329. Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Brzezinski) to Secretary of Commerce Kreps1

SUBJECT

  • Regulations on Prohibition of Sales to South African Military and Police

Relative to your recent request2 to interpret the Presidential directive of November 28, 1977,3 prohibiting sales to the South African police and military, as incorporating a grace period with respect to those U.S. companies which have contracted to provide repair and maintenance services for previously exported goods, the Department of Commerce regulations implementing this directive may permit servicing under outstanding servicing contracts or other legal commitments for a period of two months, and direct exporters to give notice to their [Page 1001] customers to make alternative arrangements for servicing at the end of that period.

Zbigniew Brzezinski
  1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Brzezinski Office File, Country Chron File, Box 48, South Africa: 1–6/78. Confidential.
  2. In a January 23 memorandum to Brzezinski, Kreps asked for a reexamination of the President’s directive of November 28, 1977, to allow U.S. companies to service goods previously licensed by the Department of Commerce. Kreps wrote: “In the past, when new export controls have been imposed, the Department has permitted the servicing of goods legally sold before the more restrictive controls were put into effect. The only exception is when a total embargo has been imposed. This policy reflects a need to protect the U.S. commercial reputation for reliability in the international community, which was built up in large measure through the sale of sound products backed by rapid servicing, as well as a desire to prevent requiring U.S. companies from having to default on contractual commitments. Even when the 1963 UN sanctions were imposed against South Africa, Adlai Stevenson announced that exceptions would be allowed for servicing previously exported military equipment when such servicing was stipulated in a contract. This exception applied to military equipment as well as to commercial equipment purchased by the military.” (Ibid.)
  3. See Document 324.