Black Internationalism and a Wide View of Leon Sullivan’s Work

Mattie C. Webb is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she studies 20th century U.S. and African history. She was a recipient of the Rose Library’s African American Short Term Research Fellowship, which she used to research in the Leon H. Sullivan Papers.

My first visit to the Rose Library transformed my dissertation and provided me with a more nuanced take on the Sullivan Principles and the work and activism of one of my dissertation’s protagonists, Reverend Leon H. Sullivan (1922-2001). This second visit, though postponed countless times due to the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, provided me with the glue to hold together multiple chapters my work. Instead of targeting the papers centered on the Sullivan Principles, I spent much of this visit combing through Sullivan’s papers beyond the scope the Principles—Sullivan’s non-binding workplace code of conduct for U.S. corporations operating in apartheid South Africa. Time can be a major constraint, but if I learned anything from this trip it was that you cannot get the full and complete view of one’s life by merely sectioning off a small portion of it while ignoring the rest. History takes time. Therefore this second visit was more intentionally broad, and focused on gaining a full picture of Sullivan’s work, and therefore a more open window into U.S.-African relations and the role of African Americans in U.S. policy abroad.

For those who do not study Leon Sullivan’s work specifically, I still suggest a visit to the Rose Library. Sullivan himself was a dynamic man who seemed to connect himself to a wide array of actors and organizations. The papers held at Emory reflect Sullivan’s dynamism but also the way his work and activism can be a lens through which to view other social and diplomatic phenomena, particularly in the United States and South Africa, but to some extent Africa more broadly. Getting a sense of Sullivan’s life by way of sifting through his papers can reflect on a much more expansive picture: the transformations taking place in the Black internationalist agenda in the 1970s and 1980s. At minimum, through reading Sullivan’s connections with other prominent Black leaders at the time, we can get a sense of how Sullivan was received, but also a broader purview of the challenges facing the Black community, in the United States and globally.

Sullivan and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Sullivan Principles penetrated many aspects of Sullivan’s life, and I discovered a variety of “Principle” material outside of the formal “Sullivan Principle” files. Sullivan was also generally well-connected throughout Washington D.C., with an ample amount of State Department cables, and general correspondence with Presidents across multiple administrations, from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan. This visit to the Sullivan papers showed me that Sullivan and his team were in constant contact with Cyrus Vance, President Carter’s Secretary of State. Though other scholars who have visited the Rose Library made this point, letters from the Rose Library show that this relationship extended even after Vance resigned his post as Secretary of State in 1980.[1]

Sullivan also had in his possession a number of State Department cables that detailed the situation in South Africa. These cables seemed to have given Sullivan insight into events unfolding on the ground in South Africa, particularly concerning trade unions and South African workers, as well as the general South African political situation. Most of these cables were sent in 1986, the year the U.S. anti-apartheid movement peaked, and during which anti-apartheid activists garnered enough force and support for Congress to pass the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (CAAA) over the objections of the Reagan administration’s veto.

For example, the State Department forwarded a letter from the U.S. trade union federation, the AFL-CIO, to State President PW Botha, condemning the State of Emergency in South Africa and calling for the “immediate release of detained trade union leaders.”[2] Likewise Sullivan also possessed a cable detailing the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions’ (ICFTU) 1986 protests against the jailing of South African trade union leaders. ICFTU General Secretary John Vanderveken sent “a strongly-worded protest cable to Pretoria expressing the 83-million strong organisation’s firm demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all detained.”[3] Similar to the AFL-CIO, the ICFTU also condemned the State of Emergency.[4] Reflecting on these cables, it becomes clear that Sullivan had a holistic awareness of the transnational reach of trade union solidarity and the deteriorating situation in South Africa.

Beyond South Africa

Whether Sullivan had a master plan or not is unclear, but his various programs all connected in compelling ways. From his early work with his hallmark U.S. jobs training program, the Opportunities Industrialization Centers (OIC) of America, to the Sullivan Principle years and beyond, Sullivan was able to intricately build on his corporate connections to gain major financial support for his initiatives. Since Sullivan had worked to build bridges with DC officials as well as a large cohort of corporate executives, he was primed to continue expanding on his programs in the United States and Africa.

As Sullivan began turning away from the Sullivan Principles as corporate disinvestment from apartheid South Africa became a reality, he did not turn his glance away from Africa more broadly. Building on his deep connections to corporate executives via the Sullivan Principles, as well as his more successful work with the OIC, Sullivan launched the International Foundation for Education and Self-Help (IFESH).

By 1984, the OIC’s international branch was already active in eight nations, and provided a basis for Sullivan’s future endeavors. Sullivan defined the objectives of a foundation for self-help in his 1 November 1984 letter to John C. Haas. Sullivan stated that “It is our objective in the next ten years to develop a ‘self-help’ process in 30 Sub-Saharan countries that will provide skills training for 100,000 workers.”[5] These skills were wide-ranging, including agricultural training and literacy education.

Reading through IFESH-related correspondence, it is apparent that the connections between the IFESH and Sullivan Principles were deeply entrenched. Brooks McCormick, a former Chairman of International Harvester, organized the IFESH alongside Sullivan.[6] International Harvester was also a signatory of the Sullivan Principles. The IFESH and the OIC were also largely inseparable. The same historical actors who interacted with Sullivan in one of him many endeavors naturally spilled into other areas. Correspondence with Henry Ford II made this obvious, as Ford Motor Company was one of the original signatories of the Sullivan Principles and maintained manufacturing plants in South Africa. In 1983, while Ford Motor was busy defending its operations in South Africa amid a growing anti-apartheid force, Sullivan sent Henry Ford II a letter, thanking him for his support and contribution to the OICs of America.[7]

Overlap between the Sullivan Principles and the OIC did lead to some discussions concerning whether or not Sullivan would expand his international branch of the OIC into South Africa. These conversations emerged in 1984. For example, in 1984, South African Samuel Pono sent a letter to Sullivan following a meeting in London. Pono advocated for the establishment of OIC programs in South Africa.[8] Sullivan’s OIC programs did expand into the southern Africa region, but were slow to engage with South Africa specifically. Sullivan noted in 1986 that he had launched the IFESH to “support self-help initiatives in Africa, such as OIC, and other projects,” but was mostly focused on countries like Zimbabwe and Botswana.[9]

While I could not uncover a clear reason as to why, correspondence and studies of corporate attitudes show that the major donors Sullivan was relying on detested excessive overlap between the IFESH and Sullivan’s work in South Africa with the Sullivan Principles. A feasibility study by Paul Blanshard Associates confirmed that corporate executives were aware and sometimes concerned with the degree of overlap between the OIC International and the Sullivan Principles. The firm conducted 19 interviews with a group that represented a “cross section of potential major gift donors.”[10] One executive noted “it is practically impossible to separate the Sullivan Principles from OICI for, with the same titular leader, one involves the other.”[11] Another executive noted that Sullivan was the foundation’s greatest asset, an effective communicator and campaigner.[12] However, they noted that “the lines get fuzzy because he is involved with OICA, the Sullivan Principles, and OICI.”[13]

At the time of the study, Sullivan was considering naming his new foundation the “International Foundation for Education and Justice,” but ultimately swapped “Justice” with “Self-Help” after an outcry from executives. Some proposed the name change because the term “Justice” could be too easily confused with the OIC of America.[14] Meetings with the Executive Committee confirm this hesitation, showing that the business community encouraged Sullivan to remove the word “justice” from the title of the organization. This was also mostly because of concerns the work of IFESH would be misconstrued with the work he was doing in South Africa and The United States.[15] The Chairman of the new foundation, Brooks McCormick of International Harvester, was concerned that the “continuation of the use of the word ‘justice’ would lead to further confusion,” as donors could possibly link Sullivan to issues of business in South Africa.[16] Despite resolving to change a key title word from “justice” to “self-help,” the organizational overlap was obvious. IFESH quickly secured funding from the Kellogg Foundation and the Coca Cola Foundation—both corporations with operations in South Africa, and notable signatories to the Sullivan Principles.[17] The IFESH would outlive the Sullivan Principles, but would receive ample support from the corporations that were signatory to the Sullivan Principles, such as “General Motors, PepsiCo, IBM, Coca Cola, Mobil, and many others.”[18]

Political Positioning and Worker Solidarity

While remaining involved with the IFESH in Africa more broadly, Sullivan became increasingly more concerned with South African matters and the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. This took shape with his involvement in a few key areas, including his service to the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on South Africa, a group of twelve arranged by Secretary of State George Shultz to evaluate and recommend policy U.S. policy with respect to South Africa. The committee stood from 1986-87.

At first glance, Sullivan’s involvement with the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on South Africa seemed passive. He was absent from a number of meetings, per the meeting minutes. However, by 1987, Sullivan became more vocal, and more visibly annoyed with corporations. This seemed apparent with some calls for additions to the committee’s final report. In a January 14, 1987 memo to William Kontos, the Executive Director of the Advisory Committee, Sullivan noted that Congress should have more authority to strengthen sanctions, “including the total withdrawal of all American companies and the possibility of a total U.S. embargo against South Africa.” [19]  He also wanted the committee to add a stronger note with regards to the Sullivan Principles, highlighting most prominently his call for corporations to “practice corporate civil disobedience against all apartheid laws and regulations.” [20] Finally, Sullivan also wished for the committee to highlight his upcoming May 31, 1987 deadline for U.S. companies to shape up or get out of South Africa. [21] By 1987, Sullivan could be more vocal in calling for withdrawal, especially since Congress had already passed economic sanctions, all but sealing the fate of apartheid South Africa.

Sullivan’s final act as a member of the committee was a firm dissent from its final report. Sullivan and Owen Bieber, the head of the United Auto Workers (UAW) were the only two committee members to issue such a rebuttal. [22] Bieber’s dissent noted a thank you to Black South Africans with whom he had met. [23]  He further noted there were a “number of areas in which the Committee report does not go far enough.” [24]  Sullivan likewise wrote a dissent, tempering it with a note that he did support the general thrust of the report. However, he claimed that “the Report fails to deal sufficiently with the continuing intransigence of the South African government to dismantle the apartheid system.” [25] Thus, Sullivan called for stronger government action, “including actions for the withdrawal of all U.S. companies and a total U.S. embargo against South Africa.” [26] These dissents and the full report are contained in the papers and offer an excellent avenue into the state of U.S.-South African relations in the latter days of the Reagan administration.

Much like my previous visit to the Rose Library, I left this trip feeling that Sullivan’s legacy was complicated. The Sullivan Principles in particular have a contested legacy—with anti-apartheid activists and scholars often interpreting them as window dressing to coat corporate complicity with apartheid South Africa. And by most accounts corporations clearly failed to live up to the spirit of the Sullivan Principles and did little to influence positive change in South Africa. Just to give an example, an evaluation of Sullivan’s foundation set up to implement the Principles, the International Community of Equality of Opportunity Principles (ICEOP), reached a stark conclusion. The consultants noted that they would be terminating their relationship with the ICEOP in 1981, in part because “even those corporations which have committed themselves to the Sullivan Principles have done so superficially.” [27]

Reflecting on my visit to Emory University’s Rose Library, it is apparent that anyone studying civil rights, Black internationalism, and/or the anti-apartheid movement could benefit from examining Leon Sullivan’s expansive papers. His connections bridged the United States and Africa, and offer a purview of the ways African Americans engaged abroad.

[1] Brooks McCormick to Cyrus Vance, July 22, 1982, Box 16, Folder 5,  Leon Howard Sullivan papers, Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library, Emory University (hereafter Leon Sullivan papers).; Zeb Larson noted Sullivan’s connections with the Department of State, see Zeb Larson, “Following the Fellows: Zeb Larson,” January 6, 2017, https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/marbl/2017/01/06/ftf-zeb-larson/

[2] Secretary of State DC to American Consul Johannesburg, “AFL-CIO Condemns State of Emergency,” June 1986, Box 59, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[3] The letter noted that the ICFTU received word that at least 14 leaders of the independent Black trade union movement had been recently detained or reported missing. American Embassy Brussels to American Consul Johannesburg, “ICFTU Protests Recent Detentions in South Africa,” June 1986, Box 59, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[4] American Embassy Brussels to American Consul Johannesburg, “ICFTU Protests Recent Detentions in South Africa,” June 1986, Box 59, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[5] Letter, Sullivan to John C. Haas, November 1, 1984, Box 16, Folder 7, Leon Sullivan papers.

[6] Letter, Sullivan to William S. Beinecke, November 28, 1984, Box 16, Folder 7, Leon Sullivan papers.

[7] Letter, Sullivan to Henry Ford II, December 2, 1983, Box 33, Folder 6, Leon Sullivan papers.

[8] Letter, Samuel Pono to Sullivan, September 5, 1984, Box 60, Folder 6, Leon Sullivan papers.

[9] Letter, Dramane Ouattara to Sullivan, March 6, 1986, Box 23, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[10] Paul Blanshard Associates, “Feasibility Study: OIC International,” December 1984, Box 24, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[11] Paul Blanshard Associates, “Feasibility Study: OIC International,” December 1984, Box 24, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[12] Paul Blanshard Associates, “Feasibility Study: OIC International,” December 1984, Box 24, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[13] Paul Blanshard Associates, “Feasibility Study: OIC International,” December 1984, Box 24, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[14] Paul Blanshard Associates, “Feasibility Study: OIC International,” December 1984, Box 24, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[15] Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, January 31, 1985, Box 16, Folder 3, Leon Sullivan papers.

[16] Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, January 31, 1985, Box 16, Folder 3, Leon Sullivan papers.

[17] Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting, January 31, 1985, Box 16, Folder 3, Leon Sullivan papers.

[18] Sullivan did eventually reshape the Sullivan Principles into the “Global Sullivan Principles” in 1997. IFESH, “1992 Annual Report,” Box 18, Folder 1, Leon Sullivan papers.

[19] Memo, Leon Sullivan to William Kontos, “Additions to be added to report,” January 14, 1987, Box 59, Folder 4, Leon Sullivan papers.

[20] Memo, Leon Sullivan to William Kontos, “Additions to be added to report,” January 14, 1987, Box 59, Folder 4, Leon Sullivan papers.

[21] Memo, Leon Sullivan to William Kontos, “Additions to be added to report,” January 14, 1987,  Box 59, Folder 4, Leon Sullivan papers.

[22] “A U.S. Policy Toward South Africa: The Report of the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on South Africa,” January 1987, Box 59, Folder 4, Leon Sullivan papers.

[23] Owen Bieber, “Dissent by Owen Bieber from the Report of the Advisory Committee on South Africa,” January 26, 1987, Box 59, Folder 4, Leon Sullivan papers.

[24] Owen Bieber, “Dissent by Owen Bieber from the Report of the Advisory Committee on South Africa,” January 26, 1987, Box 59, Folder 4, Leon Sullivan papers.

[25] Leon Sullivan, “Dissent Statement by Leon Sullivan from the Report of the Advisory Committee on South Africa,” February 4, 1987, Box 59, Folder 4, Leon Sullivan papers.

[26] Leon Sullivan, “Dissent Statement by Leon Sullivan from the Report of the Advisory Committee on South Africa,” February 4, 1987, Box 59, Folder 4, Leon Sullivan papers.

[27] Clark, Phipps, Clark & Harris, “The ICEOP Program: A Final Report,” September 1981, Box 61, Folder 4, Leon Sullivan papers.