reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No 23—“Agriculture”, had agreed to the Vote.

Mr Chairman, while new initiatives in our subcontinent have gripped the imagination of the entire Western world, and all right-thinking people in this country have given their support, qualified and unqualified, to these initiatives, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that several factors contributed to those successes.

This brings me to an aspect—and I trust that this is a matter in which all hon members of this House will support me—which I take pleasure in dealing with, and that is to convey my thanks and to pay tribute to the SA Defence Force and to the Armscor organization. I thank them for the way in which they have performed their task in recent years. Every member of the defence family, full-time as well as part-time, including members of the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force, the commandos, as well as national servicemen and civilians, is included in this. The family and relatives of every member deserve the thanks and recognition of all inhabitants of this country. The part-time members of the Defence Force and the national servicemen can never receive sufficient material reward for the sacrifices they are making to ensure the security of us all. I take pleasure, therefore, in announcing that the State has remembered them by granting salary increases to them recently. The pay of all members of the force has also been increased by 12% with effect from 1 January this year. In addition, arrangements are being made for the Citizen Force, members of the commandos and national servicemen to receive their arrear pay as soon as possible.

A number of members of the SA Defence Force and Armscor have had to pay with their lives for the freedom and continued existence of our country. We pray for their relatives, in the hope that they will find consolation in the knowledge that no sacrifice was in vain. It is at moments such as these that our hearts go out to the relatives of the members of our security forces who have been killed in operations. Now that we are entering into a dialogue in this subcontinent, and now that the Government is able to negotiate from a position of strength, the SA Defence Force must know that we all have the greatest appreciation for the great contribution they have made.

This contribution has enabled us to talk to one another in this part of the world today; not about those things on which we differ, but about those aspects on which we are agreed.

The conduct of the security forces over the years has made an important contribution to the attempts which are now being made to solve the problems of our subcontinent in a peaceful manner. These attempts demonstrate what the hon the Prime Minister has been striving to achieve for years. How often has he not invited all the countries in our part of the world to conclude peace treaties with us, instead of harbouring and training terrorists?

Mr Chairman, at the same time I want to pay tribute to the command and staff cadres of the SA Defence Force, as well as to the management of Armscor. They are the ones who have literally worked day and night to implement the planning for the future of our country. This is also an appropriate occasion to thank the former Chief of the Air Force, General Miller, for his contribution which extends over a lifetime, and to wish his successor, General Earp, everything of the best in the responsible task which rests on his shoulders. The previous Chief of Staff: Finance, General Bergh, who retired at the end of June last year, also deserves our thanks, and we convey our good wishes to his successor, Admiral Bekker.

It is people such as these—the command and staff cadres of the SA Defence Force and the management of Armscor—who serve this country as a whole in a way which commands the respect of all people. We see the result of their planning in the amount which is appropriated for defence in this House every year. During all the years we have been involved in a full-scale communist terrorist war—as it can be described in today’s terminology—we have succeeded in waging the war on a peace-time budget. This is an aspect which the security forces of our country really deserve to be complimented on, especially when we bear in mind that since the Second World War, not a day has passed without some conflict in some corner of the globe. In fact, I know of no war which has been waged within the limits of a peacetime budget before.

What makes this achievement even more remarkable, in my opinion, is the fact that we are not only fighting within the limits of a peace-time budget, but that we are indeed winning the war. Furthermore, I have only to refer to hon members to the realities of the times in which we live. In our context, and in any language, in fact, an amount of R4 billion is an enormous amount of money. However, we must see it in perspective. The only way in which we can do this of course, is by comparing it with similar amounts elsewhere. In this respect, I should like to refer hon members to the Explanatory Memorandum which I have tabled. Unfortunately, I only have the figures for 1982. There has been hardly any change since that year with regard to the countries with which I now wish to compare South Africa. Whereas the Defence Force expenditure of the Republic of South Africa in that year was more or less the same as it is this year, ie 16,1% of the total State expenditure, that of Israel was 40,7%, South Korea 35%, the USA 29,2% and Switzerland 21,4%. Of the countries I have just mentioned, the one who comes closest to us in this connection is Switzerland with 21,4%, which is more than 5% higher than the figure for the Republic of South Africa. That is why I am making the point that we have waged and won a war with a peace-time economy. We must also remember that Switzerland has not been involved in any war or even in any conflict during this century. During the two World Wars, Switzerland remained strictly neutral.

We can take this comparison further and express it as a percentage of the gross national product. In 1982, the Defence expenditure of the Republic of South Africa was only 3,9% of its gross national product, compared with the 37,9% of Israel, the 8% of Malaysia, the 6,6% of the USA and the 7,4% of Egypt—another African state— while Switzerland spent 4,8%, once again more than the Republic of South Africa. Hon members will be even more inclined to agree with me, therefore, about the task which the SA Defence Force has performed so effectively during a period when the threat was increasing every year. The increased cost of operations has to be absorbed, and this inevitably has to be done at the expense of the capital programmes of the SA Defence Force. This, in turn, is bound to have an inhibiting effect on the acquisition and modernization of essential weaponry and other preparedness programmes. In the Business Times of the Sunday Times of 6 May this year, there was a particularly good review of the situation which was very successful in putting the whole question of defence expenditure in South Africa in perspective.

I spelt out to the Committee last year what an enormous increase there had been in communist weaponry in our subcontinent over the past 10 years. Consequently we must commend our security forces this year for what they have achieved in protecting our territorial integrity and in combating terrorism, especially in the northern area of South West Africa and in Southern Angola. Operation Askari and many other successful pre-emptive and follow-up operations against Swapo terrorists testify of the capabilities of our security forces and their human material.

In addition, there is the major contribution which is being made with regard to road blocks in this country, as well as the support given to the South African Police against terrorist infiltrators in specific cases. Between 1 April 1983 and 31 March 1984, more than 27 000 troops took part in road blocks in South Africa. I specifically mention this figure because we are inclined to think only of South West Africa when we talk about security force operations. I should also be neglecting my duty if I failed to thank hon members of this Committee and to convey my appreciation to them for the positive and responsible way in which they have dealt with Defence Force affairs. I think hon members will agree with me that the latest visits to the operational area in South West Africa once again proved the good understanding which exists among all parties in respect of national defence. Naturally, I am much closer to my own party’s defence study group, and I also want to address a special word of thanks to the chairman and members of that study group for their support.

This brings me to one of the most important matters concerning the security of our country. I am referring to the defence budget which is now before the committee. I ask hon members to have no illusions about future South African Defence Force expenditure. In spite of the fact that the expenditure will remain within normal Western peacetime limits, in terms of the figures I have mentioned, we should all like to see it reduced by peace and peaceful coexistence. Unfortunately, this is not always a realistic approach, because the price of peace is not necessarily lower than the cost of the prevailing conflicts.

In any event, it is an unfortunate fact that there has been no real scaling-down of military activity, because Swapo incidents have actually increased rather than decreased, compared with last year, while there has also been an increase in sabotage within the territory. In particular, this increase is reflected in the fact that Swapo incidents in South West Africa in March and April this year numbered 99 and 101 respectively, as against the 85 and 67 in the corresponding months last year. There has been an increase of more than 30%, therefore.

Peace does not come naturally to the human inhabitants of this world, in any event. It is not something which simply happens; it is a condition which has to be brought about by being prepared.

†They say peace is an unnatural state of man; it does not keep itself but has to be enforced. I should like to quote President Ronald Reagan on the question of a safer world. He told the American Legion in August last year:

These words of the leader of the West are directly applicable to the South African situation.

In addition, the sum total of the message of the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Casper Weinberger, in his report of 1 February to the American Congress, is that the price of peace is high and that peace with the enemies of the USA can only be achieved through dynamic defence preparations.

Recently a number of opinions have been voiced by students of communism concerning the priority the Republic of South Africa enjoys in Russian strategic planning with a view to world domination. In general all of them have agreed that the Republic of South Africa occupies a prominent role in this strategy. They differ only in their estimation of the sequence for takeover in comparison with the other areas in which the communists are at work.

Let us have no illusion about the threat against us, and also not about the financial demands that this will place on us. If the present peace initiatives continue to prove successful, it does not lessen the responsibility of the South African Defence Force to ensure that peace is maintained. One must keep in mind that the Russian policy of expansionism will also form a threat to the whole region in which we live. This will not make it possible to lighten our load, but it may even demand a greater burden on us in the future.

*We must realize that because of its great strength, the Republic of South Africa has a leading role to play within the context regional stability. South Africa will have to ensure that a healthy power balance is maintained in the entire subcontinent. I indicated during the no-confidence debate that we could expect Russia’s interest in South Africa to intensify. I want to repeat that Russia will not simply accept the present peace initiative. This peace initiative must be one of the greatest diplomatic defeats suffered by the Soviet Union since the Second World War. Therefore it would be foolish to allow the preparedness of our security forces to be lessened in any way. An example which we must never forget is Lebanon. Lebanon scaled down its Defence Force, and this holds a very grave lesson for us. Switzerland, which has preserved its neutrality for many years, maintains a Defence Force which is strong and prepared, and it reaps the benefits of this.

We must realize that by virtue of its great strength, the Republic has a leading role to play within the context of regional stability. We shall have to ensure that a healthy power balance is maintained in Southern Africa. The hon member for Wynberg once expressed the hope that the present peace initiatives could in the long term lead to a scaling-down of defence expenditure and defence obligations. I myself would also like this to happen. In fact, I would even want to believe that it might be possible in the long term. Meanwhile, however, it is not possible or realistic in the short term. In our struggle against terrorism over the years, we have also reaped certain fruits, fruits which serve as insurance for our security today. In Angola we came up against well-trained Swapo terrorists and soldiers of the Angolan Defence Force led by the Russians and the Cubans, and in every case, our young soldiers emerged from the battle as victors. This is a remarkable achievement, so much so that our friends are speaking with admiration of the fighting ability of the South African soldier today. Our enemies fear us, and in this lies one of the greatest deterrents. This has made a direct contribution to peace. This ability of our soldiers has certainly affected our country’s bargaining power. In order to ensure peace, however, a people must prepare for war. If we are granted the time, we shall have to spend a larger percentage of the appropriated amounts in years to come on the development of even better weapons systems, systems which will keep pace with those developed by the East Bloc countries. We must do this in order to ensure that South Africa keeps its security policy paid up.

The challenges are great in a world in which terrorism is escalating year by year and conflict forms part of normal life in highly developed countries. A former Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, said: “Defence must not be up to date; it must be up to tomorrow.” Look at Israel today and look at Lebanon, which is situated right next to Israel. During the past three decades, Israel has had to fight one war after another, wars aimed against the survival of Israel as a state. After every war, Israel prepared for peace by increasing its ability to defend itself.

The present limited allocation of funds for the defence of our country will therefore lead to a shift in priorities. We may get an opportunity to give attention once again to those areas to which we have had to accord a low priority in the past, such as maritime defence and other areas. In this way we shall be carrying out our responsibility to protect Western interests more effectively, and we shall be making a better contribution in the struggle against Marxism across a wide front.

The challenges facing Armscor are constantly increasing, therefore. However, I do not doubt for a moment that this organization does have the ability to develop or obtain the things we need in order to maintain peace. This costs a great deal of money, and South Africa cannot afford to economise on its most important insurance policy for its survival as a free state. No matter what is said or done in the world of today, hon members must bear in mind that foreign investments are essential for the growth of the South African economy and for the prosperity of all our people. History shows us that prospective investors are interested in good profits and sound investments and not in political systems. Investors seek security and stability and not radical change. In order to have confidence in South Africa, investors must have the security, the certainty, that a free economy, based on the Western systems, will continue to exist here. Any scaling-down of defence expenditure may just undermine the confidence of investors by depriving the prospective investor of the security he is looking for. I believe that in this connection we must take cognizance of what is going on around us in this sub-continent. We must compare the conditions prevailing in the Republic of South Africa with those in neighbouring states, such as Mozambique, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Angola, where there is a varying degree of chaos and disorder. Then I ask myself whether it is not possible to draw parallels between conditions in this subcontinent and those in Lebanon and Israel.

A great deal more will be said in this debate about the high price of peace. I have referred to this and dealt with it to make sure that we do not get any visions at this stage about sudden shifts in emphasis away from security spending. Nor must we expect any sudden changes with regard to military duty. South African military duty is no longer than that of other comparable countries in the Western World.

Hon members will recall that when the Defence Act was last amended, provision was made for maximums. It was made clear at that stage that all commando and Citizen Force obligations provided for maximums which could be utilized in accordance with the requirements of the defence plan. I should like to give hon members the assurance that national service obligations are determined by the threat against us and that they will be adjusted in the light of that. If the threat were to be substantially diminished, a start would be made with the scaling-down of national service obligations. The first aspect to which attention would be given is the camp obligations of Citizen Force and commando members. The Government is thoroughly aware of the serious effect of operational requirements on the national economy and will not make any greater demands on our Citizen Force and commandos than are really necessary. It is in view of this that I have decided to appoint a committee of inquiry which is to report to me before the end of the year about the adjustments which may be necessary in the South African Defence Force in order to meet the demands which may be made upon it in future. The committee is to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the SA Defence Force and related aspects affecting Armscor. It must ascertain how these organizations should be adapted to meet the challenges of the future. These are challenges arising from the hard economic realities of the Republic of South Africa, from changes in the security situaiton, the new constitutional dispensation, etc. These problems must be dealt with in the most economic and effective way possible. The chief of the Army, General Geldenhuys, has been appointed chairman of the committee. The members who will assist him are the chairman of Armscor, Commandant Marais, and Dr Wim de Villiers from the private sector. General Holtzhausen, Chief of Staff: Personnel, will be the other Defence Force member. The committee also has the right to co-opt additional members, and specific guidelines have been laid down for its investigation. If necessary, these terms of reference can be amplified, of course.

From time to time I receive constructive proposals and comment on Defence Force affairs from people in the private sector. In this way, for example, I received interesting proposals from a group of senior citizens last year. This group still takes a lively interest in Defence Force affairs, and they also identify positively with the SA Defence Force. I want to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to all these people for their interest, and I assure them that thorough cognisance is taken of their proposals and opinions. The Geldenhuys committee has also been instructed to investigate some of these proposals.

This brings me to an aspect of our security situation which is often overlooked in the light of our diplomatic and political successes, namely the onslaught on our heartland by ANC terrorists. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, clearly spelt out this threat when his Vote was under discussion. I need not give any further attention to it, therefore. This threat is also dealt with in full in the White Paper which has already been tabled this year. As the situation changes, however, defence priorities will change accordingly. It is just possible that we may have to give an even higher priority to our new territorial defence system as a result of this. Naturally, this is a matter to which the Geldenhuys committee will also give attention.

This system, which has to provide blanket cover all over the country, will undoubtedly play an important role in the combating of ANC terror attacks by terrorists in future. I read with great interest what a senior lecturer in political studies at the University of Cape Town had to say in the Sunday Times of 6 May. I am not the greatest admirer of this newspaper or of its political sympathies, but I nevertheless want to quote two paragraphs from what was said by this lecturer, Mr Andrew Pryor:

†I am encouraged by this realism coming from the academic ranks of the University of Cape Town where students leaders are known for radical leftist politics. I am also glad that there is appreciation at that level for the Russian ideals for out subcontinent.

This view also links up with another view of another authority on communism, Dr Jan Du Plessis. He spelt out the relationship between the SA ANC and the South African Communist Party in a position paper published by the South African Forum in 1983. I mentioned this alliance during my Vote last year. We have observed throughout that these two organizations are closely allied with the South African Communist Party taking the lead in all cases.

*We must remain prepared, spiritually, economically, politically and militarily, to counter the Russian threat to our continued existence. We must remember that we can lose the battle only once. Langenhoven expressed it well in the following words:

To me, this describes our position in relation to the Marxist onslaught on this subcontinent.

This is all I wish to say for the moment.

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

The hon the Minister’s announcement that a committee of enquiry has been appointed, under the chairmanship of General Geldenhuys, is welcomed by this side of the House. We think it is necessary, and we hope that the committee will complete its work as soon as possible. Of course we hope that the committee will find that there is not such an urgent need for an additional budget for the Defence Force as the hon the Minister fears there is.

Since we discussed this Vote last year, significant changes have been initiated in South Africa and there is a real hope that conflict can be transformed into peace. The Minister and his senior personnel and staff made a very important contribution to the peace effort, and I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the department on the way in which they performed their task. Equally important is the work—here I associate myself with what the hon the Minister said-done by our national servicemen and Citizen Force units. I also want to express this party’s thanks and appreciation to those young men and women who helped to make the country safe. To those persons who were wounded or hurt during the past year, I want to say that we on this side and the whole of Parliament hope and pray that they will recover fully. We also want to tell the families and next-of-kin of those who were killed that, along with many South Africans, we pay homage to their memory.

Because the expenditure of an extremely large sum of money is dealt with under this Vote, there is always great interest in this debate. Particularly when we take cognizance of the economic position in which South Africa finds itself at present, the hon the Minister will agree with me that it would be short-sighted if this House did not give the public the assurance that every cent that is spent is turned over at least twice. I expect the hon the Minister as well as his colleagues on that side to give the public that assurance. Because I feel that Parliament can also make a contribution as regards this planning and expenditure, I want to ask the hon the Minister, as I have done in the past, to recommend to the State President that the Defence Council be appointed in terms of the present Defence Act. I feel that in this way we shall be able to work together more closely to ensure that our funds will be spent as effectively as possible. With reference to the announcement made by the hon the Minister, I also want to say that if this council were appointed, it might be able to assist the Geldenhuys Committee, for example.

In addition, and particularly if we bear in mind that we are on the verge of a new political dispensation in this House, the hon the Minister will realize that a council consisting of members of Parliament, for which the Act makes provision, will be able to make a major contribution in this regard as well. While I am discussing the new dispensation, I also want to ask the hon the Minister why no exposition of the SA Defence Force under the new dispensation is given in the White Paper—for which we thank him. I think that the White Paper may have afforded him an appropriate opportunity at least to begin dealing with this matter or setting out fundamental guidelines.

As far as this matter is concerned, I have said in the past that I did not want to make an issue of national service by Coloureds and Indians in this debate. I think it would be better not to politicize this matter because if we did so, this would be detrimental to both the SA Defence Force and to race relations in this country consequently. I am going to abide by that undertaking. I must, however, say that the hon the Minister cannot continue to ignore this matter for very much longer. In this regard I also feel that the Defence Council, for which the Act makes provision, could also be involved in this matter. In that way all the parties at present in this House, and possibly also the parties in the new dispensation, could make a contribution. For that reason I want to make a very serious appeal to the hon the Minister not simply to ignore my request but to give attention to it. I hope his reaction to this will be very positive.

In the White Paper reference is made to the aim and tasks of the Air Force and Navy and I should like to say a few words about this. In general I cannot find much fault with the exposition in the White Paper as far as this matter is concerned. However, I am not sure whether the stated priorities are correct. Possibly there is a degree of difference between the hon the Minister and I on this point, but I think this is the proper place to deal with this matter, provided we can do so in a reasonably peaceful manner. I do not think that the economy of South Africa is or can be developed to such an extent that this country can become a really big maritime power. I feel that the SA Navy should be developed and used to defend our key points and harbours and keep them open to shipping. Keeping open the route around the South African coast should to a major extent be seen as an international obligation which should be the responsibility of all Western powers. I want to add at once that South Africa will of course be a very important member country of that Western group. I do not think things have ever been more favourable than they are right now to negotiate with countries like America, England and possibly some countries in Europe, with the aim of entering into a maritime treaty. The protection of the Cape sea route is in the interests of everyone and I feel the costs cannot be borne by South Africa alone. I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s reply to this.

In reaction to this there may be hon members on that side of the House who will point out that we were left in the lurch in the past, for example in respect of Simon’s Town and in respect of armaments which were to be delivered but were not. This is true. We were left in the lurch. The climate has changed, however. If we adhere to our undertaking to move away from racial discrimination, the West will co-operate with us because such co-operation is also in their interests. Such co-operation and a possible resultant treaty, would mean that the funds we are now using to purchase deep-sea vessels would be available for use elsewhere. When I say elsewhere, I want to tell the hon the Minister at once that his could also mean elsewhere in the SA Defence Force. This does not necessarily mean in another field entirely, although it would of course be possible to do this.

†With regard to the communist threat to South Africa, I believe that there is a slight difference of emphasis between the hon the Minister and myself. I should now like to deal with the issue which in our country has for some time evoked a very critical and in other instances a highly emotional response. For some years the Government has maintained that a total onslaught is being waged against us by the Soviet Union and its surrogates. This, it is said, would first take place in the economic sphere, then in the sphere of disinformation which would be followed by subversion and terrorism. Sir, when I deal with this subject, I do not at all want to imply that South Africa is not being threatened and that we are not at times under a very severe threat. However, the acceptance of this doctrine as simply an emotional issue is not always advisable. The acceptance of this doctrine as the basis for defence planning has, however, had the effect of significantly extending the size and the operations of the SA Defence Force, so much so that over the past ten years military expenditure has risen considerably by more than 45% in real terms.

In the last decade we have seen the mobilizationable strength of the SA Defence Force being increased by over 80%. In short, we have become a very formidable fighting machine, well trained, well equipped and experienced as far as counter-insurgency as well as conventional operations are concerned. I want to add immediately that our preparedness and our strength are obviously—also to me—a source of pride for South Africa, and the activities of the SA Defence Force have, I believe, contributed significantly to the relative peace which we enjoy in this part of the world, and in retrospect, especially in the past few months or the past year. Yet, by keeping an army of this size in operation, demands a price, and not only a price in terms of money. It also brings about a loss of productivity while our young men are performing military service.

It is thus, I believe, absolutely necessary for us constantly to examine our priorities critically, and in my view we should particularly focus on two aspects. From what I have been saying the hon the Minister and hon members on that side of the House will realize that what I am trying to do is to get this House and the members of the Defence groups involved in a quiet, realistic debate so that we can constantly determine where we stand and what it is that we need to defend ourselves against. I therefore say it is necessary for us constantly to examine our priorities critically, and, as I have already said there are particularly two aspects which I believe we should look at.

Firstly, we have to ask ourselves whether our actual and potential military resources are sufficient effectively to counter any actual or potential threat. Secondly, we have to ask ourselves whether all the other non-military inducements and sanctions are being effectively employed to complement the military deterrent we possess. I believe that the key to the answer to both these questions lies in a fairly hard-nose and realistic appraisal as to what the real threat to our security is.

The belief that planners sitting in the Kremlin, or somewhere else, are daily planning the downfall of the present body politic in the Republic of South Africa and the replacement thereof by a Marxist-orientated form of Government is, I believe, often highly emotional, and sometimes even melodramatic. Moreover I believe that it simply lulls the public into ignoring the objective of the real threat to our security, which, I believe, should be our main concern. I believe that the main concern in relation to our security are to be found in four aspects or four threats.

I believe there is a real threat of a war of insurgency. I think we must consider the possibility of conventional war involving African countries, and then thirdly, African countries, perhaps in conjunction with the Soviets using Cubans or other troops. Fourthly, Mr Chairman,—and I do not believe enough attention is being given to this aspect—there is the threat of, what I wish to call, a jump attack. I shall deal with this last one presently.

The most likely threat is obviously one of insurgency, which has already begun. It is taking place now and we have to continue to combat it. I do believe, however, that we must also appreciate the fact that the systematic denial of bases neighbouring countries to insurgents is in future going to make the supply line of insurgency groups extremely long and difficult, and will hopefully reduce the possibility of the ANC engaging in a continual series of terrorist attacks against South Africa. Further it goes without saying that the ANC or other groups similar to that organization will still be able to perpetrate acts of terrorism against South African since it is widely known that caches of arms and other ammunition are available in the country.

Further, Mr Chairman, the non-aggression treaties have not yet been signed with all our neighbours, and even if they were to be signed, not all of them, I believe, have the resources or the inclination to prevent infiltration, with the result that the threat of insurgency remains a real one; something with which we have to contend in a very serious manner. Yet I believe that in spite of these negative factors that I have mentioned, the Police Force and the SA Defence Force— and I want to give full credit to both these organizations—will be able adequately to deal with the threat to which I have just referred.

In dealing with the threat of insurgency and terrorism the hon the Minister will notice that I have very studiously avoided a debate on the possibility of internal insurrection. That is a subject, I believe, which should be discussed in another debate at some other time. Nevertheless I must point out that the possibility of internal insurrection, linked with infiltration, is of course a much more serious threat and the political implications of such a situation, should it develop, are extremely far-reaching. I do not think, however, that it is appropriate for me to deal with this aspect in this debate at the present time. That can perhaps be done at some later stage.

When we deal with the conventional threat, I want to point out that while the possibility of a conventional war can never be excluded, I find it difficult to establish who will take the chance to attack South Africa. The chance of South African countries taking action against us, I believe, remains fairly remote I believe it would be an incredibly expensive operation, and probably beyond the means of the OAU. In any event, the abilities of most of the armies south of the equator are dubious. This leaves us then with the Soviets and their surrogates.

When we look at what is happening throughout the world, we find that Soviet expansion has been based largely on two main characteristics. In the first instance, the Soviets do not easily deploy their own troops anywhere except on their immediate borders and in the Eastern European satellite countries. Elsewhere they employ surrogates. I think in Africa particularly the experience has been that where they do employ surrogates, they use them against well trained opponents using sophisticated weaponry like South Africa in the sense that they will move out of one territory to take over additional territories. As far as Angola is concerned, obviously the hon the Minister will quite rightly tell me that Cubans have been used against us as we are a strong force with sophisticated weaponry. Therefore, the point I want to make is that the Cuban or surrogate forces are being used by Russia for expansion purposes.

In the second instance, I do not believe that the Soviet Union has a coherent policy of expansionism but rather takes advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. Because South Africa is not a target opportunity, and mounting an invasion would involve the Soviet Union in a massive and protracted war which may, considering South Africa’s mineral wealth and strategic value to the West, have other ramifications, it does not seem likely to my mind that a conventional attack by the Soviets or their surrogates is indicated in the near or foreseeable future.

Having said that, I know, of course, that we will all breathe very much more easily and be far happier if we can create a situation in which the 30 000-odd Cuban soldiers are forced to return home from Angola.

Finally, I want to deal with what I call the jump attack. I believe that for the foreseeable future it is absolutely imperative that we in South Africa must be able to protect ourselves against surprise attack especially across our north-eastern border. This is a possibility that we must never exclude. For this purpose we need sophisticated aircraft as well as a very effective early warning system. If I were to have to advise or decide on priorities of expenditure, rather than spending money on naval vessels I would be tempted to say to the hon the Minister that we should rather look to our Air Force for protection because a jump attack against our industrial heartland would place South Africa in a very awkward position indeed.

I also want to say that if my analysis is correct—and obviously in a debate that is what it is all about—I wonder whether the time has not arrived for a critical re-examination of our training load. In this regard I am very pleased that the hon the Minister has already indicated that this is what he will be doing by way of his Geldenhuys Committee. I should like to suggest to the committee through the hon the Minister that perhaps we need to consider the advisability of scaling down our conventional Citizen Force and replacing it with a highly mobile, professional, full-time army. I make that as an input and a suggestion to the Committee. I believe that together with national servicemen drawn from all groups enjoying full citizenship rights, this ought to provide the SA Defence Force with sufficient manpower to counter the threat against South Africa and to protect our freedom and sovereignty.

Mr Chairman, in my speech I want to return to certain aspects which the hon member for Wynberg referred to.

We on this side of the Committee also want to express our appreciation to the hon the Minister for the White Paper that was made available. It is a source of information and a concise summary of the State’s responsibility with regard to the security of the Republic of South Africa and all its people.

We also want to thank the hon the Minister and the South African Defence Force for arranging the recent visit by the study groups of this House to the operation area. We want to thank them for the opportunity to discuss matters. We want to thank them for the way in which the hon members were received, which we greatly appreciated. We want to thank them for the frank discussions which were arranged so that hon members could ask questions freely. We also want to thank them most sincerely for the way in which they treated and evacuated one of our hon colleagues who became ill on the border. [Interjections.] This proved to us yet again how effective the Defence Force can be.

Today I want to express my regret at the thoughtless, and, I want to say, wilful remark and expression used by a speaker at the foundation meeting of the Afrika-nervolkswag. The speaker said that pandours (pandoere) wore the uniform our soldiers had to wear. I want to apologize on behalf of those soldiers, who were not White, who laid down their lives in that uniform for the security of those who are assembled here today. [Interjections.]

I want to remind the hon gentleman of a piece of history. During the Anglo-Boer War, Willem Jozef Robinson, whose names I bear, was a prisoner of war in Baclava Camp in Ceylon. With those Boer prisoners there was also a Black man whose nickname was Snowball. He was also a prisoner-of-war, not because he had tended the horses or, as we say, was an outrider, but a prisoner-of-war who had, even in those years, done service for the freedom of the country in which he lived, the Republic of the Orange Free State.

I honour every soldier and every officer, White, Coloured or Black, who does service for our security.

Following on this it would only be right to pay tribute on behalf of this side of the Committee to our men who died in the recent operation. I cannot express myself better than by means of a pararaph I read recently:

And now one final sad thought. Can we issue a word of warning to our travelling public and to our young men when they return from the border and travel by car to drive carefully? How heart-rending it is to read in the newspaper that four young national servicemen lost their lives in a motor-car accident!

Sir, I want to express a few words of appreciation to the Chaplains’ Service of the Defence Force. This service is a special facet of our Defence Force. The religious fortitude of our soldiers is of great importance. No person consisting of a body and a soul can ever be prepared if attention is given only to training his body while his soul is neglected. During the past year the Chaplains’ Service of the SA Defence Force has held fruitful discussions with and had good co-operation from churches and church leaders as regards their common task, namely ministration to church members in the Defence Force.

This co-operation is illustrated by an invitation from the Italian archbishop to the Chaplain-General of the Defence Force to lead a South African delegation on a pilgrimage to Rome as part of the Holy Year proclaimed by Pope John Paul II. A great deal of goodwill was experienced on that visit from his counterparts from 26 countries with whom he was able to hold discussions on the task of the church and with whom he was able to pray. Our Chaplain-General was the only representative of a Protestant Church. As such he was well received by the Pope, which indicates that all the churches are aware of the importance of ministering to their respective members who are undergoing military training. It can only be to the advantage of the members and the relevant churches that there is no alienation as a result of military service.

At this stage I want to thank the Commission of Administration for an inquiry into the chaplains’ pay, with a view to identifying the Chaplains’ Service as a profession for salary purposes. I hope that the national service chaplains’ pay will also receive attention because we in this House appreciate the wonderful service being rendered by these men.

Let me associate myself with the hon member for Wynberg by also thanking the Minister for the Committee he has just announced under the chairmanship of General Jannie Geldenhuys to inquire into certain aspects of the Defence Force. We are looking forward to the results of the work of this committee.

The hon member for Wynberg expressed his regret that there was no reference in the White Paper to the other population groups who are soon to become part of this Parliament. Sir, this is a delicate matter. I think the hon the Minister was correct in not dealing with this matter in the White Paper. There will be an opportunity for those people to discuss this matter and have a say in decisions affecting their own people. I think we should wait for that; we should wait until those people can make their own inputs.

The hon member also asked for the appointment of the Defence Advisory Council. May I point out to him that such councils have already existed in the past, with a greater or lesser degree of success. I also want to point out to the hon member that there are at present other instruments that are rendering excellent service. I, however, feel that the hon the Minister will take this matter further with the hon member.

These, with reference to what the hon member for Sea Point had said in the debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote, the hon member also referred to the total onslaught.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member but his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am simply rising in order to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip for his kindness.

The hon member for Wynberg said that the concept of a total onslaught was sometimes accompanies by an upsurge of emotion, while the hon member for Sea Point described it as though the Government was in the grip of a total onslaught syndrome. In the same breath they, however, admitted that Russia was tireless in its efforts. The hon member for Sea Point once said:

The hon member for Wynberg also admitted this in another part of his speech.

The concept “total onslaught” or “total war” is not a new concept. Precisely because we are in this climate of successes we have achieved, of which the Nkomati Accord is an example, we have to be prepared, we have to be willing to maintain our preparedness and we have to be aware of the threat to our security. The endeavour to preserve national security is a clearly distinguishable function of the State. The Romans used to say salus populi est suprema lex, and the hon member for Newton Park, a learned jurist, translated this for me as: “The protection of the people is the highest law of the State”.

The concept of “total war” or “total onslaught” originated long before the Second World War. West Germany was, however, the only Western country that recognized this nuance of a shift in emphasis from purely military action in war to integrated national action and seized upon and to a limited extent applied the doctrine of total war. After the Second World War the Western democracies took refuge in deterrent strategies and concentrated on a passive nuclear threat, while Russia seized on the German concept and honed it into a fine art.

The concept of total threat, of total onslaught, of total action against us, materializes from the following aspects. It is a full-fledged war which is not preceded by a formal declaration of war. It is a continuous war with the classic objective, namely the total surrender or the total destruction of the defender. The next point is that this type of warfare does not afford the defender any opportunity to prepare. It does not allow him the luxury of mobilization. Finally, it has no clearly discernible target.

The hon member for Wynberg said it was an upsurge of emotion and the hon member for Sea Point said it was a syndrome we had developed. Let us, however, apply this concept to our own country. Let us not use the information our own Information Service has supplied us with. Let us rather seek an objective yardstick. In this connection I also want to quote what was written by Mr Andrew Prior, a lecturer in political science at the University of Cape Town. I want to thank the university for having such a man on its staff. I am not going to quote what the hon the Minister quoted. [Interjections.] The hon member for Groote Schuur must now listen. He should feel very flattered that I am quoting this lecturer because he is attached to the university at which the hon member studies. The hon member for Wynberg should also listen because he maintains that such a situation does not exist. The article is entitled “How red is the ANC?”. It is only logical that some of these people are in the country. I have here a very good photograph of a blind officer. This photograph was published in a newspaper. It is a photograph of Captain Neville Clarence who was blinded in an ANC bomb attack. I also have here a photograph showing the damage done by an ANC bomb in Durban a few days ago. The ANC is therefore not a syndrome or an upsurge of emotion, but a reality. The writer of this article, who is an objective analyst of the situation, asked how red the ANC was. In this report he refers to the clear connection between these two organizations. I am quoting from the report:

They therefore share this view with many other people. I quote further:

When one reads this, one realizes what the onslaught actually is.

I agree with the hon member for Wynberg that we should not only be prepared as far as the South African Defence Force is concerned. Preparedness should cover the entire spectrum of our people and their activities. There has to be preparedness with regard to the availability, readiness, enthusiasm and willingness of our people to make sacrifices. People must be prepared to make funds available to maintain our Defence Force, and to support the organizations raising money for our Defence Force, because this builds the morale of our people. John Citizen must also be prepared to be available at any time to be trained and to form part of our security network and to play his part in the actions taken against these hidden forces. The Defence Force must be seen as a people’s defence force that belongs to everyone.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the words of praise addressed by the hon member for Standerton to our Chaplain Service in particular. He asked that the Chaplain Service as a group be singled out, and that is something that requires due consideration. If the chaplains are to be singled out, then tomorrow the attorneys will want to be singled out, and the day after it will be the engineers, and eventually one will not know quite where to draw the line.

As far as the total onslaught is concerned, we, too, believe in it. However, I wish to tell the hon member here and now that his party, and the hon the Minister of Defence in particular, must stop using the total onslaught to score political debating points whenever they are driven into a political corner. For example, when, at a meeting at Thabazimbi, the hon the Minister was driven into a political corner, he used the total onslaught to get out of it. I do not think it is fitting for him to use the total onslaught to get out of political comers.

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

Order! The hon member is creating a difficulty for me. I must refer the hon member to Standing Order No 76(l)(c), which provides:

I therefore put the request of the hon member to the Committee for its approval or rejection.

The Committee grants the hon member’s request.

Sir, I thank the Committee for its decision.

I should like to associate myself with the congratulations expressed by the hon the Minister, the hon member for Wynberg and the hon member for Standerton. On this occasion we, too, should like to convey our congratulations for their outstanding successes to the SA Defence Force, Armscor and all soldiers who have been promoted, who have retired on pension or who, in one way or another, have achieved success in their profession. I just wish to single out two people. We wish General Mike Miller everything of the best in Chile and we wish General Dennis Earp everything of the best in the Air Force. We also wish to express our sympathy with those who have suffered and convey our highest appreciation of the memory of those who have died for their father-land.

The hon member for Wynberg raised one issue on which I differ with him. He asked that the question of the contribution made by the Coloureds and Indians to the Defence Force be not discussed here. He felt that that should be kept out of politics. However, it is a purely political matter. For the past year we have been awaiting replies to our questions as to what the position with regard to Coloureds and Indians is going to be in the new dispensation. Mr Rajbansi and Rev Hendrickse have said that they refuse to perform compulsory military service until South Africa is an open community. Now we of the CP ask the Government what they are going to do. What is the attitude of the Government towards the provocative attitude of the Coloureds and the Indians, who say that they will not perform compulsory military service? The Government is silent on that score. Today, with the appointment of the Geldenhuys Committee, we are hearing the first indications that this matter will be clarified. I want to say that the Government owes it to the country to state its standpoint clearly in this regard. I ask the hon the Minister: When he rises here today, is he going to tell the Coloureds and the Indians that they will have to perform the same compulsory military service as the Whites? If that is not the case it means that whereas the Coloureds and the Indians are going to become the Whites’ constitutional equals in the new dispensation, only the Whites’ sons will have to go to the border and run the risk for being shot and killed, mutilated or taken prisoner. They have to forfeit the presence of their loved ones and leave civil life, while the Coloureds and the Indians stay at home and prey on the fat of the land and the blood and sweat of the Whites in the operational area. [Interjections.]

I shall tell hon members why the Government does not adopt a standpoint in this regard. If they adopt a standpoint and tell Rajbansi and Hendrickse that their people will have to perform compulsory military service, what will happen then? Then they will withdraw from the new dispensation. You see, Sir, the Government has painted itself into a comer and it is unable to escape. It is the political captive of the Coloureds and the Indians. The hon the Minister must provide the country with answers in this regard.

The Conservative Party has stated its defence policy on various occasions. It is a policy based on the right of self-determination of a people, a policy which was also traditionally the policy of the National Party, a policy in accordance with which people would have its own Defence Force. We should like to hear from the hon the Minister whether it is still the policy of the National Party that every Black people will have its own Defence Force. We should also like to know what the position is in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians and what the standpoints of the Government are in this regard.

I should now like to address myself to the hon the Minister personally.

First wipe off your perspiration.

You be quiet, powder puff!

Order!

I am now addressing the hon the Minister as the political head of the SA Defence Force. I am not discussing the SA Defence Force now. We on this side of the House are satisfied with the SA Defence Force. The SA Defence Force is not under discussion now.

What is bothering you then?

The hon member will hear what is bothering me presently.

Do you want to be personal?

No, I do not wish to be personal. The hon the Minister and I have an agreement, and that is that I can attack him and he can attack me in the political sphere as much as we like. That is not personal. I am attacking him politically. [Interjections.]

The CP has no confidence in the hon the Minister as political chief of the SA Defence Force. We have said this on several occasions and for a variety of reasons. This year again we urgently call for the dismissal of the hon the Minister. We call for it in the national interest. We believe that keeping the hon the Minister on in his post any longer is clear proof that NP interests and personal interests are being put before the national interest. I shall explain why we call for the dismissal of the hon the Minister. In the first place, the hon the Minister is saddled with an insurmountable problem of confidence. On 4 July 1977 he wrote a letter to Dr Eschel Rhoodie which forms part of the report of the Erasmus Commission, the recommendations of which were accepted by the Government. In that letter the hon the Minister wrote:

That is the present hon Prime Minister:

The hon the Minister confirms that the hon Pieter Willem Botha, the Prime Minister of the RSA, told untruths in this Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister himself was also a party to that deception. He was a party to the campaign of lies … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member say that the hon the Prime Minister was a party to a deception?

The hon member for Jeppe must withdraw that.

I withdraw the word “deception”, and I shall then say … [Interjections.] The hon the Prime Minister was a party to a campaign of lies to mislead this Parliament.

Order! No …

Sir, I can address you on that point.

Order! No hon member of this House may accuse another hon member of having been a party to a campaign of lies. The hon member may not use the word “lie”.

Then I say that the hon the Prime the Minister was party to a campaign of untruths in this House with the aim of misleading Parliament.

Order! Before doing anything else the hon member must first withdraw the word “lie”.

Untruth then … I withdraw it.

The hon member may now proceed to state his case.

The hon the Prime Minister was a party to a campaign of untruths with the aim of misleading Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member say that the hon the Prime Minister was part of a campaign to mislead the House?

No, the hon member may not say that either. He may not say that an hon member is misleading the House.

Sir, may I address you on that?

The hon member must withdraw it. He may not address me on that.

I withdraw it. I say that it is on record that the hon the Prime Minister told untruths in this House in order to obtain additional funds. I say that that constitutes absolute and deliberate misleading of Parliament. [Interjections.] May I not say that?

Order! Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is finding substitutes for words and terminology that are not admissible in this House. With respect to the hon member, he knows he is doing that.

Sir, may the hon member waste my time in this fashion?

Order! Order! The hon member for Roodeplaat is stating a point of order and he is entitled to address the Chair in that regard. The hon member for Roodeplaat may proceed.

I think it is totally unparliamentary of the hon member for Jeppe, nor is it conducive to the dignity of this Committee, if he persists in harping on the terminology of “untruths”, “misleading” and so on. I think the hon member should rather refrain from doing so or withdraw his remarks entirely.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Jeppe contended that the hon the Prime Minister had told an untruth in this House.

Order! That is not a point of order. But the hon member for Jeppe said that the hon the Prime Minister had deliberately misled this House. The hon member must please withdraw the word “deliberately”.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

I appeal to the hon member not to attempt to evade the rulings of the Chair by using different terminology.

I shall abide by your ruling, Mr Chairman.

On the basis of the statements I have quoted from the letter, viz that the hon the Prime Minister, according to the hon the Minister, told untruths here, I ask how South Africa can ever trust the hon the Prime Minister again, and in particular this hon Minister as political chief of the SA Defence Force if he was part of that campaign of untruths.

Our second reason for calling for the dismissal of the hon the Minister is the scandal surrounding the raid in the Seychelles. If the hon members think we have forgotten about that, they had better think again. The Supreme Court found that two brigadiers had been involved in that attack. That case was an absolute scandal and a blot on the name of the SA Defence Force. What happened, however? Although one would have thought that he had acted wrongly, one of the brigadiers involved was awarded a medal. In any civilized country in the world the political chief of the Defence Force would have been dismissed if he had been guilty of an incident of the nature of the Seychelles raid. Nevertheless, the hon the Minister is still sitting here, with a broad grin, in a Cabinet post. He is still handling the defence affairs of South Africa, in spite of the fact that the Seychelles affair is still clothed in secrecy and the people do not know what happened there.

The truth about the Seychelles raid appears to be, however, that it was the hon the Prime Minister who issued the order.

That is nonsense!

Oh, what do you know, old Pen? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I contend that it is out of order for the hon member for Jeppe to say that the hon the Prime the Minister gave orders for unlawful action to be taken against another country.

I repeat it.

Order! The hon member may proceed. However, I appeal to him not to mention hon members by name but to refer to them as hon members.

I shall not do so again, Mr Chairman.

I contend that the hon the Prime Minister should then deny it, because I accuse him of doing so. He gave orders for the Seychelles to be raided in a scandalous fashion and I challenge him to deny it.

But you are lying now.

Order! The hon the Minister of Community Development may not say that another hon member is lying, and he must please withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Jeppe may proceed.

The matter of the invasion of the Seychelles is still one that demands the resignation of the hon the Minister, because he dealt with that matter in a pathetic way.

I now come to another matter, viz that of Dieter Gerhardt. Here, Sir, we have an incredible example of ministerial incompetence and arrogance in a matter which had international repercussions. What happened? Was there an inquiry? Were disciplinary steps taken? Are other Gerhardt’s still operating? What is going on? Have we been informed about this? We do not know what is going on. We do not even know if disciplinary steps have been taken. Would the Minister of Defence of any civilized country in the world still have kept his post if he had permitted scandals of this nature? But the hon the Minister is still sitting here, still the political head of the SA Defence Force. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there is a fourth reason why we ask for the resignation of the hon the Minister, and that is the fact that he is blatantly politicizing the SA Defence Force and, in so doing, reducing the Defence Force to the status of an NP election agent.

You are talking nonsense, man!

That hon member is too stupid to know what is going on. Let me mention examples. In the first place, the hon the Minister permits helicopters of the SA Defence Force to be used to carry Ministers to NP functions.

Oh really, that is an old story by now!

It is an old story, but it is still alive. In the second place, a video film was made during the referendum campaign which was a blatant propaganda film for the NP cause. We requested the hon the Minister to be so kind as to allow us—us and the other political Opposition parties—to go and state our standpoints there too. However, he refused. [Interjections.] Hon members of the Opposition parties were forbidden to address soldiers during the referendum campaign. In the mean time, however, the hon the Minister himself addressed them in connection with the yes side or the no side of the matter. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister gave hon members of the Opposition parties to understand that there would be no operational tours in 1983, due to a lack of money. Do you know what happened then, Mr Chairman?

That is an old story, man.

It is an old story, is it? It is only six months old. [Interjections.] Having informed Opposition parties that there was no money to go to the border, the hon the Minister himself took car-loads of NP MPs and MPCs straight to the border. [Interjections.]

Order!

Moreover, allegations have been made that troops have been taken to NP meetings by military transport to fill empty seats. [Interjections.]

Thus far the hon the Minister has failed to convince anyone of his innocence with regard to the operational tours, particularly as far as the people of his constituency are concerned. I want to put it to the hon the Minister today that the fact that Mrs Joan Hunter, his MPC, and several of the members of the management of the NP in his constituency were taken to the border on a special tour is the clearest possible example of the politicization of the SA Defence Force. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Benoni neatly let the cat out of the bag when, in a publication distributed in Soutpansberg, he referred to the Defence Force of the NP. Defence Force helicopters are used by Ministers on their hunting trips, and Mr Fanie Botha used military transport to go and hunt his buffalo. [Interjections.]

Therefore I contend that this gross politicization of the SA Defence Force by this hon Minister cries to high heaven. Is the Defence Force, then, merely an NP Defence Force? What do you think, Mr Chairman, is the reaction of many thousands of young CP soldiers when they hear these things? [Interjections.] I appeal to the hon the Minister to resign, not only for these reasons, but in order summarily to put a stop to this malpractice in the national interest. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, there are additional points of criticism that I want to level at the hon the Minister. Why does the hon the Minister not answer the questions put to him by hon members of the CP? Several questions have been put to him in the past—this is on record in Hansard—to which he simply does not reply. We remind the hon the Minister that it is his duty to reply to us. I put it to him that if he neglects to reply to us, he is in contempt of parliamentary customs. [Interjections.]

There is another matter which I take very much amiss of the hon the Minister. It is the fact that he leaks confidential discussions. On a certain occasion in the past the hon member for Pietersburg was invited to attend a Defence Force function. However, he was unable to attend. He was told that he should please do his best to attend that function. He was even told that he could obtain a place on a certain aircraft, but only that he should not say anything about it. We regarded that discussion as confidential. However, the hon the Minister blurted out the details in Parliament. We hold that against him.

Mr Chairman, I should now like to discuss briefly the Government’s current peace initiatives with neighbouring states. In particular I want to emphasize the role and position of the SA Defence Force therein. The Accord of Nkomati has been presented to us as a non-aggression treaty. We support the conclusion of non-aggression treaties.

But …

We support peace initiatives.

But …

But, Mr Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order!

But, Mr Chairman, we are intensely concerned about the turn matters are taking now. When I now go on to say what is in my mind, I want to see whether we shall still hear these noises, the kind of noises, in fact, that one hears from Third World countries at the UN when a White person rises to speak. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I contend that the turn now taken by the peace initiatives indicates that the Accord of Nkomati is developing into an aggression treaty [Interjections.] In the second place, I contend that South Africa is turning its back on former allies, and that the SA Defence Force may in future perform the role of mercenaries for communist governments. [Interjections.] Very well, Mr Chairman, allow me to explain to this little group of uninformed persons what I mean. [Interjections.]

Order!

In terms of article 8 of the Cahora Bassa agreement the Governments of South Africa and Mozambique accept joint responsibility for the protection of the power lines extending from Cahora Bassa to the Appollo power station in Transvaal. When I make my next point I should like to hear what the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has to say about it.

The hon the Minister of Defence conceded to the hon member for Pietersburg and myself the point that the article may be interpreted to mean that the SA Defence Force will take action in Mozambique and that the Mozambican troops can also take action in the Transvaal. Joint responsibility for the whole line has been conceded. This article has vast and wide-ranging implications. It creates approval in principle for our South African Defence Force to take action in a foreign state and for foreign troops to take action in South Africa. If, then, the SA Defence Force has to take action in Mozambique, my very simple question is the following: Against whom shall we be acting in Mozambique? The answer is, of course, that our troops in Mozambique can only act on behalf of the communist Frelimo regime in Mozambique. Against whom? Against the resistance movements. Therefore I say that the Nkomati Accord is developing into an aggression treaty in terms of which the SA Defence Force will be acting as mercenaries for a communist government against resistance movements which, until recently, enjoyed South Africa’s sympathy. [Interjections.]

You are mad.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs must withdraw the words “you are mad”.

I withdraw them, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I have been at the UN on various occasions and I have never yet heard such remarks made by Whites about a White person as I have heard here today. [Interjections.]

A week or two ago at the Castle, when the Cahora Bassa agreement was signed, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the Governments of South Africa and Mozambique rejected terrorism. What does that mean? Frelimo, which for years was a recognized violent communist organization, is suddenly, overnight, no longer a terrorist organization. The resistance movements are now, overnight, becoming terrorist movements. Arising out of that, I want to ask the hon the Minister of Defence: What, then, about Unita? Unita is a recognized resistance movement in Angola, and it is also known that in the past South Africa has been well-disposed towards Unita. I now want to ask the hon the Minister specifically: Will Unita, which is fighting against the communist Angolan government, in future be presumed by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be a terrorist organization? [Interjections.] Is South Africa itself, then, guilty of terrorism now, because in the past we have been well-disposed towards resistance movements? Is South Africa now going to turn its back on Dr Savimbi? [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon member that if he looks at the result in Pretoria yesterday where the HNP’s candidate beat the NP, then he can say goodbye to Louis Nel.

I warn today that this dramatic somersault by South Africa, in declaring former allies to be terrorists, will give South Africa the image of a traitor. If the peace initiatives have to lead to South Africa having to go and help communist governments against resistance movements, then there is only one place where there will be rejoicing, and that will be the Kremlin. It will not have to continue to protect its puppet governments in Southern Africa against non-communists, because the SA Defence Force will do so on its behalf. The SA Defence Force will then indirectly become Russia’s mercenaries in Southern Africa.

The hon the Minister has the opportunity to prove to me that the contrary is true. I call upon the hon the Minister to give us the assurance that the SA Defence Force will not act against resistance movements on behalf of communist governments outside South Africa. Such an assurance would cause the arguments I have advanced, to fall away. I therefore request from the hon the Minister the assurance that communist soldiers will in no circumstances be permitted in terms of article 8 to come to South Africa to help take over the tasks of the South African Security Forces. This would be a violation of our territorial integrity, it would be a slap in the face of our troops and it would harm the image of the SA Defence Force.

Our standpoint on this matter is a straightforward one. We are in favour of the supply of power and we are in favour of the peace initiatives, but we say that South Africa must carry out the defence actions in its own territory, and the other governments can do so in their territories. Is there any objection to that?

As far as South West Africa is concerned, we urgently ask: What does the future hold for South West? Is the SA Defence Force to be withdrawn from that territory or are our troops going to stay there?

I conclude by saying that the politicization of the SA Defence Force and the irresponsible, arrogant political conduct of the hon the Minister has reached the stage at which South Africa cannot afford the hon the Minister a day longer, and we ask for the umpteenth time—we issued a warning in the case of Mr Fanie Botha, and we were proved correct; he eventually had to go, and there is not even an investigation of him—for the immediate resignation, in the national interest, of the hon the Minister.

In addition I want to say, and hon members can laugh about it if they like: I have the utmost respect for the hon the Minister as a soldier. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall come back to the soap-box tirade to which we have just listened in a moment.

Allow me, firstly, also to congratulate the newly-appointed head of the SA Air Force, General Earp. It is a privilege to do so because I also served in an air force squadron with General Earp in 1954 and 1955. In addition, he is a Free Stater born and bred, and that in itself is a fine qualification. General Earp is someone who is eminently suited to the post he occupies. As a veteran of the Korean War during which he was a prisoner-of-war of the communists for two years, he acquired an in-depth knowledge of communism, and not only does he have theoretical knowledge of what goes on in a communist’s head, but he has also felt it physically. We are grateful that this knowledge which was acquired in such difficult circumstances can also be used by someone like General Earp in the interests of the SA Defence Force and in the interests of South Africa.

Like other hon members who spoke today about other sections of our Defence Force, the members of our defence family, such as the Army, the Navy, the Chaplain Services, the Medical Services and so on, I would have liked to have spoken about the SA Air Force, since there is so much we would like to stress in pointing out the achievements of the Air Force, too.

However, it was a black day for South Africa when we had to listen in the Committee today to a tirade by a party’s chief spokesman on defence matters. If one had shut one’s eyes for a moment one could have imagined that one was sitting and listening to a soap-box orator in Hyde Park in England. If one considers the high level of the debate until the hon member rose to speak, one cannot believe that in discussing the SA Defence Force, the pride of South Africa, someone can rise and indulge in the absurdities the hon member indulged in here.

The hon member has been absent from the House for weeks. Every question he addressed in a threatening manner to the hon the Minister and the hon the Prime Minister, had been dealt with repeatedly by the various hon Ministers in the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Vote and other Votes. We do not know where the hon member goes that he does not at least read about these things, but now he comes and asks foolish questions.

The hon member asked for the dismissal of the hon the Minister of Defence. I regret that the hon the leader of the CP is not here today, but for what it is worth, I see that at least the hon leader of the Cape Province is present. [Interjections.]

Order!

I urgently request that the hon member for Jeppe be discharged from his task as chief spokesman on defence in this House, since the way he carries on here is an absolute disgrace. [Interjections.]

Order! Order! I have only called upon the hon member for Kroonstad to speak, and he does not need a choir to assist him.

Just as the CP represents the caricature of conservatism in this House, the hon member for Jeppe is becoming the personification of the caricature of a chief spokesman on any specific matter, and in this case, on defence matters. I said that the Defence Force was the pride of South Africa. The Defence Force is there to serve the Government of the day and consequently it can justifiably rely on the loyal support and the undivided allegiance of every reasonable and upright patriotic South African. What is happening now, however? What did we hear in this House today? I think the hon member for Jeppe is competing with the pandour master of the AWB. It is the military wing of the CP and someone has to be in command. I think the hon member is competing with him.

That is untrue. That is a lie.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman is not permitted to say that the hon member is telling a lie. The hon member must withdraw that.

I would like to withdraw it, but …

Order! No, it is not a matter of whether or not it is true. The hon member must withdraw the word “lie” and then resume his seat. The hon member is not permitted to address the House now.

I withdraw the word “lie” and say that he is parsimonious as far as the truth is concerned.

What kind of image of the SA Defence Force did the hon member for Jeppe present here? At the same time I could ask what image the South African public has of the hon member for Jeppe. It is certainly not an image of which the hon member and/or the CP can be proud. What is his image in the Supreme Court? A judge of the Supreme Court described the hon member for Jeppe as an unintelligent and dishonest witness.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Mr Speaker, appealed to hon members the other day to refrain from making personal attacks on other members. The hon member for Kroonstad is slighting the person of the hon member for Jeppe.

Order! It is correct that Mr Speaker made a very urgent appeal to hon members the other day to refrain from doing so, but I heard no objections when the hon member for Jeppe accused the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Prime Minister personally of very serious things. Under the circumstances I shall permit the hon member for Kroonstad to proceed, although …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You made the hon member for Jeppe withdraw his words and I now politely request that you make the hon member for Kroonstad withdraw his words.

Order! All I made the hon member for Jeppe withdraw was unparliamentary language, and if the hon member for Kroonstad uses unparliamentary language, I shall apply the same criterion to him. The hon member for Kroonstad may proceed.

I have already mentioned what a judge of the Supreme Court had to say about the hon member for Jeppe, but what is the image of the hon member for Jeppe outside? We are familiar with his public appearance during which hon Ministers are spat on and people are pushed down stairs at elections, and we still recall the bang when the hon member almost kicked the doors of this Chamber from their hinges last year.

Order!

At one stage I did not begrudge the hon member for Waterberg the embarrassment the hon member for Jeppe was to the NP, but I am now beginning to have my doubts about that, too. How did the hon member for Jeppe behave at the border? On occasion he arrived there uninvited, uncalled-for, and without authorization. On that occasion he behaved in such a way …

You allow him to say that. Very well … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Jeppe entitled to address the Chair in such a manner?

Order! The hon member for Jeppe was not addressing the Chair, but the hon the Minister of Defence.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Jeppe was definitely addressing the Chair.

Order! I am satisfied that the hon member was not referring to the Chair. I have already given my ruling.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Could I just explain …

Order! There was no ruling against the hon member for Jeppe. The hon member for Kroonstad may proceed with his speech.

I wish to conclude by saying that on that occasion the hon member for Jeppe was guilty of conduct which does not befit an hon member of this Parliament. Today I address a serious and urgent appeal to the hon the Minister of Defence not to allow himself to descend to the level to which the hon member for Jeppe descended today, nor to react to the hon member’s questions in any way, since the tone and the manner in which he put his questions here today do not justify a reply. Nor is it in the best interests of the South African Defence Force to reply to such questions. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman …

Come back to Kroonstad—you have already lost your seat and you know it.

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister will recall that when hon members congratulated him on his appointment as a Minister I was the only one who expressed any misgivings. I said that he was a good soldier but that it would be a pity if he allowed himself to get involved in the politics of this House. I think the truth of that statement has been proved this afternoon by the performance by the hon member for Jeppe.

Vause, you do persist in being an old toady (“kruiper”).

Order! Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Jeppe allowed to say to the hon member for Durban Point that he is a toady?

Order! No, the hon member is not allowed to say it, and I was on the point of asking the hon member for Jeppe to withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, the hon intercessor for the NRP …

Order!

I said it and now I withdraw it.

Order! That is all the hon member is allowed to do now.

Well, that is all I said.

Order! I cannot tolerate this. I asked the hon member for Jeppe, in all fairness, to withdraw a remark he addressed to the hon member for Durban Point. Thereupon the hon member tried to enter into a discussion with the Chair and I now afford the hon member an opportunity to apologize to the Chair.

Apologize for what?

The hon member must apologize for having argued with the Chair after the Chair had addressed a reasonable request to him.

Mr Chairman, if you gained the impression that I was arguing with the Chair then I withdraw the words. However, that was not my intention.

Order! The hon member must apologize and then the hon member may …

I apologize. I have already done so and I am now doing so a second time.

Order! The hon member must please withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting for having disregarded the authority of the Chair.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, is the hon member allowed to leave the Chamber without bowing to the Chair?

Mr Chairman, it will be a great pity if defence debates should descend to this level and if one of the most serious matters we as South Africans have to discuss should degenerate into political mud-slinging such as we have witnessed today.

Firstly I want to associate myself with the sympathy the hon the Minister and other hon members conveyed to the next-of-kin of those who have died serving our country. On behalf of the NRP I also want to congratulate those soldiers who have won glory for our country.

†Together with others, for instance the hon member for Kroonstad, I want to congratulate the new Head of the South African Air Force and express good wishes to General Muller on his retirement. I believe a person who has been through the mill such as General Earp has been, will bring to his new post the experience of somebody who talks from knowledge and not from hearsay. Not only to the generals, Admiral Bekker and others, who have been transferred and promoted to new posts, but to every member of the SA Defence Force at every level who have been promoted and takes on new responsibilities, we in this party extend our best wishes. We are confident that they will play their part well.

The role of the SADF has moved into a new sphere. Its primary role has not been replaced, but it has been extended into a new sphere—namely that of peace-maker as part of the peace-making machinery of South Africa. Its primary role is, of course, to act as a deterrent. It also has an important role in the field of civic action. Now, however, it is also entering other fields in which I believe it has shown itself quite as capable as it is in the military field. I refer specifically, firstly, to the tremendous logistics job the Forces did in setting up the Nkomati structure within a few days, which was almost an impossible task. I know how hard they worked. I am also thinking of Angola and the agreement that was reached in Lusaka, as also the Joint Monitoring Commission, in respect of which a vital task is being performed which can affect the future not only of Angola and South West Africa but also of the whole of Southern Africa. I want to thank all those who were involved at all levels for the responsibility, the tact, the diplomacy and the determination which they are showing in this new role for our military forces.

I do not thereby wish to detract from what they are doing as soldiers and I should like to place on record here the appreciation and congratulations of this House to all who participated in and those who planned the Askari Operation. I want to add to that something which I think we tend, generally, to forget. We think in terms of the big spectacular action like Askari, but we forget the almost daily operations in which men are facing the same risk of being wounded or injured, of treading on a landmine and of being killed. Those operations go on day after day and week after week. Because they do not hit the headlines like Askari, Protea and others, we tend to forget them. I would like to say to those involved that there are many in South Africa who do not forget that every day there are people going into action doing a job in which their lives are threatened and they find themselves in danger. South Africa appreciates them and is proud of them.

What I have noticed, too, is the strong co-operation between the arms of the Service, the way the infantry, the PBI, the mechanised infantry, logistics and the medical corps work together as a team. I want to direct a particular word of appreciation to the Air Force which is a key factor in the sort of bush war we are fighting and plays a vital part in it. I want to emphasize that and, if, with all the points of order, I have the time available, I shall come back to this subject. I am not talking about the Forces in the generic sense, but about people, individuals, leaders and young men with mothers and families. They are all part of the South African security family which is defending our country.

At the risk of throwing in a couple of spanners after I have been talking with all sincerity about our appreciation and respect for what is happening, I want to say that I know that the favourite pastime of soldiers— although in this respect I do not think they quite beat the farmers, but it is neck and neck —is moaning. They always have a grouse. If a soldier does not have a grouse, then I would say there is something wrong with him. When the grouse affects the soldier’s morale or create inter-unit resentment, then we have to do something about it, however, petty it may be. I want to refer to the Citizen Force in particular. The Citizen Force has a largely volunteer leadership. These are people who make tremendous sacrifices. The Citizen Force is manned by people who are starting their careers, who are just establishing themselves in life and who make tremendous personal sacrifices to serve for three months on the border. Nobody will dispute that the Citizen Force is the backbone of our total security in case of a full out war. It is also a vital element in the sort of war that we are engaged in now. Despite the problems of the pre-1973 exemption …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip.

In spite of the shortage of men they do their job and they produce their quotas. However, there is tremendous resentment in the nickname they are given by the full-time soldiers of the Permanent Force, namely “campers”. I would ask the military to put a stop to the use of the word “camper” as if these people are holidaymakers enjoying a camp in the bush. Sir, it is a tiny thing, but you will be surprised how often one hears complaints about being called “campers”.

There is also another very isolated, fortunately, cause of resentment, and that relates to the eight to four clock watching chair polishers who say that this war is not their’s and ask why they should get involved in it. I think one also has to look at the reason why those who are making tremendous sacrifices should have to be upset and their morale affected by those who are not pulling their weight in the team.

Before turning to the Budget itself I want to be critical on another matter, namely the question of border visits. I want to say to the hon the Minister—I am not going to go through it all again because it has all been said before—that we have to get this matter out of the debating system. He should stop trying to avoid facing up to it. Let us rather scrub it and start from scratch. There is no doubt that the departure from the time tested system of keeping politics out of defence by taking groups from one party to the border has tended to politicize defence and affected its credibility. We must get back to keeping politics right out of defence. I should like to make a special appeal to the hon the Minister: Let us wipe the slate clean and let us from now on get back to treating defence as a matter above and beyond party-political differences.

Hear, hear!

I now want to turn to the Budget itself. I am grateful to Adm Bekker who assisted me to follow my way through the new format, which is very difficult to follow. I also appreciate the memorandum which sets it out much more clearly. The defence budget reflects the primary task of defence, ground fighting, with the PBI, the poor bloody infantryman, on the ground, fighting and patrolling on his feet plus the logistics to supply him and the air cover and air transport to get him where he has to get quickly. It is a ground and air support operation. We also maintain, and we have to maintain, the conventional deterrent. We do that. It is vital. However, for reasons which everyone appreciates, such as the arms embargo and the vast cost factor, I believe other aspects of the Air Force and particularly of the Navy are lagging behind in our balanced preparations.

In the Navy we have one frigate, three submarines and an ageing and often sickly mamma to supply them. When one of those vessels has to go in for a refit, our sea-going force is paralysed. The submarines cannot operate properly on their own, so when the frigate has to have a refit the whole force is paralysed. The strike craft were the correct action to take as a short-term immediate ancillary, and I do not underestimate them, but they need the conventional back-up of the big ships. I believe that the time has come to get down and build our own corvettes, for instance, or even something bigger if we can, but at least a corvette. I believe that we should plan now to build our own submarines. Although I agree with the hon member for Wynberg that we cannot be a major maritime force, I maintain that we can and must have a credible maritime strength.

One other aspect I should like to refer to is the scrapping of the Shackletons. I know that the Navy will start piling up wood to burn me at the stake, but I believe that we now have to accept that we cannot play a proper role in the surveillance and information task relating to the sea route. What we now have to do, is to take away from the Navy the twin responsibility for search and rescue operations in sea disasters. We must still look after the people going to sea, after our own shipping, yachts, fishing boats and international traffic, and we have to have the deep-sea search and rescue facilities. I believe that if we established a civil coastguard service, it could do that job on a demilitarized basis. We would then be able to get the sort of search, planes that we really wanted for the reconnaissance task. We must forget about this now but we must at least get them for the search and rescue task. If we have a civil coastguard service, I believe that the world will look at that service in a far different light when it comes to the arms embargo and give us what is required to save lives at sea, a responsibility that we dare not run away from.

The other urgent requirement is that we should consider building helicopters. I believe that we have to start building our own helicopters as well as some of our maritime requirements. This task will cost money, a great deal of money, but it is a task which we have to undertake.

I do not have time to go into detail, but I want to refer critically to another matter which I skipped earlier, and that is the White Paper. I am afraid I do not agree with those hon members who have praised it. I must say in all sincerity that there is very little “meat” in this White Paper. The same things are discussed and virtually the same phraseology is used. One heading after the other is the same: “The Threat”, and “Onslaught against the RSA”. The same phraseology is also used in the conclusions. It is full of generalizations.

If one looks at Jane’s Defence Review— and I thank the Defence Force for sending me these copies—and sees the detail supplied, one will realize that our obsession with secrecy in the Defence Force is unnecessary. Here they give all the technical details, every little detail, and it is a great credit to Armscor. I congratulate them on the magnificent job they have done, for there can be no greater tribute than these references to our armaments industry in Jane’s Defence Review. This White Paper, however, reflects nothing of any importance about this. It should either be given substance in order to make of it a real White Paper, which gives people an insight into the real defence problems and related issues in this country, or it should be abandoned altogether. Whatever the case may be, it should not contain all these general airy-fairy phrases. If one looks through the White Paper one discovers that it is filled with general platitudes. It contains phrases such as: “The backlog of strategic supplies has been eliminated.” It then goes on telling us of what shortages there are. Yet other statements in the White Paper tell us that the threat is not so bad, and elsewhere that it is critical. It then goes on to tell us of how the threat is being reduced. It keeps on contradicting itself too. As I have said, I do not have time to quote at length. The impression one gains from this White Paper, however, is that it is just a general exercise written with the aim of giving as little information as possible on what our forces are doing, where we stand … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Durban Point, particularly because he has a positive approach. What he conveyed to the hon the Minister were positive requests. We therefore thank him sincerely for this. I do not agree with him as far as his remarks about the White Paper are concerned, of course. However, I do not wish to argue with him about that now.

The SA Defence Force is prepared because we have been forced into a war through circumstances, and it will be kept prepared because we are aware of the enemy’s actions, its aims, its threats, its goals, and of course, its methods of action as well. We now also know that Swapo and the ANC are merely pawns in the game of the Soviet Union for world domination, and whether South Africa occupies a high or low position on the Soviet Union’s list, it remains a fact that South Africa is a priority target of the Soviet Union. We must have no doubt or illusions about that. We have sufficient evidence that this is in fact the case.

I should just like to quote a piece from a source which has its origin in Russia itself. I am referring to a publication entitled The Armed Struggle of the People of Africa for Freedom and Independence. I quote as follows from the final paragraph in this book:

Hon members must please take note of the sanctimoniousness of these words: “their sacred struggle against the oppressors”. I do not like to say so, but it is true that there are even people here in South Africa who speak of terrorists as freedom fighters.

Just as a matter of interest, I want to point out that Sam Nujoma’s elderly mother receives a State pension, whilst Nujoma himself receives a personal allowance of approximately R500 000 per annum from the UN. According to figures at my disposal, Sam Nujoma receives R12 million per annum from various UN bodies, as well as a further R10 million for the purposes of organization and administration and so on. I think that a considerable amount of that money is also paid over to the ANC. Of course, they are relatively well-equipped with Russian arms and so on.

Two American military experts wrote a very interesting book on this so-called freedom struggle, from which I want to quote briefly. It is entitled War, Revolution and Peace. I quote the following short passage, as follows:

That is indeed the case. After all, the Government of South Africa places a very high premium on the security of its people and on the protection of its territory. It has already made use of the SA Defence Force, and it will do so in the future, too, where and when it is necessary, and at whatever cost, in order to thrash the enemy and even annihilate it completely. We need have no doubt about that.

Hon colleagues who were with me in the operational area and who were also privileged to be able to observe demonstrations in which the Army, the Air Force and the Navy performed together, will agree with me that the strength of our armed forces is something of which all our enemies will simply have to take account. The troops and officers of the SA Defence Force are motivated people. Not only are they well trained, but thanks to Armscor they also have the most effective arms which can be adapted to all circumstances and forms of warfare. Hon members will also agree with me that officers who have provided information locally, as well as in the operational area, are masters of their subject, that they know what they are doing and that each one of them is a leader in his own field. We thank them for this.

I should like to convey a word of gratitude and appreciation to the SA Defence Force for the excellent image they have built up which covers a much wider field than only the military field. In the operational area we also saw that they qualify and distinguish themselves as agriculturalists, teachers, doctors and even chaplains, artisans, experts in sport and culture, and many other fields. However, they have also distinguished themselves as formidable fighters who command the respect and trust of the local inhabitants. Since there have been disasters and emergency situations and assistance and rescue services have had to be rendered, the SA Defence Force deserves more than just honourable mention for the task it has performed. I do not have the precise figures, but approximately 150 towns and cities have recently awarded the SA Defence Force, as well as some of its units, the freedom of the city. This also attests to the confidence the public has in the SA Defence Force and serves as a token of gratitude for the exceptional services the SA Defence Force has performed, and is still performing.

The role of the woman must not be underestimated in the actions of the SA Defence Force. In fact, the woman is the greatest and most important builder of morale in the SA Defence Force. The quality of service a man in the Defence Force renders is closely linked to the attitude with which the woman can identify and adjust as the wife of a soldier; whether she understands the demands made of him; whether she encourages and inspires him and whether she can live with it happily and proudly. Measured against all these requirements, South Africa has just as much right to be proud of the wife of the soldier as of the soldier himself. The woman has already proved that she has accepted all the responsibilities shifted onto her and that she has carried out these responsibilities with courage, dignity and pride.

During a recent visit to the operational area I spoke to a lady and I put certain questions to her with regard to her stay there. Her positive reaction to my questions really impressed me. She said that she was missing her home, her family and her friends, but that she was grateful to be near her husband and to be able to support him and that to her that was the most important thing. This attests to the spirit and attitude of the soldier’s wife.

I should like to say more about the woman, but I have been informed that my time is running out. I also wish to pay tribute to the woman in uniform, who constitutes 9% of the members of the Defence Force. We are grateful that they have seen their way clear to making the Defence Force their career. They render excellent service in 65 different careers. They occupy all the ranks of the Defence Force, except that of general, on merit, which is an exceptional achievement. It is clear to me that the number of women in the Defence Force is increasing. In the years ahead we will have to make increasing use of their services, and I should therefore like to address two requests to the hon the Minister for his favourable consideration. Firstly, I ask that when the funds justify it …

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Sir, could I just conclude?

Since the hon member’s time has already expired, I cannot permit him to conclude.

Mr Chairman, I am always happy to follow on an hon member who is prepared to sing the praise of women.

I should like to react to something said by the hon member for Standerton about the concept of the total onslaught. I think the point that was actually made by the hon member for Wynberg is a very clear one, and that is it is as dangerous to overestimate one’s opponent as it is to underestimate him. I think during the course of his speech the hon member made the point about nuclear armaments in Europe. There one sees the phenomenon where the threat of the Soviet Union has been built up to such an extent that there are a lot of people in Western European countries who have adopted the philosophy of better Red than dead, a philosophy which I think is dangerous for us. This is the point which was actually made by the hon member for Wynberg: One has to take a balanced attitude to the threat facing South Africa. That there is a threat, there is no doubt.

Although he is absent, I should like to react to two points made by the hon member for Jeppe just to state very clearly this party’s point of view on these matters. The first—an his colleagues can tell me whether I have heard him correctly—is that it is the policy of the CP that each group should have its own army. Is that correct?

Yes, quite correct.

We in the PFP believe that that would be absolutely disastrous for South Africa, because we have the situation in Lebanon that there are different groups with different armies, and the result has been disastrous. We believe that in any one state one can have only one army and that that army is responsible to that particular state.

The second point I should like to make relates to the Nkomati Accord and it concerns the peace initiatives as well as assistance to resistant movements in other countries. The policy of the PFP is very clear. We resent it and we oppose it when other countries interfere in our internal affairs. We believe that that is totally wrong. If that is what we anticipate from other countries, then by what right, if they are prepared to co-operate with us, can we interfere in their affairs?

During the course of his introductory speech the hon the Minister of Defence pointed out that there has been an increase in the incidence of terrorism in South West Africa and in South Africa, and this is what I actually want to concentrate on because one would have thought that with the peace initiatives there might be a decline in the incidents of terrorism. This did not happen. We had two incidents in Durban: The one at the Victoria Embankment, and over this weekend the attack on the oil refinery.

We in the PFP have made it very clear on numerous occasions that we abhor violence. We do not believe that violence is the way to find a solution to South Africa’s political problems. We believe that violence ultimately makes it harder to find a solution because violence tends to beget more violence. We see this in countries like Northern Ireland and Lebanon. It is easy to react emotionally to the question of terrorism, because acts of terrorism are by their very nature totally abhorrent to most people. I believe, however, that we need to analyse this as unemotionally and as dispassionately as we can. We should do this for two major reasons. Firstly, those who believe in the peace initiatives and who support them should not become despondent merely because terrorism continues. I believe this is very important. Secondly, we need to understand what is happening so that those who are against the peace initiatives cannot exploit acts of terrorism for their own particular political gain.

The peace initiatives will not, in the short term, bring about a reduction in terrorist activity. Indeed, exactly the opposite is likely to occur. One needs only to study what has happened in other countries where attempts to find solutions for those countries’ problems led to increased terrorist activity. Prof S P Huntington, a noted authority in this field, has made the point that one of the most dangerous periods for any government is a period when it is in fact trying to introduce a system of political change. Obviously those who want to overthrow the existing government by violent means are not so much interested in finding a solution to South Africa’s problems as they are in seizing power. When they feel that the tide is turning against them, they will increase their acts of violence.

Traditionally, terrorism has been widely used by revolutionary movements in the early stages of their campaigns, either to gain publicity for their cause or to try to mobilize public opinion behind their movements. That is why acts of terrorism are often not directed against the terrorists’ opponents but against potential supporters. In South Vietnam, for example, the Viet Cong carried out a systematic campaign against health officials and people of that nature, people one would have anticipated nobody would touch because they were there for the benefit of all. Most of the Mau Mau activity in Kenya, the worst acts of terrorism, were actually directed at the Kikuyu tribe, the tribe from which the Mau Mau actually drew the majority of their support. In South West Africa many of Swapo’s activities are directed against the Owambos, the very group from which Swapo derives most of its support.

It is therefore not surprising that experts have referred to revolutionary warfare as a bloody electoral campaign carried out between the revolutionaries and the government of the day for the support of key population group. We must realize that terrorism can also eventually become counterproductive. This was very much the case in Malaya, where the Malayan Communist Party were seen by the population merely as bandits. They had lost their glamour.

We must accept that the recent peace initiatives with our neighbours would, if successful, be a severe setback for the ANC. What we may be witnessing, therefore, are terrorist attacks which are taking place, not from a position of strength but from a position of weakness. They may in fact be the actions of a group which is desperate to maintain its position. If this is true, then acts of terrorism are likely to increase and, what is more important, to become more and more indiscriminate. They are thus likely to become a greater potential threat to all segments of the South African population.

We must not allow the increased incidence of terrorism to deter us from coming to terms with our neighbours. It is vital that we do so. The hon the Minister might remember that this was the theme of my speech during the last Defence debate. If we cannot reach a satisfactory accord with our neighbours, then the likelihood of ending terrorist attacks in South Africa is remote, or it would certainly make it much more difficult. Unless our neighbours are prepared to co-operate with us by not allowing their countries to be used as a springboard from which to launch terrorist attacks against South Africa, we will find it difficult, if not impossible, eventually to overcome the threat of terrorism to South Africa. If one looks at the various insurgency operations which have occurred in other parts of the world, there are very few examples where people have been able successfully to counteract a terrorist threat where those particular countries had the support of their external neighbours. Algeria is a very good example. One can also think of the support provided by North Vietnam to the Viet Cong and the influence this had on the war in Laos and South Vietnam. I think one of the reasons why the French were perhaps more successful in Madagascar than they were in Indo China or Algeria was because they could isolate Madagascar as it is an island and could therefore be cut off from external support.

In Rhodesia one of the major problems faced by the Rhodesian Government at the time was their inability to cut off the terrorists from external bases of supply.

In South Africa we would be stupid not to try to reach a satisfactory modus vivendi with our neighbours. If we cannot do this, we will be condemning South Africa to the prospect of a long-drawn out war. It is in our interests that we should reach such a satisfactory settlement with out neighbours. However, it is also in their interests. This particular region has gone through a period of turbulence and violence. There have been major conflicts in Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South West Africa/Namibia. The war in South West Africa/Namibia continues on a fairly large scale and in the other areas with varying degrees of intensity. The impact of this conflict on the economies of this region is disastrous. None of us, and that includes South Africa, can afford a period of continuing conflict. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to take “The South African Defence Force Cares” as the theme of my speech.

The South African Defence Force has the best way of caring for its members one could possibly find. I wish to mention a few examples in this regard. Firstly, the South African Defence Force sees to the best possible training for the South African soldier. It is an axiom that the best trained soldier has the chance of surviving the longest. In this regard all the parents of soldiers and the soldiers themselves must realize that the training that is given is aimed at the protection and the good of the soldier himself.

The second reason why the South African Defence Force cares, is because the best possible arms are made available. Armscor plays a particularly important role in this regard. One can only really care for someone if one equips him the best for the task he has to perform. I briefly want to refer to Jane’s Military Review regarding the soldier’s arms, and I quote:

This publication goes on to say:

The publication also goes on to say:

The publication goes on to say:

I could go on in this vein. With this I merely want to emphasize that the South African Defence Force cares and that it provides its soldiers with the best possible equipment.

The soldier is not only supported by arms, but his physical and spiritual welfare are of the utmost importance to the South African Defence Force. In these times in which national service is being more stringently implemented, it is a good thing to refer to these aspects so that people can realize that the South African Defence Force cares.

The South African Defence Force also cares by making reasonable demands. The South African Defence Force does not make unreasonable demands of its soldiers. Not at all. No additional national service is being imposed and no change is being effected to the present system of national service, except by way of a Parliamentary select committee on which all parties are represented. People must realize that the demands of the Defence Force are reasonable. They are also reasonable because the leadership cadre which gives the orders consists of people who have had proper training, and not of people who are a sergeant today and a general tomorrow. One of the most important reasons I wish to advance as to why the Defence Force cares for its people is that this Defence Force is a peace-seeking Defence Force. This Defence Force is a catalyst for the conclusion of accords such as that of Nkomati. In this regard one also thinks of our peace initiatives in Angola. We want to thank the people involved most sincerely. We want to tell the hon the Minister, the Chief of the SA Defence Force, his general staff, the officers, the non-commissioned officers, the adjutant-officers and the troops that we appreciate them, since we are part of them, we have a national army and we know that they care.

Having said that, I must also say that the SA Defence Force is resolute. We have a resolute Defence Force. Our Defence Force is determined to protect South African territory from anyone. Civilized norms and Christian values are the cornerstone of our policy, and the Defence Force will protect them. Our standpoint with regard to the Defence Force is that we are only the servants of the Almighty, but that we are free in relation to the whole world. This Defence Force is resolute and it therefore deserves our support. No one wants a defence force that is not resolute and does not know precisely where it is going. The Defence Force therefore deserves our support. It deserves our support for the following reasons: Firstly, the Defence Force cares for its people; secondly, the Defence Force is resolute with regard to its role in South Africa; and, thirdly, our Defence Force is a national army.

When we hear criticism from outside about the SA Defence Force, I always wonder whether the people concerned do not realize that they are speaking about their blood relations, about their sons, their nephews, their uncles, even their aunts and cousins, their brothers and their sisters, for we have a national army. In that regard, it is our Defence Force and we must uphold it. We must please devote all our enthusiasm and energy to building up the image of the Defence Force. We must by no means use them to disparage Ministers. We would not be doing the Defence Force a favour by doing so. We must stand together. In the times in which South Africa finds itself at present we must support one another.

I want to turn to the people who met in the Skilpad Hall and tell them that it is a dangerous thing to make a caricature of a defence force. When a man stands with a pistol at his side and gives a strange salute, I would imagine that he is trying to adopt a quasi-military pose. That is a caricature of an army. It reminds me of the Ossewa-Brandwag and the days when some of them marched up and down with broomsticks. I want to say that some of the people parading at that gathering in Pretoria created the impression, as far as I am concerned, of that of an overblown Reichsmarshal. We must beware. If people have a desire to do something in this regard, they are free to join the SA Defence Force. I want to advise the militant members of the AWB to sublimate their desire for militarism by joining the SA Defence Force on a part-time or full-time basis. They will be given proper training there and they can work for their people jointly and in a co-ordinated way. We must not make a caricature of the Defence Force traditions of the people of South Africa.

I wish to conclude. We on this side congratulate the Chief of the SA Defence Force and the hon the Minister. If there is a Minister with whom I can converse personally and who has impressed upon me personally on occasion that we cannot do certain things because we would be politicizing the Defence Force, it is that hon Minister. Often he has deliberately kept the SA Defence Force out of politics. I want to thank him for that. We appreciate it. We also understand the difficult task he has to perform under the circumstances. If we would all have the attitude that it is our Defence Force, that the Defence Force cares and that the Defence Force is there to assist and protect us, we can put into practice the motto “Unity is Strength” and, thanks to the Defence Force, there will be a wonderful future for our country.

Mr Chairman, the first part of the speech by the hon member for Pretoria West was good—I agree with that—up to the point where he referred to the Ossewa Brandwag and made a few derogatory remarks about it. I just want to remind him that his own leader also “marched with a stick over his shoulder” as a member of the Ossewa Brandwag.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister for the privilege I had of being able to visit the border area recently. Once again it was instructive. At the same time I should like to convey my thanks to the officers who accompanied us there to expedite all the arrangements. I also wish to express my thanks to the Chief of the Defence Force and to each member of the Defence Force who makes his contribution every day to ensuring the security of the inhabitants of South West Africa and the Republic of South Africa.

The struggle being waged in South West Africa against Communist forces is not only an armed struggle. Another aspect of the struggle is a very important political and psychological factor, which must not be overlooked. This war being waged by Swapo terrorists in the north of South West Africa is a war affecting not only the people of South West Africa but also those of the Republic of South Africa. Although at present Swapo terrorists are relatively widely distributed in the north of South West Africa, their attacks are concentrated on the Ovambo people. Fifty per cent of the inhabitants of South West Africa live in Owambo. The military struggle being waged by Swapo is a method it is adopting in the hope of taking over the Government of that country. However, Swapo realizes full well at this stage that it lacks the power to achieve a military victory. It is for that very reason that its efforts have been concentrated on the population of Owambo, particularly during the past two years. That is why it is so important that our security forces should destroy the enemy so that the Owambo people and other peoples of South West Africa can take their own political decisions without being intimidated. There is always the danger that when a gun is held to their heads the Black peoples will succumb to Swapo. That is why it is so important that our territory force should remain in South West Africa. Therefore the situation must soon be reached in which all the people of South West Africa will be fully aware of who the strong man is in his country. If the territory force continues to be the strong man, the confidence created, and the co-operation of the various Black peoples which has already to a large extent been achieved, will be consolidated. If the strong man can no longer be present, chaos will develop in South West Africa, and the consequences of that will be grave.

The campaigns being launched by the Defence Force to win the political-psychological part of the war as well, are cause for gratitude.

I now wish to dwell briefly on the influence of the Government’s peace initiatives. The ceasefire and the peace negotiations with Angola have created certain problems, and I just want to single out a few of them. Swapo elements and the political commissars of Swapo have exploited the situation by contending that Swapo has driven the security forces out of Angola. On the other hand, among the well-disposed and more neutral groups the peace initiatives have created the expectation that the war in Owambo will also cease, and well-disposed civilians now feel that they have been left in the lurch. That is how they see the situation. The argument is now being advanced that the situation was favourable in Owambo while our forces were fighting Swapo in Angola. I believe that that is a sound argument because it is based on experience. That is the language of Africa. The language they understand is the language of authority. They believe that when this strong man, the Defence Force, is present, then things have gone well for the Owambos. However, when the strong man is away, the terrorist mouse will play. Hundreds of terrorists have infiltrated across the border into Owamboland, and this in turn has meant that the peace efforts had had little influence, since the presence of Swapo signifies no concrete prospects of peace for the inhabitants.

The Swapo terrorist in Owambo is under the impression that resolution 435 will be put into operation shortly, and as a result they are intensifying their efforts to exert control over the inhabitants of Owambo. They are doing this by means of intimidation, by murdering people, by making attacks on the traditional leaders, by incitement at meetings, etc. Incidents of sabotage are occurring to an increasing extent in an effort to show the local population that Swapo still has a degree of military punch.

The security forces are launching certain campaigns to support the Owambo Government and they are doing so without becoming politically involved or taking over the work of other departments. Accordingly I have only the highest praise for the successes achieved in South West Africa in this field. Such campaigns consist of guidance in respect of, for example, the nature of the war, courses and also training in business knowhow. Apart from that, health and education services are offered. In addition, protection is afforded construction workers in the construction of infrastructures such as schools, roads, hospitals, pipelines etc. Protection is also provided for Government officials, for example those who pay out pensions. The hon member Mr Vermeulen referred to Sam Nujoma’s mother, who receives a pension. The work done by our security forces in this political-psychological sphere of the war is of immeasurable value.

The peoples there, just like the people of South Africa, are striving towards self-determination. Nothing but a Swapo government in Windhoek would satisfy world opinion, and therefore I ask that we take another look at those things that affect the future of the White man in South West Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for De Aar for having brought this debate back to a higher level after his party colleague, the hon member for Jeppe, had unfortunately dragged it through the mud.

Order! No, the hon member may not refer to that. The matter has already been disposed of.

Then, Mr Chairman, I shall not take it any further. I should like to associate myself with the hon the Minister in regard to what he said about the peace initiatives.

In the hostile world in which South Africa finds itself, we have always succeeded in keeping the enemy from our door because we in this country have a strong Government, a strong economy and a strong Defence Force. Without these three pillars we should not have been able to hold out, nor would we have achieved what we have in this country. Moreover it is on these three pillars that South Africa has built its peace initiatives in recent times. Our strong and stable Government has always instilled respect world-wide and our vigorous economy also provides that essential basis, the infrastructure, and the necessary means for our initiatives.

Our prepared and efficient Defence Force provides the security umbrella for the Republic of South Africa under which we are able to operate with so much confidence. All this has given South Africa a strong-man image. In Africa a strong man does make an impression. Africa has never had respect for or listened to weaklings. Our Defence Force has indeed made a gigantic contribution in the process of South Africa’s acquiring this strong-man image. That position of inexorable power which is so essential for successful dialogue and negotiation has not been achieved by South Africa without the help and assistance of the Defence Force. Even hon members of the Opposition will have to agree with this. Therefore we shall never be able to permit the weakening of our Defence Force, due to lack of money or for whatever other reason.

The image of our Defence Force is of the utmost importance to South Africa itself, because South Africa’s strong-man image is still dependent on our Defence Force. In rugby we say that the frontline must first soften up the opposition in front so that the backline can strike and score tries. This, of course, is what is going to happen in Bloemfontein on Saturday when Western Province plays against the Free State. [Interjections.]

This, of course, is exactly what has happened in Southern Africa. The Defence Force first had to put the rebellious elements like the ANC and Swapo in their place. The Defence Force had to prepare the way and removed the stumbling blocks so that the diplomats could enter the picture to conduct dialogue.

The effective action of our security forces over a period of a decade and longer has bought time for Southern Africa to come to its senses. It has bought time for Southern Africa to realize that Russian involvement cannot create a Utopia for them. By its firm action, as well as the development of a strong military potential, the Defence Force has created a strong deterrent for recalcitrant elements. Those who were so free with their threats of destroying the Republic of South Africa militarily have learnt from the situation in South West Africa to think twice before venturing to attack us by force of arms. For many years now our Defence Force has been providing the umbrella under which South Africa has been able to work, conduct dialogue and develop its initiatives in this subcontinent. There is no doubt that without its strong and effective Defence Force, South Africa would not have had anything like the negotiating position it has enjoyed in recent times. South Africa would have been in a far weaker position at the conference tables where we have achieved so many important breakthroughs towards co-operation and peace in Southern Africa in recent times. The Defence Force has indeed bought time for South Africa to develop its diplomatic initiatives and to get its peace initiatives off the ground.

However, now that we achieved so much by way of our peace initiatives we shall have to guard against lapsing into a psychosis of peace. The peace has not yet been fully won, and therefore a prepared Defence Force is still a prerequisite for peace. Even if our peace initiatives were to succeed fully—and we wholeheartedly hope that this will happen; moreover we believe that it will happen—then the Defence Force will still have to be doubly vigilant. Our Defence Force will have to continue to see to it that our enemies, like the ANC and Swapo and their other fellow travellers, do not wreck our successes, because they are going to attempt to wreck out diplomatic successes.

We must not overlook the fact that while we are seeking peace and devoting all our energies to achieving it, Russia is still engaged in a build-up of power in our subcontinent. According to a report of the American Department of Defence, the Soviet Union gave military assistance to the value of R900 million to the Cubans in Angola last year. This is an impressive figure and gives us food for thought. This military aid includes modern Mig 13 fighter aircraft, tanks, ground-to-air missiles and missile launchers, and our Defence Force has already encountered these in the operational area. According to the latest reports the Kremlin is extremely unhappy about the process of rapprochement that is in progress in Southern Africa. That is the last thing that Moscow wants to see happening here, and to that we have to add the aggression of the ANC and the latest attack in Durban. Nor has Swapo put a stop to its reprehensible campaign of terror, as we heard here this afternoon.

Four centuries before Christ the Roman, Vegetius, said these very true words: “Let him who desires peace prepare for war”. These words are of special importance for South Africa today. We should be committing a crime against South Africa if we sought to rest on our laurels at this point and cut back on defence in the light of the relaxed relations with our neighbours around us. Our Defence Force will have to remain strong and continue to be strengthened. We shall have to continue giving our men the best training and giving them the best armaments so that they will continue to hold the whip-hand in our subcontinent. It is necessary that the people of South Africa should have peace of mind and should know that there is still a strong Defence Force to fall back on if our peace initiatives were to fail.

Mr Chairman, as I have very limited time in which to speak, I shall not follow the hon member for Bloemfontein North in any of the points he made.

However, I would like to refer to a comment that was made by the hon member for Durban Point who stated that soldiers were like farmers—they had a great ability for moaning. Forgive me therefore, Sir, if on this occasion you find me firing with both barrels.

I want to raise the question of the area-bound status within the Defence Force. At the beginning of this speech I want to refer very briefly to page 12 of the White Paper, paragraph 64, from which I quote as follows:

I would like to take that as the main content of my speech, because this statement in the White Paper appears to conflict with the practicalities involved.

It has been brought to my attention on many occasions that applications had been made for men to be considered for area-bound status, but that these had repeatedly been rejected by the exemption board. There is a lot of confusion in many of the rural areas as to what it is all about. I am aware of the regulation that stipulates that applicants must motivate the reasons why they apply for area-bound status. They must prove that business commitments are involved and that such commitments may be seriously and detrimentally effected if the applicant is not given area-bound status. I am also aware of the fact that this is regarded as an issue which must be looked at from a long-term point of view and that steps should be taken by the people involved to meet and plan for the problems caused by Citizen Force call-up.

It is not always possible in agriculture to give full effect to these requirements. One has farming units which are single units but involve several members of the family. Types of farming vary from area to area. Specialist knowledge within such single units does not necessarily relate to one individual alone. The present system of transfer to the commandos through area-bound status is creating uncertainty and frustration and is so often the cause of inhibiting progress in agriculture. I appeal to the hon the Minister to clarify the future Commando Force policy. Will it be extended? Is it anticipated that commando functions will be confined only to specific areas?

The commando system plays an important role on the domestic front, and we accept that. It has a stabilizing effect on security and it emphasizes the importance of peace on the home front. It can also assist in time of emergency in the outlying areas. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister also to heed the complaints emanating from rural areas that original members of local commandos alone—and I repeat “alone”—are shouldering the main responsibility in carrying out the present duties of many commando units. This is creating a certain amount of resentment.

I would also like to deal very briefly with the civic action operations of the Defence Force. I want to appeal that consideration be given to the further expansion of this aspect of the Defence Force activities. In doing so let me pay tribute to and compliment the hon the Minister on the positive achievements that have been made. This service has made a great impact in the rural area, and I can quote instances—I shall not do so now— where the image of the Defence Force is held in very high esteem, where it is no longer regarded with suspicion and where it has won many friends.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his positive contribution. He referred to a matter we are all familiar with in our constituencies, and I take it that the hon the Minister will furnish him with an adequate reply.

There is no other institution in our country that is able to grip the public imagination quite as much as the Defence Force does. One only has to think of any occasion at which the Defence Force makes an appearance, for example a military parade, a flag-striking ceremony, a parade, a fly-past of our Mirages, our navy making a public appearance, etc. One then feels that the Defence Force is truly the pride of South Africa. I should therefore like to take the opportunity today of expressing my complete loyalty towards and confidence in the Defence Force. I also want to express my fullest confidence in the hon the Minister. I had an opportunity of visiting the border recently, a privilege I greatly appreciate, and seeing the enthusiasm and dedication of our commanding officers and national servicemen was a truly unique experience for me. I also want to say thank you very much for the dedication and effort, on the part of the chiefs of the Army, Air Force and Navy, of the Chaplain General and the Surgeon General, to make life pleasant for our national servicemen on the border. Anyone who has been on the border is able to return and tell the parents at home that our boys on the border are in good hands. For that I want to thank the Defence Force very sincerely.

South Africa needs a strong Defence Force to protect its land area, its waters, its harbours and its air space, and in that the Defence Force is pre-eminently successful. The Defence Force has succeeded in turning arms boycotts into a triumph for us, and I think the best example of this was the Armscor armaments exhibition in Santiago this year. That is truly a living testimonial for the Defence Force.

The Defence Force’s involvement in South West Africa, and the protection it offers the territory as such and its inhabitants, is something we are all familiar with. I should like to point to the importance of Walvis Bay and the role of the Defence Force in Walvis Bay. Walvis Bay is South African territory, and the legality of that has never been questioned. On 12 March 1878 Captain Dyer annexed Walvis Bay for England, and Walvis Bay was subsequently incorporated in the then Cape Colony. There are also 12 islands diagonally across from the South West African coast, between Walvis Bay and Luderitz, which were also annexed by England as far back as 1866 and also subsequently incorporated in the Cape Colony. In 1914 Walvis Bay was used as a theatre of war for the first time when the South African troops landed there to occupy the then Germany colony of South West Africa. During 1962 the Defence Force established a permanent base at Walvis Bay where both national servicemen and units of the South West African Territorial Force are trained each year. Since 1981 6 871 members of the Defence Force had their training at Walvis Bay. Counter-insurgency training and basic training are offered, and also specialist training for armoured and artillery units. On completion of their training these national servicemen and their commanding officers are transferred to the various units in South West Africa. It is always an experience to visit those people on the border and see how happy they are there and with what enthusiasm they serve in the South African army.

The South African Air Force also has a strong component at Walvis Bay, from which aircraft undertake operational flights every five or six weeks from the Rooikop Air Force base with the object, amongst other things, of keeping an eye on shipping along the South West African coast, looking for landing areas, doing rescue work and also searching for landing areas for the tracing of foreign warships and arms carriers. Albatross aircraft leave Rooikop approximately once a week on operational flights, the main object being to concentrate on monitoring Russian and other foreign vessels operating along the coast.

The South African Naval Command and Naval Base at Walvis Bay were established in 1979, chiefly for the protection of the harbour. The base is manned by members of the Permanent Force and the Citizen Force. Certain tasks are carried out on a regular basis, for example the protection of the territorial waters. This is done by patrol boats— particular attention being given to ships at anchor—and at present there are two patrol boats stationed at Walvis Bay. The command and control structure of the base is used as a communication centre for the Navy, and when Naval exercises are carried out in South West African waters, the operations room is activated. For this purpose ships of the South African Navy are deployed in Walvis Bay on a regular basis, whenever they are available.

To emphasize the importance of Walvis Bay even further, let me quote from the White Paper on Defence that appeared this year. In paragraph 43 on page 8 we read the following:

Walvis Bay is therefore very strategically situated, particularly if one takes into account the fact that it is the only significant deep-sea harbour for a distance of 651 nautical miles north of Saldanha Bay and 517 nautical miles south of Namibe in Angola. It is therefore correct to allege that the country controlling Walvis Bay also controls the west coast. It is the gateway to South West Africa. For a young country like South West Africa, which is in the process of struggling free from international pressures, this ought to prove reassuring, particularly if one adds the importance of the commercial harbour at Walvis Bay and the synchro-hoist and ship-repair yard.

I want to mention the very positive role that the Defence Force is playing in Walvis Bay. That really redounds to the credit of the commanding officers there. By way of participation in sport and other cultural activities, they have succeeded in making the base there a part of the Walvis Bay community. I want to mention, in particular, the wonderful role played by the national servicemen’s chaplains in Walvis Bay. Their contribution, which is a praiseworthy one-really cannot be overemphasized. I should like to thank the Chaplain General for the people he makes available to us in Walvis Bay. Several generals and high-ranking officers have served at Walvis Bay for shorter or longer periods, and I venture to say that Walvis Bay is well-known in higher circles.

Our prayers go with the hon the Minister, and we base our hopes and expectations on him and on the Defence Force. We hope that the Defence Force will remain for us the symbol of strength, peace and prosperity.

Mr Chairman, I am sure it was with great appreciation that we all listened to what the hon member for Walvis Bay had to tell us about Walvis Bay and its importance. I am sure he will not take it amiss of me, however, if I do not, owing to the limited time available to me, react to that any further.

Firstly I want to express my thanks and appreciation for the various opportunities I have had, in the past few years, of becoming better acquainted with some of the branches of the Defence Force and of Armscor. In particular, I want to express my thanks for the recent opportunity I had of visiting the operational area. It was a visit that I found particularly interesting and informative. I am also grateful, in particular, for the opportunity we were afforded to conduct open discussions with members of the other parties in the House, senior officers of the Defence Force and the hon the Minister. It is in that spirit of open discussion that I want to make my contribution today, which links up with the ideas the hon member for Wynberg expressed here.

The way in which the SA Defence Force and Armscor carry out their task, the quality of the training of our manpower and the dedication, leadership and sense of responsibility of the officers’ corps certainly make me feel proud to be a South African. During the recent visit to the operational area I was, throughout, under the impress of the tremendous logistic achievement of our Defence Force in the sense of maintaining efficient operational bases over such a distance and carrying out extremely successful operations. I think it is indeed an achievement of the first order.

Let me, at the outset, state my own personal standpoint or point of departure in regard to this matter. I want to make this very clearly, because it is essential—for hon members, too—to an understanding of what I subsequently want to say. I think that South Africa must have a Defence Force that is efficient and prepared to effectively meet any external onslaughts threatening its sovereignty and survival, in co-operating with the SA Police in maintaining internal order and security and creating the circumstances within which evolutionary, peaceful change, with a view to all its people co-existing, can take place. With a view to the creation of such a Defence Force, an obvious requirement is that the necessary financial means and manpower must be provided. Sufficient funds and manpower, with suitable arms, remain imperative prerequisites for any defence force to be able to carry out its task properly.

It is a fact, however, as the hon member for Wynberg indicated, that nowhere in the world are there either unlimited finances or unlimited manpower for any defence force. Everywhere in the world, even in dictatorships, defence requirements must be imposed and must be met within the framework of all the other financial and manpower demands of the community. South Africa cannot escape this inexorable imperative, and in future defence expenditure will, to an increasing extent, have to be weighed up against the requirement priorities imposed in and upon South African society. In this regard it is quite clear that in future we are going to be faced by tremendous financial problems in the light of the demands that the new dispensation is going to make on us, in the light of the increased financial demands for services to our Black communities and also in the light of the other financial implications of the constitutional relations developing in Southern Africa. In this connection I want to say, in all honesty and humility—I am sorry to have to do so—that I question whether a comparison of South African defence expenditure, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, with that of other countries offers a satisfactory basis for comparison, because circumstances differ fundamentally. I am sorry I do not have the time to elaborate on that. I do, however, question the correctness of using that as a criterion when it comes to our defence expenditure. What I am therefore wanting to say is that our defence expenditure should be determined in accordance with our own national needs and not by way of comparison with those of others. Within the Defence Force itself priorities should be listed for the various branches, as the hon member for Wynberg also indicated. I want to link up with him and also say that the Army and the Air Force should actually have priority.

Apart from the question of finance, there is also the problem of manpower, as the hon member for Wynberg has indicated. It is highly doubtful whether our economy would be able to afford having an ever-increasing percentage of our economically active population taken out of the productive labour field for shorter or longer periods of Defence Force activity. It goes without saying that the question about what portion of our funds and what percentage of our manpower should be made available for Defence Force purposes would have to be determined by the primary and fundamental question of the task and function that the Defence Force is expected to perform, and more specifically by whether its role should be a defensive or offensive one. It is within this context that I am brought back to the whole question of the total onslaught on which the hon member for Wynberg, the hon member for Standerton and other hon members have commented.

Over the past 15 years we have repeatedly been informed—as we have again in this White Paper—that preparations are being made for an envizaged total onslaught against South Africa. In military terms—and for the moment let us leave aside other aspects such as the religious, the cultural or whatever—the total onslaught is interpreted as a military onslaught, not only on the survival of South African society, its values and way of life, but also on the sovereignty and survival of the South African state as such. This onslaught on South Africa would supposedly, in so far as the Defence Force is involved, specifically be comprised of two aspects, ie terrorists activities by Swapo and the ANC from bases in the front-line states and, secondly, a conventional attack on South Africa, with Russian aid and possibly even direct Russian involvement or intervention. That is how the total onslaught is presented to us.

As far as the first aspect is concerned, ie the terrorist activities of Swapo and the ANC, it is of importance to note that up to now only three of the front-line states have actually been directly involved, and they are Angola, Mozambique and to a lesser extent, Lesotho. Very earlier on the other front-line states made it apparent that they were not prepared to have their countries used as springboards for terrorist attacks on South Africa. South Africa’s military capability, in the form of opposing or neutralizing such bases by way of follow-up operations or other action, quite probably played a role in this. That much we must accept at once. On the other hand, it cannot be said that the actions of Swapo and the ANC have ever had the potential of subjecting the South African state to a total onslaught. In that sense I do not want to associate the ANC and Swapo, as contemptible as there actions are, with the concept of a total onslaught on the South African state as a whole.

There is, however, also a second guise in which the dreaded total onslaught is presented to us as South Africans, as it has been again in this White Paper—no longer as a possibility, but virtually as an accomplished fact—and that is that the Black states in Southern Africa, with Russian aid, are preparing for conventional warfare against South Africa. I see no sign of that. If I am making a mistake, I would very much like the hon the Minister to tell me whether such an offensive is being envisaged, which of the states are involved, for when that offensive is being planned, how far the preparations have progressed and what proof there is that Russian or surrogate troops will be employed for the purposes of such conventional warfare. As the hon member for Wynberg rightly said, it is a well-known fact that Russia has never employed its own troops in areas outside its immediate sphere of influence. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I trust that the hon member Prof Olivier will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. I would just like to complete the speech that I could not finish earlier this afternoon.

On a previous occasion I conveyed my thanks to the women in the SA Defence Force. I only wish I had more time to dwell on this and very appreciatively present hon members with a picture of what the women mean to the men in the Defence Force. I nevertheless want to thank the women, in all sincerity, for what they mean to the men in the Defence Force. We definitely have a great deal of appreciation for what they are doing.

Let me also say thank you for our non-combatant women in uniform. We also greatly appreciate their efforts. They mean a great deal to us. The ladies in our citizen force and commando units also deserve our thanks and appreciation. I wanted to say a few things about their uniforms, but I have heard that in doing so I would be skating on thin ice. I shall therefore rather leave it at that.

As I have said, it is clear to me that there is a need for more women in the SA Defence Force. In this connection let me therefore make two requests to the hon the Minister. In the first place, let me ask him to consider, if the money is available, the establishment of a second training college for women at Bloemfontein. I think this is a matter for which sound and valid arguments can be advanced. On the proper occasion I shall adequately motivate my request. Secondly I should like to convey to the hon the Minister the wishes of numerous parents with whom I have had discussions. I direct this request to the hon the Minister, of course, with due regard to whether there is enough money available for this purpose or not. The hon the Minister must please tell us whether serious attention cannot be given to the possibility or desirability of involving young post-matric girls as, in the case of young boys, in some or other form of national service in the Defence Force. I think that young ladies in the Defence Force who are trained and prepared could definitely prove of great importance to us in the future.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I should also like to thank the hon the Minister for the imformative White Paper that has been tabled. My thanks to everyone involved in drawing it up. My thanks, too, to the respective generals and their staff, from whom we obtain so much support and assistance. We appreciate the opportunities they offer us to gain an insight into the functions of the SA Defence Force.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should just like to refer to a question that the hon member for Edenvale put to us in the course of his speech. He wanted to know what our standpoint was about the Defence Force and the respective population groups in South Africa. I therefore just want to clarify our standpoint. The standpoint of the CP is that each population group, each people able to obtain independence in South Africa, should have its own individual Defence Force. Those separate Defence Forces would then, in the event of a mutual threat, be able to face the enemy on the basis of an alliance.

I also want to mention the fact that a small group of hon members from all the parties in this House recently had an opportunity of visiting the operational area. This took place at the invitation of the hon the Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force. A few of the predominant impressions I gained in the course of that visit, and which I should now like to emphasize, include the quality and exceptional competence of the leadership corps in the Defence Force. In this connection I want to mention, in particular, the name of Gen Viljoen, who commands the utmost respect and admiration of his officers and men by virtue of his presence everywhere, in the front lines, in the military struggle taking place there. His knowledge, insight and exceptional capabilities as a military strategist certainly contribute greatly to the high morale and motivation of our soldiers in that area, from the highest to the lowest ranks. I contend, without the least fear of contradiction, that Gen Viljoen has devoted his entire military career thus far to our military involvement in South West Africa. The great success we have achieved to date is, in consequence, largely attributable to him. I therefore think South Africa owes him a great debt of thanks.

I also want to place on record the exceptional quality of our commanding officers at the respective bases we visited, from Caprivi in the east up to Kavango and also in Owamboland. They are competent men. They have a firm grip on the reins, and the quality of their guidance attests to hard work and thorough preparation. I am also glad that the Defence authorities thought fit to invite members of the provincial council, from all the political parties, to come along on that visit. The majority of them had never been there before, and I think they were deeply impressed by the tremendous task the SA Defence Force is carrying out there.

I regard that as very important because those people are important opinion-formers in the community, people who spend longer periods than we do—I am now referring to members of the House of Assembly—physically present in their respective constituencies and who therefore have a very important task to perform in projecting the image of the South Africa Defence Force to the world at large, thereby trying to achieve the ideal of a defence force that is truly a people’s defence force.

The second impression I should like to put on record here is the positive fact of the SA Defence Force’s total involvement in Caprivi, in Kavango and in Owamboland, not only in the military conflict with Swapo, but also in the establishment of infrastructure and in the general development of those areas. They grant their assistance in the sphere of education, in agriculture, in supplying water, medical services, and so on. We visited the surgical centre at Ondangwa, for example, an extremely modern centre, with all the most refined and up-to-date medical apparatus available, from monitoring units to an intensive care unit, with which each and every casualty can be treated as well and as efficiently as in South Africa itself. I therefore think that each and every soldier can rest assured that if anything were to happen to him—if, for example, he were to be seriously injured—he would perhaps have a much better chance of receiving the right and proper specialized medical attention in South West Africa that would be the case if he were to have been injured on one of our South African roads.

I would therefore say that in general the Defence Force is completely successful when it comes to protecting the population of South West Africa against attacks by Swapo, particularly by way of destroying Swapo bases and wiping out Swapo terrorist groups. Thus the Defence Force also succeeds in engendering the necessary confidence in the population of that part of the country.

There is, however, something that I regard as very important. The moment the SA Defence Force withdraws from those areas, everything is going to collapse and the Republic of South Africa itself is going to be subjected to a greater threat than is the case at the moment. This would probably make even greater demands on our defence capabilities than is the case at present, particularly in the sphere of manpower. The costs that South Africa would then have to incur in this regard would also be enormous. What we have discovered is that the hearts of the inhabitants of South West Africa are troubled. Even officers are concerned about the possibility of this happening and the situation therefore growing worse. In the war in Angola the SA Defence Force has already achieved significant successes. From as recently as 1978 there have been 8 303 terrorists shot dead, with only 219 lives lost on our side. I therefore contend that we have a Defence Force we can be proud of, a Defence Force that must eventually be built up into a peoples defence force in the best sense of the word.

In our pursuit of that ideal there are, however, a few stumbling-blocks, and I am not going to hesitate to point them out. The first is the extent to which the politicians of the governing party are employing the Defence Force to serve its own party-political objectives. In this regard I also want to refer to the publication published by the hon member for Benoni on the occasion of the recent by-election in Soutpansberg. The title of the publication was Wenpad, which eventually turned out to be the “verloorpad”. In this small publication, under the heading “Soutpansberg veilig”, the hon member for Benoni wrote the following, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, it is with all due respect that I contend that the Defence Force does not belong to the NP. It is South Africa’s Defence Force. We are all involved.

I also want to refer to something that happened during the referendum campaign. The hon the Minister allowed a one-sided propagandists video-film, favouring the yes-side, to be shown at military bases, with the other political parties not even being allowed to put their standpoints at those bases. They were not even allowed to be present there. Even Defence Force officers expressed their displeasure to me. Some of them were deeply perturbed by the fact that people supporting a no-vote—in the Defence Force, too— were, for example, linked to the ANC. That is exactly what the hon the Minister of Law and Order did, too. The very men who are fighting against the ANC are here being linked to the ANC by a Government Minister. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he thinks that is fair. Is he, as political head of the Defence Force, going to allow that kind of politicizing of the Defence Force by the governing party to continue? It would be a pity, Sir, because it would definitely have a negative effect on the ideal of a people’s defence force.

A second serious stumbling block is the SA Defence Force’s policy for dealing with the other population groups. In his reply to the debate last year, the hon the Minister referred to a letter that the then Deputy Minister wrote to me, and I quote from Hansard, 20 May 1983, col 7562, where he said the following, amongst other things:

That was the policy of separate development.

With all due respect, Sir, the position has changed radically since 1978. There has been a radical change in Government policy. At the highest level of Government there has been complete integration between Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and the Government has accepted this. According to all available information a process of integration of all races is being permitted in every conceivable sphere of the Defence Force, for example the hospitals, casualty and out-patient sections, in the messes, in the courses that are conducted and even when it comes to accommodation facilities. That is the truth, and hon members know it. Let me therefore again ask the hon the Minister what the SA Defence Force’s policy in this regard is.

What is more, since last year all White men between the ages of 18 and 55 years have been subject to military training, including national service over and above our existing system of national service. In answer to questions put by us in connection with the involvement of Coloureds and Indians in the new constitutional dispensation, the hon the Minister’s reply was that we do not, at present, have sufficient facilities and officers available to accommodate them. With all due respect, Sir, that is not an adequate reply. If the Government wants to be honest in the implementation of its policy, surely it can withdraw White national servicemen on a proportionate basis and also give other population groups an opportunity to exercise their basic right as citizens in the SA Defence Force. Meanwhile the leader of the Labour Party, Rev Hendrickse, said at their congress last year, and this year too—and I quote from The Daily News:

That is stated as a challenge. It is stated as an ultimatum. Last night on television Rev Hendrickse repeated it once more. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg began his speech with a rather silly reference to an allied Defence Force, but I shall leave the matter at that. The hon member was very positive about the Defence Force, however. He also referred to the sick bay at Ondangwa, to which I shall also refer in the course of my speech. Then the hon member made some remarks again about integration in the Defence Force, which unfortunately I do not have time to reply to at this stage. I am sure that other hon members will do so.

It is with great pride that I am able to rise here tonight as a former member of the Permanent Force of the SA Defence Force, and more specifically as a former member of the SA Medical Services, to break a lance for the Defence Force and specifically for the SA Medical Services. I want to give hon members a brief account of an incident which took place when I was there about 20 years ago, and to compare it with the circumstances today. At that stage, I had many interesting patients. I treated Mr Carpio of the UN, and there was also a Colonel Nieuwoudt who had crashed in a helicopter. I do not know whether Mr Carpio is still alive, but that same Colonel Nieuwoudt has since become a general—he has become Surgeon-General. In those days, we usually used a Dakota aircraft as ambulance plane. One day, a member of the Defence Force was changing a wheel on his car in Walvis Bay when he was struck by a vehicle driven by a civilian. His rib-cage was crushed and a piece of rib penetrated his lung. We were using the new C130 aircraft and I was head of the Surgical Section of 1 Military Hospital at that stage.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.