Danish government imposes South African sanctions
BY THE END of 1986, Denmark is probably the country of all major capitalist countries that has taken the most far-reaching sanctions policy against the apartheid regime of South Africa to date.
AAGE SKOVRIND company simply used a West German subsidiary company as a way to continue their exports. This was stopped by a parliamentary majority, saying that the ban on exports deals with the goods produced inside Denmark.
So it is still possible to move production as such to companies in other countries. Also, there exists some formally independent subsidiaries in South Africa owned by Danish capitalists, which are not touched by the legislation.
The economic impact of the boycott will of course be very small compared with South Africa's big trading partners - Britain, West Germany and the United States.
In 1985, over 70 Danish companies had exports totalling approximately 100 million US dollars, while imports came to double this amount.
Most important are coal purchases, which until recently represented about 10 per cent of South Africa's total coal exports. From 1975 to 1985, imports of South African coal increased 20 times, representing approximately 90 per cent of all imports from that country.
A ban on trade and other economic relations with South Africa and Namibia is also due to be adopted by the Norwegian parliament this spring, following the same lines as the Danish legislation.
In Norway, the most important import from South Africa is manganese. The law will permit an exception for a two-year period for this import, thus strongly reducing the effects of the boycott. Moreover, there will be a possibility of extending this two-year period for "employment reasons".
The Norwegian boycott also includes a ban on shipping to and from South Africa for all Norwegianowned ships (and also ships registered in other countries), when South Africa is clearly indicated as the destination in the shipping contract. But the anti-apartheid movement in Norway is stressing the fact that very often the destination is later changed to South Africa, and is claiming that this will leave more than half of the transports untouched.
Generally, the ruling Workers Party has taken a much more timid stance toward the boycott policy than before it took over the government last year.
The Norwegian sanctions are expec ted to be approved by the Workers Party, the two small bourgeois parties (which are also represented in the government), and by the Socialist Left Party. The latter will probably propose more radical measures, while the big right wing opposition parties will be against the law.
On May 6 last year, parliament decided to ban all coal imports from South Africa. The coal ban was followed by another law on May 30, which sanctioned all trade between Denmark and South Africa (the sanctions are also directed against Namibia).
While the first law was passed by an almost unanimous parliament, the second was only backed by a small majority of the government parties. This majority is formed by the three workers parties and the small petit-bourgeois Radical Party, which normally supports the government.
According to Danish legislation, the sanctions must be put into practice within half a year. Thus, by the end of 1986, there should be no economic relationship at all between Denmark and South Africa.
Parliament's decision on this issue comes after a period of actions in solidarity with the South African freedom struggle. Most important of these was a trade-union boycott initiated by the dockworkers in 1985.
The dockers, whose Danish Union of General and Semi-skilled Workers (SiD) is the largest in the country, refused to move any goods going to or from South Africa. Their action had added significance in that it defied the prohibition against strike action during the term of the unions' two-year contracts.
The shipping bosses immediately took the strike to the labour courts, where union officials were forced to back the boycott. Even during the important "Easter strikes" in Spring 1985, the union officialdom never stood up to the labour courts in this way.
While this action spurred the political parties in parliament to prepare boycott legislation, this perspective also served as a welcome excuse for the union bureaucracy to stop union action, thus avoiding a direct confrontation with the bosses on the question of the legitimacy of the labour courts.
However, some holes in the legislation have been discovered, and exceptions for a two-year period have been given to four companies. More important, shipping companies have escaped the ban by registering their activities in other countries such as Panama and Liberia, under whose banner they simply continue their business. But there seems to be a majority to put a halt to this also, insofar as the ships are still owned by Danish capitalists. Companies' sanctions-busting revealed
Traditionally, shipping has a substantial significance in the relationship with South Africa. For instance a few years ago it was revealed that Danish ships had freighted large numbers of weapons to the regime, thus breaking Danish law.
It was also revealed that a Danish
APARTHEID NO