If Arizona voters think Apartheid was all that, they've got their guy in Rep. Jeff Flake.
In 1987, Flake testified before the Utah State Senate in support of a resolution expressing support for the government of South Africa while racial segregation laws were enforced — largely to support U.S. mining interests in the region.Of Apartheid, Flake claimed "it coincides with our moral standards," and claimed that a majority of black South Africans didn't "care one way or another or they don't know about the situation."
The recording of that testimony comes on the heels of this, over the weekend:
"For anybody to suggest that I in any way countenanced what the South Africans were doing or the policy of apartheid is offensive," he said, saying the charge "baffles" him.What's baffling is how Flake's morality coincides with that of the Apartheid regime.
The full transcript is below the fold.
Q: Jeff, would you care to go through that point by point? Apparently there don’t seem to be any questions with regard to the resolution itself but simply the whereases.
FLAKE: Okay. The first one is stated – that’s easily understood. There’s now [?] in the United States … South Africa’s a major source to the free world of vital minerals such as manganese, cobalt, platinum, gold, etc. South Africa has over 70 percent of some of these minerals, the rest … provides the free world with over 70 percent. The only other supplier in many cases is the Soviet Union. Without a dependable and economic source of these minerals, many industries in the United States and the free world would be severely impacted and the cost of these manufactured items would greatly increase. I think that’s – that’s pretty well known. As far as going against moral standards, I think it coincides with our moral standards.
If the government of South Africa falls, it depends on how it falls if it did fall. If it fell
to radical elements to the left, then this could happen, and that is a fear of many people. We would be deprived of an ensured economic source of these vital minerals.
As far as the economic sanctions having a direct impact on the black – a more direct impact on the black community, I … over here, we tend to think of every black South African as a radical stone-throwing protester who will stop at nothing until the government is overthrown. There are moderate elements there. There have been a lot of polls taken both ways, most of them come out with about – that there are more moderates, considered moderate, than there are radicals. Those are funny terms. Most of them aren’t moderate, they just don’t care one way or the other, or don’t know about the situation.
It has had a dramatic impact on the black population. The biggest impact is that the
companies pulling out, the American companies pulling out, who have abided by the
Sullivan principles, did much good for the black population there. Since 1977, they have contributed over 140 million dollars to black education, to social programs, to housing, and when our corporations pull out and these sanctions are imposed, it leaves the South African subsidiaries to take up ownership who are not obliged to follow the Sullivan principles and who would just as soon make a profit.