Mark Curtis

Permanent Under-Secretary’s Steering Committee, “British Foreign Policy: Brief by the Foreign Office”, 26 January 1968

This long report is a briefing for the Foreigh Secretary’s forthcoming talks in Washington. It notes that the primary goal of British foreign policy is to make Britain economically strong, which was the reason for deciding to withdraw military forces from ‘East of Suez’. It continues:

“Positively, it demands that we should bend our energies to help to produce a world economic climate in which our external trade, our income from invisibles and our balance of payments can prosper. This demands that we should support and, where appropriate, initiate measures for freer and more expanded world trade, for tariff reductions, for the reduction of non-tariff barriers, for greater international liquidity and for satisfactory solutions to problems of international indebtedness, including that of the sterling balances… Although our entry into the European Communities has been blocked for the time being we must continue to develop our markets there, while increasing our efforts to open up new markets and making the best of existing opportunities elsewhere eg in Latin America, parts of the Far East such as Thailand, and indeed wherever devaluation has given us real competitive advantages. Negatively, we should for the time being adopt a ‘heads down’ attitude in regard to proposals which, however desirable in themselves, would throw a significantly greater strain upon our balance of payments, eg commodity schemes directed primarily to raise prices rather than at stability of markets”.

“We should work to harmonise US and European policies but so long as the objectives are in harmony we need not be shy about forward on the merits of the case different means of attaining them… We must ensure that our aid programme supports not only the developmental needs of recipient countries but also our own commercial and foreign policies… Wherever possible we should try to shape our aid programme to fit more appropriately the pattern of our trade and investment interests in different countries”.

Source: National Archives, FCO 49/13

Over the next few months, I will be publishing on this site some of the declassified British government documents I have used in my research. The following, a Foreign Office paper from March 1967, is the first:

FCO, “The British interest in oil”, paper, March 1967

“Oil is easily the largest single commodity moving in international trade. It supplies nearly 40 per cent of the world’s energy needs… British major interests in oil are twofold: (i) in common with all other industrialised nations dependent upon imported fuel supplies we have an interest in the continued and secure availability of imported oil at acceptable prices…(ii) through British Petroleum (BP)…and Shell… the United Kingdom has a stake in the international oil industry second only to that of the United States. The overseas assets of the British oil companies have a book value of £2,000 million without counting their rights to oil still in the ground. Because these companies supply nearly one half of the market, the United Kingdom obtains its own oil supplies at lower foreign exchange costs than would otherwise be the case: for example, in 1965, if the oil imported by Shell and BP had been imported by foreign companies, it would have cost £60 million more in balance of payments terms. Furthermore, remittance of money from their production, refining and marketing operations overseas makes an even more substantial direct contribution to the balance of payments; net foreign exchange earnings … from Shell’s and BP’s overseas operations in 1965 amounted to about £160 million; of that total, about £60 million was spent on equipment exports for those operations and about £100 million represented net earnings on investment”.

“In the United Nations and its associate bodies Her Majesty’s Government’s policy is to oppose, or at least attempt to moderate, resolutions which might: (a) encourage concessionary governments to expropriate or acquire too direct a control over Western oil investments; (b) give OPEC a status which could lead to its acceptance as a body with special competence or powers as regards the international oil industry as a whole; or (c) encourage direct links between consuming and producing countries or any form of commodity agreement for oil. The broad aim is to inhibit undue governmental interference in the international oil trade”.

“It seems likely (unwelcome though this is as regards the ‘profitability’ of the British investments in balance of payments terms) that unit payments to concessionary governments by the companies will continue to rise, it is hoped slowly, and that those governments will acquire an increasing direct stake in the development of oil resources in their countries… From our massive stake in the international oil industry, we enjoy two major advantages for the balance of payments: our oil costs a good deal less in overseas payments than it would if we bought it all from foreign companies; we get large invisible earnings from the business of producing and selling oil in other countries”.

Source: PRO / FCO 54/77

This new report, written for the international NGO, ActionAid, analyses the impact on local communities in South Africa of the world’s largest platinum producer, Anglo Platinum - a company majority-owned by the British mining giant, Anglo American. 

Its main findings are that: 

Thousands of poor people in rural areas have lost agricultural land – their main means of survival – due to mining activities undertaken by Anglo Platinum. They are generally offered little compensation and insufficient ways of making an alternative living. The result is not just increased hunger and poverty, but also the destruction of a traditional way of life.

Whole communities have lost access to clean drinking water. Independent water sampling analysis commissioned by ActionAid has discovered serious water pollution at four sites near Anglo Platinum’s mines, including two schools. Mining activities are the most likely cause of this pollution, which has made the water unfit for human consumption.

Villagers have been removed from their homes in “relocation agreements” signed with associations that the company claims represent the community, but which have actually been established by the company itself.

Many communities are subject to constant intrusive mining activities, especially blasting, which is damaging their homes and environment.

Community protests to improve services offered to villagers or to challenge Anglo Platinum over land take-overs have often been met with brutality by the police and legal action by the company.

Anglo Platinum is continuing to expand its mining operations in densely populated rural areas, which will result in further imminent displacements.

Meanwhile, Anglo Platinum is making record earnings, amounting to $1.75 billion profit in 2007 alone. While the company claims to be socially responsible, it is spending less than 1 per cent of its profits on local community development. The company also makes many claims in its public material about the positive local results it achieves, which the report finds to be seriously at odds with the reality on the ground.

The report’s findings suggest that some of these impacts may be in violation of human rights guaranteed by the South African constitution.  

Read the report