Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour.

It is almost with a sigh of relief that Parliament can get on with its business, and on this occasion the important business of discussing the Foreign Affairs Vote without the battles of “die Berge” or “die Kloof’ dominating the thoughts, tactics and debates in this House. Although the by-elections have been fought primarily on internal issues and not on foreign policy issues, there is no doubt that the election campaigns have already had an impact on South Africa’s foreign relationships, and that the results could have an even greater impact.

One of the factors which add to the problems that South Africa faces in the field of foreign relationships is that too many people, and certainly in the CP, and also to a large extent in the NP, conduct their internal political activities as if foreign affairs were irrelevant, or at the very least, without keeping in mind that our behaviour and our policies inside South Africa have a profound effect on South Africa’s external relations.

We want to make it clear that we in the PFP believe that the issue of South Africa’s foreign relationships, whether they be considered from a regional or global point of view, is of vital importance to South Africa. For this reason we believe that foreign affairs and foreign policy objectives should be an important and integral part of the policies and of the strategies of all political parties in South Africa. Let us restate our view on this. We believe that it is important for South Africa, first of all, to endeavour to have reasonable relationships with her neighbours here in Southern Africa—this in spite of differences that there may be of ideology or of history or of immediate policy objectives—Secondly, we believe it is important for South Africa to have as close as possible a relationship with the countries of the West, and more especially with those countries of the West who are our major trading partners. Thirdly, we believe that as pressures build up on South Africa, and as calls for the isolation of this country become more strident, it is necessary to have some countries who, while not supporting the policies of discrimination that are applied in South Africa, are sufficiently understanding of the complexities of the South African situation and sufficiently hopeful of the prospects for peaceful change within South Africa that they will resist the calls for pressure and for the isolation of South Africa. Put bluntly, Mr. Chairman, as hostility towards South Africa and pressures on South Africa are mounting, understanding friends around the world become more and more important.

I do not suggest that in attempting to achieve these foreign policy objectives South Africa should submit to external pressure or be coerced into making internal changes. What I do suggest, however, is that when conducting our politics, when formulating our internal policies, when carrying out the administration of this country, and when deciding on military operations across our borders, the Government should give due weight to the importance of foreign affairs relative to our overall national strategy. No one can dispute the fact that the foreign affairs issues are becoming increasingly to the fore, also increasing in frequency and in intensity; this making great demands on the Director-General, Mr. van Dalsen, and on his team of officials in the department, in particular on those working in South African embassies and consulates abroad.

We in the official Opposition should like to express our appreciation of the work that these people are doing in what has become virtually a frontline service. In saying this, I should like to stress that their taste is an important and a difficult one which is often made even more difficult by things that are done and said back here in South Africa.

Without wishing to turn this debate into one of the internal policies I believe that I should say something about the impact which internal policies and statements are having on South Africa’s external relationships.

In the past couple of months, especially during the months of the by-election campaigns, what has been done and said in South Africa has had an especially bad effect on South Africa’s fortunes in the field of foreign affairs. What is said and done by the Government, or for that matter, by others in politics, during White by-elections, will not change the attitude of those who fashion and execute Soviet policy. It will not change the attitude of those who want to coerce South Africa into making revolutionary changes. It will not change the attitude of the so-called anti-apartheid organizations. But, what we in South Africa say and do in the field of race relations and other matters has a profound impact on our foreign relationships. Every reinforcement of apartheid, every retreat from reform, every attack on the freedom of the Press or on the rule of law, every act of violence, albeit with the sanction of the law, against the politically powerless citizens of South Africa, undermines the efforts of our South African representatives abroad. Everyone of these things strengthens the hands of those who want to isolate and to pressurize South Africa. Everyone of these things weakens the position of those countries who do not want to isolate South Africa but who believe in peaceful and orderly change coming from within South Africa.

Foremost amongst these latter countries at the present time are the United Kingdom and the USA. The attitudes of these two countries have been expressed in important speeches by their distinguished ambassadors earlier this year—Ambassador Nickel, in February, and Ambassador Fergusson, in March. I do not believe that we should think that these speeches were made lightly. Rather should we presume that they were made seriously and after much thought in order to convey certain fundamental messages concerning those countries’ foreign policies towards South Africa.

What, in essence, did these two distinguished representatives say? First of all they said that their Governments did not support policies designed to isolate or to pressurize South Africa. Secondly they said their Governments were not prepared to prescribe solutions to South Africa. Thirdly they said that their Governments wanted to encourage the process of peaceful and orderly change within South Africa, away from apartheid and discrimination and towards a fuller realization of basic human rights. Finally they said that their Governments were hopeful that meaningful progress in this direction would take place inside South Africa. Both of these ambassadors, each in his own way, pointed out that in their own countries these moderate policies towards South Africa had their critics and that no representative Government could disregard public opinion in their own countries. On this issue Ambassador Fergusson said, and I quote—

In the USA, as we are all well aware, the pressure for disinvestment has already reached the level of municipal and of State legislatures. Only this week there were reports that it has now reached Congress where the important House Committee on Foreign Affairs has passed a motion prohibiting the sale of gold coins in the United States and imposing a ban on new bank loans to the South African Government. Only this week the House Banking Committee passed a resolution—

Sir, the pressure is mounting up and, as the hon. the Minister is aware, Ambassador Nickel in his address said—

I want to put this point to this House and to the hon. the Minister: Is the friendship and understanding of countries like this of importance to South Africa? We in the PFP believe that they are of importance from a political and also from an economic and strategic point of view. We also believe that it is in South Africa’s interest that the Government should desist from making statements and taking actions which create a climate of opinion in those countries that will make it increasingly difficult for those countries to pursue moderate policies towards South Africa. Is it not in our interests that the Government should get rid of outdated policies which are not necessary for survival and which will show that progress is being made in the direction of reform? Is it not necessary for us to go out of our way to avoid incidents that will allow South Africa to be caricatured as a country that has no concern for the freedom of the Press, the rule of law or the dignity of citizens? I raise these issues because they are of fundamental importance to South Africa in the field of foreign relationships.

We need only look at what has been said over the past few months to create that climate of opinion. Read the overseas journals if you do not wish to accept the view of the Opposition. We have had the statements here on the maintenance of train apartheid, on separate group areas for Cabinet Ministers, on the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on beach apartheid and separate sporting facilities. There is also the embarrassing egg-dance of the hon. the Minister of Community Development on the issue of the opening of the premieres of Gandhi to all races. There was also the surprising statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister who said that these premieres would not be open to all races because we did not want chaos in South Africa. I can tell you that that statement—that in the opinion of the South African Prime Minister the opening of the premieres of Gandhi to all races in this country can lead to chaos—has had a profound impact on climate-building as far as policies towards South Africa are concerned. More recently we had the insensitive decision of the Nationalist majority on the Pretoria City Council to close the parks and to see that they remained effectively closed by means of fences, uniformed officials and guard dogs, not to mention the exclusion of Indians from the Orange Free State and the total exclusion of Black South Africans from the new constitutional proposals. These things have happened and have already had a profound impact on overseas opinion as has the raid on the home of Alastair Sparks, as has the continual harassment of the squatters at KTC and as has the shooting of the Black community leader, Saul Mkhize. Let me say here that it should not have been the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information who had to express regret in this regard seven days later. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order should immediately have said that the Government was concerned and expressed its regret on this issue. Now that the by-elections are over we expect the hon. the Minister as the man who represents this Government in the field of foreign affairs to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to stress the importance of our foreign relations with the West and not only to avoid incidents and policies that damage race relations but also to get on with the process of getting rid of race discrimination, because it is the policy of race discrimination that is the cause of all these incidents that take place.

The next matter I want to deal with in the short time available to me is the question of our relationships with neighbouring States. I shall exclude the TBVC countries because another hon. member on this side will deal with them. I want to deal with the other neighbouring States and to say that relationships with them remain troubled both because of internal problems within those countries and because of repeated allegations that South Africa is following a policy of destabilization in respect of those countries. We will accept the fact that many of these accusations can be held to be just a political ploy such as, for instance, the one that Schoeman had been sent to Mozambique to assassinate President Samora Machel. On the other side of the coin, however, this Government must face up to the fact that South Africa is living under a cloud of suspicion and allegation ever since 1975 when the Government made its military incursion into Angola. The fact is that a view widely held and often stated abroad is that the South African Government is supporting guerrilla movements in neighbouring States. This allegation which is being made repeatedly was given greater credence by the statement of the hon. the Minister of Defence in the House when he said that in certain circumstances the South African Government would help guerrilla and insurgent forces against governments in other countries.

The position of the PFP on this issue is quite clear. Just as we demand that other countries respect our territorial integrity, so we believe that South Africa should respect the territorial integrity of its neighbours. Just as South Africa demands that other countries should not allow their territory to be used as a springboard for terrorist activities against South Africa, so be believe that South Africa should ensure that its territory is not used as a springboard for terrorist activities against the Governments of adjoining States.

Our position is based not just on a fundamental tenet of international relationships, but on our belief that whatever the short-term advantages of assisting anti-government guerrilla movements in adjoining States may be, in the long term this is going to prove strategically and diplomatically counterproductive. It will increase the dependency of these Governments, not on the West, but on the Soviet Union and it will give the Soviet Union and its surrogates an opportunity for increased involvement in Southern Africa.

We want to express a feeling of concern. To an increasing extent the impression is create that the hon. the Minister of Defence and his department have displaced the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information and his department as the key agent for shaping the South African Government’s international relationships here in the Southern Africa region. It often appears to us that military cum security criteria have dominated over diplomatic cum foreign policy criteria in shaping South Africa’s regional policy.

We do not underestimate the importance of security to South Africa, but we believe South Africa would be wrong if it saw security solely in military terms. Security viewed in its totality has also diplomatic and economic and international components which are also of vital importance.

Once again it is for this reason that we look to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information to ensure that in seeking to gain security objectives of a military nature the Government does not in doing that, weaken its total security by playing into the hands of the Soviets or weakening the position of South Africa amongst its friends in the international field.

For these reasons we welcome the face to face meetings that have been taking place recently between representatives of the South African Government and the countries which have been making hostile allegations towards us. There was the meeting last year with President Kaunda. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether in fact that meeting has been followed up and if there is any prospect of further meetings taking place on the initiative of President Kaunda. There were also meetings between Ministers of Mozambique and Lesotho. These were necessary in view of the allegations and the counter-allegations made. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress can be reported as a result of those meetings. Last year and earlier this year there were meetings with representatives of the Government of Angola in Cape Verde. It is rumoured that further meetings will take place. These meetings are of especial importance because they involve the Angolan and Cuban issue and with that the whole question of a settlement in Namibia. We trust that further meetings are going to take place and that the hon. the Minister can indicate some progress in this regard.

Another territory is Swaziland. What are the relationships between the Government fo Swaziland and the South African Government since the debacle which the South African Government caused by its inept handling of the whole Ingwavuma Kangwane affair last year? Since then there has been a new Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister is reported to have fled Swaziland and sought asylum in South Africa. We should like to know what are the relationships and whether new and better relationships have been established between the hon. the Minister and his counterpart.

Finally, on the question of dialogue, we believe that the greatest void in the whole pattern of top level discussions has still been the absence of a meeting at ministerial level between the Government of South Africa and the Government of Zimbabwe. Because I believe that, between them, South Africa and Zimbabwe have a vitally important role to play in the future development of Southern Africa, I remain of the opinion that, in spite of the differences of style, policy and ideology, a top-level meeting between Prime Minister Botha and Prime Minister Mugabe should be seen as an important political objective. I realize that it is difficult, but we refuse to believe that such a meeting is impossible.

Then I should like to say a few words on the issue of South West Africa/Namibia. This has been a long drawn-out dispute, and the loss of life, recriminations and international implications should be a matter of deep concern to all South Africans. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with certain aspects of the Namibian situation when we raised this issue across the floor of the House during the discussion of his Vote a few weeks ago. Since then there have been certain new developments, at least three. One was the UN-sponsored conference on Namibia which was held a couple of weeks ago and which, may I say, I thought did nothing to bring peace or a settlement closer in Namibia. The second has been statements in the Press and a Press statement by the Administrator-General, Dr. Van Niekerk, on discussions he has been holding with the internal parties on the issue of “constructive constitutional development before independence”. The third development is the reported visit in a few days’ time of Dr. Crocker, U.S. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Department, and the hopes that he has some news as far as peace and settlement in Angola are concerned.

In view of these events and in view of the forthcoming meeting of the Security Council, we believe that it is absolutely essential that there should be clarity and no room for misrepresentation on the Government’s attitude towards the key issues surrounding the South West African settlement plan. We believe that the responsibility rests on the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to restate South Africa’s current position in clear and unambiguous terms.

The issues which we believe have to be spelt out are, firstly, South Africa’s commitment to endeavour to achieve as soon as possible internationally recognized independence for South West Africa through the implementation of Resolution 435. We believe that this should be spelt out in clear and unambiguous terms. Secondly, we believe it is important that the hon. the Minister should state in clear terms the obstacles which in the opinion of the Government still stand in the way of a peaceful and satisfactory implementation of Resolution 435. We believe it is important that these should be clarified and that there should be no misunderstanding about the extent and the nature of these objections. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister should spell out the Administrator-General’s plans for the internal administration of that territory prior to independence. We do not underestimate the magnitude of the problems regarding the internal administration of that territory. We urge, however, that nothing should be done in the field of internal constitutional development inside South West Africa which will either provide Swapo and its allies with grounds to accuse South Africa of dragging its heels and prejudicing the independence process or which will impede the progress Dr. Crocker and the Western Five contact group may have made towards a settlement.

We believe it is important, because of the political statements that have been coming from inside that territory, that the S.A. Government should make it quite clear that under no circumstances will it entertain any proposals for a territorial division or separation of peoples within that territory. The S.A. Government should make it quite clear that as far as South West Africa is concerned they reject the concept of “selfbeskikking vir volkere”, which is now being promoted by Mr. Pretorius and the members of the National Party in South West Africa. The Government has overcome that hurdle. The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government have already agreed to a new non-racial constitution which will protect minorities, which will have a Bill of Rights and which will provide for a single vote for each person. We believe that the Government has already passed that hurdle and we believe that the National Party, Mr. Pretorius and others, are doing South Africa and the settlement of that issue no good by trying to turn back the clock and reintroducing the concept either of territorial separation or of “selfbeskikking vir volkere”.

The Government has the opportunity once again to spell out its commitment, to say what it will do and what it will not do. We believe that, if that is spelt out, misunderstandings can be eliminated and South Africa will not be vulnerable, as it has been in the past, to accusations that it is putting obstacles in the way. We fervently hope that the next issue which is going to be resolved in Southern Africa, ahead of all else, will be the issue of independence for Namibia. We believe that as long as there is no independence for Namibia, it is like a running sore, not only with regard to foreign relationships, but also as something which is sapping our moral energy and the lives of our young people.

Mr. Chairman, one cannot really discuss any aspect of the current situation in Southern Africa without first taking stock of the basic facts pertaining to the various individual countries and States on the subcontinent and of what constitutes a threat to them, what their economic potential is, what their political dispensations are, where they are heading, who their friends are and who their enemies are.

I think that in his speech the premise of the hon. member for Sea Point was that he wanted to discuss the region as a whole. However, he merely presented certain facets of the problems in Southern Africa to us. He put certain questions to me and if I do not reply to them now, I shall definitely do so at a later stage of the debate. The questions he asked were fair questions, and I shall reply to them with pleasure. However, some of his remarks were unfair. The hon. member cannot resist the temptation of holding this Government responsible for the relative isolation in which South Africa finds itself and the attacks made on South Africa by the outside world. On a previous occasion I explained the reality of the situation to him as follows: At present there is no party in this House that can allay UN opinion and satisfy UN demands. I hope we agree on that score. UN opinion on South Africa is embodied in hundreds of UN resolutions, which I am quite prepared to make available to all members of this House in order to verify my statement. The majority determines the resolutions adopted at the UN. Those resolutions are simply too harsh and too radical for even the PFP to think that they could satisfy the UN with their policy. I can guarantee the official Opposition that given the trends in the UN, which demand concealed Marxism in libertarian-sounding phrases, which advocate the violent overthrow of the Government and South Africa by the ANC, which hold up the ANC to be the liberating force and conceal its affiliations with the South African Communist Party, it is quite clear that as regards the UN demand, together with the dominant role played by the Soviet Union in that organization, the policy of the Opposition will not satisfy them. The lady who represents the USA at the United Nations is of the opinion that it is the Third World, backed to a large extent by the Soviet Union, that determines UN resolutions. In fact, pleas have emanated from the USA that the USA should consider doing something drastic about the influence of the Soviet Union in the UN. It is the USA that pays the lion’s share of the UN budget. The amount a country has to pay for UN membership, is determined mainly by its national income, and because the USA has such a relatively large national income, it has to make a relatively large contribution to the UN budget. Be that as it may, it seems to me we are unanimous on the demands of the more radical and hostile elements—as embodied in the UN, but also represented in a large number of organizations outside the UNO in respect of South Africa. No party at present represented in this House has any hope of satisfying their demands.

When we talk about world opinion—I think the hon. member for Sea Point will agree with me in this regard—we cannot speak about only one world opinion. It is not that simplistic. I referred to one section of that world opinion, viz. the one generated in the UN, and not only against South Africa. That opinion is also generated, and resolutions are also adopted against the West in general, as well as against individual States which are targets of the Soviet Union. There are other shades of this opinion as well. There is the opinion of the so-called non-aligned countries, countries which, as Dr. Kissinger said on occasion, have become notorious for their alignment with an anti-West attitude. Much the same tendency is to be found at conferences of these non-aligned countries as one would find with the majority of UN members. After all, it is with certain exceptions the same countries that form the majority at the UN.

Another opinion is that of Red China. Red China is an entity on its own. A quarter of the planet’s population lives there. Because it is a nuclear power, it is a major world power in spite of its relative poverty and its inability to excel in the economic or commercial sphere. Red China represents a strict, dogmatic form of Marxism of its own which is no less dangerous than that of the Soviet Union. It merely operates in a different way. Yet in various spheres it is in conflict with the Soviet Union. This entails that there is a tendency on the part of the West to regard Peking in a more favourable and more moderate light than Moscow, for strategic reasons of course.

Then there is the Soviet Union, which in itself constitutes a world power, with its ring of satellites. Ideologically, its satellites have to follow where it leads. These Eastern Bloc states, or satellite states—as we call them—of Russia Have one thing in common. Very large Russian military units are stationed in virtually all these States. The Russians claim that this is done to keep Europe, the Nato forces, at bay. However, the truth is that they are there to prevent rebellions in those countries. Dr. Kissinger calls it an “historic joke” that the only recent revolutions in industrial countries have been the revolutions that have occurred in the satellite states of Russia. That is a perceptive remark.

In contrast, there is the view which one could call, in a broad sense, the Western view. This view is in its turn not a homogeneous one. The West is not unanimous on a number of important issues. I wish to give one example. At present America is struggling to get its European allies to agree to deal with the Soviet Union as America wishes the Soviet Union to be dealt with. They have problems. The USA had problems persuading the European countries to stop supplying certain equipment for the pipeline from Russia. America wanted its European allies to apply a boycott. At present they have another difference of opinion of more or less the same nature, and that is that America does not want certain equipment of a strategic, of an electronic-technical nature to be supplied to Russia. However, the European states do not like the idea. They say it is a violation of their freedom to make their own decisions, and there is therefore a measure of friction, not to put it too strongly, between America and Europe on that score.

Then, too, as far as these various world opinion pools are concerned, there are differences in their attitude towards South Africa. They are not unanimous on that score either. Officially, as far as Governments are concerned, South Africa has at present a reasonably—I cannot put it any higher than that—a reasonably sound working relationship with the USA. I once had occasion to say, and I should like to repeat, that—

†Hon. members will notice that there is nothing final or definitive about this relationship, but it is better than before. On the working level it holds out promise, but only the future can tell how it will develop and of course also whether there will be another president like President Reagan.

*Now it is important to ask: What segment of this wide spectrum of world opinion could possibly be satisfied by parties present in this House? The implication of what the hon. member for Sea Point said—if I understood him correctly; I do not wish to do him an injustice—if he is blaming this Government, is that his party has a policy which could satisfy this world opinion. Otherwise there is no sense in his attacking us. The hon. member has already agreed with me that as far as that segment of world opinion is concerned, that tough UN one, that radical one, that Soviet Union one, that opinion of the non-aligned countries, they would not be successful either. Very well, that eliminates the predominant segment of world opinion as an opinion which the PFP would be able to satisfy. I assume the hon. member has in mind that his party might be able to satisfy reasonable world opinion, say that of America, Britain, France and Germany.

I said that.

Then I also assume that the hon. member had in mind industrialists from abroad who want to invest here, friends of ours from other countries. I think he also places them in that segment of world opinion. The hon. member also said that change which had to be effected in this country would not be effected by them simply because the outside world demands it. I agree with him on that score. South Africa cannot accept change because the outside world demands it. But on the other hand we should not refuse to implement reform and change simply because the outside world rejects it. Let us examine the argument now. The PFP is on record as saying that they agree that changes may only be brought about by this Parliament. There is no other instrument for this, imperfect as it may be, and whether or not we want to change it. All parties in this House are committed to this institution in which we find ourselves today and in which they are participating, although there are no Coloureds and Indians present here, being the only instrument for this purpose. Who are the voters in this institution? They are the Whites, of course. It is the Whites who are holding by-elections in this country today…

You don’t say.

Let us be serious.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member is concerned about yesterday evening’s television programme, we can arrange for him to deal with those subjects which I dealt with, and we shall see how he fares then. He must do that before the next by-election. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what plans the PFP has to convince the majority of the voters of this Parliament to effect the changes the PFP demands of us with the assistance of the electorate of this Parliament. In other words, they must find themselves a majority. The elections which are taking place today are not only arousing interest in our country. The whole world is interested in them. In fact, it is very interesting to see how wide this interest really is. In today’s Argus the following report appeared—

I am quoting this simply to show how widespread the interest in today’s by-elections is. But the voters are Whites and it is they who elect the members of this Parliament.

This brings me to the cardinal point which we in this House will have to clarify with one another—all of us, all the parties. It is this question: if one cannot persuade the White voters of this country to accept a programme of reform and change, one is living under an illusion; one is engaged in a theoretical exercise if one thinks one can effect the changes the hon. member is demanding we should effect. I wish to state frankly today: This party has to sweat—I can think of no other word; I have experienced this—with reform, with change as we have being doing recently among our own people … and it is no use the hon. member for Houghton saying that it is “some remote part of South Africa”.

†She said she cannot understand why the Government because of some by-elections in some “remote” part of South Africa had come to standstill and why this remote part should be so important. This was more or less what she said. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. member that this is not correct. This “remote” part of South Africa might be Germiston District; it might be next to her own constituency; it might stretch much wider than what she thinks. The point I want to make, the straight forward and simple point is: The party who cannot win the support of the majority of the White electorate in order to enable it to pursue change through this Parliament cannot do so.

*Mr. Chairman, that is the reality.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hougton is not an unattractive woman. Yet people have said “some ladies look far better when they keep quiet”. [Interjections.]

†I would appeal to the hon. member for Houghton now to give me a chance to speak. I have never ever interrupted her. I always listen to her in silence.

Mr. Chairman, as regards reasonable American opinion on the Government’s constitutional proposals I should like to refer to Volume 3, No. 1, of the publication Review issued by the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University this year. In that issue an interview with Dr. Chester Crocker was published. The interview was conducted by a lady called Elise Pachter. This is what Dr. Crocker said in reply to a question put to him. I quote—

That is the USA Administration—

We have to agree with this. It is true. We must control change. There is not question about it. Then he goes on to say, and this is very important—

This is not what I say. This was said in a very recent interview with the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Department, a representative of the American Government, Dr. Chester Crocker. This is what he was prepared to say this year. He said anybody who did not want to admit that positive change was going on in South Africa had utterly—not just merely but utterly—missed the boat. I should therefore like to appeal to hon. members of the PFP to take heed. They are missing the boat utterly. Fortunately there is still time left for them because in the days, in the weeks and in the years ahead of us we are all going to be confronted with one question. That is the question of how and by what means will we be able to maintain the values, the norms, the standards, the aims and the objectives which we all proclaim in this country, in this Assembly, should be maintained in South Africa.

*This is probably a matter, I believe we all agree on, if you would just allow me to mention it, Mr. Chairman. We in this House agree that we are all champions of religious freedom. I do not think there is one hon. member who does not agree with that. We in this House all agree that we are champions of freedom of speech and freedom of the Press. [Interjections.] Yes, we all agree on that score. We even agree that we agree. We agree that we are champions of freedom of the Press. It is essential, although we could disagree on the question of whether there is sufficient Press freedom in this country. Hon. members of the PFP claim that there is not sufficient Press freedom in South Africa; that there are too many control measures in respect of the Press. However, I could quote authoritative sources on this point, sources with which hon. members of the PFP would agree because the sources politically reflect their own philosophy; there are authoritative opinions of people who are adherents of the left-wing school of political thought who say that South Africa is the country in Africa with the greatest measure of Press freedom. They say that South Africa has more Press freedom than most countries in the world. In fact, liberally inclined Americans have already said that the South African Press criticizes this country’s Government “more vehemently and harshly than any paper in the USA ever criticized the US Government”.

†That is a reliable measure applied to establish the degree of Press freedom. There might be controls, but freedom to criticize the Government is a reliable norm by which to measure the degree of freedom of the Press.

*Moreover, I would assume that we all agree that we in South Africa would like a free market system. At the very least we want a relatively free economic system. We all want the private sector make progress and private enterprise to be promoted. We want competition in our economic system. I assume we all agree that we want an independent judiciary in this country. We can argue with one another about security legislation if we wish. Some people will say that it is too drastic, that it is too harsh, and others will say that it should be even harsher, since the security of the State comes first. It is a very old law, as well as being the supreme law. However, we basically agree that in principle the judiciary should be independent, with judges who are able to find against the State in both civil and criminal cases without being thrown into prison or dismissed. We can laugh about this, but I want to tell hon. members that in most Western countries of the world it is categorically stated in print, once again by experts who are regarded as liberal in the USA, that this is the position in South Africa. I assume we all agree that people and communities in this country should not be forced to disrupt their community life. I think we agree that we should not do that. There should not be a law that stipulates who should be allowed into an hotel or restaurant, but rather that should an owner of a restaurant want to do so, he has the right to do so. On the other hand, that restaurant owner who does not, for whatever, reason, wish to allow a person into his restaurant should have the right to do so, otherwise one is being prescriptive. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sea Point referred to the decision of the Pretoria City Council. Why did he not refer to the decision of some Natal community or other concerning seaside resorts. Who are these voters? Those voters are also represented in this Parliament. Do you see what happens? We see how the Whites react. I think that most people on earth react in exactly the same way. Birds of a feather tend to flock together. One cannot and will not enforce solutions such as integration against the will of the people. One cannot achieve this without ultimately evoking violence. I am stating what the result of such a step could be. Our Government is being confronted with a movement in South Africa which is coming forward with veiled threats of violence in our politics; it is there. It is there and we shall have to try to determine what is taking place psychologically in the minds of those people. It is fear. It is fear of domination. I also want to tell those hon. members that they are also afraid. The hon. members of the PFP are afraid that if we do not introduce radical reform rapidly enough we shall not be able to prevent a revolution. They have that fear and as a result of that fear they are constantly attacking us. If every hon. member in this House wants to be honest this afternoon, he will have to admit that each one of us has a certain fear that what is our own could be ploughed under. The values I mentioned, to which one could add regular elections, democracy, the auditing of State books, the manner of funding, the manner of budgeting where a Parliament debates it in public so that everyone in the country will know where the money goes …

Access to the courts.

Yes, access to the courts as well, subject, of course, to certain security requirements, since no one in this country will claim that if the security of the country is critically jeopardised for whatever reason, it is not of the utmost importance that order be maintained. Order must be maintained. We also agree that we want sound relations with the outside world. The hon. member for Sea Point said so. We must have sound relations with African countries. We agree with that. I think we also agree that we all want to send our children to the schools of our choice. If one is an English-speaking parent and one should like one’s child to be taught through the medium of English, one has the freedom to do so in this country. The same applies to the Afrikaans-speaking parent and child. We agree with that. I do not think there is any party which says that there should be any intervention in this regard. Now just consider how many important elements I have enumerated that affect the lives of everyone in this country and about which we agree. The question is: How does on achieve this?

If one has to determine how, one has to sit back and make calculations. One has to calculate what one’s means are, what the counterdemands are which are being made of one by other elements of power that either want to overthrow this system of values or put another in its place. If one considers the electorate of this country that has elected this Parliament—we agree that this Parliament is the only body which can bring about change—one asks oneself what such an electorate, positioned as it is, is influenced by almost every day. I would say that the most important factor is the continued existence of one’s system of values. But for that one needs the means, particularly if it is threatened. In this regard I should like to refer to a work by Drs. L. H. Gann and Peter Duignan. They are students of the African scene. What they have to say in their book “Africa between East and West” is extremely illuminating, not only to me as a Nationalist but I think to all of us in this House. They say—

That “different kind” is with reference to the successful revolution in Zimbabwe. They say a successful revolution in our country would require different preconditions. I shall quote further—

I do not agree with everything they say in their book, but these two gentlemen who have made a study of the matter say that that is what is necessary to carry out a successful revolution. These are the “ingredients for a successful revolution in South Africa”. It is important for us to take cognizance of the objective opinions of outsiders, even though we do not agree with them, who tell us where our strong points and our weak points lie. If we do not want to do so, we shall never be in a position to look at ourselves in a mirror and see ourselves precisely as we are. Then one is never in a position to sit back objectively and calculate honestly what one’s capabilities and means are to achieve what one said one wanted to achieve. In another part of their book they say—

That is important; listen to what else they have to say—

They are saying that a prophet who predicted that our national product would have increased to such an extent over 30 years would have been regarded as a visionary stargazer. We should therefore be careful that we do not all wish to predict the future on the basis of what is known today in the technological sphere or on the basis of what is known today about the numbers of people or on the basis of what is acceptable today in the political sphere. Even deeply-rooted political convictions cannot in the long run withstand the test of realities. The same applies to the damming views on South Africa in the outside world. The same applies to Africa.

A person who has become dissillusioned about Africa is a man by the name of Xan Smiley. He is no friend of South Africa and he wrote an article in the September 1982 edition of the Atlantic Monthly.

†The Atlantic Monthly is a moderate to liberal publication, a publication with a moderate to liberal leaning. It has a circulation of about 325 000 among the intellectual and leadership types in the USA. It is one of the oldest and leading literary magazines in the United States and it is considered highly influential there. Again, I do not agree with everything he writes about Africa and ourselves—he is highly critical of South Africa—but this article makes interesting reading. What is more, if he were a South African, he would undoubtedly have been a member of the PFP, because he is known for his views. There is, however, a difference. This person has travelled throughout Africa. He has done so often. He has made a study of Africa and he is an author and a journalist. He wrote an article under the heading: “Misunderstanding Africa”.

Is that Jensen?

No, it is Xan Smiley. He is well known in Britain and in Europe.

I have never heard of him.

Well, it is not my fault if the hon. member has only heard of the wrong people, but he would in any case be that hon. member’s friend.

Let us just look at a few of his conclusions. I do so not because I necessarily agree or disagree with him, but because it is necessary that we should take note of the views of a man who had high hopes for Africa. I have already given hon. members what Dr. Crocker has said about our new constitutional proposals. Let us now look what this gentleman, who is highly critical of South Africa, wrote of the Africa situation—and that is our continent—

Please bear with me, Sir, because this is important. It is of particular application to us in discussing our future political plans and objectives. Unless we come to an agreement on this, there is very little hope that we sitting together in this Parliament will be of assistance to South Africa in the decade to come. I quote further—

He discussed the necessity of a secret ballot with teachers in Zimbabwe to ensure that minorities would not be afraid to vote—

Those are urbanized Blacks—

He also said—

As I have said before, I am not quoting this because I take pleasure in it or want to talk in derogatory terms about Black Governments, but I have said before and I am going to say again, and particularly to the PFP, that unless we all—not only we in this Parliament but also those Black leaders in South Africa—come to realize that, either we deceive each other as to the acceptability to each other of our diverse political, cultural and social systems or we confide in each other in an honest way and endeavour to come to an understanding based on acceptance of the diversities. We can then co-operate fruitfully in many important spheres of life to the benefit. Unless of all of us. Unless this is done you are going to have the experience Mr. Xan Smiley had.

I want to underline what Mr. Smiley says next—

I am not blaming them that they do not wish to share. The PFP cannot avoid making a choice in this respect. Either they are going to force them to share in the PFP value system or the PFP will be forced to abandon all its values, because this is the only choice which Mr. Xan Smiley is giving the PFP. This man is telling us exactly what will happen to the values of the PFP. He is telling us that African societies do not want to share …

Why do you not stay with the truth you proclaim? You know it is not true.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “You know that is not true”.

I was talking about the statement he made …

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

The hon. Minister may proceed.

If I made an incorrect statement about their policy, the hon. member is welcome to deny it. I shall be the first to accept it. I am trying to find out what their views are. But what do they then do when they are confronted with the un-African values, for example the demand that there must be only one election, with the demand that newspapers must be curbed and banned, with the demand that there is going to be no independent judiciary because the people will pronounce on justice?

Who is demanding this?

Just be patient. This is the system beyond the Limpopo. Does the hon. member not read his newspapers? [Interjections.]

Nobody here is demanding it.

I am telling hon. members the facts of Africa as written by a liberal journalist.

So what?

It is not just “so what?”; it is of extreme importance. We are going to be faced with the same problems here.

But we are not demanding this; nobody is demanding this.

Well, then it will be interesting to know what hon. members are demanding and what African societies are demanding. I do not want to attack anybody. I will be happy if I am wrong, because then this country can move to greater consensus. I quote further—

He first exposes the Marxist’s role in Africa and now he says the Western liberal is further adrift than the Marxist. He goes on to say—

*I feel it is of great importance for us to have this background and for us to move to a point where we, Blacks and Whites, do not try to malign or humiliate each other to talk to each other in a negative way about differences in style, values, dimensions, sociology and affinity. We must reach the point of inner truth, and we can only do so if there is a certain basic recognition of these differences. Recently I held a serious discussion with an African leader who is well acquainted with our history, and we discussed these very matters. This is a leader who is able to travel freely to Peking, Moscow, London, Bonn and Washington. We spoke together for a long time in the privacy of a room. Eventually he wanted to know from me whether I did not realize that the average Black person in South Africa probably hates the average White person in South Africa today just as much as the Boers hated the English after the Anglo-Boer War. That is what he said to me. I did not want to argue with him about the degree of hatred, but I asked him whether he was certain that they did not perhaps hate the Whites more. To which he replied: “No, I will settle for equal hatred.” He conceded that there was not more or less hatred. I wanted to know from him, assuming this to be an historic fact—and I also told him that he was not necessarily right—what the difference was between the present situation and that situation when the descendants of the Boers subsequently gained political power. This is no longer the case today because we became a larger united nation after we had put the past behind us. After they had gained political control they did not condemn and destroy the schools, churches, symbols, cultural institutions and rights of the English-speaking, people who, according to his argument, the Boers had hated so much. They did not take over their factories, mines or business undertakings. They did not do so, because those two segments of the populations basically believed in the same values. This is a fact. If they had not believed in the same values, one would have behaved differently towards the other after it had gained power. But because they both believed in the same values, there was an opportunity to build up a new community in South Africa under the White people, a new community between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, so that today we are able to look back on a proud united nation as far as this is concerned, a proud united nation in which we found each other and appreciate each other’s contributions to the building of this country, to the defence of this country, which today belongs to all parties across the board. I think even the CP will also welcome English-speakers.

Very much so.

I concede that. [Interjections.] But to come back to the role of this Parliament. This Parliament will there-fore have to bring about any change. Now ’ we have already had a break-away of 18 members from the ranks of the NP. The PFP feels this happened for no good reason. The PFP maintains that these are the same constitution proposals as those of 1977. This just proves how wide of the mark they are in their judgment of political feeling and reaction in South Africa. They do not understand it. They have built up a political structure for themselves without asking what the cost would be to establish and maintain it. Now they keep harping on the same string. Almost like a draught-animal wearing blinkers they keep plodding along the same path. Even a foreigner, an American like Dr. Crocker, said that those persons who would not see that positive change had taken place here had “utterly missed the boat”. He is an American who has to endure the vehement censure of the entire world because he said that. He is attacked in his own country because of this—this is a fact—by those committees to which the hon. member referred, those committees that now want legislation introduced against us to prohibit the sale of Kruger rands and the granting of further loans. This is a fact. They are also castigating Dr. Crocker for saying that, because he had the courage to say that. From a distance they are studying our history; they are studying our community; they are studying our politics and on that basis a student of America, with an academic background, Dr. Crocker, arrived at the conclusion that those persons who would not admit that positive change has in fact taken place here “utterly misses the boat”. The PFP will not be able to get away from this. Call this boycotting, if you will; or say you have missed the boat as a result, but believe me, you get the view, from all sides that the PFP has become irrelevant in our politics.

The hon. member for Sea Point kicked up a fuss about international relations and good neighbourliness and asked questions about my talks with Mozambique and Angola. Let us begin again with Dr. Crocker. A question was put to him during the same interview and it was worded as follows—

†He does not blame South Africa exclusively for this. He says if border states harbour terrorists we are going to strike back. He says we can be expected to do that. But what is the comment one hears even in certain circles in this country? We are the destabilizers! What are we dealing with? In some cases we are dealing with neighbours who harbour terrorists operating against South Africa and I told them so. I did not speak behind their backs. I met the Mozambicans at Komatipoort last Thursday 5 May. We received them hospitably as we are used to. When we sat down I told them: “Gentlemen, if you will allow me, I want to say straight to you I distrust you; I think you are controlled by Moscow; I think you are in trouble and therefore you need time to mend your fences, to strengthen your defences. I think your friends, the Soviet Union, are in trouble, in trouble about Afghanistan, about Poland and because of internal economic problems. They too need time; so they advised you and Angola to seek peace with the South Africans. Now in these circumstances you may just be prepared to tell me that you will remove the ANC from your country and we may even conclude an agreement to the effect that we will both prevent subversive elements from acting against each other. But then after three months, four months, five months or six months you may violate that agreement, the ANC will be brought back and meanwhile I would have sat still because I anticipated a lasting peaceful situation. So where do you think that leaves me?” I spoke openly to them because I did not want to mislead them. It is only when they know what is on our minds that we will be able to make progress in our discussion. Only if both Governments are truly and sincerely interested in a durable peace then only will we find means to a solution to our problems.

They thanked me for my openness and then also gave me a bit of their mind. For instance they objected to my saying that they were controlled by Moscow. They accused us of supporting elements carrying on violence in their country. A very important matter that stood between us was the Schoeman incident. They sent out into the world a statement on Mr. Schoeman’s alleged activities in Mozambique. This is what was broadcast by Mozambique—

The report states—

*I then confronted them. I did not want to tell them from the start who Mr. Schoeman really was. I first questioned them. For example, how old was he? To that they replied 36. Well, according to our Police records he was 36. Did the man not have some tattoo mark or other on his arm? To which one of them replied that he thought so because of a photograph he had seen of him. I then asked if there was something wrong with the ring-finger on his right hand, because we knew that finger had been amputated. To that they replied that they had not looked that closely. I then asked when they had caught the man and they replied approximately a year ago. I then told them we suspected it was the same person who was being sought by our police. But there was only one way to ascertain beyond all doubt whether this was the same person, because although they were already prepared to accept my word for it at that stage, because they had begun to realize something, it was my duty to convince them that they were wrong. For if we could not convince each other, they would leave Komatipoort and we would again quarrel with each other about this. If this matter was not properly rectified there and then we would not be able to talk about it again. This had to become a test of the integrity of two Governments that differed ideologically but had to abide by the rules of the game in their interrelations, according to acceptable norms. I then asked them if they could not bring Mr. Schoeman to the border. There were problems with that. I then asked them whether two of our police officials could not go to Maputo. There were problems with that as well. I then said I was prepared to take the military plane in which we had come, if two of their men were prepared to accompany me—for then, I assumed, they would not shoot down the plane so easily—and fly to Maputo. But there were problems on that score as well. I then said to them: “Then the meeting will break up. Then this is the end of our discussion; I am going home.” They then asked if we could adjourn so that they could confer among themselves. They did so and returned later and said that our police officers could go to Maputo. Our police officers went to Maputo and took Schoeman’s fingerprints. By five o’clock that afternoon they were back and our police expert told us that there was no question regarding the identity of Schoeman. We then met with the Mozambique representatives again and I told them: “There you are, gentlemen. You sent out a false story about South Africa.” This story against South Africa was disseminated all over the world. It even shocked our friends because this Government insists that we do not murder leaders. I said to them: “When we differ we differ like men and when we fight we fight like men.” We do not pull Gadaffi “stunts”. The Government of South Africa does not do that. It is not our style, it is not our way of doing things. We do things openly and we attack on the basis of threats against our country. I told them that it is important for their President to know the truth and for the world to know the truth. They then said that they would first interrogate Schoeman again. I told them I could save them the trouble. We gave them the facts. Schoeman was convicted in a South African court for the first time on 22 March 1961. In 1962 he was convicted of housebreaking. In 1965 he was convicted of using a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. In 1965 he was also declared to be an “idle and undesirable person”. Another conviction in 1965 was for “tampering with the mechanism of a motor vehicle”. In 1965, and again in 1966, he was convicted on two charges of theft. In 1968 he was convicted on a charge of impersonating a member of the S.A. Police Force. In 1968 he was again found guilty of theft, and later in the same year, of housebreaking. From 1969 to 1975 he was in gaol, and on 5 January 1976 he was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment for theft. On 20 January 1982, however, he was released on parole from the Central Prison in Pretoria. He did not comply with the conditions of his parole, and since February 1982 he has been sought by the S.A. Police for a further alleged theft. From contact with his family and other people who knew him it is apparent that the man needs psychological treatment. This man needs psychological treatment. Towards the end of our discussions I also told the representative of Mozambique that they should please do me a favour. I then put it to them that the man is a human being and that it is clear that there is something wrong with him; that he is mentally, and probably in other respects as well, suffering from a psychological abberation. For that reason I asked them not to knock him about, but to treat him humanely. I told them that they may do as they wish, but that the man’s fingerprints are adequate proof of his identity. I told them: “You cannot change that. No one can change that.”

†“It is a deadly proof. Fingerprints never lie. If you do not want to believe me you can send these fingerprints to America or to Britain, or you can even bring a Soviet expert, and I promise you not even he would be able to argue against fingerprints,” I told them.

Then I also said to them: “Here you have now blazoned a story about us abroad. How many other stories do you blazon abroad?” I also said to them: “You are a State with a hostile ideology, a State which has declared war against my country.” They then wanted to know where and how they had done this, to which I replied to them: “I can show you the statements of your representative at the United Nations. Shall I show you the statements of your representative at the OAU?” I then quoted what Mr. Vorster had said in 1974, and again in 1976, in this House; the words Mr. Vorster used as Prime Minister when he said that South Africa did not determine what kind of government there should be in Mozambique as long as it was a stable government and as long as it left South Africa in peace. That is how we approached the change of government in Mozambique. This was also endorsed in more or less the same words by Dr. Connie Mulder in this House of Assembly.

Who actually set the ball of violence rolling? Who sheltered the ANC and allowed its members on flights between Maseru and Maputo? We know who it was. We also know the plans of the ANC by this time. It is they who go to Lesotho to recruit terrorists there as so-called “refugees”. It is the ANC who bring those people back to Maputo, and from there they go to Gadaffi or even to Russia, to receive training, after which they return to Maputo and to Swaziland—a country which has fortunately begun to adopt stronger measures against this—or they go to Lesotho, from where they activate plans for further subversion against South Africa. Our police recently arrested three or four of these terrorists here at Ficksburg in the Free State. These are people who came from Maputo. I also confronted the representatives of the Government of Mozambique with this, and put it to them as facts.

I also put it to them that it was these people who established arms caches near Chief Buthelezi’s capital, Ulundi. I asked them what they had to say about that, whether that was the behaviour of good neighbours, the attitude of a neighbouring State that wanted to stabilize or destabilize. When has the South African Government ever helped to recruit people from another country, caused them to be trained in another country, for example in America or in France or even in Portugal, helped to bring them back there, sheltered them in this country, and then encouraged and indoctrinated them to commit acts of violence beyond our borders? When has this Government ever done that? When has this Government ever allowed an official public office to be used for terrorists acting against other States around us, sheltered them, paid their maintenance and made aircraft available to them in which they could travel about to plan and commit their acts of subversion? I put it to them that these matters would have to be cleared up, otherwise there could not be peace here in Southern Africa. I put it to them as follows: Either the States of Southern Africa decide sincerely that States on this subcontinent are sovereign, that each can determine its own internal policy, that each can pursue its own ideology without committing any form of subversion or insurrection against a neighbouring State—or we allow subversive elements to attack one another from our respective territories. “Refugees”—I do not want to hear about them; this can be arranged internationally if need be, but with a monitoring system.

†I told them there could be no hope of cooperation unless they and for that matter all the other states accepted this. I have had a similar meeting recently with the newly appointed Foreign Minister of Lesotho. I told Mr. Sekonyane exactly the same. I told him that I knew that Chief Jonathan’s visit to four communist countries had been arranged by somebody who had come from Maputo and flown to Maseru while all the cabinet members of the Government of Lesotho did not even know about it. I told him with friendly respect that he could tell his Prime Minister that he had the fullest right to travel where he wanted, but that if his visit resulted in an increase in subversion against South Africa, his Prime Minister would bear the consequences. I told him what the ANC was now doing in Lesotho, I told him about their command posts, their activities and their plans and I said to him that unless they were removed they would have to bear the consequences. [Interjections.] That is the point of view of this Government, not because it is belligerent and desires to destabilize, but because, in the words of Dr. Crocker, there are rules to the game. Unless all the states of Southern Africa come to realize that they can only have stability, development and progress if they all abandon, once and for all, the harbouring of subversive elements or terrorists—it does not matter what one wants to call them—there is no hope for peace in Southern Africa.

*I say this because we cannot afford to sit back in the face of this aggression—no party in this House can do so, not even the PFP. After all, one is not going to stop these people with a PFP policy, because they say they have to nationalize the means of production and private property and that complete freedom will only come for South Africa when every form of the present order and dispensation has been destroyed. What is the PFP or any other party in this country going to do if innocent people are blown up here by bombs concealed in shops and public places because of deliberate, preplanned decisions by, in the first place, the UN? It is the UN that called these people “freedom fighters” and it is the UN which took a decision that these “freedom fighters” should be given money—the World Council of Churches and a host of other organizations said the same thing—to obtain bombs and guns to exterminate us and to make this country tired and scared and engender fear in it so that it can be ripe for the final onslaught. I hope we are agreed on this, and if we are not agreed on this, I want to know from the PFP why not and then I want to know who is destabilizing who and who started it. There is our record of what approach we adopt to sound relations. We said we were not interested in the colour or ideology of another country, but then they came along and sheltered the ANC, crossed our borders and caused damage and violence in this country. Now we are supposed to sit back with folded arms. For fear that I may hurt my European allies or cause them to think less of them, I am supposed to allow this country to be thrown into such disorder internally that a general conflict situation will become inevitable.

Hon. members can see what a state Africa is in. I said this to Mozambique and Angola as well.

†I told them that under normal conditions of total peace they scarcely had a hope of taking off economically and that they had virtually no hope of developing economically and to improving the quality of life of their people, not only the two of them, but virtually the whole of Africa even under conditions of peace and stability. I did not say that to insult them but I was merely stating a fact. In contrast my Government has accepted a duty to render development aid which we believe can assist our Black communities to develop. We believe that. If one is really interested in improving the living conditions, the quality of life and the progress of Black people, one will not sit back and proclaim all sorts of idealistic ideals and illusions to which this Parliament will ever agree and which the Black leaders themselves would not be able to accept and would reject because they consider them un-African. I have had personal experience of this. I have asked many Black African leaders whether they cannot put aside a part of their country for private ownership and the first reaction I had was that they would have a revolution on their hands. Is one going to force the Black communities to accept our political philosophy, our way of living? Is one going to force them by arms? Is one going to take away their land? If one chases them off, where do they go to? Then one will have squatters in frightening numbers. What does one do with squatters if a health hazard arises? Does one pretend that it does not exist? No single party has a monopoly on morality. There is not a single party in this Assembly that has a monopoly on reality. But idealistic objectives totally divorced from reality are simply not capable of achievement.

*Why is it necessary for us to hold debate after debate here, year after year, wound each other without ever looking at the basic realities of Southern Africa and seeing whether each of us does not have hold of something which together, could make a contribution to bring about a better South Africa? However, there are the realities staring us all in the face.

Today is election day in four constituencies, and tomorrow we shall hear the results, but what I say today, no matter what those results may be. I say it before the time, because we on this side may fare well or badly or even moderately well; these are more or less the three alternatives for us. I am not indifferent to this because I realize the implications of how we fare. But the point I want to make is that irrespective of how we fare, immediately after those election results are made known, that same UN will still be there and they will want to exterminate all of us in this House. There will still be the same international efforts to impose sanctions against South Africa. The effect of this terrible drought will still be with us. The number of Black communities will not change, not on the day of the result of the election; a few months later, but not immediately. That is my point. There will still be 4,1 million Transkeian citizens; 1,1 million Ciskeian citizens; almost 2,7 million citizens of Bophuthatswana; almost 600 000 Vendas; 2,8 million people from Lebowa; 900 000 people from Gazankulu; 5,7 million Zulus; 750 000 Swazis from Kangwane; 1,7 million people from Qwaqwa, the South Sotho; and 450 00 Ndebele. They will be there; I guarantee that they will be there. There will also be 2,5 million Coloureds and almost 800 000 Indians or persons of Indian origin. There will also be 4,5 million Whites. The OAE will also still be there. Mozambique will still be there. Mr. Mugabe will also still be there, as will Mr. Dos Santos and Mr. Machel. Prime Minister Jonathan will also still be there. Everyone the Government has to liaise with at present will still be there.

So will Boswell’s Circus.

Sometimes the Government has to liaise with them under difficult circumstances. The Government of the USA will also still be there; not with demands, but with expectations. The Europeans will be there. Our trade will still be in jeopardy. The economic recession will also be there. We all speak about the “upswing”. We hope it will come and we are working towards it. But the upswing will not be there tomorrow and the election results will not bring it about.

If we on this side of the House do not take certain factors into consideration—I am now speaking only for myself—that upswing will not come, even if it comes for the rest of the world, because I predict that the present drought will be a picnic compared with the political, economic drought which could hit this country. I emphasise, “could” hit—if it does not act wisely in the next few years. I am not suggesting that the Whites should become afraid; I am not suggesting that at all. But we must know what the parameters are. On the one side we have the PFP. If we do what they want, then that will be the end of us. This statement has been supported by experts outside South Africa, although I do not need them to tell me what will happen. It is impossible for them with their negative, unrealistic politics, with their “utterly missed the boat” situation, to play a positive role. The PFP is simply not capable of playing a positive role, unless they undergo a spiritual change. I want to tell my CP friends that it is impossible for them, too, to play a positive role, owing to their hidebound outlook, their insulting style, their ridiculous homeland policy which they know will not work and which is not accepted by anyone.

You sound just like Jan Hofmeyr.

I do not like doing this and I am sorry to have to do this; however, I have to tell them the truth. They have no hope. We in the NP can look forward to a very hard time achieving what we ourselves have envisaged. That is the truth. However, one must judge one’s objectives on the basis of what will be reasonably acceptable to one’s own people and to the Coloured leaders. At least they want to work in the proposed system, more so than the PFP. As far as the Black peoples and communities are concerned, the Prime Minister has appointed a Cabinet Committee which will consult with Black leaders and hold discussions in the days ahead. There is a reasonable hope and expectation that an understanding can be reached. We wish to find a fair modus vivendi within the reality of South Africa.

In our situation there is one important deterrent which, in a certain sense, is comparable to the role of the atom bomb or the nuclear bomb among the major powers. That deterrent is that in our situation, there can no longer be a winner in the event of a revolution or conflict. We say there is a danger to the left and to the right both of which, we believe, will lead to revolution. History has also proved this.

And separate development?

Separate development can work if it is applied in a certain way, if it is applied with a certain intention and if the Blacks do not feel hurt and feel that it gives them an unequal chance to make economic and social progress. I have never believed that a large number of Black men want to marry White girls. The Black people want their own communities and they want to progress, but they want to be treated decently and they want their human dignity to be recognized. They also do not want to be told what lifestyle they should adopt. They want to live as they want to live. There are other dimensional differences between us which may cause us problems, but these people want to live decently and their leaders do not want to be humiliated and they also, for example, want to be able to eat in decent restaurants when they come here to work and to negotiate. However, if some of them stroll through a park, particularly if they are diplomats, what are we going to do?

If they stroll through a park?

If they stroll through certain parks in certain cities and they are diplomats who have visited hon. members fo the CP and concluded contracts with them, what are we going to do? I am sure the hon. members will help us to find a solution to this.

The fact remains—and with this I shall conclude—that there is not a party in this Parliament that is able to meet the demands of the radicals within and outside South Africa. If we want to be realistic, we have to bear in mind that only this Parliament can bring about changes. In my opinion the PFP will not gain the majority needed to bring about the changes they say they want to bring about. The CP, on the other hand, can make our task more difficult in the sense that they can keep us busy with by-elections and can sow division. Our Governmental work can be affected by this—and I am not trying to suggest that the work will get behind …

[Inaudible.]

I am speaking the truth, whether it is palatable or not. The days when we could confine ourselves to discussing politics in Parliament, are past. I have decided that what I have to say now, had better appear in Hansard. I shall go if necessary. Let us understand one another very clearly on this point. I am not afraid to talk. What will happen if the White majority is not prepared to accept even moderate steps which could lead to fairness and justice? We as a party have said that we are not reforming for the outside world, but because from inner conviction we believe that these people will be able to work with us in this Government setup. What are we aiming for? We are aiming for a deed which will enable us to say to ourselves “we have tried”, a deed which will enable us to say to ourselves that we have done our best and that we have now paid off the debt in our own conscience. However, the hon. members for the CP cannot say that. That is their problem.

You cannot pass judgment on my conscience. [Interjections.]

Let us consider that hon. member’s homeland idea. If it is sincerely meant—although I think it is impractical—then no-one can question his motive. If he is sincerely motivated and he says on a public platform that he wants this done in a spirit of fairness and justice to the Coloureds …

Of course that is so.

Ask Gerrit Viljoen.

Just wait a moment. Wait until I am finished. We are now speaking to each other in a decent fashion. However, your fairness is not evident. I do not say this of the three hon. members present here, but there are some members of your party who state your policy in such a way that the Coloureds are affronted and their dignity is hurt. The CP will therefore have to change its style. [Interjections.] However, they will also have to see that the justice they strive for is supported by the reality of what they strive for. We in the National Party have been experiencing this for a long time. We said that we wanted to achieve certain results. Because the results we wanted to achieve were unattainable, eventually our credibility was in question. I shall give hon. members an example of this.

Years ago a former Prime Minister said that the influx of Blacks would be halted by 1978.

That was Blaar Coetzee.

Very well. However, the party endorsed that, and hon. members will find that in congressional documents. All of us, those hon. members as well, believed this. If we say today that we did not believe that, then surely we were being false at that stage. We then found out that what we had wanted to achieve was unattainable and that the hard truth was different. The point I want to make in this connection is that when one finds that the realities are not as one thought they were, one has to admit it. If one ascertains beyond all doubt that the fuel tank of the vehicle in which one intends travelling to Johannesburg only contains ten litres of petrol, one has to have the courage to admit that one will not reach Johannesburg on those ten litres of petrol. One must change one’s plan. That is all I want to bring home to hon. members. That is all I want to contend. [Interjections.]

I have today presented a number of opinions about the country’s political realities, which apply to all of us. I shall reply later in the debate to the points raised by the hon. member for Sea Point in connection with South West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, let me immediately tell the hon. the Minister that the Conservative Party unreservedly supports him in his action—which he spelt out here—in connection with Mozambique, Lesotho, the harbouring of terrorists, etc.

It was again interesting to have been able to listen to the hon. the Minister. He is a very interesting personality, and continues to be a very interesting personality.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

†When the hon. member for Sea Point was addressing the Committee, I wrote in my notes that he was barking up the wrong tree. He had the wrong accused in the dock. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information is his strongest ally in their struggle to drag the National Party along the road of the Progressive Federal Party. When he referred to what Dr. Chester Crocker had said, namely that if a person says that South Africa is not on the road of reform, he is utterly missing the boat, the hon. member was wrong.

*The next moment, however, he is an exponent of separate development. He quotes liberalists who tell us what the situation beyond the Limpopo is like. The conclusion one must apparently come to is that the hon. the Minister is the exponent of separate development. He says, however, that the proposed system can work. If a Minister of Foreign Affairs, a senior member of the Cabinet, simply says it can work, without being an exponent for all his worth, he does not believe in that policy. [Interjections.]

It is interesting that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information underwent the major portion of his training under the quiet, competent leadership of the hon. Dr. Hilgard Muller. He was a man who, keeping a low profile, conveyed his foreign policy in a calm and tranquil way. I think the hon. the Minister himself acknowledged this when, on 19 February 1974, he attacked Mr. Japie Basson. He said the following—

Last year, referring to Mr. Van Dalsen and Mr. Fourie, the hon. the Minister quoted a well-known statesman as follows—

He also said—

I should like to know whether the sentiments thus expressed by the hon. the Minister accord with his recent conduct towards the French Ambassador.

I also want to take up another matter with the hon. the Minister. In spite of Dr. Hilgard Muller’s calm and tranquil nature, he nevertheless fearlessly and categorically proclaimed and motivated the policy of separate development when he found himself abroad. How well did not the hon. the Minister himself do this! He himself did so in various debates in which he participated. Let me quote what he said on Tuesday, 19 February 1974—

That is the policy of separate development. When I look at what the hon. the Minister said in various debates I am involuntarily reminded of the words of Mark Antony in Julius Caesar. Let me quote them to the hon. the Minister for his consideration—

That is the kind of rhetoric and eloquence that hon. Minister came to light with. He still does, but now he is silent about separate development. Surely it was separate development that he then advocated. Why, then, does he tell the voters of Tzaneen the very opposite? Here I am referring to the Sullivan principles.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member refer to the hon. the Minister as “he”?

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed.

The hon. the Minister referred to the Sullivan principles, and he knows that the Government of which he and Dr. Connie Mulder were members, did not accept those principles. Those important principles concerning toilets and communal facilities are still being presented in Water-berg and Soutpansberg as NP Government policy. As Minister of Foreign Affairs and as ambassador he surely did not agree with Dr. Chester Crocker.

I also want to refer to Dr. Chester Crocker’s other article, because it seems to me as if, in this article of February 1983, what he is saying is: “Well done, my good and trusty boy; you have followed my advice very faithfully!” He surely does not agree with Dr. Chester Crocker when he says that racism is based on hate. We cannot understand how separate development could degenerate to hate, intolerance and racism when the CP extends it to the Coloureds and the Indians. Or is the hon. the Minister, with his stories about racism, now fighting against nationalism? Is he no longer a proponent of nationalism? Why is he persuading people to dance to the pipes of foreign—particularly American—institutions? In connection with South West Africa, for example, he persists in stating that in the Cabinet Dr. Treurnicht was silent about certain matters relating to South West Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is now talking about things that happened in the Cabinet, so let me just give him the answer to that. I was told by Dr. Treurnicht himself that he—Dr. Treurnicht—had a dilemma. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, what a false chorus of voices I have all around me, and I appeal to you for your protection! In the Cabinet Dr. Treurnicht told the hon. the Prime Minister that he had a dilemma. The hon. the Minister must tell me whether or not that is true. He said further: “The NP is opposed to federation. I must now advocate, for South West Africa, what I do not want in South Africa itself.” He went on to say: “I feel like a boxer whose hands are tied behind his back.” The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information replied by saying: “I can understand my colleague’s problem.” The hon. the Minister must now say whether or not this is true.

I am asking these questions because of Dr. Chester Crocker’s article in Foreign Affairs. I should like the hon. the Minister to listen to what this article has to say. He has probably read it. The title of the article is: “Winter 1980-’81: South Africa’s Strategy for Change”. The CP would like, in this House, to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction to these and other statements made by Dr. Chester Crocker. I just want to quote a few passages. In the first place Dr. Chester Crocker said—

In the second place Dr. Crocker says—

Amongst whom the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information is described as “a very popular advocate of reform”—

They are called “new Nationalists”—

Let me refer also to another statement in this article in which he says who it is the hon. the Prime Minister has gathered around him to help him carry out his new ideas of coalition and of change, and in that context he speaks of the hon. R. F. Botha as “a widely popular advocate of reform”. He does, however, also mention the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. In 1980 and 1981 he speaks of that Minster as “the Minister of Internal and Constitutional Affairs”, but that hon. Minister only became Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in 1982. How is one to interpret manifestations such as these?

One single further quote from this article—

That is amazingly in accord with what the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said the other day on the campus of the University of Cape Town. Let me quote further—

This requires that South Africa’s policy of separate freedoms for separate races be changed in the direction of the aforementioned “non-racial systems”. Let me quote further—

According to Dr. Crocker the hon. the Prime Minister has successfully been coverted along the lines of implementing these wishes of the Americans. The article goes on to say—

We in the CP would welcome it if we could have the hon. the Prime Minister’s comments on this article. He will remember, Mr. Chairman, that this article was actually the basis of the motivation for the USA’s policy of “constructive engagement” towards South Africa. Add to this what Prof. Arendt Lijphart said in connection with the “grand coalition”, on page 10 of the First Report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council. That, now, is the comment of another American. His consociational guidelines, as set out further in several references in the report of the Constitutional Committee as motivation for his recommendations, we find, for example, on pages 19, 22, 23, etc., of the report.

The American recommendations, as far as we are concerned, therefore play a significant role in the Government’s new initiative. There are also other American experts, e.g. Prof. Huntington, to whom previous reference has been made, who also take the lead in this connection. We see them referring to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information as a “widely popular advocate of reform”, and we surmise that because of his wide-ranging contacts in the USA, and his lengthy sojourn there, he does, in the process, play a very important role in carrying those liberal ideas into the RSA Government’s ranks.

Agent of change.

It was E. H. Brooks who, as far back as 24 November 1932, said—

Now I want to go further and come to the total onslaught which we hear about so frequently. In his customary theatrical manner the hon. the Minister has, so frequently now, presented the realities of South Africa to the country. I just want to mention one example. I am referring to the example of how, on that one day in 1973, we were told of how we were being threatened by dangers from the Limpopo to the Kunene, how the dangers were ravaging the oceans around us, how the Tanzam railway line was a spear in the side of Africa, all the way down to the south, etc. What happened to all those terribly dispirited utterances the hon. the Minister directed at us in those days? It was all done simply to scare us; to make us dispirited, as Dr. Wimpie de Klerk said.

Have you ever been on the border? Is it safe there?

I agree with the fact that we do have a military onslaught directed at us. I also agree with the fact that there is an ideological onslaught against us. A total onslaught, however, is a total onslaught. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Very well, we are coming to that. [Interjections.] There is indeed a military and ideological onslaught throughout the world. What about our export revenue which is constantly outstripping our important expenditure? What about the more than R1 000 million in exports to countries in Africa? What about the trade agreements with the BSL countries? What about the railway and harbour arrangements with our neighbouring states? What about these talks the hon. the Minister is now conducting with the ministers of foreign affairs of these countries? What about our landing rights and fly-over rights throughout the world? What about our postal services? What about diplomatic relations with various countries? Are the Thatcher and Reagan governments proving more of a disadvantage to us than the Labour or Carter governments? Let us, just for a change, also highlight those positive realities and stop consistently making our people feel dispirited.

Mr. Chairman, as far as remarks about the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning are concerned, I do not know what is bothering the hon. member. He was appointed as Minister of Internal Affairs as far back as 1980. Constitutional affairs were among his responsibilities at the time. This is well-known and everyone in the country is aware of it. So I do not know why there should be a song and dance about it now.

The hon. the Minister, Mr. Heunis, was appointed as Minister of Internal Affairs in 1980.

That is correct, but not as Minister of Constitutional Development.

No, but constitutional development fell under him at the time.

But he refers to him as “Minister of Constitutional Development”.

It does not matter. He was responsible for constitutional development. If the Americans had approached us at the time and asked us who was handling in charge of constitutional matters, we would have told them that it was the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Allow me to put the matter with regard to Dr. Crocker quite clearly to the hon. member. How many discussions has he had with Dr. Crocker? Hardly a single one. Instead of asking me … that is what I would have done…

But you are not he.

No, wait a minute. If he had asked me, I could have told him what we had discussed. Reports were sent to all the members of the Cabinet on virtually all my talks with Dr. Kissinger in the old days—they are on record—and on my talks with Dr. Crocker and Gen. Haig. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The only reason why I do not want to make the letters public now—I should very much have liked to do so and then to ask the hon. member to read them to us—is that it would embarrass those gentlemen; not me. It would embarrass those gentlemen if it became known what was said to them, how I sketched South Africa’s history and how I told them: “There is one thing you must not ask us, because we will not comply with it, and that is a one man, one vote system.” Why does the hon. member not ask what my standpoint was? Why does he keep on quoting Dr. Crocker? I could go on to tell him what Vice-President Mondale said, and in spite of that Mr. Vorster had talks with him. I was sitting next to Mr. Vorster when we told Mr. Mondale that that one man, one vote story would not work. Therefore it is no use quoting to me what was said by the representative of another country, whether he be a British, German, American, Portuguese or Greek diplomat or leader. We know quite well what they say. It is not a secret. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Go and read my speeches. The ones I made at the UN are in print. Go and read them and tell us what you disapprove of.

We disapprove of what you said in Tzaneen and Thabazimbi.

No one can argue like that. People can have differences of opinion.

You say that we are full of hatred. Surely that is not true. [Interjections.]

I am not the only one who says so.

You said so.

I did not say so directly.

You specifically said so.

But I do not object if you interpreted it that way.

Be honest now.

It was on television.

I really get the impression—and I am not the only one—that those hon. members—and if I am wrong …

You are wrong. You are definitely wrong.

… react to people of colour with a particularly high degree of emotion. That is an impression which I get. It is honestly an impression which I get. If I am wrong …

You are wrong. You are completely wrong.

… then I am prepared to ask what you mean …

Very well, we accept your apology.

It is not in my interest to hold such a thing against them if they do not wish it. If that is not their attitude, I am glad.

You gain votes by saying such things.

If this is not the position—and I am saying this quite frankly—then I am glad. However, they will eventually have to substantiate the conviction which they are now expressing in this House—this will be their task—to the general public. [Interjections.]

Let me come back to Dr. Crocker. He is not working for the South African Government, not at all; he is working for the Government of the USA. It may well be that even the present American Government—although they say that they do not want to seek solutions for us—may tell one another, when they are alone and when we cannot hear them: Well, maybe the final solution for South Africa is a fully integrated one man, one vote society. I can imagine that they may say this to one another there.

But he says so in the article.

He may have said so in the article, but the fact is that the Secretary of State was Gen. Haig; now it is Mr. Schultz, who has acquainted me with the American standpoint. I have had in-depth discussions with both these gentlemen and with President Reagan. Dr. Crocker supported it. Surely I must believe what the American Secretary of State tells me. During a discussion they told me:

†Look, we cannot prescribe solutions for you. You must find solutions to your own problems. Sometimes you will find that we might give advice. We may transfer experiences of our own. Whatever solution you can find which brings peace and progress to your country will be welcomed by us.

I put it to them very clearly: The one thing they must never demand of us, because it will simply not even be considered, is a one man, one vote system. I told them time and again our reasons. As a matter of fact, at my first meeting with Dr. Kissinger we had quite a rift. I was then ambassador in Washington. Towards the end of that conversation, which dealt with the possible disastrous consequences of our policies, I said to him: Mr. Secretary, if that is what you are predicting, then I am telling you you are putting us with our backs against the wall, and if you do that, you will force us to fight it out. We do not want to fight it out, but if you do that, we will have to fight it out. Once we have decided to fight it out, the whole of the subcontinent will suffer and probably go up in ash and flame.

Then I left his office. Two weeks later he called me back. We sat down again, and then he said: Ambassador, the trouble is I have given a lot of thought to what you said in your departing words and the trouble is: I believe you.

*So we began on an absolutely man-to-man basis. We never tried to bluff each other; we differ to this day, but we respect each other.

But surely it is not racialism if you adopt that standpoint.

The hon. member spoke at length about my, I could almost say, close association with Dr. Crocker, but now he blames me for Dr. Crocker’s opinions. That was what the hon. member did. He may as well admit it. I shall tell him now what my standpoints were, what my standpoints are and what my standpoints will remain. I shall spell them out beyond any doubt.

Tell us about South West.

We can come to South West; I know quite a lot about that. It is a long road I have travelled; a longer road than the hon. member has travelled.

This country does not have a wide spectrum of alternatives and options. One often has to make choices objectively, on the facts, which will be the least painful to one’s people; not the ideal ones. I say this today: This has nothing to do with policy. We all wax eloquent about policy, but within a year or two the country may find itself virtually permanently in a position where its strategy has to be a strategy of victory and survival which cuts across policy, across all policies.

That is Wimpie de Klerk.

No, it is not Wimpie de Klerk; it is realities and facts.

You are an absolute pessimist.

I am not an absolute pessimist; I am an optimist precisely because I see the potential of the country, precisely because I see that if we take certain steps in time—I shall never lose sight of the policy …

Which steps are those?

I shall spell them out to the hon. member if he likes. One must take steps in time to abolish those things in one’s national life which have nothing to do with one’s survival, one’s identity and one’s value systems, but which are merely a matter of habit, which are a matter of tradition and which amount to negative, humiliating forms of discrimination which prevent people of colour from competing with one on an equal footing socio-economically, for example. A Black doctor who does the same work as a White doctor should be paid the same salary. I cannot find any moral justification for it. I could go on enumerating important examples in this connection. I am not prepared to wage war about an apartheid sign in a lift.

Should he be able to live where he likes?

I am not prepared to discriminate against Blacks merely because of the colour of their skin in such a way as to deprive them of economic opportunities. On top of that, we as Whites have an enormous socio-economic advantage.

Whose fault is that?

I did not say it was anyone’s fault. I am dealing with historical facts.

Can the Black man live where he likes, too? [Interjections.]

He cannot live where his presence would cause unrest. Nor do I believe that he wants to live under those circumstances. He wants to live in decent conditions.

But that is discrimination.

No. He wants to live in decent conditions. All people want to live in decent conditions. All people want to have jobs. All people want the opportunity to study in order to improve their lot.

And so they can.

Very well; then we agree. What is the difficulty, then? Why does the hon. member get so worked up about it? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Brakpan has fallen flat with regard to Dr. Crocker, as usual. He has fallen flat on his face with regard to Dr. Crocker. He tried to show that Dr. Crocker was dictating to us. In saying that, he fell flat on his face, because he knows very well that what I am saying now is exactly what I said two, three and four years ago. See what those hon. members do, however. They spoke about what I am alleged to have said in Tzaneen. But one could ask them what they are doing with that booklet of the Rev. Mr. Scheuer’s. After all, he is one of their members. [Interjections.] Very well. Do they repudiate that clergyman?

We had nothing to do with that booklet.

They approve of it. [Interjections.] I am asking: Do they repudiate him?

We had nothing to do with that booklet.

It is the same as saying that one has nothing to do with the AWB, but that a member of it is welcome to be a candidate of one’s party.

You have a former member of the Ossewa-Brandwag as your Prime Minister.

I have asked a simple question: Do they repudiate …

I have not read the booklet.

Do they deny that copies of that booklet are to be found in their offices in the constituencies where by-elections are being held? Do they repudiate that booklet?

I shall read it and then reply to you. [Interjections.]

I shall give the hon. member some further assistance. There is not a single hon. member on this side of the House who is not aware of that booklet by this time. Its title is: “Die Presidentsraad—deel van die Rooi Plan?” Hon. members should see the way it is being distributed, to the great detriment of South Africa, of the NP and of any other party in this country which advocates decency. No less a person than their present leader is involved in this matter. In the booklet, Dr. Dennis Worrall is denigrated in a reprehensible manner, but at the same time in a very sophisticated manner. The Rev. Mr. Scheuer has adroitly presented Dr. Worrall’s activities in such a way that one is bound to infer that Dr. Worrall was part of the “Red” plan. What are the basic facts in this connection? Their own leader did not repudiate this when Dr. Worrall was attacked. He did not do so once. He was silent, although once, long ago, he supported Dr. Worrall on this particular point.

Has it been said that Dr. Worrall was a “Young Progressive”.

The Rev. Mr. Scheuer is a member of the CP, and he distributed the booklet. However, Dr. Treurnicht himself wrote in Hoofstad of 26 February 1971 that to a large extent he could associate himself with the contribution of Dr. Worrall. But a member of the CP, the Rev. Mr. Scheuer, an esteemed clergyman who always speaks the truth and who does not mislead people, tells this shocking untruth with all the implications it has.

Hon. members must remember that this matter has international implications as well. It is damaging to an ambassador of this country and to the country itself.

Make an appointment with the Rev. Mr. Scheuer and go and talk to him.

Why do those hon. members distribute the booklet, then? [Interjections.] That same clergyman tries to make out a case against our plan with the President’s Council …

You are telling an untruth when you say that we are distributing it.

In the Rev. Mr. Scheuer’s booklet, the Council on Foreign Relations in the USA is presented as an “agent for change”, one could almost say as a Russian ally which engages in subversive conspiracies. No attempt is made to ascertain the facts. The fact is that the Council on Foreign Relations is a forum for discussion on matters of public interest. The identity of its membership of 1 700 Americans is known. There is no secrecy involved. Who are those members? They include rich people and poor people, industrialists, academics, ordinary Americans, etc. The tactic, however, is to find them guilty by association, as the Rev. Scheuer also tries to do. Who are and have been members of this organization? There are Mr. Richard Allen, President Reagan’s previous National Security Adviser; Prof. Burt Marshall, who testified for South Africa at the World Court; Admiral Zumwalt, former Head of the American Navy under President Ford; Professor Richard Pipes, former member of President Reagan’s National Security Council and an outspoken opponent of communism; Eugene Rostow, until recently President Reagan’s choice as head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. These are prominent Americans who are known for their implacable opposition to communism. They have ties with this organization. Respected Americans such as the late President Eisenhower, former President Nixon, George Schultz, Alexander Haig, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Moynihan have all been members of this organization. They are all known for their fiercely anti-communist standpoints. The Rev. Mr. Scheuer says the organization is part of a Red plan. Does he believe that he will get away with his misleading statements?

Let us go further. One Professor Foltz made a study of what the American public in general thought of South Africa. He put certain questions to the public to gauge people’s opinions. At the same time, he found out what the members of the Council on Foreign Relations thought of South Africa. As far as the Rev. Mr. Scheuer is concerned, these findings are the death-knell. To the question of whether the Government of the USA should terminate all business investments in South Africa—an economic boycott, therefore—42% of the American public replied “yes”, while only 16% of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations answered “yes”. Members of the public were twice as negative in their attitude to South Africa as the Council on Foreign Relations, therefore. Another question was whether the USA should discontinue its trade with South Africa. 24% of the American public who were approached answered “yes”, while only 2% of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations answered “yes”. Therefore they were twelve times more pro-South African than the average American. Another question was whether all American business undertakings in South Africa should be forced to close down their operations in South Africa. 21% of the public said “yes”, while only 1% of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations said “yes”, So members of the American public were 21 times more negative towards South Africa in this respect than the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Rev. Mr. Scheuer drags in Dr. Henry Kissinger, a man who has received medals of honour from the most conservative institutions in the USA, a man who is known for his standpoint that Russia should be stopped. He said that the West had the economic power to stop it and that it should be stopped before it obtained too many weapons. He said that this should be done with absolute determination. As far as action against Russia is concerned, this man was even firmer and more conservative than the present American Government. The Rev. Scheuer accuses these people of being communist fellow-travellers. However, he omits to mention the facts I have just referred to. He talks about a Red plan and he alleges that Dr. Worrall, Dr. Kissinger, Dr. Crocker and the Council on Foreign Relations are or may be a part of that plan.

I have now given the facts. Where is South Africa going to end up if we allow publications of this nature? I sincerely hope—I see the hon. member for Ermelo is here—that there is a way in which the church council of that congregation will call that clergyman to order, if no one else will do so. They should ask him whether he censures members of his congregation who tell untruths and they should also ask him to examine his facts, with a view to taking action against him if he has published untruths to the detriment of his country, his church and the truth.

Mr. Chairman, when I took my seat in this House this afternoon at ten minutes past two and I saw the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information coming in with a lot of documents under his arm which he proceeded to spread all around him, I thought to myself that here today we have a Minister who is obviously ready for anything. I do not think any of us have been quite prepared for the unusual situation which we have had this afternoon where the hon. the Minister has addressed the House twice and where not one other Government speaker has had the occasion to speak, while I am the third speaker from the Opposition benches to rise. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we welcome him this afternoon as a new protagonist of the policy of local option as expounded by him this afternoon. If he wants it, we will give him all the documentation pertaining thereto and he can add it to that which he already has around him so that if he is attacked on the new policy which he has accepted he will be able to defend it as vigorously as we do. We really believe that he has seen the light of day here today. Having said that, I have my own pack of cards which I want to play. I hope that we can address ourselves once more to the Foreign Affairs Vote.

South Africa’s relations with the outside world have varied considerably with the respective parties in power since Union. South African Party and United Party Governments pursued in the main a policy that sought to emphasize our legitimate membership of the comity of nations, while I think it is true to say that the present Government’s administration has since 1948 been more introspective and has leant somewhat towards isolationism. It is a fact of history that the word “apartheid” and the policies that accompanied the coining of this expression have led to the formation and the organization of an international anti-South African lobby which has flourished under the aegis of, inter alia, certain United Nations organizations.

With the passage of time many other reasons have emerged for the increasing interest displayed by world communities in this subcontinent. These reasons, briefly, could be greater interest in the mineral wealth of the region, South Africa’s economic progress in contrast with the deterioration of the economies of newly independent African States, South Africa’s strategic position and the lingering dispute over South West Africa. These together with many other factors, have tended to focus the spotlight on our country and make our every move international news. Regrettably our every move, due to the ideologies and policies of the Government in power, have more often than not been a source of deep embarrassment to our traditional friends as well as to people in our own country. This is an inescapable fact. I believe the time has come now for us to be seen to be getting away from John Vorster’s “do your damnedest” attitude to the world. We must be seen to have a desire and a motivation that will enable us to re-enter the phase of assertiveness in our foreign relations. South Africa’s economic and military power is increasingly being recognized as having the ability either to stabilize or destabilize the entire sub region. I am not making any accusation in this regard. I am merely stating our capability. In this respect I should like to quote no other person than Vice-President George Bush who said in November last year in Nairobi—

He went on to say—

I think that we must recognize that what we do in this region can in fact affect world peace.

I know that much has been said about the concept of total onslaught. This has been bandied about for many years. We talk about the total onslaught against South Africa and, while opinions vary considerably on this issue, I have absolutely no intention of arguing the merits or the demerits of the concept. However, I do want to state the NRP’s view clearly in this regard. I want to tell hon. members that this party endorses the view that the Russian Bear has a direct and an aggressive interest in South Africa. What interest has to be recognized in our military and strategic planning. Our party’s attitude in this regard has always been crystal clear. I think we more than adequately demonstrated that attitude once again in a recent debate on conscientious objection. I want to say that those who would constantly ridicule the so-called hawks for seeing a communist behind every bush might well have had cause for second thoughts after the arrest of a certain high-ranking naval officer on suspicion of espionage. We sincerely believe that Russia, or communism, however one wants to describe it, is bent on overthrowing the existing regime in South Africa in order to bring this entire region under its sphere or influence. We believe they will support any move or organization which seeks to destabilize our country. I too want to quote Dr. Chester Crocker as did the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. the Minister himself and the hon. member for Brakpan who spoke last. Dr. Chester Crocker stated that the collapse of the Portuguese Empire in 1974-’75 caused Russia to inject its power into the resultant vacuum, thus posing a challenge to the future of the entire region. I want to quote him in this regard. He said—

That was up to that time—

He went on to say, and this is from a speech that he made in October 1982—

This is a frightening prognosis and its implications for our defence needs are apparent.

Dr. Crocker raised another issue which has been discussed with some concern both inside and outside this House and that is the question of destabilization. Without accusing South Africa directly, he warned of the danger of military confrontation, and again I quote him—

It is a fact for the record that numerous allegations have been made from time to time against South Africa that we are guilty of destabilization. This, in my view, would appear to be a whole new ball game. It would appear to be manna from heaven for those who seek our demise. Much is written in our Press claiming evidence of clandestine activities across the borders. One of the most recent articles appeared on 21 April this year in a local newspaper. It was headlined “The regional bully of Southern Africa”.

One can only imagine, when one reads this sort of report, what the international Press must have to say in this regard. I want to state or restate categorically what I have said before, namely that this party is committed to non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, and more particular to non-interference in the internal affairs of our neighbouring States. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member for Umhlanga the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip.

To continue, if we are engaged—and I sincerely do not want to believe and do not want to think that we are engaged—in such activities, I should call on the Government to desist, and to desist now. I do want to emphasize, however, that any action or activity emanating from any other State that could constitute a threat to the security and the stability of the Republic of South Africa is an entirely different matter. If any of our neighbours harbour enemies of this State—that is the Republic of South Africa—who are commited to the overthrow of the legitimate regime—and I say “legitimate” deliberately; we are a legitimate democratic State—they must be prepared to accept the consequences, and those consequences, I believe, will include pre-emptive strikes, as well as hot pursuit and all the rest. This is unavoidable, and, in our opinion, does not in any way contribute to destabilization, and can therefore not be classified as destabilization.

There is, however, no doubt that foreign policy and military objectives are closely interwoven, and that sometimes the distinction between the two can become blurred. This we must accept. However, we in the NRP are committed to a policy of good neighbourliness, so much so that I want to remind this Committee that I have stressed on a previous occasion the need for us to seek our way back into the international community through Africa. We have always felt very strongly on this issue and are supportive of any move that is made in that direction by this hon. Minister, and more particularly by the hon. the Prime Minister, when he meets with neighbouring heads of State, as he did last year, and has also done in previous years.

Permit me, Mr. Chairman, at this stage to commend the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information for attending the meeting with the representatives of Angola and also for talking with the Government of Mozambique. I believe that his personal intervention in a tricky situation last week, which he outlined in detail to this House earlier this afternoon, contributed much towards defusing what could have become a damaging affair of international accusations and counter-accusations flying backwards and forwards. The re-establishment of a policy of dialogue with Africa will always have the support of the NRP. We believe that we are on the brink of entering a new phase in our relations with the world and that once again the spotlight of the world is upon us. The events that are unfolding today in a series of by-elections, coupled with the introduction last week into this House of a Bill that seeks to introduce a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa, are being watched with great interest by the international community; by both those who would defend us as well as those who would destroy us. We are poised on the brink of a break-through, a break-through which could lead hopefully to a dramatic readjustment of our domestic policy, that will demonstrate a perceptible shift away from the policies of race discrimination or apartheid, as the world would perceive it.

Let us look now at where we stand today, where we stand before the events I have just described unfold. The country with the most important and positive attitude towards South Africa is the USA. Britain is still decidedly cool. Germany is indifferent and France, I should venture to say, is openly hostile. I think if nothing else the rugby tour debacle would serve to indicate that.

The attitude of the United Nations is no more and no less than what we have come to expect of it over the years. Only the United States of all our major trading partners is prepared to involve itself constructively with South Africa. I think that we must accept the fact that it would be understandable if this were out of self-interest more than sympathy. Be that as it may, we can only welcome the respite which the more cordial relations with the United States have offered South Africa. However, I think we must note with concern the increasing efforts on the part of various groups within the United States to have that Government reconsider its policy towards our country. The most frightening prospect of all is the ever-present possibility that the Reagan administration in the United States may not survive the next election which is little more than a year away.

Mr. Chairman, this is where we stand today. As I said last week during another debate, the destiny of our people is in our hands and we must not fumble. We are standing at the dawn of a new era, an era that could bring us great changes and an entree back to a position of status in the international community. I submit, Sir, that if we do not change then that dawn will become day and plunge us back into the darkness of night and, I suggest, oblivion before we even have time to catch our breath.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlanga, my neighbour here, that he need not be so concerned about the USA. Yesterday we had a very prominent American here who told us—

I sincerely hope the hon. member is correct.

I want to thank the hon. member for Umhlanga for a particularly positive speech, and in particular his clear picture of the communist threat to South Africa. What he said, confirms the standpoint of this side of the House that there is a total onslaught against South Africa.

I should like to come now to the hon. member for Brakpan, who is not here at the moment. I want to tell the hon. member—this can be conveyed to him—that we are engaged here in a very important debate on Foreign Affairs whilst the voters in Water-berg and in Soutpansberg are, at the moment, streaming towards the polling-booths. Friends of South Africa—and there were some of them here in this Parliament yesterday—are deeply concerned about the CP making headway in this election. [Interjections.] They are concerned about their investments here in South Africa. They are concerned about the future of South Africa if the CP makes headway.

Why?

Because, as they put it, the verkrampte, narrow-minded standpoints …

What does “narrow-minded” mean?

… of the CP in connection with racial problems in this country …

Is separate development narrow-minded?

… will not solve our problems in this country … [Interjections.] … but will merely lead to clashes and confrontation in this country.

Since when is separate development narrow-minded? [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to the hon. members not to persist in conducting dialogues. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. members of the CP that I do not have the time now to argue about their policy.

Nor are you capable of doing so.

It is, however, a fact that there is concern about the possibility of their making headway, concern based on the fact that their views could bedevil the future racial situation in this country.

Unfortunately I cannot, at this stage, give hon. members the state of the parties in the “Bergs”, but I am going to attempt to describe the state of affairs in South Africa.

In spite of all the attempts on the part of our enemies to drive a wedge between South Africa and its neighbouring states, South Africa has nevertheless succeeded in achieving greater understanding of its position amongst its neighbouring States. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that with his gentle but firm diplomacy he has managed to achieve so much in maintaining inter-State relations with our neighbours, having done so by bridging ideological differences with economic and geographic realities.

In recent times—so I have heard—the hon. the Minister has, on several occasions, conducted high-level discussions with Angola, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. This has again placed the interdependence of States in Southern Africa in the limelight. It is however, ironic and extremely regrettable that some of South Africa’s Black neighbours still so frequently hit out at South Africa in order to impress the Third World and the communist bloc, and that in spite of the fact that their salvation does not lie in international ideologies, but rather in co-operation with the Republic of South Africa.

I think that an important debate such as this is where we should tell thoughtless neighbours to be careful not to tighten the bow-strings too much by repeatedly abusing South Africa when things go wrong in their own countries and not to accuse South Africa falsely, as has recently been done again in the Schoeman case in Mozambique. This is the umpteenth time that Mozambique has sounded a false alarm. They have repeatedly come to light with stories, which they have sucked out of their thumb, about South Africa mobilizing its troops on their borders. Each time, however, South Africa could prove that this was mere propaganda being churned out by their Marxist-controlled propaganda machine.

The question we want to put to Mozambique is why they did not first consult South Africa before proclaiming the Schoeman lie to the whole world. This smacks of malice on their part, something that can only serve to bedevil relationships. Mozambique forgets that in the past year its workers earned R55 million in South Africa.

South Africa is not vindictive, but the people of South Africa do not like such accusations. If some of our neighbouring States continue subjecting us to such false accusations, this can lead to only one thing, and that is a hardening of the hearts of South Africans, which can only damage future relations.

According to a survey by the Institute of International Affairs, the majority of Whites in South Africa—including the supporters of the HNP, probably also those of the CP and those of the PFP—are in favour of a relentless foreign policy. We do know, after all, that if South Africa wanted to, it could withdraw its helping hand from these neighbouring States. The Republic could refuse job opportunities to more than 200 000 workers from these aggressive neighbouring States. Such job opportunities provide the neighbouring States with revenue totalling about R225 million per annum. In 1981 there were 360 000 migratory labourers from neighbouring States officially in South Africa, but according to a non-official estimate there are, at times, between 0,5 million and 1 million migratory labourers working in South Africa.

I want to say at once that South Africa in no way entertains any thought of taking action against these people. South Africa has no thought of retaliatory measures. On the contrary, South Africa sees it as its task and calling to play a developmental role in this part of the world, because South Africa knows that a stable, prosperous Southern Africa means the greatest possible peace, prosperity and happiness for everyone, including South Africa itself. South Africa’s offensives on this sub-continent have never yet been anything but peace offensives. Even when, in spite of itself, it has been forced to strike a blow across its borders, it has done so to unseat destabilizers. After all, it is logical that South Africa, as the strongest country in Southern Africa—economically and militarily—has the most to lose in a situation of instability. So why would South Africa want to create instability here? It is, after all, a fact that unstable conditions in any country have unavoidable repercussions for its neighbours. This is particularly true in Southern Africa where countries are extremely dependent on each other. Stability in this region is of benefit to the Western economic system and detrimental to Marxism which can find no seedbed in stable conditions. It would therefore be foolish of South Africa to try to disrupt its neighbouring States. In doing so, it would be playing right into the hands of the communists.

If we look at the declared objective, the utterances and decisions of some neighbouring countries, their offensive aggressiveness, their officially declared policy of destroying South Africa, we fling back in their faces the accusation that we are the ones playing a destabilizing role.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, I thank the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition for the opportunity to complete my speech. As I was saying, in those circumstances we fling back in their faces the accusation that we are the ones who play a destabilizing role here. Who planted the first bombs? Who harbours those individuals who deliberately enter our country to blow up buildings? If we take action against them, however, we are denounced as destabilizers.

Our standpoint is well known. The declared policy of the South African Government is to live as peacefully as possible with its neighbours, but our neighbours must also realize that peace cannot only come from one side. South Africa will not allow itself to be humiliated. It will not sit with folded arms while its territorial integrity is violated, its people are terrorized and its installations sabotaged. We want to ask our aggressive neighbours to put a stop to the destabilizing acts of the ANC in their countries. Then our Defence Force’s follow-up actions, such as those in Lesotho and Maputo and also those against Swapo in Southern Angola, will no longer be necessary. South Africa has always been the single most stabilizing factor in Southern Africa, with its objective of political and economic stability for all its neighbours.

It must surely now be clear to all that the Republic of South Africa is continually engaged, in this region, in casting its bread upon the waters. The detente politics which South Africa initiated in Southern Africa years ago, has borne fruit. It set in motion a chain reaction of good will, and for that reason South Africa will persevere with that approach. 1 want to state that South Africa is in a unique position to grant assistance to an Africa that is busy sinking away in economic, political and social chaos. We do not say this with malicious glee, but rather with sadness in our hearts. Because of South Africa’s unique geographic and economic position as the only country of the so-called First World on the continent of Africa, it is ideally suited to extending a helping hand to Africa, thereby helping to prevent the virtually inevitable collapse of the southern part of Africa. We are all aware of the fact that the Government is engaged in a comprehensive development strategy for Southern Africa. The recent summit conference with the independent TBVC countries was very successful and gave momentum to the action of working out a development strategy for Southern Africa. What South Africa now seeks is co-operation on a wider front. Other States are free to join the TBVC countries in this exciting new South African initiative. We invite them to come and participate in this initiative.

South Africa will do its share in an attempt to save Southern Africa from economic ruin. The colonial powers, which destroyed Africa’s original cultural way of life in certain respects and then withdrew from Africa, will also have to play their part. Numerous African countries, from which colonial powers withdrew, are today saddled with tottering economies and find themselves in a despairing situation from which they cannot extricate themselves. Western Europe and Britain have a responsibility towards Africa, and their responsibility is to help save this continent from economic ruin.

The Republic has, at its disposal, extensive resources and a refined infrastructure, particularly as far as its transport services are concerned. It also has the knowledge and is not niggardly about sharing all this with its neighbours. In addition, South Africa is fast developing into a larder for Southern Africa. It is, to an ever-greater degree, supplying staple foodstuffs at reasonable prices to countries which do not like us but which need food and very gladly take food from our hand. This includes countries that very often hit out at us, for example Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Mozambique, Kenya, Zaire, Angola, Tanzania, Mauritius and others. These countries’ food-shelves are stacked with food coming from the Republic. We do not begrudge them that. When the people in those countries are seriously ill, they know very well where to run to. Although they lash out at us vehemently on the world stage, each year we receive hundreds of patients from those countries. We receive them, in our hospitals, with open arms. There they receive the most advanced specialist services in the world, something they cannot obtain in their own countries. We do not begrudge them that. Are we then destabilizers when we act that way?

Let us just take a quick look at what Lesotho, our neighbour there in the Free State which every now and then bares its teeth at us, receives from South Africa. At times there have been up to 180 000 men and women from Lesotho working in South Africa, comprising about 85% of the total male labour force of Lesotho. Surely that is a tremendous achievement. These workers from Lesotho have already, in a single year, taken wages and goods to the value of R300 million back to their country from South Africa. This represents more than 40% of Lesotho’s total annual revenue. So one can go on mentioning many other examples, but with that I wish to conclude. I just want to say that help to South Africa’s neighbours already extends across the whole field of human activities. South Africa will, in spite of the Marxist wolves howling around us, continue with its aid and peace offensives until realism makes a breakthrough in Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I will not be reacting directly to what the hon. member who has just sat down has said because I want to deal with specific problems in another area. I want to address certain questions to the hon. the Minister regarding the independent States on our borders, particularly in regard to Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.

I think it is appropriate that the House should spend some time on this matter, bearing in mind the more than R600 million which is earmarked for assistance and aid to these countries. It may well be that that amount is far less than what we actually do give. However, in terms of the budget it is more than R600 million.

I should firstly like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an update on the Southern African Development Bank. We have heard a great deal about this. There seems to have been some progress made. Obviously we believe that stability on our borders is important and therefore we should like to know more about this development.

I noted the other day that an amount of R13 million had been given to Transkei and Ciskei, as well as an amount of R9 million to Bophuthatswana, for drought relief. I assume additional aid has been given to Venda as well, but I do not have the figure available. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether there have been discussions between his department and these countries about the severity of the drought. We all know of some of the problems which have arisen, for example in the area of Seymour, where there seems to be some dispute as to who should have the grazing rights etc.

Against the background of massive injections of aid and support for development and the close links between South Africa’s labour requirements and these States, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would like to make a projection as to how he sees developments in the relationship between these countries and ourselves over, say, the next five or ten years. What progress, for instance, has been made in the Government’s plans for a constellation of States and for a confederation involving these States? We heard a great deal about this earlier. Suddenly the noises that come from key spokesmen for these States are not all that encouraging. President Mangope, for example, has made it quite clear that he has no interest in being part of a confederation so long as race discrimination laws are on South Africa’s Statute Book. President Lennox Sebe at the end of last year made a scathing attack on South Africa’s alleged treatment of Ciskei post-independence. He condemned South Africa, inter alia, for its inhuman settlement schemes, its failure to discuss a confederation at the November summit, inadequate financial aid, delays in ceding land due to the territory and the deterioration of modern farms before they were handed to Ciskei. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how he sees the present relationship between Ciskei and South Africa and how this is developing.

Venda has been described as a land of hunger, corruption and sudden death. It is a desperately poor land with little or no economic development and obscene affluence, as evidenced by the President and Cabinet Ministers, in strong contrast with the desperate poverty of the majority of the people who live there.

Earlier on when the hon. the Minister was speaking he said, among many other things, that there were differences between African States and the more Western oriented States. He put it to us that the values and norms were different. He was not condemning them. He merely said they were different. Therefore it ill-behoved the PFP to thrust upon certain States what they really did not want or could not bear. I want the hon. the Minister to take a long look at Venda to see the development there and the same tell-tale signs of an opposition that is locked up, where people are detained and disappear, where there are people who are trying to exist on R20 per month, where the President lives in a house worth R750 000, where the hon. the Minister knows that Cabinet Ministers have not one but two smart motor cars and where there is a tremendous contrast between affluence on the one hand and desperate poverty on the other hand. That child is a child of the hon. the Minister and of his Government. They cannot now suddenly say that they did not help to conceive it. If the hon. the Minister wants to condemn States further north, then he must look at the creations of this Government. I must ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied with the way that that country is developing because we have an enormous responsibility. The taxpayers of this country are paying over R300 million per year to Venda. For what? So that a small group of people can get fatter and other people can die? That is part of the truth that the hon. the Minister did not mention here.

I am not very happy myself, but there is very little I can do about it once it is independent.

That is the point. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Do these sort of events not make the hon. the Minister think again about this whole policy of Balkanization in Southern Africa? [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that when an election was held in order to decide on independence or not, the opposition which won was locked up. Where is the mandate? I am saying that this is a direct responsibility of the South African taxpayer because it is out of his pocket that the Government has established and is supporting a State like Venda.

There are a number of other growing problems facing our relationship with these newly independent States. Look for example, at what is taking place on our doorstep at KTC. That now involves not only the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development but also the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information because Transkeians are involved. People from another state are involved. Here we are putting spotlights on people during a dark winter’s night in order to make sure that they do not build their shelters. How can we maintain such a relationship in the light of the truth, honesty, love and good relationships that we have heard from the hon. the Minister? Those are the kind of things that we want to know about as well and I think we have a right to put them to the hon. the Minister. We also want to know about labour relations, the growing conflict, the unhappy state of our unemployment insurance funds and the constant harassment of trade union leaders, in particular by Ciskei. When we talk about links, the only links that appear to exist and which are strong are the links between the S.A. Police and the Ciskeian Police so that the one will make an arrest and that person then lands up detained in the other country. I warn the hon. the Minister and his Government that in the border region of our country, in the area adjoining Ciskei and South Africa, there is great deal of trouble brewing. There one has a large number of workers living on the one side, just a stone’s throw away in a foreign country, workers who have to travel to and fro every day and who are being harassed and hounded. Only two nights ago they were raided once again. That also is a creation of this Government. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am much more afraid of General Charles Sebe than I am of Mr. Le Grange, and that hon. Minister has a responsibility in that regard.

Finally, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I admire his statement the other day—I think it was in Tzaneen—when he said that we have to get rid of the sting of racism. I agree with him. How then does he explain the 72 hour restriction rule that applies to citizens of independent states such as Transkei and Bophuthatswana but not to those of Germany and Australia? What is the difference? The only difference is that the former are Black and the latter are White. If one is White and one lives in Transkei one does not have a 72 hour restriction impared upon one.

It is not the only difference.

That is not the only difference? In the great deal of time that the hon. the Minister has available to him I want him to please tell me why it is that foreign international visitors from these States which we have now glorified as independent can come to this country, but they are bound by a 72 hour restriction on the basis that they are Black.

It is a practical arrangement.

No. It is unworthy of the hon. the Minister to defend it. I want to say to him that a great deal of what we call independent is a counterfeit for an ideology that has failed to work.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put it to the hon. member for Pinelands that the PFP is busy, in an organized fashion, expressing itself in terms which create the impression that South Africa is the skunk of the world. [Interjections.] They are adopting that idiom in an organized fashion. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands was specifically speaking in that idiom. The hon. member for Sea Point did the very same thing. [Interjections.] I shall prove it, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member refers to the 72-hour rule of entry relating to foreigners and alleges that it is not applicable to people from Germany, America or elsewhere. Is he aware of the fact that no one from Europe enters this country without being in possession of a valid passport and visa? No one at all may enter the country without a valid passport and visa.

Do you need a visa? [Interjections.]

If that ruling were applicable to normal travel regulations applying to people from Transkei, Ciskei and other countries, it would be a completely different matter that was at issue here. The hon. member, however, is specifically engaged in trying to tag this matter with a racist connotation. It has nothing to do with racism as such. [Interjections.]

Will that rule apply to a White Transkeian or not? [Interjections.]

Your nose is getting longer and longer, Tino. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands referred, a while ago, to the KTC squatter camp and also spoke about the citizens of independent States. Is he aware of the problems the USA has in keeping out citizens of the Central American countries who are in the USA illegally? Is the hon. member aware of the problems Britain has in stopping illegal immigrants to that country? Is the hon. member aware of the problems Germany has in preventing the illegal influx of people to that country? Is the hon. member not aware of all that?

You do not discriminate against White Germans.

The large numbers of people who try to enter the country illegally create a problem. However, because no publicity is given to this in Germany, the hon. member is not aware of the fact.

I never knew they put a spotlight on people to prevent them squatting.

Because the PFP, and that section of the Press favourably disposed to them, gives excessive publicity to this, however, this problem is immediately given a racial connotation. Basically, however, it is not a racial situation. I also want to emphasize that.

Now tell us about a White Transkeian. It is clear that you have nothing more to say. Why do you not sit down? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I have prepared my own speech. I can, however, also reply to that aspect, except that I unfortunately do not have the time. [Interjections.] At this stage I do not have the time to react to that. If there is a White who is a citizen of Transkei or Ciskei, and he were to have no passport or visa to enter South Africa, the same measures would be applicable to him.

A White Transkeian will, however, never lose his South African citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to confine myself to the theme I actually want to touch upon. I want to make it clear that the things I am planning to say are, to a certain extent, things that have already been said in this House. I do, however, want to put them differently, because another connotation applied to them immediately creates a different perspective.

†Mr. Chairman, it is true that a reputation is like a boomerang, It is easier to get one than to get rid of it. It is also well-known that South-Africa’s reputation internationally is not of the best. That is putting it mildly. However, it is also true that much of the idiom in regard to the discussion of matters occurring in South Africa is created by the attitude emanating from the official Opposition. At the same time I will concede that many statements that are made without due consideration by other people, including supporters of the Government, also contribute considerably to the building up of a negative reputation for South Africa overseas. However, as I have already indicated, the problem is that the PFP aids and abets and in fact reinforces the false overseas image of South Africa by speaking in a negative idiom.

The hon. member for Sea Point spoke about the reinforcement of apartheid. The very use of the word “apartheid” and the repeated use of the word indicates a deliberate intention to create a false image of South Africa. [Interjections.] The attitude of this Government is one of trying to improve race relations on fundamental issues. That is a very basic attitude of this Government and it has been demonstrated repeatedly on numerous occasions.

You are doing just the opposite.

I should also like to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Sea Point that the exclusion of Blacks from the new constitution is a case in point. The new constitution is not the only political forum for the accommodation of people’s political aspirations. We have made deliberate plans for an economic constellation of Southern African States. We have made preparation for the possible movement towards a political confederation.

And Mugabe does not want it.

However, the preparation is a delicate, intricate and lengthy process, and the stumbling-block in this process is not a lack of sincerity or of eagerness to make progress in that direction. It is not the attitude of the Whites either that is the biggest stumbling-block in this regard. [Interjections.] In fact, the attitude of some Black States towards others contributes in a large measure to the delay in progress in this respect. It is most important that South Africa should participate with other Western countries in planning a joint strategy for the maintenance of a strategically safe Western World and Southern Africa, and our internal attitudes must be such that joint international planning and action by the democratic powers or by the opponents of Soviet and communist imperialism is possible. Our policy of maintaining our identity, our Christian values, our economic and social standards, our basic political methods in a multi-ethnic society, is not incompatible with the attitude of goodwill, justice and fair play towards other minority groups in the RSA, namely the Coloureds, the Indians and the various Black people of Southern Africa. What must be avoided at all costs is a system whereby confrontation in this country is increased.

One matter that is causing problems in this country is the Soviet objectives of destabilizing the interests of the United States and Nato in order to promote Soviet interests in the international power struggle. Southern Africa and the Soviet interests in Southern Africa are only one domino in the chain. When we watch this chain in order to see what role the other dominoes in this chain play, the oil power-house of the Middle East, the minerals of the international treasure-house of Southern Africa and strategic minerals, the strategic control of the Indian Ocean and the strategic control of the Cape sea-route, we realize that Southern Africa occupies a strategic position in retaining international stability for the democratic West and for Southern Africa generally. Southern Africa is most strategic to the West, to Europe and to the United States. Our attitude in this country must be such that we can co-operate without in any way destroying the right of White and other minority groups in Southern Africa to maintain their identity and stability, to maintain their values and standards. That, however, will not be achieved by the policy of the PFP which is basically one of “one man, one vote” in a single political structure. If European spokesmen speak in that direction, then they will not receive the support of South Africa in that way.

Mr. Chairman, a Minister of Foreign Affairs has, in many respects, a much more difficult task than his other Cabinet colleagues. In the world in which we live, with its diversity of human groups, frequently with centuries-old differences and points of dispute, a multitude of contradictory and opposing ideologies, human problems such as poverty, famine, natural disasters, urbanization, terrorism and many other similar events in present-day society, it is indeed very difficult for a Minister of Foreign Affairs to explain his own country’s problems, interests and ideals to countries abroad, but also, to look at it from the other side, for him to explain the problems, the standpoints and the interests of other countries to the people in his country, whilst in the process—in this world we live in—making an individual contribution to world stability. That is an extremely difficult task. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information that his own task is also a very difficult one, particularly when it comes to explaining, to countries abroad, the complex situation that has developed in South Africa over the centuries. This is further complicated in view of the specific course of events in the Western World after the Second World War. Anyone who follows in the hon. the Minister’s shoes, whatever the party may be to which he belongs, will have to solve the same problems. I therefore want to tell the hon. the Minister that I appreciate the big task he has to perform.

Having said that, however, I must point out to the hon. the Minister that a few weeks ago I told the hon. the Prime Minister that I thought the hon. the Minister should be dismissed from his post. I said that on the grounds of the political principles our party is based on, in the light of our view of Southern Africa’s problems, in the light of our ideals for a specific nation and in the light of our observations of the international situation. Our analysis of the hon. the Minister’s actions and conduct, get us to thinking that the time has come for the hon. the Minister to call it a day as far as this particular period in his life is concerned.

You are very small indeed.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must get away from the Mara waters for a bit and get over to the Elim waters.

I want to indicate a few more reasons—on these the hon. the Minister did not reply to me on the previous occasion—such as the hon. the Minister’s pessimism about Southern Africa. In his political viewpoint I sometimes find some ambiguity: One moment he can, with the most fiery of arguments, which I mostly agree with, set out the decline in Africa after the White man has vanished from the scene, but in virtually the same breath he paints the darkest clouds across Southern Africa, as if there is no light, no hope and no future for us. Then there is also the hon. the Minister’s willingness to be an instrument for the calls for change, particularly on the part of the USA, so as to bring about so-called change here in South Africa.

Scandalous!

The hon. the Deputy Minister would do well to keep quiet; I shall be dealing with him tomorrow. [Interjections.]

There is also the role the hon. the Minister played in the elimination of the Whites in Southern Africa and the hon. the Minister’s passivity and inability to proclaim and champion, in the world at large, the White man’s rightful place in Southern Africa. Also there is the hon. the Minister’s inability, since 1977—according to his own words which I quoted to him in a previous debate—to put his particular view about what the 1977 policy held in store for us. You will remember, Sir, that I quoted the fact—and the hon. the Minister did not repudiate this—that the hon. the Minister had said to his own voters in Westdene that the NP, of which he is a leader, neglected to inform the electorate that in 1977 we did indeed accept mixed government and power-sharing and that the NP is today paying the price for having done so. The reason the hon. the Minister gave was that it would have been regarded as PFP policy by their voters. Let me say, however, that in explaining that standpoint, the hon. the Minister brought us no clarity.

I want to go further. I have indicated the reasons why I think that the hon. the Minister must either be given another portfolio or must relinquish his present portfolio. The hon. the Prime Minister subsequently told me I was not worthy of tying the hon. the Minister’s shoelaces. I accept that. The hon. the Minister of Defence and several other hon. Ministers have repeatedly, over the past year, said that we are the men who do not count, the few chaps sitting here. He said we were not shining lights in the NP, but were the lesser lights. I accept the fact that we are part and parcel of the common people and are not part of the establishment or the elite. Nor are we part of those high-class people in South Africa. We are the middle class, we are the ordinary people. We also represent the ordinary people in South Africa, as the by-elections taking place today will indicate. Whatever the result may be today, I just want to say that the NP is heading downhill. The NP is busy disintegrating, and after today the CP will be growing, and the eventual dichotomy will be that between the PFP liberals and the CP.

Today the hon. the Minister put the standpoint that the policy and principles of the CP were based on hate. [Interjections.] He said today that we sometimes gave that impression. Very well, the hon. the Minister has said that if that is not so, he accepts my word. As far as I am concerned, it is not impossible for the CP to govern this country, and that is what is going to happen. The CP will be able to do it too. [Interjections.] As Minister of Foreign Affairs, that hon. Minister must not, however, try to create the impression, as far as the outside world is concerned, that we, his own compatriots, people who have, for years now, sat in the same party with him and whose principle in regard to the Black people is one of separate development, ever have believed, or that our predecessors ever believed, that the policy of separate development was based on hate, abhorrence and humiliation of the Black people. We have never believed this, not when we were in the NP, and not now either. The hon. the Minister, the NP as a whole and we on this side are of the same blood, whether we like each other or not. I have, often in my life, defended the hon. the Minister, even though he may not know it. [Interjections.] He must not now try to create an incorrect image of this party, because if he were to do that, he would be falling into the same trap into which Mr. Jan Hofmeyr and his people fell in the ’forties when they said that the then NP had built its policy of apartheid on hate, because that was wrong. We must stop doing that in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister also quoted from a letter which Dr. Connie Mulder was supposed to have written the hon. the Minister. I believe I myself have, in the past, written the hon. the Minister a letter about something I agreed with him about. However, digging up letters which we wrote to each other and in which we thanked each other or praised each other, is not the way to build up an argument. Not so long ago, in November 1981, this hon. Minister’s constituency, Westdene, accepted a motion in regard to Dr. Andries Treurnicht. I accept the fact that the hon. the Minister voted with the rest of his constituency when certain things were said. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik conducted a private feud here and crossed swords with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. I do not want to follow the hon. member for Rissik into the rough and tumble of the 1977 proposals and of who said what where and when. However, I just want to say something in the hon. the Minister’s defence, and when I say that I am not suggesting that he did not defend himself brilliantly or that he is unable to defend himself in this debate. I think it is appreciated that the hon. the Minister does not flinch from pointing out to us those aspects relating to the South African situation, on the Southern African scene, which are of a negative nature. We regard this as a realistic analysis of the reality in which we live. However, I think it is unfair to suggest that the hon. the Minister has lapsed into a spirit of pessimism. Time and again the hon. the Minister has succeeded, on occasions when I have been present, in referring to the positive and exciting prospects for South Africa as well. He said that we should also take the realities into account, rid ourselves of a lot of prejudices and put our shoulders to the wheel. In that spirit we shall encourage the hon. the Minister and continue to support him in his crusade through South Africa.

The world has become a small place for South Africans. Our sportsmen, artists, politicians and tourists can attest to that. Unfortunately, many South Africans have an insensitivity as regards rebelling against this, a laissez-faire attitude and a defeatist acceptance of these circumstances. In any event, there is enough in this country to keep South Africans busy for a lifetime. The struggle for the Currie Cup is still wide open and the battle of the Bergs will in any event be pursued tomorrow, whatever the outcome. This struggle will not be decided today by a knockout blow. No South African must accept this shrinking world at face value. Everyone has a role to play. We must take cognizance of that and act deliberately in terms of it. A determined effort not to be ploughed under by international opinion but above all, not to play into the hands of our enemies in a stupid way, must be of decisive importance to us. It is unnecessary apologetically to exchange our own objectives and ideals for foreign norms and value systems. Domestic relations successes will undoubtedly be welcomed abroad. This appreciative attitude is, however, a second prize. The first prize is to live in peace in South Africa. The road to the international community passes through a South African confederation. It cannot be a confederation a la chequebook writers. It is a genuine South African model in which the aspirations of every inhabitant are accommodated and their fears laid to rest. In brief, this is an occasion in which everyone can share in the improvement of the quality of his life and play a role in the decision-making affecting his life.

By way of a few brief statements I wish to accord recognition to the positive course of development of affairs on the road to a confederation, and also point out certain matters which still require attention. As regards the incentive measures for industries which came into operation on 1 April 1982, already approximately 130 applications with a total expected capital investment of approximately R115 million have been approved in the TBVC countries. This industrial development in backward areas ought to contribute substantially towards a more equitable distribution of economic activities in Southern Africa, while its attractiveness must also persuade foreign investors to participate in economic development in Southern Africa. This fact is illustrated by the 46 applications from abroad with the total expected capital investment of R81 million that have already been approved.

Financing on a project basis is the order of the day. To date, 100 projects with a total estimated investment of R814 million have already been approved for partial financing by the Loan Fund, while a further 52 projects with a total investment value of R486 million are at present being evaluated by assessment bodies. It is interesting to note that a South African confederation does not only have a development component. It also has a very strong political aspect. Co-operation agreements must be maintained, but in my opinion there is also an urgent need to reach finality with regard to confederal symbols, a confederal secretariat, buildings and assembly halls, arrangements concerning travel and citizenship, an understanding with regard to the so-called urban Blacks and squatter conditions. In brief, confederation must be seen and tasted. However, the creation of a confederation is not the sole responsibility of this Government. Black leaders also have a role to play. They must see to it that investors and taxpayers do not get the feeling that development aid will be lost in a bottomless pit. Whether it will be an image of success or an image of ineptness is to a large extent in their hands. The key to development is spirited leadership and effective government.

I think that on this occasion it is probably also appropriate that we should criticize the sanctimonius attitude of certain foreign observers. Leaders of the TBVC States are ignored as interviewees, and visits to these States are avoided, out of fear that anything positive they may do would amount to recognition of these States. But no one can shut their mind to or ignore these leaders, their States and their infrastructures. Any observer who does so creates a defective image of the development processes that are the order of the day in Southern Africa at present.

I now turn to the hon. member for Pinelands. He made a very carefully calculated speech here today. He spoke as if his party recognized the fact of the independence of the TBVC countries. He attacked Venda and expressed strong criticism of that State. The hon. member for Yeoville is looking at me and I look back at him with appreciation for his participation in the visit to the TBVC States, to Bophuthatswana in particular. However, I find it a pity that no hon. member of the PFP was present when a Parliamentary deputation held talks with the Government of Venda. On that occasion both sides were in an excellent position to state our differences of opinion and standpoint. I do not wish to generalize and criticize the PFP as such, but I think that the remarks I have just made about the sanctimonious attitude adopted towards the TBVC States by foreign observers also apply to the hon. member for Pinelands.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.