When the Committee adjourned on Thursday, I had asked to be given the opportunity to consider an amendment to Clause 112. Since then it has been printed on the Order Paper and I would like to move the following—

• 112. All rights and obligations under conventions, treaties or agreements which were binding on any of the Colonies incorporated in the Union of South Africa at its establishment, and were still binding on the Union immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, shall be rights and obligations of the republic, just as all other rights and obligations under conventions, treaties or agreements which immediately prior to the commencement of this Act were binding on the Union.

The position is that the clause as it stands in the Bill is a precise repetition of Section 148 of the South Africa Act. As it stands there, it may be interpreted as meaning that all rights and obligations of the colonies which were binding in 1910 when Union was established will now again be binding on the republic, including the rights and obligations which have fallen away since Union. It is of course not the intention that the rights and obligations which have fallen away since the establishment of Union should be binding on the republic. But in the second place this clause does not mention the rights and obligations which the Union itself obtained as the result of conventions, treaties or agreements which were entered into. It may consequently be argued that the aforementioned no longer exist, unless they are given renewed effect or are tacitly kept in force. Apart from the fact that the first portion of the revised clause gives a clearer definition, there is now simply the addition of the words “ just as all other rights and obligations under conventions, treaties or agreements which immediately prior to the commencement of this Act were binding on the Union ”. It therefore really remains the same as was contained in the South Africa Act, except for additions in respect of later events after the Union was established.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 116, as amended by the Joint Committee,

I move—

1. (4) Any person who holds an office in the service of the State in respect of which he has prior to the commencement of this Act taken an oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance to the King or the Queen, shall, if required to do so on the direction of the State President, take an oath or solemn affirmation that he will be faithful to the republic.

This clause is self-explanatory. It is merely being inserted in this sub-section that whenever it may be considered necessary, notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (3) of Clause 116, the State President may give instructions that in spite of the fact that all the other oaths which were taken before are recognized, a special oath or solemn declaration may still be required from a certain category of persons or from an individual.

I move—

The Preamble to this Constitution is a very important part of the Constitution. Although it does not form part of the Act itself, it is still an avowal of faith, an acknowledgment and a thanksgiving; and in view of the fact that the Preamble as printed complied with all these requirements and was drafted by the Select Committee with great care, this amendment is not a big one. It is, however, a better exposition of the matter, as it ought to be viewed. The first four sentences of the preamble in the original Preamble drafted by the Select Committee were in the original text intended as an acknowledgment and an avowal of faith in Almighty God, but it is felt that in the original text, the word “ we ”, which often appears, does not make it clear to whom it refers. Who are “ we ”? Therefore it was felt, after much consultation and consideration, that what we really intended by the word “ we ” was former generations, the past, to link up with the present generation and even future generations. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, as it is drafted now it is an avowal of faith, a prayer and a giving of thanks for the fact that Almighty God settled our ancestors here, set their path here, guided them through clangers, and that He was and is the Disposer of their fate. After this recognition, as it is drafted now, what follows as far as the present generation is concerned is only the logical consequence. The question which arises in our minds is: How do we stand in relation to these aforementioned truths, as they have now been stated: He Who brought our ancestors here from many countries, Who guided their path through the generations and Who delivered them from dangers—and it is only logical that immediately thereafter it should follow that we should make a declaration. Therefore these words follow: We who are here in Parliament assembled declare … The phrase “ We, who are here in Parliament assembled …” is a phrase taken from the prayer which is read in this House daily. And we now declare that we are conscious of our responsibility before God and mankind—we who have to pass this Act. Then we almost automatically say that the present generation links up the acceptance of its responsibility with the guidance of God which was given to our fathers. Then in the third place we not only accept a vocation, but also the implementation of a task. It is not enough for us simply to accept the vocation, but we must now be willing to carry out the task. Therefore the inevitable must follow. That is our greatest need in South Africa? We are convinced of the necessity for standing united. Previously we expressed our conviction in the former preamble under four heads. One of those sub-heads now becomes the main theme here. We are convinced of the necessity to stand united, in order to achieve three objectives: To safeguard the integrity and freedom of our country; to secure the maintenance of law and order; to further the contentment and spiritual and material welfare of all in our midst. We have omitted the prayer in the previous Preamble because it was unnecessary repetition. For the rest, the Preamble is precisely the same as that which was submitted to this Committee by the Select Committee.

I do not want to be the proverbial devil who threw soot into the food I think this Preamble, as it is now, is much better than the one we had. I think that all the difficulties which existed have been eliminated. But, alas, I must say that the Afrikaans is not flawless yet. I would like to draw attention to it—and the hon. the Minister must forgive me for it, and also the other members of the Committee who supported me on the matter on which we originally agreed; I am thinking of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) and the hon. the Minister of Justice—they must forgive me for not having seen the mistake before. If one looks at the third preamble then one finds in the second paragraph the words “ We declare ” and what follows is the word “ that ” —the main sentence is “ We declare that ”, which is then followed by the enacting paragraph “ Be it therefore enacted ”. Now it is not good Afrikaans to say “ verklaar ons dat word dit derhalwe bepaal ”.

It should be “derhalwe bepaal moet word ”.

No, it is not so easily remedied in two words as the hon. member suggests. But there are more alternatives, because the “ we ” used there means the House of Assembly and the Senate. But the Queen is the one who enacts together with the House of Assembly and the Senate. She is not in this Parliament. Therefore what we should really say is one of two alternatives, or perhaps three. I would like to ask the Minister to consider this, not to remedy it to-day, because it is not so simple, but to consider it in the period during which the Act goes from here to the Other Place. The alternatives I want to suggest are firstly the following: The words “ verklaar ons dat aangesien ” ought to be replaced by other words, viz. “ versoek ons eerbiedig dat ”, and then follow all the “ aangesiens ”; and then further “ dat daar derhalwe deur Haar Majesteit, die Senaat en die Volksraad soos volg bepaal word en word dit derhalwe deur Haar Majesteit, die Senaat en die Volksraad bepaal”. That is the first alternative. The second alternative is also just for the consideration of the Minister and I am not going to make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. The second alternative is “ verklaar ons dat ”, and then follow all the “ aangesiens ”, “ daar derhalwe deur Haar Majesteit die Koningin, die Senaat en die Volksraad soos volg bepaal word ”. This is a simple amendment, but it has a defect because we declare that they enact, and when I say “ they ” I mean the trinity: The Queen, the Senate and the House of Assembly. I think the first alternative is better. A third alternative is also possible if we want to retain the word “ verklaar ”: “ Verklaar ons dat Haar Majesteit die Koningin, die Senaat en die Volksraad van die Unie van Suid-Afrika derhalwe bepaal het.” Then it is in the past tense. That would be the easiest. Then we at least have the guarantee that it is good Afrikaans. As it stands now, it is not good Afrikaans and in view of the fact that we have already been criticized by the Academy because the name of the republic is not good Afrikaans—something with which I do not agree—but we have been criticized on that point and why should we now make another grammatical mistake here when it is so easy to rectify it.

To a large extent I agree with my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat. I think, however, that it would be a waste of time if at this stage I were to go into the matter further, but the Minister will have to do so. However, I wish to point out instances of clumsy phraseology which I noticed: “ are convinced of the necessity to stand united,” and then in the third line, “ to further the contentment and spiritual and material welfare of all in our midst ”, and then also in the next two lines, in which there is a spelling mistake. Here it says “ vredelewende ”, whereas it should surely by “ vredeliewende ”. The hon. the Minister can remedy that in the Other Place, or he may even do so now if he wishes to.

The words of enactment, which form part of the new Preamble proposed Sy the Minister of the Interior, will not, in terms of Standing Order No. 169, be put to the Committee. The words of enactment form part of the framework of the Bill and therefore the customary formula will be inserted when the Bill is reprinted.

I would like to move as an amendment to this Preamble—

The reason I do this is that we think it will be advisable whilst we are dealing with the new Constitution, and particularly when we are dealing with the preamble now, to make quite clear what the intentions are of the Government and of the Constitution of the future.

I move this amendment, not as a sign of disrespect for the traditions or the history of our country; I move it, not as a Sign of disrespect to the contributions made to the building up of our nation by the generations of the past. I realize fully that the actions of people that came before us were determined by the circumstances that obtained in South Africa and in the world in which they live. We readily concede that the actions taken by those gentlemen in the past were well intended. But whilst we are framing this new Constitution it is important not only to have regard for the past, but equally do we have to have regard for the present, and we have to anticipate future developments. If we look into the past we must also recognize the mistakes that were made. In this regard I think that one of the biggest mistakes made in the past by us all in South Africa was not to recognize the fact that we have been in the past, we are now and we will be for all time to come, a multi-racial country. Attempts were made in 1936 to change this fact. They failed. Subsequent attempts were made and they too failed. And all attempts that may be made in the future to change this basic fact of our nation are also doomed to failure. Laws have been put on the Statute Book during the last 12 years, laws that to-day form the basis of our unpopularity in the world; laws that form the basis of the attacks made on South Africa throughout the entire civilized world. These laws stem from the fact that as a nation we refuse to recognize that this is a multi-racial country. We can continue to ignore that fact to-day. We can continue to ignore that fact in the future. But let it be clear, then, that we will place in jeopardy what we have built up in South Africa over 300 years.

Should we recognize this fact to-day, and give recognition thereto in the preamble of this Constitution Bill, then, what was said by speakers from these benches in respect of the clauses of the Constitution Bill, follow naturally and logically. Should we give recognition to this fact we will put the electorate in South Africa in a position where they can allow their inherent sense of justice to operate freely and then to reject racial discrimination.

I have an amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, but I am very glad to say that the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister of the Interior does not incorporate the words which I sought to have deleted from the previous draft of the preamble. In those circumstances I am very happy that it will not be necessary for me to move my amendment.

However, I do want to say at once that I am not satisfied with the English version of the preamble as put before us. Just as certain hon. members have expressed objections to grammatical features of the Afrikaans version of the amendment, I dislike the English of the English version, not necessarily on grammatical grounds but because the amended preamble as put before us here is flat; it is somewhat pedantic and uninspiring. I feel that we ought to do better in this preamble. The suggestion I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that as he is probably going to give consideration to the points raised in regard to the Afrikaans text, I would suggest that further consideration be given to the English wording, so that we may possibly get a preamble couched in much happier, much more appropriate and much more inspiring English. I very much doubt whether there would be time to do that between now and this Bill going to the Other Place. I only hope that if there is not sufficient time to do that, a better version of the preamble could possibly come forward during the recess, one which might be incorporated at a later stage.

To indicate the type of preamble I have in mind, may I just read to this hon. House the preamble to the American Constitution which is simple, to the point and inspiring, and which incorporates everything that a preamble should have. It reads as follows—

That wording is not only beautiful English, is not only inspiring, but it is short and to the point and contains all the principles that a preamble should contain. What are those principles? First of all it is obvious that a preamble is not a source of power. The Supreme Court of America, in declaring what the preamble does, pointed out that it is “ evidence of the origin, scope and purpose of the Constitution ”. I think that in the wording that came before us from the hon. the Minister in its revised form, that principle is included but not fully. I think better wording could be found to enshrine that principle. Of the American Constitution it is said that the preamble bears witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people. On that ground I am satisfied that so far as this preamble is concerned, it does that. But again I think that that aspect could be strengthened.

To sum up: My plea—and I speak as one who is interested in English, who is to some extent an English scholar—as one who is interested in English as it is spoken in South Africa, the English of ordinary good usage in our country—in which I feel a preamble of this kind should be framed—I say that the preamble as put before us is not good English, it is not English of the kind that inspires, and it is not really in keeping with the occasion. My suggestion is that if we can get a better wording, if we can have scholars to work upon this and suggest a better wording, the hon. the Minister should give very serious consideration to a suitable amendment being adopted at a later stage.

I should like to thank those hon. members who have taken part in the debate on the preamble very heartily for their contributions. It shows that there is interest. As I said at the outset the preamble is certainly something of which one would like to be proud and if suggestions can be made to improve it grammatically or in respect of the wording, I invite members to come forward with suggestions, which I shall be pleased to receive and if they are practicable and will mean an improvement I shall move amendments in the Other Place. I prefer not to say anything about the various opinions which have been expressed here, also by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). I suggest that we correct “ liewende ” in the Afrikaans text. It should be “ liewende ”. It is only a printing error and we should go into the whole matter and see if further improvements can be effected. I can only say that we struggled and slaved for a whole day and we should like to effect improvements. As the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) has said we should state our intentions in the finest language and in the clearest terms before this legislation goes to Another Place.

As far as the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) is concerned, I do not think he should go to the trouble of handing in that amendment to the preamble. His intention is not bad, but I want to tell him that this republic has been formed and adapted as well as possible to the traditions and history of our country. However, if the hon. member for Queenstown wants to anticipate a republic in a multi-racial country, we cannot be held responsible for his untimely progressive attitude. We prefer to do it on the firm foundation of our traditions and our history.

I must confess that I am surprised both at the tone and the content of what the hon. the Minister has just said. Sir, are we a multi-racial country or not? That is a question of fact. The hon. member for Queenstown introduced his amendment in a spirit of helpfulness and went out of his way to avoid any controversial matters, or to suggest that traditions had been wronged or that historical backgrounds were fraught with emotions and had led to conflicts in the past. He went out of his way to avoid those things. But what he asked the Minister to do was to accept that in going into this republic, which is inevitable, that we will at the outset accept, whatever our outlook and policies may be, whatever means we may have to offer the country for finding a solution to our serious problems, we will at least concede the fact that this is a multi-racial country with a multiracial population whose needs have to be met. That is what this amendment asks for. It does not ask that certain traditions should be accepted. That is rather an inference from the wording as it stands, but what it asks for is the recognition that the needs of a multi-racial land should be accepted. The Minister in his very brief reply rather suggests that we are not going into a multi-racial republic and that this land belongs only to the White section. Does he wish to intimate that when we talk about “ our land ” we refer to only one section of the people, the Whites? Sir, it is a mockery of the facts. When the Minister of Finance was Minister of the Interior he introduced legislation making it perfectly clear that every person born in this country is a citizen of the country, irrespective of his colour. We have White citizens, Coloured citizens and Bantu citizens, and all we ask is that that fact should be recognized.

Do not labour the obvious.

If it is obvious, why not accept the amendment? Why refuse to recognize the obvious? I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts, if not this afternoon, then at any rate before he presents this Bill to the Other Place.

I just want to say a word with reference to the language. The hon. the Minister has said that we could make suggestions. In addition to the printing error there is also one in the first line, the wrong spelling of “ Almagtige ”. But the most serious objection is the one raised by the hon. member for Standerton and I think we can easily get round that if in the second paragraph we only say: “ We who are here in Parliament assembled declare that whereas we” want to do (1), (2), (3) and (4) “ be therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate and the House of Assembly of the Union of South Africa, as follows … ”. If we put it that way, it is merely a question of the sequence of the words and then it will be grammatically correct.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the proposed new Preamble, and a division was called.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Vote No. 4.—“ Prime Minister ”, R111.000.

I ask the privilege of the half-hour. This Vote comes at a time when the searchlight of world public opinion is directed on the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet mercilessly and in a manner never before experienced in South Africa except perhaps during the time when the late Field-Marshall Smuts was Prime Minister of the Union. The difference is that whereas Gen. Smuts in the publicity he got was a source of goodwill to the Union, the present Prime Minister with the publicity he gets reveals himself in the unfortunate position for South Africa as a man at war with the whole world. Of course at the moment it is an ideological war, a cold war, but we all know how difficult it is to contain a cold war and how a cold war without warning can erupt and force situations which often get out of control. I want to say that in the past in my capacity as a member of this House and as Leader of the Opposition, and I believe in accordance with my duty to the public, I have issued warnings which have been unheeded and have been ignored by the Government but which have proved to be well founded, warnings which have been ignored by this Government to the detriment of South Africa. It is only six months ago that I warned the Prime Minister that to proceed with these republican plans at this stage might cost us our Commonwealth membership. That warning has been proved to have been tragically justified. For ten years now I have been warning hon. members opposite that their treatment of the Coloureds might force the Coloureds into the hands of agitators and to make common cause with the Bantu against Government policy. To-day hon. members opposite see what is happening before our eyes in respect of certain of the Cape Coloureds.

I want to give a third example. For many years we have warned what the consequences of Government policy in respect of South West Africa might be. I think to-day even the most enthusiastic supporter of the Government would be hard put to it to deny that South West has now become South Africa’s Achilles’ heel. I believe in all earnestness that it is my grim duty to-day to issue another warning, and this time to the people of South Africa, to the effect that unless they are prepared to take stock of themselves and find solutions to our race problems in South Africa which are realistic and practical and which are speedily effected, we might find solutions imposed upon us from outside against our will. We may find, despite our best efforts, that we South Africans are losing control over our own destiny. In issuing this warning, I am strengthened in my own conviction that it is right by the fact that the same warning is being uttered in strong terms from some very unexpected sources within the Nationalist Party, from the Press supporting that party. I do not want to weary the House with a lot of quotations, but I would like to give at least two examples. The one comes from the Transvaler of last Thursday—

That is the Transvaler, an organ which supports the Government through thick and thin in the Transvaal. Here is the Burger of the following day, Friday 7 April—

Then there was a very similar article in the Volks blad, very much in line with this kind of statement. Sir, I have learnt that it is no use directing appeals to this Government. I want to direct this appeal once again to the people of South Africa because my experience with this Government is that any appeals to them are useless. They have an entirely different technique. The ignore our warnings. They land the country in situations against which we have warned them and then call on everyone to stand together to get them out of a mess, just as they are doing now. The tragedy is that a situation is now developing in which even standing together may be of no avail.

Let me touch on some of the sore spots, already inflamed, which, if not carefully handled, may erupt, and let us see what answer the Prime Minister has, if any, in respect of how these matters should be handled. The first sore spot lies in our relationship with UN, where we are being attacked on three fronts, first of all the treatment of the Indian population, secondly, the race policies of the Government, and thirdly, the South West African position. What is noticeable is that the resolutions are becoming sharper and sharper, although it is true to say that they do not seem as yet to have teeth in them, and the majorities against us are becoming bigger and bigger, because more and more of our friends who in the past supported us either with their votes or by abstention are finding it impossible to maintain that support. I believe they find it impossible to maintain that support as the inability of the Government to justify its position becomes more and more evident. Of these issues the South West African one is obviously the most crucial one, because in this instance our critics have to support the judgment of the International Court of Justice that South West Africa has an international status, and because our case has so consistently been allowed to go by default before UN. It is an extraordinary thing that we should have reached this stage and that we have not been represented there yet by this or any previous Prime Minister of this Government. What worries me is that on this issue the people of South Africa have not been taken into the confidence of the Government. They have never been informed what the possible consequences may be. They have not been told the extent of the dangers which face us and they have not been informed what the Government’s attitude is in regard to this matter, or what its plans are. We know that UN or the Trusteeship Committee has taken up the line that the matter was referred to the International Court of Justice and that it is sub judice and that it does not propose to prejudice the position, but I think we are entitled to know what the attitude of the Government is in respect of that International Court. It is accepting its jurisdiction and will it abide by its decision? What will its attitude be if the Court wants to hold an inspection in South West? What will the effect be if there is a judgment given which we do not regard as favourable to us? This is another instance in which the warning given by the columnist “ Dawie ” in Sa.ur day’s the Burger is singularly applicable. This is what he said—

I have raised this matter before. I have asked what the attitude of the Government is. I think the time has now come when the Prime Minister and his Government must realize that they are in fact conducting this case not on their own behalf but on behalf of the people of South Africa, and the people of South Africa are entitled to know what the Government’s attitude is, what the dangers are and what they are being exposed to as the result of the activities or lack of activities of this Government over the last 13 years. I do not want to deal with the other issues. Perhaps the Prime Minister will be kind enough to enlighten us on those as well. But one of the worrying factors about all this is the uncertainty as to the attitude of the Government in respect of UN itself. We have seen walkouts by this Government. We have heard talk of withdrawal in the past from the Minister of Finance. Now the Prime Minister has withdrawn from the Commonwealth. He has spoken of interference in our internal affairs and threats of expulsion and hostile criticism. When asked how this position affected his membership of UN, he said they were unrelated; he did not say he was staying or that he was leaving. All this criticism and all these threats and attacks on South Africa are taking place to a far greater extent at UN than ever they did at the Prime Minister’s Conference. I feel that the public has the right to know from the Prime Minister and from the Government what its policy is in regard to UN. I think we have the right to know despite my own firm conviction that further isolation will not lead to insulation from attacks upon us, but the more isolated we become the greater is the likelihood that there will be interference in our internal affairs. I think that is recognized even by the Volks blad, the Nationalist Party newspaper in the Free State. Here is a translation quoted by the Cape Times on Saturday morning—

I think we must know where we are. We have withdrawn from one comity of nations. With what group are we going to be allied? Where are our friends? Who are the people we are standing with and who stand by us? May I say how sad it is to see some of our oldest friends voting against us on certain resolutions before UN?

There is another sore point, and that concerns our future relations with members of the Commonwealth from which the Prime Minister has withdrawn. Britain is to pass legislation providing for a standstill agreement for 12 months. During that time there will doubtless be bargaining, but the question is over what field will that bargaining take place. We have heard much in the past about the economic relations and I have raised them on many occasions, but what of the defence position? Is the House going to be informed of what the Prime Minister has in mind? What will the position be about the exchange of military information and the availability and purchase of weapons? We know that our Army, Navy and Air Force were never planned or expected to act alone. What exchange of information will there be? What is the position going to be in respect of South African citizens in those countries where we have no diplomatic representation and where in the past they were cared for by the diplomatic representatives of Britain?

What of the various reciprocal cultural ties which exist between Great Britain and ourselves? What is the citizenship position going to be? What of the reciprocal recognition of professional qualifications which are worrying our doctors, our architects, our accountants and many of our skilled artisans? I think the public is entitled to know what the Government has in mind. We know that already the Cape Town Municipality has lost a grant of £10,000. We know that our Institute of Architects has lost a big scholarship limited to Commonwealth people. We know that the new Commonwealth scheme provided for about 25 scholars from South Africa to go to Britain each year, limited under the present legislation to members of the Commonwealth. We know that at one of the Commonwealth houses established in England the story is that our scholars have been given notice from 31 May. What is the Prime Minister doing, what is the Government doing to keep the public informed about the situation and to tell us what their plans are? Sir, there are many matters of common interest which we have had with Great Britain and which in the past have been regulated within the area of that informal Commonwealth relationship but which will now have to be placed on a more formal basis, and in that regard it seems that peculiar and urgent attention will have to be given to the position of the Protectorates and the Crown Colony of Basutoland. In a sense they will be our closest link with Britain. The community of interest is to big that it would seem wise to be as helpful as we can; to approach this very delicate problem as though the relationship with them will be in essence as friendly as we hope it will be with Great Britain itself. But no one can deny that they can be a source of potential friction and that careful negotiation is necessary. That is why I was so disturbed the other night when the hon. the Prime Minister said that one of the advantages of no longer being in the Commonwealth was that certain non-Europeans from non-European states could no longer enter the Union as of right, as British subjects. I said then and I say again now that the hon. the Prime Minister either said too much or too little on that occasion, and I think it is essential that he should clear up this matter. Did he mean this in relation to the protectorates and in relation to Basutoland? What does it portend? I think he owes the country an explanation. I think we should also know what has become of his policy of incorporating the protectorates which is so necessary for the fulfilment of his Bantustan policy. Has the republic scotched all that? I think we are entitled to know what the attitude of the Government is. The whole position seems to be one for sensible people to get round the table and to talk and to remember that some of the sensible people in this case may be Black ones. We must remember too that Basutoland is the source of one of our most important water supplies, and nothing would bind her more closely to us than a joint development of those water recourses. What of our relations with other members of the Commonwealth and Great Britain? There have been no stand-still agreements as far as they are concerned; but have there been talks; are there going to be talks? Is there any understanding with Australia in respect of our fruit going into Great Britain quota-free now that we are outside the Commonwealth? Have there been any talks in respect of our sugar quota with countries like Australia, with those who speak for Mauritius and for the West Indies? What are our relations going to be now with these member-states? Are they going to be regulated by treaty, or are they just going to be left to drift from one year to the next so that South Africa can become more and more friendless, as she has been continually doing under this Government? I think we are entitled to ask once again: What is the attitude of this Government in respect of our relationship with the emerging states of Africa? We heard from the hon. the Minister of External Affairs a completely non-possumus attitude the other day. His cry seemed to be that we wanted to be friends but that they did not want to be friends with us.

Do you not agree?

I think that little cry of “ Don’t you agree ” must be one of the most tragic we have had from the Government.

Why?

Because it has arisen because of the policies and the stupidity of this Government. The whole of South Africa knows that if we are to become a manufacturing country we want markets, and particularly in Africa. What is being done to try to develop our markets? What is being done to try to get better relations with those states and to find markets for us? Sir, I have touched on some of the external sore points which seem to disturb hon. members opposite.

You are not capable of doing that.

But we must not think that things are piling up against South Africa only from outside. There are forces at work inside which should also cause concern to the people of South Africa and on which they deserve to be better informed. Possibly the most important of those forces is the belief amongst the non-White people of the country that circumstances outside are working against Government policy, which will collapse if external pressures are reinforced by action on their part.

That is right—prompt them!

We should make no mistake that as far as the agitator class in this country is concerned, they regard South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth as a victory for them and the things for which they stand, and they are making use of them to whip up feelings and stir up the embers of the people in South Africa. The Burger, Sir, was perfectly right; this is what it said on Saturday morning—

There is open talk again of organizing strikes; of a protest on a country-wide basis for political ends.

Well, condemn it.

I have condemned these things in the past. Why am I mentioning them in this House and putting them under the nose of the Minister of Justice? Because every time members like that open their mouths they make the danger of that kind of thing greater, and I am warning the House again that Coloureds and Indians are being urged to join in these things. For the first time, despite my warnings in the past, despite my deprecating what was happening, there are indications that there is a reaction from the Coloured and Indian population of South Africa.

You like it.

In the absence of convincing reaction from the Government to international criticism, and because of its failure to prove that its policies can be advantageous to the peoples of South Africa, that criticism will grow and it will give sustenance to the agitators in our midst. There is no doubt that there is a sort of reciprocity taking place; because we failed internationally there are repercussions internally and the Government is to blame for both. There is no doubt that this state of growing uncertainty about the future of the country is having financial repercussions. There is over-caution on the part of businessmen about entering into future commitments, which is having a curbing effect on business activities. There is an outflow of capital which shows no signs of abating. We are reaching a stage on the Stock Market where investors wishing to sell can only realize their investments, very often at a price so low that they cannot afford to sell.

But why do they sell?

Because they do not trust you.

Sir, I would sell that hon. member any day of the week but I do not think there would be any bid bid for him. Sir, the figures for last week show an outflow of nearly R6,000,000. The Minister of Finance knows that. The figures on the Exchange this morning have shown such a slide that the position now is probably indicative of as bad a position as we have known at any time in South Africa since the slump in 1934. Some of the best shares on the Stock Exchange have dropped four, five or six shillings since trading started this morning.

Once you have bought your own ticket it will rise again.

For many years, as a result of the ignorance and the stupidity of attitudes of that kind we now find that what have been gilt-edged securities are becoming almost an embarrassment because people cannot get rid of them. Exporters, industrial as well as agricultural are worried about their markets overseas. Some of the doors have been slammed in their faces and in other cases there are psychological factors operating against South African goods, and no matter how we look at this position we find that this Government has brought South Africa to a sorry plight. We are completely isolated from the world. We are being forced to understand that isolation does not mean insulation from interference in our internal affairs, and we are being forced to realize that isolation from the world is making possible more effective pressure upon us from hostile sources, and that we are losing old friendships which, in the past, cushioned us against that pressure. Internally we are facing the twin difficulties of business uncertainty and arrest of population. [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh. They are losing more White people again from South Africa than are coming in. Sir, how do you recognize this South Africa of 1961 as the land of promise and high hope we knew in 1948? Why are we in this state to-day? For what reason are we being called upon to endure being an outcast in the world and to face an uncertain future. There is no doubt why. We are being called upon to do this for the sake of the exploded theories and the impracticable fumbling known as the policy of apartheid. Sir, there are times when a nation should be willing to face the world—any nation worth its back-bone—provided it knows that it is right and that its cause is right.

We know it is right.

The hon. member says he knows it is right. Sir, I have said and say again that the policy of apartheid has a moral justification if it is carried out completely and applied fairly and justly, but if it is not carried out completely and there is no hope of its being carried out completely …

Why not?

Because this Government has not got the courage to carry it out completely; because this Government has fiddled about for 13 years and made no attempt to carry it out completely, and because it is not being applied fairly and justly it has lost its moral content and it is not recognized in the eyes of the world as having a moral content.

It is immoral criticism.

It has failed in the first place because it has been proved impossible to carry it to its ultimate conclusion. Hard economic facts, inescapable human considerations, have made it clear that it is impossible. It has failed in the second instance, because the Government has lacked the courage to take the steps which would have convinced the world, which would convince many of its own people and which would convince the South African Bantu themselves that the Government is serious about this policy and that it will ever lead to a resolution of our racial difficulties in this country. Those hon. members opposite making the most noise are the first to squeal when the Government asks them to make sacrifices to carry out the policy of apartheid. [Time limit.]

I rise merely to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to carry on with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, an hon. member over there has just used the word “ damned lie ”. Should he not withdraw those words?

Order! Which hon. member said that?

When the hon. member said that we were not prepared to make sacrifices I said that that was a blunt lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

What am I to say then?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for his courtesy in this regard.

It has failed also because in theory the policy of apartheid seems to have no place for the Indian community or the Coloured community. What is the policy of this Government with regard to the Indian community; has it got a policy? We heard that it was repatriation; then we heard that repatriation was impossible. What is its policy now in respect of the Indian population?

What is yours?

What is its policy in respect of the Native population which it is the aim to settle in the reserves? How do they reconcile that policy and its effective carrying out when the census shows that in the last nine years nearly a million more Natives have come to our urban areas than ever before. How can anyone believe that the Government itself is convinced of this policy when in the past ten years for every R12 spent on Bantu services R10 have been spent in the urban areas and only R2 in the Native reserves? Has the Government any policy in respect of the Cape Coloured people other than a few social measures which are the right of every citizen of the state, but none of which play any part whatsoever in determining the rôle of these people in the ultimate structure of the South African state? In short, Sir, the country is being asked to pay a price beyond reckoning for a policy which is impracticable and which even the Government which claims to believe in it is implementing without enthusiasm or without heart. Who are the Government deluding except themselves? Is it not time we had an end to this situation? We know that what South Africa needs is a practical policy, a realistic policy, a policy capable of fulfilment timeously. I have already indicated that I believe that that should take the form of an ordered advance towards a racial federation and while sign-posting the road for the future, I have mentioned certain immediate steps which I believe should be taken in respect of our Asian population, our Coloured and our Bantu populations. May I say that instead of seeing the future of the Union in terms of dismembered South Africa, under this plan we see a future for South Africa in which firstly each racial group will have a determined share in the Government of South Africa; there will be consultation at all levels; secondly, the introduction of federal elements into our constitution will provide protection for the rights of each racial group and each geographical unit making up the Union; and, thirdly, without dismembering the Union or its economy, we can take advantage of the accidents of history which have distributed our population very largely into preponderantly Black and preponderantly White areas which can be recognized as separate administrative units, for political purposes, while the emphasis remains on racial federation. Sir, with a policy of that kind we could face the country and our present problems; we could face the rest of Africa; we could face the countries of the Western world who have been our friends in the past and we could give them grounds on which to defend us against the unreasonable demands of many of the emergent states and many of the communist states of the world. Until we get a policy of that kind, South Africa is going to continue on the slide on which this Government has landed us. The time has come for the people of South Africa to show once and for all their displeasure with what is happening and to take a strong and determined line to get rid of this Government and this hon. Prime Minister.

At this time one should survey the whole situation in a calm and moderate manner. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not able to do so but tried to make political capital out of the present position.

Before proceeding to explain how I view matters to-day, I first want to deal briefly with a few of his arguments. He began by saying that he had given us a whole series of warnings, such as, for example, that if we wanted to adhere to our policy we would not remain a member of the Commonwealth, and further, that if we maintained our present standpoint trouble would ensue with the Coloureds. He is also supposed to have warned us in regard to the consequences of the action by UNO in regard to South West Africa. It is of course the easiest thing on earth to issue all kinds of warnings and to leave the matter there and then to adopt the standpoint that those people who took no notice of one’s loose warnings are responsible for what happens. It is possible for any person to see the twofold possible effects of any policy. He is not the only one who can do so. The point one should regard as most important is, however, not whether someone who acts as if he knows everything should issue warnings, but whether he is able to say what he will do to prevent the trouble. In this case the cardinal question is not whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition warned us that if we adhered to our policy this or that would happen in the Commonwealth or at UNO, but whether he said what price he would be prepared to pay to ensure that something like that did not happen. Thereafter the voters and Parliament would have had to decide whether they preferred the one policy with its attendant dangers or the other policy with the dangers accompanying that. As against his warning in regard to certain possible effects of our policy, we also issued warnings in regard to the consequences of the policy stated by the Leader of the Opposition on the other hand. And what did we have to warn them against? Nothing less than the complete disappearance of White authority and White civilization and the prosperity of South Africa. If one had to choose between the danger against which he warned us, viz. that a republic would perhaps not be able to remain a member of the Commonwealth, and the dangers against which we issued warnings, viz. that we should take steps to ensure that the White man does not disappear from South Africa, then I have no doubt as to which warning would have been heeded the most, viz. that the public would not listen to the Opposition but would face the other troubles arising from the policy of separate development rather than face the serious dangers in which his policy would land South Africa. There is therefore no substance in all this boasting about having issued warnings.

The hon. member then came along with the further warning that we should seek a solution for our non-White problem or else the matter “ would be taken out of our hands ”. He quotes (and gives his own interpretations of it) various phrases from newspapers supporting the Nationalists. I do not want to argue with him about his interpretation of these reports— I have not the time for it now—but what I do want to say is that here also the public must test the warning given by the Leader of the Opposition in the light of the solution he suggests with the object of avoiding matters being taken out of our hands by foreign powers. The people, as we all know, are faced with a very difficult problem. No one wants to belittle that fact. But when the choice has to be made between following our policy (and to flight and to keep on fighting for it without running away like a coward from the difficulties which ensue) and following his standpoint, the people must realize what each of these courses will mean to South Africa, as well as to the world and to Western civilization. I shall return to this a little later when I state my own views. I just want to emphasize that it is easy to tell the people: Seek a solution which will avoid dangers arising for us, but if the Leader of the Opposition says this he must himself give a solution, and if one tests what the consequences of that will be both to our own country and to the world then I say that the consequences of what he suggests will be much worse than what we are experiencing to-day or can expect.

The hon. member also referred to South West Africa. It is a very interesting fact that whilst he recently attacked me for allowing South Africa’s domestic affairs, viz. our racial policy, to be discussed at the Commonwealth Conference, to-day he attacks me here because South Africa did not during the discussions on South West Africa announce and defend its policy in a body which clearly has a Section 2 (7) which prohibits the discussion of the internal affairs of any country. The only way in which our position in regard to South West Africa could have been stated would clearly have been by explaining the positive results of our policy of apartheid. These two problems are linked together. I know that the discussion on South West Africa is one matter and that the discussion of apartheid is another. I know that just as well as the Leader of the Opposition does. The fact is that it would not have been passible to give any satisfaction during the discussions on South West Africa if we had not been prepared to take the further step, viz. of saying how our domestic policy must further be applied there and how it would allow the self-government of the Bantu to develop. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition by implication to-day accused me of precisely the opposite of what he accused me of before.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that I should also adopt a standpoint in regard to our relations with UN. I must now say specifically whether we are going to remain a member or whether we will resign from that organization. Isi it our policy to remain a member or not? I do not intend allowing myself to be tempted to make any untimely or imprudent statements in regard to that matter. The position is that we are a member of UN to-day and that we remain a member. We will continually review our position in the light of prevailing circumstances. Our position in regard to UN is not exactly the same as our position in regard to the Commonwealth was. The two matters have no connection with one another at all. And the decisions as to what we should do in the one case, and in the other case also, have nothing to with each other. I therefore do not intend considering any step to-day and playing into the hands of the Leader of the Opposition, which would do an injustice and harm to South Africa if he could force the Government to adopt a definite standpoint now.

Then the hon. member also put this further question: Where are our friends, with reference to the fact that in regard to certain problems the voting takes place in a certain way in a certain body? Is the friendship of any country dependent on and is it only limited to the actions another country in one or two matters? I intend within a few moments to discuss this matter specifically in regard to our relations with Britain, but at this stage I want to state very clearly that South Africa has infinitely more common interests with that country than the matter which is at the moment being tested at UN. In respect of many common interests and many matters and many relations, South Africa has such bonds of friendship with people and countries in the world that unfavourable action by them in any one respect should under no circumstances and could not justifiably be regarded as proof of the growth of general enmity or the loss of friendship. I will expatiate on this later.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also asked what our relations with Britain would now be in regard to all kinds of matters, apart from those affecting our economy. Previously it was on our economic relations that hon. members opposite laid most emphasis because they were the people who were most afraid of the losses which might be sustained. After having received assurances that in that sphere the relations were very good and that the discussions were well under way, they try to make the voters forget that by directing attention to a diversity of other matters in regard to which discussions still have to take place or in regard to which new relations have to be established or re-established. Why does the hon. member do that? Why does he throw doubt on the possibility of making satisfactory arrangements, which will only harm South Africa?

Shame!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that such matters require thorough investigation and consideration and negotiation. Britain itself declared that it needed a year to investigate these various matters and to bring them to the stage of negotiation and finality. But I am suddenly required to give the Leader of the Opposition complete replies within a fortnight on questions in regard to which Britain with her huge administrative machinery feels that she needs at least a year. Have hon. members ever heard of anything more ridiculous?

To this I still want to add that at the time of the Commonwealth Conference, and after our imminent withdrawal had been announced, certain assurances were given both from my side and by Britain in regard to certain matters, apart from economic affairs. One of them was in fact with regard to defence. Both sides publicly stated that we saw no reason for making any change in that regard, e.g. that our agreement in regard to Simonstown would stand, particularly because neither side could visualize having to face any enemy other than the one which had already previously been regarded as a possible enemy. But still the hon. member wants more details, such as in regard to the purchase of weapons. He knows that in this respect no change has as yet been made and that the matter has to be investigated further. He also wants further information in regard to citizenship and cultural bonds. I can only say that if Britain needs a year to investigate the details, so do we.

The Leader of the Opposition further spoke about the High Commission territories. That obviously creates a complicated problem. It is a matter in regard to which we must try to arrive at the best possible solution for both sides, and I do not intend making any discussions and negotiations more difficult either by satisfying the curiosity of the Leader of the Opposition or by assisting him in driving wedges by making over-hasty statements beforehand. I want to add this also. He continually asks: “What becomes now of the incorporation which is essential for the Bantu homelands policy? ” I never said that incorporation of these territories was essential for the Bantu homelands policy. I said that for the further development of the Bantu homelands policy and of the Bantu of the same ethnic group who are in British care and in ours, it would be in their interest if these territories were joined together in time or if they co-operated. Viewed from our standpoint we can, however, implement our Bantu homelands policy with or without those territories. It does not affect the implementation of our Bantu homelands policy. Apart from that, who is the Leader of the Opposition to accuse me of having complicated the matter of the incorporation of the High Commission territories whilst ever since 1910 until to-day, and even when we had not yet left the Commonwealth, Britain was never willing to allow South Africa to incorporate those Bantu territories? Even in the time of General Smuts, when he was able to speak with great authority, that could not be achieved. A Louis Botha could not achieve it. Britain was opposed to it. How dare the hon. member now blame me if we cannot achieve it? In fact, even whilst we were a member of the Commonwealth, incorporation continually became more difficult and improbable. But not only that. I want to remind hon. members that I said previously that the concept of incorporation died when the British Government stated giving separate constitutions to the various territories, particularly Basutoland. Then hon. members opposite welcomed it and said that that attitude was realistic. But now that they can use it as a kind of accusation in regard to our leaving the Commonwealth, they say that by doing that I rendered impossible the very thing which they themselves at that time welcomed as a realistic recognition of a changed position, viz. that incorporation—i.e. including those territories within the area of South Africa—is no longer practicable in terms of British policy. Now they suddenly accuse me of having made incorporation impossible! When will we get a little consistency from the Opposition?

The Leader of the Opposition also alleged that in regard to our relations with the other member states of the Commonwealth we are evidently just following a laissez-faire policy because we say nothing about it! He asked what, for example, would happen to our relations with Australia and what about our relations with the other member states. Surely it is obvious that we are not neglecting those relations. The policy of letting things develop is United Party policy, not National Party policy. We are dealing with this matter and our relations with the other member countries are being investigated with the object of putting them in order, just as we are doing in regard to Britain. Then he also asked what we were doing in regard to improving our relations with the African states. Obviously it is and remains South Africa’s policy to be on good terms with the various African states and even now we are still, through the C.C.T.A. and Fama and every possible African organization, throwing in our weight in dealing with the problems of Africa. It is, however, equally obvious that the Minister of External Affairs was perfectly correct when he said that our position was made more difficult, and at times almost impossible, by unwillingness on the part of the new African states. Take, for example, the instance of the Health Conference in Accra which we were to have attended. Ghana made it impossible for our representatives to attend such a Pan-African conference for the benefit of the health of the Black peoples of Africa and to co-operate in respect of their health problems.

Let them hold congresses here.

Of course certain congresses will already be held here which both Whites and non-Whites will attend. It is a well-known fact that we are. moreover, building an hotel in the neighbourhood of Pretoria, near Ian Smuts Airport, with conference rooms and every facility in order to allow such Pan-African conferences to be held on an international basis. A congress will be held in Cape Town even before those facilities have been completed. I cannot remember at the moment which one it is. Therefore in so far as these relations are concerned we try to the best of our ability to maintain them and to improve them. I hope we will manage to do so. There are, however, two parties to every case, and the hon. the Minister of External Affairs quite correctly pointed out that there was a lack of goodwill on the other side but not on ours.

The Leader of the Opposition further asked whether we were aware of the fact that the trouble now being caused for us overseas to such a large extent will be intensified by agitators in this country who want to grasp the opportunity to cause trouble here also. In that way pressure from without will be reinforced by pressure from within. In this connection he said that the Coloureds and the Indians would be involved in it. Of course we know about these tendencies. Have we not been warning the United Party for the past ten years that the way in which they were opposing the Government would have that very effect? We have been warning them year after year that if they continue to make demands and to level accusations in the way they do here they would have to face two consequences. The one is that those attacks and the misrepresentations in regard to our policy and our motives would often be published overseas and that these misrepresentations would be believed there and perhaps even be misconstrued still further by people who do not know the true position and who do not realize that these exaggerated attacks form part of the ordinary political struggle of an Opposition to get into power; that they would accept it as an objective statement of the real shortcomings of the Government, and that this would act as an incentive. Have we not warned them that this course of action of the Opposition was encouraging agitators in the country who would then, as the result of what happened overseas, be strengthened in their belief that causing trouble here they could one day, with the assistance of other states, bring the Government here to a fall, and that they—the agitators—would then attain their object of coming into power, and not the Opposition? Again I ask whether the Opposition thinks that it is doing South Africa a service by assisting them in this way. Have we not again and again, and year after year, warned them that their actions here are detrimental to South Africa? And now that the results are becoming apparent they try to escape guilt by blaming us for it. When we had the Sharpevilles we warned them that their share, indirectly, was undeniable. As our troubles overseas increase they cannot escape their basic guilt and that of their Press. [Interjections.] They now try to ascribe everything to us, but basically the blame for the mistaken world opinion lies with them. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this, that if during the past ten years their anxiety to come into power had not been greater than their love for South Africa, and if they had opposed us in the normal way in the political struggle. South Africa would to-day not have been landed in the unpleasant position in which we find ourselves overseas and also here. I accuse the Leader of the Opposition and his party of that and even more than their party, I accuse the Press supporting them and the correspondents who are used to send reports overseas in the most unsavoury manner conceivable in the hope that external pressure will frighten the people of South Africa and bring the Government to a fall. I accuse them of being the main cause of everything South Africa has to endure to-day.

I want to go a step further. I accuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of still being prepared to increase the panic at this moment whilst South Africa is going through a difficult period. He must know that his actions can cause further harm to South Africa, also financially. He adopts the methods of his predecessor. After the defeat of the United Party in 1948, his predecessor said that the banks would close and that other terrible things would happen, hoping that economic pressure would bring the Government to a fall. Now at this moment we get this scaremongering. The Leader of the Opposition is busy increasing the panic amongst those people who might lose confidence in South Africa at this time as the result of what is happening at UN or elsewhere by making these accusations and referring to the outflow of capital, instead of coming along with a calm and logical exposition as to what attitude should be adopted in South Africa against these unfair attacks. I accuse him of rather trying to cause panic, still hoping that his party will get into power as the result of it.

There is no reason for panic. All the signs show that White Government will be maintained in South Africa. That is the test set by the capitalist in regard to his willingness to allow his capital to remain in South Africa. Have hon. members opposite not noticed yet that everywhere where the partnership policy, which the Leader of the Opposition now also favours, is applied, capital disappears? That is what is happening, e.g. in Kenya, where farm prices have dropped to floor level. Capital is being withdrawn there on a large scale. Have they not yet noticed how this tendency is already apparent in the Federation, just to the north of us, where the pressure exerted by Britain to have the same partnership policy applied also results in an outflow of capital? But still the Leader of the Opposition tries to create the impression that a policy should be applied in South Africa similar to that which is applied in other territories, and that this will save us. But then there will really be an outflow of capital!

I want to tell the investors in South Africa that this Government will remain in power because it is still increasingly enjoying the support of the people of South Africa. They need therefore not be afraid to continue to invest capital here. They will experience the same stability here which they have found in the past.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about South Africa in 1948 as a “ land of promise and high hope ”. Do hon. members opposite not remember in what state they handed South Africa over to us? Do they not remember the tremendously chaotic economic conditions which then existed? [Interjections.] Do they not remember the miserable slum conditions in which they handed over the Bantu of South Africa to us? Do they not remember how we were compelled to remedy all these things? The United Party Government fell in 1948 because the voters of South Africa were dissatisfied with them, because the voters even had to queue up to get food. The voters of South Africa not only left the United Party in the lurch but consciously rejected it. Because thereafter there was continuous rebuilding, the people elected and re-elected this Government on every possible occasion. Therefore he should not talk about the “land of promise and high hope ” in 1948.

He also said that there was no room in our policy of apartheid for the Indians and the Coloureds. I will deal with that matter in the course of my speech, but I just want immediately to controvert a few of the points he made in this regard. He asked: How can one believe in apartheid if the numbers of Bantu in the cities are now more than ever before? But the hon. member surely knows that we repeatedly stated that the process of separation was a long-term one, that the rehabilitation of the Native reserves could not take place too fast if the economic life of South Africa was not to be disrupted and if in the meantime the normal development around our cities also had to take place. We continually said that these changes could not take place overnight, but that at some stage the outflow of Natives to their developing areas and border areas would catch up with the need for Native labour in the country. We said that the numbers of the urban Bantu would still increase for a long time to come. I think the Tomlinson Commission even mentioned the year 1978 as being the turning point. We continually said that the fact that there was now an increase, within certain limits, was not in conflict with our expectations in regard to the successful progress of the policy of apartheid. We said that we could not, after all the neglect of the United Party, bring this inflow to a standstill immediately. We said that for the time being it would still increase. The figures do not shock us. They reflect the expected development. But then I want to say that if the United Party, with its policy of having no influx control (as adumbrated sometimes, although it now again recognizes the need for it) had been in power since 1948, with the attitude it adopted, the inflow into the cities would have been infinitely greater than it is now. This is the important point, viz., that we controlled the uncontrollable influx there was at that time. That is the important point, and not the point mentioned by the hon. member.

The hon. member also complains that in the meantime we spent RIO in the cities for the benefit of the Bantu as against every R2 spent in the reserves. But naturally. We had to incur this expenditure in the process of clearing up this chaos, particularly in regard to housing, and to provide education for the children of the Bantu which the United Party had left us to deal with in the cities, and also to allow development in various other spheres of life to take place there, which we grant the Bantu there in the transitional period as long as they work in our area as guests …

Guests?

Yes, guests. We had to make all that provision and clear up the bad conditions. It is obvious that this immediately required the expenditure of large sums of money in respect of the urban Bantu who in the transitional period still have to remain there for a long time. That was due to the fact that the Bantu in the cities had been neglected during the United Party regime, the Bantu whom the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says they love so much.

In so far as the reserves are concerned, we immediately had to start rehabilitating a completely neglected area. The fact is that in the process of rehabilitating these areas one had to start gradually and could only increase the tempo as one went along. Therefore the initial expenditure was small and perhaps the progress was slow, but the tempo of development will gradually increase and the expenditure will also increase. The figures mentioned by the hon. member therefore mean nothing at all.

I regret that I had to spend so much time in replying to the arguments of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because I felt that on this first possible opportunity it was necessary for me rather to review the position in detail, and as I said before, very calmly. Now one should be realistic and remember that it is very easy for all kinds of thinkers and writers and speakers to evolve theories as to what they would have done in any given circumstances. It is the easiest thing in the world to set a pattern on paper for any undertaking, whether it is a business or an industry or the development of the country, but it is something quite different to apply those plans in practice and to implement them. When one is dealing with the psychology of human beings and with all kinds of problems and shortcomings in regard to human talents and skills and with financial problems, then planning and implementation are two different things. Here in South Africa our problem in regard to bringing about a great socio-economic change is so much more complicated because one is dealing not only with the psychology of the Whites, of developed people, but also with the psychology of the Bantu and the apathy with which one still has to cope to a large extent in trying to bring about any development. Therefore I want to repeat that it is very easy to give advice, even in regard to this matter. I am quite prepared and even anxious to hear the opinions of different persons and critics. I have no objection to it. I would have liked to have the opportunity, which of course one does not have, to talk to all these critics. Then they would often experience how their arguments collapse when they are faced with the hard realities of life. At a time like the present one must consider the matter logically, from the foundation upwards. I shall now try to do so.

In the first place I want to ask hon. members to consider UNO. What sort of organization is it to-day, and what are the forces and the motives operating in that organization? In recent years a development has taken place at UN which was not foreseen and particularly not when that body was established, viz. by the addition of the large number of new states, particularly in Africa but also in Asia. That created a bloc of countries which were completely inexperienced even so far as their own government was concerned, and much more so in regard to international policy. These states began to stand together under the influence of a force which is tremendously dangerous to the world, viz. Communism. There is Clearly a communist bloc of countries in UN which is trying to divert civilization, as we know it, into a direction which they desire. As against that, we have the Western countries with which we are closely connected. In addition the position has developed that the Afro-Asian bloc of nations, often over-hastily and without due consideration but with their own motives, have co-operated to attain their own objects. There is therefore the struggle between the Western bloc and the Russian bloc and both of them seek the support of the Afro-Asian bloc, those countries described as the uncommitted nations or states which have not yet chosen sides. Within limits it may perhaps be said that they are not committed, but I am not convinced in my own mind that they are all as uncommitted as they profess to be. It seems to me that many of them are becoming thoroughly committed, mostly to Russia, but in the meantime they still derive all the benefits from the Western nations they can possibly get. South Africa is landed in the position where both sides attack her, not because it is really a country in which injustice is done, because in fact it is a peaceful country, but because in this way the friendship of the Afro-Asian countries can be sought. It is true that clashes arise here now and again, as they do in any other part of the world when law and order have to be maintained, but in general there is much greater peace in the Union than in most other countries and certainly more than in countries which, like us, have different population groups. The question one should really ask is: Why is this peaceful country which is busy uplifting the backward sections of the population, the non-Whites (although there are various ideas as to how that should be done), being selected as being the one for which trouble should continually be caused? We have not had any serious racial clashes and still do not have them. However, racial conflicts have already been caused here to some extent and will perhaps be caused to an increasing extent. To an increasing extent we shall have to protect ourselves against that. But it is mostly instigated from abroad and sometimes by incitement from within whilst the Government is trying to bring about reforms for their benefit. One finds the reply to this “ Why? ” without any doubt in the position created in the world by the struggle of Communism for world domination and not so much in local factors. The result is that the Western nations, in their anxiety to withstand the communist forces (and I say their understandable anxiety) adopt every possible means to keep the Afro-Asian countries on their side or on their side as much as possible. That is now taking place to the detriment of South Africa. I am now referring to the harm being caused to South Africa in the sense that when the Afro-Asian countries (in many cases for their own internal reasons) attack South Africa and wish to have demonstrations to express their own ideas, then the Western nations adopt the attitude that they dare no longer dissociate themselves from the attacks on South Africa. They join in the attack even though they know that the grounds on which the attacks are made are not well-founded. Gradually, in their own political interest and for the sake of their own economic advantages, these nations are being dragged in on the side of those communist and uncommitted states in their struggle against South Africa. In actual fact it is not really a struggle against South Africa but more of a demonstration by those Afro-Asian leaders for the sake of their influence in their own countries. They often have to hide the bad conditions in their own countries which they cannot remedy. Sometimes they behave in this way towards South Africa in order to gain the reputation of what sound, strong, leading Black states they are which can take action against a White state or against the White man. We are landing in trouble because of the interests and motives of other states. It is so utterly unfair and so utterly unwise of the Western nations to allow South Africa to have landed in that position and to let it remain there. Now I want to try to explain in the first place …

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? Is it his idea that the Western nations are trying to gain the favour of the Afro-Asian countries and that they regard South Africa as a country which is expendable?

Yes, unfortunately. I shall, however, be glad if hon. members to-day will be so kind as to interrupt me as little as possible. I do not want to be discourteous but I would like to deal with all these points seriatim. If I do not deal with any thoughts which arise in the minds of hon. members they have an opportunity to speak and I will reply to them when I rise again. I say it is extremely unfair that we should be treated in this way at UN, for diverse reasons. The following are a few of those reasons. The first is that in regard to our treatment of the Bantu—in the first place, I am now going to discuss the Bantu in general, in regard to whom UN is so concerned, and later I will discuss the urban Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, so that hon. members should not think that I am evading these problems—we as a Government have a policy which does not aim at oppressing the Bantu. On the contrary, it aims at giving the Bantu his own country. In other words, it is a policy which does precisely what those countries of Africa which attack us desire to have themselves. They have forced their colonial rulers to give them their freedom. That is what happened in the case of Ghana, Nigeria and others. They do not want the Bantu of South Africa to have what they themselves desired and obtained, and as the result of which they now have the opportunity to attack us! The emergent African states want to force our Bantu into a sort of multi-racial community, whereas they did not want it for themselves. They wanted to have Black states, and we quite understand that aim. That is why we are prepared in terms of our policy to give the opportunity for separate development to the Bantu races of South Africa.

In the second place, these attacks are so unfair because we do not seek to apply a form of discrimination which denies these people human dignity and human rights. We apply a policy which is in fact intended to give them dignity and rights in the highest form, namely through self-government and self-determination. It is true that during the transition period these problems will continue to exist, as in other countries. But in every country of the world we find discrimination to-day under the pretext that it is a period of transition. That is even the case in the U.S.A., the biggest and most powerful Western nation. This attack by UNO is unfair because in so far as its political objects are concerned the Government of the Union is striving to attain the very thing that UNO says is its object.

Thirdly, these attacks are unfair because in respect of providing a good socio-economic existence South Africa has in fact done more and is doing more and intends doing more for its Bantu than any Black state of Africa or any colonial power in Africa has done for its territory and its people. I say without hesitation that the socio-economic situation of the Bantu is better in the Union of South Africa than in any Black country of Africa. I say, further, that in regard to the average economic welfare there are many Bantu in South Africa who live on a higher level than the ordinary citizens in many of the countries of the world, and their average prosperity is still improving. Do hon. members know why? Does UN know why? Because there was a tradition of segregation, together with the principle that every group should be given the right to serve its own people. Can hon. members imagine what would have happened to the Bantu’s right to possess land if throughout the past 100 years it was not our tradition to discriminate in favour of the Bantu? Would the Bantu of South Africa not have lost all their land under a policy of equality during the past 100 years? Would there have been a Transkeian territory? Would there have been a Zululand? Would there have been any Bantu area if the policy of equality had been adopted 80 or 100 years ago? In the light of this, UN should at least give South Africa credit for this, that as the result of its policy of segregation the Bantu retained everything he had. That did not happen, in so far as the Native peoples are concerned, in the other countries which now condemn us. It is not even the position in Canada, which took the lead in the attacks on us, in regard to its Red Indians or its Esquimos. Not only did the Bantu retain his land as the result of this policy of segregation, but on that basis the White Government also cared for his welfare in other respects. I have already said that the South African Bantu has a higher standard of living than any other Native population in Africa. That is according to UN’s own statistics, and UN also knows that all these benefits are due to the Whites. If it had not been for White rule, if it had not been for White government and initiative, the Bantu would not have reached that higher standard of living. Is it right then that a country which has done so much, which can lay claim to greater credit with regard to the treatment of its Bantu population than any of the countries which now damn us, should be condemned and accused, as we are accused in the motion before UNO, of discrimination and oppression? Does that not prove that in attacking South Africa they are actuated by motives other than truth and moral justice?

Here in South Africa the standard of literacy amongst our Bantu is higher than in most of the Asiatic countries even with their centuries-old culture, and in the next ten years we will probably reach the stage where the Bantu generally will be literate in the sense that they will at least be able to read, write and do arithmetic. I challenge any one of those Asiatic or Africa countries, as I also did at the Commonwealth Conference, to give me the same assurance in respect of their own country. Not one of them was able to do so, not India, not Pakistan, not Ghana, not Nigeria, not Malaya. Is it right then that South Africa, which is already doing this for her Bantu, should be damned as is happening to-day?

The same applies to health care. Take the tempo of the growth of the population: Nowhere are the health services such that it is possible for the population to increase as rapidly as it is increasing in South Africa. The White man has possibly brought misery upon himself because he has looked so well after the Bantu; because he has allowed the Bantu population to grow so rapidly by looking after them so well. Do we get no consideration from UNO for the fact that we have done everything that is humanly possible? Should they simply be allowed to fulminate against us and to call us oppressors, in the face of the clearest evidence to the contrary? What right, what moral basis, have they for these attacks? I could read out quotations here to show the backwardness in areas controlled by the best of them. I want to mention the case of Basutoland. In the Cape Argus of 8 April we find this report—

Here, in a neighbouring territory, one of the Bantu officials talks about the extremely unsatisfactory conditions; he points out that they cannot get doctors, that the people are leaving, that there are 10,000 tuberculosis which cannot get assistance, etc. This is a British territory, a territory which Britain has looked after for years, a territory which has now been given some sort of self-government. It is practically on our door-step. The mighty Britain has been unable to do for its Bantu there what we are doing here for our Bantu. Nevertheless we are damned and even Britain is going to vote for a resolution which says that we are oppressors. And nothing is said about her. We may be told that we have a colour bar here. Well, here I have a report which appeared in the newspapers recently and which emanates from the Acting State Secretary of the Swaziland Territory, Mr. J. C. Martin. He was telephoned by a newspaper from Johannesburg—I do not know whether it was by the Transvaler or the Vaderland; I am sorry I did not make a note of it—and this is what he said—

“ Irresponsible ” rumours that the colour bar in Swaziland is going to be lifted—in what is Native territory? The report then goes on to set out how only certain chosen Swazis with a high status are allowed to buy liquor and what restrictions and permit arrangements exist in connection with the purchase of liquor. It goes on to explain that the White population of Swaziland, on a percentage basis, has increased greatly since the war; that the White population and the Coloured population—on a proportion or percentage basis of course—have increased much more than the Swazi population itself. In other words, there we have a gradual invasion of a Black territory by Whites —with a colour bar. That is allowed to happen in a Black territory but it does no harm, and Britain is still allowed to exercise full dominion over the Black man’s Swaziland! Even in Basutoland where she has granted them a Constitution, she still has the final say —almost dictatorial control. South Africa, however, although she compares very favourably with the best—and I say the best because Britain is certainly one of the best Africa authorities—is still accused and slandered. We are damned for not making more rapid progress in the process of uplifting our Bantu, in spite of the fact that this small, little country, the Union of South Africa, has tried to improve conditions as rapidly as possible. Is that fair on the part of a world organization? Can it expect us to have any respect for it, can it expect any inclination on our part to listen to it, if it passes judgment without taking these facts into consideration? When it acts in this way we know perfectly well that there are ulterior motives behind it.

Fourthly, one asks oneself the following question: Must we not bear in mind also that while this same body condemned what happened at Sharpeville and Langa and drags it in on every conceivable occasion, it passed no resolutions with regard to Hungary; that no resolutions were introduced there in regard to the million people who were ruined in the struggle when the partition between India and Pakistan took place; that no resolutions came before it in connection with what happened in the Congo and the distress suffered by Whites there; that no resolutions were introduced when the Mau Mau activities were going on in Kenya and when they should have been suppressed with a firm hand? Can one get justice from a body, can one take notice of its resolutions, of its condemnation of oneself and of its attacks upon one when it closes its eyes to similar, more serious incidents?

Mr. Chairman, I say that the way we are being treated is unfair because apparently the only yardstick which counts to-day is supposed to be freedom. What freedom? Nothing counts except the vote—a vote of any kind! Let us take a look at the nations which sit in judgment upon us to-day. Although we do want to give the vote, but in different ways, although we want to grant self-government but not on the lines that they prefer, they condemn us. But who are the countries who sit in judgment upon us? Amongst others, Russia, Poland and Hungary—communist countries. What is the franchise worth there? How many million of the millions in Russia are able to exercise the vote freely according to their convictions? De we ever hear of resolutions passed at UNO in that regard in which they say that in these countries there is oppression of fellow-citizens, indeed of huge majorities of fellow-citizens? No, we do not hear a single word about it. The other nations which condemn and damn us, even our so-called friends, agree with these countries which damn us, knowing full well that the conditions in the countries which I have mentioned are so much less democratic, from the point of view also of the future plans of these governments. As a further example, what is the position in respect of the franchise in a country like Ghana? What is the value of the vote to people whose stage of development is such that they have to vote for a crane or a rhinoceros, otherwise they do not know how to cast their vote? Of what value can the vote be to people who in many respects are perishing of misery? What is the value of the vote when the Opposition is imprisoned and the Leader of the Opposition is threated to such an extent that he has to go to another country? Is that the type of country which is entitled to join others in condemning and damning our treatment of our Bantu, Coloureds, Indians or any other section? I do not know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should laugh about this. [Interjections.] I cannot imagine that he has much respect for his own country. I am trying to defend our country—not my country, our country. [Interjections.] And the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) is no better …

I fought for my country. What have you done?

When I try to defend our country, as I am doing at the moment, against the voices of Russia, Poland, Hungary and Ghana, hon. members on the other side sit there laughing. But I want to go even further. One of the countries which voted here is the Congo. The representative of the Congo has the temerity to say in respect of us that they propose to vote for the 24-power resolution, the one which calls for punitive measures against us—the representative of the Congo! Everybody knows what is happening there. The representative of Cuba, who says that what exists in South Africa to-day is a state of war, is also popular now and that is why he too votes for such a resolution! That is Cuba, where there is strife and discord —and every American knows what to think about Cuba. But Cuba and the Congo are his partners in damning South Africa! Sir, can we have any respect for such a resolution?

In the fifth place, it is unreasonable on the part of our attackers there to attack us when in point of fact wherever this so-called freedom comes, it is usually accompanied by a flight of capital and the perpetration of injustices against the White man in various ways. I mention the example of Kenya and the Federation. Does it really improve the welfare and the prospects of the Black people in those countries when they are given this so-called freedom, which is accompanied by the vote, when the capitalists who are so much in favour of it withdraw from those countries in the long run? If there is any danger in the economic sphere in South Africa at the moment, then that is so simply because these people are afraid that we Whites will not be able to hold out. If they can only have the assurance that we shall be able to retain control, that these threats mean nothing, they will remain here and leave their investments here It is because they fear that we will have to submit and that in the long run this may lead to difficulties and defeat and incompetent Black rule and disorder, that they fear a depreciation in the value of their assets. If they can only have the assurance that we are strong enough to hold out, they and their money will remain here. I just want to add that it has not helped us in the least to furnish information in regard to everything we are doing. In 1959 the Minister of External Affairs explained our Bantu homeland policy at UNO. That was the first explanation that was given there. We did therefore go and defend our case there. I say that because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked why we do not do so. Subsequently some of the representatives, including the representative of Ghana, approached Minister Louw and said that they had not realized this and that they were grateful for the explanation: that it had thrown new light on the matter for them. Within a year, however, they had forgotten all about it, because then it paid them once again to attack and to try to hinder and prejudice South Africa in various ways.

Again I ask: Why all this; why, in the light of these facts, do we find that even countries which should stand with us, are leaving us in the lurch? I say again that clearly the background is this, that Communism seeks to dominate the world and in that regard Africa as well as Asia is of the utmost importance to it. Communism can only thrive where there is unrest. It started by stirring up unrest in the north of Africa and then extended its activities further and further south until today it is interfering not only with our affairs but also with the affairs of neighbouring territories. The agitation which is taking place there and here, is partly due to direct incitement but partly also to the conditioning of people who, in their opinion, have a liberal outlook and who do not realize that they are becoming an instrument in the hands of Communism. In that category I include, amongst others, certain Churches. They do not realize that they are preparing the way. They are preparing the way not for what they believe will bring peace in South Africa—a mixed state under the control of orderly, civilized people from the various racial groups, made possible by a rigid Constitution, as the members of the Progressive Party would have them believe—they are preparing the way for the ousting of the existing order by disorder, a state of affairs which will be to the benefit of those powers of darkness. In that way then the Western world will lose the powers (“ kragte ”) in Africa—both South Africa and the African states—which they are now seeking to win over. The Western nations are playing their own game in an attempt to prevent this— because that is what they are doing. I am convinced that that is precisely what America, England. France, Australia and the other Western nations want to prevent and to that end they have chosen a certain method, but that method is wrong.

Everybody is wrong.

If the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) will exercise a little patience, I shall tell him why it is wrong. Those countries are following their policy of appeasement for two reasons: International politics is not the only reason; there is also the selfish motive—their own economic interests. For the sake of their own enrichment and their own international trade they would like to have the sympathy and friendship of these Afro-Asian nations, and not one of them—even though they know that everything I have just said is the truth, and even though they know that the action which is being taken against us is unjust—dares to act differently from the rest of the Western nations. They do not want to be branded too as supporters of anything against the will of the Afro-Asian nations, because they do not want to lose the chance of international trade with them or the co-operation of the Afro-Asian countries in the forums of the world. Let me now tell the Committee what I consider wrong in the method that they adopt, and I take as an example what happened at the Commonwealth Conference, because that illustrates to me what is happening in the world.

There were two courses that were open to Britain in her attempt and honest desire to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth. In other words, I accept that she honestly desired to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth. This was also advocated strongly by Mr. Macmillan when he was here in South Africa. We had the same intention. We both acknowledged the other party’s honest desire in this connection. The British Government felt that their best chance to persuade the Afro-Asian members in particular to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth was to adopt the following tactics: I want to say here that I am not making things up now; I was told that these tactics were going to be adopted. I say that I believe these tactics were wrong, but if they were going to follow those tactics I would have to agree because it is their plan of action. The tactics were these, that those who were not in favour of our policy of apartheid, because they believe in the policy of partnership, would not only say so honestly but that they would state it very strongly, even more strongly than they would have preferred to say it to us Hon. members will recall that in Mr. Macmillan’s speech here he talked about the difference in the circumstances of South Africa as compared with conditions in other parts of Africa and he stated that he realized that we did not view matters in the same light as they did. If hon. members read this speech, they will find that paragraph in it. At the Conference, however, he adopted the attitude that they wanted to say in clear terms to the other members: “ We differ from South Africa’s policy, just as you differ from it.” While saying this, the British authorities would go further and side with the other members, without reservations and without giving any indication that they realized that we viewed matters differently, in condemning South Africa in every respect as far as her policy is concerned. The result of this was that although Britain believed that by doing this she would be able to convince the other Prime Ministers that they could follow her lead since Britain shared their views but nevertheless wished to retain the Union as a member of the Commonwealth, she did not convince them. Mr. Macmillan believed that like him they would say, “ We are strongly opposed to the policy, but for different reasons we too, just like Britain, want to keep the Union as a member of the Commonwealth.” Instead of working out that way, it appeared at the meeting, contrary to the expectations of the British leaders as the result of their prior discussions, that the Afro-Asian nations and Canada were adopting the attitude, “No, we are not prepared to join you in just condemning the Union and then nevertheless allowing her to remain within the Commonwealth. We want demands to be made that will force South Africa to abandon her policy.” In other words, in that way the Commonwealth would then interfere with the policy not only by talking about it but by laying down principles which would require to be implemented or by expecting promises of concessions at the meeting itself before agreeing to continued membership. As I have already said, it was impossible to allow such a thing. I am making this point only to make it clear that Britain thought that she would succeed in keeping us within the Commonwealth if she associated herself fully with the Afro-Asian countries in speaking out and attacking South Africa’s policy. In that way she hoped to get their co-operation to do what she was anxious for them to do. She did not succeed, however, and in my opinion it was because of this very method of appeasement. It is and always has been my conviction that if Mr. Macmillan had not adopted those tactics but the following (which I believe he was capable of doing and in my opinion would have been more reasonable) we would still have been a member of the Commonwealth. In other words, he could have adopted the following attitude: “ I disagree entirely with the apartheid policy of the Union Government because I believe in a policy of partnership, but I do accept, although I am going to attack it in that regard, that the Union Government with its policy is trying along different lines to do justice to the various groups. I believe that they are honestly and genuinely trying to do justice to the Bantu, the Indian and the Coloured. I do not think they are going to succeed in applying their policy but I do not query their good and humane intentions.” If they had said that and strongly insisted that here we have two methods of obtaining human rights, of which they prefer the one, together with the other members, and South Africa the other, a method which did not make South Africa an unsuitable member to retain, there would have been a different spirit. After all, the fact of the matter is that South Africa is not trying to destroy human dignity but she needs time to re-shape conditions by means of separation, just like any other country during a period of transition. If Britain had adopted the attitude, “ Let us give South Africa time and see if those things work out as they say they visualize ”, and had not adopted the attitude of unconditionally choosing sides against us in order to retain her own strong position vis-à-vis these countries, whatever may become of us, then in my opinion the others would have agreed to this proposal. If she had tried to adopt a stronger attitude, in spite of her difference of opinion, in respect of the virtues contained in our policy, then the other countries would not have been placed in the position where they believed that they could make demands in the knowledge that they would inevitably drag Britain with them, because she would then have compromised herself already.

I am convinced that what is being tried in the world to-day is precisely the same. The Western nations would like to have the support of the African nations in their struggle against Communism. There are certain communist countries which are using the White state of South Africa as a convenient target to besmirch not only South Africa but the whole of the West in the eyes of the Black man in Africa. There are certain African states which are using the same method to increase their prestige in the eyes of other Black states as the deliverers of the Blacks from the rule of the White man. The Western nations now come along and throw in their full weight by participating with this group of other nations in this condemnation of South Africa in the hope of winning over to their side the Afro-Asian nations. I do not believe they will succeed. The method defeats the aim, because in this way the hatred against all Whites is strengthened. I think those nations will make use of the West to the utmost, not only against us but in all sorts of ways for their own benefit, and then when it suits them they will drop the West like a hot brick. Furthermore, I am convinced that if the Western nations had adopted a different attitude and had said that they differ from our colour policy but are prepared to give us a chance to prove that we are capable of carrying it out, so that they can see for themselves whether, by means of our method of four parellelisms we afford opportunities of legitimate development to the Bantu and the other racial groups, there would have been a better spirit towards us and towards all White nations. By representing South Africa to the African states not as rogues and oppressors but as people who are trying in a difficult situation to do the best for everybody and who need a certain amount of time for the transition period, they would have helped to build up our prestige in the eyes of the countries of Africa rather than help to destroy it. If they had encouraged the countries of Africa to make use of all the aid and assistance that we are prepared to give them in many spheres, then I am also convinced that their chances of winning friends in Africa for us and also for them would have been much greater than they are by adopting the tactics which the Western nations are using to-day, namely, this policy of appeasement at our expense.

Let me also add this: Hard experience may still bring it home to the countries of the world that in South Africa they have an outpost of civilization which, come what may, will stand by the Western nations, and that if this state is destroyed, the gateway between the East and the West will fall into the hands of the forces of chaos, which will bring about the very thing that they are fighting against. It may also bring home to them that we really intend fully to apply a humane policy, without practising discrimination, to all our colour groups, although on lines which differ from the method in which they believe. I believe that that is going to be brought home to them and I see a future for South Africa therefore in spite of all the difficult times that we have to experience to-day.

The next question that I want to deal with arising out of this is the following: It has been alleged that Britain’s new attitude and that of Australia and perhaps also that of France is really the outcome of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth and that it is the direct cause of what is happening to-day in the voting at UNO. Let me assure hon. members that that is not true. The changed attitude to vote against South Africa now has nothing to do with that. Let me tell hon. members why I say that so specifically. When Mr. Macmillan came to us in South Africa a year and a half ago he came inter alia to tell us that, if in the future certain resolutions were proposed at UNO in respect of apartheid and other issues, resolutions which were acceptable to Britain, he would have to sacrifice the principle of non-intervention, because in his opinion he could no longer offer resistance, having regard to his interests—the interests to which I referred a moment ago. In his speech here the British Prime Minister lightheartedly dropped a hint in that direction, but in conversations with me he did not hint at it but said so candidly. It was not for me to disclose this before Britain proceeded to take such a step. I could not disclose this to my Parliament or to the public because, although this was a direct notification, it was a notification about something which had not yet materialized, and he himself hoped that these circumstances would not arise but that the position would be alleviated. Britain’s changed attitude, therefore, is not the result of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth; it would have happened in any event. He adopted this attitude long before any decision had been taken about the establishment of a republic or almost the question of attending the Commonwealth Conference. At that stage already Britain felt that she could no longer regard South Africa’s policy as a matter that was covered by Article 2 (7); it had allegedly become a matter of wider importance! I myself argued with Mr. Macmillan on this point. I said: “ But what happens to your basic standpoint? For ten years we have fought together for the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs and for the maintenance of Article 2 (7) in respect of our colour policy.” His attitude was more or less the following: One cannot always cling to a principle, that when the time comes for him to yield, he must make adaptations. Call it political opportunism if you like but the Government of a country must trim its sails to the wind, and that is what has become necessary here. [Interjections.] Mr. Macmillan adopted the attitude that one must not regard oneself as so bound by certain principles that one cannot adapt oneself to changed circumstances. That means trimming one’s sails to the wind. These are his words. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me repeat it. Mr. Macmillan said that one could not blindly follow principles; that when circumstances change he must be prepared to make adaptations. I say that in my opinion that is tantamount to trimming one’s sails to the wind. The result is that what happened here did not come as a surprise to us. It is definitely not the result of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. If hon. members think that I am not reflecting Mr. Macmillan’s attitude correctly, I want to add that I reacted to it and said that I was not prepared to adopt such an attitude. In my opinion a Government must stand on the principles in which it believes and that if there comes a time when the electorate no longer believes in those principles itself, the Government must be rejected and replaced by a Government which does believe in the other principles which the electorate is prepared to support.

A further point that has arisen is the following: How does the voting at UNO affect South Africa’s friendship with Britain? There are various newspapers which have adopted the attitude that this is a personal slap in the face for me. The Daily Mail in England said so. Other newspapers in South Africa have said, “ This beautiful friendship is over ” and that we are isolated to-day. That was alleged by the Cape Times.

I want to say how I think this will affect the friendship between Britain and South Africa and the other members. It need not necessarily, and it ought not, to affect it. Neither do I think it will affect it, because as mature politicians on both sides we were fully aware of what would happen at UNO and what the attitude was of our different Governments and countries. In spite of that we were anxious on both sides to retain what we could retain, for the benefit of our respective countries, by way of goodwill and friendship and good relationships. That is the realistic attitude which any politician adopts, and has to adopt, in the international sphere. There are major clashes between Britain and Russia on the question of policy, but she nevertheless tries to maintain certain connections and friendship with Russia. She even clashes with her very good friend, the United States of America. Do hon. members remember the clash between those two countries on the Suez question? In spite of that clash, which even caused the downfall of the British Prime Minister, the same Government continued to remain friendly and to develop and even to strengthen that friendship with the U.S.A. as it is to-day. In other words, you have to guard against it that clashes in respect of a certain matter between countries who are friendly do not ruin that friendship in respect of other matters. I disapprove of it that because we have unfortunately clashed in respect of one matter, any politician or newspaper in South Africa or anywhere else should try to drive in a wedge between us and our friends seeing that we still have so many things in common and share so many interests. It is my policy therefore to exert all my energies to promote that friendship and not to lose my perspective because of those clashes which I think were very unfortunate but which could not be avoided.

I want to say further that you should not be unreasonable about Britain’s attitude at UNO. In many respects she still acted as a friend would, because those 24 countries introduced a motion which asked for punitive measures against South Africa, but Britain supported the motion of the three or four Asiatic nations and even added that she objected to two points in that motion. The one was the request for joint and undivided action and the other the statement that our internal affairs lead to international clashes. In other words, within the limits of what was in her own interests, she tried to prevent more serious steps from being taken. Surely I can regard that as a friendly act, in spite of the fact that I cannot agree that she should have acted the way she did act.

I want to make another point. In the case of Britain is there not friendship even between her and other Commonwealth countries with whom she differs on the one or other question? This has, therefore, not merely flowed from the recent happenings. Do hon. members think that Britain approves of Ghana’s violation of democracy? Britain’s political outlook on internal government is based on democratic principles and she condemns the violation of that democracy perhaps even more strenuously than she condemns our apartheid policy, but she nevertheless remains friends with Ghana and she want to retain Ghana within the Commonwealth just as she wanted to keep us there. Friendship is not tested by actions in one or other respect, alone Sir. Your outlook should be matured and balanced, and you should try to retain everything you can in the international sphere. [Laughter.] If hon. members opposite, like the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) laugh about that, they are naïve; more than naïve. Is it not to the detriment of your country to insinuate by laughter that by keeping our balance in the international political game, we are not trying to retain the bonds of friendship with: Britain because of the benefits that flow from that friendship to South Africa? Must they laugh about that?

No, I did not laugh about that.

Sir, you ask yourself the further question why Britain has renounced the principle laid down by Article 2 (7). Why does she also adopt the attitude to-day that a matter which is an internal concern of ours, namely, how to promote the interests of the various population groups under a policy of uni-racial development, is no longer governed by the principle of non-interference? The excuse, of course, is that this has become a point of dispute amongst the nations and that it has repercussions beyond our borders and that it has consequently assumed a wider meaning and greater significance and that it is consequently no longer such a domestic affair as it was originally thought to be. I say that is nothing more than an excuse because, if you accept that that is the position, you must accept that if any country wishes to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, it is only necessary to raise a hullabaloo for a sufficiently long period for various other countries to start talking about it. In that case it will only be necessary for a dissatisfied country to introduce motions concerning the domestic affairs of another country at UNO year after year, to create the impression that it is something which is causing difficulty elsewhere. It is only necessary to create sufficient tension deliberately and any domestic issue can be elevated to international level. That is why I say it is simply an excuse. The real reason is that these friendly Western nations are afraid that by remaining aloof and by remaining true to their principles, they will become estranged from the vast number of Afro-Asian nations and therefore lose their economic and political influence. Perhaps some of them are afraid that they like South Africa, will land in the dock because many of them themselves are vulnerable. In other words, this is a process of reconciliation, of appeasement, and in this process they are even prepared to regard friendly countries as expendable or as countries to be sacrificed. Britain’s approach towards the African countries which were under her control, is an approach from her own point of view. She was interested in various types of countries. She was interested in certain countries which would undoubtedly have become Black states, such as Ghana and Nigeria and also in countries where there was a fairly large number of White settlers such as Kenya, and she was interested in countries like Rhodesia where there was a very large White population. What attitude did she adopt throughout? Initially she controlled and governed all of them and that assisted in keeping her international status high. When she could no longer maintain that she was prepared to relinquish that control. In the case of the Black states such as Nigeria and Ghana she was prepared from the beginning to sacrifice them completely in that she handed over their independent control to those nations. But in the case of those countries where there was a fairly large number of White people she hoped to retain control, indirectly through the White people who were living there, by making limited concessions. Towards that end she introduced her partnership policy. As a matter of fact she wanted the control to be in the hands of the White people as long as possible and that was why she tried to apply the policy of a “ junior ” partnership for the non-Whites. That was tried in Kenya but it did not work. Within a very short time the Black junior member demanded not only to become a senior partner but to have sole control or a form of participation in the control that would lead to it. As this process developed Britain no longer regarded it to be in her interests to resist the demands of the Black man. She was prepared therefore also to allow those states to become Black states and to relinquish the control, under guarantee in a constitution, which she had through the White man, and even in the long run to sacrifice the White man’s chance to continued existence. Unfortunately this process is even operating in the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, where we also have the position that Britain tried initally to retain control through the White man in the form of a junior partnership but as the position becomes more difficult she is beginning to reconcile herself to the fact that Nyasaland is potentially a Black state, and that is apparently also how she feels about Northern Rhodesia. It is true that they talk about a non-racial state, but nobody is bluffed by that. Everybody realizes into whose hands the power will fall if further concessions have to be made. Therefore we have the fact that Britain’s interests (to maintain its position and its influence with those whom it regards in such territories as being in the majority and potentially the strongest, viz. the Black people) make it follow that policy. It adapts itself to the changing circumstances. We in South Africa should realize what this policy of partnership will lead to in deciding which policy we think is the correct one for us.

That then brings me to our position. What are our circumstances to-day. What is South Africa’s choice in the light of the actions of UN? If I understood the Leader of the Opposition correctly when he criticized us by saying that our oldest friends are deserting us because of our policy and the world is against us, then it seems to me as if he accepts that we have a choice and that he favours some other alternative. To me there is a choice between two things. The one is to ease the pressure by making concessions whatever the consequences may be. It is true that it does not necessarily mean that all the concessions should be made immediately but first to make as few concessions as possible and then to live in the fear of greater and greater demands being made. That is the one alternative, viz. to reduce the pressure by making concessions in regard to our racial policy—not concessions within the policy of separate development, but in the beginning partly to sacrifice the policy of separate development itself. He finds it easy to say that he is prepared to do so because he was never in favour of separate development. The Leader of the Opposition has always been in favour of integration in some form or another. His followers advocated many forms of integration here. He does not even feel bound to any principle in regard to integration; he continually wants to adapt his policy when faults in it are pointed out. That is the one possible choice. The other is to say that this is a fight for the independent continued existence of the Whites as well, although recognizing the same sort of rights for the non-Whites. It is a struggle to ensure our own continued existence by giving to the non-Whites everything the world can reasonably demand; i.e. full development for their nations, but separate from your nation, and your own nation’s development separate from theirs. It seems to me that the choice before South Africa is therefore again what it has often been in this period of external pressure which is being applied: Between reducing the pressure by making concessions and abandoning the policy of separate development and destroying the White man, and secondly, the struggle to give everybody a reasonable existence by retaining the policy of separate development.

In regard to the first alternative, viz. reducing the pressure by making concessions, I must ask this question: Is there anyone who is so naïve as to believe that in the first place the communist countries, and in the second place the Afro-Asian countries, and thirdly, if these two big groups adhere to their demands, also the Western powers which have to try to go along with them for the reasons I have mentioned—is there anyone who is so naïve as to believe that they will remain satisfied with small concessions? They will perhaps accept it and perhaps it will keep the wolf from the door for six months, but then one has allowed one’s feet to be knocked out from under one and one will have to make increasingly more concessions in the direction of integration at an ever increasing pace. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really want to tell me that he believes, to give a concrete example, that if we allow Coloureds to represent Coloureds in this Parliament, Russia and the Russian bloc will halt their fight against us because of it. Will that be the end of any fight against us at UN unless we sacrifice apartheid increasingly? Does he really think that Ghana and Nigeria and the other Afro-Asian countries including India will be satisfied if we merely do that? In other words, here we now have a concrete concession of the type he advocated. I say that he will not be able to stop at that; he will not even be able to stop after having done much more! I want to test this against the Leader of the Opposition’s statement of policy earlier and again to-day. The Leader of the Opposition appeals to the country—so do I. I am prepared to face the test as to whether the country supports the policy in which we believe, the policy of the four parallel streams, or whether it supports the policy in which he now believes, which he calls a racial federation. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that he will satisfy the world by what he now suggests. I also think that he will go far towards satisfying them temporarily if he applies fully what I now understand to be his policy. But I also believe that it will be the end of the White man’s authority in this country if he does so. This is how I now understand his policy: In the first place, that Bantu homelands will be developed similar to, say, provinces. In other words, he does not want full partition eventually with a possible Commonwealth link; he wants less separation; he wants to see South Africa as one common multi-racial fatherland. He therefore wants to have Bantu areas as provinces with a fairly large measure of self-government, but not complete self-government. Secondly, he accepts that the Coloureds for the time being should still be on the separate roll, but that they will be represented here by Coloureds. He is evidently prepared to accept that this will be so merely for the present and that gradually the Coloureds should be put back on the Common Roll together with the Whites, jointly to elect representatives—Whites or Coloureds— in what I call White South Africa but what he does not call White South Africa; in other words, in that part of the country which he calls the mixed province or the multi-racial province of his federation. Thirdly he did not express himself very clearly in regard to the Indians and the warning I issued when previously I gave an interpretation of his standpoint. I asked him to state his standpoint in regard to the Indians very clearly (something which he has not done yet), but I now understand that he does not want to give the Indians representation on the Common Roll at present, but is thinking of giving them representation on a separate voters’ roll in what I call the White areas, but at least for a start by Whites and perhaps later by Indians. Perhaps they will also later have to be put on the Common Roll, because I do not know how in the long run he will differentiate between the Coloured and the Indian in terms of his own view of his policy of political integration. As I understand it, that will be the process of development for the future. In other words, I now accept that what we will have with a view to the eventual federation, when it gets to that stage, is Bantu controlled states or provinces—states in the American sense of the word—and one mixed, or a few mixed provinces, and therefore not one part of South Africa any longer which is exclusively controlled by the Whites. Then a federation will be established with these constituent parts, and that federation must lead to a super Parliament. That will be the real Government of the country, at least in regard to certain matters, like external affairs, defence, etc. That central federal parliament will therefore have Black representatives from the exclusively Bantu states or provinces and there will also be the White or Coloured representatives of the mixed states or provinces. Because the Bantu and the Indians and the Coloureds together form by far the largest section of the population, I must accept that, even though he creates a so-called inflexible or rigid constitution which initially tries to some extent to maintain the balance between majority and minority groups, as the result of which the Whites will have a reasonable say by means of their representation in their mixed provinces, the Blacks must eventually and inevitably in this common entity represent the standpoint of the majority of the population. I accept that in the beginning he does not want this and that he hopes that the rigid constitution will be able to avert it for a long time. In the meantime I have of course omitted to say that he, as I understand him, wants the Bantu in the cities also to be represented in that mixed parliament or those little parliaments. In other words the authority of the Whites will be still further weakened by this. The representation may be through Whites initially, but gradually it will certainly have to be through Blacks. The question is: When we have this superstructure, this central government of the federation controlled by Blacks, will the constitution lower down not be broken down to give domination to the majority of Bantu who will then as urban Bantu also have the franchise in the so-called mixed or multiracial provinces? Surely they will not permanently be satisfied if they do not have equal rights. As I now understand the hon. member in so far as his federation is concerned, it is again a system which must lead to Black domination. The Russian and the Afro-Asian blocs will urge him to arrive at that final point as fast as possible. He will therefore not be able to escape the present quarrel by that means. Natal will be the first of the mixed provinces to come under non-White domination if the urban Bantu and the Coloureds and the Indians are given political rights in this way in terms of such a plan. The world, as we know it now, will force the United Party to that final result in terms of its own policy. In other words, making concessions in terms of the policy of a racial federation may satisfy the critics temporarily but merely because they know that they will then have the basis eventually to obtain precisely everything they want to have, viz. a Black state or chaos in the state—one of the two—in the southern part of Africa.

As against that, even though it may lead to great difficulties, we again unequivocally state the policy of the development of the different race groups. The Bantu will be able to develop into separate Bantu states. That is not what we would have liked to see. It is a form of fragmentation which we would not have liked if we were able to avoid it. In the light of the pressure being exerted on South Africa there is however no doubt that eventually this will have to be done, thereby Buying for the White man his freedom and the right to retain domination in what is his country, settled for him by his forefathers. The problem of giving political rights to the Coloureds and the Indians will then still exist. In this case I accept the rejection of the old proposition that one cannot have a state within a state. I accept firstly that in our state we will have to give the Coloureds opportunities for development firstly by means of their own local governments, secondly by way of managing the sort of thing now falling under the control of the Provincial Councils, viz. their own municipal affairs, the education of their own children and similar matters. Thirdly, I accept that within the White state, and therefore within the same borders, an institution should be established or a method should be evolved to give the Coloureds further rights of self-government over their national interests. The time to decide precisely how and in regard to what this must be done can wait until the development has progressed to that second stage. And precisely the same applies to the Indians. We have already said (I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition says every time that we never talk about the Indians) that in so far as the Indians in South Africa are concerned we will begin by making an adaptation in the Department of the Interior. Just as in the case of Coloured Affairs, a start will be made by developing a division which will in time grow into a Department of Indian Affairs. We shall be prepared to establish a council representing the Indian population to deal with the interests of the Indians, as we did in regard to the Coloureds. We have already said also that as the result of the establishment of group areas we want to give the Indians also full control over their residential areas so that they can have their own local governments on parallel lines, as we envisage for the Coloured community.

And representation here?

No, no representation here. A moment ago I said very clearly in connection with the Coloureds—and I also say it in connection with the Indians—we limit their development to that of a council which will exercise authority over their own affairs, similar to the powers now enjoyed by the provincial authorities. If it is necessary to have further development on those same parallel lines, then we shall have to do so. But I do not visualize that there will be any necessity for representation in a common parliament because I foresee that a different method can be evolved—perhaps in an unorthodox manner —by which each of them can be given full authority and a full life, separate from each other in the political sphere. What we also said very clearly at the same time is that there would be mutual economic dependence. One finds that development in Europe, as I often have said very clearly and unequivocally. The existing economic unit need not be broken up, although in the political sphere there may be this clear separation. I do not say that this system is the ideal one which we would have chosen if we could have had a choice 20 or 30 or more years ago, knowing what we know today. If it were possible to get the Indians out of the country completely, if one could have settled the Coloureds in a part of the country quite on their own, in their own areas like the Bantu, we would certainly have done that. If the Whites could have continued to rule over everybody, with no danger to themselves, they would certainly have chosen to do so. However, we have to bear in mind the new views in regard to human rights, also in our own country and in our own ranks, the increasing knowledge and standard of civilization of our non-Whites, the power of the world and world opinion and our desire to preserve ourselves. Then there is only this one method of the parallel development which can give us all a peaceful future. The idea of a racial federation of the Leader of the Opposition, as against that, is just as dangerous to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians and the Bantu masses, as when all these racial groups are represented in a unitary Parliament of this kind. One does not, for example, gain anything in the way of safety for the Whites by means of this idea of a federation.

Will the Coloureds also eventually lose their parliamentary representation and be in the same position as the Indians and the Bantu in the White areas?

Until we have reached the stage of development to which I referred, where the Coloured council fully performs its functions, no decision will be taken as to what further steps should be taken in regard to the Coloured representation in this Parliament, but it will remain as it is now.

The proposition I am therefore stating is this: We just have the same old choice again, the choice between handing over our father-land to the non-Whites, eventually to the Bantu and to the Bantu dictator—as the result of which the Coloureds and the Indians will suffer together with the Whites—and separate, parallel development each on his own lines. We must either satisfy the world and sign our own death warrant, or we must be prepared to endure the difficulties and the pain which our standing firm may cause us. Shall we face the dangers resulting from our struggle for self-preservation, as Britain had to do when she was in trouble and stood with her back to the wall.

On a point of order, is it possible for us in this corner of the House to hear the hon. the Prime Minister?

Well, the hon. members next to the hon. member are conversing so loudly that I can hear them here.

It is not I.

No, I refer to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) …

I did not say a single word.

Order, order!

I am trying to make myself heard in spite of the talking going on, and I cannot help it if hon. members talk too loudly.

You referred to mutual economic independence. Can you not develop that point further?

I said mutual economic dependence: “ Political independence with economic interdependence.”

I think I have now shown hon. members that there is in fact hope for our country provided we are prepared to remain consistent, provided we have faith in our nation and trust that the world will not forever remain in this state of confusion in which it is now. I believe that the state of conflict in the world and of the uncertainty caused by the present crisis will not continue. I have confidence that, to the extent that relations between the states take on a new form, they will become more inclined to judge us fairly in terms of what we do and want to do, and to understand what we are actually doing. We must continue trying to get a better understanding. Leading public figures must also stop trying to frighten the people here, as so many of them do to-day. Much of what happens at UNO to-day causes one concern, but much of what happens there is also reassuring. Let us just read the arguments used by country after country when their representatives got up and said why they would vote for the Asian motion and not for that of the 24 powers. Then one realizes how many of the most important states are not prepared to participate in any form of drastic action. In other words, they are also keeping the door open for understanding. It is true that this door is being kept open by them in the hope that they can convert us to their way of thinking and they are trying to make us appreciate their views by exerting pressure on us—that is certainly true—but at the same time it has the advantage of giving us an increasing opportunity to let them see and know what we are really doing.

When hon. members say that the implementation of our plans for development is so slow, I want to remind them that we are dealing with one of the most colossal reforms ever tackled by any nation. Eight, nine or ten years ago, we inherited a terribly chaotic housing situation in so far as the urban Bantu are concerned. I immediately started remedying it. Hon. members opposite then just as venomously and bitterly opposed the basis on which the whole solution rests as they are doing to-day, if not more so. I am reminded of some of the Acts they opposed. Through that we lost quite a few years, because we first had to fight to get so far that the means and the powers would be available and to get the sympathy and co-operation of the city councils controlled by the United Party, which was essential. It therefore took us ten years to do just one thing, viz. to build more than 150,000 houses and schools and public buildings for the Bantu right throughout the country and to rescue them from the chaotic conditions in which they lived in shanty towns. Now hon. members expect us to be able, just as soon or even sooner, to complete the colossal and diversified development of these homelands which are entrusted to us and to prove the success of the policy of separate development in every sphere. Countries like Ghana are colossal bluff in certain respects, in the sense that what they can show is a Parliament elected after a certain fashion and a Government which is Black, but in regard to the actual development of the country Ghana has not really progressed further than the stage to which Britain brought her. Giving a name to the new state and having an independent system of government is a quite limited reform. We are not only expected to demarcate an area and to establish an authority which we leave on its own. It would be easy to demarcate an area and to give it a Government and simply to leave it on its own, but we cannot do that because the inhabitants will perish. We must uplift those people and educate them and teach them to be self-reliant in all spheres. We are trying to do it gradually so that we do not get Congos in our midst by an over-hasty freeing of those who are not ripe for it and who still do not have the necessary material background and the knowledge. We are busy with the whole process of uplift; that includes education; it demands the giving of experience. The masses must not only learn to know the democratic principles; they must also learn to exercise them, first on a small scale in the sphere of local authority and school boards, with the object of gradually training them for the greater task of being able to govern their own state. All this takes time. Where hon. members to-day praise us for having built enough houses for everybody in ten years’ time, they expect too much when they say that we must bring about this enormous constitutional development and these changes in a very short time. They ask the impossible not only in terms of physical capacity but also because of the human problems which must be solved. Those members of the Opposition who formed part of the previous regime ought to know with what enormous difficulties one has to cope when one wants to train the Bantu in general to do something for themselves or for their own people. But I have hone because we are making progress in spite of all this, more progress than most people realize.

Now I want to conclude by saying something of a personal nature. The members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, and the Press and others, have tried to concentrate this fight on me personally. They adopt the attitude that it is only I who stand in the way of a solution, viz. the solution they want. It is alleged that only I stand in the way of peace with the outside world. Let me tell those hon. members this very clearly: If I were convinced that I did not represent the will of the people, I would not remain in this place a moment longer.

Hear, hear!

It cannot be pleasant to anyone in these difficult times to occupy this responsible position. It results in days and nights of worry and pain; it gives one no pleasure; it cannot mean anything to one personally. If I were to be selfish and consider my own comfort I would get out of here as quickly as possible. I stay here only because my conscience tells me that I dare not run away from the task with which my people have entrusted me. The day, however, my party or the voters outside give me the clearest indication that they consider that the course in which I believe, and earnestly believe, is wrong, they need not get rid of me. I shall leave of my own accord. The fact is just that I am convinced that whoever sits here should be prepared to endure trouble for the sake of the future of his country. I am convinced that he will have to be prepared to suffer for his convictions. I am convinced that the policy of separate development is the will of the people, not only of the Afrikaners or of the Nationalists but of 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the White voters of our country. I am also convinced in my heart that the course we are adopting is the best for our Coloureds, because I am afraid that they will be destroyed if any other policy is applied. I am even convinced, although I have had less contact with them than with the Coloureds, that this policy is also best for the Indians in the country, because they themselves will be oppressed if the whole of the country should have a Bantu government. I am also convinced that our course is the best for the great majority of the ordinary Bantu in our country in so far as their welfare and prosperity are concerned, because I am perfectly convinced that receiving the franchise at an early date will not ensure for them all the prosperity we give them and that there will be a dictatorship, just as in Ghana, from which the mass of the Bantu population will derive no benefit. I am therefore convinced, from the best and most honest motives and by the dictates of my conscience that it is my duty to remain on as the Prime Minister in the best interests of all sections of the population. For my own sake, for my own selfishness, I certainly do not choose to stay on. I wish that I could be spared what is now my duty.

In the most interesting and exhaustive survey which we have had from the hon. the Prime Minister, it has been most significant that he has skated over the question of South West Africa completely. He has suggested that it was not possible to defend the situation in respect of South West Africa without defending his whole colour policy and without therefore infringing upon the provisions of Article 2 (7) on which he stands. We do not yet know what his attitude is to the International Court of Justice. We do not know whether he is accepting the the jurisdiction of the court; whether he intends abiding by its judgment, whether he will be prepared to welcome or accept any inspection by officials by that court of South West Africa. He has not told us what the possible consequences can be. He is keeping the people in the dark as to the sort of situation that can develop in regard to that matter. I feel he owes it to the people of South Africa to give us answers on those matters. I have been trying for nearly nine months to get a reply from the Government in respect of this matter. We get no reply at any time. The people are being involved in a very serious matter indeed and the Government is not taking them into its confidence. I feel that it is essential that I should press and continue to press for a reply in respect of that matter.

Then I want to say this. The hon. gentleman has reviewed for us the activities of the United Nations’ Organization in a somewhat scathing manner and attributed motives to the various states in taking the actions they do. We are being asked by the Prime Minister to accept that the overwhelming majority of states, to put it at its lowest, do not cast their votes in accordance with the rightness or justice of any cause that becomes before them but that they are actuated by ulterior motives in their attempt to keep markets and to maintain influences over certain blocs of countries in the world whose goodwill they hope to retain. I am prepared to accept at once—because I did go there and I did meet some of the people and I did see what happened—that there are a number of very immature nations participating in those discussions, and I believe that it is the duty of the Western nations, amongst whom I like to count South Africa, to try to educate those people to different approaches in regard to their international obligations. But for the hon. the Prime Minister to ask this country to believe that the leading nations of the world are casting their votes at UNO on a pure basis of expediency on every occasion, with no regard whatsoever to the principles involved, is, I think, stretching our gullability a little too far.

Self-interest.

One is faced with this tragic situation that if the hon. the Prime Minister can get the people of South Africa to believe that sort of thing, we are going to continue on our present course with disastrous results for South Africa. I think it is time the hon. gentleman was challenged to tell us whether that is the reason why Britain is now taking a different line in respect of Article 2 (7). Is that why Australia is taking a different line; is that why the United States of America is now voting against us, whereas she did not so do in the past years? Is it all just expediency and self-interest? Are those great nations of the world merely resorting to expediency and are they not prepared to stand by a principle in respect of matters of this kind?

What is the principle they are standing by?

Sir, one has now had three sets of reasons for South Africa’s failure at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. First of all we heard that it was because of threats of expulsion, and because of attempts to interfere with our internal affairs and attempts to dictate to us. Then we had explanations given in the British House of Commons which would seem to indicate that the whole thing was bound up with the question of exchange of diplomatic representatives. Now we hear from the hon. the Prime Minister to-day that the fact of the matter is that it is due to wrong tactics adopted by Britain. Well, I wonder where we are going to end. It leaves this country in a very difficult position indeed. I believe the time has come when we must ask the hon. gentleman to give us the full details of exactly what did happen. Because, as I have said once before, it seems to me that we went out of the Commonwealth under a misunderstanding in that the hon. the Prime Minister and certain of the other states that were in the Commonwealth Conference did not attach the same importance in respect of the exchange of diplomatic representation.

Then we have heard from the hon. gentleman the setting out of his policy in respect of the Native people, as we have heard it before, and to-day it has been taken a step further in respect of the Asiatics and the Coloured people. I do not want to do the hon. gentleman an injustice. He has said that the Coloured representatives will stay in this House until a stage of development is reached where the Coloured Affairs Council can take over the management of the Coloured people in their own villages in their own interests. Do I understand that that means that the Coloured representatives will then disappear from this House? Is that the ultimate vision that we have? I do not want to attribute anything to the hon. gentleman unjustly, but it seemed to me from what he said that the affairs of the Coloured people ultimately are going to be managed by a Coloured Council and that their representatives are going to disappear from this House. It seems to me also from what he said that the Indian community, no matter how much they grow, no matter how interdependent they are economically with the European population of South Africa, are never going to have political representation of any kind. It seems to me, thirdly, that the Natives permanently settled in the urban areas are to have no representation whatsoever in the Parliament which controls their destiny. The hon. the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that there are many millions of them in increasing numbers being permanently settled in our urban areas even under the policy that he is following at the present time. I want to pose to the hon. gentleman this question: In fact what he is going to have then are seven or eight Bantustans and one, as he calls it, White state; I call it a multi-racial state, a mixed state, because when you take the Coloureds, the Indians and the Natives together there will be more of them than there will be Europeans, and none of the non-Europeans will have any representation in this Parliament, only the Europeans are to have representation in this Parliament. How long does the hon. gentleman think he has a hope of maintaining a position of that kind?

Hear, hear!

How long does he think he has a hope of persuading the world that there is any moral basis for a policy like that? And while the hon. gentleman proceeds with visions of that kind, how can he expect the world to understand his policy and give him moral support for what he is doing? Small wonder that at the Prime Ministers’ Conference when he had explained his policy in full, presumably as he did to us here to-day, and presumably as honestly—because I know he would do it honestly—that not one single Prime Minister found that he could approve of the policy of apartheid as outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister and that every single one of them condemned that policy!

Then there is a last point. How long does he believe that with a policy of that kind he will remain a member of the Black Commonwealth which he is going to create out of the Union of South Africa? Here we are going to have seven or eight Black states, probably many of them with far bigger populations than the rest of the so-called Union of South Africa, republican South Africa, the White portion of South Africa. For how long does he believe that those people are going to be associated with him on the basis of a Commonwealth membership when their own brothers inside the so-called White state are getting the treatment which he holds out for them in the future? When one hears an exposition of policy of that kind from the hon. the Prime Minister, one wonders what hope there is for the future of South Africa if policies of that kind are to be followed.

It appears to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to defend any country’s standpoint but that of South Africa. We are living in difficult times and the hon. the Prime Minister has just spoken for two hours with the greatest earnestness on South Africa’s affairs, and then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gets up and he cannot find a single point on which to stand by South Africa in these difficult times. Now he makes a point of attack of the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister that certain countries at UNO take up their standpoint because they want to win the favour of the Afro-Asian states and also for personal economic reasons. It is right to say that particularly conditions in their own country sometimes force them to do such things. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says it is unjust to say it, because those countries do it because of principle. What points of principle? What principles does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopt in this case? What principle is concerned when a standpoint is adopted at UNO? What principle of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would those countries be able to support? Only the principle of equality. Is that his principle? That can be the only principle that can move them. But I want to go further, and I must get it off my chest. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has nothing with which he can support the hon. the Prime Minister and the country in these difficult times and his main attack is actually an attack on the hon. the Prime Minister, that it is the fault of the hon. the prime Minister that South Africa is out of the Commonwealth, that the hon. the Prime Minister went to London with the intention of taking South Africa out of the Commonwealth. I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: I believe, judging by their actions, that they played a very positive role in influencing the leaders of other countries to get South Africa to leave the Commonwealth, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition through his visit overseas, and through other visits, and perhaps through letters, used his personal influence (and also others among them) to say: “ See to it that South Africa will be out of the Commonwealth.” I say this in all seriousness and I will say why. The news that South Africa had withdrawn her application was not yet cold on Wednesday night when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along with a statement: They are on their way back and they want a referendum. Mr. Chairman, they caucused and they consulted and used their influence through various channels to say: When South Africa is out of the Commonwealth there will be such chaos in South Africa, such an uprising among the public, and that will be the only chance we have of again coming into power. But they were mistaken about the public’s reaction in South Africa. I do not say that South Africa’s application was withdrawn as a result of that, I do not say that it is as a result of the standpoint which they adopted, but those were their tactics to get their party back into power in South Africa. In South Africa leaving the Commonwealth they saw an opportunity of achieving what they could not achieve in 13 years, namely to return to the Government benches. I make the pertinent charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he, in his travels overseas, that he in letters (and others among them) tried to make it impossible for South Africa to remain in the Commonwealth.

On a point of order, that is an attack on my honour. I say without any hesitation that it is absolutely untrue and I ask that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the charge.

Order! The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark must accept the word of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I did not refer to anything that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in this House or to a standpoint which he has adopted. My point is that the allegation has been made that the hon. the Prime Minister went to London with the intention to take South Africa out of the Commonwealth. Now I make precisely the same charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party and say that he intentionally used his influence, in whatever manner, to get South Africa out of the Commonwealth.

It is a wild statement which you cannot prove.

They had everything to gain by getting South Africa out of the Commonwealth; we had nothing to gain by it. They saw in it an opportunity of getting into power. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) is looking at me. He has perhaps more influence in certain circles than the whole lot of us together. I think he used his influence to get South Africa out of the Commonwealth. I say it again and the public must know it: The news was not even cold yet when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition got up and made a statement: They are on their way back to the Commonwealth, there must be an election. But he did not know that the public of South Africa were going to stand solidly behind the hon. the Prime Minister. He was mistaken about the reaction which came from the side of the voters of South Africa. I say it again: I have not got proof on black and white, but I am of the opinion that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party played a much bigger part than we realize in placing South Africa in the position of having to withdraw her application for membership of the Commonwealth.

That is untrue!

There were other people who played a role, Bishop Reeves and others, who spoke to the hon. the Prime Minister of Canada, among others. They played a big part. I place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party in that same class, in that same category. They saw political gain in it for the United Party if South Africa was no longer a member of the Commonwealth, but they were mistaken about the reaction of the public in South Africa.

I quickly want to make a second point. After this brilliant exposition by the hon. the Prime Minister I want to say this to him in all seriousness: If we want to maintain ourselves in South Africa, if we want to maintain law and order in the country, as is his aim, we will not be able to do it and we will not have any success with it if we permit the Press to· continue as it is doing.

Hear, hear!

I just want to mention one example. I have here the Sunday Express of 26 March. It is the strongest form of incitement which can exist in any country of the world. We cannot allow it because the Black man reads this newspaper and what does it look like? Here is a cartoon. A Black man is lying on his¡ back, the hon. the Prime Minister is there with a bulldog on a leash on which is written “ apartheid ”, and the bulldog is busy biting off the Black man’s leg and the blood is flowing. And then the other Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth are standing by saying to the hon. the Prime Minister “Stop him, stop him!”, and what is the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply? “ I can’t stop him, he has been trained that way.” Mr. Chairman, anything more cruel than this cannot appear in any newspaper in the world and I just want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister in all seriousness that if we do not take action against the Press in South Africa, and in particular the English-language Press, a large number of newspapers, then we will continue to have trouble In South Africa, and perhaps troubles which will be insurmountable. I disagreed with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) at the time when he said that there should also be cash fines. I am now convinced that we shall have to impose such fines and that we can in the first instance use that money to controvert things said overseas, but secondly, that those fines should not only be imposed on the editor or the reporter but also on the shareholders of that paper. One of the directors of one of the newspapers told me the other day, and I believe him because I know him, that he did not agree with such things, that it was not his point of view, but, he said “ We have got to have circulation ”. I say that we will have trouble unless we take certain steps in regard to the Press and stop this sort of thing. I have a second one here which I can quote as an example to prove what atmosphere is being created. It is also the Sunday Express. On 19 February they had a front page story: “ Barbed wire. It kept Afrikaans and English apart at playtime ”, referring to a school at Vanderbijlpark. It is that old story about the Hendrik van der Bijl school. I took the trouble to send telegrams to the Director of Education, the present principal of that school, the chairman of the school committee and the secretary of the school board in Vereeniging, and from all of them I received the reply, “ Report inaccurate I also sent a telegram to the former chairman of the Hendrik van der Bijl school, who opposed our Government and our policy tooth and nail, and he also replied “ Report inaccurate, regards This kind of lie does great harm. May I say that the Sunday Express, for 3d. or 2½c, could easily have phoned the principal of the school, or the ex-principal, or the Chairman of the School Commission, or the School Board Secretary, or the Director of Education, all of whom are within dialing range of Johannesburg, and the newspaper could simply have asked if there was any truth in it. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) has now given us a fourth reason as to why we are out of the Commonwealth. The hon. the Prime Minister has given us at one time or another three reasons as to why we are out; perhaps he would like to add this fourth one to his list. It is now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who got us turned out of the Commonwealth. So we now know that it is not the hon. the Prime Minister or any of his friends—the real reason why we are out of the Commonwealth is the co-operation between the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Macmillan.

That is not what I said.

Well, the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned Mr. Macmillan as having been responsible by mistaken policy and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark mentioned the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark in his anxiety to show his competence in dealing with External Affairs, has made a most unworthy attack on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If he thinks. Sir, that that kind of personal attack qualifies him to follow in the footsteps, in due course, of the present Minister of External Affairs, I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will not agree with him.

Sir, I think the friends of South Africa, both at home and abroad, will be filled with despair, having read the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon. Two things emerge from it amongst others. One is that even now the hon. the Prime Minister has not grasped the basic fact of the world hostility against South Africa, and the other is that he has very little understanding of the real meaning and purpose and importance of the United Nations Organization. He told us to-day that there was hope for South Africa in the present difficult position, and he based that hope on the fact that certain members had refused to vote for the resolution of the 24 which called for combined sanctions against South Africa, and he said that he sees grounds for hope in that, because as he expressed it there was hope for “begrip”, in other words, they were holding the door open for people to understand. But I suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister is misinterpreting that completely. They are holding the door open, in the hope that he will understand before it is too late; they are holding the door open in the hope that he will understand….

What?

That he will understand why it is that 3,000,000,000 people in the world to-day are against South Africa at the present moment. I think the hon. the Prime Minister has quite misunderstood the meaning of these people refusing to vote for the more drastic resolution and I would ask him to look back over the recent years and see how these same people at first voted with us, and then later abstained, and now have voted against us for a less drastic resolution. But what are they going to do next year? I am afraid that I can see very little hope in the fact that at this moment they are not prepared to go as far as some of the other people.

My hon. leader has pointed out that the hon. the Prime Minister in declaring that we have many friends throughout the world, has done them very little service in attributing to them the motives which he did in acting as they have done. He has suggested for instance that both at the Prime Ministers’ Conference and at UNO the motive which actuated people to vote as they did, or to take the action they did, was either that they were afraid of Communism, or else they were acting for their own personal countries’ gain, for trade, etc. Well, Sir, if that is the case, if that is true, I would say that those friends are not worth having, and I don’t know why the Prime Minister is at such great pains to tell us that he has still got them. I think he is quite wrong. Their trouble is this—and South West Africa is a case in point—that through all the last 13 years of world upheaval and world development, and the awakening of the consciences of the world, South Africa alone has stood absolutely still, refusing to take any cognizance of what was happening, and not giving members the slightest encouragement to say to the people, like the communists and the Asian bloc and the anti-South African bloc: Look here, those people are moving in the right direction, and we are going to support them. That, if I am not mistaken, is what Mr. Macmillan told the hon. the Prime Minister last year, that it was becoming impossible to support South Africa in the United Nations, simply because she was not defending herself and she was not showing any sign of realization of the enormous force of world opinion on these matters.

The hon. the Prime Minister has really not begun to reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. He has not replied in respect of South West Africa, but he has not dealt with a number of other matters either. We are now going to discuss in this debate the aspects of the cold war into which the Prime Minister has landed us. And when I say “ the Prime Minister ”, of course I mean the whole Government of which he is the Leader—we hear that he is more than the leader, is the whole orchestra. The hon. the Prime Minister admitted in his speech that the rest of the world, the Western powers as well as the Afro-Asian powers, and so on, regarded us as expendable and that in their actions to-day, in the line they are taking, they were regarding the White people in South Africa as expendable.

In the whole of Africa.

I am particularly concerned with my own country at the moment. But if that is so then the Prime Minister must realize that when we say that South Africa is now entering upon a cold war, against the rest of the world, we are simply stating a very unpleasant but nevertheless true fact, and if we are going to be involved in a cold war, we are entitled to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, who is responsible for it, how he is going to fight the cold war. What preparations is he making?

Tell us how you are going to fight it?

If I were the Prime Minister there would not be a cold war.

Are you going to “ hands-up ”?

No, I would not hands-up, but I would take jolly good care so to manage my affairs that I would not land myself in a war which I won’t be able to fight. [Time limit.]

If I understood the hon. member who just sat down correctly then he asked that the hon. the Prime Minister should say how he would win the cold war. If the newspapers do not regard it as the greatest joke of the century in South Africa that the hon. the Prime Minister should now say how a cold war should be fought, then I do not know. I hope I understood the hon. member correctly, that he asked the hon. the Prime Minister how he was going to fight a cold war against the rest of the world.

Yes.

But I thought that the cold war was already on the go for a long time and that the Russians and the Americans were fighting a cold war. It looks like a nice war because I understand that the Americans and others are making big profits, record profits, and the Russians say they are also making record profits. But let us get away from these foolish questions and confine ourselves to the serious circumstances of the day. Here it is time and again being alleged that South Africa is now standing against the rest of the world. Why? The Opposition is very fond of saying it but the Opposition refuses to admit that the rest of the world, as they express it (which I do not admit), is opposed to South Africa because of the distorted ideas which they formed as a result of expressions by the Opposition.

They are the father of it.

The Opposition failed miserably inside South Africa when they submitted their own case to the management of the people, but they scored a great success when they could represent South Africa in a distorted way to the rest of the world. And the Opposition continues to present South Africa to the world in a manner which must make South Africa appear like a sort of inhuman country with an inhuman government which bases its colour policy mainly on oppression. Is it any wonder, therefore, that countries which to-day make themselves guilty of slavery, of discrimination of the most gross nature, of ill-treatment and the trampling of human rights in the most serious degree, should act as the chief accusers against South Africa? Is it any wonder that those people have developed the audacity to accuse South Africa? Can it surprise one that this condition exists if there are people in the front benches of the Opposition who tell the world that it is far worse in South Africa, to quote the words of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), that it is punishable for a White man and a Black man to pray together in the same church? Can one imagine anything more harmful to a country like South Africa than that sort of allegation?

Mr. Chairman, I was busy showing how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his henchmen were consistently disloyal towards every principle aimed at placing South Africa first and to give her a rightful place in the row of states in the eyes of the world; and that they never allowed any opportunity to pass of bringing the present Government into discredit and thereby exerting pressure from outside the Union to see if they cannot come into power again. I will again demonstrate how consistently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is disloyal towards South Africa. It is a pity that he is not here yet. Mr. Chairman, I just want to prove what I am saying here. One of his big cries these days is that South Africa must return to the Commonwealth. He said on previous occasions: “ We are a Commonwealth party.” To-day he wants to move heaven and earth to take South Africa back to the Commonwealth. Let us see what the Commonwealth looks like. I just want to mention what Mr. Macmillan said last Friday. I read a report from Cambridge, Massachu-settes—

We know that the cry “ equality ” has a different meaning to Mr. Macmillan and the Commonwealth to-day than it has to us. To them it means equality without apartheid. Now I want to demonstrate how the Opposition will again be disloyal to South Africa. They talk about discrimination which they want to apply, but now I put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so desirous of returning South Africa to this new Commonwealth to which Mr. Macmillan referred, which he says is now an association for absolute equality —and let me emphasize again that it is not equality as we understand it, namely separate equality, but equality without apartheid. He cannot afford to smile now. He cannot afford to ignore this question. He will have to answer it. He cannot do with this question what his party has being doing during the past few days, simply to walk out when it comes to matters of principle. The hon. Leader of the Opposition cannot walk out of the Commonwealth when this matter is being decided. He cannot walk out if he is the mouthpiece. The question which he will have to answer is this. He must realize that this new Commonwealth which supports this equality—and remember, equality without apartheid—and to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to return South Africa to, is now of such a nature that he will not be able to go there with his beloved cry of entrenchment of certain rights. One cannot talk about the entrenchment of the rights of certain groups when there is a Commonwealth which insists on absolute equality. Then those days are over. This debate should not end before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has told the country whether he is prepared to take South Africa back to the Commonwealth on that basis.

Now I want to mention another demonstration. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said this afternoon—and I mention it just to show how disloyal they are towards South Africa—that this Government did not give its friends, namely England, reasons and arguments in order to say to Russia: “ We have put those people on the right way of thinking.” He said this afternoon that this Government should give Britain and her friends reasons so that England and Australia and all her other friends could say to Russia: Look, do not interfere with us; we have now got South Africa on to the right idea. Mr. Chairman, let us remember that there is no such thing as they having to be the mediator for South Africa with Russia. Let us admit that in this sphere, on the basis on which South Africa stands alone to-day, there is no question about a choice between the attitude of Russia, of Britain and of the United States. Here Mr. Macmillan also says that as far as the Coloured question is concerned it is 100 per cent the same as that of Russia. The ideology of communism goes much deeper than that on another basis. But let us realize for once and for all that as far as the Coloured question is concerned there is not the least choice between the point of view of the present Commonwealth, America and all the rest and Russia. The struggle between the West and the East is definitely not about that. If the struggle were about that then South Africa would definitely not have stood alone to-day. My view and impression about the communist struggle against the West is that it concerns entirely different matters. But then the hon. member for Constantia must not expect the Government to provide arguments in this sphere to America and to South Africa’s so-called friends in order to say to Russia; “ We have those people on the right way of thinking.” Where is the logic if one adopts that sort of attitude? No, it is once again proof that in the absence of sound criticism, in the absence of any standpoint as opposed to the standpoint of apartheid, which is the Government’s policy, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his henchmen have always sought for this sort of thing to pretend that this is the reason for the struggle between the West and the East. It is not the colour question. We see here what weak arguments the Opposition can sometimes advance. That was the main attack of the hon. member for Constantia this afternoon and that was the main reason why he felt that our friends and the people who ought to stand by us through thick and thin did not want to stand by us, because we did not give them those arguments with which they could satisfy Russia. It has never been our desire to satisfy Russia. Our aim and the reason for this step is not to satisfy Russia but to protect our own continued existence and to give ourselves a rightful place amongst the states. This is where the Opposition so consistently misjudges us. Therefore they can never resist continually calling in the assistance of the outside world, first from Britain and now from the Commonwealth, and to bring in UNO to bring pressure to bear on the Government of South Africa. I want to state that if ever there was a standpoint which the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government has taken up which will ensure a place of honour for them in the history of South Africa, then it is this present standpoint of theirs.

I cannot feel that the views of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) will really have much effect on world opinion. He made an astonishing statement here this evening as a classic example of how to win friends and keep them. He said that as far as he is concerned he cannot distinguish between the United States, Great Britain and Russia. As far as he is concerned they are all enemies of South Africa.

You said so this afternoon.

No, the hon. member has just said so. He said their views are all the same and their purposes are all exactly the same. He is taking the line that all that the rest of the world demands of South Africa is one man one vote.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely untrue. That is just the kind of political propaganda we expect the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to go around the country with, wasting his time and spreading that sort of story. It is absolutely untrue. The hon. member for Krugersdorp reminds me of the old Scottish schoolmaster who had to deal with rather a bumptious young pupil, and eventually he said “ Laddie, you are an unlovely mixture of ignorance and conceit ”. I will leave it at that.

When my time expired, I was referring to the hon. the Prime Minister and the disappointment which his speeches must have caused to our friends abroad and the true friends of South Africa at home. The reason why it has been such a disappointment is that he appears to have shown no reaction whatsoever …

Where is “ home ”?

This is home. The same home that the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) has; the home in which I am apparently more interested than he is. The hon. the Prime Minister has shown no reaction at all, either to the expressions all over the world or to the expressed opinions of his own Press. And that is why I say that his speech must have come as a disappointment to all friends of South Africa at home and abroad.

The hon. the Prime Minister, incidentally, referred to blocs at UNO; the Afro-Asian bloc, the communist bloc, the Western bloc and so on. And quite unconsciously he really gave one of the strongest reasons why we as a country should in no circumstances leave the Commonwealth. Because the Commonwealth is a bloc in the world, which cuts right across races and religions and geography. It has uncommitted nations in it, it has committed nations in it, and between the lot of them they form an enormous body of world opinion which is steadily working towards a common understanding throughout the world as to the needs of mankind. The hon. the Prime Minister pin-pointed the fact that now we are unable to make our contributions to any bloc of public opinion in the world, and we stand entirely alone. As we have said, we are about to tight a cold war against the rest of the world. And what we want to know, and what we shall continue to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, is how he is preparing to fight this cold war. A cold war is fought on economics and finance and diplomatic pressure. During the Budget we asked the hon. the Minister of Finance some very pertinent questions in this connection, but the hon. the Minister of Finance not only did not reply to these questions but he ignored them entirely. We are therefore compelled to put them to the hon. the Prime Minister.

Wait a bit while they finish that Cabinet meeting over there. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

If we are going to have a cold war, surely we are entitled as a people to know what we are going to fight it with. And the hon. the Minister of Finance not only refused to answer any questions on that point in the Budget debate, but he is now doing his best to prevent the hon. the Prime Minister from listening to what I have to say.

It is very rude. Absolute discourtesy! [Interjections.]

This gross discourtesy of the hon. the Minister of Finance is quite unusual as far as he is concerned. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

The hon. the Minister of Finance made a point in his Budget speech of saying that the outflow of capital constitutes the most important economic symptom requiring attention.

The cold war is the only one he will fight in. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I can make a personal appeal to those two hon. Ministers to go and have their conversation somewhere else. Such cold-blooded rudeness and discourtesy is not usual with the hon. the Minister of Finance. If he wants a conversation with another Minister why does he not go and talk somewhere else?

I am listening to you.

I know, but it is very discourteous both to me and to the Prime Minister.

The hon. the Minister of Finance told us [Interjections.] …

Order, order!

He told us that the outflow of capital was the most important economic symptom requiring attention. But he told us nothing as to how he was going to deal with this symptom. And, of course, that was before the ignominious failure of the hon. the Prime Minister in London. Now that most important symptom, the outflow of capital, is continuing. It is gathering momentum. It is only the weakness of the market which prevents it being much bigger than it is. Stockbrokers are to-day loaded with selling orders which they cannot fulfil because there are no buyers.

They will buy to-morrow.

Will you buy to-morrow?

Yes I will. [Interjections.]

Order, order! Will the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) please give the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) an opportunity to make his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I have just replied to an interjection by that hon. member. Why do you not ask that hon. member to be quiet?

Order, order!

It is time there was order— high time.

Order, order!

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, these hon. members are making so much noise that we cannot hear what is being said.

Order, order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity of continuing with his speech. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, in spite of the fact that stocks in South Africa at the present time yield a very much better return than many similar stocks overseas, stockbrokers are so full of selling orders that they cannot find any buyers. And I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, since the hon. the Minister of Finance apparently is unwilling or incapable to tell us what he is going to do; what is the Prime Minister going to do about this most important economic symptom? And that is quite apart from our leaving the Commonwealth; what is he going to do about this outflow of capital which is affecting the country? If it goes on like this what is going to be the alternative except exchange control? There are rumours in financial circles all over the country that exchange control in some form or other is imminent, or very nearly imminent and, of course, that would be an extremely disadvantageous thing for the country. It would lead, almost inevitably, to import control, and from import control to price control. What we want to know is what the hon. the Prime Minister is proposing to do to deal with this most important economic symptom which the hon. the Minister of Finance diagnosed in his Budget speech, but offered no remedy for it at all. How is he going to deal with it without imposing exchange control? After all, Mr. Chairman, you have to remember that 60 per cent of our overseas capital investment comes from the United Kingdom. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced the matter of South West Africa into this debate. The hon. member knows that the Government regards that matter as being sub judice because the case has still to be heard by the International Court. He also knows that that was the attitude adopted by the Government at UN. It seems to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees with certain members of UN that this matter is not sub judice in fact; and the fact that he discusses it here is adding fuel to the fire of those members of UN who hold that view.

As one who represents South West Africa, I really think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not rendering that territory a service by discussing that matter here. One of the most serious complaints lodged by UN against the Union Government is this—and I quote from a resolution passed just recently—

Now who was originally responsible for South West Africa taking part in the referendum? Was it not the Leader of the Opposition himself?

Why not?

He is the person who insisted in this House that South West Africa should take part in the referendum.

May I ask a question?

You can talk later.

The Leader of the Opposition is now laughing about the matter. This is a very serious matter. He is a person who insisted to-day that he had advised the Prime Minister and that he had advised the Government how to act. The first time we do what he suggested we are accused of it. Now he shouts “ Hooray!” about it. What is the hon. member’s standpoint—what is South West Africa? I quote from Hansard, Col. 297, of last year, where he said this—

A moment ago the hon. member said in this debate that South West Africa was an international territory. Last year he asked whether it was not part of the Union. To-day he again says that South West Africa is international territory. May I ask the hon. member whether it is really his standpoint that South West Africa is international territory? If that is so, what are the implications?

You did not listen carefully.

I did listen. Then I want to put it like this. He asks the hon. the Prime Minister whether he and his Government will abide by the judgment of the International Court.

Will you?

I put this question to the Leader of the Opposition: Will he abide by it? Does he abide by the opinion expressed in 1950 by the International Court that South West Africa is international territory? Does he submit to that? And if he submits to that, he submits himself to the implications. Would he, if he were in power, give effect to it? What is the first demand if South West Africa is international territory? Then the first demand is, and UN has been demanding this ever since 1946, that the Union should place South West Africa under the guardianship of UN.

The International Court stated that this need not be done.

Yes, but the hon. member and his party in South West say that we should do so. I ask the hon. member this: If the International Court now holds that South West should be placed under the guardianship of UN, what would he have done?

What will you do?

Order! The hon. member for Durban-(Point) (Mr. Raw) should not shout over the floor of the House like that. The hon. member may continue.

Sir, there we again have the position that hon. members opposite agree with and support our enemies in UN. The same question now being asked by the Leader of the Opposition was put by UN to the representatives of South Africa. Why must we anticipate the judgment of the Court? Is it not dangerous to do so? If we now say that we will accept it, we will be in a difficult position, and if we say we will not accept it we are also in a difficult position. Who says in anticipation, if he has a case before the Court, that he will accept the decision or not? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he was at UN and he denies that it is the attitude of the member states there that they insist that South West Africa should subject itself to a system of complete equality. I was there also, and after having explained to the Committee all the things which were being done for the non-Whites in South West, their reply to me was this: Yes, that is all very well, but that is not what we want to know. What we want to know is why are the non-White children not in the same schools; why are they not in the same hostels; why are the non-Whites not in the same hospitals; why is Getzen not in the Government, and why do they not have the franchise? They say: Give them those things and they will look after themselves, and you need not look after them. Is it fair of the Leader of the Opposition to drag this matter into this debate?

Why not?

Is it fair towards South West Africa? Does he admit that the case is sub judice or not? I would not have spoken on this subject if it were not for the fact that I think the Leader of the Opposition is really doing South West Africa a disservice by introducing this subject here.

We listened this afternoon very carefully to the hon. the Prime Minister, and I know he will forgive me if I say that after he spoke I felt almost “ Punch” drunk with the dogma he produced. The hon. gentleman this afternoon flung down the gauntlet to the world, and we now know exactly where we are so far as that hon. gentleman and the Government stand in relation to the rest of the world. He has taken up a position against the whole of the civilized world. In the course of what he said to us—and I repeat again that I listened most attentively to the hon. gentleman who gave us his views honestly and, I believe, with a sincerity in which he believes, but a sincerity which I believe is fatally dangerous to South Africa. We listened to that and we shall have an opportunity in the course of this debate, not merely to-night but in the course of the days which follow, of analysing some of the propositions which he put before us. I want an opportunity at a later stage of dealing with his remarks about the Afro-Asian group.

Mr. Chairman, I could not help feeling that in the manner of the Prime Minister’s approach to this question he was completely unrealistic. He talked about the Afro-Asian group as if this was some sort of irritant upon the international body politic which we could brush aside. The Afro-Asian group is there. It has come about as the result of various developments, not only on the Continent of Africa but elsewhere. And the main fact remains that the Afro-Asian group now commands a dominating position in the United Nations. And whether we like it or not we have to come to terms with the Afro-Asian group.

What are you prepared to pay?

I will tell the hon. gentleman what I am prepared to pay. But the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon has committed himself to this proposition, that for all time South Africa, or at any rate a portion of South Africa, is going to be a “ White ” South Africa in which he will not concede any political rights to any other racial group but the White people in that White South Africa; he will not concede any rights in Parliament or in the government of this country.

I think we can discuss this matter quite dispassionately. The hon. the Prime Minister has once again given us his blue-print with certain amendments. I think that that blue-print is something we must discuss quite dispassionately and calmly and from the respective standpoints of the parties in this House. But let us have one point perfectly clear, that what the hon. the Prime Minister has told this House, what he has told this country and what he has told the world is this, that so far as he is concerned, so long as he is at the head of the Government of this country, he will never make one single political concession to non-White groups in this country because he fears if he does that, that will mean the ultimate downfall of the White man in this country. Let me say at once that I believe that unless we have a government in this country which is prepared to make concessions to the non-Whites, our non-White fellow citizens in a multi-racial South Africa, then the White man is doomed.

I am very glad that we have at last managed to get down to the crux of this problem, because to-night we are getting down to the problem of how we are going to make, if it is at all possible in the time available to us, peaceful co-operative co-existence possible in what was the Union of South Africa and what shortly is to be the Republic of South Africa; this country of ours. We are getting down to that fundamental question, whether, through our policies, we can ensure that White South Africa can still continue, not only to remain here but to play a part in the government of this country and survive in the face of the difficulties which beset us in this difficult post-war world. The hon. the Prime Minister ranged very far this afternoon. I do not blame him for that. I think we should be grateful for the fact that he took a great deal of time to expound his policies. I must confess that I was very surprised at some of the explanations he gave this Committee in regard to the attitude, for instance, of Mr. Macmillan at the Prime Ministers’ Conference in London. He produced a most extraordinary argument. He took it upon himself to criticize the tactics of Mr. Macmillan at the London Conference.

Why not?

Of course he is perfectly entitled to do so, but I think that when he does that he should give us an explanation which certainly is such as to be a creditable explanation and one which will hold water not only in this Parliament but in the councils of the world. The hon. gentleman has suggested that Mr. Macmillan, whom he rightly thought was doing his best to keep us in the Commonwealth, had used the wrong tactics and as the result had compromised himself by siding with the Afro-Asian members of the Commonwealth in denouncing apartheid. Well, that is nothing new! The Prime Minister of Great Britain made his position quite clear when he visited South Africa and he has never deviated from that position. But the hon. gentleman is taking up a very peculiar attitude. He is suggesting that the Prime Minister of Great Britain is now in an embarrassing situation and has compromised himself; that through erroneous tactics he sided with those Prime Ministers at the Conference who wanted to criticize apartheid; and that in the result he has now made it inevitable that his representatives at UN and elsewhere should also adopt an attitude against us. I could not help feeling, when listening to the Prime Minister, of the old saying: “ It is all very well to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs.” Since the Conference Mr. Macmillan has made no bones about his views. He has been to the West Indies and to America and expressed his views clearly there. He has certainly kicked us downstairs in that metaphorical sense. But I do not believe that the explanation the hon. gentleman gave this afternoon is a true explanation. I believe that Mr. Macmillan did his best to influence the other members of the Commonwealth to take a view that would enable South Africa still to remain in the Commonwealth.

Why did he not succeed?

He did not succeed for one cardinal reason, not because our Prime Minister announced that South Africa proposed to become a republic, but because he could not succeed, and he could not succeed because of the racial policies of this Government. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister has refused to show any sign of flexibility, but offers what he calls the granite face to the world. The Prime Minister this afternoon has attempted to sketch the net result of his policy and that of the Leader of the Opposition. I am not going to attempt in the short time still available to me to deal with the end results of the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, but I shall deal with the end results of the policy of the Prime Minister. [Time limit.]

It is significant that after a member of the Progressive Party has spoken, no member of the Government Party has got up to defend the policy of the Prime Minister. Of course we do not blame them. They adopted the same attitude the Prime Minister adopted in London by running away from the issue. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) should get up and make a speech, he should not sit shouting now. After the speech by the Prime Minister they do not know what to say because they are afraid of what “Dawie” might have to say to-morrow, or what the Transvaler might say. The hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) shouts out interjections now, but why did he not jump up? I know, and we all know, that it is because he is worried about South West Africa. He listened to what the hon. member for Windhoek (Mr. van der Wath) said and they are worried about what is happening at UN in regard to South West. The hon. member for Windhoek asked the Leader of the Opposition what his policy was in regard to South West, but that is not the question. We want to know what the Prime Minister’s policy is. That is why the hon. member for Karas has not got up. They don’t know and they are worried, and they are entitled to be. The members from South West and all the people there see what happened at the Commonwealth Conference. There the Prime Minister was not prepared to make any concession, and they remember someone else who was not prepared to make concessions. They remember the brave words of Dr. Malan, “Ons sal nie buk nie”, and they realize now that we were right when we warned them at the time of the first election in South West that it was the policy of Dr. Malan… [Interjection.] Now they are worried. Had Dr. Malan been prepared to follow the wise advice of General Smuts, South West would not have been in trouble to-day. South West is worried not only about its current position but about what is going to happen to South Africa, to whom they look for protection. The Prime Minister suggested that at the Conference in London Mr. Macmillan had not been quite honest.

Nonsense!

That is what it boils down to. He said Mr. Macmillan said to him that in order to keep us in the Commonwealth he must adopt certain tactics; I must attack you and put up a sham fight and then I will say: Although I hate your policy so much, we must keep you in the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister said he was against those tactics, which had failed, and he went on to say that had Mr. Macmillan been honest and put the honest view of our position, South Africa would still have been in the Commonwealth. That is his insinuation. The Prime Minister must know this, that of all the speeches we have had here…. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is quite clear that had the Prime Minister been prepared to make any concession at all, there would have been a different attitude. We have got that not only from Mr. Macmillan and from Mr. Sandys and Mr. Menzies, but all our friends say so. If the Prime Minister was taking a line which had the unanimous support of all in South Africa and was able to say that we all feel the same way and that we would fight to the finish, he might be in a position to say: We will not make any concessions. Like Mr. Churchill, he could have said that we would fight on the beaches, but the Prime Minister knows very well that not only is his policy hated and detested outside South Africa, but the majority of people in this country, White and Black, do not support his policy.

Nonsense!

So he is starting the fight from weakness. He has not even got the majority of Whites behind him. Now he is throwing this country to the wolves because of his obstinacy. He will not make any concessions. The Prime Minister is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows everything. There was another leader not so long ago who was the same, who had the same power as the Prime Minister has and who was omniscient. That was Hitler, and what happened to him? He never gave in. At the end he still had faith in himself and still maintained that he was infallible. [Interjection.]

Order!

Not only did Churchill have all of the British people behind him, but the whole of the Western world, and he knew that he was fighting with allies on his side and with right on his side, and Churchill was fighting against the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). [Interjections.] We all know what the Nationalists said about Churchill, and the English, that it was a nation like a fowl with its neck chopped off but still kicking. [Interjections.] This Prime Minister has not got the neck to be chopped off. The Prime Minister has told us to-night that it is unreasonable for all those countries to attack us not only at the Conference but also at UN because they are all behaving worse than we are. He quoted India, Ghana and other countries, and he said that we were doing more for our people, and in ten years time we would educate all the citizens of the country and he told us about housing and social services. We accept all that, but the fact remains that at the Conference and at UN they were all against us, and why? Because the whole world to-day except the communists—and I do not suppose the Prime Minister would rely on them as an example—insists that citizens shall have some representation in their Government, and where this policy of the Government falls down is merely on this one point, or mainly on this one point with regard to franchise rights, and the rights of the people to be represented in the councils of the nation, the franchise rights of the Bantu, the Indians and the Coloureds to be represented in this Parliament. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) used to think the same way until he became a Nationalist. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) engendered more heat than light in his speech, but I want to let him cool down by giving him two things which will disappoint him right in the beginning. His first disappointment is that, contrary to what he said, I fully agree with what was said by the hon. member for Windhoek (Mr. van der Wath). The second is that South West is not nervous about its constitutional position because it has confidence in this Government and it revealed that confidence again very clearly a few weeks ago by obtaining an appreciably larger majority of votes in a general election. If the hon. member for Transkeian Territories could now still sit in the kindergarten about the constitutional position of South West, would he and his colleagues and his Leader allow me briefly to inform them about the position, and then I want to know from them, and particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, what attitude he is adopting to-day in regard to South West. Will he continue to adopt the standpoint which was maintained by his great Leader, General Smuts, ever since 1920 until his death, or will he deviate from it? I ask for the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, because I now want to tell him what General Smuts said all his life ever since 1920 when he addressed the very first public meeting in Windhoek, until 1947, when he addressed a meeting there for the last time, namely this.

He said that Germany after World War 1. in terms of Section 119 of the Treaty of Versailles, abandoned all claims to its overseas possessions in favour, not of the League of Nations, but (in favour) of the Chief Allied and Associated Powers, and those powers gave the mandate to the Union of South Africa to administer the territory as an integral part of the Union; and General Smuts said that in fact that really amounted to nothing less than annexation except in name. Now I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he still supports that standpoint? In terms of Section 22 of the Statutes of the League of Nations, the League of Nations was concerned with only one aspect of the administration of South West, viz. in respect of the Native races. The Union had to submit reports to the League of Nations on this one point only. It had to satisfy the League in respect of the Native races that there was no slave trading, that there was no trading in weapons and ammunition, and that no intoxicating liquor or drugs were being sold to the Natives. Those are the only matters, and those were the words of General Smuts who was known as the father of the mandates. That is the only point on which the Union had to submit reports to the League. Well, the old League of Nations was disbanded in terms of its own resolution. It did not leave a will in respect of South West, because it did not have the right to leave such a will, in view of the fact that it had not granted the Union that mandate. It was disbanded after it had taken an express resolution that it did not regard UN as its successor. Now I want to ask those hon. members who voice all this cheap criticism what standpoint they want the Government to adopt in regard to the case pending before the International Court? Do they want to adopt the standpoint adhered to by every Prime Minister in the Union since South West became a mandated territory in 1920? Every Prime Minister has consistently adopted the same attitude in regard to the constitutional position of South West. General Smuts in his very first speech as Prime Minister explained what the position was in South West on 16th September, 1920, when replying to the Germans who had submitted a memorandum to him, that they were making a mistake. His speech can be found in the library, in English, Afrikaans and German. Right from the beginning he consistently adopted that attitude and said that South West, which is a C mandate, could best attain its freedom and independence if it shared the sovereignty of its mandatory, and I submit that we got that share in 1950 when we were elected as full members of this House which is the supreme authority in South Africa. I now ask the Leader of the Opposition to adopt a standpoint in regard to this matter and to repudiate his own great Leader and all the other Prime Ministers of South Africa; and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories who challenged me to get up and speak should now rather listen to me instead of conferring with his Leader. If he can reply to what I have said, I now challenge him to get up when I sit down.

As I remarked just now, no Nationalist member got up to defend the racial policy of the Government and the only member who replied now was the member from South West, who dealt in a theoretical manner with the position in South West. Sir, we are talking about the factual position, and not with theoretical arguments. The hon. member for Karas must know that the American jurists are now arguing that the mandate has gone because it was granted to his Britannic Majesty. He must know that these arguments are going on about the position in South West. What is the factual position? I want to ask him and any other member from South West how many of them can sell farms in South West; who is prepared to invest money there? They know what the position is. The people are scared of South West, and not only the people outside but the people inside South West. For the hon. member for Karas to have the effrontery to say that the voters of South West show confidence in the Nationalist Party because they voted in increased numbers is nonsense. I am surprised he has the cheek to say it. We know that in the referendum they voted in favour of a republic, but what happened at the election held just after that? They lost votes.

Nonsense!

Ask Japie Basson.

I am not talking about Japie Basson, but what happened to the United Party there? The member for Namib reduced the majority of the Nationalists, and so did the United Party, because people have lost confidence in the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.]

I was dealing with the African policy of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Affairs, and I pointed out that what the nations overseas objected to and what we in this country who are not Nationalists object to, is the franchise policy of this Government. The Prime Minister, in reply to a question put by me, said the Coloureds would enjoy their representation in Parliament for the time being. I want to be quite honest. That is how I understood him. If I am wrong, the Prime Minister may correct me. He said that until the Kleurlingraad was established and the Government could act through that body, the representatives of the Coloureds would be allowed in Parliament, but once the Kleurlingraad was established they would have to go and they would be treated in the same way as the Bantu are being treated to-day. The Prime Minister is sitting with his hands over his eyes, so perhaps the Deputy Minister of the Interior will tell me whether that is correct, because the Prime Minister will not nod.

The Prime Minister will reply in his own good time.

Well, that is typical. The Deputy Minister does not even know what the policy is. They have to get the answers from their Prime Minister. It is clear from the Prime Minister’s answer to that question that the Coloureds will lose their vote, and that is typical of the Nationalist way of thinking, that only Whites will have political rights.

That is your own conclusion.

The Minister of Bantu Administration in the Other Place the other day justified this policy and said that there was nothing wrong with it because it happened in Italy; 2,000,000 Italians went out to work in France every year and they had no vote in France because they were citizens of Italy and voted in the elections in Italy.

The same as the Basutos in Johannesburg voted for the elections in Basutoland.

Fools rush in. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom obviously read the speech of the Minister in the Other Place, because that is the argument the Minister used. The Minister said that last year there were elections in Basutoland and the Basutos living in the Union voted in those elections and he says that is quite right because they are citizens of Basutoland. If that reasoning holds good for the Basutos working in this country, surely the same reasoning must apply to Africans living in South Africa because they are South African citizens. A Bantu living in Cape Town and coming from the Transkei, what is his nationality?

He is a Pondo from the Transkei, like you.

He is a South African citizen. He is in his own fatherland. In fact, his roots are deeper in this country than those of the Prime Minister, and if it is right for the Basutos who live in this country to vote in Basutoland because they are citizens there, surely it is right for the Africans who live in the European areas to vote in this country … [Interjections.]

Is the hon. member intimating that he and his party will be willing to give the Bantu living in the White areas the franchise?

I am surprised at the ignorance of that member. We do not run away from it. We will give the Bantu who live in the European areas the vote as well. [Interjections.] Anybody would think that is something new. Of course it would be on a separate roll. That is our policy.

Since when?

The justification for denying any franchise rights to the Bantu living in the European areas is that they must exercise their rights in the Bantu area. Now I want to ask that hon. member or any other member where can the Bantu living in Cape Town or Johannesburg exercise any franchise rights? The Bantu who are resident in the Transkei have a very limited franchise right, but the Bantu elsewhere in the country have no franchise rights. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) generated so much heat and so little light that it is difficult for me to reply to all his questions, particularly in the light of the fact that he put several other questions to the hon. the Prime Minister to which we on this side would also like to have a reply from the Leader of the Opposition. I shall return to that. I would just like to ask the hon. member whether he is one of those naïve people who believe that the franchise on a separate roll will satisfy the Afro-Asian countries and whether he thinks that that will alleviate the international pressure? I just ask this question because I am trying to get a little more light in the debate and less heat. You will have noticed, Sir, that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories hid behind a formality with reference to the remark made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) that people living in Cape Town can vote in the Transkei. The screen behind which he hid is that it is a Union citizen who lives here and we cannot say that he should go and vote there and not here. But the facts are that at the moment that arrangement does not exist yet and the question arises as to what that arrangement will be, and whether the hon. members did not hear the Prime Minister saying that we on this side are prepared to have a devolution of sovereignty. But now the hon. members do this. It is just as if they telescope the future and the past together, compress them and then pull them out again. [Interjection.] I do not know what is worrying the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), but you will remember, Sir, that I once compared him with a mad bee in the reeds. I say the Opposition telescopes the past, the present and the future and then pulls them apart again and they try to argue on the basis of different periods, and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories does that more often than any other member in the House. He should not think that we will take him very seriously when that is his approach. I asked the hon. member for Salt River what price he was prepared to pay to relieve the tension in the cold war referred to by the hon. member for Constantia, but he neglected to reply, and let me remind him of the fact that he did not reply.

Mr. Chairman, this debate in which the Prime Minister is now being reproached as if he is the villain of the piece I regard as being merely an attempt to disguise their own share in this situation, to argue it away and to pretend that they had no share in it at all, and in this way to try to exonerate themselves.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) interrupts me, but let me tell him that his actions as well as those of his party and the whole of the Opposition in regard to this matter is similar to the role of quislings.

On a point of order …

Order! The hon. member cannot say that. He must withdraw.

Very well, sir. If hon. members feel hurt about it, I withdraw it. Then I say that their role in this matter is that of a group of people who are prepared to act like fifth columnists. I would like to prove my argument.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to refer to fifth columnists? Fifth columnists are traitors.

Order! The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) should not try to evade my ruling. He must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, if I cannot call them fifth columnists, then I say …

On a point of order…

I withdraw that, Sir. In regard to this matter, the Opposition—all the parties opposite—are not guiltless.

What about the Nationalist Party?

The National Party is less guilty than the Opposition and I will say why. Since 1948 there has been unrelieved pressure from the side of the Opposition that this Government is simply unable to handle the power in this country. How many times have we not heard….

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is again interrupting me. I have warned him before. As I say, ever since 1948 there has been sustained pressure from the side of the Opposition that this Government, drunk with power, is unable to handle that power. Has the Opposition not always said that the Government wants to create a police state? Have hon. members of the Opposition not repeatedly compared us with Hitler? They did so again to-day. Has the Opposition not continually made speeches to the effect that this Government does nothing else than to be oppressive and to have a reign of terror in this country? When these speeches are made here it is quite understandable that they should be cabled overseas and read avidly. Those people are interested in South Africa. The newspapers very seldom say anything more than the Opposition said. Can they blame the world to-day for believing them and for reacting to it? Where there is tension today those groups which condemn the Union base their so-called facts—and when I say facts I say it in quotation marks—on the evidence provided by the Opposition. That is what happened. Therefore those groups are able to say to-day with a semblance of truth that this is evidence emanating from our own country and that is why they are able to act so effectively against us at UN and elsewhere. The people who are personally responsible for this are all the members of the Opposition, the members of the Progressive Party as well as those of the United Party. I am surprised to-day that these hon. members should come here and regard the Prime Minister as the villain of the piece and say that he is the one and only person who stands in the way of peace. Let me tell you, Sir, how Dr. Verwoerd will go down in history. He will be known as the man who stopped the rot. [Time limit. [

All I want to say with reference to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down is that there is not the slightest substance in his submission that the difficulties in which South Africa finds herself to-day are due to the criticism of the Opposition. The situation in which South Africa finds herself is due entirely, not to what is said in South Africa but to what is done by the Government. Responsible countries abroad do not take any notice of political criticism and criticism of the kind put forward by Michael Scott and others. They have their own ambassadors and High Commissioners in South Africa who submit their reports as to what is going on in this country, and it is on such findings of fact, on observations which are made in South Africa herself, that responsible governments overseas base their attitude towards South Africa.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to reply to his questions at this stage. The time permitted to me is too limited for that. This is a democratic Parliament and I am not going to allow myself to be bullied by any person on the other side. What I say in the form of criticism, when I offer criticism, is the truth. It does not matter who listens, but as long as I speak the truth, I shall make use in this democratic Parliament of the right to criticize the Government just as much as they deserve to be criticized.

The question of South West Africa is a very wide one which one cannot deal with properly within the brief space of ten minutes. I want to start therefore by first criticizing the Government’s handling of this issue, and I hope that I shall be given a further opportunity to state the positive side of the case as fully as possible. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister will realize that if the people in the Union are concerned about the dangers which threaten this country from within and from without as a result of this Government’s unethical racial policy, we who live in South West Africa and who have our interests there, have much more cause to be concerned about the unfavourable trend which things have taken in the past few weeks. In the case of the Union the Government can put forward the plea that its administration in connection with racial matters is a domestic affair, and that its sovereignty in this sphere ought to remain inviolate, although the fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that that conception to-day hangs on a very thin thread. To-day there is hardly any person in the world, in the community in which we move, who still regards exaggerated colour discrimination on the part of the State and as an official policy as a matter of a purely domestic nature. Australia’s recent swing against us at the United Nations underlines that fact more clearly than anything else. It will not avail the hon. the Prime Minister to come along with the argument that colour discrimination is also franchised in other countries. That is true; it is a fact. But the difference is this: Whereas they want to get away from it and whereas in those countries it is not the official government policy, here it bears the stamp of official policy, of official State philosophy that is entrenched in legislation by the Government. They want to get away from it; here it is being defended and extended. Whereas the Union is sovereign in any event, the position of South West Africa is entirely different. South West Africa is not part of the Union’s sovereignty. In the words of the hon. the Minister of External Affairs himself South West Africa bears an “ international ” character. In any case, Sir, the Government has always admitted—and previously governments also admitted—that it has a certain measure of international responsibility in respect of the administration of South West Africa. For this reason we who live in South West Africa have well-founded reasons for being concerned about the crisis which the Government has allowed to develop in respect of the position of South West Africa. I deliberately say the crisis which the Government “ has allowed ” to develop in respect of South West Africa. To anybody in the position of the Government in this country, with all its sources of information, with all the friendly sources of information which it had at its disposal as a member of the Commonwealth, it should have been perfectly clear, if it was at all amenable to observation and conviction, in which direction things would develop. Towards the end of 1958 I visited UNO for a week and both there and subsequently in the United States and in Canada and Britain I came in contact with leading figures who are helping their own countries to determine the policy in respect of Africa. Upon my return I made a speech in the caucus of the governing party. I still have my notes of that speech, and this is what I said, inter alia. I spoke at the time about the Government’s excesses in the sphere of race relations. The question of kicking out the Native’s Representatives was under discussion at the time. I referred to the serious deterioration in our international position as the result of such unnecessary steps, and I said this—

That was in April, 1959, and the only reaction which came from above was that I was totally unrealistic and that I was exaggerating the position.

I know that it is also a fact that at about the same time the British Government officially addressed certain pertinent but friendly warnings about its position at UNO in respect of the South-West issue to the Government, and the Government’s only reaction was to close its eyes and its ears. The fact that to-day we in South West Africa find ourselves in the unsafe and uncertain position in which we are is due largely to the Government’s helplessness and its complete lack of any sense of reality. They come along and say, “ What do the voters say?” Mr. Chairman, that is the whole trouble. The Government has become a slave to the reactionary opinion which it itself has created. The average voter has not got an enlightened grasp of world politics. He is not aware of the international implications of our actions. One cannot expect it of him, because Government leaders certainly do not enlighten him. If ever a true word was spoken, it was spoken on Saturday by the Burger when the editor himself wrote as follows—

[Time limit.]

At the beginning of this debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled the accusation at the hon. the Prime Minister that he was carrying out his own policy and not the policy of the greater section of the National Party. I want to challenge the hon. The Leader of the Opposition to tell us this evening which resolutions of any congress of the National Party in connection with these matters have not been carried out by this Government and by this hon. Prime Minister. And in what specific respect has the Prime Minister departed from the policy of the National Party and its execution or from the accepted policy of the Party as a whole?

May I put a question?

No. I maintain that this attempt on the part of the Opposition is nothing but a smoke screen to divert the attention of the public of South Africa from the misdeeds which they themselves have committed against this country during the years. That is why the Opposition has chosen this clever method of selecting the person of the hon. the Prime Minister and of attacking him by saying that he has not carried out the policy of his Party. I should like the Opposition to mention one resolution passed at any congress in connection with this matter which has not been faithfully carried out.

Did your Union Congress resolve not to remain in the Commonwealth?

That hon. member knows what the circumstances are. I do not know why he asks such a stupid question.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet). I too have my suspicions as to what happened before the Prime Minister’s Conference. We know that the Opposition has secret organizations at its disposal. I am strengthened in my attitude that there were secret powers behind this manoeuvering by what the hon. the Prime Minister has said here this afternoon. That, Mr. Chairman, was the reason why they used Mr. Diefenbaker and Nkrumah to oppose this matter at the Prime Ministers’ conference. Had they not used those people to fight their fight, there would have been more suspicion as to what had happened before. We know for a fact that the result of that conference was gladly seized upon by the Opposition in an attempt to force an election. They did not succeed in that because the people of South Africa and the National Party are standing firmer and firmer like a rock behind the hon. the Prime Minister

I find it difficult to understand how the Opposition can say that South Africa did not succeed in remaining a member of the Commonwealth because of her apartheid policy. Why have other countries of the Commonwealth which also discriminate and which do so to a greater extent than South Africa, countries which also apply apartheid in one way or another, succeeded in remaining members of the Commonwealth? No, Sir, it is a fact that there were other considerations why those countries chased South Africa out of the Commonwealth. The Opposition told us this evening that the responsibility for that failure lies at the door of Dr. Verwoerd. I have already said that I associated myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, namely that the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Press which supports the United Party. The arguments which are advanced in this House and outside against our apartheid policy constitute one of the main reasons why South Africa could not remain a member of the Commonwealth and that is the reason why more and more ranks are being closed to South Africa. I want to say this to the Opposition that in spite of all their denials the people of South Africa will reject them more and more. I say “ reject ” because it was a terrific shock to the Opposition when they suffered that defeat in 1948. The shock which they experienced at that time, however, strengthened them in their opposition to the Afrikaans-speaking South African and the National Party. They started this struggle against our party and against our policy at that time and what happened in 1953? The United Party suffered a greater defeat. After that, in 1958, the people rejected them even more convincingly, and I want to say that as long as they continue with this kind of propaganda against the good name of South Africa the people will reject them more and more. I want to assure the hon. the Prime Minister that as far as my constituency is concerned, we thank him for the steadfast and honourable attitude which he has adopted. We want to assure him of our unconditional support in the execution of his duty as he sees it and as we and his fellow party-members see it. The hon. the Prime Minister has our unconditional gratitude and support.

Mr. Chairman, in his speech this afternoon, the hon. the Prime Minister gave the third reason for the difficulty in which we find ourselves. I want to suggest that there is one good reason, and it is true from beginning to end, why we are out of the Commonwealth and that is the Prime Minister of South Africa. That is the reason why we are out. The reasons that have been given by people overseas and by other Prime Ministers apparently while the issue was still fresh in their minds, turned away from this question of apartheid. One Prime Minister went so far as to say that it was not the question of apartheid at all that was really at issue but that the Prime Minister refused to make any concession at all particularly in regard to the question of diplomatic representation. That was one of the questions in respect of which our Prime Minister could have made some little gesture. I want to say, Sir, that on the basis that that Prime Minister was correctly reported, it seems to me that our Prime Minister lost a golden opportunity of getting back again on a basis of negotiation with India and Pakistan, because as they were two of the nations that were pressing the question of diplomatic representation in South Africa for the other Commonwealth non-European nations, it was an opportunity for our Prime Minister to have agreed to accept those diplomatic representatives and to have challenged India and Pakistan as to whether they would send their diplomats to South Africa. That was a golden opportunity Sir, And that opportunity was missed so we find ourselves in this difficulty to-day. All the party politics that we had from the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon and from hon. members behind him, is not going to assist us one iota in getting South Africa out of the real difficulty in which she finds herself. Sir, I am reliably informed that a vote has just been taken at the United Nations on this four-member resolution and the voting was 91 to I against us and no abstentions. The one was Portugal. Can we think of a greater calamity that can face South Africa? And at a time like this we have not had one practical suggestion from the Prime Minister in a speech which lasted over two hours, as to how he is going to deal with the difficulty in which his country is placed. I managed to trace a fact paper which the Government obviously thought in 1959 warranted printing. The foreword says that is was a paper read at the Tenth Annual Congress of Sabra in Durban on 3 April, prepared by Mr. W. van Heerden, a well-known South African journalist and commentator on current affairs. In regard to the position into which we were then drifting two years ago Mr. van Heerden said this—

They may justify an unfortunate situation, Sir, but they never remove it. That is the difficulty in which we are in South Africa to-day. In spite of the Prime Minister’s speech of two hours this afternoon, and in spite of all the blustering from hon. members behind him, what have they removed? Has a single one of our difficulties been removed? Has a single solution been held out by the Prime Minister or any one of his supporters for any one of our difficulties? Has one concrete proposal been made to get us out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves, a difficulty which has been emphasized and underlined by the vote which has just been taken at the United Nations this afternoon? What proposals have we had? The only proposal we have had from the Prime Minister is that the mixture must be as before, prescribed by the same doctor for the same malady without any hope whatsoever of success. That is precisely the position. We have not had one single suggestion as to how we are to get out of this difficulty. Whether the hon. the Prime Minister is just prepared to sit still and let the wind blow, the wind of change not in Africa, the wind of change throughout the entire world….

That being so, what do you suggest?

Mr. van Heerden said this in his speech to Sabra—

It was two years ago that Mr. van Heerden said that Sir. Mr. van Heerden is not a member of the United Party nor is he an apologist for the United Party. Two years ago the people represented by Mr. van Heerden could only gaze in bewilderment at the utter futility of Dr. Malan’s efforts to stem the tide. What is the position that our present Prime Minister is putting us in? He is not even attempting to stem the tide—he says there is not a tide. The position is this, that there are a few people here and there who because of malice or for the sake of self-interest, are taking sides against South Africa. And what do we do? We rely on isolation. Does the Prime Minister realize that isolation in this context does not mean being left alone. It means giving the people in the world, Afro-Asians, White people, people of all races, the opportunity to come with some kind of excuse, some kind of a moral reason which will bolster their actions, to interfere very deeply indeed in the internal affairs of South Africa, and that can have only one result. It is true, Sir, that that resolution was not aimed at combined operations against South Africa, a combined boycott, combined sanctions against South Africa on a worldwide scale, but it is pressing everyone who voted against us to take individual action against South Africa. That is what that resolution means. I want to put it to the Prime Minister that he goes back to the days of Mr. van Heerden—I am sorry that the Minister of External Affairs is absent because the Minister is quoted with great unction by Mr. van Heerden. He said that the late Mr. Strijdom was the first man to see which way the wind was blowing and two years ago the late Mr. Strijdom said—

That was what Mr. Strijdom had said. He was the first Prime Minister to see which way the wind was blowing. He was followed by the Minister of External Affairs who on 10 of June 1957 told the Assembly—

Mr. Chairman, how are we forming a link between the African States and the Western world? We are the people who have broken the links. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) who has just sat down said that the Prime Minister was the reason why we were out of the Commonwealth. He started by saying that. I should like to ask him whether he can prove that statement of his. Because he knows as well as I or anybody else in South Africa knows that the Prime Minister does not stand alone in South Africa. On the contrary, the Prime Minister has never been in such a strong position in this country as he is to-day. I want to go further and say that never before in the history of South Africa has there been a Prime Minister who has had greater support from the nation than the present Prime Minister. When I say that I am not only referring to the support of the Afrikaans-speaking section, not only the support of the National Party but to the support of the English-speaking section, and to the support of the supporters of the hon. member for South Coast. I make bold to say that never before has a Prime Minister of the National Party enjoyed so much support in the Province of Natal than the present Prime Minister. And I challenge the hon. member for South Coast to get up and to say that I am wrong. I challenge him to deny that and to say that what I am saying is wrong. He knows he cannot do that; he knows he has no right to say that. To use his own words, he said that we lacked support because of the actions of the hon. the Prime Minister. I now want to ask him this question and I want to ask his leader this question: What attitude should the hon. the Prime Minister have adopted to obtain the support of the world? What attitude will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopt in order to gain the support of the world, which he alleges we have lost? Because he and the hon. member for South Coast know as well as any school child in South Africa that the only way in which to get the support of the world to-day is to repudiate that which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself has said today they stand for.

He knows and we know that international circles will not be satisfied with anything less than absolute equality between all races in South Africa.

Nonsense!

That has been stated repeatedly and it was repeated at UNO. That hon. member who is an authority on nonsense does not read his newspapers. But I again put the question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is prepared to accede to UNO’s demands in order to retain their goodwill. If he is prepared to do that he should get up and reply “ yes ” to my question in all honesty, in which case he will find himself without any support whatsoever in South Africa to-morrow, because the whole South African nation, the whole political front, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking, is not prepared to make the concessions which the United Nations demand of us. He knows it and the hon. member for South Coast knows it and as South Africans neither of the two is prepared to do that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said something to-day in the course of his speech in respect of which I should like to put a question to him. He said that serious rumours about strikes were circulating the country, strikes, I take it, connected with our becoming a republic. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. Then it must be strikes in connection with the one or other occurrence which may happen in the future. I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he has and whether he is prepared to say one single word to quell those strikes.

I was not listening.

As far as I know he has not as yet said a single word against that. He said strikes were threatening, and I am quite prepared to sit down and to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity …

I said that this afternoon already.

I listened very attentively. He said that strikes were threatening and he said he was afraid of those strikes, but he did not say a single word to subdue those people who wanted to call out those strikes. It is his duty not only as Leader of the Opposition but also as a South African when he hears about such rumours, to go out of his way to deny such rumours and to do everything in his power to advise those people who may harbour such ideas not to go on with them.

You can read the Hansard report of my speech. What have you done to quell them?

I did not spread those rumours. I did, however, read the report in the newspapers but I was very, very careful not to give parliamentary publicity to it, but that is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done and not only did he do so here in Parliament, but he did so with full authority as leader of the principal Opposition party in this Parliament. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon, in his speech, asked the House to compare the state of South Africa to-day with the dreadful position it was in in 1948 when they took over. I could not believe my ears, and that cannot be allowed to go by default. Let us think back with nostalgia to 1948. We had come through the greatest war with honour and an ever-growing world influence, prestige, and prosperity, so much so that when the war ended, we emerged as a strong, virile nation, with complete independence and sovereignty. We could not have had greater freedom or sovereignty than we had then, and we were an equal partner in the greatest Commonwealth of Nations, proud, serene and unafraid and quite sure of ourselves. We knew exactly where we stood. Further we were on equal footing, looking the greatest leaders in the world straight in the eye, united at home and with a rising prestige and respect abroad. That was our position, and the hon. the Prime Minister had no right to suggest that the position is better to-day than it was then. We had become one of the most popular and progressive young nations in the world. A brilliant future was prophesied for us by the older nations. Hundreds of thousands of people wanted to emigrate to South Africa to make this their homeland, and hundreds of millions of pounds were flowing in for investment. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) dealt with that aspect so very ably this afternoon. Why was that? Because the world had absolute belief in our future and there was enough money in the Treasury when we went out of power to reduce taxation by £7,000,000 within three or four months later. Not only were the two White sections happy and prosperous, but also our non-Europeans were contended and believed in and trusted their White rulers. The Stock Exchange was booming, with the whole world wanting to invest in South Africa. To-day the whole world is trying to dis-invest itself from any shareholding in South Africa. To-day we are disapproved of by the whole world, and in some cases we are even hated, with our old friends standing by watching us steadily going down. We have become the one untouchable nation in the world today.

The “ muishond ”.

Yes, the “muishond ”. We listened to a speech by the hon. the Prime Minister. It was at the end the most nauseating sop stuff I have ever listened to from a Prime Minister. It would have been more worthy of a light-weight backbencher making an emotional speech on a “ stryddag ”. The hon. the Prime Minister suggested that he alone was not to blame, that it was the wish of the whole Nationalist Party. Strange this in view of what my hon. leader read from the four leading Nationalist papers. The fact is that the Prime Minister and he alone is responsible for the position, the dangerous position that South Africa is in at the present moment. He thinks he is infallible and that he can defy the world, and I tell him now that he is busy destroying a fine and noble country, and he will be looked upon by the future generations as the man who liquidated his country and handed us over to our enemies. And this is nothing new. We have been warning him about this for years. I want to quote a paragraph of a speech from Hansard, made four years ago, on 22 January—

Who said that?

I did, four years ago. It is not too late yet to save South Africa. I as one whose forebears have been in this country for three centuries as their only fatherland, am going to make a final appeal to him, and he is the only one who has the power at this moment to save South Africa. The rest of his party are merely under his thumb and have no say. He comes and tells us that he spoke for the party. Bless my soul! Did he not get a mandate from his congress to keep us in the Commonwealth, and did he not disregard that? Even the most ignorant can see how our dangers have increased since the Prime Minister withdrew his application to remain in the Commonwealth. In the short period of a few weeks we have been made to realize what that membership meant. Britain has joined for the first time the rest of the world in condemning us, and this has given a lead to Australia and to France to depart from their policy of supporting us; and I have no doubt that it will be followed by all those who up to now stood by us. If this happened, and the whole world turns against us, then the end is inevitable. I said that I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. He can relieve the situation overnight. It takes a big man to change his views, and to say that he was wrong. It is only the small and conceited man who is not prepared to admit that he was wrong. Let the Prime Minister show that he is a big man and now at this eleventh hour by withholding the proclamation of the republic on 31 May, relieve the position. Automatically we will then remain within the Commonwealth and let the Nkrumahs of the world shout their heads off. Let us simply sit back and ignore them. Then we are still closely associated with our friends in the Commonwealth, with New Zealand, Australia and Britain and we will remain associated with their old allies, such as America, France and Germany. He will not forego his mandate. He can still carry it out next year or the year after that. It merely means that he foregoes the proclamation at the moment. Let things ride for a while. Meanwhile the climate is gradually more favourable to us. The more chaos that appears in Central Africa, the more world opinion will turn towards us and see that we are forced to maintain our Western civilization in South Africa.

One of the most significant things that has happened in the last few days was the statement by the President of the German Press Club and a local Senator, when he said that the Prime Minister’s visit to West Germany would have been an embarrassment to them and he added that the day was coming when Germany had to decide between our friendship and that of the Black state. Why this is so important is that Germany has always been looked upon with great favour and as a friend by the Nationalist Party. They have always been friends, and therefore for Germany and a man of that standing, the president of the Press Club, to come forward and say that to-day we are an embarrassment and that therefore the Prime Minister has to give up his trip to Germany, is very significant.

The hon. the Prime Minister will not tell us whether he is going to accept the finding of the International Court or not in regard to South West Africa. Why won’t he tell us? It is essential that we should know in this House. We are entitled to know. If the judgment goes against us, I have no doubt that sooner or later …

Will you accept it?

Sir, he quotes Section 2 (7) of the Charter that no interference was allowed in our domestic affairs. But this is not a domestic affair, as the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) said. This is a mandate and it is a mandate given us by an international body, the old League of Nations, and therefore it is not a domestic affair and they have the right, as even other people admitted, to expect from us to get reports. Therefore it is not a domestic affair at all as we are dealing with this mandate granted to us on certain definite conditions, and if the International Court finds against us, UNO, I am certain, will then start to take steps, and as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has told us, we would be in a very difficult position. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) who has just sat down, reminds me of a modern Rip van Winkel. Having painted the splendour and glory of the paradise which we inherited from them in 1948, we find it hard to understand why the voters rejected them. You simply cannot understand it, Sir. As a matter of fact, the hon. member is one of the last persons who should talk because if I am not mistaken he personally was responsible for the Ministry of Native Affairs in 1948, and that Department was in a more chaotic condition than any other department, except perhaps the Department of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) who had to burn his documents. I think that is one of the last subjects which the hon. member should raise. Over and above that he lost his own constituency. He ought to be ashamed of the paradise which he has left behind him.

The hon. member took a very clear stand in respect of another matter. He persisted in saying that the hon. the Prime Minister was the only person who could turn back and he appealed to him to be big-hearted and to turn back on the road. I say very clearly to-night that if we have to run back on this road, Dr. Verwoerd is not the only person to turn back, the entire National Party will have to turn back, not only will the Whites in South Africa have to turn back, but the Whites of the whole Continent of Africa and the ever increasing number of Whites in the world who are beginning to appreciate our attitude will have to turn back. When you believe that you are on the right road it is not so easy to turn back.

What is our position actually? We blame each other by saying “ It is your fault ”. What is the real reason for this situation? If I have to summarize it I want to do so with the assistance of two or three quotations. In the first instance, it is due to the altitude which has developed amongst the nations of the world towards the Black man, this new spirit which has arisen in the world since the Second World War, this spirit of independence for the Black man. Whereas the world has never worried about what happened to the Black man before then, the Black man has suddenly become the ward of every White nation because a new humanitarian feeling has developed amongst people as a result of the new era which has set in. To start with I want to quote from the leading article in the Observer of 22 June 1952 in which the rôle which Britain has played in this respect is stated clearly, particularly her rôle in the Commonwealth—

Those are the reasons why Britain is adopting that attitude. Then I should like to read a statement which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of 13 June 1952 in connection with the attitude of the Conservative Party in Britain, which is in power in Great Britain at the present moment, a statement issued by that party in respect of its attitude towards Africa and which clearly showed the direction in which these people were thinking and which made it necessary for them to act in the way they did—

I repeat “ equal political rights ”. The statement goes on—

We, the Rhodesias, Kenya and all those areas—

I repeat the phrase “ all forms of racial discrimination ”. I now want to ask the Opposition whether they are prepared to do that, and I do so in view of the fact that two days after we had withdrawn our application to remain a member of the Commonwealth the United Party, for example, voted unanimously in the Provincial Council of the Cape for separate facilities along the beaches. Is that not a form of racial discrimination? The United Party voted unanimously with the National Party for separate bathing facilities along the beaches roundabout Cape Town. Is that not racial discrimination? And racial discrimination in any form is unacceptable to Great Britain.

Who said so?

I have just read a statement which was issued by the Conservative Party in England in 1952. I want to read another quotation and I am doing so because I wish to prove that it is not the fault of the Prime Minister that we are out of the Commonwealth, it is not the fault of our Government and I even go so far as to say that it is not the fault of the Opposition. I go so far as to say that, because it seems obvious to me that the composition of the Commonwealth has become such that our withdrawal was a necessary consequence of that composition. We could not remain within. Let us return to the Black states of Africa which are members of the Commonwealth. I want to quote what Dr. Nkrumah said at the Accra Conference in December 1957. Dr. Nkrumah opened the conference with these words—

That is the outlook of Ghana and Ghana is within the Commonwealth. He demands that right. I have another quotation here. Dr. Kiano, the American-trained member of the Legislative Assembly of Kenya stated their attitude as follows at that conference—

and if the policy of the United Party were known, he would have added “ federation ”—

That being their outlook it was logical and obvious that we were not acceptable to those people. If time permits me I wish to read another quotation to illustrate the attitude which Mr. Nehru, Prime Minister of India, adopted. This was reported in the Indian News of 11 September 1953—

The following message was sent by Kenyatta to Nehru (Overseas Hindustan Times, 9 April 1953)—

[Time limit.]

I am sorry to have to say that in the international political sphere the Government is to-day following an unenlightened public opinion, instead of creating an enlightened opinion, and then trying to guide it. I think the time is overdue for the hon. the Prime Minister to enlighten Parliament as well as the public about the position of South West and the Government’s policy and its plans in that connection for the future. Parliament and the public are entitled to know what we in South West Africa must expect. As the Burger put it on Saturday, “ The public is entitled to know the facts in their naked reality ”. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister at once that it will not be enough for him to say that “ the Union will stand by South West ”, as he did a month or two ago. That ought to go without saying, unless the hon. the Prime Minister feels that there was a time, during a crisis, when his Party did not stand by South West and that he would like to give that assurance now. In any event, I say that such an assurance will not be enough. Everybody knows that the present Government has lost its prestige and that it has made more active enemies than any government in the history of the modern world has had. There has been a complete collapse of diplomacy on the part of the Government, and to-day its diplomacy no longer has any effect on anybody; and since it has now become powerless to save the Union itself from its own difficulties, there are few enlightened persons who believe that it will be able to help South West Africa out of its crisis. Indeed, the only way that remains in which the Government can help South West Africa is to abdicate and to disappear as a Government. I believe that in no other way will it be possible to create a political climate which offers even a remote possibility of a solution for the South-West Africa problem. As long as this Government remains in power, the position will simply go from bad to worse until finally it becomes hopeless. And the tragedy of the situation is that the Union’s legal position in relation to South West Africa is not at all weak. In 1950 the International Court was asked by U.N.O. to give an advisory opinion about the political position of South West Africa, and this is what the court found: It found in the first place that South West was a mandated territory, correctly under the control of the Union and of nobody else; secondly, that the Union had certain international obligations which it must comply with regularly; it must furnish information to U.N.O. annually about the administration of the territory; it must submit petitions from the inhabitants, and it must accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court, where applicable. Furthermore, it can voluntarily, if it wishes to do so, place the territory under the trusteeship of U.N.O. But this point is important; it is under no legal obligation to place South West under the trusteeship of U.N.O. In the fifth place they decided that the Union alone cannot change the status of South West Africa; that the initiative for a change can come from the Union only, but that it must obtain the cooperation of U.N.O. to that end.

The most striking point is this, that the Union is under no legal obligation to hand over South West Africa to the trusteeship of U.N.O., with the result that constitutionally the Union is in a very strong position in connection with South West Africa, particularly in view of the fact that the whole of U.N.O. accepted this advisory opinion of the International Court, with the significant exception of seven countries only, namely Indonesia, Soviet Russia, Guatamala, Yugoslavia, Mexico, Brazil and the Government of the Union of South Africa. Surely it should have been clear to the Government that if it acted as far as possible in accordance with this advisory opinion of the International Court and did not transgress in the party political sphere, our position would have been much more hopeful than it is to-day. Because the political sphere—the way in which the Government administers the territory, the way in which it treats its people, White and Black, and affords them the opportunity to develop—is the only sphere in which U.N.O. could find ground, if it wished to do so, for action against us. Constitutionally we have a strong case; politically we have a very weak case, and it seems to me that that is precisely what is happening now. From the constitutional sphere, where we have a reasonably strong case, the fight against us shifted to the political, human terrain, where the present Government has allowed our position to become lamentably weak. The charge made by Liberia and Ethiopia before the International Court has been framed very ably and astutely, and things being what they are, we have little ground for optimism. I am afraid it will be fruitless to make any appeals to the Government or try to give it, advice. I believe that if the public itself does not bring it to a halt timeously, it will march on to the precipice and drag down the country with it rather than allow a new political climate to be created in this country, a climate which will immediately facilitate the handling of our internal and external problems, including that of South West Africa.

The position of South West has become a problem, and at the moment it is a very acute problem, because of two matters, one flowing from the other. The first is the Union’s conception as to what the international position of South West Africa is, and (what is bound up with it), in which direction the internal relationship between the Union and South West ought to develop. As far as the international position is concerned, I believe in the first place, whether we like U.N.O. or not, and whichever way we ourselves would like to see things develop and, however, we may argue that the mandate no longer exists, that there are certain facts that we will have to take into account. These facts are that U.N.O. is capable of taking effective action, particularly when it concerns a smaller power such as South Africa; that one cannot therefore entirely ignore U.N.O.; that South Africa, in terms of the provisions of the mandate in respect of any dispute over South West between South Africa and a member of the old League of Nations, is subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court, which is the lawful successor of the old Permanent Court of International Law; and, moreover, that this court has already clearly expressed the opinion that the Union has certain international obligations in respect of South West and cannot unilaterally change the status of this territory. These are facts which one cannot get away from, and a prerequisite for any Government that wants to resolve or to facilitate the South West problem is to show a proper appreciation of the position occupied by U.N.O. in the world, however little or however much we may like it. It stands to reason therefore that in handling the South West Africa case, the Government, if it has the interests of this country at heart, will have to act in such a way that we can make sure of the support and the friendship of at least a few strong allies in the world. I feel therefore that the time has come for the Government to take certain steps. One step that I want to suggest is that in the future few fresh negotiators and representatives be sent to U.N.O. Britain with her well-known aptitude for diplomacy—and this also applies to other countries—does not send the same negotiators year after year to the emergent States of Africa, to mention just one example. Our old representatives did their best and they deserve our gratitude for it, but inevitably they are associated with a certain frame of mind and with certain opinions and with a certain type of conduct which, in the new and more difficult circumstances which have arisen, may prove a serious obstacle in the future to a solution that will be generally accepted. In the second place I feel that advisors should be taken along to UNO, not only from the ranks of the governing party but also from the ranks of the official Opposition. All the wisdom is not on the one side only, and since it is the desire of every Party to do the best we can for South West, I want to suggest that the Government should take the initiative in establishing a parliamentary committee consisting of representatives of all parties to advise the Government, and particularly the Ministers concerned, on the South West issue. I believe that in this way it will be possible to achieve a much greater measure of mutual confidence between the parties and a greater measure of parliamentary co-operation in respect of this acute problem. I should very much like to hear what the hon. the Prime Minister thinks of this proposal. I want to put that pertinent question to him. In the third place, Mr. Chairman, I think it has become imperative to furnish more factual information about the administration of South West. A few years ago I had the opportunity of visiting Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika as a delegate of the conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and the moment we arrived there, a year book containing exhaustive information about these three territories was made available to every delegate. [Time limit.]

With regard to what the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has just said, I merely want to say that it is childish to follow the example set by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and it is childish to tell a Government which in three successive elections has been returned to power with increasing majorities and which has been proved in the referendum to have the confidence of the people, bluntly to “resign”, as you would to a hireling whom you dismiss from your farm when it suits you. I want to point out that appeals have been made to us to control ourselves in these debates and some of us on both sides of the House have controlled ourselves well and controlled speeches have been made, even by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). For a few days he has exercised admirable self-control in what he has said as well as to-night. Except for the fact that he accused the hon. the Prime Minister of having made a political speech here to-day and that he has failed to suggest anything to remove many of the stumbling blocks from the road, the hon. member has been behaving himself fairly well. I should like to know from the hon. member for South Coast which other person in South Africa has rolled more stones in the road of South Africa than he himself. Petty attacks have been launched against the hon. the Prime Minister but you cannot expect this side of the House or the public outside, Sir, to take them seriously when, for example, you have a member like the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) telling us that the roots of Xhosa from the Transkei, as far as the franchise is concerned, are deeper embedded in this country than those of the hon. the Prime Minister, which amounts to this that he has a greater right to vote in this country and possibly greater right to occupy the Chair of the Prime Minister, than Dr. Verwoerd.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.