In May 1986 I represented the American Committee on
Africa at the International
Conference on the United Nations Arms Embargo Against
South Africa in London. At that conference, Frene Ginwala, then Head of
Political Research for the African National Congress (ANC), gave me a copy of
the program for the International
Congress on High Speed Photography and Photonics scheduled to be in September in Pretoria, South
Africa. The International Congress was
organized by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the
South African Optical Society. CSIR, a
government run agency, involved in both strategic and military research. U.S. government regulations prohibited sales
to CRIS for its “weapons research.” The
South African organizing committee included R. Krohn
of Kodak (SA) Pty. Ltd., the South African subsidiary of Eastman Kodak.
When I returned to New York I gave a copy of the
program to the Daily News.
At that time New York City had recently adopted a limited selective
purchasing law giving preference is granting of City contracts to companies
that did not do business with the South African police, military, prisons or
Department of Cooperation and Development.
(New York City subsequently strengthened its selective purchasing
legislation.) Kodak, which had less than
$10,000 of such sales, almost lost an $8 million contract with the city. The city granted Eastman Kodak the contract
when the company promised not to make any such sales in the future. Thus the revelation of Kodak’s participation
in the International Congress on High Speed Photography and Photonics was a
major embarrassment. CSIR was involved
in both civilian and military research for the government. Kodak promptly withdrew from the High Speed
Photography conference.
In November 1986 Eastman Kodak announced that it was
withdrawing from South Africa. It shut
down it operations and cut off sales of film to the country. This was a much more complete withdrawal than
that of many other companies which maintained licensing and franchising
agreement. Although Kodak claimed South
Africa’s weak economy was a major factor in its decision, I believe the facts
point to the pressure from the anti-apartheid movement was determinate. Companies such as Eastman Kodak rarely leave
a country. Clearly Kodak decided that
its business with U.S. states and cities was more important than its business
in South Africa.
In January 1988 Eastman Kodak purchased Sterling
Drug which had a South African subsidiary.
In July 1988 Sterling Drug sold its South African subsidiary to Adcock
Ingram announced that it would no longer supply its former subsidiary.
The following articles in the Daily News, the Rochester Times Union and the Wall Street Journal show the progression of events from June 1986 to November 1986.
Eastman Kodak returned to South Africa after the end
of apartheid. Frene
Ginwala is now the speaker in the National Assembly
of the Parliament of South Africa.
Richard Knight, December 2002
[Return to Sanctions] [Home to richardknight.com]
|
DAILY NEWS |
|
NEW YORK’S PICTURE NEWSPAPER® Sunday June 16, 1986 |
|
$8 MILLION CONTRACT AT
ISSUE |
|
City board wrestles with
apartheid |
|
By MARCIA KRAMER And PAUL LA ROSA Daily News
Staff Writers |
|
For the first time since the passage of a new city
law, the Board of Estimate tomorrow must decide whether to spend extra money
to avoid awarding a contract to a company that has done business with the
South African military. Mayor Koch, who has two
votes on the board, said he won’t decide how to vote until he receives a
recommendation today from Corporation Council Frederick Schwartz. Meanwhile, Schwartz said the company that
did business with South Africa is still in the running for the contract. Under a law passed last July, companies seeking
city business must sign an agreement stating that they have not done business
in at least a year with the South African police, military, prison system or “department
of cooperation and development.” Last November, Eastman Kodak submitted the lowest
bid for delivery of high-speed copiers.
However, company officials were unable to sign the agreement, Swartz
said, because Kodak had sold less than $10,000 worth of amateur photo
equipment at military PXs in South Africa up to
Sept. 1. Kodak’s bid for the city contract was $8,049,000. The next lowest bid, made by Xerox, was
$8,122,000 and Xerox was able to sign the agreement. The Board of Estimate has two options. It can choose to ignore the law – known as
the South African rider – and give Kodak the contract or it can award the
contract to the next lowest bidder, Xerox. Schwartz, noting that Kodak had not done business
with the South African agencies in the last nine months, said the city is
considering giving the contract to the company despite its current inability
to sign the agreement. Saying the care represents a “close call,”
Schwartz said “It is relevant that Kodak was candid to the city and
voluntarily came forward with the $10,000 worth of sales.” City Council Majority Leader Peter Vallone (D-Queens), one of the prime sponsors of the law,
said, “There is no question that the Board of Estimate should hold to the
letter of the law if everything else is equal.” Manhattan Borough President David Dinkins, the
only black member of the Board of Estimate, said he could not comment on
which company should get the contract until his office had gathered all the
facts. |
|
DAILY NEWS |
|
NEW YORK’S PICTURE NEWSPAPER® Sunday June 29, 1986 |
|
Exposure chagrins Kodak |
|
By KEVIN McCOY Daily News Staff Writer. |
|
Photography giant Eastman Kodak
Co. was helping organize a South African military-related conference even
while promising the city last week it would reject dealings with the
segregated nation in return for getting an $8 million contract. As late as Friday, one of the firm’s South African executives
was billed as an organizer for the conference, an international gathering to
discuss uses of high-speed photography, including its “military applications.” A brochure for the five-day
Pretoria conference promises a session on “ballistics, shockwave and
detonation studies,” including papers on high-speed photography of detonation
fuses and the use of advanced technology to capture the velocity of
explosions on film. Kodak spokesman Ian Guthrie
confirmed the company’s involvement, but said the firm had not tried to
deceive the city. “It’s embarrassing. We just learned about this particular today
and we are withdrawing from it immediately,” he said Friday. It was Kodak’s sale of film to South African
military stores last year that nearly cost the firm its $8 million low-bid
agreement to supply the city with high speed copiers last week. The sales clashed with a 1985 city law
requiring contractors to certify they’ve done no business with the South
African Army, police, prison system or Department of Cooperation and
Development within the last 12 months. The Board of Estimate unanimously approved the
contract June 17 after Kodak officials pledged in writing to go beyond the
city law by rejecting all
business with the South African government. Exposure of Kodak’s military-related business
in the racially segregated nation even after the contract approval left
apartheid critics angry and city officials nonplussed. “This is
not something innocuous. We’re not
talking about people going about with cameras taking pictures of the Eiffel
Tower here. We’re talking about
military uses of photography,” said Richard Knight, a researcher for the
anti-apartheid American Committee on Africa. Discussing
the development during a lull in city budget negotiations Friday, Board of
Estimate members said they were pleased with the firm’s pledge to boycott the
conference. Still, several officials
said they might demand that Kodak outline a corporate anti-apartheid stance
in a letter to company employees worldwide. |
|
Times-Union |
|
Rochester, N.Y., Thursday, July 3,
1986 |
|
Apartheid’s shadow on photo group By Business Editor JOHN RUMSEY |
|
In Toronto and in
Strasbourg and in Moscow and all the other places, it was a typical
scientific conference — a few hundred scientists and engineers from dozens of
countries gathering to swap ideas about their specialty: high speed
photography. Similar international
meetings bring together experts on heart surgery and astronomy and cattle
breeding. But this year, the 17th
International Congress on High Speed Photography and Photonics, scheduled for
Sept 1-5, has run into trouble. THE REASON: it’s being held
in Pretoria, South Africa. o Eastman Kodak Co. abruptly withdrew its
support last week after learning that a Kodak employee in South Africa was on
the organizing committee. o International terrorism and reactions to
the U.S. bombing of Libya made some people, especially Americans, reluctant
to risk the plane trip. o South Africa’s suppression of non-whites
caused the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China to boycott the
congress and also discouraged an unknown number of people from other
countries. Among those who are staying
home is Martin C. Richardson, a senior scientist at the University of
Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics. But this is not meant as “a
statement” about South Africa, said Richardson, who has contributed papers to
the biennial congress since the early 1970s and was chairman of the 1976
session in Toronto. NO
ONE instructed him not to go, he said. “South Africa is a long, way away. It’s expensive to go there. I could not
justify it from the funds available to me” from the U.S. government. He recently attended a major international
conference on lasers in California. Richardson regrets not
going — “This is the main international meeting covering high-speed
photography.” He doesn’t have too many
opportunities to talk with people to whom high-speed photography means not
1/1000 of a second, but up to one quadrillionth of a second. In Kodak’s case, the decision
was swift. “We learned about it
Friday,” spokesman Henry J. Kaska said. “We immediately announced our withdrawal
from any participation whatsoever.” Kodak is acutely sensitive to South African
matters. Last month it appeared to be
in danger of losing an $8 million order for copiers from New York City
because a year-old ordinance forbids city contracts with companies that
supply products to South Africa’s military, police or prisons. Kodak had sold some amateur film and cameras
for resale in African post exchanges last July. But it saved the New York contract by
promising city officials there’d be no such slip-ups in the future. Kaska said one representative of Spin Physics,
a California-based Kodak subsidiary that produces high-speed photography
systems, had planned to attend, but won’t. Other sources said Spin Physics had exhibits
at previous congresses but would not have anything at Pretoria. MAIN GOALS of the congress, besides exchanging information and fostering
general interest in high-speed photography, are promoting its use in mining
and biomedical fields. But the systems
that analyze rock-breaking explosions in a mine might also analyze explosions for
military purposes. For
anti-apartheid organizations, an international event in South Africa means
another opportunity to apply pressure. Richard Knight, a researcher at the American
Committee on Africa in New York City, learned of the congress and noted that
a Kodak employee was on the host committee. Mindful of Kodak’s recent scrape with the
New York City law, Knight called up the New York Daily News last week
and gave the information to a reporter, Kevin McCoy. MCCOY CALLED city officials and Kodak. City officials also called Kodak. Kodak speedily separated itself from the
congress. Knight was
pleased. “We’re not talking about
people going about taking pictures of the Eiffel tower here. We’re talking about military uses of
photography.” He said he
didn’t bother to call The New York Times or other papers; “I saw this
as a Daily News type of story.” The
American Committee on Africa, he said, wants the congress to shift its
meeting to some other country and bar South Africans from attending. Dennis L.
Paisley, official U.S. delegate to the congress, said the politicization of a
non-political event was regrettable but not surprising. A laser
scientist at the Los Alamos (N.M.) National Laboratory, he said he submitted
two papers – neither related to chemical or nuclear explosives. IN 15
YEARS of attending congresses, “I’ve never seen any papers related to weapons
design or how to make a better weapon,” he said. “When
people hear ‘Los Alamos,’ they think of atomic bombs. I’m not playing it down; we do that. I’m not the least bit ashamed. I tell people I’ll be glad to go out on the
street and find another job as soon as the world agrees to disarm.” China was
favored when delegates met four years ago to decide the 1986 site. But the Chinese bid wasn’t ready and a
South African delegate stepped forward to propose his own country. Two years ago, China submitted a bid but
the South Africa committee had made so much progress, “we didn’t want to pull
the rug out from under them,” said William Hyzer of
Janesville, Wis., a photographic consultant who will give the keynote
address. “In retrospect, I’m sure they’d
be happier if we had.” He said China had been chosen as the site in
1988. But some of the scientists are
worried that their congress is on the decline because of political pressures
from outside. Low attendance could
doom it. |
|
THE WALL
STEET JOURNAL Thursday, November 20, 1986 |
||
|
Kodak to Close South Africa Operations And Ban Units From Supplying Nation |
||
|
By clare ansberry Staff Reporter of the wall street journal |
||
|
Eastman Kodak Co., going
further than most major U.S. companies in severing relations with South
Africa, said it is shutting down operations there and breaking off all trade
with the racially divided nation. The size of Kodak’s South
African unit is small - employing 466 and accounting for less than 1% of the
company’ $10 billion sales world-wide - but its move to restrict all its
units from supplying South Africa is expected to have a much larger impact. “People will still buy film
and chemicals from Europe and Japan,” said Karen Paul, a management professor
at Rochester Institute of Technology who studies apartheid. “But the idea that a major American
business wants absolutely no part of South Africa is going to be a blow.” As a result of the ban,
three of Rochester, N.Y.-based Kodak’s divisions - Verbatim, Atex, and Eastman Chemicals - must stop supplying
products such as floppy discs and materials to make cigarette filters to
South Africa by April 30. Atex has been a major supplier of text processing
equipment to the publishing industry in South Africa, Kodak said. Kodak said the assets of
Kodak South Africa, a sales division with headquarters in Johannesburg, will
be sold. Employees with “average”
length of service will receive a “generous” separation package including one
year’s pay and medical coverage for four months, the company said. Write-offs from terminating the South
African operations are expected to be reported in the fourth quarter but
wouldn’t “materially impact earnings,” a Kodak spokesman said. Weak Economy Is Cited Kodak said South Africa’s
weak economy was a major factor in its
decision to leave the nation, adding that apartheid has played “a
major role in the economy’s underperformance.” Analysts said Kodak’s operations there were
break-even at best. With its decision Kodak
might also gain within the investment community, especially pension funds,
university endowments and state governments, which are dropping from their
portfolios securities of companies with South African operations. A growing number of local governments, as
well, are refusing to contract with companies that have business in South
Africa. Recently, other major U.S.
companies, such as General Motors Corp. and International Business Machines
Corp., have shed South African units but continue to sell goods and services
to newly independent units they leave behind. Kodak’s ban on all trade with South
Africa will likely provide a rallying point for anti-apartheid activists who
have criticized IBM and GM for continuing to supply critical products through
third parties. |
Kodak in South Africa |
|
|
Employees: |
446 (61% nonwhite) |
|
|
Operations: |
Sales and photofinishing
labs |
|
|
Locations: |
Johannesburg, Port
Elizabeth, Durban, Bloomfontein |
|
|
Sales: |
Less than 1% of company’s $10 worldwide sales |
|
|
Other Kodak units affected: |
Verbatim – supplier of
floppy disks Eastman Chemicals –
supplier of Products for cigarette
filters Atex – text processing equipment for publishing. |
|
|
“Now the onus will be on
other companies to explain why they didn’t completely sever ties,” contended
Richard Knight, corporate researcher for the American Committee on Africa, a
New York based group that has long opposed apartheid. “Their actions will be a lot less convincing
to the universe.” A few other
companies, such as Bell & Howell Co. and Sara Lee Corp., said they will
stop supplying South Africa, but Knight believes Kodak’s actions will have
greater impact. Several Previous Moves Kodak, a signatory to the
Sullivan Principles on U.S. corporate conduct in South Africa, has made
several moves in the past year to indicate its opposition to apartheid. It has refused to sell products to several
South African government agencies including the police, military and prison
systems. Kodak also led an initiative
to launch an ongoing ad campaign pressing the South African government to
eliminate apartheid. The ads, showing
a white hand reaching out for a black hand, read: “We must get it together.” This summer, Kodak withdrew its sponsorship
of an international conference on high speed photography after learning it
was to be held in South Africa. “We had hoped that by now
the signs in South Africa concerning plans to dismantle statutory apartheid
would be clear,” said Colby Chandler, Kodak chairman and chief executive
officer. “Unfortunately, we can not
see with any certainty a time when South Africa will be free from apartheid.” Twenty six U.S. companies have withdrawn from
South Africa this year and nine others including Kodak have announced their
intention to do so, according to the Investor Responsibility Research Center
in Washington. Another 241 U.S.
companies with direct investment remain in South Africa. |
||