Hartley Neita Hartley Neita
LAST WEEK, we remembered the decision by Jamaica to ban trade with South Africa because of its apartheid policy. Naturally, South Africa had to respond. After all, Jamaica was a little colony of Great Britain and was not equal in status to the independent nations of the world. Jamaica, therefore, had no right to make such a decision.
In addition, the Government of South Africa might have remembered that Alexander Busta-mante, when he was just a Chief Minister, had snubbed and insulted South Africa's Prime Minister in London some years earlier and like the elephants which lived in that country, they had long memories. In addition, a Jamaican student named Roley Simms had led a demonstration of protest against the presence of the South African Prime Minister in England, outside the South African High Commission's offices in London, even earlier than Bustamante's insult, a piece of cheek!
The day after Norman Manley's Government announced the ban on the importation of all goods from South Africa, that country complained to the British Govern-ment about the decision and demanded that Britain should instruct Jamaica to rescind the decision. According to a statement from the South African Govern-ment, Jamaica's action constituted interference with South Africa's domestic affairs. Consequently, South Africa could not but regard the decision in a serious light, particularly in view of the fact that the West Indies Federation, of which Jamaica was a member, was not yet an independent state. Sovereign power therefore still rested with the United Kingdom.
REGULATION OF TRADE
Britain's High Commissioner in South Africa, Sir John Maud, responded immediately to South Africa's External Affairs Minister, telling him that the regulation of trade was exclusively within the competence of the Jamaican Council of Ministers.
That should have put an end to South Africa's protests, but there were also trade boycotts taking place within South Africa organised by the African National Congress against certain firms. The President of the Federated Chamber of Industries in South Africa, Charles Marx, recognised this as dangerous to business and appealed for an end to these internal trade boycotts, and noted that Jamaica's decision was followed by a similar move by some trade unions in Britain.
Our Premier, Norman Manley, decided to place the issue on the front burner of Jamaican opinion. "Initially," he said in a statement, "the British Government had objected to Jamaica's intention, but we made it known to them that we control our own trade and our own trade is our own affair. Jamaica cannot send a black athlete or a cricket team to that country, and if we cannot go there, why should our goods go there?"
Then, by a strange coincidence, it was reported that a ship with a cargo which included a shipment of canned fruit and meat left South Africa on its way to Jamaica. When asked if they did not know of the ban, the agents say they received a cable from the Jamaican importer instructing them to send the cargo, as it was part of an outstanding order. This, of course, was a ruse by South Africa to give the impression to the world that the decision by the Jamaican Government did not have national support. No such ship, and no such cargo came to Jamaica.
Over the next few days, Manley received cables from African leaders and from Jamaicans and other West Indians living in England and the United States congratulating him on the decision. There were also threats to ban trade with South Africa by Ghana. India had already banned trade. These reactions led South Africa's Economic Affairs Minister, Dr. Nichols Diederichs, to say that his country would not be forced into precipitous action by these boycotts, as boycotts by countries like Jamaica and Ghana "are usually short-lived, and so his country would remain unperturbed until if countries which were important decided to follow suit".
As history would turn out, he spoke too soon.
