Session: 1234567891011121314         Page 704705706707708709710711712713714715716717718719720721722723724725726727728729730731732733734735736737738739740741742743744745746747748749750751752753754755756757758759760761762763 of 763

Yes, I don't think you will undercut them. When they made that move I thought that it was a glimmer of light, but you saw what the government's reaction to that was. Instead of using that as a possible face saving approach they increased their hostility toward their own people who were seeking a rational--let me tell you what I really think in this, that the South African government has declared war not only on their blacks, the blacks in South Africa, and the coloreds, and even to a lesser extent, the Asians, Indians, but they have declared war on the Western democracies. They have said, “Look, we are not going to deal with this rationally, in terms of human values, democratic concern,” as complex as they seem. There was something in yesterday's [New York] Times which I read. I think it was the Times that they were really, in effect, saying, “Look, we are going to go all out in this direction.” Well, when war is declared you don't continue economic interaction with the enemy adversary. We didn't bring in Japanese cars during World War II. We didn't, as far as I know there was no economic interaction between America and the Allies and Germany. If the South African government wants this then they can't have it half way. I mean, this is my perspective on divestment, disinvestment.

You see, in this war, the blacks in South Africa really don't have any weapons. They can't have even guerrilla warfare. The only weapon that was counter to the weapons of the South African government and their power is economic weapons, and the blacks will have to suffer to some extent in that way. They will have to, maybe lose jobs or what not. They'll have to strike. War is a damaging,