laid upon the Table the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, dated 9 September 1987, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 14 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 14 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, relative to certain State-owned land, dated 14 September 1987, as follows:

1. (1) The proposed alienation in terms of section 66(3) of the Forest Act, 1984, of portions of land, in total approximately 365 ha in extent, known as the Drakensberg National Botanic Garden, situate in the district of Harrismith, Province of the Orange Free State, for handing over to the Municipality of Harrismith;
2. (2) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing over to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of Portions 1, 2, 3 and portions of Portions 4 and 5 of Portion A of the farm Kareedouwsberg, being component 2 of the Kromrivier State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Humansdorp, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
3. (3) the proposed granting in terms of section 15(4)(a) of the Forest Act, 1984, of a temporary right for the erection and maintenance of a radio navigation station in favour of the Southern Oil Exploration Corporation (Pty) Ltd (Soekor) on the Congas Kraal Nature Reserve in the Alexandria State Forest, which has been declared a nature reserve in terms of section 7 of the Forest Act, 1968, read in conjunction with section 89(4) of the Forest Act, 1984, situate in the administrative division of Alexandria, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
4. (4) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of a portion, in extent approximately 7,5 ha, of the farm Patryslaagte, being component 9 of the Lebanon State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Caledon, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
5. (5) the proposed granting in terms of section 15(4)(a) of the Forest Act, 1984, of a temporary right of aqueduct and associated works in favour of the Municipality of Alexandria on and over the Woody Cape Nature Reserve in the Alexandria State Forest, which has been declared a nature reserve in terms of section 15(l)(a)(i) of the Forest Act, 1984, situate in the administrative division of Alexandria, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
6. (6) the proposed exclusion in terms of section 2(3) of the National Parks Act, 1976, of the land known as Tsitsikamabospark A, in extent 335,0408 ha, and Tsitsikamabospark B, in extent 6,7681 ha, from the Tsitsikama Forest and Coastal National Park, situate in the administrative division of Humansdorp, Province of the Cape of Good Hope, for disposal thereof by the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs;
7. (7) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of the farm Zuuranys 258, being component 11 of the Formosa State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Humansdorp, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
8. (8) the proposed exclusion in terms of section 2(3) of the National Parks Act, 1976, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of a portion of land, in extent approximately 2 600 ha, from the Karoo National Park, situate in the administrative division of Beaufort West, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
9. (9) the proposed exclusion in terms of section 2(3) of the National Parks Act, 1976, of portions of land, in total 103,6512 ha in extent, from the Augrabies Falls National Park, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal;
10. (10) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation and withdrawal from setting aside as a nature reserve in terms of sections 10(2) and 15(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for reservation in favour of the National Parks Board of Trustees, of a portion of the farm Saltriver 241, being a portion of the Bloukrans State Forest, known as the De Vasselot Nature Reserve, situate in the administrative division of Knysna, Province of the Cape of Good Hope; and
11. (11) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of a portion, in extent approximately 6 000 sq m, of erf 281, Linkerhandsgat, being a portion of component 1 of the Grabouw State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Caledon, Province of the Cape of Good Hope.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House.

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

On this annual occasion I should like to extend the thanks and appreciation of this side of the House to the Chief of the SA Defence Force and to Armscor, as well as to all members of the Defence Force and of Armscor, for the great and selfless service they are rendering the fatherland. To all members of the Defence Force and of Armscor who have excelled during the year, I convey our sincere congratulations. To all who have suffered in one way or another I extend our sympathy. We honour the memory of those who have made the highest sacrifice for the fatherland. Their fame will never tarnish. To the next of kin of those who have fallen we convey our utmost sympathy. To those who are retiring on pension from the service we express our gratitude for a lifetime of sacrifice.

In particular we thank Armscor and its members for what they have done for the fatherland, by way of armaments, to preserve us from the clutches of sanctions. Then, too, we all pay the highest possible tribute to the unknown soldier.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to Maj Wynand du Toit. We are all overjoyed at his release. Nevertheless we are unhappy about the proportions that his homecoming is beginning to assume. In yesterday’s Rapport his sister even complained that “hulle veil my broer soos ’n bees op”. I believe it is necessary to protect our heroes against this kind of behaviour to prevent heroic deeds from being cheapened.

At the same time I wish to pay tribute to the memory of Corporal Louis van Breda and Corporal Roland Liebenberg who accompanied Maj du Toit in Cabinda and were killed.

I should also like to refer the hon the Minister to yesterday’s Sunday Star. It contains a report entitled “The mystery still surrounds ill-fated Angola mission”. The report goes on, and I find this a little disturbing:

“Betray” means by your own people. I do not wish to say anything more about this, except that I should like to have the hon the Minister’s comments in this regard.

The hon the Minister himself has over the past year excelled in the eyes of, among others, the Paraguayans, and was decorated by them. We should like to congratulate him on that.

To General Webster, my former divisional commander who is now retiring, we want to say: “Thank you very much, General Webster, for what you have done in a lifetime of 57 years for the SA Defence Force, and in particular, General Webster, thank you very much for what you did last year to make the glorious tour to Delville Wood such a success.

I think it is also appropriate for us, on this occasion, to pay homage once again to those who died at Delville Wood.

The SA Defence Force has provided us with this information document for which I am very grateful. It is an outstanding document and we thank them for it. The CP is entirely satisfied with the outstanding work done by the Defence Force and Armscor. We congratulate them on what they are doing.

I should like to devote the rest of my speech to more political matters.

Turning to the hon the Deputy Minister, I should like to say to him that I want to enter into a gentleman’s agreement with him. [Interjections.] On 20 May this year he said, according to the unrevised copy of his Hansard, that I had used unrestrained and crude language in respect of the Defence Force and its leadership. I now want to enter into the following gentleman’s agreement with him: I have been in Parliament for ten years now, and if he can indicate to me when I have employed crude and unrestrained language in respect of the Defence Force or the leadership of the Defence Force, then I shall apologise in this House. However, if he cannot do so, then he must apologise.

I wish to refer to the election of 6 May and its significance for the Defence Force. The election showed that approximately one out of every three Whites voted for the CP. Therefore one can draw the logical inference that approximately one out of every three members of the Defence Force supports the CP. I think I am merely stating a fact when I say that the Government must realise that the influence of the CP in the Defence Force is therefore a strong one. It is therefore in the interests of the Defence Force and its morale that CP contributions be taken seriously.

I now wish to put a pertinent question to the hon the Minister concerning what the SA Defence Force will look like in future in view of the Government’s political reforms. Are the days of a pure White Defence Force numbered? Are the days when we spoke about a “volksweermag” gone forever? [Interjections.] Hon members say: Yes, they are long gone. Sir, we are constantly receiving complaints from CP members in the Defence Force about integration in the Defence Force. I want to tell the Government that they must not underestimate that dissatisfaction. It has a decidedly negative effect on the morale of many soldiers.

I now wish to ask the hon the Minister whether we can tell the members of the Defence Force that there is no longer any place for separation in the Defence Force. Has integration in the Defence Force—as hon members have just said—become Government policy? If that is not so, will the hon the Minister spell out to us what the Government’s latest policy is on integration in the Defence Force? Let me put it this way. My party insists, on behalf of one third of the Defence Force, on separate facilities and separate treatment for Whites of other…

You should be ashamed of yourself!

The hon member says I should be ashamed of myself. I am not ashamed of that, Sir. I am merely propagating the traditional policy that the NP always propagated.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Hercules is trying to make a joke of a very serious matter.

There has on occasion been what I would call the questionable utilisation of the Defence Force. I want to refer to a case involving the Black city council of Lekoa, in the Vaal Triangle. Earlier this year the hon the State President paid a visit there. The residential area of Lekoa was very dirty, and the Black municipality had to clean it up. However it did not do so itself. I am very bitter about the fact that the Defence Force had to be called in to clean up Black township areas. In addition the Black mayor of Lekoa refused to grant a certain Mr Gouws, who works for that municipality, paid leave when he performed national service. However the Whites have to come and clean his town for him. I say that many White mothers are unhappy about this. That case must not be underestimated; I think the hon the Minister should see to it that it does not happen again.

Oh shame!

Someone said “oh shame”. That simply means that there are NP members who apparently want people who perform national service, who are there to defend their country, to go and clean Black locations. I think that is a disgrace! [Interjections.]

I want to refer to the Standing Committee on Protection Services. Mr A Williams, a member of the House of Representatives, has been elected deputy chairman of this committee. His people do not perform compulsory military service. Those of his people who serve as volunteers in the Defence Force probably comprise less than 1% of the total strength of the Defence Force. Nevertheless he is deputy chairman of this standing committee which includes the entire Defence Force, the Police and, I think, the Prisons Service.

This is a transparent political ploy. It is window-dressing in order to canvass the support of people of colour. I state bluntly that there is only one person who should have been deputy chairman of that standing committee and that is the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, the chairman of the NP study group, which represents more than 99% of the members of the Defence Force. I think that this was purely a political move and I do not think it ought to have happened.

I want to refer to a report that appeared in the Sunday Times about an anti-ANC periodical issued by the Defence Force. This was clearly a clandestine operation that fell neatly into the class of Eschel Rhoodie-style operations. Now I want to ask whether the Defence Force is again involved in this type of organisation, as in Dr Rhoodie’s time. Will the hon the Minister make a statement about this? Are there more of these clandestine operations? How are they funded? What are the financial arrangements? Where are they reflected? I should also like to ask in what regard these operations, if there are so many, differ from Dr Rhoodie’s operations.

I should now like to refer to the threat from our neighbouring states. I share the hon the Minister’s concern and alarm at what is happening in Angola. If the UN really wants to do something useful it should go and open that can of worms. The escalation there is disturbing. According to figures at our disposal, there are in Angola about 2 500 Soviets; 2 500 East Germans; 2 500 Koreans; 3 500 Portuguese; 45 000 Cubans; 1 200 members of the ANC; 1 400 former Katangese troops; and 7 000 members of Swapo. This gives a total of almost 60 000. Then, too, there are 60 000 MPLA soldiers, and they have sophisticated arms. One can obtain this information from the newspapers.

I wish to ask the hon the Minister what the chances are of this escalation of hostile forces possibly developing into a conventional onslaught on South West Africa or on South Africa. Is South Africa capable of resisting such an onslaught if it were to happen? Is South Africa spending enough money on, among other things, its Air Force, to avert the possibility of such a threat?

We support the aid that the Government is giving Dr Savimbi, but I hope he will remember us when he is president of Angola one day.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether there is any hostile power build-up in Mozambique and whether ANC terrorists are still being accommodated there. It is interesting that apparently the Government began by supporting Renamo, but later ceased to do so, and we should like to know what the current position is. Are we supporting Renamo or do we reject them?

We should like to know whether there are still terrorist bases in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana or not, because it seems to us as if South Africa is not being faced by a conventional threat so much as by a terrorist onslaught. We also realise that this is, in fact, largely a political hot potato and that the Department of Foreign Affairs must deal with the problem, but South Africa cannot afford to have terrorist murderers from our neighbouring states murdering and mutilating innocent South Africans.

On behalf of my party, therefore, I today ask the hon the Minister and the Government to take more forceful action against these terrorist murderers, and if necessary even against their bases. We urge the Government to carry out pre-emptive operations and eliminate these murderers in their bases in our neighbouring states before they have the opportunity of invading our country.

Finally I want to refer to a complaint by a person who contends that there is a lack of a leadership element in the Defence Force. I refer to national servicemen who, after the expiry of their compulsory term, do not voluntarily apply for extension of service. It is said that they are leadership figures who are vital to the Defence Force. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether that is so and, if so, how we can retain that leadership element by persuading them to remain voluntarily. Could we not perhaps think of something attractive like higher remuneration or even a pension scheme to retain this very useful leadership element?

I wish to conclude by saying that we should like to wish the SA Defence Force and Armscor a very, very successful year.

Mr Chairman, I shall reply in detail, at a later stage, to some of the remarks made by the hon member for Overvaal. I just wish to react very briefly to his statements on the deputy chairmanship of Mr A Williams. Firstly, if we want to retain our footing in South Africa we must realise that we need the support of all the population groups in this country. The Coloured population renders a positive contribution to the defence of South Africa, and Mr Williams, in particular, displays a very positive attitude to national security. He is chairman of the defence study group of the majority party in the House of Representatives and I personally have no problem with the position occupied by Mr Williams in the standing committee.

†We on this side of the Committee wish to salute the SA Defence Force for 75 years of dedicated service to South Africa. The SA Defence Force was renowned for its courage and its endurance in the field during two world wars. The SA Defence Force also played a major role in the Korean War, but most of all, over a period of 21 years the SA Defence Force has proved itself to be the most effective counter-insurgency force in the world. In his book, The War of the Flea, which is actually a handbook on guerrilla warfare, Robert Taber wrote the following:

This book was published in 1970. If it had been written in 1987, this specific sentence should have read—

For this very reason we once again want to pay tribute to the SA Defence Force for virtually nullifying Swapo as a military power. All indications are there that the ANC will follow suit.

*To have been involved in war for 21 years and to have suffered virtually no defeats is a remarkable achievement. We want to congratulate the SA Defence Force on that. [Interjections.] I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Overvaal. We on this side of the Committee want to pay tribute to those who have died for the sake of our security. We wish to convey our utmost sympathy to their next of kin.

At the same time we wish to place on record our joy at the release of Maj Wynand du Toit. We should also like to express our gratitude for the Defence Force contributions made by the hon the Minister of Defence, the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force, which made this release possible.

I also wish to congratulate the SA Defence Force on the quality of its officer corps. When one deals with these people on the ground, one appreciates why the Defence Force has developed into such a formidable fighting unit. We also specifically wish to congratulate General Geldenhuys, the Chief of the Defence Force, on the strong leadership he displays. We wish him and his commanders everything of the best on the road ahead.

Permit me too, Sir, to convey a special word of thanks to the Chaplain General of the Defence Force, the Rev Chris Naude, for the extremely valuable work done by chaplains in the SA Defence Force. To the corps of chaplains, too, we wish everything of the best for the future.

This brings me to the remarks by the hon member for Overvaal. We appreciate the fact that the Official Opposition adopts a positive attitude to the security forces of South Africa. However, what we do not appreciate—and at this point I wish to concede that this was not as much in evidence this afternoon as it has been in the past—is the obvious distinction drawn between the Defence Force on the one hand and the political chiefs of the Defence Force on the other. I should like to explain this matter to the hon member for Overvaal. He will understand it because he is engaged in post-graduate studies in political science.

There is a clear distinction between the Defence Force on the one hand and the government of the day on the other, but in a democratic system, despite this distinction, one cannot draw an absolute distinction between the government of the day and the Defence Force. If it is true, as Clausewitz says, that war is the extension of politics along different lines—and it is true—then that means that in a democratic system there is an indissoluble link between the Defence Force and the government of the day. Indeed, in a democratic system the Defence Force serves the government of the day. I do not say that it serves the NP, but rather that it serves the government of the day.

What I am trying to explain is that when one has effective political decision-making in regard to security matters, this leads to effective action by the Defence Force. The best example, to which I want to refer, is that of Armscor. In the ten years of its existence Armscor—in passing, our cordial congratulations to Armscor on its first decade of service—has achieved international recognition in the arms trade. However we must never forget that Armscor was established thanks to a political decision taken at the time by the then Minister of Defence who is now the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha. Here again we have an example of a balanced political decision which gave rise to balanced, responsible, political action. [Interjections.]

Speaking about the relationship between the defence force and the government of the day, I wish to refer to a remark made during the general election campaign by a senior member of the PFP. He referred to a military parade, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Defence Force and attended by the hon the State President, as being a “political orgy” of the hon the State President.

Shame!

I do not know whether the hon member has read the Constitution. Perhaps I had better point out to him that in section 6 (2) of the Constitution it is clearly provided that the State President is the Commander-in-Chief of the SA Defence Force. He attended the military parade in that capacity, and then a senior hon member of the PFP comes along and refers to this as an “orgy” of the hon the State President. The fact that the leader of the PFP did not rise from his seat and compel the hon member to apologise merely confirms the suspicion that the security of this country certainly cannot be entrusted to the PFP.

The voters said so too.

Yes, the voters unambiguously confirmed that.

I also wish to address the Official Opposition about what I regard as irresponsible action in respect of security matters. I refer to the boycott of the visit to the border. A visit to the border has one purpose only, and that is to give members of Parliament first-hand information on the security situation. This security situation surely differs from time to time, and that is why members of Parliament have to be informed on an on-going basis. However, what is happening now? At the eleventh hour the Official Opposition removes its suitcases from the aircraft, as it were, because according to them a security rule was broken. [Interjections.]

Order!

After all, it has never been the responsibility of members of Parliament to be concerned about security measures of this nature. Surely that is the function of the Defence Force. [Interjections.]

Order!

I think that what happened here, in fact, was that impulsive action on the part of the CP, which did not like a remark made over the floor of this House, prevented their own members from obtaining first-hand security information. My blood runs cold when I consider what would happen if that party had to assume the political responsibility for the security of South Africa.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip, the CP’s chief spokesman on defence, for the opportunity to complete my speech. [Interjections.]

Then, too, there was another boycott of the same visit to the border, and in this instance it came from the PFP benches. The reason they advanced for the boycott was that their chief spokesman on defence had not received an invitation to visit the border. [Interjections.] It is the prerogative of the Minister of Defence to invite whom he wishes. I do not know why he did not invite those hon members, or specifically the hon member for Durban Central, but I can guess. [Interjections.]

As unlikely as it would be for the Israeli defence force to make confidential information available to anyone who plays footsie-footsie with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, or the British defence force to make confidential information available to anyone courting the Irish Republican Army, it is equally unlikely that the SA Defence Force would make confidential information available to anyone who went to Dakar to conspire with the ANC.

Hear, hear!

Sir, one cannot have one’s cake and eat it.

*The hon member for Durban Central, despite his position as chief spokesman on defence matters, nevertheless saw fit to go and speak to the ANC in Dakar. Therefore he and his party must now be prepared to bear the consequences. The fact that three senior members of the PFP went to speak to the ANC in Dakar emphasises afresh what would happen to South Africa if this party were to exercise control over security matters.

More than R6 000 million has been spent on defence matters. [Interjections] I concede at once that this is a big slice of the budget, but I do not believe it is disproportionate. I am tempted to argue that were we not to incur this expenditure, it might not be possible to submit another budget in a democratic institution such as this one. There must be no doubt in our minds as to the nature and extent of the onslaught on South Africa. We are not fabricating this onslaught, and it is very well known. If the hon member for Greytown is unaware of this onslaught, that merely shows to what extent he is already the victim of disinformation.

It is a well-known fact that the ANC and the SA Communist Party are being used by Moscow to promote Russian expansionism. For the sake of the record I can nowhere find a better exposition of this objective than in this book, New Lies for Old, written by someone who, for years, was chief of the disinformation centre of the KGB. He writes:

In conclusion I just wish to make two remarks about this, and I want to address them specifically to the enemies of South Africa. A revolutionary movement has no hope of succeeding in South Africa. I shall state why this is so. Nowhere in the world has a revolutionary force been able to take control before one of two things has happened: Before the security forces have gone over to the revolutionaries, as in Iran and Russia, or before the revolutionaries have become militarily superior to the security forces. Those possibilities are nil in South Africa. Therefore those who advocate violence to bring about political change can forget about it. Indeed, violence as a method of achieving political change can be counter-productive in that it obstructs reform. The strongest government in the world cannot do two things at the same time. It cannot, on the one hand, avert revolutionary onslaught and, on the other, bring about essential political reform. It does not have the financial ability to do so. That is why South Africa’s enemies should not force us into a position in which we have to make a choice in regard to these matters. No, Sir, I think that the path of salvation for everyone in South Africa is not that of revolutionary warfare, that of negotiation being the only method to bring about real and fundamental changes in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys referred to the border visit and commented on the reasons why I was not personally invited. I preferred not to comment on this incident and I had hoped that one would be able to keep its political connotations out of this debate. I am going to try not to reply to the hon member in detail. I just want to say to him that if he is convinced of the reasons he mentioned, I invite him to repeat his words outside this Chamber… [Interjections]… because, obviously, it is an insult to be accused of being untrustworthy when it comes to dealing with sensitive information.

But you did go to Dakar, did you not?

Mr Chairman, I want to warn the hon the Minister, and I am serious.

See how scared he is! [Interjections.]

I am not the only one who holds this opinion. Statements of this nature and the hon member’s reaction, as well as the consequences of the hon the Minister’s decision concerning the border visit—that sort of attitude towards members of Parliament and those who happen to differ from one politically, is increasingly causing people to say that the Defence Force is the military wing of the NP. [Interjections.] I am not alone… [Interjections.]

Order!

I am not alone in saying this, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] He should not ignore this. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Overvaal referred to troops being called in to clear up townships. I agree with him. I believe that is not what our servicemen should be used for. It is now about three years since our Defence Force was first employed in our townships in order to assist with the unrest situation. Since then the SADF presence in the townships has acquired an air of permanency, which, I believe, detrimentally affects the SA Defence Force. The three years of involvement by the SADF in what are basically police functions have resulted in the Defence Force losing its distinctive image as a body which is above the internal conflict situation in South Africa. Moreover, the activities of the SA Defence Force have, over these three years, in the eyes of many become enmeshed with those of the SA Police. For this to happen over such a long period, Mr Chairman…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? When I mentioned cleaning up the townships, did the hon member understand me to mean the removal of trouble-makers, or did he understand me to mean what I did in fact mean, viz the cleaning up and removal of litter and refuse?

Mr Chairman, I understood the hon member correctly.

†The enmeshing of the activities of the SA Defence Force with those of the SA Police Force has resulted in a blurring of the dividing line between what the role and the image of the Defence Force should be and what the role and image of the SA Police Force should be.

In the discussion of the 1985 Defence Vote the then leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, clearly stated this party’s attitude towards this issue, when he said that the Defence Force should only intervene in internal conflict situations during real emergencies and in cases of civil war. Now, we do not have a civil war at the moment, and from what we hear from the Defence Force, the SA Police and the Bureau for Information I believe there are not any real emergencies left in South Africa at this stage. According to the Chief of the SA Defence Force, Gen Geldenhuys, only between 5 000 and 8 000 soldiers are still involved in our townships today. In an article in the Cape Times of 20 June this year he stated that a large percentage of those who were still there served as clerks, as chefs and as signallers or in other support posts. He was quoted as saying there was only a handful of soldiers backing up other Government departments at any time.

Why then, Sir, is the SADF still involved in townships? Surely, Sir, it is not in its own interests that the Defence Force should be further politicised than it already is. Even the President’s Council, in its report on the youth in South Africa stated, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, I believe the time has come for the SADF to sit back and consider seriously whether its continued presence in our townships can still be justified. I believe the SADF can now withdraw from the townships to take its place again as a neutral shield behind which orderly change can take place. The Defence Force should again be placed in a position in which it is above the internal conflict situation. It can do so now, and it should seriously consider that. This may not be easy, Sir, when one takes into account that over the past few years the SA Defence Force has played an increasing role in determining South Africa’s foreign relations with its neighbouring states—the frontline states—and has also become very involved in ordinary administrative functions at all levels of society.

It has become enmeshed, and as a result our whole society has become more militarised.

Since 1980 the SA Defence Force has launched at least 10 raids or attacks on neighbouring states in Southern Africa. Some have been successful, others not, but the fact is that those activities have had a major impact on South Africa’s relations with African states and the international community generally. The simultaneous attack on 19 May last year on Lusaka, Harare and Gaborone is a good example. That was at the time when the EPG was in the country to investigate possibilities for change. Despite the massive publicity last year, the actual military success or benefit was so minimal, I believe, that it certainly could not in any way offset the widespread international furore and damage done to relations with frontline states. The bombing of an ANC office in Harare or the bombing of a transit camp near Gaborone is certainly not going to blunt significantly the effectiveness of or the support for the ANC. Why, therefore, plunge South Africa into a foreign relations crisis without getting anything in return?

Who determines our relations with the frontline states? Is it the hon the Minister of Defence or the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs? It appears that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is playing second fiddle more and more in this direction. Diplomacy has given way to military aggression as far as the frontline states are concerned. Surely the frontline states know that our Defence Force has the capability to overrun them at any stage—that is common knowledge. Why, therefore, go on a demonstration raid when that merely causes an international backlash? The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not seem to shape when those decisions are made.

The consequences of such raids—increased international military and other aid to those countries, as well as increased support—are to be expected. We shall probably see exactly that happening at the Commonwealth Conference which takes place very soon.

As far as internal administration is concerned, the joint management centres have been established. This is something which has been in the pipeline for a very long time—it is not just a few years old. Why should the Defence Force presence in all those structures play such an important role? Does that not neutralise the image which the Defence Force should have, namely to be above the internal politico-social conflict situation and not involve itself with social programmes in townships when there are other agencies of the State that could do so; not to involve itself with bureaucratic administrative functions at various levels when there are other agencies, other departments, that can do that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central addressed a challenge to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys with regard to his statement on the absence of the hon member for Durban Central during the recent border visit. He challenged the hon member Dr Geldenhuys to make that statement outside the House. However, this Committee is the place for us to discuss freely and openly matters that are bothering us.

Nicely protected.

Yes, Mr Chairman. I am nicely protected, but that applies equally to the hon member sitting over there. It applies to both sides, and it is not clear to me why the hon member does not also go ahead and mention the matters he is raising here outside the Chamber. It seems to me that he himself has reason to feel concerned.

We cannot place the debate on the Defence Vote outside the context of the total onslaught on the RSA, and this is where the hon member for Durban Central is mistaken. The tragedy in our country is that our opposition parties refuse to accept this reality. From their point of view the Government’s statements in this regard are nothing more than cheap party-political propaganda. The question today is no longer whether South Africa is sufficiently prepared or not.

It is a fact that our Defence Force is prepared and motivated, and it is a fact that we have at our disposal thoroughly trained manpower. It is a fact that we have at our disposal the equipment to resist any conventional onslaught, and it is also a fact that the South African soldier who has to use and man this equipment, is of the highest calibre in the world. Moreover, it is an incontrovertible fact that this Defence Force is led by one of the most capable Ministers of Defence any country could desire.

South Africa is experiencing no problems with regard to military preparedness. However, today I want to discuss our mental preparedness with the Opposition. It is within our power to resist the psychological onslaught which contributes 80% of the war-effort against us. The Hansard of this House is read diligently abroad by friend and foe alike. It is an important barometer for foreign investors, as well as foreign governments, to be able to gauge the thoughts as well as the level of mental preparedness in our country. The most important question a potential foreign investor in South Africa wants to have answered, is whether the government in power is in control. It is therefore appropriate that this debate is taking place after all the other Votes have been dealt with. We have had time to take note of the negative approach and the generally destructive statements by the opposition parties. If I were a foreign investor and had to read the speeches by opposition members during this session, I would have had serious doubts about the future of the South African economy, our political stability, and the prospects for every facet of our society. How can South Africa attract investment and recover economically when our Hansard teems with pessimistic statements by the opposition parties on the future of their own country?

One of the first phases of revolutionary warfare involves bringing about a division between the government and the population. In a revolutionary war it is primarily a matter of mobilising the population. This is the first step, and it goes hand in hand with intimidation. People must feel frightened and insecure in their own homes, in their cars, in shops and in the street. A frightened person is an insecure and confused person, and he starts to doubt his Government’s ability to guarantee his safety.

The revolutionary, however, needs assistance, and he relies on the media. News coverage in the Press and on television provides the oxygen that keeps the fires of revolution burning. Nevertheless, with regard to the unrest at Crossroads just over a year ago, PFP spokesmen say they are grateful to the Press and foreign television services for the way they reported events there.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens says: “Hear, hear!”

Had it not been for them, nobody would have known what was going on.

One of the theologians of the revolution, Carlos Marighella, said the revolutionary could not control the news, but could indeed control the event on which the news was based. However, the standpoint of the PFP is that it is a good thing for such revolutionary incidents to be given full news coverage. Yes, the overseas television services should be thanked for that.

Yes, I wish they could show you on TV.

A further step in the revolutionary war, after the public’s spirit has been broken and it has been robbed of its self-confidence, is to offer an alternative. Marighella says that at that stage of the war a propaganda campaign should be waged for the complete abolition of the constitution, and that a new constitution should be drawn up from scratch. This is a well-known revolutionary strategy.

Disturbingly enough, this is precisely the plea made by the hon member for Randburg and his running-mate, Dr Denis Worrall. What else do these Independents have to say? They say the Freedom Charter will form the basis of any future constitution for South Africa…

You are talking nonsense!

… and this while revolutionary theology preaches that once the Freedom Charter is accepted as an alternative and a basis, the first phase of the revolution is over. The acceptance of the Freedom Charter is purely an interlude before a dictatorship is established. I see the hon member for Greytown does not agree with me.

In this connection we already have two clearly identified people, namely the hon member for Randburg and Dr Denis Worrall, who have fallen in the psychological onslaught. I hope they have since discovered how dangerous the fire is with which they are playing.

Moscow goes on to say that one should make use of “useful idiots”. Now who are these “useful idiots”? These are people who think that one can negotiate with communists. A communist negotiates only when he wants to gain time or when he can benefit from the negotiation. This is why certain questions arose regarding the visit by the hon members for Durban Central and Greytown to the ANC in Dakar.

We all wonder what happened in Dakar, and the electorate at large would also like to know. Many questions are being asked, for example on whose authority they went there, who they were representing there, whether they won the communists over, and whether the communists won them over, when they are going to report back to South Africa, what they achieved there, and whose cause they are now going to promote. They are excellent examples of the so-called “useful puppets”—another two that have succumbed to the psychological onslaught.

Another aspect of revolutionary warfare is that of demoralising the Defence Force. What is more, a wedge must be driven between the population and the Defence Force. The credibility of the Defence Force must be brought into question and its acceptability as protector of the country must be undermined. In this respect hon members should listen to what the hon member for Groote Schuur said on 10 September. I told him I would be talking about him. According to his unrevised Hansard, he said the following:

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

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

I thank the hon member for Overvaal.

The hon member for Groote Schuur is another victim of the psychological onslaught. Another member who has bitten the dust is the hon member for Green Point to whom reference has already been made. When the Defence Force celebrated its 75th anniversary, he called it an orgy for the hon the State President.

I find it almost tragic to have to witness the final disintegration of the PFP in these benches. [Interjections.] If their leader and a few other PFP members want to perform a patriotic service, the time has come for them to rid themselves of those who would rather be part of the extra-parliamentary set-up. I am referring specifically to the hon members for Durban Central, Greytown, Green Point, Groote Schuur and Cape Town Gardens.

Do you agree, Harry?

The only reason why they have not yet left Parliament is their inability to gauge the success of the onslaught against us, or perhaps their ability to assess accurately the success achieved by the Government.

The PFP is soft on national security. The PFP, as a party, has failed in its resistance to the psychological onslaught. The PFP’s whole approach attests to a defeatist attitude. Some Dutch people say: “Liewer rood dan dood.” [Interjections.] This means: “Rather red than dead.” [Interjections.] The PFP questions the efficiency of the Defence Force, the necessity for national service—yes, even the necessity for such a system. This is how far the PFP has gone.

The instructions from Moscow include orders to cause divisiveness in the population. Where is there a more suitable area than this very country with its variety of population groups? The first target area, in our case, is that of creating division among the Afrikaners, and here the CP is playing directly into the hands of Moscow. [Interjections.] They fill the Afrikaner with aversion towards the hon the Minister, the hon the State President and the Government, represent the situation in a simplistic manner, offer simplistic instant solutions to our problems, bring disunity into our political life…

Who brought that in?

… our cultural life, and even within our Afrikaans churches, and place political gain above the interests of the country. [Interjections.] That is their point of departure. Their hatred of the NP exceeds their love for their fatherland. The CP has unfortunately also failed in its resistance to the psychological onslaught. [Interjections.]

There is no point in praising the Defence Force while denigrating the hon the Minister. There is no point in saying we are militarily prepared if an hon member of the CP says we are the colony of a foreign power. There is no point our praising the Defence Force for its military successes, but failing to give it the everyday moral support that should emanate from this House. There is no point in our piously paying lip-service to the Defence Force but, while we can give our men on the border moral support, having our suitcases taken off the aeroplane for the sake of short-term political gain. [Interjections.]

What point is there in singing the praises of the rifle, the cannon and the aeroplane when, time and again, our political actions are like daggers in the backs of our men on the border?

Do you remember how right-wing you were in your day?

It is obvious that we are experiencing the onslaught on two fronts—the foreign and the domestic—and the CP has clearly failed to assess that onslaught accurately.

The CP hopes to win the struggle with campaigns, whereas the PFP hopes to end the struggle through surrender. In the process we see the PFP as a disorganised, fragmented, disillusioned, failed political party, and the CP on the other hand as a failure awaiting disillusionment.

South Africa’s most expensive luxury is the quality of its opposition, and its two greatest enemies, particularly as regards the psychological aspect of the onslaught, are the PFP and the CP. They are failing the SA Defence Force and they are failing South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I submit that the hon member is not allowed to say that seen from the psychological viewpoint, the CP is the greatest enemy of the country. He is not permitted to say that.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member said the same thing about the PFP.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Now why did you say it in the first place?

Order! The hon member for False Bay has withdrawn his statement. He may proceed.

What, then, is the message that is to go out from this House to our men on the border, our Defence Force and each voter outside?

You unsavoury individual!

The message that should go out is that we have recognised and identified the onslaught. In the second place we have the will and patriotism necessary to cope with the psychological struggle. In the third place our message to the SA Defence Force is to continue the struggle in the bush, in the veld, on water and in the air. We are here to support them and we shall do so. They have not failed us and we shall never fail them.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Barberton remarked that the hon member for False Bay was an “unsavoury individual”. I submit that this is unparliamentary and he ought to withdraw it.

Order! Did the hon member for Barberton say the hon member for False Bay was an unsavoury individual?

Mr Chairman, I said he was an unsavoury little fellow. I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for False Bay made certain allegations regarding both the Official Opposition and the opposition party here on my right. I am sure they will use the debate to respond further to the hon member for False Bay.

The hon member made some interesting observations on mental and psychological preparedness. I think if there is one thing this country is most certainly in desperate need of, it is for all of us, including those of us in Parliament, to demonstrate that we have the will to fight for true peace and freedom, and that we are most certainly not going to succumb before we have realised those ideals. [Interjections.]

There is something in this debate, however, that I find astonishing. The hon member for Durban Central delivered a speech here. He and the hon member for Greytown, more than anyone else, are certainly equipped to inform and enlighten this Committee on the standpoints of the ANC. The hon member for False Bay made certain pointed allegations in connection with the Freedom Charter, allegations he also directed at those hon members. I have been looking forward, for a long time now, to seeing those hon members use the time to tell us exactly what the 1987 interpretation of the Freedom Charter is, according to the members of the ANC. [Interjections.] Those hon members can, after all, most certainly not come along and threaten us with stating certain standpoints outside the House and then making all kinds of other vague speeches and reproaching us on the standpoints we have adopted. They must convince us that their conclusions are the right ones. I have not yet heard, either in the Committee or in the House, those hon members enlighten us regarding the conclusions they reached after this visit.

With reference to the hon member for Durban Central, I want to discuss the presence of the Defence Force in the Black townships. I particularly want to do so against the background of two statements which were made fairly recently. The first is to be found on page 42 of the report by the Eminent Persons Group. They say:

It was reported in Rapport recently that Professor Welsh had written:

I do not think either of these two standpoints does justice to the real situation confronting us, or to the immediate challenges that lie ahead of us. We are geared to fighting for true peace and freedom, and in this process we are advocating a positive nationalism and have no desire to eradicate or suppress any other nationalism. Nevertheless, we do realise one important fact, and that is that we shall not be completely free to give expression to our nationalism either, as long as other people in Black residential areas are being subjected to the intimidation of necklace murders, or as long as they are threatened and manipulated, through intimidation, into acting differently from the way they would have acted of their own accord.

It is against this background that we find the Defence Force in the Black townships, and not, as the EPG report says, “to declare war on the people of the townships”; nor is it, as the hon member for Durban Central says—and I say this with all due respect—to register a permanent presence there. No, the main objective of the Defence Force presence there is to play a very important role in support of the SA Police.

There are three particular objectives to which, in my opinion, their presence there gives practical effect. Firstly, their presence is intended to combat crime. It is not that the SA Defence Force is taking it upon itself to combat crime, but the role it plays there allows the SA Police Force to carry out its duty effectively, namely to combat crime.

I think the Defence Force presence at roadblocks, during police raids and so on has extremely positive results. Important stolen goods such as motor-cars, weapons and so on are being recovered.

Something that is of tremendous importance, and that we dare not lose sight of, is that if the population has the necessary protection, they will turn their backs on terrorism. Under those circumstances it is of cardinal importance for the Defence Force to register its presence there—a sustained and high-profile presence. We find this to be the case, too, when it comes to the use of consumer boycotts, transport boycotts and so forth.

A second objective of the SA Defence Force presence lies in the fact that if the government of the day were successful in addressing the everyday problems of the people, one would have the people’s spirit and goodwill on one’s side. Personally I find what the SA Defence Force is doing in this regard in the Black residential areas extremely exciting, to say the least. After all, it is true that dismal and depressing circumstances prevail in some of these residential areas, and it is for this very reason that they form the breeding ground for revolutionaries and radicals.

The presence of the Defence Force, the supporting role it plays there, enables the welfare departments to perform their line function properly.

In this way, with the logistics at its disposal, the Defence Force plays an important role in surveying plots, resettling squatters, providing relief during floods, transport, water supply, medical services and aerial photographs.

There is, however, a third aspect which is probably also the most important. It concerns people’s attitudes. It is a pitiful spectacle to see the way Black people fear for their lives when they are threatened by people who show no respect for their lives. It is extremely sad, but also understandable, that in the light of that intimidation, those people usually refuse to offer any resistance to the radicals. It is therefore a matter of attitude.

In a recent court case someone like Popo Molefe made derogatory remarks about the SA Defence Force, but when under cross-examination he was challenged to mention a single example of the abuse of power or of incorrect action taken by the Defence Force, he was quite unable to do so. He could not mention a single example. In this regard the Defence Force needs everyone’s appreciation for their extremely disciplined behaviour in the Black townships. I think those in charge of their training also deserve, to say the least, our highest esteem.

Mr Chairman, just allow me to say a few words in response to what the hon member for False Bay said at the end of his speech in this Committee. [Interjections.]

After all, to come along with such a political attack and to direct it at the CP, as though this side of the House were an enemy of the country as far as the psychological onslaught is concerned…

Order! The hon member for False Bay has withdrawn that. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

I shall leave it at that then, Mr Chairman. I simply want to say that this hon member did this, probably to disguise his right-wing attitudes.

I want to refer to the NP’s chief spokesman on Defence matters, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. I am very sorry to say this afternoon that he thought it appropriate to raise the whole question surrounding the border visit in this Committee. [Interjections.] We know, and it has always been the convention, for such visits to be regarded as confidential. An hon junior member stood up here and quoted from a piece of paper, revealing details of this visit to the world at large. I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether he thinks this is in order, and whether we should not maintain that convention of confidentiality in respect of border visits within this Committee as well. If this is not the case, the hon the Minister should tell us so. However, this is the way we have dealt with it over the years, and it was therefore not a boycott action, but a reaction to what we regarded as a clumsy, in fact unacceptable, action by an hon junior member who was prompted to say this by another hon member. [Interjections.]

Also permit me, Sir, together with other hon members, to congratulate the SA Defence Force on its 75th anniversary. Our special good wishes go to the Chief of the SA Defence Force, General Geldenhuys, to all his officers and to the whole SA Defence Force. Perhaps we could also single out the SA Medical Services for the sacrifices they have made and for the valuable services they have rendered in the SA Defence Force.

The SA Defence Force has a proud record of military expertise, bravery and a military capability unequalled by any middle-ranking power anywhere in the world. In any event, the SA Defence Force is the most formidable defence force anywhere on the African continent. It will therefore be able to defend and maintain South Africa’s territorial integrity and safeguard us from any foreign aggressor that could possibly pose a threat to us. Of that I have no doubt.

I also want to take this opportunity to convey my special congratulations to the two air combat schools at Pietersburg, namely the 85 Air Combat School, under the command of Col Jack Grundling, with his Impala Air Training School, and the 89 Air Combat School, under the command of Commandant Otto Shür, which was established on 1 July last year and which provides the base from which the advanced new Cheetah fighter planes operate.

In peacetime these air combat schools are used for training pilots, but in times of conflict they operate as fighter squadrons. They then protect South African air space to the north of the country and also play a supporting role in respect of the Army and the Navy. We on this side of the House wish them everything of the best in their mammoth task in the interests of our country. It is good to know that at our northern outpost there is a well-equipped military force that will never let this country down.

The events of the past week, regarding the release of Major Wynand du Toit after two and a half years as a prisoner of war in Angola, have dominated the thoughts and emotions of most South Africans. They have admired this soldier and have been proud of him. The enormous sacrifices he made, and the fact that he survived the physical and mental onslaught of the enemy, captured the imagination of the whole population, and no one can deny this. This side of the Committee, too, expressed its pleasure and approval in respect of these events. At the same time the consistent role played by the SA Defence Force in the Southern African conflict situation has come into sharp focus.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister how an ordinary soldier in the SADF can be expected to understand that in the west of Africa the SADF is openly joining forces with Unita against the communist-oriented government of Angola, whereas in the east the Government and the SADF are playing exactly the opposite role in Mozambique.

Previous association with and assistance to the Renamo resistance movement are denied and excused, whereas the harbour and transport infrastructure is being upgraded and actively promoted and supported. I now want to ask the hon the Minister how he explains this kind of behaviour to the ordinary citizen, let alone the Black peoples of Southern Africa. I want to illustrate this for hon members.

Let us take, as an example, the report that appeared in Die Burger on 10 September, and substitute all the references to Angola with “Mozambique”, and all those to Unita with “Renamo”. The report would then have read as follows—and it sounds very logical:

That is, the hon the Minister—

The report goes on to say:

This is what this report could have sounded like, Sir. I now want to ask whether what I have quoted here is not, in fact, the truth. I want to ask the hon the Minister how one can explain the viewpoint of the Defence Force in this apparently ambiguous and inconsistent role. In the west of Africa it openly opposes Russian and Marxist expansionism, but in the east of Africa it does not do so.

I want to raise a further matter. In this very fine publication, which provides information on the organisation and functions of the SA Defence Force, a separate chapter is devoted to the participation of members of the Defence Force in party politics. When my colleague, the hon member for Overvaal, asked a moment ago whether we still had a “volksweermag”, there was an interjection from the other side. It was denied; we do not have “volksweermag”. However, allow me to quote to hon members from paragraph 38 on page 6 of the Afrikaans version:

[Interjections.] Reference is made to a “volksweermag”. I now want to ask the hon the Minister what he means by the term “volksweermag”. Does he use this term because it is compulsory only for White boys to do military service, with the result that at present he still regards the Defence Force as a “volksweermag”. I should very much like to know, because the term is still being used here. In practice the hon the Minister and the SA Defence Force are admitting members from other population groups to the Defence Force on a voluntary basis. The hon the Minister has also indicated that if they do voluntary service for periods of longer than two years, he would be willing to admit them to the State President’s Guard.

It is true, as far as we are concerned, and also according to the opinions and the evidence of Defence Force members themselves, that the Government is at present moving towards a fully integrated Defence Force. In such a situation there can, of course, be no question of a “volksweermag”. At most it could be a South African national defence force.

Last week the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated quite clearly here that the concept “nation” was a constitutional concept. It is a wider concept than “people” (volk), which refers to a narrower, cultural concept. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if time does not catch up with me, I shall come back to the point the hon member for Pietersburg has just raised. [Interjections.]

Certain speakers have referred to the Defence Force’s 75th anniversary which is being commemorated this year. As a former Permanent Force member of the SA Medical Services, I also want to convey a sincere word of congratulations to this section, this fourth and most robust branch of the SA Defence Force. I should like to thank them from the bottom of my heart for looking after the health care of the members of the Defence Force and their families through two world wars, as well as for taking care of us, on a much broader basis as far as primary health care is concerned, in our country as well as in South West Africa/Namibia.

I want to thank them in particular for the reassuring, morally uplifting knowledge, the assurance every member of the Defence Force and every South African has, irrespective of his colour, culture, language or race, that wherever such a person may be hurt or injured in South Africa, not only will a medical orderly be part of the patrol, but such a casualty will be transported to the best medical or intensive care available in South Africa within 40 minutes. The Medical Services give only their best to everyone, and their best is very good indeed.

On behalf of this side of the Committee I should like to raise a glass and toast the SA Medical Services. When I say “good health” and “thank you”, that is exactly what I mean. [Interjections.]

Who knows, perhaps we may see the emblem of the SAMS—as we sometimes see Armscor’s emblem these days—on the emblem and flag of the chief of the South African Defence Force some day.

The hon member for False Bay referred to what the hon member for Groote Schuur said in this House four days ago. We requested the hon member’s presence, but I do not see him here. I quote once again, from his unrevised Hansard, what he said four days ago:

†Further on he says, and I quote again:

[Interjections.] I personally served in the Permanent Force for several years. Last year my two sons both completed their two year initial training as national servicemen; “National”, “Service” and “Men” written in capital letters. Both of them served on our borders and both of them lived to see some of their personal friends wounded and mutilated by landmines. But for the Grace of God it could have been one or both of them. What I want to say to the hon member and his party which allows him to speak in this manner about our Defence Force cannot be said in permissible parliamentary language. Therefore I can only say to him: You ain’t foolin’ nobody—not me and not any normal, balanced South African, whatever colour or creed, and also not—as you know full well, Sir,—the ANC or the SACP. They have clearly received his message, no doubt with gratitude. What is more, they will undoubtedly quote his words from Hansard to strengthen their Marxist revolution and propaganda. If that leads to a few more necklace murders, I am sure that the hon member will not have it on his conscience because I do not think he has a conscience.

*I can well imagine that the Defence Force told his son, as my sons were told, that the G5 and G6 canons are among the best in the world, and naturally I would have confirmed this with my sons, Sir. I can also well imagine that that hon member would have told his son: “That is horse manure, man, horse manure. Our very own necklace is much more effective and for that matter also much more colourful. ”

Gastrow-itis!

I shall say nothing further about the hon member. [Interjections.]

I now come to the policy and the approach of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] I think that hon member for Dakar, who is the mouthpiece…

Order!

The hon member for Durban Central, Sir.

Order! No, there is no member for Dakar in this House.

I withdraw that, Sir. I think it is a disgrace that a member such as the hon member for Durban Central, who visited Dakar and is his party’s chief spokesman on defence in this House, could permit a member of his party to say this about our Defence Force. With hon members like him in this House, we do not need enemies.

I now come to the CP’s policy towards and handling of the security situation in the country. This CP-AWB alliance has been trying for years—it is a so-called “hardy annual” of theirs—to create the impression that they fully support the Defence Force. According to them the Defence Force is in apple-pie order. Nevertheless, they rake up everything they have against the Defence Force as representing political decisions by the hon the Minister. They begin by using such flattery that they seem almost saintly, and then come forward with all these other accusations. The then hon member for Jeppe, who since then, and without let or hindrance, has fled to Overvaal, said on 19 May 1983 precisely what he repeated to us here today. In fact, this is said every year. [Interjections.]

One of the worst and most damaging accusations made against the Security Forces and the political heads of the Defence Force by the CP, however, is that the hon member and his hon colleague of Law and Order were tying the hands of the Security Forces behind their backs. This was said repeatedly throughout the election. It is still repeated regularly in this House. The hon member for Ermelo and the hon member for Brakpan said it again recently. In the first place, I must say that this is not true at all. We have security legislation in this country, which was again updated in this House last year and which in reality provides the members of our Protection and Security Forces with more protection and more powers than is the case in other countries in the Western World. This is Africa, after all. That is why we need these measures.

The truth is that thousands of ringleaders are being detained without trial. To maintain, therefore, that the hands of the Defence Force and the Security Forces are being tied behind their backs is absolutely untrue.

Secondly, Sir, every police force has its own internal regulations and standing orders for maintaining discipline, to permit people to do certain things and to prevent them from doing others. These standing orders are not drawn up primarily by politicians. This is also done by the relevant Forces themselves.

Thirdly, Sir, I want to issue the following serious warning. By creating the impression among our people that the hands of the Security Forces are being tied, we are playing beautifully, or should I say grotesquely into the hands of the SACP-ANC alliance. Surely by doing that one is undermining the morale of one’s own people, our own people who then start thinking they are not good enough; after all, their hands are tied. At the same time people are thus encouraging revolution. I am not saying they are doing so deliberately. What I am saying is that that is the effect of what they are saying. We saw this clearly when people started setting trains alight and the CP started spreading the idea that the Police could do nothing about this, because their hands were tied. That kind of conduct undermines the morale of our people.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Langlaagte insinuate that the CP is stirring up revolution?

Order! No, I interpreted the hon member’s words as meaning that the Official Opposition’s standpoint was to the advantage of the revolutionary forces. If I interpreted him incorrectly, you must please correct me. However, that is what I understood him to mean.

Mr Chairman, I said very specifically that I knew they were not doing this deliberately, but I know that what they are doing has that effect.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately there are a number of aspects concerning the CP policy that I shall not be able to deal with because of a lack of time. The only thing I want to say is that we must pay attention to the PFP’s allegations that the civil and military legs of the Government co-operate so intensively, with the military side dominating to such an extent by means of the State Security Council and so on, that in reality we have a military government or a police state. On the other hand the CP says the military is in apple-pie order, but they are dominated by the politicians to such an extent that their hands are tied. Surely these allegations cannot both be true. In fact, neither is true. What is true is that there is balanced and intensive consultation among the military, economic, civil and political subsections. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Langlaagte on the heights to which he soared in his speech. I support him in what he said. We are proud of the contribution he made. I also regard it as a great privilege to take part in the discussion of this Vote.

At the very outset I should like to express my thanks to the hon the Minister and the hierarchy of the Defence Force for the visit to the border that was arranged for us. It was enlightening and it was a privilege to make the acquaintance of all four components of the Defence Force once again.

Where is Koos?

I should also like to thank the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister for their support of our Defence Force hierarchy, because any general, or anyone in the top echelons finds it encouraging to know that he need never doubt the support of his Ministers.

I should like to confine myself more specifically to another component of the Defence Force in my constituency of Walvis Bay, viz the Army. Hon members who know Walvis Bay know that we are firmly wedged between the sand and the sea and are surrounded by South West Africa on three sides. We are proud of the SA Defence Force celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. We are just as proud of the fact that the base in Walvis Bay celebrated its 25th anniversary earlier this year.

It is unnecessary to say that the Defence Force in Walvis Bay is our pride and joy. As far as the SA Army is concerned, they established themselves there in February 1962, and the first national servicemen started there on 1 April 1962. The base in Walvis Bay was established where the old civilian airport was previously located, and the municipality had to move out to the old military airport, Rooikop, which had to be made serviceable once again. That airport was also subsequently taken over by the SA Air Force, and an Air Force unit was stationed there.

The Navy followed later, and we are very proud of the beautiful base that was developed there under the able leadership of Commander Manning. These Defence Force components are truly something that can be proud of.

I should like to draw attention to the fact that Gen Hiemstra conducted the negotiations with the municipality at that time when I, as mayor, was also involved. We made a valiant attempt to get the Defence Force, and more specifically the Army, to dispense with their intention to erect prefabricated aluminium houses there. Despite all the representations, they went ahead and erected those houses. These are corrugated iron houses which are on stilts a metre above ground.

I am sure that in the times we are living in, and after 25 years of exposure to the elements of Walvis Bay, those houses cannot be in any condition for families to live in any longer. I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to attend to the matter of that housing. It is my contention that the members of the Defence Force deserve better housing.

We are very proud of those units in Walvis Bay, and 2-SAI, as it is generally known, was responsible for the training of the troops for the SWA territory force. We recently heard a proud announcement from Gen Meyer, commander of the SWA territory force, that a good 61% of the forces being employed—the ground forces—were members of the SWA-territory force. That is really an achievement for them, but it is also an achievement for the Army, which trained these people.

I also want to mention that since its establishment 25 years ago, SAI has lost 19 of its men on the border. We should like to pay tribute to them as well.

I am trying to indicate the strategic importance of the Walvis Bay base. It is the only strategic harbour of any importance between Luanda and Cape Town, and hon members will know how easy it was for Luanda to fall into Russian hands. The force that controls Walvis Bay, controls and protects that port. It also protects the interior of South West Africa. That is why it is of the utmost importance to South West Africa that there is a strong Defence Force. They do not have the means, the capability or the funds to defend such a harbour effectively. It is understandable, therefore, that there was consternation in Walvis Bay recently when we read the following report in a newspaper. I quote from Die Suidwester of 7 August 1987:

I want to say immediately that I do not know whether that Minister was quoted correctly, because in personal discussions with him I found the contrary to be true, and he confirmed that he merely meant negotiation about the use of Walvis Bay and its facilities. For the record I should also like to quote the standpoint of the Government in respect of Walvis Bay.

We should like to support this standpoint. I also want to express my thanks to the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence. He visited Walvis Bay on 1 July this year and reconfirmed this standpoint in very explicit terms.

Hon members will agree that the Defence Force and especially the ground forces deserve all the support we can muster. I therefore want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that funds for the Defence Force are never scaled down. The army, to which I have just referred, plays a very important role in the protection of our country. The increasing onslaughts referred to by previous speakers give cause for alarm, and that is why one is reassured when one returns from a visit to the border, having seen the preparedness and the strength of our motorised army units. When one considers the strength of the Air Force, one can say that this is truly a formidable force which engenders fear, esteem and respect. When we think of the Eland, the Ratel, the Buffel, the Impala, the Mirage and so on, we are filled with pride. In order to attain their objective and to be prepared, to be and to remain the enemy’s equal, it is of the utmost importance for the ground forces to have air cover. In addition it is very important for the Air Force to be equipped with the most sophisticated apparatus. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of the year the hon the Leader of the PFP bestowed on me the honour of asking me to act as the second spokesman on defence matters, after the hon member for Durban Central. This is the first opportunity I have had of speaking on this subject.

The hon member for Walvis Bay will forgive me for not responding to what he said, but in the course of my speech I shall refer to a few other hon members who have already spoken.

To begin with I want to say that there are approximately four or five basic points of departure that I should like to put here. In the first place I believe that any country, and South Africa in particular, needs a strong defence force in today’s circumstances.

Secondly I believe that one should adopt a positive attitude with regard to the Appropriation for defence expenditure. That Appropriation must, of course, be balanced as far as the other needs of the country are concerned, and also as far as every other possible threat to South Africa is concerned.

Thirdly I believe that the defence matters of the Defence Force should be elevated above party politics. That may be very naive, and perhaps impractical in the circumstances we are experiencing, but I regard it as a fundamental point of departure that defence matters should be elevated above party politics. I believe, therefore, that defence matters should not be used, abused or exploited for party-political ends. That is my point of departure, and it is very clear. This principle, viz that these matters should not be abused or exploited for party-political purposes, applies to all parties.

It is a pity that there are hon members who used this debate to include party-political elements, elements which could, in my view, have been left out of the picture. We cannot say we want to keep defence and the Defence Force outside party politics and at the same time cast doubt on the loyalty of hon members and other South Africans towards South Africa. We may differ with each other in a party-political sense, and in regard to the action taken, but we should not cast doubt on people’s loyalty to South Africa. It is a pity that the hon member for False Bay, in so many words, and the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, by implication, said that the hon members who had gone to Dakar had indicated their disloyalty to South Africa—if I understood him correctly.

We can differ with each other politically on whether the visit was desirable or not. I reject any insinuation, however, that the visit to Dakar called the loyalty of those people and their love for this country into question. I want to state very clearly that this kind of party politics must be kept out of a debate of this kind. The same applies to the ANC. The hon the Minister and other hon members in the Committee know that although I am strongly opposed to the perpetration of any form of violence in order to bring about constitutional change—the hon the leader of our party made that very clear—I have pleaded for the internal ban on the ANC to be lifted, because we know that there are a significant number of South Africans, at least 30% of Black South Africans, who support the ANC in general but who do not thereby associate themselves with the perpetration of violence by the ANC. Whatever we may do in South Africa, we cannot dismiss that fact. It is that simple. If anyone tells me that I am being disloyal to South Africa in saying that, I shall tell him that I need not play second fiddle to him as far as my loyalty to South Africa is concerned.

I want to come back to the point I raised earlier about defence expenditure. It is essential for defence expenditure to be such that the Defence Force can plan for the future. I am pleased that these new financial provisions are making it possible for the Defence Force to plan for longer periods than they could plan for previously. The new technology means a lot to our Defence Force, because as we all know—I do not want to give the impression that I am a military expert, because I am not—it sometimes takes five to 10 years to go from the planning stage to the implementation of the production stage, ie from the time a product appears on the drawing board to the time it is produced.

One cannot do that job properly if there is no certainty with regard to the financial calculations that have to be made. I am pleased that that is being done in this regard. Matters are progressing better now than in the past.

I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Walvis Bay. I noted with great appreciation the significant increase in the Budget for the Air Force. I believe that as far as South Africa’s future defence requirements are concerned—I say this without meaning to denigrate the Army and the maritime organisation in any way whatsoever—South Africa’s real protection with regard to its striking power actually lies in an efficient Air Force. In this connection I believe that in time South Africa will have to develop its own fighter planes to a greater extent.

It is with great appreciation that I have noted, the important work done by Armscor. I am thinking, in particular, of the G5, the G6 and the XTP 1. I want to express my appreciation for the kind of work that is done by Armscor and its subsidiaries.

Having said all this, I want to come back to a few other matters that I want to present to the hon the Minister for consideration. I have stated a few basic points of departure. If we do not find a sound socio-economic and political solution to our problems, there is nothing the Defence Force could do to bring about peace and stability in South Africa. The hon member for Krugersdorp is correct when he talks about the role of the Defence Force in the combating of intimidation, or whatever. I must add, however—I know the hon member will agree with me—that unless we adhere to a balanced socio-economic and political policy and work out a political solution for our problems, South Africa will never be strong enough to combat properly the resistance that will originate in South Africa itself.

I want to ask the hon the Minister please to use his influence and to go in there and say, as he did when he was Chief of the Defence Force, that the political solution is 80% of the solution, and the military portion a mere 20%.

I still say so.

I am pleased to hear that. [Interjections.] Then I want to ask the hon the Minister to help the Government to adopt that necessary attitude. [Interjections.]

I quickly want to raise a few other points. That solution to our internal problems also affects our foreign relations to a great extent. We can do what we like, but I am afraid that the boycotts and sanctions are going to have a detrimental effect on us as far as the tremendous changes in technology are concerned. It is essential that we consider that. It is my personal opinion that if we can solve our internal problems, we could also bring about improved foreign relations. This would mean access to all the technological progress in the outside world. I am referring here to advanced technology, especially in respect of computer science.

I have not been to Silvermine for a long time, but even when I was there approximately two years ago, I got the impression that our computer system there was somewhat outdated.

I want to address the question of security clearance. Unfortunately—I do not know whether the hon the Minister has anything to do with that or not—the security clearances of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have been accepted as religious objectors, are being withdrawn automatically. The entire group is treated in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier set out five basic points of departure which characterised his approach to the SA Defence Force. We are very grateful for that, and we definitely have no objection to these points of departure. I want to suggest, however, that the hon member begin with his own colleagues.

When he talks about believing that the Defence Force should be kept out of party politics, I want to remind him that one of his former colleagues, Mr Graham McIntosh, who is no longer a member of this House but is still a member of the PFP, called the then Capt Wynand Du Toit and his two deceased comrades “Fidel Castro look-alikes”, and that to date there has been no authoritative repudiation of that by the hon members of the PFP.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, as he then was, withdrew that remark and therefore I do not believe it is a fit subject for parliamentary debate, just as, in fact, you did not allow the hon member of the CP to react to what the hon member for False Bay had said.

Order! The former member for Pietermaritzburg North, who has been referred to, is no longer a member of this House.

Mr Chairman, further to that point of order: When he was a member of this House he withdrew that remark and I therefore do not believe that it should be the subject of debate in this House.

Order! I cannot determine whether it is a fit subject for debate and neither can I rule it to be unparliamentary to refer to it. The hon member for Umlazi may continue.

Mr Chairman, that is not the only example we need use. I have here a photograph of the hon member for Greytown giving a salute. We had a lot to say about that salute in the recent election campaign.

Naas Botha gives that sign when he has converted a try.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I enquire what the subject under discussion has to do with the debate on defence? [Interjections.]

Order! I believe the hon member for Umlazi is still developing an argument. The hon member may continue.

The hon member Prof Olivier said here that he believed in a strong defence force. I want to refer to this photograph once again. The hon member for Greytown appeared on the same platform as the chairman of the End Conscription Campaign. How does the hon member Prof Olivier reconcile the support of his party and his colleagues for this organisation with his belief in a strong defence force? [Interjections.] No, Sir, if the hon member professes to believe in certain things, he must give evidence of that in the actions of his party and his party colleagues.

The hon the State President was on the same platform as Samora Machel. [Interjections.]

Hon members of the PFP have already wasted a lot of my time and I shall have to proceed very quickly. I should like to express my appreciation for the part that the SA Navy plays in Durban, my home town. It is a big and busy harbour, and I am particularly grateful—I am sure I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues in Durban as well—for the important function the Navy fulfills in Durban.

There is a big and important naval base in which our more modern missile carriers are being developed. It is the home of the Indian training base, SA Jalsina. Many of our naval requirements are being met by shipyards in Durban and, last but not least, many staff members of the navy live in my and my colleagues’ constituencies.

Those are all aspects that are of the utmost importance to us in Durban, because despite what is being said in the Western World to diminish the importance of the Cape sea route, the fact remains that 60% of Europe’s oil and 20% of America’s oil, as well as 25% of Europe’s foodstuffs, are transported in ships that sail around Cape Point.

In past years those of us who live in Durban have seen 40 to 50 ships at a time waiting to anchor in Durban. If the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal were to be closed again at some time in the future, and the Cape sea route were closed, Lenin’s contention that one could destroy the West by cutting it off from its raw materials would be proven to be true. In this regard, therefore, the SA Navy has an extremely important part to play. There is no doubt that Durban would be in the forefront of that battle once again.

The effective protection of our ports, and of Durban in particular, is of the utmost importance to the inhabitants of that city. When we are told that 8% of the Defence Force’s total expenditure is in respect of the Navy, we wonder whether this is sufficient and whether sufficient provision is being made to enable the Navy to replace its worn-out ships and submarines and to maintain its capabilities above the accepted minimum level of strength.

I do not want to elaborate on this. I merely want to add that it is important to realise that the Navy has an important task to perform. When I say that, I am by no means underestimating the importance of border duty. As a matter of fact, I heartily welcome the fact that the Navy is also being involved in our border duties.

Since I am talking about the border, I want to come back to the subject of Mr Graham McIntosh. According to this afternoon’s edition of The Daily News, this member of the PFP and former member of Parliament did not report for military duty. The newspaper says: “MP fails to report for military duty”. I do not know how The Daily News can still regard him as an “MP”, but the report appeared this afternoon. It reads:

He went on to say that if the hon the Minister did not want to express his regrets about the matter, he should at least have given the assurance that “Mr Gastrow will be invited to all future briefings and Defence tours organised for Parliamentarians”. [Interjections.] According to the newspaper Mr McIntosh also says: “… he is prepared to take the consequences, even if it meant going to gaol. ”

I do not even want to talk about the preposterous audacity of this man. Nor do I care whether Mr McIntosh is treated in the same way as any other person who fails to report for military duty. What is important, however, is that Mr McIntosh is a member of the PFP. He is a member of that party, as are the thousands of others who voted for the PFP on 6 May. Is the PFP going to take the lead and tell its members and supporters that everything is in order and that they may also evade military duty as Mr McIntosh did? Then the hon member Prof Olivier can tell us how he is going to build up his strong defence force.

I want to come back briefly to this Black power salute that was made by one of our colleagues. With his visit to Dakar, about which much has already been said, the hon member for Greytown merely gave further proof of his rebellion against the entire existing order in this country. Apparently the hon member agrees with the financial editor of The Natal Mercury who wrote on Friday:

In making that salute, the hon member for Greytown was indicating that he agreed with these sentiments and that he had already taken sides. By doing so he was actually repudiating what the PFP contends it stands for, because the PFP contends that it stands for a non-racial South Africa. If, however, one stands for a non-racial South Africa, one cannot make either the AWB salute or the Black power salute, since what one stands for is a community which supports neither the one nor the other.

That is not all. With that Black power salute, the hon member for Greytown was repudiating the PFP, his own party, when that party expressed its belief in a peaceful future for South Africa, because the Black power salute is a call to confrontation, not to peace.

Since it enjoys that kind of support, the PFP should not take it amiss when we say they are not to be trusted with the security of South Africa.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Primrose to speak, I want to say that on reconsidering the point of order raised by the hon the Chief Whip of the PFP with regard to Mr McIntosh, I do want to ask the hon member for Umlazi to withdraw his reference to what the former hon member said.

I withdraw it gladly, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow up on what was said by the hon member for Umlazi. I support what he said. It is very interesting that when we point out contradictions in the PFP’s policy, they are very quick to stand up and say that the relevant person is no longer in Parliament or that he has withdrawn that remark.

I shall try to touch on something else here. Prior to the election the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about his “turbocharged” programme. It is very interesting that he called it that, because a turbine is a very sensitive piece of machinery which one uses to move forward at a far quicker pace. The turbine also has a problem, because at a certain stage it blows up. When we watch motor-racing on the racing circuits of the world, we sometimes see a cloud of smoke. The same racing car emerges from that smoke, but travelling very much more slowly.

Here we have the same example from the PFP. They are moving forward, but there was a big explosion in their engine. After the election on 6 May we have the same little party, and now they are only moving slowly.

There is also a second anomaly, because when the turbine blows up, it usually leaves an oil-slick on the road. What happened was that the hon member for Claremont was behind them. He skidded on the oil and left the road. [Interjections.]

Now we are asking that party what they are going to say next about the party and their policy in the rest of the debate and at the Third Reading. That is all I have to say about the PFP.

In the limited time at my disposal today I want to pay tribute to Comdt Piet Marais and Armscor. [Interjections.] Before I do that, I want to touch on a question which is frequently asked, namely why the Defence Force does not privatise again? I want to dwell on this for a moment, because it is a matter which must be dealt with fairly carefully. When one starts considering privatisation in this case, one sees that there are also certain aspects which concern security and the confidentiality of the Defence Force. I want to mention a few aspects of this.

The Defence Force of South Africa is a war-machine. It can be used in one of two ways, to attack or to defend—either offensively or defensively. It is the philosophy of the Defence Force that it wants to do what it can do best; it is not trying to do everything.

Today I therefore want to cite an example, without going into confidential aspects of the Defence Force, citing other examples here which, in my opinion, are not essential. I want to explain the entire problem surrounding privatisation on the basis of the Budget we are debating here today.

This Budget provides for R6 903 million, of which R1 370 million is paid out in salaries, etc. Approximately R1 718 million of the balance of R5 533 million is paid out to the private sector, for example in rations, footwear, maintenance, repair services and transport services. A further R3 815 million is spent on the development and manufacture of arms and ammunition. A large part of this sum goes to the private sector via Armscor. Precisely how much this is not relevant here. All we have to remember is that a very large part goes to the private sector.

What we can say here is that approximately 1 000 undertakings outside Armscor work for the Defence Force or for Armscor, and they provide employment for approximately 100 000 people.

I think it will suffice to dwell on this and indicate, without violating confidentiality, how important it is that privatisation on a large scale has made great strides in the Defence Force.

I want to get back to Armscor. In my opinion Armscor is nothing but a source of satisfaction to anyone who knows about it and knows what it does. It is a fact that at this stage Armscor provides that essential element to the Defence Force to enable us to keep South Africa what it is.

I want to say here at the outset, because I do not know whether I shall have the time at the end of my speech, that it is important and that I hope that Armscor will continue to export to the rest of the world to a greater extent than it now does.

Economists always quarrel about what three sectors are the most important in international world trade. Is it ammunition and defence equipment, is it the oil industry or the crude oil industry or is it the tourist industry? Depending on circumstances and conflicts in the world, one of those three is the biggest commercial activity in the world. Today I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister—while he is here in the House of Assembly—and Comdt Piet Marais, to expand the export section even further and to earn foreign exchange for us.

The SA Defence Force is engaged, on an on-going basis, in investigating which of those parts, provided to the SA Defence Force by Armscor, can be privatised in order to get as many people as possible involved in the manufacturing industry, in the design industry and in the development industry, in order to comply with this. It is important to remember that we would not be where we are today with our armaments if people from outside had not been involved on a large scale in their development and manufacture. However, this is also quite clear in the original directive to Armscor. I am quoting:

It is doing this day after day.

This brings me to the system in terms of which the SA Defence Force considers operational needs. The hon the Minister, with his departments, plus Armscor, is able to tell us at this stage what the needs for the year 2000 will be and how they will meet those needs.

I can therefore tell all hon members who stated here that we must accommodate our appropriations so that we can make on-going provision for this long-term development, which does not take place overnight and with which we have achieved great success, that we have already earmarked this money in the Budget for certain developments. I am in favour of this going further than the normal period of five years, which is determined by the hon the Minister of Finance from time to time.

I want to quote one aspect here concerning the international world’s view of Armscor and the South African manufacture of armaments. I am quoting from Jane’s book. Hon members all know Jane’s as a very authoritative author. I am quoting him as follows:

This excerpt from Jane’s is basically the pride of all of us when we talk about Armscor.

Sir, I have very little time left, and I want to mention another branch of the SA Defence Force which works very closely with Armscor. I think we can deal with each one separately, but there is no time to do so. I want to refer to one only, namely the SA Air Force, and say a few words about it as well as about Armscor.

We all know about the development of the Alpha attack helicopter. Then there is also the test template of the helicopter which was developed. Basically it not only made new technology available to us, but also resulted in a total transfer to domestic manufacture in respect of certain armaments. It therefore resulted in a saving in foreign exchange on the one hand and the earning of foreign exchange on the other, because we could export on a large scale when the world came to buy from us. However, what we are most proud of is the Mirage III, which was rebuilt and given new fire-power, because Armscor completely re-designed it in South Africa.

There is one matter worrying me a little at this stage. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in following the hon member for Primrose, I do not think anyone could have done a better job than he did in praising Armscor. I would be the last one to try to equal what he has said about them. Let me therefore associate myself fully with the sentiments expressed by my hon colleagues and hon members on that side of the Committee in their praise of the SADF and of Armscor. Let me also express the hope that the SADF and Armscor will never be used to promote party-political ambitions.

I would also like to add my deepest disapproval of the remarks made by the hon member for Groote Schuur in the House last week regarding the SADF. It is remarks of this nature which really serve to illustrate the unbridgeable gap between the Official Opposition and the PFP. What bitterly disappoints me is the fact that not a single hon member of the PFP has repudiated his insulting remarks directed at the SADF. I agree that the SADF should be totally excluded from the party-political arena.

May I also express my personal gratitude to the SADF for what it has meant to me and what it has been to me in my past and how it has positively affected my life, as is the case with most young men who have done their military service with a positive approach. The 19 years I had the privilege of serving in the Citizen Force were crowned with numerous privileges. Those privileges were so numerous that I cannot in the time allocated to me this afternoon mention them all. I had the privilege of serving in two of South Africa’s finest Citizen Force regiments, firstly, the Kimberley Regiment and then the Witwatersrand Rifles, a regiment I had the privilege of commanding and, in so doing, succeeding such illustrious soldiers as the late Brig Jack Bester, that amazing divisional commander who eventually commanded the Eighth South African Division in Italy during the Second World War at a time when the Wits De la Rey, which was a combined regiment of city-dwelling English-speakers and Afrikaans-speaking farm people, particularly from the Western Transvaal, formed a unit that achieved magnificent successes in the Italian Campaign. In fact that regiment—and I think it is a distinctive honour—achieved 13 battle honours over a period of 12 months. People with military experience and knowledge will tell hon members that that took some doing. That was also the regiment that produced people like Gen Van der Riet who achieved very high office in the SADF after the Second World War. It also produced officers like Gen P J Jacobs, Gen Ds Cloete who rose to heights in the SAP, Gen Bill Barends and Brig Doug Campbell. It was a privilege even to have had the opportunity to meet such people.

In thinking back to when I commenced my military training, I do not think I shall ever forget—and I do not think anyone who starts basic training will ever forget—the trepidation with which one enters military service. Everyone tries to be the bigshot and one of the boys, but deep in their hearts, if they are honest, they all admit that they are really very nervous; and not without reason, because there are trying times in military service. For all of us there are bad moments and there are good moments. What I found fortunate about my military training was that the good moments so far exceeded the bad moments that I now have difficulty in remembering a single bad experience I had in the 19 years that I served in the SADF.

In view of this I want to make an appeal today, first of all to the parents of young men who are going to be doing their military service in the near future. My appeal to them is to approach the whole question of national service positively, because those young men are only going to get positive benefits out of national service if they go in with a positive attitude. Of course, if they go in with a negative attitude they are not going to enjoy their national service and their lives will be totally miserable as a result of their own actions. I want to appeal to those parents to encourage their young sons, because those young sons are going to reap tremendous benefits throughout their lives, even after the completion of their period of service, should their involvement be successful; and, if they are positive, their involvement will be successful.

I would also like to appeal to the wives, the girlfriends, the mothers, the aunts and all the ladies for a positive attitude towards those young men.

I ask them not to write to these young men about problems which they are having at home, but rather to encourage them to greater heights in their national service, thus sparing them concern about the problems which those ladies are strong enough to sort out on their own in any case, and we all know that.

Then, Sir, I want to appeal to those young men themselves who are going to do military service. I want to appeal to them to give whatever they have to this beautiful country of ours because whatever they put into it, they are going to reap a hundredfold—maybe a thousandfold. I want to say to them that they must not see their period of training as a compulsory period. I should like to say to them that they must stay on as long as they possibly can. They must extend their service on a voluntary basis. In that way we can retain the leadership element which we need all the time. All of us who have served know how essential it is that these people stay with the regiments as long as possible. Therefore, I appeal to them to stay on, and to serve and to serve and to serve until it becomes extremely difficult for them to continue to do so. Only then should they consider going onto the reserve list or taking a less active part.

Mr Chairman, when I listen to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, I wonder in the first place what rank he had in the Defence Force, and what rank he now has in the AWB. [Interjections.] When I also listen to him encouraging the young men to do border duty—he tells us it did so much to develop his personality—I want to ask him whether nowadays he is encouraging those young men to join the AWB. [Interjections.] I also want to ask the hon member why, if this is his opinion of the Defence Force, he and his party withdrew from a visit to the border. I think I have said enough about the hon member; I now want to discuss another matter. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister to give a little attention to the detention barracks in my constituency. My town council and I feel that the detention barracks, which have been there a long time now, are creating a problem for us, because we need that land to develop a retirement village for pensioners. We should like to hand it over to the Defence Force, but we need it urgently at the moment.

I want to get back to the debate which took place here this afternoon. In the first place I want to pay tribute to the three components of the SA Defence Force. We want to thank them very sincerely for the selfless service they render. We on this side of the Committee want to tell them that on the occasion of the return of Maj Wynand du Toit to our fatherland we again became aware of the way in which members of the Defence Force make sacrifices for the system of values we are pursuing in this country.

In my constituency I have unfortunately had to stand at the graveside of boys from my town on five occasions. Each time I had to look at the heartbroken faces of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, wives and relatives. Each time I had to try and comfort them, and tell them that Parliament sympathised with them. For that reason I was proud to see that the Defence Force training, and the Government’s and the Parliament’s support for Maj Wynand du Toit, contributed towards supporting him in the years in which he was held prisoner outside his fatherland.

If we look at the statistics on how many members of the Force have been killed in action in the period since our boys started defending this country’s borders, we cannot but admit that the money we make available for defence in this Appropriation, which provides equipment and security for our soldiers, is money well spent. If it cost us R1 million, as has been alleged, to keep Klaas de Jonge in custody, I say that it was money well spent. The fact that we could keep him in custody gave us bargaining power to get Wynand du Toit back to our country.

I want to thank Maj du Toit for his public admission that he had never doubted that we and the Government would negotiate his release. [Interjections.] I believe that members of Parliament must always give members of the Defence Force the secure knowledge that we and the Government stand by them. For that reason I want to express thanks on behalf of this side of the House, and also thank the hon the Minister for arranging regular visits to the border for both ourselves and our wives.

When my wife and I are invited, on our arrival we regularly take the opportunity to make contact with the boys from our town. We look for them, and we report back to their parents, friends and family on the welfare of their soldiers on the border.

During one such visit my wife met a bronzed young man from my constituency in a trench. She took a photograph of him. She told him he should write a message to his mother and she would give it to her. On her arrival back in Acacia Park, she immediately telephoned the mother and told her that she had met her son on the border and had spoken to him, and that all was well with him. She also told her that she had taken a photograph of him and that she would bring the photograph with her when she returned to the constituency. The mother was pleasantly surprised and happy at the good news. However, fourteen days later we were standing at his graveside and we handed his mother the photograph there. She still has that photograph.

For that reason I want to appeal to members of the House of Assembly not to use this kind of visit we make to members of the Defence Force on the border for political gain. [Interjections.] We must not do this, because members of the Defence Force and their next of kin greatly appreciate what members of Parliament are doing. When someone’s luggage is on the aircraft and someone else makes a mistake, he must not withdraw, because then he is turning this into a political issue. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House—even if we were in the Opposition benches—would never allow anyone to keep us away from the border… [Interjections]… even if we were sitting over there. Even if someone were deliberately or accidentally to let slip that we were visiting the border, we would go anyway. I believe that every hon member on this side can say that.

The Defence Force member who is there, is there to defend this country. He runs the same security risks we do, and we cannot make the feeble excuse that this will affect our safety. Those people on the border are in danger every moment.

However, when we were invited overseas to Delville Wood we also knew that there were dangers. The enemy told us that they were waiting for us and that they were going to take action against us. We knew the risks were high. We were travelling on a boat on the Seine in Paris, and after 15 minutes there was a bomb threat and we had to leave the boat. A bomb was placed near our hotel. We ran the same security risks, but not one of us—or the Opposition—ran away from that overseas tour. They were all there.

By the way, what were you doing there? You are not a soldier.

Order!

I want to tell that hon member that I underwent my training in factories, where I helped to design the armaments we use today. [Interjections.] I worked there day and night, and I was never afraid.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must restrain himself.

I was at Delville Wood, and I have attended the wreath-laying ceremonies in my town every year since I became a member of the town council. I wonder whether that hon member can say the same. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, these hon members turned this into a political issue. That is why I am asking that we must not involve our security forces in this. Our country cannot afford it. Our people who are on the border to ensure the safety of this country, do not deserve it. If we can sing “At thy will to live or perish…” at political meetings, we must also sing it at the border, standing with the soldiers.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Boksburg has spoken. I wish to thank the hon member for the positive contribution he made here this afternoon. We know him to be an hon member of this House who is closely involved with the SA Defence Force, not only in his constituency but also in the broader context. I shall come back, at a later stage, to some of the arguments advanced by the hon member.

Mr Chairman, permit me to commence by conveying my sincere thanks to the hon the State President, who has afforded me the opportunity, in these exciting times, of forming part of this strong team of the SA Defence Force and the Ministry. It is a privilege to be part of this team. It is a still greater privilege to work with, and under the leadership of, the hon the Minister of Defence. I wish to state here today that South Africa is greatly privileged to have, in these times, a man of the calibre of the hon the Minister of Defence, with his expertise and knowledge, at the helm.

I pay tribute to the SA Defence Force and specifically the Chief of the SA Defence Force, General Geldenhuys, the chiefs of the various arms of the Defence Force and to Armscor. We sincerely thank them for the service that they and those they command have rendered the RSA and all its people over the past year. This year I have attended many occasions at which the 75th anniversary of the SA Defence Force has been celebrated. I wish to congratulate them on the outstanding way in which these celebrations were presented. The culmination of these events occurred in Cape Town, of course, where the hon the State President took the salute at an exceptional parade. I think it was one of the finest parades ever presented in the history of the SA Defence Force. It is just a pity that some parties withdrew from that occasion.

I wish to associate myself with other hon members who have expressed their utmost sympathy with the next of kin of those sons of South Africa, whatever their race or colour, who during this year laid down their lives in the service of South Africa and for the safety of all our people.

I should also like to extend my cordial congratulations to the NP’s chief spokesman on Defence, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, on his acting as chief spokesman on Defence for the NP for the first time. We wish him, too, everything of the best.

I should like to extend my sincere thanks to all hon members, particularly hon members on this side, for their contributions in the debate thus far. It has been stated several times this afternoon that we must elevate the SA Defence Force above party politics. I agree with that, but we must also qualify that by saying that we should elevate it above petty party politics, because I think that that is where the majority of hon members fall down. In this Parliament the various parties must also be prepared to take their political medicine when the time comes for it to be administered. They must then not run away like a lot of naughty children and say: “Now I am taking my marbles and leaving, and I am not playing any more.” No, Sir. We must take our medicine and not resort to boycott actions, as we have seen here in recent times.

I find it absolutely astonishing that hon members of the Official Opposition and the PFP told us this afternoon that they hoped that these arguments in regard to the visit to the border—concerning invitations that some people did not receive, and the reasons why other people withdrew them—would not be raised here this afternoon.

How naïve.

How naïve—the hon member is correct. How naïve can one really be in this regard? Before coming to that, I should like to exchange a few words with the hon member for Overvaal. I think that this was the first time, in the past few years, that the hon member for Overvaal and I have spoken to one another in such a relaxed atmosphere. The hon member spoke this afternoon about a “gentleman’s agreement” that he wants to enter into with me, and now I want to tell the hon member that he is on the right track. [Interjections.] The hon member referred to a speech I made in this House on 20 May in which I supposedly said—I did in fact say it—that the hon member had on occasion been guilty of using crude and unrestrained language, and now the hon member says that I should apologise to him for saying that…

No, that is not what I am saying.

… if I can prove that he ever used such language. That is how he qualified it.

In this House.

Yes, in this House.

I want to tell the hon member that it is unnecessary for me to apologise to him. If the hon member wants to know when he said it, all he has to do is read his Hansards of recent years, particularly in the Defence debate, and in so many other debates. He will find it there.

I did that and did not find anything.

In that case the hon member had better get a few other hon members to help him find it and perhaps quote it to him.

The other matters raised by the hon member for Overvaal were dealt with very effectively by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, and I shall leave the matter at that.

I want to come back to the whole issue of border visits. This matter was touched on by two hon members, the hon members for Durban Central and Pietersburg. I do not think it is necessary that we persist in arguing with one another about this matter, and therefore I should like to place it in perspective. I note in the Press that the hon member for Durban Central either challenged someone or threatened to take him to court. He did so again today when he challenged the hon member Dr Geldenhuys to repeat his statements outside this House. I want to try to place the matter in perspective for the hon member. Basically I shall be saying the same things, both here and outside this House, as the hon member Dr Geldenhuys said. It is unnecessary to challenge us. We need only look at the facts.

In the first place I want to tell the hon member that the SA Defence Force acts as an instrument of the State. ANC terrorists are enemies of this State. I hope the hon member heard that. Everywhere in their documents it is clearly stated that they advocate violence as a solution. The bomb explosion in Johannesburg, for which Umkhonto we Sizwe accepted responsibility, is yet another example of the violence, disruption and destruction emanating from the ranks of the ANC. As far as we on this side of the House and the SA Defence Force are concerned, the Defence Force has a directive from the State to fight terrorism wherever it may occur. That is the message to the soldier and that is his task. That is how he ensures the safety of hon members sitting in the PFP benches, of whom the hon member for Durban Central is one.

Now, however, it is expected of us to take a man, who holds discussions with the ANC, to Defence Force bases to acquire information about matters, evaluations and situations involving security. Surely that does not make sense, Sir.

I thank the hon member Prof Olivier, who also said that we should not cast doubt on his loyalty and that of others, and the issue here is specifically that I cast doubt on the hon member’s loyalty. I wish to put it clearly to the hon member once again. I am not saying that the hon member for Durban Central will convey to the ANC any information he acquires at a Defence Force briefing session of this nature. What I am saying is that it does not make sense.

It is not reconcilable with the soldier’s directive and the fact that the terrorist is the enemy of the Government. This is a matter of the morale of the soldiers, and I ask that hon members understand this. The fact that one holds discussions with the ANC and consorts with them cannot be reconciled with the fact that the very next week or two he holds discussions with the Defence Force and consorts with it. Those two facts are not reconcilable; there is simply no logic in that.

The motivation of our soldiers is far too important to create among them an image of double standards as far as our defence is concerned.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

Mr Chairman, my time is very limited and unfortunately I cannot reply to questions now.

It is as well that we take a very close look at the purpose of the SA Defence Force in arranging visits of opinion-formers and other influential members of our society to the operational area. As one of the most important things that build up the morale of our security forces, as well as that of the border population, it has long been policy to permit visits to the operational area. Therefore we take pleasure in taking opinion-formers to the operational area so that they themselves can see what is going on and can convey the message, but also so that our soldiers, our Defence Force, can see that they have the necessary support from those people. The troops must know that they have the support of all levels of the population, and of their political leaders in particular. For these reasons it has been decided to take influential people to the operational area. In this way we enable opinion-formers to gain first-hand knowledge of circumstances in the operational area and to convey that knowledge to the population.

Surely it goes without saying that a man who has just held discussions with the ANC, the enemy of the SA Defence Force, cannot simply, without further ado, be brought into contact with this Defence Force and its inner echelons. That is why the motivation of the soldier and the message passed to the population at large is far more important than the inclusion of certain individuals in such a group of visits, and I hope that the hon member understands the motivation for our actions as far as this matter is concerned.

With regard to the border-visit by the CP, I just want to say that those hon members now wish to emphasise the security aspect. However, that does not hold water. I wish to state clearly to the hon members that nothing was said about times of departure. Everyone knew, and they need only ask who knew—they should also ask the families of those hon members who had for a long time been telling everyone that there was to be a visit to the border. However, I wish to say that it was not the CP, but the SA Defence Force, which had to make the security arrangements. They had to see to it that those hon members arrived there safely, and the hon member for Boksburg focused effectively on this point. I thank him for doing so.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, I do not have the time to answer questions.

I wish to state clearly that neither the Ministry of Defence nor the SA Defence Force was responsible for the cancellation of the visit by the Official Opposition. The fact that those hon members did not take the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the latest circumstances is their own fault, Sir. They must not now try all kinds of tricks in order to get away from that fact. It is their own fault and they cannot shift the blame onto anyone else.

I have a few minutes at my disposal to touch on a very important matter, namely school cadets. I know that the PFP, on the one hand, is going to ask me what school cadets have to do with this. They are going to say that we are militarising the youth. On the other hand the CP are going to laugh at me because they laughed at me the last time I spoke about cadets in this House and said that it was such an important own affair. [Interjections.] While I should like to speak about cadets, I just want to refer to certain reports that appeared in the Cape Times of 3 September, in which inter alia the following was stated:

The Cape Times is in possession of a secret manual containing these guidelines, which is issued by the Cape Education Department.

Another extract from this report reads as follows:

What utter rubbish!

Cadets in this country have a proud history, and it is tragic that this newspaper should try to cast suspicion on a proud and noble institution such as our cadet system. I categorically reject the content of that report with the contempt it deserves, because the negative attitude to the cadet system conveyed by this article is objectionable. It is clear that no recognition is given to the realities of the revolutionary onslaught. It is clear that this article ignores urban terrorism and further implies that every citizen of this country who notices anything of a subversive nature should not convey this information to the security forces. I should have liked to say a great deal more about this, but suffice it to say that we believe that in the days and years to come our youth will have to be prepared, and this also goes for the post-school training they must undergo in the SA Defence Force. Therefore we shall not abolish the cadet system in this country. We shall not do so; on the contrary, we would very much like it to improve and develop further.

We should like hon members to ignore these stories aimed at casting suspicion on the cadet system and paralysing it, and not to listen to the stories put out by the EEC and other bodies, which will be referred to later in the course of this debate. That we really must not allow.

I reiterate that the cadet system has a long and proud history. It forms an integral part of a young man’s school career. The cadet system ought to be the pride of every citizen of the country and in no circumstances must it be placed under suspicion. It makes a positive contribution to the good citizenship of our young men and we must ensure that we do everything in our power to motivate our young men to participate with still greater zeal and enthusiasm in the cadet activities of their schools.

I have attended a number of regional cadet competitions this year, and I want to tell hon members today that I am proud of our school cadets in this country. I am proud of the standard they have achieved and I want to appeal to our scholars to support the cadet system and not to concern themselves with the gossip-mongering of subversive organisations or the Cape Times.

Mr Chairman, in reaction to the hon the Deputy Minister, let me just state briefly that I do find it tragic that we should be trying to militarize our youth even further at this stage, instead of teaching them how to work for peace. [Interjections.]

At the very outset I want to make it quite clear that in the more than two years since I have become involved in the monitoring of unrest in the Western Cape, I have not received a single complaint from the Black or Coloured townships concerning the actions of members of the Defence Force in these areas. I think this fact should be placed on record, because I believe that if there had been any complaints they would have reached me. [Interjections.]

Although certain external elements are indeed involved in the conflict in South Africa, we are not primarily involved in a total onslaught orchestrated from Moscow. The war the Government is at present waging in Namibia and, to an increasing extent, in South Africa, is first and foremost a civil war. The White minority Government calls up White boys from Claremont and Kenilworth to go and fight against Black and Coloured boys from Nyanga and Bonteheuwel. [Interjections] These are the facts of the South African conflict.

This situation is a profound South African tragedy in which South Africans have to kill fellow South Africans and in which no one is the victor.

Have you heard of Joe Slovo, Jan?

It is a tragedy when South Africans have to kill other South Africans. [Interjections.] But this is true. Are hon members trying to deny that South Africans are killing other South Africans? [Interjections.] Are hon members denying this?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I do not have the time. [Interjections.]

This tragedy will not be stopped by simply calling up more people and killing more people. That is no solution.

And more necklacing.

That is correct. This must also stop. It stands to reason that one cannot condone necklacing. Do hon members expect me to do that? [Interjections.]

The conflict will only be resolved if the main cause of this civil war is eliminated, and that is the present oppressive apartheid Government. Each time the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning evicts a Coloured or Black family from a house in a White group area he is directly responsible for another young Coloured or Black man rebelling, joining Umkontho we Sizwe and plotting acts of violence against this country. [Interjections.] The apartheid regime is responsible for this.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Mr Chairman, I do not have the time.

As long as the Government continues with its apartheid policy and forcibly continues to suppress all opposition, Black and Coloured South Africans will feel justified in resorting increasingly to acts of violence in order to get rid of the Government. These are the facts, and if one were to investigate the reasons for the violence and study relevant court decisions one would find that the situation that I have outlined does indeed exist. [Interjections.]

†In view of the above it is my belief that this Government has no moral right to force people to take up arms against their fellow South Africans.

Do you support the ECC? [Interjections.]

I am coming to that.

†Not only does it force White South Africans to do just this; at the same time it acts ruthlessly against individuals…

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is the hon member allowed to impugn the laws of the land in this Committee? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is the hon member entitled to seek to use this House to encourage people to break the law? What he is saying is that people should not do military service. I believe that is incitement to break the law, and the hon member is not entitled to do that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

On a further point of order, Mr Chairman: Are you giving a ruling that it is proper to incite people to break the law in South Africa? If that is so, this Committee is getting out of hand. I would suggest then that we call the Chairman. With great respect to you, Sir, I am sorry to say that we cannot have speeches made in this House which incite people to break the law. That is not permissible.

Order! There is freedom of speech in this country. I think the hon member for Claremont should be permitted to speak.

Sir, with all due respect, I stand for freedom of speech too. With great respect, however, incitement to commit an offence is not permissible inside or outside the House. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, nothing whatsoever.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Not only does the Government force young South Africans to do just that, but at the same time it acts ruthlessly against individuals and organizations such as the ECC…

We should have chucked you out.

… that campaign against compulsion.

One of the people who has been ruthlessly acted against by the Government is a 25 year old girl, Sue Lund, who was detained on 22 November last year and who was coincidentally released this morning at 11h30.

For more than nine months this person was kept in prison without having committed a single offence. When asked for reasons, the hon the Minister provided reasons. He said that the person was involved in the implementation of alternative structures, in organizing a consumer boycott and being a member of the ECC. Two of those things are not a crime in this country.

As Miss Lund was released this morning, there is no charge against her. Why keep somebody in prison for nine months if she has in actual fact not committed any crime?

I believe that is an attempt to intimidate people who oppose the present system.

What does that have to do with defence?

The ECC Was one of the reasons why she was detained!

By having kept this young person incarcerated in virtual solitary confinement in North End Prison, Port Elizabeth, this Government has shown itself, I believe, to be vindictive and a bully. [Interjections.]

This is the wrong debate.

Although she has now been released, she has not been set free.

Order! Will the hon member please come back to the Vote under discussion.

Mr Chairman, one of the reasons why this lady was detained was that she took part in the ECC campaign, which directly relates to the Defence Force. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must not argue with me about this matter. We are dealing with defence at the moment and he must not deviate too far from this topic. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I please address you? This young person was incarcerated because she took part in the activities of an organisation which is opposed to compulsory military service, viz the ECC. That is why she was incarcerated.

Order! The hon member has already made that point. He must please come back to the Vote.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The time allotted to the hon member by the Whips has expired.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman, members on both sides of this Committee will permit me to say, before I start my argument this afternoon, that I cannot simply allow 14 September 1987 to pass unnoticed. Three years ago today our hon State President became the State President of the Republic of South Africa. We pay tribute to him. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Claremont made certain statements in his speech and adopted certain standpoints which emphasised that he was not a friend of the SA Defence Force and the loyal members of the Defence Force. On 2 September 1987, and again today in this Chamber, this hon member openly confirmed his support for the extra-parliamentary politics, inter alia, of the EEC which I want to deal with today. I want to ask the hon member one thing this afternoon: He made sure that he did not have to undergo national service. His behaviour in the past and his behaviour now are rejected with contempt by all reasonable South Africans. [Interjections.]

It is a great honour and privilege for me, as a former Citizen Force officer, to be able to participate in this debate on the Vote of the hon the Minister of Defence this afternoon. As I have indicated, I want to talk about the organisation aimed at ending national service, or the “End Conscription Campaign” (ECC) as it is generally known.

Get him!

This organisation took shape in 1983 at the annual congress of the Black Sash in Cape Town and was established in Durban in the same year. The pioneers of this movement were the SA Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the student movement, Nusas. Active support was also received from the SA Council of Churches, other church groups, the UDF, the PFP youth—to which I shall return again later—and nowadays also certain extra-parliamentary politicians.

It is very important that we dwell for a moment on the objectives of this organisation—to which the hon member for Claremont referred—and that we consider what this organisation, which is a direct enemy of the SA Defence Force, stands for. What are they striving for? In the first place they stand for an end to compulsory national service; in the second place they want to portray the SA Defence Force as a threat to peace and the custodian of an unfair system—the so-called “unjust society”; in the third place they want to cast suspicion on defence expenditure; in the fourth place, as the hon the Deputy Minister has said, they want to discredit the school cadet system; in the fifth place they want to discredit the chaplains’ service; and in the sixth place, they want to gain increasing sympathy abroad for their struggle and the attendant monetary support. Over the years these organisations have become increasingly relentless in their struggle to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, and they leave no stone unturned to achieve this. They have full-time offices and staff and they also go on official overseas trips to achieve their objectives increasingly and to discredit our country and the SA Defence Force.

The Cape Times of 29 June 1987 published a report on Mr Laurie Nathan, former national organiser of this organisation, who had just returned from a seven-week tour of the USA. According to this report he spoke in 30 cities. I am quoting:

The primary targets of this movement are school children and students. According to Cape Times of 6 November 1986 they are also opposed to the calling up of all men up to the age of 55 years.

In order to perform its task productively, this organisation is making increasing use of subtle and defined indoctrination endeavours and methods, by means of so-called cultural evenings, evenings of music, drama, cabaret, poetry, exhibitions and even a picnic for children at the home of the Archbishop of Cape Town, Bishop Tutu. They also disseminate their message through various publications, and I want to mention two of them to hon members, Echoes and At Ease, which do nothing but discredit the SA Defence Force, and which are riddled with subtle and well-planned political clichés to arouse the feelings of the youth.

It is interesting to see how their onslaught has gradually become fiercer, stronger and severer. According to information, there are plans to erect permanent statues in Cape Town and its environs through which they will pay tribute, inter alia, to those young people who have no choice but to serve in the SADF and have to undergo national service and, I am quoting:

I understand it is planned to unveil these statutes in October 1987.

It is interesting that the ANC speaks the same language as this organisation, and I am quoting to hon members from a publication of the ANC, Education for War, from which I can unfortunately only quote a few sentences:

What do the hon members of the PFP say about this organisation, however? On 13 April of this year the hon the Minister of Defence specifically asked them in Grahams-town what their standpoint was. The former hon member for Edenvale gave a reply which dealt with the technical details of national service. What, however, did Mr Horace van Rensburg say about the organisation? On 17 February 1987 he made a speech in this House from which I want to quote (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 948) a speech in which he spoke about the PFP youth movement:

Hon members must listen closely to what follows—

I hope that the PFP will tell us unequivocally and clearly whether or not they support the objectives of the End Conscription Campaign.

This afternoon I want to pay tribute to all national servicemen in South Africa. I also want to tell them that without them and the system of national service it would not be possible for South Africa to develop its full economic potential, and we could not continue with meaningful reform, the objective of which is the welfare of all our people in this country.

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Defence whether he will not order an inquiry into the activities of this organisation. In our struggle for survival we cannot afford to fight an enemy from within our borders too. As I have tried to indicate, this organisation is not well-disposed towards the SADF and the youth of South Africa. I feel we are entitled to investigate their activities.

Mr Chairman, the answers which the hon member Mr Van Gend were seeking, he can find in Hansard of 29 May 1985, col 6464, in the speech of the former Leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert. [Interjections.] In fact, we still stand exactly by that policy.

The hon the Deputy Minister had much to say about the lowering of morale by speaking to what he described as the enemy. I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if speaking to Swapo with a view to ending the conflict constitutes the same lowering of morale. If the Government speaks to Swapo are they not lowering the morale of the troops?

The most important matter I wish to raise in today’s debate is the issuing of the weakening military balance of power, in my opinion, between the combatant forces in the Southern Angolan border area. I am deeply concerned about the fact that Unita’s position becomes more difficult every year. Therefore it is also becoming increasingly difficult for our Defence Force, which has thus far been committed to supporting Unita. I am deeply concerned about the possibility that South Africa is slowly but surely going to be involved in its own kind of Vietnam. [Interjections.]

According to the statement made by the hon the Minister of Defence on 20 September 1985 the Defence Force does have a link with Unita—as he put it. In that statement the hon the Minister said that the link was of a material, humanitarian and moral nature. [Interjections.] In that statement the hon the Minister advanced five reasons as to why we have a link with Unita. The first four reasons were largely concerned with the combating of communism, but the fifth reason was a military reason. He said that the link with Unita was also in our own interests, because Unita controls a part of Southern Angola where no Swapo terrorist is allowed to move freely.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing.

Sir, what is at issue here is solely the fifth reason, which is a purely military one. The other four points belong, for the most part, in the arena of foreign affairs. [Interjections.]

The fact of the Marxist influence in Angola ought not, in itself, to be of major military significance. Hon members can compare it with the fact that there is a Marxist government in Mozambique. However the important questions I want to ask in this debate—they are military questions—are the following. Firstly, for how long can South Africa, on its own, wage the struggle against Marxist expansionism in support of Unita in Angola without finding itself in very deep waters from a military point of view? Secondly, is it in fact the case that we would not be able to protect South West Africa/Namibia fully against Swapo infiltration if Unita were to lose its struggle against the Fapla forces? Thirdly, is our link with Unita a relationship which must persist to point of a last-ditch stand in the interests of South Africa? These are three very important military questions. I wish to emphasise that I do not wish to touch on the political aspects of this whole matter at this point. I am not dealing with any issue of destabilisation or the political desirability or otherwise of our involvement in that region.

Do you think it is undesirable.

I am leaving aside those issues for the time being and focusing on considerations relating to the balance of military power in that region.

†What concerns me deeply is the fear that although South Africa may well have derived certain important military benefits from the situation, from backing Unita, the price of those benefits are perhaps becoming too great a price to pay?

Consider the escalation which has taken place. Twelve years ago, when we first went into Angola—we need not concern ourselves about the whys and the wherefores—there were no significant foreign troops to speak of. Today—according to statistics published in The Military Balance for 1985-86—the Angolans have 50 000 of their own troops in the field, together with some 27 000 Cuban troops and some 8 000 Cuban instructors and advisers, including highly trained combat pilots and technicians. To what levels will those numbers continue to increase in the years to come if there is no settlement of the conflict?

Secondly, twelve years ago Angola had no sophisticated strike aircraft or ground-to-air, anti-aircraft missiles at their disposal. Today, whereas our own air attack and defence strength has not grown as dramatically as that of the other side, according to this publication the Angolans have four combat aircraft squadrons including 62 Mig 21’s and 23 Mig 23’s. Apparently they also have access to even more sophisticated strike aircraft.

Today they are reported to have large numbers of SAM-6, SAM-8 and SAM-9 ground-to-air missiles capable of shooting down our aircraft, as well as some 30 sophisticated attack helicopters on order. Furthermore, in addition to the Cubans, there are reported to be some 500 East German intelligence and security advisers and some 950 Russian advisers and technicians.

It seems, therefore, that the military balance of power, in the air in particular, has been shifting slowly but inexorably against us, and also that the Fapla offensive against Unita is slowly but surely getting tighter. The question is how long we can hold out by ourselves. If other Western nations do not assess the situation in the same way as we do, and are not going to give meaningful military assistance as well, are we not going to reach a stage at which South Africa may find herself in deeper water than we can handle?

Are you saying that we should surrender?

Is it not going to come to a situation where we may as a result sustain severe losses that we cannot afford?

I am not saying that we have serious military problems immediately; I am not even putting any timetable on the problem. However, I do ask what future prospects the hon the Minister is holding out to South Africa with regard to our continued military involvement there. Does he believe that we can, together with Unita, achieve a victory over the combined forces of the MPLA, the Cubans and the Eastern bloc? Does he believe that Unita, with our backing, can be installed as a new government in Angola, or does he believe that the status quo can simply be maintained on an indefinite basis, in spite of the inexorable escalation of strength on the other side? If not, then what is the hon the Minister holding out as our broad strategic objective in Angola? I fear that this could develop into our own Vietnam in the fullness of time and we need to debate it openly.

The Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver which raises the possibility of military assistance to the other frontline states, prevents further problems in this regard. We could find ourselves facing a build-up by the East on our Western flank, and a build-up by the West on our Eastern flank.

Mr Chairman, I will reply later to the questions that the hon member for Constantia put to me. I would just like to say that there is a very close co-operation between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the military; between my colleague and myself. When we make decisions in this country as far as military activities or foreign affairs activities are concerned, it is a question of the Government deciding upon it—it is a co-ordinated effort.

*Mr Chairman, I consider it most important that there should be no thought of playing off one against the other; on the contrary, these are two departments which go hand in hand and consult each other daily.

I wish to start off by saying that I find it very pleasant to be able to participate in the discussion of this Vote today. It is always very educational to be able to sit and listen to hon members’ views on the national security of South Africa as well. Hon members usually have a very keen sense of awareness in consequence of visits they have paid, their thorough preparation and lively interest—with justification—in national security. As a result they also make—we have seen this again today—a positive contribution of high quality on the SA Defence Force and Armscor. There was no discordant note as regards these two organisations, and I wish to thank hon members for that.

I must say this has been one of the calmest debates on my Vote I have ever experienced here. Last time the former Official Opposition told me I should take a salary cut; no money should be paid in. An acrimonious battle ensued. Today we are complimenting one another, and I want to thank hon members for this.

Now a bunch of them will be losing their salaries.

I shall respond later to questions and comment from various hon members. I shall be in a position to respond to that.

I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those of the SA Defence Force and Armscor who have sacrificed their lives since we last discussed this Vote. On behalf of the Government, the SA Defence Force and, I may say, on behalf of the South African community, I should like to pay our respects to their memory. I should also like to acknowledge the wounded and commend those of the SA Defence Force and Armscor who have rendered such outstanding service over the past year. I have all population groups in mind here. They all serve in this defence family. I am referring to ladies and gentlemen; to military personnel; to civilians; I am also alluding to their next of kin who have supported these people over a very difficult year. I wish to compliment all who are associated with the defence family and thank them very much for their support and for the good work done. The SA Defence Force and Armscor—the defence family—can be very proud of results achieved over the past year. These are men and women who always give only of their best. By rendering such good service, they assist us in ensuring the future of South Africa as we sit here today, able to debate calmly and differ with one another politically, while in South Africa there is security. This is an aspect for which all hon members should be truly grateful.

Mr Chairman, allow me to make a few comments about the hon the State President who has held the office of the executive Head of State of South Africa for precisely three years today.

Hear, hear!

On behalf of the Committee and of South Africa I wish to congratulate him and thank him for the leadership he has provided in South Africa, for his perseverance and dedication. I want to tell him that the course he has adopted for us is the only one which will guarantee South Africa’s success, and that is the crux of the matter.

Hear, hear!

Many milestones—such as monuments of reform—mark the course of the hon the State President’s career. All these monuments have one factor in common, which is that they are aimed at improving the quality of life of all South Africans. This has always been his ideal and he has always worked purposefully towards its realisation.

I should like to refer, in this Committee, to one of the monuments in the Defence Force context. It is a special privilege to be able to refer to it because I find it a practical demonstration of what he envisaged and what he achieved. All the people of all political persuasions who were present and who made use of the hospitality extended on the visit to that monument—most hon members were there—returned brimming with compliments and styled it a huge success. Harmony reigns among all population groups and everyone serves there. The quality of life of the people there has been enhanced dramatically. I am referring to the hon the State President’s monument of Omega.

I am also pleased that the discussion of my Vote, Defence, could take place today because under the leadership of the hon the State President we have a modern Armscor today. In the sixties the hon the State President realised, in his farsightedness, that arms sanctions were looming on the horizon. He gave instructions that we should become self-sufficient. Armscor tackled this problem and in 1977, when the world-wide arms embargo was instituted against South Africa, this country of ours was self-sufficient. Whereas we imported arms and ammunition in the past, today we are exporters. Thanks to Armscor, we have progressed even further. Today we have become a world leader as regards certain weapons systems, and to my mind this is a remarkable achievement.

I want to tell hon members they should not think it always goes swimmingly with Armscor. It may be accepted that we have now been cut off from the world; there will be no further chance of imports. Armscor will now have to develop its own technology, but it is capable of doing so because the hon the State President taught Armscor a lesson. He set an example in the sixties and seventies because he cheerfully has to accept his challenges and convert them into opportunities. Armscor is doing this now.

The SA Defence Force is 75 years old today and I consider this a remarkable achievement. One recalls the successful participation of the SA Defence Force in two World Wars and subsequently in the Korean War. One also bears in mind that the SA Defence Force has been involved, for 21 years, in a revolutionary onslaught against South Africa, and is still chalking up successes. The SA Defence Force has adapted itself to entirely different circumstances and has faced up to these challenges successfully.

It was under the leadership of the hon the State President that this Defence Force was expanded into the deterrent it is today, one which at the same time has the flexibility to take action against new challenges facing South Africa. I pay tribute to the SA Defence Force and to Armscor and wish to thank them for the service they have rendered.

I am also particularly privileged today to be able to refer to Gen Webster who retired on his 70th birthday. He attained the highest rank as a civil defence force officer and provided excellent service. He launched the veterans’ organisation as it were, an organisation which cares for ex-servicemen at present and therefore furnishes a most essential service.

I also wish to pay tribute to the hon the Deputy Minister. He was appointed on 1 December last year, so this is the first time he is participating, in this capacity, in the discussion of our Vote. He is a valued colleague and renders excellent service. He is a loyal and hard worker who pulls his weight. I can assure hon members that it is not always easy to be accepted into the fold by the SA Defence Force or the defence family, but he has already become one of us thanks to his previous experience in connection with the SA Defence Force. I want to thank him for the outstanding work he does.

My congratulations go to the Executive General Manager of Armscor, Mr Johan van Vuuren, who has been appointed since the previous discussion of this Vote. He has already achieved a great measure of success as far as Armscor is concerned.

I want to welcome the hon member for Krugersdorp as the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Security Services. He is known to us as a fighter for the security forces. I also wish to welcome the nominated hon member Dr Boy Geldenhuys who acts as the chairman of the study group of my party. Hon members listened to the excellent contribution he made.

Hear, hear!

I wish to thank the Chief of the SA Defence Force, Gen Geldenhuys, as well as the Chairman of Armscor, Comdt Marais, for their personal support, their loyalty, their sacrifice and for the success those two organisations achieve. All of us in the House are grateful for this, because this is an assurance of the security and the future of the Republic of South Africa. I wish them every success for the future.

This leads me to the following point, the exchange of Major Du Toit, which took place last Monday. I am most grateful for his safe return and his reunion with his family. This was a happy occasion for us all, for all South Africans. On behalf of the House I also wish to convey my thanks to all countries involved and all individuals who played a part. I want to thank two people in particular. Firstly, my thanks to the person providing the driving force and the motivation behind this entire success story—the hon the State President. Secondly, I thank the man who gained nothing from this entire transaction but who was still prepared to do his share for South Africa—Dr Savimbi. The hon member for Constantia spoke on the relationship, or lack of it, with Unita a while ago. We have a certain relationship with Unita—I shall get to that later—but Unita also has a particular relationship with us. Take this case, for instance. Without Dr Savimbi we would not have managed it; in other words, it is a mutual relationship.

Great expectations were created in connection with this exchange—as I think everybody here became aware. Some parties came forward and said we had reached a Utopia, that peace had descended on this subcontinent. They said a new era of negotiations would dawn on the subcontinent now, as a result of this exchange, and that more approachability and a greater sense of reasonableness would result. I should like to caution or warn hon members, however; I regret having to do this, but we should come back to realities of the situation and face up to the realities of Africa—of which we are a part. This is not the first time we have been involved in exchange procedures with Angola. This is the fourth time, since 1978, and we should bear that in mind. I want to ask what the other three exchange procedures gained for us—a handful of nothing! Hon members should therefore not grasp at these straws and hope that this will realise all our aspirations of peace and progress on this subcontinent.

Large parts of this subcontinent remain the unfortunate victim—I am very pleased the hon member for Constantia referred to this—of aggressive Russian imperialism and the penetration which is taking place here. There are still more than 45 000 Cuban military personnel in Angola. I want to ask what they are doing there for a start. If someone asks me about our relationship with Unita, why does he not also ask what the Cubans and Russians are doing on this subcontinent of ours. That is the question we, as South Africans, should ask ourselves. [Interjections.] Do they intend making us adopt the same course as Central America? Is that why the Cubans are coming in here?

An hon member quoted from a document and said a proportional imbalance was being created. This is common knowledge and I agree with what he said. The Russians continue to bring more and more sophisticated armaments into Angola; they are bringing in an incredible amount. Why are they doing so? It is unnecessary for a civil war. We have to consider what they intend doing. For what purpose are those weapons being brought here? What is their final destination? What is the ultimate aim on in this subcontinent of ours?

I see that Dr Chester Crocker is conducting discussions with Angola on behalf of the USA on the future of South West Africa/Namibia. The Head of State of South Africa and his Government which supports him believe that there is a very simple explanation for this. The USA and the RSA have agreed on the replies I shall give in this Committee today.

In the first place, Angola and South West Africa/Namibia are a regional problem. To solve that problem, it would be preferable for us first to solve the problem in Angola and then that of South West Africa/Namibia. One could perhaps be compliant and accommodating by attempting to solve the two problems simultaneously, but the only acceptable solution—this has been agreed—is that the Cubans have to get out of Angola. That is the crux of the matter.

I am not involved in anything new. Hon members must know that Dr Savimbi has frequently come forward and said he wished to be reconciled with his opponents, the MPLA. He is prepared to talk and he wants peace and a truce. He keeps coming forward; it is the MPLA who do not want to talk. They have just told the Americans again that they do not want to talk. Dr Savimbi comes forward because he does not want to destroy his country; he wants to work for its future.

I want to caution hon members, and all South Africans, that we cannot permit the Reds to hoist their flag in Windhoek. That is the reason why South Africa, in its own interests, will have to watch the situation in the area concerned. We do this time and again and we shall continue to do so.

I intend saying much more about facets of this today. I am not poaching on the preserves of the Department of Foreign Affairs or other departments. I am talking for South Africa, in which there are a number of departments which are making co-ordinated efforts toward a common goal. We have always operated in this manner, so hon members must not tell me I am encroaching on other territory, when I discuss this.

There is another reality on this subcontinent, and it is that Angola continues assisting the ANC. It is still granting assistance to Swapo.

It will require action on our part to curb those two elements. In addition the SA Communist Party and the ANC are still being used by the Russians to subvert the established order in the Republic of South Africa.

I want to refer to yet another facet of Angola. The tragedy of that country is that the Russians and the Cubans are again commanding the Angolan forces in a massive offensive against Dr Savimbi’s Unita movement. This is taking place at the moment. We have read a great deal about it in the papers; what we call the annual “dry-season offensive” is taking place. This time there is a strange phenomenon. It is very clear that it is taking place under Russian control, while the Cubans are conducting the offensive. Most remarkable of all is that the Angolans are most unwilling to participate. It appears to me the report has reached them that Dr Savimbi wants to talk and that reconciliation is possibly the solution to the problems of Angola.

In this offensive they are trying to annihilate Unita at any price because that brave movement and its inspiring leader are blocking the way of Communist penetration southwards and eastwards on our region, on this subcontinent of Africa.

South Africa remains the first prize as far as Russia is concerned. We have the mineral resources which Russia wants to deny to the West. In addition, they want control of the Cape sea route. That is the situation in which we have been landed. The value of this route is again being proved at the moment in consequence of activities in the Persian Gulf.

I should like to put it very directly to hon members. We have an interest in what happens in Angola. That country ignores our request to cease granting aid to and harbouring Swapo and ANC terrorists. Consequently we have to continue clamping down on them and flushing them out of their hiding places—as we do.

As regards Unita—the hon member has just referred to it—our link with this organisation is a known fact. I have previously stated that we have moral, humanitarian and material ties. As I put, it as early as 1985—and I am repeating it today—it is in our interest that Unita be the front-line bulwark against communism. It blocks Red expansionism in our region, regardless of whether this is in a southerly or easterly direction.

It is of no avail to ask whether it is a Vietnam situation. It is not; it is a reality.

This brings me to the next aspect I wish to discuss, which deals with people who ask whether we should hold discussions with the ANC. In my opinion this is an important facet, and I should accordingly like to deal with it today.

I want to tell you that dialogue with the ANC—we heard it here this afternoon from numerous hon members who participated in the debate—is not a simple matter. Consequently I shall attempt to deal with the fundamentals here today.

To me the point of departure is that the revolutionary onslaught in South Africa is a very long-drawn-out process in the first place. We shall not find it disappearing overnight. The intensity of this revolutionary onslaught will vary; it will escalate at times and decline at others. The targets will change; there will be a certain type of target which will disappear in time, after which there will again be another type of target.

To revert to the earlier specific targets. This is an action instituted pre-eminently to test South Africa’s staying-power with a view to establishing whether we are prepared to withstand the challenge facing us. I feel very positive about this onslaught against South Africa. We shall overcome it, but they want to test whether we are prepared, whether we have backbone, and whether we are not inclined to throw in the towel in the early stages. We shall be successful against them.

This revolutionary process in South Africa—I consider this an important point—has two clear, indivisible phases. There is a phase one and a phase two. In this so-called revolution the determining factor or the outstanding characteristic is the alliance or relationship between the ANC and the SA Communist Party.

They refer to themselves as the so-called “ANC-SACP Alliance”. That is what they do, and I should like to ask whether our media and hon members should not follow their example in future and also refer to the ANC-SACP Alliance, since this is what they want. This is the term they use!

[Inaudible.]

The ANC is in control of the first phase. The hon member for Grey-town realises this; that is why he went to talk to them. [Interjections.] The ANC is the spokesman; the actor on the stage. It sets the scene, but behind the scenes is the actual producer, the man pulling the strings, the manipulator—the SA Communist Party.

The SA Communist Party has direct links with Moscow, but is also controlled by Moscow, and that is what the hon member for Claremont does not realise. [Interjections.] The SA Communist Party is preparing itself now, and later, at an opportune moment, it will take over from the ANC. We shall then enter the second phase of the onslaught against South Africa.

I therefore want to put it to hon members that the ANC is no listing participant in the future of South Africa unless, of course, it will renounce violence unconditionally or repudiate it but, if it did so, it would lose its soul, and the SA Communist Party would not permit it to do this in the first place. In the second place, no terrorist organisation—and it is one—can permit itself to be deprived of its lifeblood, which is violence and revolution.

†Hon members must not ask me if it is my “gut-feeling”. It is not my gut feeling; history has proved it. Those hon members must go and read history and not make the same mistakes again.

*This is what we should know, and I am addressing the Progs on this issue. There are certain Progs who do not realise this because independent members are taking the floor and discussing situations about which they are ignorant.

Have you read your history?

That is why I always say the PFP is soft on security, because they do not understand security.

You have been reading very strange history!

The ANC can therefore be no lasting participant or partner in dialogue, and we have to realise this. I am therefore asking why those hon members went to Dakar. They would have been better advised to go to Moscow and hold discussions there for a change.

The first phase of this onslaught involves the formulation of very mellifluous phrases or concepts such as “a national democratic revolution” during which a so-called “people’s democracy” will be established. Consequently there is talk here of a so-called “people’s democracy”, and does it not trip sweetly off the tongue? Does it not sound splendidly emotional to speak about a “people’s democracy”?

I think we should ask ourselves what this “people’s democracy” implies. Unfortunately I have to tell hon members that it does not mean more expansive and greater democracy for man. To tell the truth, it means less democracy for man, so the reverse is true. Neither does it imply that all people or most people in a country can participate on a democratic basis. The opposite is actually true, and the word “people” does not imply the inhabitants or the population of a country. It refers merely to the select minority belonging to the party elite and comprising the small governing clique.

That is just what is happening now.

It is therefore a small part of the total population.

That is exactly what is happening now.

That is the people’s democracy and I will come back now to the question of reform to tell those hon members what the opposite is, because they do not have an idea of what the opposite is either.

*This is very important and, if the hon member had listened very closely, he might perhaps have realised this, and that is why he is trying to create such a stir now. So you see Sir, a Western democracy and a “people’s democracy” are the exact opposite. They are not the same thing.

We don’t say it either. [Interjections.]

There are numerous examples of such “people’s democracies”. Look, for example, at Angola and Mozambique not far from here.

And Cape Town.

They have a people’s democracy there. There one has chaos.

*There is misery and famine and a civil war is in progress. A “people’s democracy” implies a one-party state, and I want to tell hon members that is exactly what the ANC and the SA Communist Party imply; they even tell us as much.

The ANC continues to abide by that so-called freedom manifesto, the Freedom Charter, to which we listened earlier this afternoon. It regards this document as the starting point for dialogue. It forms a type of basic document it wishes to use in its negotiating process. This is a very significant document; one should not summarily dismiss it. The mistake that is made is that most people consider that document the final objective or final document. They do not realise that it is only the starting point to negotiations. That document will fall away, Sir. In the second phase, when the switch to the communist ideology takes place, ie when the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes operative, the Freedom Charter will disappear from the scene entirely.

I see the hon member for Claremont shaking his head, but surely he knows this. He knows; that is what he is striving for. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, listen to him shaking his head! [Interjections.] If he had understood these matters, surely we would not have heard that. [Interjections.]

The reason for the existence of the first phase is merely to present an acceptable recipe. This is to be replaced by the new recipe of the second phase. We should consider the realities of this very carefully. One of the realities is that neither the ANC nor the SA Communist Party regards this freedom manifesto as the final document. They regard it as an interim objective and a starting point. They consider it as something which can provide them with a view of the future.

This is a good document, Sir. That is why it is acceptable in Western circles. That is why the West asks us why we do not negotiate on the basis of that document. Nevertheless, the crux of the matter—this is also acknowledged by the communists—is that the ANC will be short-lived and will disappear. This is no basis for dialogue because it has only a limited lifetime.

Phase 2 is fundamental. The SA Communist Party programme accepts that this manifesto, which serves as bait, will apply only during phase 1. When phase 1 has been bridged, the manifesto will disappear and the power of the Communist Party come to the fore. In phase 2 the National Democratic Revolution will develop into a socialist revolution. The so-called “people’s democracy” flows over, in essence, into the communist ideology of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Communist Party has very firm control over the ANC in the revolutionary war against South Africa. The basic planning and lines of thought do not emanate from the ANC; they originate with the SA Communist Party.

I am of the opinion that those who advocate dialogue, or those who ignore the alliance, do not really know with whom they are conducting dialogue when they talk to these people. They do not realise they are talking to the masters, the manipulators of the ANC behind the scenes. That is why dialogue with the ANC is limited only to the framework of the first phase. Domination will emerge in the second phase and then they will dance to the SA Communist Party’s tune.

This leads me to the next aspect, national security in the Republic of South Africa, on which I should like to talk very briefly. It is the background of this onslaught being launched against South Africa by the alliance of the ANC and the SA Communist Party which brings me to national security.

I do not intend supplying the academic concept of these words. I actually want to define them in the following way, and that is that national security involves the visible, the tangible environment of man. This is an environment in which a person can lead a normal life—in which he is free to go shopping; in which his life is not threatened; in which he has no fear of intimidation; in which he has freedom of movement and in which order and stability are maintained and pursued.

What is of further importance is that national security can only be ensured when a totally co-ordinated effort takes place in the country. It therefore requires an effectively co-ordinated administrative mechanism with purposeful control to strive for national security. The national security of South Africa is currently being threatened by a revolutionary onslaught which primarily desires, at the moment, the forcible overthrow of this dispensation, this tricameral system, of which we all form an equal part, and its replacement by its own order, an order which will consist of a one-party state. These are its aspirations.

Secondly, certain targets and objectives have been selected to attain these goals. Nevertheless the enemy will not succeed in this; they will not succeed in their action. In this regard the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis spoke very feelingly about motivation. We as South Africans are too motivated to permit this common foe to gain a foothold here and send us off course. We are prepared to convert these challenges into opportunities.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.