the international exchange rate of the South African rand. This currency decline made imports more expensive, causing inflation to rise steeply at 12–15% per year.

What measures did the South African government impose in September 1985 to restrict capital outflow?

The government imposed a system of exchange control and a debt repayments standstill. Exchange controls generally prohibited South African residents from removing capital, and foreign investors could only withdraw investments via the financial rand, which traded at a discount.

How did the financial rand system affect companies withdrawing investments from South Africa?

The financial rand traded at a 20% to 40% discount compared to the commercial rand, meaning companies that disinvested received significantly fewer dollars for the capital they withdrew.

Who were some prominent South African political leaders who opposed disinvestment, and what were their reasons?

Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Chief Minister of KwaZulu and president of the Inkatha Freedom Party, and Members of Parliament Helen Suzman and Harry Schwarz opposed disinvestment. They argued it would harm all people in Southern Africa, particularly Black South Africans, lead to more hardships, and worsen the political climate for negotiations.

Disinvestment From South Africa Wiki: The Global Pressure Cooker: Disinvestment and Apartheid's End

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Historical Context and Significance

The Disinvestment Movement

The campaign for disinvestment from South Africa emerged as a significant international protest against the nation's institutionalized system of racial segregation and discrimination, known as apartheid. While advocacy began in the 1960s, the movement gained substantial momentum and practical implementation in the mid-1980s. This concerted economic pressure is widely credited with compelling the South African government to initiate negotiations that ultimately led to the dismantling of the apartheid regime.

Catalysts for Action

The intensification of the disinvestment campaign in the mid-1980s was significantly influenced by the internal political resistance within South Africa. The introduction of the 1983 South African constitution, which further entrenched racial segregation, galvanized black South Africans to make townships ungovernable. The subsequent State of Emergency declared in 1985, coupled with widespread public resistance and the often brutal response from state security forces, was extensively televised globally. This heightened international awareness and amplified calls for economic sanctions and divestment.

International Legal Frameworks

The United Nations played a crucial role in attempting to establish a legal and political basis for international action against apartheid. In 1962, UN General Assembly Resolution 1761 called for comprehensive economic and other sanctions against South Africa and established the Special Committee against Apartheid. However, major trading partners, particularly Western nations, initially resisted these calls, deeming the situation not a threat to international peace and security. Later, in 1977, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 418, making the arms embargo mandatory, and in 1987, a voluntary international oil embargo was adopted.

United Nations Initiatives and Embargoes

Early Resolutions and Opposition

The United Nations General Assembly's Resolution 1761 in 1962 marked an early attempt to leverage international pressure by calling for economic sanctions against South Africa. This resolution also led to the formation of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid. However, key Western nations, including the United Kingdom and the United States, opposed these measures, arguing that sanctions were not a viable strategy and that the situation did not constitute a threat to international peace. An international conference in London in April 1964, organized by the Anti-Apartheid Movement, aimed to assess the feasibility of economic sanctions but failed to persuade the British government to adopt them, primarily due to economic interests.

Evolving Sanctions

While early calls for broad economic sanctions faced resistance, the international community gradually moved towards more targeted measures. The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 418 in 1977, establishing a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. This was a significant step, reflecting growing international consensus on the need for concrete action. Subsequently, in November 1987, the UN General Assembly adopted a voluntary international oil embargo, further tightening the economic screws on the apartheid regime.

The United States Campaign

Grassroots Mobilization and the Sullivan Principles

When the U.S. federal government proved reluctant to impose significant economic sanctions, anti-apartheid activists shifted their focus to lobbying individual businesses and institutional investors. This grassroots effort, often coordinated by faith-based organizations like the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), sought to leverage corporate social responsibility. A pivotal element was the development of the Sullivan Principles in 1977, authored by Rev. Leon Sullivan. These principles mandated that companies operating in South Africa treat all employees equally, irrespective of race, directly challenging the country's apartheid laws.

The Sullivan Principles were a code of conduct for American companies operating in South Africa. They required signatories to:

Provide non-white employees with equal treatment in all aspects of employment.
Ensure equal pay for all employees doing equal work.
Provide access to training, upgrading, and advancement opportunities for non-white employees.
Expand non-white representation in management and supervisory positions.
Improve the quality of life for employees and their families outside the work environment.

While initially seen by some as a compromise, the principles became a tool for activists to pressure companies and highlight the injustices of apartheid.

Investor Pressure and Shareholder Activism

Beyond advocating for the adoption of the Sullivan Principles, activists targeted institutional investors, such as public pension funds. They lobbied for the divestment from U.S. companies with South African interests that had not yet complied with the principles. This strategy involved submitting shareholder resolutions, often rejected by management but serving to raise public awareness and damage corporate reputations. More critically, it posed a significant financial threat: major institutional investors withdrawing their investments could severely impact a company's valuation and access to capital.

Academic Mobilization and Divestment

Student Activism and Campus Campaigns

University campuses became significant centers of anti-apartheid activism, with students demanding that their institutions divest from companies involved in South Africa. Campaigns often involved protests, sit-ins, and the creation of shantytowns to draw attention to the issue. The first organized anti-apartheid group on a U.S. campus, CUAA, was founded at the University of California, Berkeley. These movements gained considerable traction, influencing university boards of trustees to re-evaluate their investment policies.

The Growth of Divestment

The momentum for divestment surged significantly in 1984, fueled by widespread media coverage of internal resistance in South Africa. This period saw a dramatic increase in the number of educational institutions divesting their assets. Early successes, such as Hampshire College in 1977 and Michigan State University in 1978, set a precedent. By 1988, over 150 universities and colleges had fully or partially divested from companies with South African ties, representing billions of dollars in assets.

The following table illustrates the increasing number of institutions divesting from South Africa:

Year	Number of Institutions Divesting
1984	53
1987	128
1988	155

Key University Cases

Notable campaigns included Columbia University, where student protests led to trustee re-evaluation; Smith College, where student actions resulted in divestment of $39 million; Harvard University, which eventually adopted selective divestment after sustained pressure; and the University of California system, which divested $3 billion in 1986, a move recognized by Nelson Mandela as highly significant.

State and Municipal Actions

Legislative Momentum

Beyond academic institutions, anti-apartheid activists successfully lobbied state legislatures and city councils across the United States. Many localities enacted legislation mandating the sale of South Africa-related securities from public pension funds and adopted selective purchasing policies that favored companies not doing business with South Africa. By the close of 1989, a significant number of states, counties, and cities had implemented binding economic actions against companies involved with the apartheid regime.

Nebraska's Pioneering Role

Nebraska holds the distinction of being the first U.S. state to divest from South Africa. Initiated by state senator Ernie Chambers, the effort began with a non-binding resolution in 1980 calling for the reallocation of state pension funds invested in South Africa. This was later strengthened by legislation in 1984, mandating the divestment of all funds from companies engaged in business with South Africa, resulting in the divestment of $14.6 million.

Federal Legislative Efforts

The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986

Building on state and local actions, federal legislation gained momentum. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, introduced by Congressman Ronald Dellums, imposed significant sanctions. It banned new U.S. investment in South Africa, prohibited sales to its police and military, and restricted new bank loans, with exceptions for trade. The Act also banned imports of specific South African goods. Despite a presidential veto by Ronald Reagan, Congress, notably the Republican-controlled Senate, overrode it, demonstrating the political strength of the anti-apartheid movement.

Tax Measures and Further Legislation

Further federal measures aimed to increase economic pressure. In 1987, an amendment to the Budget Reconciliation Act removed the ability of U.S. corporations to receive tax reimbursements for taxes paid in South Africa, effectively subjecting them to double taxation and significantly increasing their financial burden. Although a more stringent sanctions bill mandating complete withdrawal of U.S. companies and trade restrictions failed to pass the Senate in 1988, its progress through the House signaled to both the South African government and U.S. businesses that more severe sanctions were likely if the political situation remained unchanged.

Economic Ramifications for South Africa

Capital Flight and Currency Devaluation

The disinvestment campaign, particularly from mid-1984 onwards, had a profound impact on South Africa's economy. The country experienced substantial capital flight, with net outflows totaling billions of South African Rand annually through the late 1980s. This outflow led to a sharp decline in the international exchange rate of the South African rand, making imports more expensive and fueling domestic inflation, which ranged between 12% and 15% per year.

Government Responses and Controls

In response to the damaging outflow of capital, the South African government implemented stringent measures. In September 1985, it imposed a system of exchange controls and a debt repayment standstill. These controls restricted the removal of capital from the country, and foreign investors could only repatriate investments through the financial rand, which traded at a significant discount to the commercial rand. This mechanism effectively reduced the dollar value received by companies disinvesting.

Criticism and Counterarguments

Internal Opposition

Within South Africa, the disinvestment campaign faced opposition from various political leaders. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party, argued that sanctions would primarily harm the people of Southern Africa, particularly black South Africans, leading to increased hardship. Similarly, Members of Parliament Helen Suzman and Harry Schwarz, while opposing apartheid, contended that disinvestment would exacerbate economic difficulties for black citizens and hinder the prospects for political negotiation. They viewed such sanctions as potentially counterproductive and self-defeating.

International Critiques

Internationally, critics like British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher expressed concerns that sanctions would lead to poverty and starvation, thereby undermining the very populations they aimed to help. Her Foreign Secretary, John Major, suggested that disinvestment primarily served to assuage the consciences of those imposing sanctions rather than benefiting black South Africans. Many conservatives also criticized the campaign, pointing out the perceived hypocrisy of applying sanctions to South Africa while maintaining relations with the Soviet Union and China. Libertarian economists, such as Murray Rothbard, argued that increased free market engagement, rather than sanctions, would be the most effective means to dismantle apartheid.

Constructive Engagement

An alternative policy favored by some, including U.S. President Ronald Reagan, was "constructive engagement." This approach advocated for maintaining dialogue and engagement with the South African government, believing that gradual influence and cooperation would yield better results than punitive economic measures. This policy contrasted sharply with the direct pressure exerted by the disinvestment movement.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Disinvestment From South Africa" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about disinvestment_from_south_africa while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

grammatical number

territorial air defence forces

vii corps united states

emperor of austria

2013 st. petersburg open– singles

county durham

national revolutionary army

ben e. king

united states army special forces

makeover

References

Panel discussion, 6 October 2014, speaker Andrea Prichett, at 47:30, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQfF1702dQI

How students helped end apartheid. University of California, May 2, 2018

A full list of references for this article are available at the Disinvestment from South Africa Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page was generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on a snapshot of publicly available data from Wikipedia and may not be entirely accurate, complete, or up-to-date.

This is not professional advice. The information provided on this website is not a substitute for professional historical analysis, political science consultation, or economic assessment. Always refer to primary sources and consult with qualified professionals for specific needs. Never disregard professional advice because of something you have read on this website.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.

The Global Pressure Cooker

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

Historical Context and Significance 🌍

✊ The Disinvestment Movement

📈 Catalysts for Action

⚖️ International Legal Frameworks

United Nations Initiatives and Embargoes 🇺🇳

📜 Early Resolutions and Opposition

🛡️ Evolving Sanctions

The United States Campaign 🇺🇸

🤝 Grassroots Mobilization and the Sullivan Principles

💰 Investor Pressure and Shareholder Activism

Academic Mobilization and Divestment 🎓

📢 Student Activism and Campus Campaigns

📊 The Growth of Divestment

🏛️ Key University Cases

State and Municipal Actions 🏛️

📜 Legislative Momentum

⭐ Nebraska's Pioneering Role

Federal Legislative Efforts 📜

⚖️ The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986

💸 Tax Measures and Further Legislation

Economic Ramifications for South Africa 📉

💸 Capital Flight and Currency Devaluation

🏦 Government Responses and Controls

Criticism and Counterarguments 🤔

🗣️ Internal Opposition

🌍 International Critiques

🔄 Constructive Engagement

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Historical Context and Significance

The Disinvestment Movement

Catalysts for Action

International Legal Frameworks

United Nations Initiatives and Embargoes

Early Resolutions and Opposition

Evolving Sanctions

The United States Campaign

Grassroots Mobilization and the Sullivan Principles

Investor Pressure and Shareholder Activism

Academic Mobilization and Divestment

Student Activism and Campus Campaigns

The Growth of Divestment

Key University Cases

State and Municipal Actions

Legislative Momentum

Nebraska's Pioneering Role

Federal Legislative Efforts

The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986

Tax Measures and Further Legislation

Economic Ramifications for South Africa

Capital Flight and Currency Devaluation

Government Responses and Controls

Criticism and Counterarguments

Internal Opposition

International Critiques

Constructive Engagement

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Disclaimer

Important Notice