Last night before the House adjourned we heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister about the manpower shortage. We heard, further, about the intention of his Department to close certain police stations so as to concentrate administrative work in a smaller number of centres and thereby to release more men for active duty. While we accept this as a new principle, we sincerely hope that this principle will not exclude the establishment of further police stations where they are necessary. The Minister also told us that with regard to Bonteheuwel the township will be established by 1967 and that a police station will be established. Sir, the question is: when will that police station be established?

The point I want to make now is that there appears to be either a lack of foresight or a lack of planning or else a delay for reasons we do not know in the establishment of police stations in the centres where they are necessary. The hon. member for Heilbron is unfortunately not here now. He said, in reply to the hon. member for Pinelands, that police stations cannot be planned where there are temporary settlements of people and that where settlements are planned adequate police protection was planned. I want to bring to the notice of this hon. House the position at Hammarsdale, where this Government has established an industrial township and has expressed plans for establishing a residential township. This has been going on since 1959. Prior to my arrival in that area in 1955, approaches had already been made for the establishment of a police station at Hammarsdale. After my arrival we continued with representations but we got nowhere. In 1959 the first factory was established. In 1960 this was recognized as a border industrial area. In 1962 we were advised that it was the intention of the Government to establish a Government township.

In response to my questions, we were told that this township would comprise 9,000 houses and that means there will be an estimated population of between 40,000 and 50,000 people. In 1959, when we really pressed for a police station, a social survey of the area indicated a total Bantu population of 12,000. An estimate given by the local Road Transportation Board of the population at the moment is over 20,000 people. When I had the opportunity of interviewing the district commandant of police at Pietermaritzburg about this, he showed me his map with flags stuck on it showing the situation of police stations, and it stood out as a hollow circle, with Hammarsdale in the middle with this concentration of 20,000 people, in the centre of a large blank space. I must say that the district commandant and the station commander have asked for the establishment of this police station. From 1959 we pressed for it and in 1963 ultimately authority was granted for the establishment of this police station. We, the inhabitants, then waited for the Government to establish it. Certain suggestions were made in regard to accommodation and the site, etc., but ultimately the Industrial Development Corporation allocated a certain piece of ground for the establishment of this police station at Hammarsdale. This was during 1964. I had occasion during August, 1966, to ask the hon. the Minister what progress had been made with the plans for the establishment of a new police station at Hammarsdale and when it was expected that construction work would commence. The reply I got was that no plans for the proposed new police station had as yet been drawn up. We assume from that that the establishment has been approved but no plans have been drawn up with regard to the actual establishment thereof, and at this stage it is not possible to indicate when construction will commence. We were advised, also in reply to questions, that the establishment of a Bantu township would take place during the 1967-8 fiscal year. It appears that finance will be allocated during that period for this township, but still nothing is being done about this police station. I must bear out the hon. member for Pinelands when he talks about malpractices and the crime rate that is prevalent in these Bantu townships. Let me say here and now that the District Commandant and the Station Commander are doing the best they can under very difficult circumstances. Our complaint is not against the staff. They are doing the best they can with the limited manpower at their disposal and the limited transport. This police station is over ten miles away from Hammarsdale. As you heard during the debate on Posts and Telegraphs, there are not even adequate telephones in the area to contact the police. It takes at least 20 minutes to get there if they have transport available. This police station is responsible for nearly 40 miles of the most dangerous national road, possibly, in the country, a road which has possibly the highest accident rate in the country and they are required on these duties as well. It is unfair to expect this staff to do it, and it is unfair to the people of Hammarsdale—I am talking about the law-abiding people—to expect them to remain any longer with inadequate police protection. The protection racket is rife in that area and the District Commandant knows it but his hands are tied and the police can do nothing.

Another aspect which I must bring to the notice of the Minister is that an awful lot of crime in that area is never reported because it is difficult for these people to get to the police station to report. I believe that this is not only confined to my particular area, but that it is something which applies throughout the rural areas of this country. I appeal to the Minister. Please let us see some foresight and some planning and let us see something concrete being done, and particularly, let us make it easier for the law-abiding Bantu to have access to the police and to the protection to which they are entitled.

I am not going to apologize for not pursuing the argument of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) because, to use his own words, he moved in a local “hollow circle”. Towards the end of his speech the hon. member did touch upon another matter, viz. the shortage of manpower, and expressed his great concern in this regard. I should think that a person who takes the matter so seriously and has considered it for such a long time would make use of the opportunity to tell the hon. the Minister how this matter may be solved, but he did not.

There is perhaps no other Vote under which one can express the gratitude and appreciation of the people more strongly than under this Vote of Police—express the sincere gratitude and appreciation of every inhabitant of the Republic to the hon. the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Police for what has been done for the safety of all population groups in the Republic. Precisely because this is the case and because this Vote is so important we, as a House and as a nation, cannot do otherwise than not only congratulate the Deputy Minister, who is now charged with this matter, on his promotion, but also bless him and wish him strength in the special task entrusted to him. The Police are often subject to malicious criticism, to unfounded accusations, and the Force is naturally a stumbling-block to all anti-South African elements simply because it is our first line of defence. In view of the statistics and the data on terrorists and saboteurs which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us last night, we cannot sufficiently emphasize that fact nor can we adequately thank the men of this force. It is necessary that we emphasize a few facets of this service because these men have made a tremendous contribution not only to the safety of the State but also to the personal wellbeing and happiness and safety of every citizen of the country, and to the protection of what we call “life, limb and property”. That is why, as a legal practitioner who continually comes into contact with these people, I want to make use of this opportunity to pay tribute to these men and to express my thanks to them. There are countries where a police helmet and uniform are the symbols of fear to the population, but we are grateful that in this country the policeman is the symbol and the guarantee of safety for every member of the population.

The hon. member for Houghton asked a very interesting question to which the Minister referred and to which I also want to refer. In Hansard, col. 650, where the percentages are given of the number of men in the force convicted of certain crimes, we find the following information: When, as far as serious crimes is concerned, note that convictions were obtained in less than .5 per cent of cases, in other words, fewer than one in 200, we realize that this is a remarkable achievement. It is even more remarkable when we consider the fact that this force of more than 30,000 men is composed of all population groups, and that this force, unlike any other service of the State, is continually being subjected to the grossest provocation and that these men are expected to show extraordinary self-restraint. To substantiate this I refer to the latest Police Report, the Report for 1964. On page 5 we find that the number of cases reported in respect of charges of assault on the police and of obstruction in the execution of their duties was 4,145. This figure gives us some idea of what these people have to endure. When we consider further than it is the practice in the Police Force that the police, as a matter of policy, do not themselves bring actions against fellow members of the force but that all prima facie cases, excluding those dealing with departmental disciplinary matters, are referred to the Attorney-General, I think it speaks volumes for the achievements of the force. This is one group in service that is continually being exposed to provocation and temptation.

But for the rest I am very pleased about the question put by the hon. member for Houghton and about these statistics, because they prove the exceptional discipline prevailing in the force. The procedure that is followed, viz. that every prima facie case is referred to the Attorney-General and that proceedings are instituted and that men are convicted, proves the particularly severe discipline and the strict code that is maintained in the force.

The increase in the incidence of crime has been discussed but not a single word has been said about the success achieved in the solving of crime, and I want to mention some very interesting facts in this regard. I think one should be interested to discover not only the number of policemen who have been convicted but also the amount of success achieved by the police. The percentage of cases solved out of cases reported in the London Metropolitan Area is 21.6 per cent, in New Zealand, 60 per cent, South Australia, 79 per cent. Western Australia, 71 per cent, Washington 47 per cent and in South Africa, 90.1 per cent. This is a remarkable and fantastic achievement. I want to point out that whether they are working at the office or whether they are on the tennis court or at home, these men are on duty 24 hours a day. This is the only service in which men are on standby 24 hours a day. They attain these achievements under very difficult conditions and then they are still exposed to provocations. We should rather ask how many of these men deserve special mention in the execution of their duties. I should like to give the House a very interesting piece of information. We find that in 1965 there were 1,650 awards for dedicated, distinguished and faithful service and for bravery, 22 honourable mentions and 8 medals for bravery. This police force of ours, which has this record for solving crime and for combating terrorism, and which does so notwithstanding a shortage of manpower, merits the homage of every citizen in the country. They deserved these decorations, but the highest decoration the police force can receive and has received in South Africa is the gratitude and the trust of the entire population.

No one will disagree with the hon. member for Odendaalsrus when he says that there are efficient and excellent policemen who have done very well indeed for the people of South Africa and when he commends them for their action. Of course there are, but the purpose of this Committee of Supply is not, unfortunately, just to bring praise to departments. The purpose of Committee of Supply is to voice our grievances, where we have any, and our complaints against the Department before we vote money for which the hon. the Minister is asking. That is the purpose of Committee of Supply and therefore I take the opportunity of dealing with other aspects of the Police Vote.

I want to say first of all, Sir, that owing to a ruling given last night I was unable to reply to the remarks made by the hon. the Prime Minister in relation to the Robertson banning. I will therefore raise that matter under the relevant Vote.

Why mention it now, why not abide by the ruling?

The Chairman is quite capable of enforcing the Rules of the House; he does not need the support of a backbencher. At any rate, I shall raise this matter under the relevant Vote. I only hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will extend me the courtesy—and I hope that his Whips are making a note of this—of being present when I do so for I have many personal remarks to address to him on the Robertson banning.

Sir, I have some other things to raise under the Police Vote, and I want to start off on the question of the use of police dogs in confined places. Sir, there was an inquiry held about the use of police dogs in the Flamingo Night Club in Johannesburg. I think all of us have probably read the findings of the magistrate in that regard. He commented strongly against the use of police dogs in confined places in such a way as to cause panic amongst the people in the premises. I fully agree with that of course, I raised the matter earlier because I knew that it was completely unusual for the police to use dogs where people are herded together in confined places, unable to get out. It is a situation calculated to cause panic, and those were more or less the findings of the magistrate. What worries me is the comment made subsequently, a few days after the magistrate’s finding, by the Commissioner of Police on the Witwatersrand who, despite the magistrate’s findings—and I think it was improper for him to comment thereon—stated that the police had done the right thing and that they had had to use police dogs. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to go into this and to tell this Committee how it is. despite an official inquiry and despite these findings by a magistrate, that an official in his Department is able to comment unfavourably on the court’s findings and to say more or less that despite the court’s findings, the same procedure was likely to be used in the future. I think this is a most dangerous procedure and I sincerely hope that strict instructions will be given in this regard. There are obviously cases where the use of police dogs can be commended, but certainly not in premises crowded with people who are unable to get out and who are likely to panic …

Why did they want to get out? Because they had guilty consciences.

That is completely irrelevant. The police were looking for a fugitive who in fact was no longer on the premises and it is absolutely irrelevant why they wanted to get out. They were in a panic and one does not inquire into the reasons for panic. What you do is to avoid circumstances in the future which can result in the death of ten people, as happened in the Fordsburg case. That is one matter that I wished to raise.

They had a guilty conscience.

Mr. Chairman, am I please to be allowed to proceed? I want to raise also the question which was raised a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus and that is the question of the small percentage of police who are found guilty of assault and other offences. The percentage is low and I am pleased about that, but that does not alter the fact that we have 273 policemen who were convicted of assault in 1965, 13 convicted of extortion and 62 of theft. These things probably occur in police forces all over the world; that is not the point I am trying to raise but what does worry me is the retention of these men in the police force after they have been convicted of offences. I want to mention one case in particular. I have a cutting here relating to a man named Edward Franchna Crew of the Olifantsfontein Police Station who was convicted on 5th January, 1965, of assault on an African at the police station and fined R40. According to the second cutting I have, which is dated 16th February, 1966, a policeman, by the same name, who by then had apparently been dismissed because he is now referred to as a “former policeman” but who on the date in question was still in the police force, was again convicted of assault on an African and at that time he was in charge of the police station.

You should be pleased that he was charged and found guilty.

Sir, I cannot listen to that hysterical note over there; I have too much to say in the time at my disposal. He was found guilty on the first count of having assaulted an African. The next time he was found guilty he was discharged but at the same time he was still in charge of the police station when he was actually brought up before the court, when he was found guilty of assault. To me it seems an extraordinary thing. How is it that a man who shows a tendency to be unable to control himself, who shows that he is liable to go assaulting people, is not only retained after the first charge of assault, when he was found guilty and fined, but is actually left in charge of a police station? I find that an extraordinary case indeed, and I think that much stricter control should be exercised over the employment of people in a senior capacity. This young policeman, by the way, was a teenager. He was convicted together with another man. The newspaper report refers to “an eighteen-year old former police constable”. Will the hon. the Minister please explain to me how it comes about that an eighteen-year old man is put in charge of a police station—a child, Sir, who has barely attained the voting age, who, in my opinion, should not have the vote, but at any rate he has barely attained the voting age and he is put in charge of a police station although he had previously been convicted on a charge of assault. That is the sort of case that should be investigated and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister who I have neglected to congratulate on his elevation …

At which police station is this?

I will give the hon. the Deputy Minister the cuttings and he can go into it. It was in fact at the Olifantsfontein police station, according to the newspaper reports. I have lots of other cuttings which perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister would care to look at, also dealing with this sort of assault. In reply to a question which I put some time ago to the Minister, he told me that members of the force convicted of crime other than petty offences are dismissed but with due regard to the provisions of Section 17 of the Police Act. I hope that this section will not be used quite so conveniently in future.

Sir, I am interested to know what is going to happen in the case of the African waiter who was beaten up by two policemen who were out of uniform. He was badly injured and has permanently lost his hearing in his right ear. He instituted a case against the hon. the Minister. I might say that he won the case but, of course, all the money has been used up in paying his legal expenses. I asked whether an ex gratia payment was going to be made. The hon. the Minister did say that this matter was under consideration and I hope that we will have some finality in this matter. The man’s name is Max Mhlangan. I will give the hon. the Minister the cutting in this regard as well.

Then, Sir, I wonder if he will enlighten us further over the mystery of the employment of this so-called secret agent, Mr. Zajc. Many people have testified to having seen this man in various capacities in South Africa. He has an alias, Dolinshek. He was seen trailing around with the Kennedy group of newsmen during the Kennedy visit. He took a lot of photographs of a lot of people, and according to many people this man was in fact in the police force. He is an alien. I want to know whether he was in fact in the police force; is it usual to employ aliens in our police force, even in the capacity of James Bond mysterymen, and why was it that this was the only man who was given a Press card to trail around behind the Kennedy group whereas reputable pressmen and television people from overseas were denied visas to come into this country [Time limit.]

You travelled on the same plane with Kennedy.

My hon. leader, who was at the time Minister of Justice, said once when he was addressing an audience on the occasion of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the South African Police Force: “South Africa is not only a beautiful country; it is also a safe and prosperous country, and so it shall remain. This is not the policy and the ideal of the Government alone. It will also be the aim of every policeman.” I must say at the outset that the hon. member for Houghton will pardon me for not following her up immediately in her argument. When the time comes, the questions she asked and the two local matters she mentioned will be given the requisite attention and will most probably be replied to by the hon. the Minister. I am not particularly interested in her other allegation. She will never utter one word of gratitude or appreciation for the great services being rendered by our police force. Mr. Chairman, mindful of the great work being done by our police force, it is rather unfortunate that sporadic attempts should be made to bring our police force, our police department, into discredit. I say that this is unfortunate because I feel that deep in our hearts, in our being and certainly in our minds, there ought to be a feeling of reverence and of very great appreciation for our police force. This brings me to the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Pinelands and just now by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North). I know the hon. member for Pinelands from the old days. I know that he may perhaps not have meant it in that way but he also referred in passing to the hackneyed concept of “lack of foresight”, and, as behoves a good back-bencher, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) continued the movement this morning. I must in all humility immediately admit that this concept of “lack of foresight”, when used in a motion of censure, would probably be a good subject for debate were it not for the fact that the hon. back-benchers on the other side are responsible for its being such a hopeless failure.

In all seriousness though, Mr. Chairman, it is not always possible for one to understand how the concept of “lack of foresight” can be used when one is referring to the South African Police Force. This concept was further supplemented by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) who added to it the concept of “lack of planning”. I think that by this time next year the back-benchers on that side will probably also be complaining of a “lack of support” for the United Party!

Why do you not confine yourself to the Vote? Why not leave it to the Minister to reply?

I think that I am speaking to the Vote. If the hon. member at the back will only listen, he will understand.

It is not necessary for him to insult the Chairman.

I think that the hon. member for Pinelands was quite serious when he referred yesterday to the increase in the incidence of crime in South Africa. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that as far as the incidence of crime is concerned, there has in actual fact been a decline. It would have been a good thing if the hon. member had also considered the world-wide storm and stress and perhaps also had considered the possible result of this world-wide storm and stress and how it has affected other countries. I should like to refer him to a famous article by Lord Shawcross. The then Minister of Justice referred last year to this article by Lord Shawcross who was at the time Attorney-General of Great Britain. This man is a great lawyer. Among other things, he wrote an article which was published in 1965 in the American Bar Association Journal. This article contained, inter alia, the following statement—

This was what happened in London. I think that we here in South Africa are in a fortunate position in that crime is on the decline. I know that the hon. member for Pinelands was in earnest when he expressed his concern about crime. We are all concerned about crime in our country. I say that it is unfortunate that the good name, honour and reputation of the police force and the police department in South Africa should sometimes, directly or indirectly, be sullied by hostile bodies or by people who have no foresight in regard to these matters. When we consider that our police force consists of 31,779 members, it is to be understood that offences will occasionally be committed, sometimes of a minor and sometimes of a major nature, because, after all, the police are human beings who co-operate and who do difficult work.

The position is summed up as follows in a leading article in the Cape Times—

I think that the appreciation expressed here is also shared by the whole of our South African nation which, as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus said here, has great appreciation for this force. In comparison with other police forces in the world, it is on the topmost rung of the ladder in the sphere of efficiency. We must also admit that South Africa is a very difficult country for a police force to police. It is a large country; we have a variety of peoples in this country; we have a variety of cultures in this multi-racial country of ours, a variety of ethical codes, and the area to be policed stretches from the most far-flung Bantu kraal or distant outpost to within the cosmopolitan areas of our cities. Our police force has always and at all times to be on duty throughout this area and that is why I am sure that it is reasonable to accept the fact that our police force has to do most difficult work indeed. But at this time of storm and stress, at this time during which the industrial revolution in South Africa—as a result of the fact that we have a very strong Government—has gained its greatest momentum, it is self-evident that there will be a concentration of humanity in the large industrial cities and, where this happens, it is also obvious and one can reasonably deduce that crimes and social offences will be committed. All these things do not make the task of the S.A. Police Force any easier, and when we add to this the international wave of crime, the dark forces threatening civilization in all its aspects, then we can well understand why it is that our S.A. Police Force has sometimes to operate under very difficult circumstances. But besides all this there are still of course forces the combating of which is the responsibility neither of the police force nor our South African citizens nor anyone else in South Africa, and yet the combating of which becomes the responsibility of the S.A. Police Force. I say that our police force has to combat great forces indeed. There are the forces which arise and which are unleashed as a result of worldwide storm and stress; there are the forces which arise and which come into being as a result of the fact that human values and norms are broken down; there are forces which arise as a result of the world-wide cold war. This cold war affects our country as well and we cannot deny this fact. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) who has just sat down, and several other members, particularly the new members who have spoken on his side of the House and, of course, the hon. member for Heilbron, who always adopts that attitude, have all shown an undue sensitivity towards the remarks of hon. members on this side in discussing this Vote. I want at the outset to make it perfectly clear, as has been stated by other members on this side of the House, that we have the very highest regard for our police force in South Africa. That is not in dispute at all. But the public is entitled to the best possible protection and is entitled at all times to be safe and secure, as is conceded, I am sure, by the hon. the Deputy Minister. This is what the Government is striving to do. The hon. the Deputy Minister would be the first to admit that there can be improvements. In fact, he conceded that yesterday. He conceded, for example, that serious crime has increased and obviously something has to be done about it.

Sir, before I deal with the matters that I wish to raise, I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the date of the most recent annual report of the Commissioner of the S.A. Police. It is the 30th June, 1964. In other words, the most recent report is over two and a half years out of date. I believe that it is most unsatisfactory that we should have to discuss the Police Vote with a report which is so far out of date. Sir, I raise this because this is not the first time that we have had to complain about this matter, and I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, now that he has taken over, to see to it that the annual report of the Commissioner of Police is produced timeously, and I would also ask him to give this Committee an explanation as to why these two reports have been produced so late, particularly the 1965 report.

Several speakers on this side of the House have drawn attention to the increase in serious crime, particularly crimes of violence. I wish to say a few words in that regard. In the 1964 report, at page 5, it was stated that 21,036 cases of robbery had been reported during that year. The report goes on to say that during the year 55 cases of robbery by armed force occurred in the Witwatersrand area, and it then goes on to say—

Finally the report goes on to say—

Sir, this was in June, 1964. Since then I am sure that the Deputy Minister will concede that cases of robbery and of robbery with violence have increased and that they have increased alarmingly on the Witwatersrand. But this is not the only place in South Africa where this particular crime has reached serious proportions. In our major cities to-day crime of bag snatching, for example, is on the increase, and so serious has this become in some places, particularly on the Witwatersrand, that women are afraid to be about on their own. These crimes take place in broad daylight in busy parts of the city, and in most cases bystanders are afraid to come to the rescue of the women who are assaulted because these criminals are very often armed with knives and bystanders fear for their own safety. I believe that the only way in which this type of crime can be reduced is by having policemen on the beat, policemen on foot patrol. We have been pleading for this year after year and, up to now, with very little success, although I do understand that it is the aim to get more policemen on foot patrol. Until such time as this is done on a far larger scale I believe that we will face an increase in this type of crime.

There is another type of crime to which I wish to refer because of its seriousness and because it is increasing and that is robberies of pay-packets from non-Whites, particularly on Friday nights when they are paid. This crime is increasing and in some areas it has become quite blatant. These thugs, these tsotsis, climb on to the bus taking the non-Whites home and then take their pay-packets from them quite openly. The people who witness this are afraid to report it for fear of retaliation. Sir, this is not an exaggeration and I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will know that this is a fact. There have been a lot of complaints in the Durban area about this, as well as on the Witwatersrand and in other areas. Sir, something must be done about this by the police. I appreciate the difficulties involved but something must be done by the police to give more protection to the law-abiding non-White workers so that they are not robbed of their pay-packets. These are law-abiding people who are the backbone of our non-White population. They are being preyed upon by the tsotsi element in our major cities. Sir, the hon. the Minister told us last night that certain steps were being taken to release some of the police personnel who are doing administrative work at present for general police work. This, I believe, is a step in the right direction and I am very pleased to hear that this is being done. I believe that the Government should take all possible steps to release persons, who could be replaced by either women or by pensioners, for administrative work. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman. I am particularly privileged to have an opportunity to-day to address this House. I represent a constituency which borders on Basutoland for a considerable distance. As you may have seen in Press reports, the border farmers in my constituency—as elsewhere—have recently been experiencing very difficult times. We have reached a stage where the position of the people on the border has become virtually untenable. But through the hon. the Deputy Minister we should like to thank the present hon. Prime Minister sincerely for what he has meant to us on the border in these recent times. The “open-door” policy adopted by him has enabled us, those of us who acted responsibly in those regions, to discuss our problems thoroughly with him.

We approached the hon. the Prime Minister with a five-point plan. We put it to him that we believed that one point that would be of great assistance to us, would be if we could do away with the uncontrolled gates, so that there could be proper control at all gates, and that uncontrolled gates should preferably be closed. We are grateful to say that the hon. the Prime Minister has already given attention to that. We asked for radio communication and also radio vehicles on the border, and we are most grateful to be able to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that that has also been put into effect. We believed that if we could have police dogs on the border, it would facilitate matters to a large extent. We want to express our gratitude for the fact that that request has also been complied with. We therefore want to testify that by those means we have now succeeded in improving the position to a very large extent.

There were also two other matters. The fourth point was that we were convinced that there would have to be an extradition agreement between the Republic of South Africa and Basutoland. The hon. the Minister has made it clear to us that it is a matter which is already enjoying consideration. We do not want to take up the Committee’s time by any further discussion of this point, but we want to make it quite clear and we want to plead that all parties concerned should endeavour to the utmost to bring about this extradition agreement. If we can achieve that, we shall have made a great deal of progress.

At this point I just want to state in this House that we have recently been enjoying the most cordial co-operation on the part of the Basutoland Government and the Basutoland Mounted Police. It is since we obtained that co-operation that the position on the border has improved to such an extent.

Then there is the last matter in respect of which we feel that we should obtain the assistance of the hon. the Minister, and that we want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and that is that a proper and a well-constructed border fence will have to be erected along the border. We are making progress under present conditions, but all our problems will not be solved before a proper border has been defined.

I want to conclude. But through the Deputy Minister I want to thank the Prime Minister once again for what he has done, and we want to thank the Commissioner of Police and his men in the Free State—under which we fall—most heartily for the fact that they have always been readily accessible to us. Shortly before we came to Cape Town the position on the border suddenly deteriorated again. We have had discussions about that and we are now very grateful to be able to say that the Department of Police has once again come to our assistance. On existing roads the patrols would have covered a distance of 155 miles. With the co-operation of the farmers and the Provincial Administration, the Department constructed a special road for police vehicles along the border in my constituency, a road of 53 miles along which those patrols can now be carried out, to the great advantage of the border inhabitants.

As I have said, we are very grateful and we want to ask the Deputy Minister to convey our gratitude to the Prime Minister. We also want to express the hope that we shall enjoy the same kind co-operation on the part of the Deputy Minister, who is now in charge of this most important office, and we want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister that we should continue to do everything in our ability, just as in the past, to render the best services to those border farmers who are experiencing difficult circumstances.

Mr. Chairman. I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Smithfield, because we have the same problem, namely the difficulties that we as farmers are experiencing in the vicinity of the borders. The matter has been raised in this House on previous occasions by the hon. member for Transkei. I have already raised the matter in the Provincial Council as well, because—as you probably deduced from the speech made by the hon. member for Smithfield—there is naturally more than one Department concerned in finding a solution to this problem. But of course, the Deputy Minister is largely responsible for finding a solution to the problem of these stock thefts.

Mr. Chairman, this morning I should like to confine myself in particular to the circumstances obtaining in the vicinity of the Bantu areas of the Transkei and the Ciskei. In the past year or two the position there has deteriorated a great deal. It is at present virtually impossible for anybody to make a living on a farm bordering on or within striking distance of those areas. At first the problem was restricted to stock farming only, but the present position is much worse because not only stock but also maize, fruit, poultry and even vegetables are involved. This matter forms the basis of items on the agenda of every farmers’ meeting that is held there, whether it is a farmers’ association meeting, a congress or anything of that nature.

I have had personal experience of that. For a period of five years I myself rented a farm bordering on the Transkei. Every year from 30 to 50 sheep vanished into thin air. I was nevertheless fortunate, because other farmers had it much worse. For example, I know of one farmer in that region who is no longer farming with sheep at all. Nowadays it is so bad that if one counts one’s sheep and two or three are missing, it is not even reported. Because what happens then? After it has been reported, the police come out and one of the first things they want to do is to count the sheep. That is of course no easy task to anyone who is not used to counting sheep. Apart from that, it is attempting the impossible to chase 1,000 or 2,000 sheep to and fro to enable a policeman to count them. Therefore one does not report the matter.

But the disquieting aspect is this. Because those thefts are assuming such proportions, the farmers are now beginning to take the law into their own hands. I know that towards the end of last year a farmer in East Griqualand found one morning that 200 of his sheep were missing, so he crossed the border immediately and followed the trail. He did recover most of his sheep, but he must have gone a full day’s journey from his farm, and he brought them back himself. I also know of a woman in the East London district who guards her stock with a shotgun at night. These are dangerous actions, and if drastic measures are not taken they are going to lead to nasty incidents.

Although it is a serious problem to the extensive farmers whose farms border on the Transkei, it is child’s play compared with the problems of the farmers whose farms border on the Ciskei, and particularly those in the vicinity of Mdantsane. I do not want to mention individual incidents, because I know that the hon. the Minister’s file is bulky, quite, as bulky as mine. And I also want to say—just as other hon. members have said—that I am not laying any blame at the door of the Commissioner at East London or his staff. With the limited powers at his command, he is performing a tremendous task. He has an impossible task. I know that it is extremely difficult to solve a case of food theft. In Mdantsane the position is so bad that half an hour after a stolen ox has crossed the border, there is nothing left of it but a bloodstain where the ox was slaughtered.

Here I have the latest letter to appear in the Press with regard to this matter, a letter which appeared on Monday. I should like to quote from the letter to prove that this kind of thing is not conducive to the sound relations that should obtain between the fanners and the police. The letter reads, inter alia, as follows—

The writer then refers to the Commissioner and says—

That is the point. We know that a police station is in fact to be built in Mdantsane. I know that the police have already introduced a mobile unit there to help solve the problem. Hon. members on the opposite side have asked why this side of the House is always levelling accusations in respect of planning or the lack of planning. I do not want to level such an accusation now, Sir, but I ask you to judge.

How can the Bantu population be allowed to accumulate in a place like Mdantsane without the necessary employment opportunities being provided for those people, without proper control over the influx of illegal persons, without control over undesirable persons? There are in fact some policemen, but by no means enough. Is it because the Department is not aware of what is happening? I should like to refer to a question replied to by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, when the hon. member for Houghton asked him what the present population of Mdantsane was. That was on 19th August. The hon. the Minister’s reply was 2,400. Does the hon. the Minister not know that even on 30th June the population of Mdantsane totalled more than 40,000?

Under such conditions the primary requirement is a policeman. Last night the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to decentralization and to what it would entail. But I should like to point out—as another hon. member on this side has already done—that the presence of the police is urgently required. They have to be there to take preventive action before the crime is committed. They have to deter the thief before he commits theft. That is what we need. A police station must therefore be established there. And not only must the station be built, but the staff must also be there to deter those who want to break the law, and to prevent them from doing so. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, on various occasions in the past eight years I raised in this House the question of the shortage of Coloured policemen on the establishment of the Police Force. From time to time I also pointed out what I considered might be the cause of that. On the last occasion on which I raised the matter, I had the extraordinary experience that the then Minister of Justice rose immediately afterwards and said that there would be substantial increases in the commencement salaries of Coloured constables. At the time it amounted to R30 a month, and I am grateful to say that it now amounts to R48 a month.

It remains a fact, however, that the police have not kept pace with developments, whether for departmental or other reasons. We find that there has been a tremendous expansion, particularly as regards Coloured housing. This is due to two main reasons, namely the tremendous shortage of Coloured housing that obtained previously, and the implementation of Government policy and the consequent resettlement. A striking example of that is those vast complexes one sees, when travelling to the airport, on either side of the road where five years ago there was nothing but bush, and where thousands of people live now. In Bonteheuwel alone there are 33,000 people, and there are also Heideveld and Lavis Township. In Port Elizabeth one notices the same in respect of Gelvandale, and in East London there is the Parkside Buffalo Flats Extension.

It is a sociological fact that tremendous problems arise where one has such a recently accumulated community. One has the various economic classes that are brought together from near and far, from various places. The people are of divergent social classes, and they have divergent cultural standards. They come from different places where there have been close-knit, established communities. This is a common phenomenon. In Epping Garden Township, a sub-economic White scheme that arose in the thirties, tremendous sociological problems also arose, problems with which I am conversant. It is only now, virtually a generation later, that that community has become a close-knit unit and a close-knit community.

Unfortunately the police could not keep pace in those complexes. I shall now mention one example which is generally known. This Bonteheuwel-Heideveld-Lavis Town complex is served by the Athlone police station. There is only one effective method of police protection, which those people want, and that is that the policeman may turn up anywhere on foot or even on his bicycle. Last night, as I was walking home, I heard someone say, “Good evening, Sir,” and when I looked around I saw a Coloured police sergeant with his bicycle. I entered my house in the knowledge that there was police protection—that policeman may turn up anywhere. The patrol-van passes a spot once, and then the thugs and the criminals know that it has gone and that it will not return within a few hours. That is the trouble. The Coloureds are complaining from one place to the next. At the moment the hon. the Minister has representations before him from the Mossel Bay community, who envisage what will happen if steps are not taken immediately to give them better protection.

The main source of the trouble is that it is not possible to get enough Coloured police recruits. I speak under correction, but I understand the establishment of the Coloured police force is at present understaffed by about 500 men. Even if it were possible to fill those vacancies, at least a further 500 men would be needed to meet the present requirements. It appears to be the same old problem all over again, and that is that the salaries are not adequate. We find that the salaries have always been the problem. There is no need for me to waste time by quoting figures and by comparing them with what is paid in other Departments and in commerce and industry. The Department can determine, however, what the commencement salaries of members of the Coloured Corps are, for instance, what salaries are paid by other branches of the Public Service, and what are paid in commerce and industry. I am pleased to be able to state that the hon. member for Peninsula will arrange a meeting with Coloured leaders in the Peninsula and with people of influence next week in an attempt to help the police to get the required recruits.

It is my plea that the hon. the Minister will also do as much as he can to make the salaries more attractive, if possible, so that the hon. member for Peninsula will be able to announce next week that there will be better salaries and conditions of service. I also want to plead that it should not be necessary for Coloureds who are resettled and who accept it to regard Friday night, pay night, as the knife night and to have to live in fear and trepidation. The hon. member for Musgrave has mentioned—and that is the way things are in the Coloured areas—that people who are robbed, those who are not prepared to give up a certain portion of their salaries, if they complain about it, can be sure that not only will they not take their salaries home with them the next Friday night, but neither will they themselves go home.

I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to endeavour to assist those of us who try to help to get the necessary recruits in order that adequate police protection may be provided, by enabling us to say that the salary scales will be improved. Because, after all, the man wants to do his work, but he also wants to support his family and his home. He will not accept the work if he can obtain a better salary elsewhere, nor can one blame him for that.

Mr. Chairman, in replying to matters raised by hon. members, I do not want the impression to be created that what they have said in the House with regard to Police affairs is swept aside without more ado. On the contrary; although I may perhaps not reply to all the questions that have been raised, I want to give hon. members the assurance that a proper note is made of them, and if it is justified they will receive the necessary attention.

In the first place I wish to refer to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). He referred to Bonteheuwel when he spoke right at the beginning, and he asked when the police station would be established there. Last night I stated explicitly that a Coloured training centre is being erected at Bishop Lavis Town at a cost of R600,000, and will be completed by the middle of 1967. When it is completed, the police station will be set up in that centre. The police station will be staffed by Coloured policemen. As soon as the building has been completed, the police station will be set up. As regards Hammarsdale, I have been informed that all the required police protection is provided from the nearby police station, Inchanga, and that the crimes that occur there will be combated and solved effectively. What I told hon. members just now, applies with regard to Hammarsdale as well. I do not want us to argue about the needs of hon. members in their constituencies. Last night I extended an invitation to hon. members to have no hesitation in discussing their problems with me or with the Commissioner, and I said that those problems would receive consideration.

The hon. member for Houghton referred in the first place to the raid carried out on the Flamingo Club, when dogs were used in a hall, and where ten persons died in the resultant confusion and chaos, persons who were literally trampled to death in the ensuing chaos. The hon. member’s plea was that dogs should not be used in such confined spaces. I believe, and I think that should be the opinion of all of us, that a policeman performs his work under very difficult circumstances. I shall quote figures just now to demonstrate to the House—the hon. member for Houghton has the figures before her already—under what difficult circumstances the policeman works. He must frequently decide how much force to use as a result of the insecure circumstances that arise. I think that under the circumstances it is impossible to lay down a fixed rule, and we shall be forced—and I think that is best—to accept that the responsible policemen—because I believe that they are in fact responsible—must decide for themselves, and that it should be left to their sound judgment, which means they should use under what circumstances. In other words, the hon. member cannot expect a fixed rule to be laid down here and now that dogs may not be used in such confined spaces, because I do not think it is practical and desirable to make such a decision.

The hon. member makes a point of revealing everything about the police that she considers unfavourable, and she tries to conceal everything about the police that she thinks may be favourable.

[Inaudible.]

No, I know the hon. member got up here and said that she wanted to criticize. I do not think it is our function to do nothing but criticize all the time. We are dealing with the administration of a Department. But that is the hon. member’s approach, and I do not want to discuss that because I do not think it is worth the trouble. The hon. member spoke here and said that she was grateful that there had been so few cases of assault on the part of the police. Unfortunately it appears that the hon. member was absent last night, because last night I dealt with the question which she asked and which was answered on 12th August, when certain particulars were furnished. Of course she asked for an oral reply to the question, and she is entitled to ask for either an oral or a written reply. I have no objection to her rights, but I do object to her motives.

What motives?

I leave that to her to judge for herself. I object to the motives.

What motives are those?

She asked that question because she thought she could get venom from it, and therefore I dealt with the question. In effect the question was how many policemen had been convicted and how many had been charged with certain crimes, among them assaults. She did admit just now that the figures were fairly low. Last night I gave certain particulars, and for the edification of the hon. member, who is now present, I want to do so again. I want to ask the hon. member whether she has ever studied the other side of the picture, namely that of assaults on the police committed by members of the public. Last night I pointed out that in the year 1963-4, that is from 1st July to 30th June of each year, there were 208 convictions in respect of assaults on members of the public by the police. But there were 1,030 convictions in cases where members of the public had assaulted the police. The hon. member is not prepared to publicize that kind of information.

That is not my job.

The hon. member is not interested in that. I shall take another year. In the year 1965-6 there were 234 convictions in cases where the police had committed assaults on members of the public, but there were 1,158 convictions in cases of assault on the police by members of the public.

That is no justification.

The hon. member does not like this, and I do not blame her for not liking it. She does not like it, of course, because it exposes her; it exposes her attitude and her motives as regards her actions in this House.

You want the funds to be voted without any criticism. I am not prepared to do that.

This morning there were again questions on the Question Paper for written reply. I think the House may just as well hear what they were. The hon. member asked how many suspected offenders were shot and killed and seriously injured by members of the Police Force during 1964 and 1965, respectively. In this case the reply was that 41 were shot and killed in 1964, and that 70 were shot and killed in 1965. Those were suspected offenders shot and killed by the police. The second part of the question related to the number of suspected offenders who were seriously injured by the police, namely 61 in 1964 and 102 in 1965. Then there was another question asked by the hon. member for written reply, note well, in which she wanted to know how many policemen were killed and seriously injured in the performance of their duties during 1964 and 1965, respectively. Now hon. members should note that during the year 1964 no fewer than 18 and in 1965 no fewer than 21 policemen were killed. Another subdivision of the hon. member’s question was how many policemen were seriously injured in the performance of their duties. As against the number of suspected offenders injured by the police in 1964 and in 1965, namely 61 in 1964 and 102 in 1965, 1,459 policemen were seriously injured in the performance of their duties in 1964, and 1,562 in 1965. Those are the circumstances under which our policemen have to live and work, and it befits the hon. member, just as it also befits me, to publicize the fine and responsible part, that part which may receive an honourable mention, and not only the part she likes to publicize.

One should accept that as self-evident, just as I have to accept it as self-evident that you are going to do good work.

The hon. member for Musgrave referred to the Department’s annual report. We regret that it was not possible to make this annual report available as timeously as we should have liked to do. As regards the police only, it is possible to have the particulars that are required for the annual report, available within a few months after the end of the financial year. There are other problems, however, that prevent them from being made available to hon. members just as soon. One of those problems, and the major one. is that we have to wait for census and statistics, figures which in many cases do not become available until several months later. But I have made a note of the hon. member’s submission in this regard and I want to assure him that it will enjoy my attention. He also asked that we should employ temporary workers in the Police Force. At the moment there are 795 pensioners in a temporary capacity, and 866 ladies in employment, compared with only 44 in the year 1947-8. Therefore we do in fact use the services of pensioners and other temporary workers as far as possible.

I wanted to know whether it could not be done more extensively.

It may be possible, although the hon. member should bear in mind that such workers are not always readily available. The hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about stock thefts. I think the hon. member will be prepared to agree with me that stock theft is naturally a very difficult offence to combat. It has often occurred to me how easy it is for people, even along the main road, to run over sheep or other animals and pick them up. In fact, it is because that is so easy that it happens quite frequently. We also have problems with regard to borders. In this regard I am grateful that the hon. member as well as the hon. member for Smithfield have acknowledged what has already been done by the Police Force with regard to borders. Our relations with our neighbouring states are good, but as our relations with those states on our borders improve even further, it may be possible to make better arrangements with regard to these matters. But there is an appeal I should like to make. I have been informed that the statistics made available to the police by the farmers are not always as reliable as they should be. We should therefore appeal to the farmers to see to it that their statistics with regard to their stock are accurate. I ask that because the police have already had the experience that stock thefts were reported and could not be proved after checking the stock numbers of the farmer concerned.

That happens very seldom nowadays.

I mention that in any event, in case the hon. member wants to make use of that. Then there is another matter to which I also referred last night, and to which an hon. member here and there referred again to-day. It relates to the matter of the centralization of police services. Last night I referred in this regard to what had been done in Kimberley to achieve centralization. I pointed out that centralization of police services in Kimberley had had the result that 15 White and 10 non-White policemen, men who were previously employed exclusively on administrative work, could be released for active police duty. Here I may mention that at police stations in urban areas no fewer than eight to ten police officers are needed to perform the administrative work where services are rendered between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. That gives you an idea of how much manpower is occupied by administrative duties only. In the case of a station, even a minor station, where a 24-hour service is maintained, up to 15 policemen are sometimes needed for this work. If one studies the position at larger stations, one finds that in some cases this number is doubled or even trebled, depending on the size of the station. That is why we consider that greater centralization is needed in this regard. Here I want to tell hon. members representing rural areas that I am now dealing mainly with police stations in urban complexes. As regards police stations in rural areas, there are different considerations altogether. I cannot say, of course, that it will never happen that a police station in a rural area will be closed, but the considerations that obtain there are completely different from those in the case of police stations in urban areas.

You are therefore not contemplating centralization in the rural areas?

No. As I have said, completely different considerations obtain in that regard. Let me refer once again to the fine example of Kimberley. From the closing of two of the police stations there, the police derived the following advantages, as regards staff: (a) a unit for the prevention of crime was established; (b) members of the Force were left free to escort patrol dogs; (c) an adequate number of personnel was available to man the new radio-control station on a 24-hour basis; (d) the number of members on beats was virtually trebled; (e) there is an adequate number of members to man all patrol vans day and night, something which was previously impossible; (f) an adequate number of men became available to perform essential guard duty at the airport and elsewhere; and (g) more experienced and capable members, like warrant officers and sergeants, are available for key positions, which is conducive towards effective supervision and control.

But there are also other factors that have helped to bring about a favourable situation there. For example, there is the elimination of unnecessary trips. It is necessary’ to pay regular visits to any police station, with the object of transporting detainees to the Court. Now there is only one central point from which detainees have to be transported to the Court. Then there is the keeping of registers. Where in the past three separate sets of registers had to be kept, there is now only one set of registers, circulars and statements that has to be kept. There is also a tremendous saving as regards buildings. Where the three different stations previously necessitated three separate buildings, everything is now centralized in one building. In general it has been the experience that these changes at Kimberley have brought about a great improvement. They have been well-accepted, and so far no complaints have been received.

Will you bear in mind in this regard that people who do not have a telephone service at hand may find it difficult to reach a police station?

That is true. I admit that. But such a state of affairs is nowadays virtually the exception. Last night I referred to the changed circumstances in which we live nowadays as a result of telephones and improved transport services. Because telephones are so readily available nowadays, I think the hon. member’s request can apply to exceptional cases only. Even where there is no telephone service available in the home, there should be a public telephone service in the immediate vicinity. But I appreciate the hon. member’s point, and I appreciate that something like that may in fact create a problem. People who do not have telephones will then perhaps have to go further to reach a police station than was necessary previously. But one should consider the advantages of both aspects.

I also want to say something about Johannesburg. In Johannesburg there were previously seven police districts, namely Johannesburg, Newlands, Jeppes, Hospital Hill, Bramley, Auckland Park and Booysens. Those seven districts were in turn divided into 35 police districts. It has already been authorized that those seven districts will be reduced to three, and that those three districts will then consist of Johannesburg, Johannesburg North and the South-Western Bantu district, with the district headquarters at Jabulani. The closing of the district offices at Jeppes, Bramley, Auckland Park and Booysens will occur simultaneously on a date which is still to be fixed. The closing of certain police stations on the Witwatersrand is being investigated at present. In this regard the same measures are therefore being contemplated as those by means of which so much success has already been achieved in Kimberley. This reorganization in respect of the Witwatersrand will mean that 17 officers, 20 warrant officers, 58 sergeants, four constables and 52 non-White, i.e. a total of 151 policemen, will be released for active police duty. The policy is therefore to release officers by these means to enable them to be in charge of police activities throughout the section, day and night, in the streets and in charge offices. I said last night that this matter of centralization was a matter of policy. It seems as though it may to some extent solve some of the problems that we are experiencing at present. Hon. members will also remember that I have invited them to come and discuss any problems they may experience with regard to this aspect.

In the capacity in which I am acting here to-day, I shall for my part make heavy demands of our Police Force. We know that our Police Force plays a tremendous role in South Africa, particularly as regards our security on the home-front. We shall therefore continue to make heavy demands of them. At the same time I want to give them the assurance, however, that we shall fight to the utmost to give them their dues. That includes, of course, due acknowledgment for the important work they are doing.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister also deal with the problem I have raised, namely wage thefts by pickpockets at bus stops?

That is a problem that I cannot simply solve off-hand. In this discussion we are not so much concerned with isolated incidents as with the principles. But the problem raised by the hon. member will enjoy our attention.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister aware of any special measures to meet the shortage of Coloured policemen?

I apologize to the hon. member for not having replied to that point raised by him. The hon. member also spoke about salary scales, but unfortunately that does not come under me. Salaries are determined by the Public Service Commission, and the Vote concerned has already been disposed of. As regards the appointment of Coloured policemen, I am informed that the shortage will be met as qualified Coloureds become available. There is a considerable number of vacancies for Coloured policemen, and as people who are qualified for the work become available, they are appointed.

Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister has forgotten that I asked him certain questions last night in connection with the method employed by the police to trap people in cases of illegal activities in the diamond trade. What is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attitude in this regard?

I can assure the hon. member that the police employ decoys only where there is absolute evidence of irregularities. I admit that the problem raised by the hon. member is a substantial problem. I have had personal experience of that, but it nevertheless remains the only way to combat this type of crime. In fact, it is virtually impossible to combat this kind of crime without employing decoys. But I want to assure the hon. member once again that the police use decoys only where absolute evidence of irregularities is available.

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Revenue Vote 45.

Revenue Vote No. 45,—“Foreign Affairs”, R5,5 80,000.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. We dealt with the main points of our foreign policy under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. In this regard I just want to tell the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we did not do so because we wanted to get around his position. The previous Prime Minister, however, took an intimate interest in matters relating to Rhodesia, South West Africa and the International Court, the Protectorates and our relations with England and America. We therefore felt that it would be fitting to raise those matters under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. There is a considerable number of other matters, however, that we want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Since the last session there have been several staff changes in the upper echelon of the Department of Foreign Affairs. There was, for example, the retirement of the Secretary, Mr. Gerhard Jooste, and his replacement by Mr. Brand Fourie. I should like to use this opportunity to express our appreciation for the services rendered by Mr. Jooste to South Africa over so many years. We do not see officials as servants of a particular government. On the contrary, they serve under all governments, and they are therefore in actual fact servants of the country. Mr. Jooste represented South Africa in various capacities and on the highest levels, and I may say that in the process he proved that South Africa could hold its own with the best the world can produce. In particular we see his service as something which has lent eminence and status to the position of the carrière diplomat. We cannot get along without the political diplomat, of course, but it would be a great mistake if we did not also build up a staunch body of carrière diplomats. Generally speaking, it appears to us as though the principle should obtain that where it is not absolutely essential to appoint a political diplomat, a professional diplomat should be given the opportunity. After all, he is a person who has made the diplomatic service his life task and who should get the promotion due to him. I hope we shall reach the stage, if we have not reached it already, where diplomatic posts will no longer be regarded as a dumping-ground for redundant politicians. Wherever Mr. Jooste acted as an ambassador, our country was always proud of him. On behalf of the Opposition I want to express our appreciation for the brilliant and outstanding services he has rendered to South Africa. At the same time I consider it wise on the part of the Government to retain his services in an advisory capacity, and as such to entrust special tasks to him, such as the present one, in which he has to take the lead at the United Nations until such time as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs arrives there. Allow me to say that I have frequently wondered what men with such talents would have been able to achieve for South Africa if they had had a better policy behind them.

Mr. Jooste has been succeeded by Mi. Brand Fourie. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are very pleased with his appointment. Mr. Fourie has already proved that he is of the same calibre as Mr. Jooste. While I am on the subject of officialdom, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot give us a report on the training of diplomats. I shall appreciate it if he can give us a proper survey of the machinery and of what is done to select and train new talent. Then I should like to hear from the Minister whether he feels that we may be satisfied with those people’s remuneration, allowances, etc. Are they satisfactory? Now and then one hears some grumbling about that kind of thing. We know that the Government is spending a great deal of money at home, frequently on political white elephants. I do not think there is the slightest reason why people who serve South African abroad should not receive the best possible treatment. At the same time I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government has reached the stage where non-Whites are trained for the diplomatic service. Here I am not necessarily thinking of the highest political posts immediately. There are so many promotion services for which non-Whites may be trained.

The Government claims, here as well as abroad, that it has the answer to our race problems; that it has the answer to the problem of achieving peaceful co-existence and cooperation. If that is true, then one wonders whether the time has not come to train people to disseminate those views abroad also. At the International Olympic Congress at Baden-Baden a few years ago a Bantu, Mr. Job Rathebe, together with Mr. Frank Braun, represented our South African sports bodies. I have just read in the Press that the moderator of the D.R. Bantu church, the Rev. S. G. S. Ntoane, is going to the Netherlands “to represent South Africa’s case there and to help to improve relations between the two countries”. We have also had the case of a Coloured, Mr. Edgar Deane, who represented South African workers at the International Labour Organization Congress some years ago, and as such performed excellent work. I feel that if bodies such as the D.R. Church and our major sports bodies, labour organizations, etc., regard it as good policy that talented non-Whites should help to testify for South Africa abroad, then in my view it indicates that the public accept that kind of thing, and also accept it well, and that the time has come for the Government to adopt the same course. One thing is quite clear to me, and that is that nothing will make such an impression, as far as South Africa is concerned, as the fact that non-White South Africans can join Whites in speaking for South Africa abroad. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about this, and what his policy is. We hear so frequently about the “success” achieved by the Government with its policy at home. I would be prepared to accept that the day representatives of all our population groups testified together for South Africa in the international field.

Despite all the reports of an improved attitude towards South Africa in certain parts of the world, I think it would be folly on our part to be over-confident as regards the general position of South Africa abroad. I admit that there are signs of an improvement, but they are over-shadowed and confounded completely—and here I am not even speaking of the African States—for example by the resolute attitude adopted by America at present as regards South West Africa and United Nations supervision. The statement by Mr. Arthur Goldberg we read this morning was perhaps one of the most stringent ever made by America on this matter. There is even the attitude of the official Opposition in America, of the Council of Republican Organizations, a very strong wing of the Republican Party, which in a surprisingly strong-worded statement insists on actions, on effective actions against South Africa. Quite recently there has also been the sharp-worded resolution by the Commonwealth Conference, particularly with regard to South West Africa. We also see the militant attitude adopted continually by the Scandinavian countries, and we have seen what an unfavourable change there has been in the attitude of Japan, a country which is now a member of the Security Council and which therefore occupies a most important position. Japan sided openly with the Afro-Asian States against the apartheid policy of the Government. And trade is not the only consideration. Japan is our third-best client. In fact, our trade with Japan exceeds that of the rest of Africa. All these matters serve to create a picture which is by no means reassuring to us. But what causes us particular concern is our relations with the leading countries of the West, pre-eminently America. Now we have the tendency to dispose too readily of the attitude of countries like America and England by saying that they are merely being opportunistic. They are seeking the favour …

And you are always very ready to emphasize that.

I am dealing with the facts as I see them. I am not asking the hon. member to agree. I am presenting my case, and this is how I see matters. I said that we try to dispose too readily of the attitude of countries like America and England, as though those countries are being opportunistic and are merely seeking the favour of the African countries. I think that over-simplifies the matter, and in a certain sense it is an insult to a country to tell it: Your attitude does not carry much weight; you are merely seeking the favour of other countries. I think we should take a somewhat closer look at our attitude, and accept the fact that they truly and sincerely disapprove of the political system we follow in South Africa. I do not want to produce evidence of that now, but the fact of the matter is that numerous people visit South Africa, and it is striking, if I begin to quote, how many people have been here who really left as friends of South Africa, but one topic always pervades their findings, and that is that they are impressed by what they call large apartheid or separate development, in as much as it relates to territorial separation, but time and again the thing that makes a poor impression is the system of petty apartheid or discrimination.

That is your word.

Here I have an article by Mr. J. J. J. Scholtz, who visited Germany, and the opening words of his article are: “Our friends in Germany are concerned about petty apartheid.” [Interjection.] The hon. member says that is my word. I would have been honoured if that had been true and if the newspapers had got it from me. An ex-Minister of Labour from Bavaria, Germany, was here. He received some very favourable impressions here, but in a letter written by him to the Press, he is concerned about petty apartheid. In Australia sympathy with us is growing. Sir Raphael Cilento was here … but time and again we find that it is petty apartheid which is unacceptable. My point is this, that we should accept that those people are not merely seeking the favour of the African States for the sake of that favour. They are genuinely opposed to this aspect of the system we apply in South Africa. But in the second place I think it is time we realized that the struggle goes much further than merely for the sake of Africa’s favour. At the moment a country such as America is spending millions of rands every month to fight Communism in Asia. Sons of America are dying every day on the battlefield against Communism. Australia is now helping them there, but it is a fact that America has to bear the major part of the burden wherever fighting occurs in the front line. That was the position in the Congo and in Cuba, and that is the position in Vietnam at present. In the struggle against Communism America fought in the front lines in Korea also, and it is time we realized that it is not only America’s front line but also ours. Imagine the disaster that would strike South Africa if countries such as Russia and China achieved a dominant position in Africa. That would mean the end of South Africa. All I ask for is that we should achieve a better understanding of what is really at stake in the world, and that we should realize that those countries are fighting in the front lines for our interests as well. It was a most interesting development the other day when Russia objected when it was mooted that the UN should employ force in the case of South West. Why? Because it knows that where America is involved, it has no chance. It knows that in such places itself and Communism are kept out. I mention that merely to show why I think that the time has come for us to realize that the major part of the burden of our struggle rests on the leaders of the West, and that is what is at stake in Africa. That is why they have to see to it, in our interests also, that as many countries as possible are kept out of the claws of Russia and China, and are kept on the side of the West. It is a matter of profound importance to us. That is why I say that I wonder whether we should not be somewhat more sympathetic towards the nature of the world struggle and how it affects us. Let us ask ourselves what we are in fact contributing to the Western cause in the front lines of the world struggle against Communism.

What about Korea?

Yes, I know about Korea, and what we did there was good, but what are we contributing in Africa at the moment, in the general struggle? [Interjections.] I shall be grateful if the hon. member will give me a chance. We should like to keep this debate on a high level. How would we have reacted if we had been in America’s position and if sons of our country were sent by ship to fight against Communism and if instead of receiving our sons with open arms, people’s first obsession were with race matters and that our pilots should not perhaps walk in at a White gate at the airport? I am not saying we are solely at fault. No, both sides are at fault. But we are now dealing with ourselves. We are not here to govern America; we are dealing with our side of the matter, and I think it is time we tried to correct what is wrong on our side. In the first place we shall have to gain a better understanding of the nature of the world struggle against Communism, and of the problems that America, Britain and France face in that struggle. I should therefore like to see us do something. We now have a new Government. It has the same policy, but when a new Prime Minister takes over it becomes a new Government, and I think it would be a good thing if we could persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to go and make contact with the leaders in the West at an early stage of his career. That is the custom in other countries. In Britain we find that if a new Prime Minister comes into power, he makes a point of visiting his colleagues all over the world to discuss matters with them. We now have a new Prime Minister here and I think it could be of inestimable value if he at least visited the leaders in America, Britain and France. Not so much to go and explain our cause, as we put it in inverted commas, but to bring us up to date on the problems of the West and on the part we can play to help, particularly in Africa. I am quite convinced that such a gesture will be accepted, because the President of America, President Johnson, made a statement last year that in my view held out a considerable deal of promise. He said: “America believes that South Africa has the potential to achieve more productive and mutually beneficial relations in the world of to-day.” He added that in view of South Africa’s advanced economy and resources of skill, “South Africa can and should play an important role in the development of Africa”. Now a man who wants to destroy us will not adopt the attitude, as he did here, that we have an important part to play. That is something the Prime Minister can discuss with the President of America. I am convinced that it would do a great deal to help the West in its task of keeping Communism out of Africa. I believe in consultation. It may perhaps not be very easy. We know that the previous Prime Minister made attempts, and we welcomed them, to see President de Gaulle, but from what I could gather the suggestion was not favourably received. He also made an attempt to see President Kennedy, and I must accept what was written by Professor Edwin S. Munger in one of his books. I suspect that the fact that President Kennedy was not willing to receive the previous Prime Minister, at a time when Mr. Robert Kennedy was his Minister of Justice, may have been the reason why the Government was not prepared to receive Senator Robert Kennedy here. I do not know whether that is so. The Minister can tell us, but if that was so, we have no criticism on that. We want other countries to receive the Prime Minister of South Africa, and if it is true that America made it evident that he was not welcome, then we have no criticism against the Government for not receiving Senator Robert Kennedy, although I must say it would still have been best if we had been generous. But I mention that for one reason only, and that is that I appreciate that there are problems. There are frequently overtures on the part of some of our people, but it is not so easy. I nevertheless think that after this statement on the part of President Johnson there is an opening for our Prime Minister to go and discuss matters of general interest to Africa in the struggle against Communism with the leaders of America, and to make new contacts.

There are all indications that the situation in respect of South West Africa is taking an extremely dangerous turn for South Africa. I must say frankly that as far as the Opposition is concerned, we are not satisfied that the Government is doing everything possible to prevent matters from developing to the point of aggression against South Africa. Some political leader or other said recently, “We must be strong enough to win any war, but we must be wise enough to prevent one”. It does not always appear to us as though the Government is giving enough attention to the art of being wise enough to prevent one. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs recently visited four countries in South America, and I want to tell him that that kind of personal contact is welcomed by the Opposition. But I shall nevertheless be grateful if the hon. the Minister can tell us what special importance he attaches to South America. We are aware of the fact that the States visited by him, such as the Argentine and Brazil, play an important part in the South American bloc. We also know that the Argentine and Uruguay are now members of the Security Council; but apart from that we should nevertheless like to know why the Minister felt that his visit would be of particular importance to us, and what importance he attaches to closer ties with South America. In a newspaper report which may or may not have been correct, I read that in Paraguay the hon. the Minister offered technical assistance for the development of that country. Nobody is opposed to that in principle, but it did seem rather extraordinary to offer technical assistance to Paraguay, and I should like to hear what the Minister actually had in mind and what had given rise to that.

The Minister will shortly attend the independence festivities of Basutoland and Bechuanaland, and we are very pleased that he considered it so important that he is postponing his visit to the UN for a while. He should know that he has the goodwill of the entire country behind him when he attends those festivities on behalf of South Africa. Under the Vote of the Prime Minister we discussed the question of exchanging diplomatic representatives with those two new States. I must say we are not very happy with the answer we received, but I want to say again that we are not so much concerned with having representatives of Basutoland and Bechuanaland in South Africa. That is their concern, and it is up to them to decide whether or not it is of any value to them. We are concerned with what is in the best interests of South Africa. The fact of the matter is that our representation in Africa has in recent years decreased to such an extent that it is practically non-existent. At the moment we have only three representatives in the whole of Africa. I am referring to Angola, Mozambique and Rhodesia, which do not even have the status of representation at the UN. To the north we have nothing and to the east we have nothing. There is the most important island of Madagascar, which played a very important strategic role in the last war. One should think we would consider whether we should not have a representative there. But the trend has been throughout that we have retained a smaller and smaller foothold in Africa, and at present only three remain. One had hoped that we would jump at the very first opportunity we got to return to Africa. As Mr. Willem van Heerden said in a very good article, “Our problem is a conflict in ourselves which will be resolved only if we reconcile our Western background to our African destiny”. We believe that we should identify ourselves with Africa once again, because that is where our destiny is. There is infinite ignorance about South Africa in Africa. Professor Munger has made a most interesting study. He found—and he is one of the foremost authorities on Africa—that the further one went from South Africa, the larger was the hostility against South Africa. He found that Algeria was taking the strongest stand against South Africa of all the African States, and the closer one approached to South Africa, for example in Basutoland, the better were the relations. He attributed that to people’s infinite ignorance about South Africa. One of the reasons for that is that we have no representatives there. There is simply no contact. [Interjections.] I know we are not received there, but we have now found an opening. Here are our first two opportunities to return to Africa and to establish permanent representatives in countries like Bechuanaland and Basutoland. That is at least a beginning. I am not saying that is the only way in which a country can enter into friendly relations with another country, but it is nevertheless striking that here, where we are now getting the first opening through two countries that have professed their wish to enter into friendly relations with us, and that will take a seat on the UN, and that will testify in our favour there—here where we find the first opening for normal diplomatic relations, we avoid it. It is quite clear to me that the Government is a captive of circumstances of its own making, and that there can be no question of normal relations, of reconciling our Western background to our African destination, as long as the present regime is there and adopts the attitude it is adopting at present. [Time limit.]

I should like to begin by expressing a word of appreciation for the fact that we have, in my opinion, made progress in this Committee as far as foreign affairs is concerned. I am thinking of the high standard that was maintained during the discussion of foreign affairs when the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote was being dealt with. I welcome the fact that foreign affairs, and the discussion of foreign affairs, came to occupy such an important place when the Prime Minister’s Vote was being dealt with. I hope that hon. members opposite have noted and are, as I am, impressed by the thorough insight into and understanding of our foreign relations displayed by the hon. the Prime Minister, and by how quickly he has familiarized himself therewith, as well as by the high level which he has maintained here throughout. I am really grateful that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as other members on the opposite side, have tried to be constructive and that they have, over the past few days, maintained such a high standard. I also welcome the appeal which has been made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other frontbenchers opposite for us to approach our foreign affairs and difficulties from a non-party political point of view. For a long time now I have been pleading for that. I am also thoroughly aware of the fact that the Opposition in this Parliament has co-operated with me. I appreciate that. There have been exceptions of course, and here I am not thinking so much of the discussions on foreign affairs, I am thinking particularly of the manner and spirit in which we have in this House and in this Committee discussed our colour relationships. That is why I want to direct a word of warning to hon. members and to appeal to hon. members to be on their guard, when we are discussing matters in regard to colour in our Parliament, against extravagant and provocative statements which can be used overseas against us all, not only against this Government but against our country as well. By this time it has become very clear that our difficulties abroad are not the result of the Government’s specific colour policy. We all realize to-day that South Africa’s struggle is the result of Black racialism supported by Communism. We are all aware that there is an anti-White feeling in the world, that our prosperity is arousing much envy against South Africa and that the success we are achieving in this country in respect of our race relationships is causing concern. South Africa is one of the few countries with a mixed population where there is racial peace and where law and order are being maintained. Hon. members know as well as I do that the colour policy of the Opposition as well as that of the Progressive Party is not acceptable to our enemies in the outside world. They also know that the partnership policy of integration which the Portuguese are applying in Angola and Mozambique are not acceptable to the world. But I want to emphasize that I welcome that united front for which hon. members opposite have pleaded. We have already in the past displayed a united front to the outside world to a very great extent and that united front has already exerted its influence at UNO and elsewhere. The determination of the White population of this country to ensure the survival of our nation has already become an important factor in the outside world. I believe that this unanimity and determination will be, to an increasing extent, a factor which will influence our relationships with the outside world.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout admitted that there has been an improvement in regard to our foreign relations, but he said that the improvement has not been great enough. Now I can give him the assurance that I realize that we have many difficulties abroad. If there is anyone who is thoroughly aware of the dangers awaiting us, it is certainly I. But in spite of difficult circumstances we have nevertheless made important progress as far as our foreign relations are concerned.

In the first place I want to remind hon. members of the importance of the verdict of the World Court. We must ask ourselves what would have happened to us if that court had found against South Africa and in favour of the applicants. The applicants would then have been entitled to approach the United Nations and to invoke article 94, which empowers the Security Council, when a verdict has been given by the World Court, to take steps to implement that verdict. The very reason for taking this case to the World Court was to put teeth into the attacks which have been made against South Africa over the years and that vendetta which has been waged there against us, for up to now they have not yet achieved anything except to have resolutions passed. The purpose of that case was to place the United Nations in a position where it could take action against South Africa. That danger has been averted by this verdict. A very important result of the turn which the case took has also been that the pattern which has, over the years, been followed by the United Nations has been exposed and will have to be altered completely, because the applicants came forward with practically all the traditional irresponsible charges which have been brought against South Africa at the United Nations, those complaints which the petitioners have been repeating against us ad nauseam. South Africa prepared itself thoroughly. The charges were refuted, in evidence as well. I do not want to go into the details; to cut a long story short, that part of the case, those charges against us, fell away. In other words, the persecution charge, which is the real basis of our overseas problems, fell away. The militarization charge against us also fell away. I admit that no decision was given in regard to the question of accountability, but in this regard there are certain passages in the verdict which are in our favour. But it is important that no finding was given against us on this point. However, I do not want to say much more about the South West case at the moment and I hope hon. members on both sides of the House will also leave the matter there. The discussion of the case in the General Assembly of the United Nations begins to-day and the tactics which we shall adopt there will be revealed as our case progresses there.

I want to remind the hon. member for Bezuidenhout of another sphere in which we have achieved success. I am thinking of the successful policy which this Government has applied in regard to Rhodesia. In this regard I must say initially the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not very helpful as far as this matter was concerned, but fortunately he came to his senses and it has been possible for the Government to handle a very delicate situation in such a way that we have enjoyed the appreciation of the responsible states in the world and that, in spite of this crisis, our relations with both Rhodesia and Britain have improved. I say with both Rhodesia and Britain, because our relations with Britain are also good. In fact, the matter was handled so well, and there was so much appreciation for that abroad, that a very influential London newspaper, the Financial Times, referred on 27th July to the diplomatic victory which South Africa had achieved in respect of Rhodesia.

I also want to remind the Committee of the failure of the attempts to isolate South Africa in the economic sphere by boycotts and in other ways. I want to admit straight away that we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the industrialists and the businessmen of South Africa for having made it possible for us to develop to such an extent that South Africa is to-day thirteenth in order of importance among the international commercial countries in the world. And that is very important, Mr. Chairman. The policy and the actions of the Government have very definitely helped and contributed towards that. I want to remind the hon. member on the opposite side of our continually increasing trade with the African states. We do not have overmuch to say about that, neither do we publish statistics in that regard, but it is a fact that our trade with African states is expanding. The same applies to our trade with our traditional trade partners. I am thinking of the expansion of our trade with countries such as Italy, West Germany and Austria. I was in Austria last year and the Austrians are tremendously appreciative of the fact that South Africa is their second largest overseas trade partner. I am thinking of the expansion of our trade in the case of France, one of the leading major powers. In a statement to the Press a member of the French Embassy recently pointed out that French exports to South Africa had trebled, namely from R21,000,000 in 1961 to R64,000,000 in 1965. And in the first six months of this year South Africa’s exports to France increased by 50 per cent. That is a very great achievement. We all know what an important role trade plays in international relations.

Mr. Chairman, this Government has also been responsible for the development of closer contacts with our neighbouring states. I do not want to say much about the aid which we have given to the three High Commission Territories. But I want to remind hon. members of the fact that we have assisted them when they were in difficulties and asked us for assistance. Take for example the case of Swaziland when foot-and-mouth disease broke out there. The British authorities as well as the Legislative Assembly of Swaziland approached us and we immediately rendered assistance and saved them from a very serious disaster. You know, Sir, that for the Bantu in South Africa cattle are a very valuable and valued possession. It is not generally known, Mr. Chairman, that we also rendered assistance to Bechuanaland when that country was threatened by famine. And the assistance which we rendered up to April 1966 amounted to almost R200,000. We are not shouting these things from the rooftops. But let me tell you, Sir, that in this particular case the assistance took I

the form of exemptions we granted from customs duties in order to relieve that famine.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to refer to the historic meeting between Prime Minister Jonathan and the late Dr. Verwoerd. The hon. member has already expressed his appreciation of the fact that I have accepted the invitation to attend the independence celebrations. I want to point out to the hon. member that it is the Government that has accepted that invitation, not I, and that I am going there as the official representative of the Government.

You are going as the official representative of South Africa.

Of South Africa, quite correct. That is quite correct and I am proud to be going there as the representative of South Africa, the whole of South Africa.

We have also expanded our contacts with other friendly countries. The hon. member made a plea here for the hon. the Prime Minister to pay a visit abroad. I shall deal with that more fully later on. Let me say at this stage that since the beginning of 1964, when I became Minister of Foreign Affairs, I myself have paid no fewer than 16 official visits to other countries. And everywhere I have gone I have met with a friendly and cordial reception and I have held fruitful discussions with members of the governments concerned, often with heads of governments. I did not feel ill at ease anywhere. The points of contact pleaded for by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout have, therefore, already been made, and these visits have already had results. There has been the expansion of trade in the case of Italy, of France and other countries, for example. There is also better understanding as a result of these personal relationships which have been built up with those particular countries. I also want to refer to my recent, the latest visit to four South American countries. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether hon. members realize it. but my party and I were the official guests of the Governments of those four countries. We were accorded an excellent reception there. Nowhere in any of those countries were there any jarring notes. I may tell the Committee that I was tremendously impressed by much of what I saw and heard there. One of the things which impressed me particularly was the fact that the Governments of all four of those countries realized the importance of non-interference by one country in the domestic affairs of another. Those people know what such interference means. They are aware of the evils associated with it. They appreciate that and they agree with us on that matter. What also impressed me was the attitude of the Governments of those four countries to Communism. There, too, they speak the same language and share the same sentiments as we. Everywhere I went in those four countries there was particularly great enthusiasm for closer co-operation with us. I held discussions with Ministers of Foreign Affairs, with Ministers of Trade and Industry, with Ministers of Agriculture and with high officials and presidents of the reserve banks of those countries and with various other persons. We discovered a great number of spheres in which we have common interests. And, Mr. Chairman, we must regard these people as our neighbours. They are our neighbours across the South Atlantic Ocean. At this stage I cannot furnish the hon. member with details of the technical aid which we want to give them, but what I am able to say to him is that my own Department, as well as various other technical departments, are engaged in investigating possible ways and means of exchanging knowledge and of establishing science bursaries so that their students may come here and our students may go there.

All four?

It depends. It varies from one case to another. In the case of Uruguay, for example, they are taking a great deal of interest in their fishing industry, which is virtually undeveloped. At present the possibility of whether we could not perhaps, with our latest and very valuable experience in that field, send technicians there to supply them with advice is being investigated. Take the case of the Argentine. The Argentine is very interested in mining. At the moment I am investigating the possibility of making fellowship bursaries available for post-graduate mining studies here in South Africa for students from that country. I say that there are several spheres in which we can co-operate to mutual advantage, to the advantage of both our countries. Those things are being investigated and can only lead to better understanding and better relations between us.

And then, Mr. Chairman, there is of course another very important matter, and that is the trade with those territories. In this connection I can announce that a very strong trade mission is arriving here in South Africa from Brazil over the week-end. It is an official Government mission in which high-ranking officials of the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry, and also of the Chambers of Industries in Brazil are represented. I sincerely hope that that mission will be accorded a good reception in the private sector as well. As far as the Government is concerned, they will meet with a very cordial reception here.

Mr. Chairman, I should not like to monopolize the debate and I am not going to dwell much longer on examples of progress which we have made in our foreign relations, but I nevertheless want to refer to a few more matters. In the first place I want to inform the Committee that the Africa Division of my Department has not only been expanded but has also been very active recently. The Africa Division of my Department falls under a senior official who has already held the post of ambassador in Belgium, and this person has, in his capacity as head of the Africa Division, already travelled quite extensively in Southern Africa. Not only has he visited some of our six immediate neighbours, but he has also visited other neighbouring states in Africa. I can give hon. members the assurance that contact has been made with more than one African state. Our policy in regard to co-operation with our neighbours in Southern Africa is well known, and it is not necessary for me to expound it again in full here to-day. We are prepared to render assistance, provided we are approached for assistance and on condition that co-operation takes place with mutual respect for each other’s domestic policies. From time to time South Africa is in fact approached for assistance, and not only by our six immediate neighbours, and assistance is rendered. Missions are sent to African states, and representatives of African states are also received in South Africa for discussions. Much more is in fact happening than most hon. members perhaps realize, but we do not talk about these things. There are very good reasons for our not having much to say about these things at the moment. However, I do want to say this to the hon. members: Although a good deal is already taking place, there is of course always room for improvement; enough is not yet being done. We are in fact not yet being approached to a sufficient extent by African states for assistance, for in view of our experience and in view of conditions in South Africa, which correspond so much to conditions in other African states, we are particularly able, pre-eminently able, to render assistance. In view of this fact we are able to do much more than is being done.

I just want to refer very briefly to the expansion of international co-operation in recent times, particularly in the technical and scientific fields. I want to remind hon. members of South Africa’s very important share in regard to space research and the role which the tracking stations here in South Africa are playing. Under the Prime Minister’s Vote reference was made to certain difficulties in regard to the American tracking stations here. I can give the Committee the assurance that there are no difficulties in that regard, and that I do not foresee any difficulties in that regard either. I want to remind the Committee of the establishment of our nuclear reactor at Pelindaba, which was only made possible by co-operation on an international level. I want to remind the Committee of the role which South Africa is playing in Africa and the continuation of our representation on various important international bodies. In some cases South Africa is also serving on the executive bodies of those organizations. What is most important in this case is the fact that South Africa has a governor on the international atomic power agency. I want to admit at once that we have in fact experienced certain problems in some of these agencies and that attempts have been made to restrict South Africa’s powers and to deprive us of our membership, but during the past year our opponents have met with little success. In spite of attempts to that end they have not succeeded in depriving us of our membership of the International Civil Aviation Organization, for example. The same also applies to the International Telecommunications Union and the World Postal Union. These attempts were nullified partly as a result of our own actions in the organizations, but also to a very great extent as a result of the assistance which we received in those organizations on the part of the more responsible members of the free world, the more experienced and more moderate states, which exert themselves in the interests of legal, orderly conduct in international organizations. Of course, South Africa’s diplomats and technical representatives have also played an important role in this struggle, and I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in the tribute he paid to South Africa’s diplomats, particularly the retired Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whose services, fortunately, we have retained. I want to point out to hon. members that, in spite of what the hon. member for Hillbrow has said, our front line is not in Pretoria, but abroad, in the capital cities of the world, and that our diplomats—career diplomats who occupy some of our highest posts—are holding their own with very great distinction there and are putting South Africa’s case there in the best possible way. I am thinking of the United States of America, where we have an English-speaking career diplomat. His conduct there has recently enjoyed considerable attention and I have received congratulations from all over South Africa in regard to the conduct of that person. Our relations with friendly countries would not have been what they are to-day if it had not been for the conduct of our diplomats. Apart from America, our trade with France would not have expanded to such an extent if it had not been for the actions taken there by our embassy with all our representatives. As it happens our Ambassador there is Afrikaans speaking. I am thinking of the expansion of our trade and our good relations with Italy. There another English-speaking South African, a career diplomat, is in charge of affairs. The wonderful reception which I received in South America, that successful visit of mine to South America, would never have been possible if it had not been for the excellent work which our representatives in South America have been doing for so many years.

I also want to refer to the general improvement in South Africa’s image in the outside world. I wish it were possible for me to show hon. members what publicity South Africa has received in the South American Press. Here and there left-wing newspapers featured sneering little reports in which they criticized their Governments for having received me there, but in most cases the reception, in the Press as well, was excellent. In this connection I also want to refer to the excellent image which our late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, had in the outside world. I can refer hon. members to the article which appeared recently in Time—and that is a periodical which is not favourably disposed towards us—in which it was candidly admitted that the late Dr. Verwoerd was one of the greatest statesmen which Africa has ever produced; that the late Dr. Verwoerd was respected as a statesman of world stature. He was honoured even in South America. One of the states which I visited declared the day of his burial an official day of mourning—a fine tribute. The Minister of Foreign Affairs in one of the countries which I visited did an unusual thing by proposing a toast to Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister of South Africa, at an official banquet. Usually a toast is proposed to the visiting Minister or to the Head of State. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that our present Prime Minister will also win the same international esteem. His actions here since his election have already shown and convinced us all that he is certainly capable of doing so.

I do not want to deny for one moment that we have international problems. I admitted it this morning already. South Africa is unfortunately still the prey of discrimination, of an unfair, illegal discrimination. The double standard so frequently mentioned by my predecessor is still being applied to South Africa. All that I can say is that if the international community does not come to its senses soon and does not realize soon that non-interference by one state or by an international body in the internal affairs of another sovereign state is the basis for fruitful international co-operation, then all international co-operation will of necessity collapse.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout pointed out that our relations with the U.S.A, are of great importance to us. I want to agree with him whole-heartedly on that. We acknowledge and we honour the United States as the leader of the free world to-day, and if now and again we experience a little friction with the U.S.A., if we do not always dance to their tune, then it is not because we want to aggravate those points of friction, it is not because we want to scorn the importance of the U.S.A., it is not that we want to go out of our way to look for trouble with them. But we as a government have a duty, we have been given an instruction by the electorate of South Africa and over the past 18 years we have been given that instruction to an increasing extent, and we have a duty to South Africa as a sovereign state. We must see to it that our laws and our customs are maintained here and that our sovereignty is protected. We know that there are points of friction between us and the United States, and one of the causes thereof is the difference in our policies, the difference between the method which they are applying and the method which we are applying in order to try and solve a very difficult problem. I think one of the reasons for that friction is that it is not always realized by everybody, here and in the U.S.A., that the circumstances in America and in South Africa are poles apart, and that what is a solution for them is not necessarily a solution for us. We go out of our way to be careful, to keep quiet; we never criticize the policy of the U.S.A.; we do not criticize them as far as their internal affairs are concerned. That is their business. I also want to say here that I believe that the Government of the U.S.A, and we are striving to attain the same end. We are both exerting ourselves to promote the interests of all the inhabitants of our two countries, but we are following different courses in order to achieve that end. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred this morning to a statement made by Ambassador Goldberg in which, according to newspaper reports, he is alleged to have said in regard to South West Africa—and I do not want to reopen the matter—that the United States would not allow any population group in South West Africa to be dominated or suppressed by any other group. We all realize that there are a dozen or more population groups in South West Africa, and that is precisely what we, too, have in mind. We also want to prevent one group or more than one group from suppressing another population group there. We stated it very clearly thus at the International Court and we proved it there. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Hillbrow that our relations with the U.S.A, are very important to us and I also do not think that it is hopeless for us to try and improve those relations. What I do believe is that as we sort out and solve our colour problem here in South Africa, and as our relations with our neighbouring Black states improve, as they are doing, so the U.S.A, will also develop more appreciation for South Africa and for the attempts which we are making here to solve a very difficult problem. It is the policy of this Government to steer clear of points of friction with the United States as much as possible and not to emphasize and aggravate them, but to concentrate on points of common interest. I can give the assurance that there are many spheres in which we have interests in common with the U.S.A. One can find many examples of that. We think of the cold war; we think of the attitude of the U.S.A, and South Africa towards Communism; we think of the interest the United States is displaying in Africa. We have that same interest; it is a factor we have in common. We think of the scientific and technological co-operation which is already taking place. We think of education; we think of the numerous South Africans who are studying in the U.S.A.; we think of the cultural ties and the trade relations which exist between us. I can mention scores of other examples.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to our so-called deteriorating relations with Japan. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any deterioration in our relations with Japan. We all know that Japan is critical of our colour policy, but that is nothing new. There is no weakening in our relations. We have representation in Japan and Japan has representation here in South Africa. Our trade with Japan is expanding tremendously. Speaking of the East, I may perhaps just point out that South Africa is opening a consulate in Nationalist China and that our relations with that country are also particularly amicable. In the past six months or more the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of China has already visited South Africa on two occasions, and on each occasion he and I met to hold discussions on matters of mutual interest I may perhaps just point out to the Committee that a trade mission will shortly be arriving in South Africa from Formosa, and I am certain that they will be accorded an excellent reception here. The hon. member also referred to our relations with Scandinavia. I want to point out to the hon. member that at a recent meeting of the Nordic Ministers of Foreign Affairs a formal resolution was adopted to the effect that the Scandinavian countries would adopt a waiting attitude as far as South West Africa and Southern Africa were concerned and that they would not take any drastic decisions in advance. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that of course. I also want to say that all the Scandinavian countries are not equally inimical towards South Africa. In fact, there are some who are doing their best to leave South Africa alone and to take note of the good things we are busy doing.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has also referred to the Commonwealth. I do not know on what precisely he bases his deductions. It was clear to me that there was a great deal of dissension at the recent Commonwealth conference and that there was also great dissatisfaction at what was called the racialistic pattern which was being followed there by the majority of the members of that group, and that the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand had expressed their dissatisfaction in that regard.

A great deal has been said about the question of diplomatic relations with the High Commission Territories once they became independent, and also about those with African states. But we must ask ourselves what the main function, the traditional function of an ambassador, of a diplomatic emissary, really is. It is not to take care of workers. The argument has been put forward here that there are thousands of workers from African territories here who need to be taken care of. In this regard I must point out that machinery already exists for taking care of those people. There are people here who take care of the workers from Mozambique, and it is not the Portuguese Embassy. There is an organization here which takes care of the workers from Malawi, from Zambia and from the High Commission Territories. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of the fact, but there are representatives here who take care of the people from those three Territories. I think hon. members on the opposite side are unnecessarily concerned about how these African neighbours of ours feel about the question of establishing diplomatic representation. I happen to know how they feel in regard to that matter and I want to assure the Committee that it is not the formalities which are the decisive factor, but the practical solutions. It is being asked how these things work in practice; that is the most important aspect, and the foundation for that has been laid, particularly in the case of Basutoland, as a result of the discussions between the late Dr. Verwoerd and Prime Minister Jonathan. In the communique it is stated clearly that the Prime Ministers did not themselves hold negotiations, but that negotiations in regard to various matters would be held in future between technicians, between officials and, where necessary, at ministerial level. Surely that is the answer? Does the system work? Will it work in future? If it does not work, other methods will have to be devised which will ensure that it does work. I must remind hon. members of the very high costs of diplomatic missions. If they were to glance at my Vote they would see how expensive it is to establish and maintain embassies. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reminded us a few days ago of how badly things were going with the finances of Basutoland. The establishment of embassies entail high costs. Why should we now prescribe to these people the way in which they must arrange their representation, which they will have to pay for with money which they will have to borrow, which they will have to obtain in the form of grants-in-aid? As I have already said, thorough contact on different levels already exists between the Government and our immediate neighbours, as well as with our other neighbours in Southern Africa.

As far as diplomatic relations with the more distant African states are concerned, hon. members will all be aware that the establishment of diplomatic relations is not a unilateral matter; it is a matter in which two states must participate, and it is something which we ought not to force at an inopportune time. The hon. member referred to Professor Munger, who stated that it was interesting that the further removed a state was from South Africa on this continent, the more anti-South African that state was. It is interesting; I was aware of it, but I want to ask the hon. member whether it has ever occurred to him that the closer an African state is to the Republic, and the closer the contact is, the more conservative that particular country is. In the three territories we have in our midst here, the conservative elements are in power to-day. This answer applies particularly to those who accuse South Africa of promoting Communism in Africa. Here we have concrete proof in practice that that is not the case.

The main speaker on the Opposition side asked when South Africa was going to use non-Whites as diplomats. That might sound fine in theory but it does not work out in practice, and we have a concrete example of this: The Federation has tried to make use of non-Whites abroad. There were for example petitioners of the United Nations who supported the Government in the Federation, but it was a hopeless failure. It was not at all successful. Those people were pounced upon.

People went out of their way to intimidate those non-Whites there and to place them under tremendous pressure. No, I think we must view the matter in this way: We here in White South Africa, with the emphasis on “White”, have a White Government. Here in White South Africa the Whites have full political say. There are also the non-White homelands where they will ultimately obtain full political rights as members of independent states, but as long as we have the say in White South Africa, the diplomats representing White South Africa abroad must also be White. We cannot expect non-Whites to go and put the policy of the White Government of South Africa in the outside world. When the non-White homelands become independent one day, it will of course be a different story altogether.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout put certain questions in regard to the training of diplomats. I want to deal with them very briefly. Cadets joining our service must already be in possession of a university degree. After that they are trained in the Department. They have to pass departmental examinations in seven subjects which are more or less equivalent to two additional years at university, and those additional examinations which they have to pass cover a wide field and include languages, economics and law. They are examined internally and as part of their training they are also sent abroad relatively soon and for a reasonably short time. Those people are recruited from our universities in a thorough and proper way and I am glad to be able to say that the applicants which we have been getting lately are of a particularly high calibre. Great progress has been made as far as the remuneration of our overseas representatives, from ambassadors all the way down, is concerned. There is an established formula whereby the salaries of these people, together with their allowances, are regularly and continually being adjusted with due allowance for the living standards and rising cost of living in the countries concerned. I am satisfied that the remuneration of our officials abroad is at present of such a nature that they are able to live according to the status they are expected to maintain there.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the possibility of visits abroad by our esteemed Prime Minister. Now I must remind him, in spite of what he said, that Prime Ministers cannot simply go travelling about abroad. The way must first be prepared, and in this connection I have already pointed out that I have myself visited 16 countries in little more than 2f years. The road has therefore been prepared by myself and also by various other members of the Government who have paid visits abroad. The Government will of course consider the possibility of visits abroad by our Prime Minister thoroughly, and at the right time, and at this stage I cannot tell hon members what is to be decided.

Reference was made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to a request by the late Dr. Verwoerd to hold talks with President Kennedy. I was not aware of that. During the lunch interval I made inquiries. The Secretary of my Department is also unaware of anything of this nature, and it seems very unlikely to me—what precisely happened I do not know—that such a request was ever made. What I can state very definitely is that the visit of Senator Kennedy and his request to hold talks with members of the Government was never dealt with in the light of this request. The visit of Senator Kennedy was dealt with entirely on its own merits and there was never any question of a refusal, or otherwise, of requests by Dr. Verwoerd to hold talks with President Kennedy.

The hon. the Minister has given a very, very wide-ranging and far-reaching reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, Mr. Chairman. I do not know if he thought that there were only going to be the two of them in the debate. We do appreciate the scope which he has given in his reply and we do want to assure him that he goes with the good wishes of South Africa when he goes forth to represent this country at the UN. I want to make that quite clear.

The importance of the South West Africa decision was, quite rightly, stressed by my hon. Leader the other night when he said that it gave us a breathing space, and I think it is up to this Minister to make the best possible use of the breathing space allowed us by that decision, which has temporarily set back on their heels the Afro-Asian nations that are attacking us and has certainly given us a bit of room in which to manoeuvre. I think that our problem consists of this. We who are the governing elements of South Africa are White and we are anti-communist. One would imagine that in a world such as ours the Western nations who are White and anti-communist would be the first to come to support us openly in everything that we do. But I believe that in the presentation of South Africa’s case the emphasis has been placed on the wrong aspect. I believe it has been done in that way because we are attempting to present to the outside world a political solution to a situation in which no political solution to-day is readily available. I want to ask whether it is not time for us in South Africa to present to the outside world the reality of what we are doing, what the White people are doing in uplifting and civilizing, in creating conditions of life for the Bantu people of this country which can be duplicated in no other country in Africa. It is being done by us because we are White. It is not being done because there is a United Nations or a United Kingdom or a United States, but because the White people are here in South Africa, something in which every single one of us here shares. And I believe that we have not stressed enough what we are doing, the positive achievements of the White man in South Africa, which I say can be duplicated nowhere else on the whole continent. Nowhere else can any other country show the same progress that we have made here in South Africa.

The policy of separate development is an attempt to solve a particular political problem that we have, namely the means of political representation of the non-Whites in this country, and although I may differ from hon. members on that side until the cows come home as to how it is achieved, yet we have a common purpose. I think that this is something that we have to attempt to put across to the people outside, to those who should be our allies. When we think about the position of the United States in the world, have we ever thought what position we in South Africa would be in if the United States were to go back into isolationism, if they were to pack up their armies and withdraw within their own borders and leave the world to get on with it, as they did after the First World War? How long would we be able to survive at this end of the continent of Africa if the forces of Russia and China were simply let loose into the world?

Why not rely on Britain; why rely on America?

Simply because America to-day is the most powerful nation in the Western world and one which has taken upon itself, at immense cost and immense sacrifice, to attempt to guarantee freedom and some kind of civilized standard in the world. I believe that we have to take very careful cognizance of the position of the U.S. and to attempt to put ourselves across to them in the light that we are taking a positive part in that struggle which they are waging, which is vital to them and vital to us.

I want to make a suggestion, if I may. The hon. the Minister has recently been on visits to the countries of South America. Two of those countries, the two biggest—Argentina and Brazil—are under military government because of the anti-communist nature of the governments concerned. They are anti-communist. We ourselves here in South Africa are anti-communist. We have neighbours, our friends the Australians and the people of New Zealand, who are anti-communist. I should like to see that this country of ours should take the initiative in an attempt to form some kind of an alliance with the nations in the Southern Atlantic and the Southern Hemisphere which would be specifically anti-communist. I am reminded of a crack which I heard once in London which related to the two great Shakespearian actors, namely Laurence Olivier and Donald Wolfitt. It was said of Laurence Olivier that he was a tour de force and of Donald Wolfitt that he was “forced to tour”. And I have the impression that up to now we in South Africa have been “forced to tour”. We have been forced to go out, to go about the capitals of the world, whereas we have a position of strength in the international situation, in the strategic situation in which we are placed.

I do not think we have as yet attempted to exploit this position. I may be wrong, and if I am I will be glad to hear from the hon. the Minister. But I believe that we have a very strong position indeed to draw into some kind of common stand the nations of the Southern Hemisphere with which the great powers which are anti-communist would have to be associated. I should like to see the Minister, when he goes to the UN, build upon the foundation that he has laid in his recent visits, to build upon the goodwill which we know is still felt towards us, both in Australia and New Zealand and, I believe, in Great Britain, to attempt to give us some significance in the struggle against the communist world. Because we have a tremendous significance, we have a vital part to play. It is my concern that this is going by default, because we do not seem to be able to find the formula which will fit us into the pattern which the Western world is building up to contain and eventually, we hope, to throw back the drive of the communist forces, particularly in the continent of Africa. [Interjections.]

I have made a suggestion to the Minister, and I would welcome one from the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration if he has got something to say. I am expecting too much of him. But I want to make this as a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. He has got a part to play to attempt to include South Africa in this shield which is being put up around the world against the communist powers. I believe that we in South Africa are most peculiarly exposed. But I believe at the same time that the positive contribution which we are making is not being recognized. My plaint is that it is the task of this Minister to find that formula and to put it across, and the suggestion I make may in some way be able to help him to achieve the end which I am seeking to achieve.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the manner the hon. member for Mooi River adopted. He made a very useful suggestion; as a matter of fact, I made the same suggestion in my maiden speech in 1958 when I pointed out that various regional organizations existed all over the globe and that South Africa belonged to only one of them, namely the Commonwealth. It did not afford any protection whatever to any of the members because it rested on a purely voluntary agreement and any member of the Commonwealth could, if it came to the push, be left in the lurch by all the other members. I still feel strongly in favour of that point of view, but I felt that South Africa should rather adopt the attitude that it had to prove itself in the eyes of the Wesern world as a really strong ally to the Western world. Then I believe that those bonds for establishing an anti-communist front, including the Western world, will automatically result.

But first of all, before I express a few thoughts, I want to associate myself with the congratulations the United Party addressed to the officials recently appointed in this important Department. I am referring to Mr. Brand Fourie, a very, very experienced diplomant, as well as to the fact that we have been able to retain the services of Mr. G. P. Jooste as adviser. I really think that if the Department of Foreign Affairs has ever been in a strong position as regards the competence of its officials, in singleness of purpose and in experience, then it is in such a position now. At the same time I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the truly brilliant speech we have heard from him to-day. He has furnished us with a very comprehensive survey in regard to our foreign situation and I am truly under the impression that the speech he made to-day will yet have a great effect—particularly on hon. member of the Opposition on the other side. It is up to that point that I can agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Now, Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—and I do not want to talk only about him to-day—passed a remark here to which I must reply. He wanted to know what South Africa was contributing to the West. Now, what does the West want South Africa to contribute? Does it want us to contribute to the struggle in which the West is engaged, namely the struggle against Communism? Of course it wants that. And what has South Africa been doing in the past 18 years other than contributing its full share to this struggle? What has it done other than that? I can say that there is no other country in the entire Western world which has waged a struggle against Communism with such singleness of purpose as South Africa has done. Not only have we done so in Korea, but also by taking measures approved by this House to stamp out Communism in South Africa. That is pre-eminently the service we are rendering to the Western world.

But I want to tell you what service the hon. member has rendered the Western world. I want to quote from a speech he made in this hon. House. He was telling the outside world how wretched conditions were in South Africa. I read from Hansard 1961, Col. 174—

That is true.

I read further—

I want to return and say that I think the greatest single danger threatening South Africa at present, is international Communism. It is my point of view that over the past years Communism in South Africa has been given the mitten, thanks to the action taken by this Government. We are thinking, for instance, of the Rivonia trial, the Fischer trial and the success we had in combating saboteurs who came to this country. We may perhaps not have finished with that, but I believe that South Africa has gained a significant victory in the combating of international Communism. But for the very reason that Communism was unsuccessful, I am firmly convinced that the struggle against South Africa will be continued, not mainly in this field, but in the field of international world politics, which is particularly directed at Africa.

I want to mention very briefly five reasons for their casting their eyes specifically on Africa. They realize the economic pontential of this continent which is virtually quite unexploited as yet. They realize the looseness of the ties between the Black states and either the Western world or the communistic world, and they are racing to conquer Africa for Communism. They regard Africa as the outlet for the surplus communists of Red China, as a place where they can seek “lebensraum” for those people. Then I think that they are availing themselves of this because there is a lack of positive thinking in the Western world in regard to the combating of Communism in Africa. There is, for instance, the lack of experience which exists in respect of the colonial idea in Africa. The leading power at present, namely America, has no experience whatever of colonial territories. That is why they are inclined to pump millions of dollars into African territories without realizing that they can only do so successfully if they take the absorptive capacity of the Black states into account. That is why we find that a country such as Ghana, for instance, had a credit balance of R500,000,000 when it gained independence, but what was the situation nine years later? It had a burden of debt of more than R1,140,000,000. What happened to all the loans it was granted? They could not show anything for them. As a matter of fact, what have they done with this money? Nkrumah built himself a second palace at a cost of R2,000,000, while the people were starving. That shows that the countries which invested in Africa did not take into account the absorptive capacity of the Black states.

If one thinks of the international position to-day, and if one merely takes the UN, one has to do with 118 different countries. When the UN was established in 1946, there were only 61. In other words, almost half of the countries belonging to the UN, are countries which have only gained independence since 1946. They are therefore totally inexperienced in their foreign relations, in their conduct towards other states. They are completely unripe in their relations with the civilized world. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Middelland, I also want to comment on the hon. the Minister’s speech made here this afternoon. I noticed—and he must excuse me for saying so—that he spoke with much more confidence than he did two years ago. I am not quite sure whether the reason for this is that he is now more experienced, or whether he is now more sure of himself, but it was good to notice that the Minister was not as nervous as he was two years ago. To my mind the reason for this is possibly that he feels he is being supported by a faithful Opposition in the difficult task which lies ahead of him, and that he is happy to know—as my Leader pointed out—that he will represent South Africa at UN. I should like to make use of this opportunity to assure him of our best wishes.

The hon. member for Middelland said that we should prove to the West that we are, and will remain, allies of the West. One would have liked to have discussed this aspect, because naturally, when one talks of being allied to the West, one would of course expect the West to say the same. Especially of late I have felt concern at America’s attitude towards South Africa. I think that America should in all earnestness admit that South Africa has no ulterior motives. We on this side of the House do not agree with the Government’s policy, and the world is aware of this fact. But we on this side of the House can honestly tell the world that there are no secret or mean or murderous motives behind the Government’s actions, and that it is unnecessary for America or any other country to suspect the misuse by this Government of aid obtained from America. And this is precisely the point I should like to raise with the Minister.

Has America ever given any indication that she needs our assistance, that she wants us for the West, in a military sense or otherwise? Do we form part of a grand scheme? We are aware of the fact that Britain will shortly withdraw her forces from Aden. One would think—as militarists point out—that South Africa had a very important part to play; that Australia and South Africa’s strategic positions have become so much more important because of Britain’s withdrawal that it would be difficult for both America and Britain to play the military role they would like to play in the Pacific Ocean without our assistance.

What is America’s motive? Is it for purely political reasons that she is trying to appease the African States, or for what other reason? Why does she withhold from us armament which is needed for maritime purposes and to train our boys and girls in case of such a conflict? I think that America can rest assured that South Africa will side with the West. But I should not want South African boys to be forced into a conflict of this nature without having been trained in the use of the weapons they will be required to use.

I wonder whether it is possible for the Minister to tell us—I do not know to what extent this is secret—whether America has at any time indicated what would be expected of South Africa. What changes must we make, what must we do to regain the goodwill of America? We want to befriend her. I know that the armament which we have requisitioned for maritime purposes will not be used for any other purpose. Is America not prepared to believe us when we say that we have no animosity towards any other country? Of course we have not!

Now, on the other hand, there is a question which I want to ask the Minister. You must excuse me, Sir, if I offer the Minister some advice. I should not do so. But you know that Solomon in his wisdom once said something which to my mind sounds very good. He said: “A soft answer turneth away wrath”. I think we are sometimes inclined to give too many hard answers to people who show wrath. I do not mean the Minister himself. But I wonder whether we should not perhaps try a completely new approach, one of better acquaintance.

When I read about Jomo Kenyatta, the Mau-Mau leader, and saw his photograph in the papers a few years ago, I got a fright, because to me he was the personification of everything which was cruel and murderous in Kenya. I do not know what the Minister’s information is, but of late, if one is to believe the reports in the papers, especially the things said about him, it appears as if even Jomo Kenyatta has with the passage of time acquired a sense of responsibility, and that the Jomo Kenyatta of to-day is a much more moderate man than Jomo Kenyatta, the Mau-Mau leader. The Minister himself said here that it had been proved that those countries which did not know us well, which were far away from us, were precisely the ones which attacked us most vehemently, whilst those countries which knew us, which were closer to us, were kindly disposed towards us. And the nearer those people are to us, the more that friendship improves. The fact that people who are close to us are friendly, whilst those who do not know us have only fear and hatred for us in their hearts, is to my mind the best testimonial we could ever receive.

I wondered whether it would not be possible for the Minister to put machinery in motion to have the leaders of these African States invited to South Africa. I think that an ideal occasion would be when Basutoland and Bechuanaland become independent. I wondered whether we could not make use of the opportunity of inviting some of their statesmen, including those who are hostile to us, to illustrate to them the conditions under which the Black man works in South Africa. We could show them what we have done for the upliftment of the Black man. We could show them the housing provided for the Black man. We could show them the happy life of the Black man in this country. [Interjections.] Yes, why would it not be possible, why could it not happen under a National Party Government? I should love to have some of those people visit us. I do not know how well-known this fact is, but it is true that even to-day prominent officials of neighbouring countries which are hostile to South Africa are being received in this country, and I have not heard of one of those very senior persons from those countries who was not favourably impressed on leaving South Africa. Why cannot this practice be extended? I should like to see co-operation both here in the House and in the country, and also, some of our Members of Parliament visiting these countries to show our goodwill and without cringing or sacrificing our principles, to seek friendship. I think it could be done, and I think the State should encourage it. The hon. the Minister mentioned South America. I have experience of the goodwill of South America, but the Minister will agree that much of that goodwill was probably promoted by the number of people from South Africa visiting South America and making the acquaintance of the people there, and vice versa.

I want to mention another matter, and that is the question of officials at our Embassies. The Minister quite rightly mentioned the good work done by the officials at the Embassies. We have in our service to-day a small group of persons who are recruited locally. Some of them have had many years’ service. In everything but the law, they are South Africans; their sympathies are with South Africa. I have met some of them, and the Minister is aware of the fact that many of them have done outstanding work in the service of South Africa. Nearly all of them made one request of me, i.e., to find out whether it would not be possible to make some arrangement whereby they would be able to visit their country of adoption. I ask the Minister to make it possible for these people to visit South Africa, the country which they have to promote wherever they work, and to see South Africa once in their lifetime. [Time limit.]

I should not like to cause temperatures to rise in a debate which is not heated at the moment. I do not want to pour cold water on the Opposition’s new approach.

If you pour water on it, they will become wetter still (’’natter”).

I just want to say that during the five years I have been a member of this House this is the first time that the Opposition did not rise in a foreign affairs debate to berate this side of the House in the most stringent terms about our abominable domestic policies being the reason for our unacceptable foreign policy. It is not for me to say that they are not undergoing a sincere change of heart. It is for them to prove that that is so through a series of deeds. Example is better than precept. I just want to put this matter in a certain perspective as I see it.

Hon. members have not referred to the word “bi-partisan” this afternoon, but for the past few days we have been hearing about it and I am sure that we have not heard the last word about it from the Press. I just want to say that the word “bi-partisan” literally means a two party policy. It is a policy which is acceptable to the people of both parties in this House. It implies consultation and consent. Now I just want to say that during the years I have been a member of this House foreign policy and domestic policy have been inexorably bound up with each other in the minds of members on that side of the House. I just want to mention one example. Standing here now I can mention at least five cases, but time does not allow me to do so. I just want to quote this one example, namely the following words written by one of the hon. members opposite—

I mention that only to show how relentlessly that side of the House has bound up foreign policy with domestic policy. That being the case, we cannot develop a bi-partisan policy.

We did not advocate that.

I am very glad that the hon. member said that they had not advocated that, but the word “bi-partisan” has been mentioned in this House during the past week and it means “of two parties” which is how it will be interpreted in the country, and therefore I want to put this matter straight. To do so remains an impossible task as long as this relentless binding up is taking place, because we shall never deviate from our policy on this side of the House and if that side want to show common ground to the outside world on that basis, they shall have to accept our policy as a whole.

That is nonsense.

The hon. member says it is nonsense and I am quite glad to hear it. [Interjection.] Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that it has never been the intention. Then I want to say to the Opposition that we welcome the fact that we shall now show a mutual front to the outside world which I suppose is to be something different. That is what we have been asking them during the past five years: Let us differ as much as we like domestically, but let us show to the outside world one front as regards our foreign policy. For five years we have been asking for that, and in this, the fifth year, we are very pleased to see that they are coming closer to that request we made. Naturally it will be to the advantage of our country if we speak as one man to the outside world, but that has not happened during the past five years. The Opposition has had the opportunities for that. We have had it in the case of South West in which connection the two parties showed a united front to the outside world. But we could also have had it, in connection with the assistance rendered to Basuotland, and we did not have it. We could have had it in connection with our policy in regard to Rhodesia, but we did not have it then. But the point that I should like to make is that new machinery is not required for that, nor new resolutions; only a change of heart on the part of the Opposition is required. Parliament is good enough a place where the Government can adopt an attitude in regard to any matter in connection with our foreign policy, and where the Opposition can rise as true South Africans if they wish to say that they agree with us on that matter.

The question has been asked here what South Africa was doing to make a contribution to the West. I want to say to-day that I am proud of the way in which South Africa administers this small section of the globe of which we have been given charge. What are the reasons for strife in the world to-day? They are friction, poverty, hunger, disease, etc. South Africa has raised the standard of living of the people in its care on a vast scale. We are showing to the world how more than one national group can co-exist. The world still has no solution to these problems. We in South Africa are showing that also in this respect we are able to make a contribution to the world. We are showing how we are able to get along with our neighbours in Southern Africa. We are making a wonderful, positive contribution to the world in the sphere of international trade and international relations. South Africa has always played its full part. We are not simply talking about the main principle of international law, namely that one must not interfere in the affairs of another country, but we are applying that in practice in the sphere of international relations. These are contributions which this small country of ours is making in the international world. We are doing our share. We want to hold up this Southern Africa of ours with its problems as they appear nowhere else on earth, as an example to the world. Here peace and quiet reign and here we have food and employment for all. Here we provide health services. Here we are showing the world what people of different colours and languages can do. This will be our contribution to the world if only it will be granted to us to implement this policy, and that is where the Opposition can assist us. But the Opposition has not assisted us during the past four years. If they want to assist now, it is up to them; then they must do so because they have a great deal on their conscience and they have a great responsibility.

Having listened to the previous speaker, I just want to ask him one question. Why is that we had such a tremendous reputation for 50 years or more, and in the last 15 years find ourselves in the position of complaining—one might almost say bleating—that we are not understood, because people will not let us get on with the job, as the hon. member for Queenstown wants us to do.

But do you not know about the wind of change?

The point I want to discuss with the Minister is this. I raised this point with him last year and I want to raise it again. We are spending vast sums of money, correctly, on our diplomatic services, the bulk of them in the European capitals of the Western world, and there can be no complaint about that. People in Europe are in the main our friends. I can say that. Although we hear much criticism from the Government side about the reactions of certain individuals in other parts of the world, the fact remains that we have many friends there too. There are countries which are sympathetically disposed towards us. They wonder, they query and they criticize what we do, as a Government, of which we are all part, and they wonder where it all is going to end. The thing that concerns me is this. In the whole of Asia we only have two offices, now three, one in the Lebanon, one in Tokio and one in Taiwan. In Africa we have two, one in Mozambique and one in Angola.

Order! Will the hon. member who is making that noise please stop it? The hon. member may proceed.

We also have one office in Rhodesia. I put it to the Minister that in the vast areas, where obviously our enemies are, if we wish to regard them as enemies, I would say our critics, we have no representation. I asked him before, what efforts are being made to see whether or not we cannot get to grips with the problem by showing what we are really doing. I would like to follow on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Sea Point, because I think we ought to invite persons here, even though they may disagree with us. to come and see for themselves. If our proposition is so good and sound, surely the time has arrived when they should be asked to examine it, in detail, at close quarters, and let them form their opinions from what they see. Then I think they will begin to get some appreciation of the situation in this country. Even communist countries invite people from outside to visit them to see what is going on. I think an exchange of persons on that basis can do us nothing but good. To-day there are new states in Africa. Some hon. members refer to them in disparaging terms. They are sometimes called “emergent” states. Many of them have not made quite the success that was anticipated, but that depends on what standards are applied. These states still exist; they are still going on. New Governments with other methods are taking over in these countries. I think it does us no good to disparage these emergent states at every opportunity.

A further point is that Britain has found her commitments east of Suez to be somewhat onerous for reasons we need not discuss today. It occurs to me that the time has arrived when the Minister might pay some attention to the vacuum in our affairs in the Indian Ocean. I often wonder whether the time has not come for us to negotiate with America and with Australia and though it might not be popular, even with India, to decide upon some method or common attitude in the Indian Ocean. We all know there is a war going on in South Vietnam, which is growing into a big war. If America should pack up there and leave, the communist front will only come closer. The retiring Secretary-General of UN, Mr. U. Thant, is leaving because he cannot get the major powers to listen to him. But what has not been said is that Russia and Communist China are intruding there. I believe that we in this country should realize that with all the talk about Communism and the fight against it, it cannot be fought from here; we have to take an interest in what is happening elsewhere. We do not refer too often to the fact that Australia is involved in the Vietnam war. They have a large force there because they are vitally interested. I often wonder whether we have made any offers to participate to whatever extent we can, to ensure that the fight against Communism is carried on where there are real, live communists to fight. These are the things which should exercise our minds. I do not think that we as a Parliament are so constituted that we can be expected to be unanimous on everything concerning the internal affairs of the country. It is not what anybody says that is bringing us into disrepute, but what the Government is doing and has done. The fact of the matter is that our good reputation has been steadily eroded because of the actions of the Government. The Government thinks they are doing good. My point is that if the Government thinks its actions are so good, then bring people here and convince them that it is good and our good name will improve. Surely that must be the answer. If one has merchandise to sell, one brines the customer into the shop. [Interjection.] There is nothing more original being done than the exchange of diplomatic agencies. That was the most original ideas ever thought of, and when diplomacy was carried out on that level we had far better results than from a lot of people getting together in one big hall and screaming at each other for six months of the year.

Order! The hon. member must not reflect upon this House.

I was not reflecting upon this House; I was talking about UN. [Interjections.] I will not make the obvious remark and I withdraw it at once. So I say to the Minister in all sincerity that he has a tough assignment. He has to face the outside world. We wish him well and I suggest to him that he looks at it constructively and makes up his mind to extend our services. He says they are costly. I think they are worth it, and I think he might take the advice I offered to him, and introduce a system whereby persons from these Afro-Asian states could be invited here to come and see for themselves. If the proposition is a good one and if our attitude is correct, I am sure they will be convinced. If the Minister will think along those lines, I think we will get out of the difficulties we are in and begin to regain our position, which has always in the past been that of leaders in international affairs. We could be leaders in Africa and in the whole of the Commonwealth of Nations if we wanted to be. We could be leaders in much else besides, but we have to get away from our circumscribed attitude that we can just live here in splendid isolation. [Time limit.]

Bearing in mind that a diplomat is someone who thinks twice and then keeps silent, I leave it to the imagination of this House to determine what the standing of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would have been as a diplomat. Nevertheless we appreciate the attitude which he has adopted here to-day, as well as that of the Opposition; without any doubt whatsoever we are making progress in a direction which is of importance to all of us in South Africa.

When one asks oneself what test should be applied to South Africa’s foreign policy, one finds that test to be a very simple one. The test is whether we can maintain the honour and rights of South Africa and the sovereignty of this State in the face of the world. If the outside world should desire that we as a nation here in South Africa commit suicide, and if we were to accede to that desire from fear or weakness, then our foreign policy would be a complete failure, as complete a failure as the Opposition has proved itself to be on the home front. That is the test to which our foreign policy should be subjected. What is the position now in the light of this test which I am applying here, which is the only test for true patriotism? We want the Opposition to undergo this test of patriotism, the road along which they show they are making progress. We hope that they will indeed make good and speedy progress along that road. Let them apply this test to themselves, because, viewed against this background, what are the true facts of the matter? The facts are that what have really failed are the fear-mongering tactics used by the outside world against South Africa. They have failed.

If we go a little further in this respect, it is abundantly clear that our foreign policy is founded on our retaining the inalienable right to govern our country according to the will of the people, not according to the wishes of the outside world and the way they would like South Africa to be governed. It is quite clear that this basic principle which I have just cited, viz., that a country and a State should be governed according to the will of the people and that the Government should be appointed in accordance with that will, accepted in the UN Charter, was accepted by the Bandung Declaration of 1955 and is even laid down in the Charter of the Organization for African Unity. And when the United Party so easily argues that this Government’s policy is the cause of our unpopularity and of our isolation as they have done once again this afternoon, then surely they are not accepting this basic principle, because the type of criticism which the Opposition levels at us implies that they want the will of the outside world to be imposed upon South Africa in regard to the way in which South Africa is to solve its problems. This brings me back to the point which I stressed just now—that in that case our foreign policy would fail because we would be unable to pass this simple test, namely, that if they were to demand something of us and we should submit through fear or weakness, we should be on the point of selling out. The Opposition ought to give serious consideration to this matter, especially as they are endeavouring to be truly patriotic in this respect, which we greatly appreciate.

The hon. member for Karoo mentioned here that we often speak in a derogatory way of these new, emancipated states. I want to tell him that we are in full agreement with him that this ought not to be the case. We agree that South Africa is part and parcel of Africa. We have a role to play in Africa. Our role lies in freely putting, in all honesty, the knowledge which we have, the technical know-how and so forth at the disposal of these developing states in Africa. That point has been made time and again and all we can do is to hope that the African States will avail themselves of this knowledge to an increasing extent and will accept our bona fides in this regard; because the corner-stone of our foreign policy is clearly and simply that we have no feeling of aggressiveness towards anybody, but on the other hand, in all fairness, we maintain that we will submit to no one, and surely that is correct. As a sovereign state here in the southernmost part of Africa we should like to make a contribution in Africa especially to alleviate poverty and the resulting frustration which exists in Africa and to assist those people on the road to development. If we could assist in this regard in an honourable way, we shall one day share with them the pride of looking on an Africa, of which all of us form part and parcel, which is a developed and still developing continent. Our sincere wish and desire is that the African States will grow to understand this attitude of friendship on the part of South Africa.

I should like to make a third point. What is the most important message which should emanate from this House to the outside world and also to the African States? With due modesty I should like to say what that message is. I think the message which should be put across is the situation which in fact exists in South Africa and which the outside world has not yet come to realize. I should like the Opposition to grasp this simple message, and that is that South Africa is not an integrated multi-racial State consisting of 18,000,000 people. The message which has to be put across is that South Africa consists of a variety of developing peoples and population groups. If the outside world were to realize this fact, they would understand our policy and they would be favourably disposed towards us. Here again I ask the Opposition to take a look at itself in the light of the rising tide of patriotism, for which, I re-iterate, we are very grateful. Is the Opposition assisting us to project that image to the world outside, the only true image of the Republic of South Africa, this sovereign state, the image, namely, that we have to deal with eight different Bantu peoples, each of whom is in the process of emancipation and on the way to becoming a true nation in South Africa, and a Coloured group which is in the process of emancipation and on the way to becoming a nation in South Africa. Even our own White nation, 3,250,000, has not, to the degree one would have wished for, been welded into a true nation displaying its unity of purpose under all circumstances. Only last night we had an example here of how we ourselves are still struggling to attain the necessary unity of purpose.

That is the whole history of the Republic of South Africa. If we consider that it was a mere 41 years ago that Afrikaans was recognized in this House as one of the official languages of South Africa, we see how far we, a developing White nation, still have to travel in regard to these things. We ask of the world to understand realistically and from a moral point of view that which we are prepared to offer the world; to realize that in South Africa there are different peoples and that we are not a multi-racial integrated state.

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Primrose and other hon. members, I also welcome the fact that there is a tendency on the part of the Opposition to intimate that they want to team up with the Government as regards the attitude we adopt towards the outside world. I am convinced that the patriotism about which they are so sensitive, has to do chiefly with the defence of our country. I am convinced that they will cooperate if our country is threatened and it has to be protected militarily. I think that is what they really mean by “patriotism”.

I listened very attentively to the advice given to the Government, and in particular to the Prime Minister, by hon. members here, in connection with the way we should act to steer the ship of State safely past the international rocks. However, the question arises as to how much value one should attach to the advice of people who have themselves proved convincingly not only that they are incapable of steering the ship of State safely among the rocks but, on the contrary, that they would have steered it onto the rocks. I want to mention a few examples.

The first is the policy of the Opposition in regard to Rhodesia. There is dead silence now on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as regards recognition for Rhodesia. We remember well that it was his impassioned plea that the Government should grant Rhodesia recognition in her efforts to become independent of Britain. What would have been the position if the Leader of the Opposition had been in power and he had applied that policy? It would have been in conflict with the provisions of international law. According to authorities on international law, it would have been tantamount to intervention in the domestic affairs of another State. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here:

But by wanting to grant recognition to Rhodesia abandoned the principle he now advocates! According to Oppenheim’s “International Law”, that would have been the position if the Government had given effect to the demand made by the Leader of the Opposition.

What was that demand?

The demand was that de facto recognition be given to Rhodesia immediately. He made this demand in about April of this year. Oppenheim says:

where a part of a state such as Rhodesia tries to become independent. In his book “The Law of Nations” Brierly points out that:

and adds that:

That was precisely what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do. It would have involved an infringement of international law. As against this, our Government adhered strictly to the rules of international law and has thus far steered our ship of State safely among the rocks.

But, Sir, there is another matter in regard to which it is clear that the hon. members of the Opposition are not competent to tell our Government how to conduct its international affairs. The Opposition’s policy in respect of the State in South Africa has been all along to weaken it from within. When legislation has been introduced to frustrate attempts made to weaken the State from within, members of the Opposition have fought that legislation. Their whole policy has been to weaken the authority of the State, not to strengthen it, which is necessary in a time of crisis. They are trying to hollow out the State from within. We have heard of Holism, but we can now say that they are guilty of hollow-ism.

Mr. Chairman, I have very little confidence in the offers of co-operation made here by the hon. members of the Opposition. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said this very day that the problems of South Africa have been caused by conditions created by the Government itself by dint of its policy. This indicates that their spirit and their intentions are not what they should be. We cannot therefore rely over-much on these offers of co-operation. Are they prepared to resist any future world propaganda against the apartheid policy of the Government and to counter that propaganda? If they are prepared to do so then I am prepared to accept that they will act in concert with us in the international field.

There is only one solution to the problems we have to face in the field of international politics. That solution is on the one hand to give the Black States of Africa a clear reply, not verbosely, but actively, and to build up a strong State in South Africa, to build up a strong Republic of South Africa, a Republic which is strong economically, militarily and spiritually and which is inspired by the heroic tradition of the glorious past of our nation. That is the only reply which the Black States of Africa will understand. That is also the reply that will be accepted by the Western nations if South Africa is a strong State in all these respects. It is worthwhile having someone as a friend if he is a strong friend in all these respects. It is not worthwhile having someone as a friend if he is weak. If South Africa is strong in all the spheres I have mentioned, it will be to the advantage of the Western countries to have South Africa as a friend.

Mr. Chairman, if hon. members on that side are going to adopt towards this side of the House the arrogant attitude adopted by the hon. members for Kempton Park, Primrose and Queenstown in this debate, they can expect very little cooperation from us.

Are you the new Leader?

No, this is not a question of being a new leader. Their attitude amounts to this: They expect us to endorse their policies. This we have said before we are not prepared to do. Fortunately the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already in this debate adopted a far more responsible attitude to what we on this side of the House have said previously although I must also criticize in some respect what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said. I shall come back to that in a moment.

I want to say that I believe that South Africa is at a stage of its history where, in the next few years, it will need all the international goodwill that it can acquire, and it will need all the friends it can possibly make in the international sphere. I am not saying that we must go cap-in-hand, begging for goodwill and friendship. Obviously we are a self-respecting nation, and this self-respect has to be maintained in our international relations. On the other hand, Sir, we cannot do without friendship in the world in which we live. We cannot do without goodwill, much as we may like to. These are the realistic facts and we have to face them. We have to conduct ourselves in accordance with those hard facts, whether we like it or not. I am therefore very pleased to see that it is the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to do all they can to foster friendly relations with the outside world and to endeavour to obtain goodwill towards South Africa. I am also pleased to see that their object is not merely to say to the outside world: We want to be friendly with you, and we leave it to you to demonstrate that friendship. I am pleased to see that the intention is to take positive steps to foster friendly relations and goodwill. This, I believe, is as it would be, subject, as I have said already, to the fact that we must at all times maintain our self-respect in our international relationships.

One of the ways in which our image in the outside world can be improved, as has been suggested by several speakers on this side of the House, is to change our approach in the international sphere by laying more emphasis on the positive features of our policies, namely the positive things that are being done and, in other words, the good that is being done for the various racial groups. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Mooi River, more emphasis should be placed on those features. I do hope, Sir, that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will give serious consideration to the suggestions made by speakers on this side to bring more influential people to see for themselves what is happening in this country and to see the facts as they are, not as they are being exaggerated overseas. I believe that this can only do us good. I appreciate that much has already been done and is being done by bodies such as the South Africa Foundation and others. I believe, however, that more can be done by the Department of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I believe that it is important that, in addition to the other things that are being done, his Department—and I am not suggesting that that should not be done by the other departments—should encourage more visits of influential people, who could influence international thinking about South Africa. There is no doubt that the more people who can see for themselves what is happening, the better our position will be in the international sphere, not necessarily because these people will agree that what the Government is doing is correct. Perhaps they will not, because we ourselves very often do not agree. But at least, Sir, they will see the true facts as they are, and not as they are being exaggerated. They will appreciate our problem. This is important. Appreciating it as they will, I am sure that they will be prepared to be amongst those who will plead to allow South Africa to sort out its problems here in the country, without interference from outside.

I now want to come to what has been said by several speakers on the other side, about the suggestions made by my Leader and other speakers on this side of the House during the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote in regard to a possible bi-partisan approach in respect of certain aspects of foreign policy. I believe it is important to see the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in their proper perspective. I think some of the hon. members on the other side are misunderstanding the position completely. My Leader made it clear that he did not think it would be possible to adopt a completely bi-partisan approach to all foreign affairs. As he pointed out, we do not support the basic policies of the Government in regard to its internal affairs. Therefore it would be impossible to support those policies in the outside world. What my hon. Leader said is that as far as possible this bi-partisan approach would be desirable in the interests of the country. He offered such an approach to the Government. Mr. Chairman, if the Government members are now going to say to us that they are going to test our goodwill and that they are going to make certain conditions, I am afraid they must not expect co-operation from us. We have volunteered to help wherever we can. They must, however, not expect us to do so if they are going to place certain conditions upon us. What my hon. Leader was referring to specifically, was a bi-partisan approach, particularly in regard to Rhodesian and in regard to South West Africa. What was the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he dealt with this matter in his speech? He welcomed the offer made by my Leader. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Musgrave will forgive me if I do not devote too much time to what he has just said. I only want to refer in passing to two aspects of his speech. The one concerns his statement that we should put the positive facts of the country’s policies very much more pointedly to the outside world. I do not know whether he has been a political Rip van Winkel during the years he has been in this House, but he should know that that is exactly what has been done through the years through South African embassies all over the world. We have spent tens of thousands of rands to emphasize what South Africa is doing in the socioeconomic field for the upliftment of the Bantu and the other non-White peoples.

I also want to refer to the part of his speech dealing with a bi-partisan foreign policy. I want to tell him that if the Opposition cannot support the Government on basic issues as far as its internal policies are concerned—and as the hon. member for Queenstown pointed out, the internal and the external policies are closely linked as far as this Government is concerned—how can they ever support us as far as a bi-partisan foreign policy is concerned?

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we on this side of the House, as other more senior members have said, welcome the change of heart we have now experienced from the Opposition as far as a bi-partisan foreign policy is concerned, although, as the hon. member for Musgrave said, this is only in regard to certain matters. It would be of the greatest advantage to South Africa if this new attitude now adopted by the United Party could be practised and not only preached. No member is keener to have a collective approach in regard to foreign affairs than I am, but I hope the Opposition will forgive me if we accept the gesture they have made in the past two days with a bit of reservation. How often in the past has the Opposition not asked for bi-partisan approaches in regard to national matters? Yet, when election time comes around, that unctious rectitude immediately changes into the most irresponsible statements. Some of my colleagues have pointed out what they did in the case of Rhodesia, the case of South West Africa and what they did at the time of the Commonwealth issue. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize again that we accept their bona fides as far as this new approach is concerned. We welcome it, but we reserve judgment until their words are translated into concrete deeds.

I now want to come to another matter. This concerns the irresponsible speeches and articles of some of the Opposition and some of the Opposition papers. It is this Opposition and the newspapers supporting it which always talk glibly about the so-called world opinion which we should respect. I feel that it is the Opposition and some Opposition newspapers which should turn over a new leaf if they want to help this Government to create a more favourable foreign climate and more favourable foreign relations for South Africa. I do not want to ignore or minimize so-called world opinion altogether, but I have my doubts about it being altogether representative of what nations really think and feel about South Africa. This so-called world opinion, when analysed, really represents in many instances only the views of people who are leftist inclined. I only want to refer to one medium through which world opinion is expressed, and that is the Press. It is a fact, Sir, that, as in the case of some sections of the English-language Press in South Africa, the editorial control of much of the world Press is to-day in the hands of people who are extremely liberal and leftist. They are the people who have moved themselves into a position of influence and now mould the so-called world opinion into a direction which suits their leftist ideologies. As I see it, the danger is that the masses of overseas countries depend for their information on South Africa on these liberal, leftist and anti-South African views disseminated through these papers. Through continuous repetition it may eventually have a harmful effect on the broad masses of the people as far as South Africa’s foreign image and international relations are concerned. Much of the distortion about South Africa appearing in the world Press and bedevilling our foreign relations derive from South African sources namely …

Order! Is the hon. member not reading his speech?

No, I am just refreshing my mind. This distortion is derived from some sections of the English-language Press. I do not want to enter into details in regard to the matter I am raising. I am only trying to establish the basic issue. We all know, however, that from time to time speeches by some hon. members of the Opposition and articles by some South African newspapermen, some acting as stringers for overseas publications, have done the Republic a great deal of harm. I should like to refer to the recent issue of Time, in which the scurrilous article about our late leader, Dr. Verwoerd, appeared. It would be interesting if how that article came to be written could be investigated. As far as I know Time has no accredited representative in South Africa. It would be interesting to know if this was another case of a South African-born stringer selling his birthright for a mess of pottage.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, on the Prime Minister’s Vote, that it is the diplomatic staff of overseas countries in South Africa who report back from South Africa about the decisions and actions of this Government and which create a bad image of South Africa. That may be so, Sir, bit it is the mass propaganda against us in the overseas Press which does the most harm, and which harms us as a nation and as a country. What really happens is that most of these newspapermen, be they South Africans or visitors from overseas, come here and obtain their background material and their information only from some sections of the English-language Press. I have no quarrel with that, because, as a result of language factors, they have to do that. I should, however, now like to come to the point that, as a result, a very heavy responsibility rests on the English-speaking opinion-makers which include both the Opposition members and sections of the English-language Press. A very heavy responsibility rests on them to be very careful about what they write and how they express themselves. As an ex-newspaperman I am not asking for interference in the freedom of the Press. I am only asking that they should put a guard before their lips, or be cautious about what they write, especially in the unique circumstances in which South Africa finds itself vis-à-vis its foreign relations. I want to make an appeal to-day to my colleagues of the Press to discipline themselves. I say to them: Weigh carefully every word you write about your country because, after all, you are South Africans in the first place and newspapermen in the second place. [Time limit.]

Before I call upon the next speaker, I want to remind hon. members that, in terms of the rules, speeches may not be read. There has been a tendency amongst a number of hon. members to do so. I should like to warn them that I shall have to take action in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, allow me at the outset to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and thank him for this very enlightening document on last year’s proceedings at UN which he has had drawn up. It is a thorough report. On page 12 of this report there appears a paragraph which I should like to read out with reference to what members have been saying here about petty apartheid which allegedly carries so much weight in giving us a poor image abroad. On the afternoon when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was waiting to make his speech to the General Assembly of UN, the Ambassador for Guinea, Achkar, rose on a point of order and addressed the President as follows:

What I wish to illustrate is that we know exactly where we stand with these people. Their attitude in reality has nothing to do with the policy we are putting into practice, though that is what is asserted here. To them we are a “settler régime”. It has nothing to do with petty apartheid. It pretends to concern major apartheid. During the past two days we have often heard patriotism being mentioned. At the outset the hon. the Prime Minister said that a person need not necessarily belong to the National Party in order to be a patriot. Regarding the United Party he conceded that there could be some of them whom he might consider to be patriots. United Party speakers subsequently tried to capitalize on this compliment and tried to strike a patriotic note in their speeches, especially the Leader of the Opposition. In the first place he expressed his joy at things which have taken place in South Africa’s favour on the world front, and in this respect he referred to the World Court ruling. But these patriotic speeches have consistently had an undertone of warning and an innuendo of reproof. In regard to South West Africa we have been hearing that the battle will now move from the legal to the political field. We are being warned that the emphasis will fall on “discriminatory legislation” in regard to the Native races, even though the mandate itself provides for discrimination. The Native races are for example not allowed to obtain ammunition and their participation in illicit trade has to be prevented. Now the Prime Minister has been requested to define his attitude towards the political implications of the Odendaal Commission’s report. Attempts are now being made to embarrass the Prime Minister by expecting him to make a statement in regard to the matter at a time when UN is meeting. I do not consider it to be a very wise request, particularly as we are continually hearing from the Opposition that we must be careful not to increase the tension in an already tense foreign atmosphere. But surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows the answer. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that he believes in separate development. At the same time he has made it quite clear that he would not place responsibility on those who are not able to shoulder that responsibility. For that reason this demonstration of patriotism seemed to me just a little suspect. To my mind it revealed the difference between members on this side of the House and hon. members on that side of the House. We on this side believe that South Africa ought to keep its internal affairs to itself, that they are nobody else’s business, and that the policy which the electorate has repeatedly endorsed, ought to be put into practice. By contrast members on the other side attach excessive importance to the opinion of the outside world, expect the opinion to be appeased and feel that we should steer our course at home according to foreign winds. I was disappointed with those hon. members. In regard to references to our embassies, to clumsy handling of affairs, we have once again heard an instalment of the “Independence” serial. Really, Mr. Chairman, I thought “Die Du Plooys van Soetmelksvlei” had ended. Did not the hon. the Minister shed abundant light on the whole matter last year? Do you not believe the Minister when he says that South Africa emerged from this matter with honour? Do you not believe the hon. the Minister when he says that there was no provocation? Why do you not accept it? Why raise the matter once again? Why rake up again the criticism, if we can call it that—because there was no excessive criticism—of foreign embassies who do not observe our social customs at receptions? Who are the culprits, who are the people to be blamed in this regard? But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also criticized Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Goldberg who now holds the World Court ruling to be technical. He also criticized the U.S.A.’s decision to withhold aircraft spares from us, and in this respect he was, let me say, 50 per cent patriotic. Reference was made also to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement when he said that he would be willing to humble himself if South Africa demands that he do so. But the Prime Minister was talking about the honour of his country. It has been suggested that he visit foreign countries to rectify these matters which are amiss between them and us. I think we can leave it to our Prime Minister to decide for himself whether it would be in the interests of South Africa to ascertain the views of a decadent United Nations or of any other Western country first, to obtain their fiat first before we proceed with legislation to implement the policy which we were instructed to carry out years ago. Were it possible to achieve something in that way, by which the tide could be turned, it might be possible to commend it in some way. But I want to remind you again of what I read out at the beginning of my speech. International relations are not always determined by the political aspect. We have abundant proof of that. It is the strong economic position we hold and the extent to which we have built up our military strength which determine our position in the world to-day. Thus we shall continue under a new helmsman to implement the policy which has been entrusted to us.

The point I really want to make, has already been made, but I should like to approach it from a different angle. If hon. members of the United Party wish to be patriotic they must never link our internal and domestic affairs and the policy which we have been instructed by the electorate to implement, with a foreign policy. [Time limit.]

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Primrose in what he has said. He seems to take up the attitude that if the world does not want to play with us then it does not matter. It is the world’s loss. Nor do I intend following the line of thought of the hon. member for Turffontein who seems to think that the world’s opinion of South Africa is manufactured by a few journalists writing from this country. The theme of this debate, even from the side of the hon. the Minister, is that it is important that this country should have a good image in the eyes of the outside world. The debate so far has been directed at this object. It is important perhaps to analyse to some extent and as far as we can what can be done. One of the ways in which the hon. the Minister can help I think is to seek visits by scientific people from other parts of the world. On the whole these are the people who create opinion. The teachers in universities in this country and in other parts of the world mould opinions of the coming generations and it is these people, among others, whom we should try to get to see our country. All of us are doing our best to prevent this aspect being seen by scientists of the world. It is common knowledge that we are unable to hold here an international congress unless it happens to be only a limited number of countries interested in the particular subject. But a subject like medicine is a universal one. Whether it is practised in Timbuctoo or in Tokyo, it remains the same. In the medical profession we all talk the same language, we use the same facts and scientific deductions, we use the same medicines and we do the same operations no matter where we are. Of all the scientific disciplines medicine is probably the most world-wide and universal. But yet we cannot hold a congress in this country. Some years ago we have tried to do so, but what happened? The British Medical Association, an association to which 80,000 doctors belong and which associates with other countries of all languages and colours, was unable to hold its congress, which was really a world-wide one despite the fact that it was held under the auspices of the British Medical Council of which we were at that time a subgroup. We found that we could not obtain visas for certain people to come here. It was therefore impossible to hold this congress and the British Medical Association stated that it regretted that it could not accept the invitation extended to it by this country. Mr. Chairman, in case the hon. the Minister’s staff is worried. I should like to tell them that this happened before the present Government came into power. But that is not the point. The point is that this tradition has been carried on and still to-day we cannot hold a congress in this country. And this does not hold good only for medicine, but also for other subjects. Many of our scientific people would like to hold congresses, congresses which will be of worldwide interest but they know that it is no use asking for visas for certain people.

Our image could also be improved enormously if the scientific capacities of this country were utilized to assist other countries. I know about, because I have heard it so often, the technical services which we supply to the countries to the north of us. I accept that we do that and it is only right that we should do so. But what I mean is that we are not making our educational facilities available. There are certain things in which we in this country are excelling. We have the particular opportunities, we have the climate, the finance, the possibilities and the men to create an atmosphere which could attract people. After all, they do wish to come here but they cannot obtain visas if they happen not to belong to the Western group. Mining is, of course, the outstanding thing in which this country excels. There is, for instance, no school of mines which equals the school of mines in Johannesburg. Nowhere is mining being carried out on a scale as it is being done there. I know the hon. the Minister said to-day that there were Argentinians coming to work in mining universities and that he is encouraging the provision of scholarships. Perhaps he has forgotten that not more than three or four years ago a Brazilian football team was held up in Hout Bay harbour for some days. This team had arranged to play football as an exhibition in Cape Town.

What has that got to do with mining engineering?

If the hon. the Minister would just let me finish. There were four members of this team who happened to be rather dark as regards colour. Nevertheless they were Brazilian citizens. There was trouble even with the Brazilian Ambassador over this matter because the members of the team who would have been allowed to play would have excluded these four. Ultimately, the exhibition match did in fact not take place and the team proceeded to its destination, Mozambique. The hon. the Minister may have selected a particular Argentinian student for an award of a scholarship but unless the Argentinians go down South and choose Patagonians it is unlikely that its citizens would be certain that they would be allowed to land here or be allowed to work in our universities.

Our veterinary surgeons are outstanding. They have made a contribution particularly to domestic animal life which is almost unequal. But yet could we obtain admittance to the university of Pretoria for a veterinary student from, shall I say, Paraguay or Uruguay or from Brazil without such a student being vetted by us? In Durban we have what is really a unique institution, namely the Institution of Parasitology. Here we have a civilized and advanced scientific nation, because that is what I think we can claim we are, with a fairly moderate and temperate climate in which to make these studies. We have ships coming from the East and we have neighbours to the north of us whose climate is near to tropical and we have uncivilized, or uneducated if you like, and not too hygienic groups above us. In the circumstances we are supplied with a fairly adequate supply of raw material coming into the laboratories regularly. [Time limit.]

The debate this Friday afternoon has been very peaceful and I should like to retain that peaceful atmosphere. We are particularly grateful that the attitude of the opposition this afternoon in regard to South Africa and the outside world has been a responsible one. We are grateful that they are certainly acting in a responsible manner as far as this question is concerned. To-day has been the first occasion on which we have not heard the argument advanced by the Opposition during this debate that any discredit in which South Africa might find herself in the outside world is the result of the Government’s colour policy. This has been their argument every year and every year we have had to defend ourselves, but it seems to me that we, and the election during March last, have finally convinced the Opposition that this is not so. The so-called discredit in which South Africa apparently finds herself in the outside world is in many cases confined solely to the official government circles of the countries concerned, and in many cases does not apply to the ordinary man in the street. On the contrary. Visitors overseas have returned to this country to tell us that the ordinary man in the street in various countries is beginning to develop sympathy for and an insight into our problems. Indeed, this fact is endorsed by our information service. The United Party has always maintained that the attitude of the outside world towards us is as a result of the policy followed by this side of the House. We have always said that this is not so, and we have adduced proof in support of our contention. They want to accept this fact now and accordingly so shall I. I shall not try to refute an allegation that has not been made.

What now are the facts? What are the facts of the world situation as we find it to-day? As I see it, there is in the first instance the slogan which sounds so wonderful in theory but which is impracticable for the simple reason that we are dealing with people and not with machines. I am referring here to the slogan “Africa for the Africans”. African states are trying by means of a stroke of the pen to convince themselves and the outside world that no White man has any right in Africa. This is the basis of the slogan “Africa for the Africans”—that the whole of the continent of Africa is claimed for the Black man. Apart from this we still find uninformed persons in responsible positions repeating this same hollow slogan. However, as I have said, the fact of the matter is that we are dealing here with people and not with machines. This makes me think of the way in which Africa was subdivided towards the end of the previous century when, irrespective of language or race or religion or of any feeling of belonging together, countries were demarcated and drawn on a map in terms of latitude and longitude. One of the greatest problems facing Africa is to extricate herself from this artificial subdivision into different territories and different countries. In my opinion, therefore, “Africa for the Africans” is the slogan which is in the first place responsible for our unpopularity—that is to say, if anything of that nature does exist. In the opinion of many people, we do not belong in Africa. They do not know our problems, they do not know our background and they do not understand exactly what is going on. By a stroke of the pen they are seeking to transform theory into reality.

But there is a second reason, a reason which I am sure is clear to the hon. Opposition. I am referring here to the international situation which has developed over the past few years—the grouping of the world into the camps of East and West. The leaders of the East and the leaders of the West have, to the best of their ability, tried to compromise and bind more and more nations in their favour; in other words, to cause these nations to become bound either to the East or to the West. Bidding was brisk and there was a rush to get countries to throw in their weight with either the one or the other. This situation could be likened to that of a balance with the East on one side and the West on the other, and the block of Africa states with a population of 260,000,000 not yet having taken sides. If it were not for this position, the attitude of the West towards South Africa would not be what it is to-day, notwithstanding the policy we might be following.

The world of to-day is very clearly under the impression that it must make an effort to get the millions of inhabitants of Africa on its side in the struggle between East and West. When therefore the Black states unanimously maintain that Africa is only for the Black man, it is obvious that the countries of the West will have to take account of this attitude adopted by the Africa states. They will take this attitude into account so that it will not be necessary for them to tell the Africa states openly that South Africans have the right to live on the continent and therefore have a right to Africa. The leaders of the West are placed in a very difficult position because of this race between East and West, and they have to choose their words very carefully. This means that they have either to defend South Africa or to cast her out into exterior darkness. This is the problem and this is why the whole matter is being handled at high diplomatic level. I am sure that this is also basically the reason why, although we are ostensibly not acceptable in the eyes of these countries, they continue to trade with us and we continue with our everyday society.

Another factor which aggravates the matter further is the very clear infiltration of Red Chinese Communism into Africa, particularly in East Africa. It is no secret to the countries of the West that in spite of all their efforts there are very clear signs of the infiltration of Red Chinese Communism into Africa and, in the light of this fact, they regard the matter very seriously indeed. The assault upon Africa on the part of Red China holds a real danger for the West, but here too, although they oppose Communism as such, they cannot openly choose sides because as soon as they do so, they will immediately lose favour in the sight of many so-called well-disposed Black Africa states. These are the problems with which they are faced. We understand these problems and that is why we do not insist that we should suddenly gain status or be accepted by them. We realize that they can be friends of ours without declaring that friendship openly. We realize that it is not because of one or other policy that they adopt that attitude but that in the first instance they are considering their own position.

Another aspect of this problem is the upsurge of Black racism. The West does not yet know how precisely to handle this situation. That is quite plain. At the outset they tried to win over the emergent Black states by offering them financial assistance in order to gain their support, and to this end they also tried offering them technical aid and so forth. However, in spite of all these efforts, it is, I am sure, quite plain that the West is still seeking a guide in regard to the way in which it should deal with the Black states because, no matter what it does, some of those states continue to blow hot and cold. A further factor is the warped image of the Government and of South Africa which is deliberately fed to the world. I am not going to be mean and say by whom this is being done. All I am saying is that the world is being fed this warped image of South Africa, an image in which it is clear all the implications of our policy are not indicated.

The emphasis is always deliberately placed on that portion of our policy which they regard as being negative—for example, that in their view there are certain measures which they consider to have an oppressive effect. The fact that the position of the White man in the Transkei will eventually be the same as that of the Black man in South Africa is never emphasized. The fact that so-called petty apartheid affects not only the Black man but also the White man is not emphasized either. They do not say that although there are boards reading “Whites only”, there are also boards reading “Non-Whites only”. [Time limit.]

In the past few days the statement has been made here by hon. members on the Opposition side that as far as foreign affairs were concerned, the formation of a united front should be our goal. It would have been a major breakthrough if this line of thought in regard to a united front, which was expressed here by several hon. members, had been meant in all earnestness and sincerity. My human and political feeling was that this line of thought, as expressed by the hon. member for South Coast, was meant honestly and sincerely, but I am sorry to say that I do not feel the same way as far as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is concerned. Unfortunately it is in my nature not to like it when somebody blows hot and cold. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said yesterday—and I am quoting from his speech—

Mr. Chairman, is the memory of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout so bad that he forgets what his personal attitude was when Dr. Carel de Wet was appointed as South Africa’s ambassador in England? I am quoting from Hansard to refresh his memory. Deputy Minister Coetzee said the following—

Further on he said—

He said further that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had made one of the meanest attacks on Dr. De Wet. The attack of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and that of the Star made the task of Dr. De Wet a very difficult one; these made his task much greater than can be expected of an ambassador who has to act abroad. No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has definitely not contributed towards establishing friendly relations between England and South Africa. The Star was magnanimous enough to admit later that they had in fact made a mistake and that the appointment of Dr. De Wet was a very good one, but I have never heard such an admission from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Why should I make such an admission?

I shall tell the hon. member why he has to do so: because Dr. De Wet acted in the interests of South Africa; because he has achieved more than most people have achieved in the past; because he is a person who has been steeled; because he is a person who lives up to his convictions, and because he is a person who does not only represent the National Party or a party—he represents the people of South Africa abroad. It is not even necessary to mention his achievements in this House. All of us are aware of the major breakthrough our ambassador in England has made, and whether or not it meets with the approval of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout makes no difference. The fact remains that we have a wonderful ambassador in London.

In the past few days a great deal has been said about patriotism. But there is a hypersensitive feeling among certain members on the Opposition side and I shall tell you why. Under the Revenue Vote Information, in this very same year, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had the following to say (Col. 1943)—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not have the vaguest idea of the meaning of the word “patriot”. A patriot is a person who loves his fatherland, a person whose actions in regard to the outside world will always, both in times of peace and war, be such that there can never be any doubt about the fact that his country is his first love; that is patriotism. If you go back into our history, Mr. Chairman, you will find that our achievements are great although our population is not large. It is this grand patriotism which has given rise to the whole of our national concept and identity. I want to give you the assurance that the people of South Africa are tired of these political somersaults of members such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Somersaults should be left to children who can do it much more gracefully, because on most occasions the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not land on his feet. I believe that this Department will continue to build on the great achievements already accomplished by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I believe that we shall build on that with singleness of purpose and with honesty and that we shall not deviate from the path we are following; that we shall not be prepared to talk about petty or major apartheid; that we shall do everything in our power to develop our national identity, because we are not prepared to give the outside world a wrong impression since there is no reason for feeling ashamed. We have never questioned the patriotism of other peoples; we have never established an empire; we have always worked for our own survival only.

Mr. Chairman, for what it is worth, I am sorry that the hon. member who has just sat down took that line in his speech, because it is quite clear that in respect of our own domestic policies, our own domestic affairs and interests, there is a lot of room for disagreement and there is room for genuine disagreement and in fact it does exist. Let us accept that. When we get to these matters of external affairs, as I remarked the day before yesterday, I feel that we should not try to cut the throat of the man who is standing alongside of us and who is willing to try to fight with us and help us in our approach to the common problems that we are all facing in regard to those external affairs. Strong currents are running in the countries outside. We must use all the friends that we have outside but, Sir, we must use all the friends that we have inside as well and, by Jove, how we must use them if we can! Because we differ in local politics or in domestic affairs from another man who is here in our midst, is no reason why we should allow that to intrude when we come to deal with external affairs, so I ask the hon. member, who has quite a lot of ability, to apply his ability to finding a solution to some of the problems we have in regard to external affairs and then to convey the fruit of his wisdom to the hon. the Minister. If he will use his brain power in that direction, then we will get somewhere.

Sir, we are a small nation. We cannot go round in our diplomatic approaches to other countries with a picture of a steel or a mailed fist in a velvet glove; there is no such thing at the present time; we are too small. We are too small in terms of military, naval and air power and so forth. We are very valuable no doubt to some countries and not to be underestimated. I am not suggesting that we should be underestimated. In years gone by in other wars our support was invaluable, not only from the military side but from the civil side as well, and here I say that we must not be underestimated, but in terms of the great powers of the world we are small. Therefore to keep our end up we have to use our brains because we cannot use a machine gun. There, Sir, we have one of the crucial features that is facing us in South Africa and that is why I referred as I did the other day to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because he has to find the answer. We can come here and we can criticize his policy if we are prepared to show how we think it can be bettered. We can say, “We think this can be done; we think that can be done; we think South Africa can be strengthened in regard to this, that or the other approach”, but it is for the Minister to weigh up our suggestions and to take the decision; the responsibility is his. He knows that he will be criticized by everybody if he fails. The world is not short of critics. There is only one justification for effort in the world to-day and that is success. There is no justification for any other effort. There is no justification for failure. The hon. the Minister must succeed and I say again that if we cannot fight to gain our ends, then we have to use our brains to gain our ends; we have to use the ability of our Minister and of his staff.

Sir, I think at the present time the picture to us in South Africa is probably one of more people in glass houses throwing stones than has ever occurred before in the history of South Africa. When you read the daily newspapers and when you hear oversea broadcasts and that sort of thing, you realize how many people, who are far greater sinners in the very fields in respect of which they are criticizing us, evidently feel that they are morally justified in throwing stones at us because of what we are doing. I do not need to give any names; hon. members sitting here will know that some of the greatest powers of the world are far more guilty in respect of certain aspects of their racial policies than we are. When one goes to some of the great countries of the world who have minorities of other racial groups in their midst, some of them the indigenous peoples in those countries before the White man arrived there, and one sees how they have been treating those minorities, one asks oneself whether they do not ever, before they look at the image of South Africa, stand in front of a mirror and look at their own image first to see how they have treated those people? I do not want to criticize them here either. I say that we want all the friends that we can get but I do say this: Let these people who are so busy throwing stones at us realize that they are also in glass houses. Cannot they find it in their hearts to realize that we have our difficulties, just as they claim that they have their difficulties? They claim that their policies, such as they are, have stemmed from their own historical background and their own interests and their own circumstances. In precisely the same way our difficulties stem from our historical background and our own interests and our own circumstances. I suggest that they should ease up a little bit on this stone-throwing.

Sir, there are two points that I wish to make. The one is in connection with South West Africa which is becoming quite a burning question. I wonder whether I might suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might use the book written by Dr. Heinrich Vedder, who was a Senator a few years ago, representing South West Africa. That book was published under the aegis of the late Mr. Werth when he was Administrator of South West Africa. Sir, that book was not written from a party political point of view. Dr. Vedder was not a Senator at the time. The book was written as a history of the early days of South West Africa and it stands in its naked honesty, self-evident for anybody who reads it. I think that that book might be distributed free—South Africa should be prepared to bear the cost—to some of the countries who will benefit if they will read the history of South West Africa as it was before the White man came. Let them look and see what has actually happened in South West Africa as a result of peace-making efforts and the restoration of law and order and an orderly way of life in South West Africa, as compared with what the position was beforehand. Sir, I want to make that suggestion; it may be of some value or it may not, but as a classic example of a history written without prejudice, with the intention of doing nothing but to present objectively the history of South West Africa, before all this trouble about that territory blew up internationally, Heinrich Vedder’s book stands pre-eminent.

Sir, when the hon. the Minister replies I wonder whether he would say something to us in regard to item K on page 266 of the Estimates under Vote 45, “Contribution to the expenses of the Emergency Force for 1966”, R92,000. We pay part of the expenses of this emergency force. The point I want to make here is this: These emergency, peace-keeping forces are likely to figure in the Estimates from time to time. I take it that we are up to date with the payment of our levies. How far have we got to be consenting parties to decisions taken before we become liable for our share of the expenses in these cases? I notice that some of the great powers of the world, when they do not approve of the sending of a peace-keeping force, simply refuse to pay their share of the accounts and that ends the matter. But here again it is a case that we have nog got the guns. I take it that even if we are not altogether in favour of the decision that is taken in regard to the sending of these forces, we still pay our share when the levy comes to us from the Secretary General of the United Nations. I do not know. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us where South Africa stands in regard to these peacekeeping forces which are sent from time to time, in respect of which we in South Africa have to pay a levy from time to time.

Then there is one last point that I would like to deal with and that is the question of our relationship with India particularly and Pakistan and Ceylon. I was very interested when I was in Ceylon to find out how the Ceylonese were being advised to do this and that because Ceylon was the backroom of their economy and one of the greatest purchasers of their products was South Africa, but of course officially those people boycott us. However, they look upon us as a very lucrative market, as indeed we are. I wonder whether the time has not come for us to do some re-thinking on the question of our relations, particularly with India and Pakistan; to do some re-thinking from this angle that in the last 20 to 25 years the Indian people of South Africa have started to take a totally different view of their relationship with India. I think the time has come when, through commerce and industry, we should perhaps get the Indians in South Africa to make representations to the Government of India and to point out that they have severed all their communications with India and that it was time India resumed normal trade and diplomatic relations again with South Africa, if that is what South Africa wants, and I take it that sooner or later that is what we want, because the trade will follow the flag. Sir, for years and years the Indians continually appealed to India and, after Pakistan had obtained its freedom, as they called it, the Pakistanis appealed to Pakistan, although that was relatively a small number. But the Indians appealed to India; they continually looked upon India as their protector, as their homeland, as the great power that was continually behind them in their efforts. They did not accept the position here that they were really South Africans and that they had to get rid of that idea of continually appealing to India. But, Sir, of late, what has been happening up in Kenya to the Asiatics under Kenyatta, has brought home to the Indians of South Africa a fresh realization of the parlous position in which they would find themselves if an African government got control. They have reassessed their position, and what has happened in Kenya has tended to make them feel that they are here as South Africans and that they have to play a role here and that their destiny, for good or evil, is here in South Africa. Sir, cannot we use that as a basis for them to reopen negotiations with the people whom they used to regard as their protectors in what they regarded as their homeland? Cannot we use this as a basis for them to re-open negotiations with the Government whose interests were theirs, and who kept this unification continually fresh and uppermost in their minds? Sir, they are breaking those bonds and they are breaking them very fast indeed. I feel that perhaps the first preliminary steps might be taken; it may take a long time, but in my opinion the re-opening of trade and diplomatic relations with India and Pakistan is going to be well worth while and we will not be the loser. We have ceased to look to India and Pakistan for one of our greatest needs and that was jute and its products. We are doing something else to-day. The boycott against us forced us to look elsewhere and we are providing new industries for ourselves and keeping our money in our own country, and we will never go back again to jute goods, but we want that trade and we want diplomatic relations.

I must congratulate the hon. member for South Coast on the attitude he adopted here, and I also want to endorse every word of it. What the hon. member said, is quite correct; it is not only South Africa which has a colour problem; there are other countries who may perhaps have it in a worse degree: The only difference is that those countries have a proportionately smaller non-White population there.

The hon. member also referred to a very interesting book by Dr. Vedder. I also want to recommend it to this Committee. In that book Dr. Vedder, who is regarded as the greatest authority on the history of South West Africa, states that from the year 1830 to the year 1890, 59 different wars raged among the various Bantu tribes, and the way he puts it, is that they thinned out one another as a result of those wars. We are talking about the UN to-day. It is interesting to note that the situation in South West Africa had come to such a frantic pass in 1858, that they convened all the tribes at a little place called Hoaehanas in order to establish a kind of “UNO”. They did in fact draw up a charter, but they did not know how to. preserve “world peace” there, and then they provided in Section 1 that a tribe which was attacked would not have the right to defend itself. And that is the nearest they ever came to “world peace” there. What is interesting is the following: After they had respectfully signed that charter and made their crosses, they parted and immediately started attacking one another again and the perpetual wars started all over again.

But I actually rose to start where I had left off this afternoon when I had had the opportunity of taking part in this debate. When I spoke a short while ago, I pointed out that we were living in a period in which the world had totally lost its sense of values, in a period in which the peoples of the world are lacking in perspective, in which there is a kind of short-sightedness in respect of world politics. I just want to mention a few examples. Take, for instance, the position of South West Africa, one of the most peaceful countries of the world. But what is happening? To-day, at this juncture, the South West Africa problem is enjoying preference at the UN, in a period in which the echoes of the war being waged in Vietnam are still reverberating in the UN building. But they are going to discuss South West Africa! Does that not prove that the whole world has lost its perspective? Simply take as an example the South West Africa court case on which I do not want to make any comment. It is a court which was not established by us; it is a court which was established by them, which was designated by them. We simply submitted our case to that court and now they do not want to accept the verdict of that court. Just think of those people who took part in the proceedings of that court. Just think of those people who took part in the proceedings of that court. The prosecutor, Mr. Gross, said that the verdict was an “abortion of the legal process”. One of the Judges, Phillip Jessup, declared that it was “quite unfounded in law”. I do not want to go into that, but it shows you that the world has really lost its sense of values.

Take the situation in South Africa. From time to time reference is made to what happened in South Africa a few years ago at Sharpeville, but look at what is happening daily in the African states. In Tanzania 2,000 Arabs have been killed since 1963; 2,000 Asiatics have been interned. Recently another five were killed and quite a number was buried alive. In Uganda one finds sporadic violence. There have been 266 tribal clashes since 1964. Recently another 68 were killed, and only a few months ago, during the clashes between Obote and Frederic Mutesa, 22 people were killed. Last year, in May, when the Kabaka’s palace was stormed, more than 1,000 people were killed. But the world forgets that. Take the example of Nigeria: In October, 1965, 153 people were killed at elections. In Ethiopia, in the uprising against Selassie in 1960, 324 people were killed and 785 were injured. And then those people are talking about Sharpeville. The only reason is that Sharpe-ville is situated in South Africa and that South Africa is the stronghold of the Western world in Africa, and that those hostile states would like to lay their hands on South Africa. If we want to broaden our prospectives slightly and cast our eyes in the direction of the UN, for instance, we find that it is in fact the inherent shortcomings of the UN which are being exploited by our enemies. Just think of the General Assembly where the principle of “one country, one vote” is being upheld. What is the position there? A country such as Russia, for instance, with a population of 220,000,000 has the same vote in the General Assembly as a country such as Malendive which is 115 sq. miles in extent and has a population of barely 9,000. They have the same vote in the General Assembly. It is interesting that two-thirds of the total Budget of the UN is being borne by seven countries and that half the members of the UN do not even bear 3 per cent of the expenditure of the UN. Just look at the way the UN has failed. Since 1946 there have been two major problems, the Cuban problem and the Vietnam problem. Neither of those problems could be solved by the UN. It is also interesting to note that the West is inclined simply to let the UN continue as far as its policy of rashness is concerned. I want to mention a few examples to you: UN troops were sent to protect Egypt against Israel. That is enabling Nasser to build up, under the wings of the UN, a strong force in Africa. On the recommendation of the UN, Holland, for instance, handed over New Guinea to Indonesia in 1962; Belgium gave the Congo its independence in 1960, and the French-British troops were removed from the Suez Canal in 1957. But what have the communists gained? The communists scored points in this struggle in the UN. Think, for instance, of the Security Council’s request to Russia to relinquish the Berlin blockade. It was simply vetoed and ignored. Just think of the Security Council’s request to allow the UN committee to investigate the Czech coup d’etat in 1948. That request was ignored completely. Just think of the Security Council’s request to Egypt to allow Israeli ships to pass through the Suez Canal, which was refused. Just think of the UN’s request for a poll to be held in Kashmir, which was rejected and of which nobody took any further notice. It is for this reason that I say that the UN and the human race are at present losing their sense of values. What happened to Portugal? Goa was taken from it, but the UN did not raise a finger to protect Portugal’s rights. That is why I say that in this world in which we are living, in which the human race is losing its entire perspective, what is demanded of us in South Africa is that we shall act soberly, that we shall not resort to conducting world politics in this childish manner, but that we shall be steadfast; that we shall ask ourselves what is in the interests of South Africa; and that we shall not pay any attention to these circus antics of UN countries and that we—even if it is we alone—shall at least be sober in our thinking. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now reached the end of this debate and I should like to thank hon. members on this side who took part in this debate. We maintained a high level throughout, and I can say that there were no instances where a single speaker on this side of the House made personal remarks about members on that side. I am very sorry to say that we did not get that from hon. members on the other side. We found that they repeatedly made personal attacks. Towards the end of the debate the hon. member for Rustenburg rose and had a great deal to say about somersaults. I just want to remind him of this. He now has a leader who belonged to three parties and who only returned to the National Party with his fourth move. I hope we shall now hear fewer personal remarks of that nature in this House. He set a test in respect of patriotism, and I am in full agreement with his test, although I want to ask who emerges best from that. His test for patriotism is that one should stand by one’s country in peace and in war. We have had the position here that by adopting a motion in 1939, this Parliament decided to make war. Nobody asked that everybody should agree with that, but what was expected, was that if Parliament decided so, one had to stand by one’s country which was at war. Today it is once again the United Party’s attitude that if our country should at present land itself in a war, the fact that that Government is governing will not matter to us. It will not matter to us what government is governing. If the Parliament of my country decides that my country is at war, I shall stand by my country, and according to the test for patriotism set by the hon. member for Rustenburg, this, and not his party, is the patriotic party.

Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said here about change of tactics, change of heart, and so forth. I do not know why reference was made to these changes. The hon. member for Queenstown started by referring to the question of a bi-partisan policy, but it is obvious that there is a misunderstanding since there is nothing which is new. That is the attitude this side has always adopted—as in the South West case a few years ago when the South West question came to the fore and we told the Government that we were making the offer that the two sides of the House should work out a common policy so that we might face the world with a common policy in respect of South West Africa. That does not mean that the policy of only one party prevails, but that the two of them work out a policy together. That was our attitude, but the Government rejected it and subsequently decided to work out a one-party policy in respect of South West Africa. We are still standing by that, but it is not a bi-partisan policy in the proper sense. I am stating explicitly that it is impossible to work out a bi-partisan policy, because we differ greatly on the race policy of the Government which has its effects on the outside world at present and on which the Government must necessarily found its foreign policy. Then it is our attitude that when somebody is abroad, or when I myself am abroad, and somebody says something wrong about the policy followed by that party, I shall correct him by saying, “No, that is not the policy,” but after that I shall tell him what the correct policy is. It does not follow that one therefore agrees with the policy. Where we differ, we say that we differ on that point; but there are in South Africa two sides which differ on certain points, and nothing is the matter with that.

The Government must realize that it is not South Africa, it is merely an aspect of South Africa. It does in fact have the majority, but it nevertheless merely remains a part of South Africa. This entire Parliament—this is South Africa. The point of view of this side has as much right to be regarded as a South African point of view as that of the Government. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I do not know when the hon. member for Middelland will become an adult in politics. He came here with a quotation about what I had said in regard to Bantu policy in South West. Why does he not come to me and tell me that I am wrong? What I said was correct. At the time when the Natives were moved from the old location to Katatura, the Government introduced a series of regulations. One of the regulations was that a Bantu who went to live there was not even allowed to have an epitaph inscribed on his tombstone before the approval of the superintendent had been obtained. That is true. We are not the people who made that regulation. What I did, was to rise here and to tell Mr. De Wet Nel, “Do not implement that type of nonsense in South West.” Measures of this nature are placed under a magnifying glass abroad. But, surely we are not the people who are governing.

The technique followed on the Government side is as follows: The Government does a stupid thing, then we criticize it, because we have the right to criticize it; but then, instead of an hon. member such as the hon. member for Middelland attacking the Government for the stupid thing it is doing, he attacks our criticism and the fact that we criticized the Government for having done such a stupid thing. What logic is in that? What hon. members on that side really want, is that there should not be any criticism of the Government. Mr. Chairman, we shall really be neglecting our duty towards South Africa if we do not criticize. I may tell you that the fact that we do criticize, has often prevented the Government from doing even more foolish things. The criticism to which the hon. member for Middelland referred—the criticism I expressed here in the face of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Development in regard to what he wanted to do with the new location in Windhoek—was effective, because amongst other things they wanted to erect around the location a high fence with only one gate. I criticized that and said, “Leave these things. These people are managing well”. The Government listened and abandoned the regulations, and if it had not been for our criticism, what damage would South Africa not have suffered in the outside world as a result of these things? Photographs are taken of these things and they cause us damage. It does not matter what hon. members think of patriotism; everybody has his own views. I only have to live with my own conscience, not with that of hon. members on that side. That is why I do not have to answer to anybody as far as patriotism is concerned. I do not talk about it. I do not wear my heart on my sleeve; I know what I am and that is enough for me. Nothing which is said on that side will trouble me. It is like water on a duck’s back.

The hon. member said that we must set a watch before our mouths. Is it not time that the Government sets a watch before its hand? What are we going to experience in this Parliament as from Monday—something which will help South Africa? No, let the Government set a watch before its hand. But I want to ask this. If the D.R. Church criticizes the Government severely for breaking up Bantu families and it is published throughout the world, is it attacking South Africa? It criticizes the Government, and it has the right to criticize the Government, and if the Government does not pay heed to that, it is not doing South Africa any good. Mr. Chairman, we hear the story every time that the colour policy of the United Party was drawn up so as to make it acceptable abroad, but that is not our approach. Who wants to satisfy countries abroad? I want to mention two things. In the first place I fail to see why hon. members always regard the concept “abroad” as a unitary concept. They lump all of them together. If they think of countries abroad, they think only of all of them as enemies. But, Mr. Chairman, there is not a country in the world without enemies; everybody has enemies. We are not the only country which has enemies, but there are degrees. Some are neutral, some are weak in their opposition and some are active enemies.

Our attitude towards the Government is: “Do not continue to introduce unnecessary measures which deter those people who are still inclined to side with you, or whom you may still persuade to side with you—one cannot persuade everybody to side with you, but if one can persuade a few strong powers and make it possible for them to defend us, that is all we want, not so”? But the Government is continually making the position more difficult and making it impossible for those who still want to stand by us. Mr. Chairman, it is not our approach to satisfy countries abroad, not in the least. Our view is that one must work out inside South Africa an order which will give satisfaction to the population groups which live here, and once one has given satisfaction to the population groups here, they will stand together. That is what we want in South Africa. That is how we feel. One can of course not satisfy everybody, but one can satisfy the majority, and then the opposition abroad will at any rate lapse, because how can they be angry with us if the people in South Africa are satisfied? And for that reason we do not attune our point of view to that which countries abroad want. We are attuning our point of view to what we can do in South Africa in order to work out a decent, a just, a fair and a Christian relationship among the various races, and then opposition abroad will lapse of its own accord.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention another small point to the hon. the Minister, and that is that he published again this year a White Paper in regard to problems affecting us at the UN. At first I wanted to thank him, but I was afraid that if I thanked him it would also imply that he had done us a favour. I honestly think that Parliament is entitled to a report of this nature being submitted to it each year. The previous Minister of Foreign Affairs followed this practice for years, and then suddenly he became irritated and put a stop to it. The only excuse he offered was that we could obtain the information in the library. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; I think the hon. the Minister will do so. I just want to say that sometimes when I listen to the hon member for Bezuidenhout I feel genuinely sorry for him. I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for South Coast. I am not fully acquainted with this hon. member’s political history, but as a newcomer to this House I want to say that I have been struck by his honest and sincere conduct in this House over the past few days. When hon. members opposite can make such a constructive contribution to South African patriotism, I feel that we have progressed a long way on the road of the Republic of South Africa. I hope that the hon. member for South Coast, as a political veteran, will be a powerful example for other hon. members opposite, who to a certain extent have displayed a hypersensitive attitude in respect of the word “patriotism”. If we do not want our patriotism to be called in question, then we have to show a common approach, we have to proceed from some premise. In all modesty I shall try to present a wide approach to and a wide premise for South African patriotism so that hon. members opposite may judge themselves by those standards. I, or every patriot, want to accept that a White Christian nation has come into being here in South Africa and that this White Christian nation is firmly determined to survive as such indefinitely, that this White Christian nation has the right to refuse to commit suicide and that it alone can decide what course to adopt for working out its future, and that it cannot allow any outsider to prescribe to it how it is to work out that future. At the same time we want to accept that this nation is also prepared to grant those things which it claims for itself to all other peoples and to every other nation. If we can subscribe to this fundamental principle I believe we no longer can doubt the patriotism of him who accepts it. This is also the point of view our hon. Minister and his Department are called upon to defend and present to a world which is liberalistically inspired and whose point of view is in direct conflict with this point of view. The liberalistic point of view of the world is that all frontiers should be broken down, that all things should be levelled out, that one should always look for an enemy to the right, “there are no enemies to the left”. For that reason this hon. Minister and his Department have an enormous task. Perhaps I shall not be exaggerating if I say that this Department has a bigger and more difficult task than any other department of foreign affairs. Here I should like to pay special tribute to the representatives of our country abroad. Travellers abroad who do not travel with their eyes shut testify that our foreign representatives are held in very high esteem amongst their colleagues in the countries in which they are living, that they are making a tremendous number of friends for us abroad and that they have to make many sacrifices for doing so. We who are sitting here amongst our own people in the midst of our families and friends, do not always realize what sacrifices those people have to make who are living in foreign countries away from some members of their families, what self-discipline and self-denial they have to exercise. This, however, is always accompanied by the maintenance of correct and high standards of moral and professional conduct. And for this very reason they are succeeding in presenting our point of view and in commanding high esteem, and on this account I should like to pay grateful tribute to them in particular.

Mr. Chairman, I in fact rose to refer very briefly to the importance which the Portuguese territories in Africa have for us. It is important to point out that the Portuguese were the first Western European nation to have set foot in Southern Africa. It is important to point out that when Jan van Riebeeck landed at the Cape, the Portuguese had been active in the south of Africa for 169 years. For this reason it is very important to point out that at the very time when the winds of change started to blow across Africa and when other Western European nations which had colonies in Africa took fright and granted precipitate freedom to immature peoples, Portugal was that country which did not take any notice of those winds at that stage and which did not participate in those foolish things. Other European nations thought at that time that it would only be a temporary phenomenon and that Portugal too would in fact have to lose out in Africa, but the chaos and confusion which followed in the countries which had been granted freedom strengthened Portugal’s position. At present one may accept that Portugal is very firmly in control of the position in spite of the unrest amongst the Bakongo tribe in the north-west of Angola and in spite of the activities of the Frelimo rebels in Moçambique. Mr. Chairman, it is of the utmost and of vital importance to us in Southern Africa for those two Portuguese territories to act as buffer states for us. It is not necessary to refer to the strategic advantages. We also know that very close political co-operation exists between us and the Portuguese territories and my question to the hon. the Minister is simply: “Is it not possible to extend the close co-operation existing in the political sphere, and is it not perhaps possible to forge stronger economic and particularly cultural ties between us and the Portuguese territories with due regard being had to the differences existing between us in respect of the approach to racial affairs and religious matters?” In respect of the strengthening of cultural ties I also have in mind the creation of Portuguese professorships, and one may add French and Spanish professorships, in some of our large universities, so as to afford opportunities for studying not only the Portuguese and other languages but also the culture and history of the Portuguese in Africa. In this way ties may be forged in the cultural sphere which will survive even after the present Portuguese President may no longer be there. Also in the economic sphere I plead for closer co-operation.

I do not know what the present economic ties are between us and the Portuguese territories, although I do know that there has been talk about a common market for Southern Africa, and in that case that will of course be incorporated. I have also read in the Press that the Industrial Development Corporation was giving attention to development in those areas, but we must bear in mind that these Portuguese territories are vast. The territories cover a surface area of 1,000,000 square miles. They have a Native population of 10,000,000 and a White population of only 400,000. These territories have tremendous development potential, but at present it may be said that they are underdeveloped to a large extent and they are underdeveloped because Portugal is a small country which is not very wealthy and which apparently has a shortage of capital. At the same time it is essential that these territories, especially Mozambique, should be developed because it is essential for that to happen there, and it would be a disaster to us if Portugal should perhaps say at some stage or other that they cannot carry on as a result of a lack of capital and that they will have to hand over the territories to the Native tribes or to the UN. There are tremendous possibilities for South Africa in the development of those territories. We can only indulge in fantasies about the exploitation of oil in Mozambique. There is also the Cahora-Bassa irrigation scheme which we recently read about in the Press and which has tremendous potential for Southern Africa but which is a very large and expensive scheme. [Time limit.]

I should like to thank the hon. member for Algoa, who has just sat down, for the plea he delivered for closer co-operation with Portugal. I can assure him that we appreciate Portugal’s friendship and that very close cooperation with the Portuguese in Portugal and also in the two Portuguese provinces in Southern Africa already exists. The hon. member may not be aware of it, but two years ago I myself was in Lisbon, where I signed various agreements between South Africa and Portugal, particularly in regard to the development taking place in these two provinces of Portugal, namely Angola and Mozambique. Those agreements are, inter alia, also in connection with the development of the Kunene.

† Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast referred to Dr. Vedder’s excellent and well-known book. I will refer his suggestions to the Department of Information and I am quite sure that they will look into it and that they will follow it up, because, as I have already said, it is indeed an excellent work written by a very great man and a great scientist.

The hon. member put a question to me about the contribution which South Africa has made to the expenses relating to the maintenance of the United Nations Emergency Force. Now, according to the rules of UNO, when expenses of this kind are incurred, members of the organization become liable automatically. I can tell the hon. member that South Africa is not in arrears with our contributions to the UNO, with the exception of the payment of our contribution in respect of the UNO Emergency Force which operated in the Congo. The non-payment by South Africa in this particular case was based on principle. I can also tell the hon. member that non-payment by certain members gave rise to very serious difficulties at the UNO two years ago, because there was this threatened action in terms of article 19 of the Charter, in terms of which members who are in arrears for more than two years, or rather in an amount amounting to more than two years of their contributions, could lose their vote. Some sort of a solution has been found, an interim solution, but no final solution for this particular problem has been found yet. As far as the hon. member’s reference to India and Pakistan is concerned, I will not comment except that I want to remind the hon. member that India, of course, started the vendetta against South Africa right after the UNO was founded in the days of the late General Smuts. I also want to remind the hon. member that the institution of diplomatic relations with a country and with these countries would, therefore, not be a unilateral act.

That is why I suggest that it should not be on an official basis.

I think I must leave that for the moment.

Diplomatically.

Thank you. The hon. member for Durban (Central) had a great deal to say, and I support him in most of what he has said. I agree with him that there should be an exchange of university personnel, that there should be scholarships, especially for advanced, post-graduate study. But it appears to me that the hon. member is under some illusion as far as the granting of visas to non-Whites who want to visit this country is concerned, and the hon. member is wrong when he thinks that it is impossible for international conferences to take place in South Africa. I know that up to now we have had a shortage of accommodation for this type of international conference, but I hope that the position will improve when once we get our luxury hotels about which my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, may have some more to say. I want to say that this impression that non-Whites cannot visit this country, is altogether wrong. On the contrary, we have had some prominent non-Whites visiting this country in the not too distant past. I can think, for instance, of the principal of a very important and well-known Negro university in the U.S. who visited South Africa not very long ago. International conferences have been held in this country in recent years, and they will be held here again. I can remind the hon. member of the Sarccus conference, which took place, I think it was in Durban. I do not know where the hon. member was at the moment, but this international conference on soil conservation took place in Durban in December, 1964. The Sixth Annual Conference of the International Association of Fishmeal Manufacturers also took place in South Africa a few weeks ago and it was opened by my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs. I can give the hon. member examples of other international conferences which took place and which are going to take place in this country. I agree with him entirely that it is very important that this sort of conference should take place, and that the delegates to these conferences should get visas. That does, of course, not mean that we are going to throw open our doors to everybody who wants to come to this country. When we grant visas—and fortunately that is not my task—we take a very good look at each case that comes before us, and we decide in the interests of South Africa whether visas should be given to the various persons.

I am sorry that the hon. member referred to the Brazilian football player incident. I do not know what the intention was behind the raising of this particular matter. I cannot help feeling that perhaps he is not very happy about the very happy visit that I paid to that country and the very good connections that I built up. I do not think it has got anything to do with the exchange of students, and as a matter of fact I hope that students will come from Brazil too to our universities here. I do not see why it should not happen. We have already had students from African countries at our universities. We trained non.-White nurses for Rhodesia. We have had non-Whites at Onderstepoort. There is nothing strange about that.

*The hon. member for Sea Point raised a few important points. He commented on the arms embargo applied against South Africa by the U.S.A. What he said I can confirm as a member of the Government. What he said was really a repetition of what we had already said in public and in private in connection with this arms boycott. I am glad that an hon. member of the Opposition has also said that in public, so that the Government of the U.S.A, may realize how the people of South Africa feel about that extremely unfair and unpractical arms boycott. A day or two ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also drew attention to the illogical and unfair action on the part of the U.S.A, in connection with civil aircraft. I do not want to go into that any further.

The hon. member for Sea Point asked me what the American Government really had in mind with this policy. I do not know what exactly they have in mind with that. I can only tell the hon. member that the arms embargo is based on a resolution adopted by the Security Council in this connection in August, 1963, which reads, inter alia, as follows—

The then American ambassador at the UNO, the head of their permanent mission there, the late Mr. Adlai Stevenson, also commented as follows and stated their point of view to be the following—

But in spite of this reservation made at that time by Mr. Adlai Stevenson, I have to agree with the views which the hon. member for Sea Point mentioned here to-day.

The hon. member for Sea Point also pleaded that we should invite more influential visitors to South Africa, and that we should also invite such visitors to this country from Africa. I may tell him that I have quite a number of such visitors in mind and that I intend doing more in this connection next year. However, I also have to remind hon. members that for years, and particularly in recent times, we have been receiving quite a number of prominent visitors, not only from Europe and America, but also from Africa. And if my information is correct we have had a senator from a province in Belgium in this House at some stage only this afternoon, and we have also had a Belgium newspaper editor in the gallery of this House. I think it is a good thing that I should draw attention to that.

The hon. member raised a delicate matter in speaking about the locally recruited members of our embassies. I must say at once that we have locally recruited people such as clerks, typists and messengers at all our embassies. Some of them have been there for many years. Most of them are loyal supporters of South Africa. As a matter of fact, in the U.S.A, we have had quite a number of Negro messengers on our staff for many years. They are particularly well-disposed towards our country. These people are all loyal servants of South Africa, and the only reason why nothing has been done yet about bringing them here, is that I, as did my predecessor, the previous Minister of Foreign Affairs, have always tried to economize, like all Ministers on this side. But I shall take the idea as being a suggestion and in future we shall give more attention to that.

†The hon. member for Karoo also referred to the possibility of inviting visitors from Africa. I have no objection to that whatsoever. As a matter of fact this sort of thing is already taking place. At the moment we are receiving mostly officials who are having discussions with officials in Pretoria on matters of common concern. This will take place to an increasing degree. But I must also plead with hon. members not to try to force the pace. We have got to go slowly, we have got to be realistic. But we are doing what we can in this particular line.

The hon. member referred to developments in the Indian Ocean. I can assure him that that is exercising our minds. We are certainly taking account of the international climate which is prevailing, and that, of course, to some extent limits our activities when it comes to the Indian Ocean. What I am doing at the moment, and what I have done over the last nearly three years, is to make personal contacts, at the UN particularly, with as many delegates as I possibly can. And I am convinced that in the long run these contacts will have good results for South Africa.

The hon. member for Musgrave raised a very important matter. He was concerned about the improving of our image. I can assure him that that is receiving our constant attention; that is constantly being done by the Department of Information, by their officials. As a matter of fact, our Department of Information and our diplomats, according to one authority in the U.S.A., are being so successful that this particular person complained about it at one conference at which South African affairs were discussed. I am referring to what Professor Vernon MacKay had to say about South African information in the U.S.A. Our representatives, diplomatic and others abroad, are therefore doing their bit. I referred to the activities of some of our ambassadors earlier on to-day. Now, it is always dangerous to pick out examples. But I may remind hon. members of the activities of a former member of this House, Dr. Carel de Wet, our ambassador in London, and in particular I want to refer to a very brilliant lecture which he gave when he addressed the Royal Commonwealth Society in London not so very long ago. This is just one example. I can quote scores of others. Recently an excellent speech made by one of our ambassadors had a verbatim report in the U.S. News and World Report magazine.

The hon. member for Mooi River—and I must congratulate him on his constructive contribution—referred to a very interesting and important matter, namely the possibility of an anti-communistic alliance. It is very interesting. I want to assure him that if we should ever succeed in doing so, it would be important, but before we can do that we must see to it that we establish here in Southern Africa a strong anti-communist stronghold. That we have done and we are constantly seeing to it that that stronghold remains as strong as possible. Secondly, Sir, we must assist our immediate neighbours and our other neighbours in Southern Africa also to become anti-communist strongholds. And I think, Sir, that you will agree with me that there we are also doing our duty.

I do not know about entering into an alliance at this particular moment. But I can assure the hon. member that our feeling, our sentiments about the communists, are already a binding factor in our relations with, for instance, the important South American countries to which I referred and to which he also referred. It is a very important binding factor. I do not want to go into the possibility of an alliance at this stage, but I can assure him that the personal relationships which were established during this visit with the governments of those countries are excellent, and I am confident that in future this idea of forming a joint front against the communists could be explored and worked out in practice. As a matter of fact, Sir, if there is one point about which I feel very strongly, that point is that we here in South Africa should never forget that our country is situated in the Southern Hemisphere and that we have a part to play in this Hemisphere. In the past we were always inclined to turn our eyes to the North, to Western Europe and to North America; that was natural and there were very good reasons for it. I do not think it was wrong, nor do I think we should stop looking North. In addition to the North, however, I believe that we should concentrate more on the Southern Hemisphere. We must look more around us, to our neighbours in Africa, to our neighbours across the Atlantic, to our neighbours in the Indian Ocean—to Australia, to New Zealand, and others. If we do that we will find that there is a great variety amongst these neighbours of ours, but we will also find that with most of them we have a lot in common. Most of the White nations in the Southern Hemisphere belong to the New World. They share our new, our fresh approach to international affairs and to life in general. Some of our neighbours in the Southern Hemisphere are under-developed, while some of them are developing and others again are already highly developed. I did, for instance, not realize that some of the Latin American countries were as highly developed industrially and otherwise as I discovered. Some of these countries in the Southern Hemisphere are already very important units in the world community. In the case of nearly all of them we have so many things in common that it is comparatively easy to establish closer relationships and to emphasize the common interests. I want to repeat, Sir, that I am not in favour of breaking with the North, but I am in favour of forging stronger and direct links with countries in the Southern Hemisphere. This is exactly what I and my Department and the Government are trying to do. And, as I have indicated earlier on, we are already making progress.

*I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to all hon. members in this House for the constructive contributions they made to this debate to-day. I have already dealt with the questions put by the opposite side. From this side of the House no questions have been put to which I need reply. However, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that constructive contributions have been made and that stimulating ideas have been expressed to which I will most definitely give further attention. Speeches made by hon. members on this side of the House give testimony of study, hard work and serious thought. Thank you very much for that. I once again want to congratulate hon. members on the high and constructive level maintained throughout this debate.

In conclusion I also want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their good wishes. I assure them that I shall need those good wishes when, shortly, I shall leave South Africa to go and put our case abroad. I therefore appreciate their good wishes. I think it is a good thing that I can also say in this House that I shall act there on behalf of South Africa as a whole. It will be encouraging for me to know that I have the support of everyone in this House.

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Vote 42.

Vote 42, Forestry, R1,802,000 and Loan Vote F, Forestry, R11,435,000.

Mr. Chairman, because this Vote has come on rather unexpectedly and earlier than we have expected I think that if I start off by making a statement about my Department it might help to facilitate the discussion later on. I should, therefore, like to present to this Committee the following report.

Overseas visit of Minister of Forestry, 1965.

During the discussions on the Forestry Vote last session, my predecessor indicated to the House that he and the Secretary for Forestry were going overseas in order to endeavour to find solutions to certain problems with which the forestry industry in this country is faced. My predecessor was kind enough to hand me a report on the findings of their visit which makes very interesting reading.

Although I do not wish to discuss details of his findings at this stage, it is interesting to note from the report that there is no need in Europe to exercise any control over the purpose for which agricultural land is used, since economic considerations generally favour such land to being used for food production. In the case of mountain areas, however, compulsory use for forestry is often enforced. This course is adopted because of the evident value of forests in preventing avalanches and because it is regarded as an unquestionable fact that forests maintain and regulate the flow of rainwater thereby lessening damage by floods and silting.

I am disclosing this information because lately, particularly during the very severe period of drought, misgivings have been raised in this country about the effects of afforestation on water resources. Protagonists in this matter must therefore please take cognisance of the fact that in Europe it is regarded as an unquestionable fact that forests—which incidentally include artificially established plantations—maintain and regulate supplies of water and prevent floods and silting. I appreciate of course that the annual rainfall is comparatively high as compared to South Africa, but as a forestry expert stated a tree can only drink a limited amount of water.

I also deem it necessary at this stage to make it known that it was established by my predecessor that a measure of State control of private forestry is the rule throughout Europe. Almost without exception permits are required for the felling of trees and such permits contain the condition that the stands must be regenerated. In some cases there is also control of the form of management. I do not wish to give any dogmatic views on this point but have taken note that the South African timber growers during their last congress adopted a motion whereby the Executive Committee of that Association is called upon to investigate forms of legislation that will be required to rationalize timber production in this country. I think that the inquiry of the said association will bring more light on a very important factor in this industry.

Committee on Private Forestry.

The Committee on Private Forestry dealing with allegations of the encroachment into agricultural land and threat to water supply sources referred to by my predecessor during last year’s debate is still actively engaged with its investigation, and although I am given to understand that it has made material progress it is, at this stage, impossible to indicate when its report will be handed to me.

Forest Legislation.

The Department has at present under consideration a draft Bill which will consolidate and amend the Forest Act, 1941. This draft Bill has been circulated amongst all interested parties for comment. I hope to introduce this Bill during the following session of Parliament after I have been able to study the comments submitted.

The Ngoye Forest Reserve.

Numerous representations were received from boroughs, associations and private individuals in Natal, that this Forest Reserve be handed over to either the Natal Parks Board or the Commission for Historical Monuments. Relics, etc. The reserve in question is situated within a scheduled Bantu Reserve and in order to reach it, use must be made of a road traversing the Bantu Reserve in question. After due consultation it was decided to transfer this reserve to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, who, with the assistance of my Department, will in future manage it as a nature reserve in terms of Act No. 18 of 1936. The necessary parliamentary approval to effect the transfer will be sought.

*Retail Timber and Retail Saw-millers.

A plea has been made that more timber should be made available to saw-millers who buy timber from State plantations in small quantities.

Perhaps it will be a good thing if I just indicate for the information of hon. members what happens with the timber produced in State plantations. Timber obtained from State plantations may be divided into the following categories or classes, viz.:

1. (a) Saw-logs.
   This is timber of 6 feet or longer in length with a minimum thin-end diameter of 5 inches. This timber is delivered to State saw-mills or private converted timber contractors, by whom it is processed into structural timber and box timber.
2. (b) Pulpwood.
   This includes timber of any length with a minimum thin-end diameter of 3 inches. N.B. After they have been felled, all trees are sawn off at a minimum diameter of 5 inches. Timber with a diameter of less than 5 inches but with a minimum thin-end diameter of 3 inches is described as pulpwood.

As indicated, saw-logs are delivered either to State saw-mills or the Department’s saw-mill contractors. Structural wood as well as boxwood is produced from this converted timber.

Pulpwood is sold to pulp factories. In 1937 the Department granted a firm an option to purchase all the pulpwood which came from, inter alia, all the State plantations in the Transvaal. It goes without saying that initially this firm did not have the factory capacity to absorb all the pulpwood from these State plantations and a considerable amount of pulpwood was, therefore, left lying in plantations after the converted timber had been removed.

As a result of this, representations were made to the Department to allow retail sawmillers, particularly in the Eastern Transvaal, to purchase this pulpwood in the meantime and to use it for the manufacture of agricultural boxes. These representations were considered and it was decided to accede to the request on the distinct understanding that this Department would be under no contractual obligation to these retail saw-millers and that the Department could not guarantee a constant supply of timber to the said millers. The reason for this was that the timber would be absorbed as pulpwood as soon as the firm concerned could obtain additional factory capacity. The retail saw-millers purchased the timber on these conditions and therefore erected saw-mills on their own responsibility.

With the erection of a pulp factory in the Eastern Transvaal, which, according to the latest information at my disposal, will commence production during August, 1966, the Department is now, in terms of the option granted in 1937, obliged to increase the volume of pulpwood to be provided from State plantations to the pulp factory from 8,000,000 cubic feet per annum to 14,000,000 cubic feet per annum. That means an increase of 6,000,000 cubic feet per annum.

The logical consequence of this is that the pulpwood which has been sold to retail sawmillers up to now, will now have to be supplied to the pulp factory in terms of the said contract.

A survey recently carried out by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing at the request of this Department indicated that an estimated volume of 2,600,000 cubic feet of box shooks per year is needed to supply the country’s needs. Of this quantity, 60 per cent is already being produced by the State saw-mills. The volume of round logs required for manufacturing 2,600,000 box shooks is 10,250,000 cubic feet.

During the past few years more and more saw-millers have discontinued the manufacture of small boxes, because there was an increasing demand for timber for industrial purposes, whereby the provision of such industrial timber was, therefore, made more profitable. This applied to a certain extent even to the retail saw-millers, some of whom also discontinued the manufacture of small boxes.

The problem is, therefore, not so much the availability of saw-logs as the profitability of the manufacture of small boxes as compared with other products for which there is a demand at present. Even if the Department of Forestry were able to make more timber available to saw-millers it would not be a foregone conclusion that more small boxes would be manufactured.

The policy followed at the State saw-mills is, however, that all saw-logs smaller in size than the structural timber classes are processed into box shooks; this also applies to the off-cuts from structural timber logs and converted structural timber rejected in the final grading process. Priority is being given to. small boxes for export fruit, but, as has been mentioned earlier, this is bound up with the manufacture of agricultural boxes, and regular, although limited, supplies of tomato boxes will therefore continue to become available at the State sawmills.

The shortage of timber for the manufacture of box shooks may, however, be relieved considerably through—

1. (a) the increasing extent to which saw-logs are becoming available year after year; and
2. (b) compulsory grading of structural timber by private saw-millers.

The Association of Sawmillers has advocated the introduction of voluntary grading of structural timber, but nothing has come of these good intentions.

†Forestry Advisory Council.

My predecessor indicated that he was considering the establishment of a Forest Advisory Council. I have decided to postpone the calling into being of such a council until the Committee on Private Forestry has furnished me with its report, as this Committee will no doubt make recommendations on the nature and functions of a body that will deal with the management of private forestry matters.

Wattle Bark.

Hon. members are, no doubt, aware that matters appertaining to the wattle industry as such are dealt with by the Wattle Bark Board, which is an autonomous body. As Minister of Forestry, the only power I have in terms of the Wattle Bark Industry Act is to decide on matters on which the various sectors of the wattle industry cannot reach agreement. Since my appointment as Minister of Forestry I have not been called upon to act in this manner. I wish to state here that I have the highest regard for the Wattle Bark Board and I am sure that they are determined to act only in the best interests of the industry.

I know that the Wattle Bark Board through its various committees, is at present negotiating with other tannin-producing countries in order to find solutions for the exporting marketing problems with which the industry has to contend. I wish, therefore, to suggest that hon. members might find it advisable to refrain from making statements on the wattle industry that may have a detrimental effect on these negotiations.

*Effect of Afforestation on Water Supplies:

The drought which has prevailed during the past few years has made farmers even more water conscious than before. My Department has taken note of misgivings existing in various spheres about the effect that afforestation and the planting of trees have on water supplies. Opinions and criticism are often voiced also as far as the management of water catchment areas is concerned. Afforestation as well as the management of mountain catchment areas is the function of the Department of Forestry.

In order to be able to carry out its work properly in this connection the Department has been engaged on hydrologic research for the past 30 years in order to determine the effect of vegetation mainly in mountainous areas on the water cycle and to adapt the management of such areas thereto.

As a result of the recent representations which have reached my colleagues and myself in this connection, it has recently been decided to appoint an inter-departmental committee to carry out a thorough investigation into the question of afforestation and its effect on water conservation and water consumption. The committee consists of a representative of each of the Departments of Agricultural Technical Services, Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Water Affairs, and Forestry. The terms of reference of the committee are—

1. (a) to investigate the contributory causes and the extent of the complaints in connection with the effect of afforestation on water supplies;
2. (b) to investigate the effect of afforestation on catchment areas, with due regard to the water supply potential of such areas;
3. (c) to determine the extent of the effect on water supplies of the alleged large-scale afforestation by companies;
4. (d) to recommend measures which may be taken to prevent or to lessen the detrimental effect of afforestation on the water supply potential of the catchment area; and
5. (e) to determine to what extent afforestation for the production of timber is justified, and to determine its rightful share in the available water supplies in the interests of the economy of the country.

I hope the hon. the Minister, in view of the report he has made and in view of the lateness of the hour, will give us on this side an opportunity of consulting amongst ourselves so that we will be prepared to start off the debate when discussions on the Minister’s Vote are resumed. When that happens I hope the hon. member for Mooi River will have a good deal to say. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to refer to the statement of the hon. the Minister to the effect that the forest reserve at Ngoye, which is in a scheduled Native area, is, with the assistance of his Department, to be developed by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development as a nature reserve. This, I think, is something new, at least in my experience. But I think we should welcome it and we will look with a very great deal of interest to see what is going to happen in regard to the administration of that reserve and the work in connection with it. I do not know what members of the public will be permitted to go there. Presumably the public will be permitted to go there but whether it will be only the Bantu or also other folk I cannot say. I should, however, like to say this to the Minister: I hope he realizes that there are at least two species of the smaller mammals which are peculiar to the Ngoye forest. They will not be found anywhere else except in the Ngoye forest. Therefore there has always been a particular reason why the provincial authorities in Natal felt that this forest should be protected. There is, I should say, at least one species of Lepidoptera which is peculiar to this forest and not to be found anywhere else in the world. If these creatures should happen to become extinct the whole species will have been wiped out. Consequently this calls for rather more than normal care and protection. I am sure there are bodies which will advise the Minister in regard to the particular species requiring protection in particular, which species are in danger of extinction, the methods to be used for the preservation of the conditions of life there and the ethnology of that area so that these species can be maintained, because these species we do not want to lose. For us this is a matter of very great scientific interest.

Progress reported.