Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the Bill covering parliamentary approval is being requested for the expenditure of an additional R100 050 during the financial year ending 31st March, 1972.

The State President has, in terms of the power which he has under section 24 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, authorized the issue of this amount, and the object of this Bill is simply to comply with the provisos as contained in subsection b (ii) of the relevant section, viz. that amounts issued by special warrant “shall be submitted for appropriation by Parliament not later than during its next ensuing session”.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is an extraordinary and historic one as this is the first time, since South Africa became a Republic and possibly since Union, that Parliament is being requested to appropriate funds in respect of a financial year which has just ended. I am, of course, not referring to the annual Bills on unauthorized expenditure. As hon. members know, accounting officers are required to keep a close watch on the expenditure on the Votes under their control and to revise their Votes from time to time and, where necessary, to apply for additional funds well in advance. Since departmental requisitions for additional funds are closely scrutinized by the Treasury as well as this House, it follows that departments limit their requisitions for additional funds to the minimum, the more so because the Treasury adopts a firm attitude towards departments which surrender considerable amounts of money because of over-estimates.

When the Additional Estimates were prepared in February it was expected that, in the case of the Vote Health: Hospitals and Institutions there would be an excess of R930 000 in respect of salaries, wages and allowances, and subsistence and travelling expenses, but since savings, from which the excess was expected to be partly covered, were anticipated on other subheads, only R813 000 was requested in respect of salaries, wages and allowances while no requisition was made in respect of subsistence and travelling expenses. At the end of March, however, it appeared that savings would be considerably less, and a Special Warrant for R100 000 was obtained from the State President to cover this shortfall.

In regard to the additional amount requested for Water Affairs, it is the case that, when the Additional Estimates were prepared, we were aware of the possibility that ex gratia payments would most probably have to be made to the Orange-Fish tunnel contractors, but since this matter was still at that time being considered by a departmental committee no provision could of course be made. The report of the interdepartmental committee has been considered by the Cabinet, which is satisfied that a concession to the contractors is justified. Since payment, owing to certain considerations, had to be effected before 31st March, 1972, a Special Warrant was obtained from the State President in this case as well. The total amount paid to the firms was R6 590 000, but since it has been possible to cover this amount from savings on the Vote in question, a nominal amount of only R50 is being requested in order to obtain approval in principle.

Mr. Speaker, I do not, at this stage, wish to say anything further about the amounts which are being requested, but if any of the hon. members want further information in this regard, my colleagues will be prepared to furnish them with further explanations during the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill which is better dealt with in the Committee Stage and consequently we do not propose to go into the matter in detail at the Second Reading. We support the Second Reading and we shall examine the detail during the Committee Stage. The Bill indicates that a substantial amount is required and in that connection we shall ask the hon. the Minister to furnish further information during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, an amount of R100 000 is being voted here for Health: Hospitals and Institutions. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will be good enough to explain how this amount has been arrived at and for what purpose it is being used. He stated briefly that it may be used for subsistence allowances and so on, but could he give us some detail about it?

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Health, who has to be in the Senate, I should like to furnish the following explanation in connection with the appropriation of this amount and the necessity for a Special Warrant from the State President. In the Second Revised Estimates of Expenditure this year, it was estimated that, under subheads A, B, C and F, the following additional amounts would be required apart from the amounts which had been calculated: Shortfall of R875 000 in respect of salaries, allowances and wages; a shortfall of R55 000 in respect of subsistence and travelling; a shortfall of R23 000 in respect of Posts and Telegraphs and an anticipated surplus of R140 000 in respect of stores and services.

This anticipated surplus was in respect of stores and services rendered to the Defence Force for ophthalmic, surgical and medical services, and so forth. The difference between the total amount of the anticipated shortfall and the surplus amounted to R813 000, which, as the hon. member is probably aware, was approved in the Additional Estimates. This was done on 2nd March of this year, but since that date quite a number of outstanding accounts were received from the Department of Defence in respect of stores and services with the result that expenditure on the fifth item of subhead 5, viz. “Stores and Services” in the Main Estimates, increased by approximately R100 000, reducing the anticipated saving of R140 000 in this case to only R40 000. Insufficient provision to the extent of an amount of R100 000 has therefore been made; anticipated expenditure was therefore exceeded by R100 000. This has to be added to the original amount of R875 000.

However, at that stage it also appeared that the provision of funds under A, “Salaries, Wages and Allowances”, and B, which is usually for “Subsistence and Transport Allowances”, was inadequate. Expenditure increased to such an extent that it would not have been possible to defray it from the anticipated saving of R100 000. An additional amount of R100 000 had to be requested therefore. This amount was consequently applied for, and the amount of R100 000 which had been requested, was allocated as follows: Subhead A, “Salaries, Wages and Allowances”, R45 000 and subhead B “Subsistence and Travelling Expenses” R55 000. The increase in the expenditure under subhead A may be attributed to the creation of 217 posts on the establishment; underestimation of salary adjustments; increase of local wages and the granting of long service increments to Bantu; underestimation of holiday savings bonuses payable to Bantu; and the take over by Stellenbosch of the sanatorium as part of the Stikland Hospital. In regard to subhead B, R55 000, the increase is due to increased expenditure in respect of motor transport and an increase in the conveyance of patients. This gives us a total of R100 000 as it has now been allocated under subheads A and B. Whilst this amount was supposed to be covered by a surplus, provision had to be made for it by means of a special warrant from the State President, because the original saving of R100 000 had not been realized.

In view of the substantial amounts which are involved in these proposed ex gratia payments to contractors of the Orange/Fish Tunnel scheme, may I ask the hon. the Minister to give this House details of the circumstances and the reasons for proposing these ex gratia payments, which presumably are outside the contractual obligations of the Government in this scheme.

It is a pleasure to furnish hon. members with the following explanation. The contractors are spending money at a great rate. We did not want any delays in the completion of the contract. The fact that we had to effect payment at an earlier date was because of the time factor; this was done to assist the contractors since large amounts were involved. We are not asking for additional funds; the funds are available. We have certain contractual obligations. In the case of such an enormous project, one always has the possibility of a dispute arising over certain additional expenditure. After the department had dealt with all the claims submitted in the normal manner, a further dispute arose about certain expenditure. This dispute was referred to a committee consisting of representatives of the Treasury, the State Attorney, the Department and also other engineers, to discuss this matter with the contractors in question and reach an agreement. An agreement had to be reached at some stage or other, whether it was last year, this year or in future. It was thereupon decided to settle the matter in this way. We made these ex gratia payments to assist the contractors and to expedite the work that had to be carried out.

When this House adjourned yesterday evening I had already replied to a considerable number of the questions put by hon. members. A few questions still remain, to which I should like to reply briefly. I think that yesterday evening we disposed of the two most important matters raised in this debate. The first was the whole question of the price negotiation and production for the future and all the questions arising therefrom. In my explanation I replied to quite a number of the questions put by hon. members in this regard. Therefore I regard that matter as having been disposed of. I should like to refer now to observations made here by hon. members. The hon. member for Ermelo asked whether a penetrating investigation could not be instituted into the economic situation in respect of the wattle-bark industry. Yes, that can be done, but I do not think it is necessary to appoint a special commission of inquiry. I shall refer this matter to the advisory board on the wattle-bark industry; that is the proper body to consider that.

Sir, I think I replied yesterday already to the various questions put by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for Swellendam referred to our indigenous forests and asked whether research could not be undertaken in connection with our indigenous kinds of wood. As the hon. member knows, our indigenous kinds of wood grow very slowly; it is a matter of hundreds of years. It is very difficult to carry out research in respect of the genetical improvement of the trees themselves, but what we are in fact doing is to undertake research and study in regard to the restoration of the complexes in which the trees grow. Hon. members from the Southern Cape will know how these have been destroyed over the years and centuries. We are now going to try to restore nature to what it was centuries ago. Areas which had a large natural forest production then, do not have a very high production today. The hon. member also requested whether the public could be admitted to our forestry areas more easily. Sir, it is our policy to create the necessary recreational facilities in our forestry areas and in our mountain catchment areas and, in contrast to our past policy, which was to try to keep people out, to open these areas in future and to invite people to make use of the recreational facilities in these areas. The hon. member then asked whether overnight facilities would be provided at Hermitage. I shall ask the department to go into that. It is possible that this may be done, but we shall examine the situation to see whether it fits in with the general development programme.

The hon. member for Albany referred to two points. The one was in connection with Punt se Vlakte. Punt se Vlakte is a dune area. It is situated in his constituency. Over the years there have been representations that part of the reclaimed drift-sand area should be made available to Coloureds for recreational purposes. The hon. member has asked the question now, but in actual fact the department’s proposal is already before this House and will be dealt with this session. What he has requested has therefore virtually been dealt with already. He asked a second question as well, namely in regard to the public who want access to beach areas over which we have control, and whether access roads are going to be provided. The reply is “yes”, of course, but they must be provided and maintained in such a way that no damage is caused. But the principle is to assist in providing such access roads.

The hon. member for Piketberg referred to the Cedarberg Mountains and asked whether there was any possibility of afforestation taking place there. The reply is “no”; the Cedarberg Mountains must be regarded as a wilderness area. We cannot plant trees and allow commercial development there. It is a wilderness area and as such we shall protect and maintain it. Of course, it is also a mountain catchment area which we have to control with a view to water supply. The hon. member also asked whether there was any possibility of expanding afforestation in the Western Cape. The reply is “no”; there is no opportunity for large expansion. There is only the possibility of a few hundred morgen here and there, but there can be no substantial expansion. This is an area which cannot accommodate it and in actual fact very little land of this nature is available. He also asked a question in regard to advice available to farmers in regard to afforestation, especially in the arid areas. I want to say to the hon. member that we do in fact give advice. In addition, we may be of assistance in providing selected seed which may be planted in arid areas, especially for soil conservation purposes. In this regard I just want to say this to the hon. member, and this also applies to the hon. member for Etosha, who asked why we could not stop the drift-sand along the West Coast, along the Skeleton Coast. I may tell the hon. member that there are in fact only two places, namely Walvis Bay and Swakopmund, but we have different protective measures there. We plant little poles, against which dunes build up and then the little poles are continually pulled up higher. It is a mechanical way of doing it, but you will appreciate, Sir, that it hardly ever rains there, and nothing grows where it does not rain. But I want to say to him it is not impossible that we shall be able to discover special plants somewhere in the world which will grow in exceptional areas, and that is why we are now sending Mr. Le Roux, one of our officials, overseas to see what is happening in very arid countries, because we have an idea that we may be helped by advice we may receive from them. This does not mean that we will succeed, but we are going to try.

†The hon. member for East London North referred to mountainous catchment areas. He referred to this area which he called the catchment area, or the watershed, the middle watershed. The point is that in regard to the ordinary mountainous catchment areas you have this law dealing with catchment areas, and they are controlled by that law. But on the other hand, if there is the ordinary sort of erosion taking place in any area, that has to be done by the Department of Agriculture.

*The hon. member for Aliwal also referred to afforestation and asked what the possibilities were in respect of further tree improvement. I want to say to the hon. member now—and this applies to the hon. member for Mooi River as well—that as far as the question of forest genetics is concerned, we have made a very great deal of progress in South Africa. You know that our country was the first in the world to start applying forest genetics. We obtained most of our seed from Mexico, and today the Mexican Government is asking us to send improved seed back to Mexico, seed which we brought from there 50 to 60 or 80 years ago in order to improve it here. We have four breeding stations. As far as this special direction is concerned, we really are the leading country in the world today. We were the first to start with it and we are one of the few who can talk of the genetical improvement of trees today. In fact, trees have been improved to such an extent that in respect of certain of our types of wood, the yield from a tree is not 50 per cent or 60 per cent, i.e. the ratio between the log and the tree itself, but has increased to 75 per cent and 80 per cent. In other words, by applying forest genetics we have improved the quality and increased the output. This is the reply in this regard, and I think these are all the questions I had to reply to. I thank hon. members for their contributions to the debate.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half hour? I want to say, however, that, in view of the very limited time set aside for the debate, I do not propose to use the full 30 minutes. It happens to be the birthday of the hon. the Minister today, and on behalf of this side of the House I want to offer him our congratulations. My only regret is that there is not much we can offer the hon. the Minister in the form of presents; I am afraid the presents will have to come to Parliament this afternoon from his side.

We are once again faced with the situation that we have to examine the whole field of South Africa’s foreign relations, and the Government’s administration of foreign affairs, in the limited time of only a few hours. I am not placing any blame on the hon. the Minister, as we are all victims of the system of time limits. However, this lends weight to a plea I have made before in this House, namely that we should have a Foreign Affairs Committee as a standing committee of this House. I am not asking for a bipartisan policy committee. That is something else, and we see no value in that at this stage. But we believe that it is in the interests of the country, and certainly in the interests of Parliament, that a permanent Foreign Affairs Committee be established to deal constantly with questions relating to foreign relations, either at its own initiative or in response to specific requests coming from the Government. This is established practice in most democratic parliaments in the world. Parliamentarians from other countries who have come on visits to South Africa, are usually amazed to find that foreign affairs is conducted in our country on a basis of no-consultation with Parliament. Apart from the general value of a committee on Foreign Affairs, we know that from time to time matters arise which, we appreciate, cannot fully be discussed in open session of Parliament. There is a case in point: Recently we had a visit from Dr. Kurt Waldheim, the new Secretary-General for the United Nations, who held discussions with the Government over the future of South-West Africa. It is too early to judge what the significance is that history will place on Dr. Waldheim’s visit to South Africa and South-West Africa. However, it is not impossible that, whereas Mr. Macmillan’s visit here years ago became associated with the winds of change in Africa, time may prove that Dr. Waldheim’s visit was the beginning of a whirlwind of change for South-West Africa. Where does Parliament find itself with regard to this important matter? We are completely in the dark as to the attitude the Government adopted in their talks with Dr. Waldheim; what concessions they made, if any; and what proposals they put forward; and this over a matter so vitally important to the future of South Africa and its security and South-West Africa. From the president of the Security Council in New York, the Soviet Deputy Minister, Jakob Malik, we had to learn, on the basis of what he had learned from Dr. Waldheim, that the Government had indicated their willingness to have some kind of United Nations representation in South-West Africa or in South Africa. Further, we have to learn from New York that South Africa had agreed with the United Nations that independence and self-determination should be basic elements in the future of South-West Africa. This itself has not come as a surprise to us, but Parliament has been given no information whatsoever as to how the Government proposes to implement and apply these principles. We feel that the least the Government could have done was to publish a White Paper on the Waldheim visit for the information of members of Parliament, but the Government simply continues to operate on a basis of no-consultation with Parliament. Once again we wish to register our objection to this treatment of Parliament. All we know for certain is that at some time or another this Parliament will be faced with a fait accompli. Therefore I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that we hope he will indicate in this debate and shed as much light as possible on the nature of the negotiations with Dr. Waldheim. We would also like to know whether the Government will also report to its own people simultaneously with Dr. Waldheim’s publishing his findings before the 31st July to the Security Council.

Finally, I want to ask the Minister whether the Government has any intention of consulting with the Opposition and with Parliament as a whole before any steps are taken in respect of South-West Africa which will be binding on South Africa. In fact, I do hope that provision will be made for a special debate in Parliament before any decisions of a major nature are taken in respect of the future of the Territory.

Our Foreign Affairs Department covers a network of activities which, for instance, involve foreign aid, amongst other things. Over R1 million has been set aside for that, but no report was placed before Parliament on an important matter of this kind. We are a member of the UN. Decisions are taken there and in the Security Council and we should be fully informed about that. Our membership and our contribution this year amounted to R793 000. Our delegations at the United Nations in New York and Geneva cost us R353 100, which gives us a total expenditure in respect of our membership of the United Nations of R1 146 100. No report whatsoever is made to Parliament as to how our representatives conduct themselves in this important international forum, and on what decisions are taken there which will affect South Africa. Parliament, and we here who are involved in foreign affairs, have to depend entirely on the brief reports which appear in the newspapers. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we consider this to be a highly unsatisfactory way of dealing with important matters such as this. On other important matters of foreign policy, like China’s admission into the United Nations and to the Security Council, the Government presented us with no report as to what its attitude was. We are not even provided, as a matter of course, with the texts and speeches which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs makes from time to time at the United Nations and on other important occasions abroad. We have to apply for them. It is customary for our Information Office to supply groups of parliamentarians and the Press with all the speeches made by Ministers on official occasions; the one exception is always the speeches made abroad by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We know from experience that the hon. the Minister speaks in a more acceptable idiom abroad on questions of human relations. We welcome this, but we feel that our public should become more exposed to this sort of thing, and that his speeches should be more readily distributed internally. The hon. the Minister knows what our attitude is. In fact, this is the only present that I can offer him; we regard him as the best Minister of Foreign Affairs that the benches opposite can provide. But at the same time he is a member of the Government; as such he carries joint responsibility for internal policies. Therefore we would like to see him, especially, as the Minister in charge of foreign affairs, using his special offices far more actively to enlighten the public as to what kind of steps should be taken internally if we wish to have success for South Africa externally to safeguard our security in the world. Time and again the hon. the Minister has spelt it out abroad:—the removal of discrimination on the basis of colour. My question to him this afternoon is: Is his Government getting on with the job; are they in fact eliminating petty discrimination; are they paving the way for better international relations?

Last year this time there was a lot of excitement over what was called dailogue with certain African states, notably with the Ivory Coast. It was reported that some eight or nine states were considering support at that time for the stand which Mr. Houphouet-Boigny had taken on the matter. A whole year has passed and for most of the time the Government has maintained silence. In fairness, I want to concede that it was known that Mr. Houphouet-Boigny and other leaders of the Francophone Bloc felt that they wanted to carry the approval of the Organization for African Unity before openly communicating with us. Mr. Boigny has since run into trouble with the OAU, and one’s impression now is that much of the support which he commanded initially, has now come to other conclusions. Of course, we understand that it was necessary for the Government to adopt a discreet stance. That we appreciate. We believe, however, that the least that the Government could have done in the meantime was to have been seen to be preparing the way for dialogue to be a success once developments came to the stage of discussions. We all know—let me give you a case in point, Sir—what these countries want to talk about. If we are wrong about it, let the hon. the Minister tell us what he thinks they want to talk about. As far as we know they want to talk about apartheid, they want to talk about human dignity in South Africa. Two sessions ago the hon. member for Wonderboom surprised us by proposing in this House that South Africa underwrites the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. The hon. the Minister replied in a way which was distinctly approving. May I ask the hon. the Minister now whether anything was done about it.

*To come closer to home, the whole world knows that if a business man from the Ivory Coast were to visit South Africa, the position would be that here in the heart of Cape Town, he would be able to go into a café and buy an ice-cream and eat the ice-cream at the counter, but he would not be able to sit down and enjoy a cup of tea. These are the sort of matters which lie at the root of bad relations between us and other countries. The hon. the Minister must know that if we really want to establish workable friendly relations with African states, we will have to develop an inter-African way of life; and we will have to start now. We will have to be seen to be starting. Recently a famous French tennis star was chased out of a restaurant at the Louis Botha Airport. He had travelled, he told reporters, five times around the world and this was the first time that anything of this sort had happened to him. One can imagine how he would be spreading this all round the world. One asks oneself how much longer we can afford incidents of this nature in our country and still hope for proper relations with the outside world. We had the unbelievable case recently again of a world-famous artist being allowed to enter our country, to perform here but being refused permission to perform on the stage of the Bloemfontein City Hall. It rang around the world. It is not our policy that the Government should interfere in the local affairs of city councils. But it is the Government’s policy to interfere. They were very quick to tell Cape Town how to run its taxi services and its bus services. Bloemfontein is the judicial capital of South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Government were the people who should have interfered. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Prinshof say?

I said the hon. member is hypocritical.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir,

I leave it to the hon. member to prove that. If he can prove it, I will accept it. The Government should not have allowed a city like Bloemfontein to undermine the interests of South Africa in the way in which they have done; certainly not in these days, when we are fighting for a better position in the international world. We want to ask whether the hon. the Minister and his department do not feel themselves justified to make their voices heard when things like this happen. Then there is the case of diplomatic receptions. Years ago the Government decided to abstain and to bar high Government officials from attending certain diplomatic functions, diplomatic functions to which leading South African non-Whites were also invited. It seems that the Government is still maintaining this attitude, despite the fact that it has done untold damage to our international position and is also most hurtful to the leaders of our own non-White population groups. I honestly hoped that the Government would by now have discarded these attitudes and that it would not again have been necessary for me to raise the matter here openly in the House. But the situation is most embarrassing to us as South Africans who attend these functions and is also embarrassing to our country. I therefore want to ask the Minister to be open and honest with us and to tell us that we can regard this sort of attitude as something which now belongs to the past. I raise these points specifically, because it must be made clear to the country that there can really be no hope of establishing normal relations, especially with African states externally, unless we establish a basis for normal relations between people internally.

Having mentioned the question of dialogue, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he believes that the dialogue movement is making progress and that the initiative of men like the leader of the Ivory Coast is still likely to come to something practical. Of course, we would also like to know what encouragement the Government propose to offer the leaders who favour dialogue.

*All of us are interested, of course, in the progress of the so-called outward movement. The use of the expression “outward policy”, “outward movement”, is more than six years old by this time. Our relations with Malawi are going well and we want to express our satisfaction about that and we want to welcome it. However, in the whole of the independent Black Africa we still have one representative only, and that is our ambassador in Blantyre. There is only one in the whole of Black Africa—for us who pride ourselves on the fact that Africa is our home and that it is our first concern. Last year the hon. the Minister intimated here in the debate that we were on the point of establishing diplomatic relations with Lesotho. Subsequently it became evident that he had consular relations in mind. Twelve months have passed, and, as far as I know nothing concrete has happened. However, I notice now that the hon. the Minister and high officials have just paid a visit to Lesotho, and I wonder whether he is now able to tell us anything of factual interest. For a long time we on this side of the House have regarded it as being essential that we exchange representatives with all three of the BLS countries. Botswana in particular has shown signs of its attitude towards us being less cordial, and at the Commonwealth Conference in Singapore and elsewhere it adopted a strong line on British sales of arms to us. We know that America is assisting Botswana at present to improve its communications link with Zambia, and I just want to say in passing that I hope the Government is not so unwise as still to maintain the objection it raised at the time to this connection at the Caprivi. I think it is very important to keep in mind that Botswana has a long border in common with South-West Africa and an even longer border in common with the Republic. For this and other reasons it now seems essential to us that we should give urgent attention to the question of diplomatic relations with Botswana. In the case of our other neighbouring states, the neighbouring states across the water, Madagascar and Mauritius, it seems to us they are still maintaining an attitude of political aloofness as a result of our internal policy. However, if that is not the case, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he can report any progress in the field of political relations with these countries.

There are a few items on the Estimates about which I should have liked to ask questions, but my time has almost run out. The most important fact that has me struck, is that, with the sole exception of Canada, extra expenditure is being asked for every single mission overseas. In the case of Canada there is not only a decrease of staff, but expenditure has been cut by more than R24 500 on last year’s expenditure. Perhaps there is nothing to it. However, the fact is that Canada, the second most important in power and influence in the Commonwealth, has adopted a strong line, inter alia, on British sales of arms to South Africa. It would be a pity if relations had hardened in the meantime and the decrease in expenditure in Ottawa were a reflection of that. Therefore I should like to be reassured by the hon. the Minister in this regard.

In conclusion I want to raise one other matter. Last year various members undertook tours, parliamentary group tours, abroad. Some of our members will speak about their experiences in this regard. It undoubtedly has a certain value to those members who had the privilege of participating in these tours; but I shall be glad to learn from the hon. the Minister what value he and his department attach to these tours, seen from the point of view not of the promotion of the interests of members, but of the promotion of the interests of South Africa. The reason why I ask this—it is my private opinion, and I want to emphasize this—is that it would perhaps be better if each political party were subsidized separately, so that the party could send missions of importance to other countries on an individual basis instead. I believe it would be of greater value to South Africa if individual M.P.s could be sent on informal visits, particularly to African countries and other countries in which we want to clear up misunderstandings, in order to talk to leaders there. I believe that with this kind of direct, personal and more modest contact far better work could be done for South Africa than with the existing group tours. If the Minister should not like to state his opinion on this point, I shall be grateful if he and his department would consider it all the same. *

Mr. Chairman, I do not have the privilege the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has of being able to speak on this Vote for half an hour. I have only ten minutes at my disposal, and therefore I would rather not reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. We know that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout records his protest against apartheid, or “petty apartheid”, as he calls it, every year; but all the same, I want to tell this hon. member that he must bear in mind that the policy of segregation is one which the United Party has followed, that it is one over which the late Gen. Smuts virtually received a drubbing at the U.N. in 1946, viz. over the treatment of Indians. I also remember clearly that in 1948 the United Party, when we introduced apartheid on trains, boasted that they had even had the notices ready, just waiting to be put up in order to introduce apartheid on trains. *

I want to refer to our foreign policy in a few words. I want to put it that there is a steadily increasing improvement in South Africa’s foreign affairs. In that connection one must mention three factors in particular; The first is the outward policy of the Government and the added momentum which this was given, particularly by Dr. Banda’s visit to South Africa and again by the visit to Malawi of the Prime Minister and our State President. The second is the sustained and brilliant way in which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has continued to state our policy of peaceful coexistence. Consequently I want on this occasion to congratulate the hon. the Minister on these sustained attempts of his to do so. I also want to include his department in this, from top to bottom. Because the hon. the Minister is celebrating his birthday today, I should like to congratulate him very sincerely on behalf of this side of the House. We want to tell him that we hope that he will be spared for many years to be able to manage this important portfolio for South Africa.

A third factor is the break-through and impact which the idea of dialogue has made throughout the world as a means of alleviating international tension. This success which the Department of Foreign Affairs has achieved has been accorded great recognition throughout the world. South Africa has been accorded even greater recognition for its powerful economic policy and greater appreciation of its strategic importance. In years gone by continual reference was being made to the effect that violence should be used against South Africa. I think the fruits of the policy of the hon. the Minister can be seen in the annual Presidential Address of the President of the United States of America. In that Address he said this year, referring to South Africa—

This point of view, I think, is the outcome of the work done by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Recently frequent mention has been made in the world of dialogue. I think that one of the fruits of dialogue was that we were afforded the opportunity this year of having Dr. Waldheim, the General Secretary of the U.N., here in South Africa. I do not want to say that this visit to South Africa will result in any major change in our foreign situation. In fact, I think that this may possibly involve major pitfalls. Nevertheless, it is true that in the past the U.N. consistently refused to come and discuss the situation with us. Stubborn and one-sided resolutions were adopted. This year, for the first time, it was decided to send Dr. Waldheim here. I think that this could perhaps be the precursor of the visits of other people of fame to South Africa. Recently we saw the fruits of President Nixon’s visit to China, and his proposed visit to Russia. The only factor which would perhaps alleviate the tensions in Africa, would perhaps be a visit by the President of the U.S.A. to various African States, as well as to Southern Africa, to enable him to ascertain the true state of affairs. I should like to see the President of the U.S.A., in years to come, give serious consideration to visiting this Continent.

In the short time at my disposal I want to make a few observations on the U.N. The U.N. in fact experienced two important events this year. The one was that Dr. Kurt Waldheim became the Secretary General. One could normally expect that he would for the next decade or two have an influence, as Secretary General, on the policies of the U.N. But there was another very important event, i.e. a decision that at the session to be held this year serious attempts would be made to amend the Manifesto of the United Nations Organization in order to eliminate its deficiencies. I perused the proposals made by various countries in regard to this proposed reform. There are those who want to turn it into a world! parliament with the power to make valid laws throughout the world. There are those who want to propose that it maintain a world army, etc. These are of course important decisions which will have to be taken. These could be the prelude to world peace, but they could also be the prelude to chaos and misery.

In regard to the U.N. there are certain facts one has to take into account. The first is that it has failed pitiably as an organ for preserving world peace and saving lives. It did not have the ability to prevent or put a stop to the tremendous massacres in such countries as the Congo, Hungary, Algeria, the Sudan, Korea, Vietnam, Biafra or to avert the numerous coups d’état in Africa and the revolutions in the South American States, the Middle East, Pakistan and elsewhere. It has been calculated that in the 27 years the U.N. has been in existence 11,5 million people have died violent deaths— this is according to the figures furnished by the U.N. itself—as a result of force, chaos and lawlessness. More people have died in the period in which the U.N. has been in existence than in any other period of three decades in the history of the world, with the exception of the Second World War. This is the position even if all periods of peace and/or war are taken into account.

What is more, it has not been able to prevent any important war. The irony of the U.N. today is that if the United States and Russia agree, the U.N. is not necessary, and if they do not agree, the U.N. can in fact do nothing about it. We have that important factor to consider as well.

The third fact I want to mention is that it can be said to the debit of the U.N. that it has stirred up more unrest in the world than it was able to counteract. That is why there are numerous authorities today who think that the U.N. is a failure. I can mention the names of dozens of important people, of prime ministers, of presidents, but perhaps I should mention only the following opinion. It was that of a commission appointed in the U.S.A. which, according to a report in the Cape Times, reported as follows—

There are various problems and deficiencies in regard to the U.N. One of these is that while, as far as South Africa is concerned, emphasis is always placed on one man, one vote, it is a fact that this does not apply in the U.N. today. The ten states with the smallest populations muster a total of only 4 million people, while the 10 states with the largest population today have a population of 2 298 million. The combined vote of 575 people in those larger countries is, in other words, equal to that of one man in the smaller states. Therefore one can say that in the U.N. the franchise is unequally divided. For example, the 40 African countries can today muster more votes than the whole of Europe, and all of North and South America put together. As far as financial contributions are concerned, their contribution is minimal. But I do not want to elaborate on that.

If the U.N. wants to take a closer look at its Manifesto this year, I want to suggest that they should, in fact, return to the rules of international law which have been established over the centuries and that they should in the first place decide that the essence of all the unrest throughout the world lies in the question of relations. If they want to reform the U.N., they must begin with the relations among countries. If they want to restore these relations, they must not foment terrorism. They must not do all these things which bring chaos and misery to the world. That is why they must begin with relations, and if they do that, South Africa will accord them its wholehearted support, and then they can begin with dialogue. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Middelland has dealt at some length with the question of dialogue and the outward movement and I shall reply to him in some detail. That is in fact the theme of what I wish to say in the short time available to me. In so far as his remarks about the United Nations are concerned, I do not propose to cast myself in the role of a defender of the United Nations against his attack. I would agree with some of what he said, but I should also like to suggest to him, and to the hon. the Minister, that when the Minister considers the composition of a delegation to the United Nation’s General Assembly, he might take into account the possibility of including the hon. member for Middelland, who will there find that there are more things in Heaven and earth than are dreamt of in his philosophy.

Sir, I wish to refer particularly to the outward policy of the Government, which has had a good deal of support from this side of the House. We have welcomed this outward policy. We have recommended the attitude adopted by the Government to achieve a break-down of hostility through the beginning of a dialogue with the states of Africa. We regret to say that on the evidence available to us—I say “the evidence available to us”, because my colleague, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, has already referred to the scarcity, the thinness, the paucity of information which is made available to this House—we see depressingly little sign of real progress in this field. Sir, the Opposition have been sympathetic to the Minister’s aim and they have been forebearing in their criticism because this is something which we wish to see succeed. We understand the Minister’s problem. We realize the difficulties which he faces both at home and abroad. We fear that the whole initiative, which we welcomed so much, may be getting bogged down by the ritual gestures of protocol, sterile formulae and wishful thinking about the real motivations of the African states.

Sir, let us look first at the neighbouring territories of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. We have had a long and close association with these countries. They are our close neighbours. We have a great deal of common economic interest with them. We have a common monetary system with these countries; we have a customs union with these countries. We had many administrative services in common, some of which still survive to this day. These three countries provide something like 100 000 or more of their citizens to work in the South African economy. For all these reasons the associations and the ties are intimate and the interdependence is close. Malawi is somewhat in the same position. In certain respects it shares similar interests with South Africa as the other three. Sir, the Government constantly points to these closely associated countries as proof of its diplomatic achievements in engineering a break-through, in the field of dialogue. But, Sir, what real progress has been achieved even with these countries which are so closely interlinked with us? Apart from a few flamboyant gestures, apart from a few dramatic visits, what real progress is being made in the field of co-operation?

Let us take the example of Lesotho. I will have to deal briefly and in shorthand, so to speak, with these countries as my time is limited. Sir, a year ago the hon. the Minister told us that there was a growing need for reciprocal consular relations with Lesotho. We welcomed it. It was a simple and obvious necessity. A whole year has gone by; the Minister has been back to Lesotho, and we are waiting breathlessly to hear whether after yet another year this simple necessity has been achieved and whether a triumphant announcement will be made that we now have consular representation organized with Lesotho. Sir, the mountains have laboured and it looks as if they may produce a little, and long overdue, mouse.

Let us take the case of Botswana. There have been official talks in Botswana. I believe there was a delegation there in November. We ask whether the telephones have broken down, because hitherto we have been told that telephones are preferable to consular exchanges for the purpose of communication with Botswana. About two years ago or less there were certain South African objections to the construction of a road and ferry between Botswana and Zambia. While this discussion or deadlock has been going on, there has been an economic revitalization of Botswana. Diamonds have been discovered and are being exploited at Draba. Copper and nickel have been discovered and will be exploited at Selebe-Pikwe. Now Botswana has decided to go ahead with the road and the ferry. It apparently has tacit United States support and it will proceed despite South Africa’s objection. Two years ago I pleaded with the Minister to make a more constructive approach to this problem and to co-operate with these people in trying to work out a solution to their problems. He then ridiculed my attitude and said it was in conflict with a resolution taken by the U.N. which said that South Africa had no locus standi in the area of the Caprivi. Now, leaving aside the multiple contradiction? Is this the direction in which we are in fact achieving closer co-operation with Botswana? Are we making progress? Have we advanced or have we gone back? When I say advanced or gone back, I mean in this matter and in other significant matters.

Let us take the case of Swaziland. Swaziland is an important element in the customs union and in the rand monetary zone. It is a viable area; it is prosperous and it has a favourable balance of trade. South Africa decided to devalue for reasons contrary to these. We were in fact in some difficulty economically. Was Swaziland consulted? The answer given to me was that Swaziiland was not consulted but that Swaziland was “informed” before the decision was taken. Is this co-operation? The Minister of Transport has announced that he will not build a railway link between the South African Railways and the Swaziland Railways. Is this technical co-operation? Is this the direction in which we are going?

Then there is the case of Rhodesia. The Prime Minister of Rhodesia has asked for closer economic co-operation with South Africa. He has suggested that we might move towards a customs union or to some kind of closer relationship. The Official Diplomatic Representative of South Africa at the official state show in Bulawayo a week ago is reported to have thrown cold water on the suggestion and to have said that the time is not ripe for this. If we are against closer economic co-operation in Southern Africa, if we are against closer co-operation in an area of security and prosperity for Southern Africa, is this consistent with the outward policy, the policy of dialogue? And if we really felt that Mr. Smith’s initiative was premature, was it necessary to repudiate him in public in Bulawayo?

We look further north. There is a constantly shifting pattern of attitudes towards dialogue. President Houphouet-Boigny has made little progress; he has had difficulty in persuading the Organization for African Unity to go along with him on the question of dialogue. President Diori Hamani of Niger, a supporter of President Houphouet-Boigny has explained to the other African states which are hostile, that the true intention of President Houphouet-Boigny is in fact to break down racial discrimination in South Africa. The others say it too. Madagascar has said it; they have all said it, but our Prime Minister’s attitude is that apartheid is a South African affair and that if any country wishes to establish links with us it must accept us as we are. Now here is the fatal paradox; here is the disastrous contradiction. We want to ask the Minister how does he expect dialogue to succeed, when this paradox, this contradiction exists, continues to exist and is in fact building up in certain quarters. So there we are. We would strongly support the Minister and give him every support from this side of the House if he could show that real progress is being made. We mean real progress, not ritual gestures, not exaggerated emphasis on normal administrative contracts between other countries and Southern Africa, but real progress in breaking through to Africa. He may count on our support and our sympathy, if he can show us real progress.

In the tone of his speech the hon. member for Von Brandis actually revealed the same attitude of mind we frequently find revealed on the part of the United Party. If I understood him correctly, he sees the outgoing policy of South Africa in Africa as a very dark picture in which there is no progress worth mentioning. If one wants to gauge these aspects, there are perhaps various tests one can apply. I think the most important test is not so much where one stands today as in what direction one is moving. In this respect I think we can feel proud that in the past year, since this Vote was discussed last year, we have for the first time had a visit from the president of one of the Black states of Africa, and that our president could pay a visit to that country this year. These are perhaps the only two visits of this kind that took place during the past year. It nevertheless indicates to us in what direction we are in fact moving.

Today I want to say something about the co-operation that ought to exist, on the one hand, between the State as the authority and, on the other hand, the private individual and the private sector, in connection with the outgoing policy, the question of dialogue and of contact and the partnership idea. The hon. member for Von Brandis mentioned that at Oraba a diamond mine has opened for production. The fact is that that mine, which can probably become the richest diamond mine in the world, was not discovered through State prospecting, nor is it going to be developed with State money or State aid on the part of South Africa. That mine, just like the nickel and copper mines in Botswana, the copper industry in Zambia and many other industries in Black countries, was established as a result of the initiative of private individuals, people who knew their own industry well enough and had gained enough experience to have a wider view and to see what the business possibilities in other neighbouring states are. In this respect I want to allege that we have made great progress in this specific direction.

Since last year’s debate we have also seen the establishment of Edesa, where one of the leading business leaders in South Africa, someone who has very successfully transmitted the partnership idea to the world, established a bank for the development of countries in Central and Southern Africa. I want to claim that in the years to come it will probably not be possible for our Department of Foreign Affairs, in the role it plays, to do more than just open doors, through which dialogue can take place and channels for communication be created. The actual idea of good neighbourliness and living together in peace will to a larger extent be transmitted by the private sector in South Africa.

In this connection it is of importance to note that although three months ago I spoke with hesitation about the idea of the formation of international economic blocs, we have recently read in the daily press that the American Minister of Finance, in viewing the world picture and particularly world trade, now accepts the idea of international blocs, and that on those lines will be modelled those negotiations which will begin next year on the question of world trade. As fair as this idea is concerned, I want to claim today that if there are countries that hesitate to cooperate with South Africa in economic, friendship and interest blocs, or whatever one wants to call it, the realities of life in this decade will compel them to recognize that there are certain common interests which make it essential for a bloc of nations to exist in Southern Africa which live together in peace, friendship and on a basis of stability. In this bloc there is one country that cannot be excluded, and that is the Republic of South Africa. If we look at the position of our trade with Africa, we see that in respect of the past decade the imports from the countries of Africa, in 1961, amounted to R68 million. In 1971 this climbed to R128 million. Our imports from Africa have decreased in the past ten years from 6,9 per cent to 4,4 per cent. The total volume of imports has nevertheless increased by almost 100 per cent, i.e. from R68 million to R128 million. This has also been the case with the exports for the past decade. In the year 1961 the amount involved was R129 million, which was 15,2 per cent of our total trade in that year. In 1971 that figure increased to R236 million, and that is now 16,8 per cent of our total trade. In this case the percentage increase is not very great either, i.e. from 15 per cent to just under 17 per cent, but the fact remains that the volume of our trade has increased by almost 100 per cent. This has therefore been the case in the past decade for both imports and exports from and to the countries of Africa. What is important —and this is something that must be realized not only by Southern Africa, but by all the countries throughout the world, and this includes those economic blocs in the world that already exist and those that are in the process of being formed—is that this area which has a population of about 50 million people—and then I am speaking only of the countries which have reasonably good friendship ties with South Africa —has a gross national product not yet totalling R4 billion, while South Africa’s gross national product increased to R13,6 billion in the past year. South Africa, through its economic strength, is responsible for the creation of approximately 80 per cent of the wealth of this sub-continental region. I therefore want to claim that when countries consider forging ties with other countries in Southern Africa— also with our neighbouring states and even with Central Africa—the countries simply cannot ignore the role of South Africa in this sub-continent, if they want to achieve any success.

There are also certain things we must do from our side, things which are important, in my opinion, if we want to make a bigger success of this future pattern. People who take the lead and people who want to take the lead in the future, are people belonging to particular professions. We in this region have, in actual fact, only a few world languages. We have already established English as a world language in this area, and it is used not only in South Africa, but in the majority of the countries of this region. It can therefore serve as a means of communication. In my opinion it is also important that at our universities, where we train people as accountants, for the legal profession and for all those professions in which people are going to take the lead, not only in this department, but also in the private sector, students must also increasingly be given the choice of learning French. We must do this because in our movement outwards, and in those attempts we must make at communication, not only in political discussion, but also in discussions in the private sector, we shall find it essential to be able to speak this language. When our students have a choice of subjects, they must give consideration to mastering French as an additional language, particularly if they see themselves as leaders in the economy, in politics or in State administration.

On the other hand, there is also an obstructive factor which I personally experienced in the business sphere in certain of these states, i.e. that there ought to be a greater degree of standardization in respect of certain forms of legislation. I am thinking, in the first place, of the question of company law. Business people in the United States, the majority of West European countries and the countries which previously belonged to the British Commonwealth of Nations, have virtually accepted the British Companies Act as a model. I do not think there can be any question of real co-operation in the private sector unless we can persuade the majority of those States to accept this Act as a model in their own interests, because people who are trained in one country did not have the time—or they have to waste a great deal of valuable time—to embark on a complex field of study when they enter the business field in those other countries. Just as it paid South Africa to have had foreign entrepreneurs look to her to an increasing extent for further development possibilities, it is also of importance for our neighbouring states to follow the same pattern. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to be kept very busy this afternoon in answering questions that the hon. the Prime Minister has refused to answer during the course of his Vote. One thing of which I am certain is that even if the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs fails to answer the questions, he would at least fail to do so courteously. I do not take the benign attitude of the hon. member for Vasco, that we have done very well in Africa over the last year or so. I am going to develop the line adopted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on the whole question of dialogue with South Africa and what has happened in the past year since this House met on the Foreign Affairs Vote. I have been looking through the Estimates and I see that we are still in the same parlous position where out of the 40-odd independent states in Africa, South Africa has an ambassador in Malawi, a Consul-General in Angola, a Consul-General in Mocambique and an accredited diplomatic representative in Rhodesia. I think that is rather a sad state of affairs. I think that if anyone has been keeping a balance sheet on the possibilities of dialogue with the other states in Africa, the Black states, he will find that there is a debit balance since last year. Apart from the visit of representatives from Malagassy and Mauritius, and the exchange of presidents with Malawi and the hon. the Minister’s visit to our two immediate neighbours, Botswana and Lesotho, what in fact did we have by way of any exchange of ideas or communication with the rest of the African states? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is quite right. There is no doubt that President Houphouet-Boigny is running into considerable difficulty over the whole idea of dialogue. Last year when he had a very large Press conference, and according to Le Monde, he made many statements about the need for the Black African states to work out some form of peaceful understanding of South Africa. He made it very clear that like other Black leaders, every other Black leader, including our immediate neighbours in Africa, he is against the policy of apartheid. They feel very strongly about what is happening to what they consider to be their Black bretheren in South Africa. As I have said before, we must not bluff ourselves. Africans in the other African states identify with the Black people in South Africa. What happens to them, is reflected in their own attitude to South Africa. Every other Black leader, even Pres. Houphouet-Boigny, made it very clear that he was against the policy of apartheid. But nevertheless, he takes the very pragmatic view that he does not believe that violence is either right or that it will work and that it is therefore necessary to try negotiations since other methods are not likely to succeed. He had hopes that the O.A.U. Summit Meeting which was held in June last year, would back his approach. He and a few other like-minded members and leaders from the Francophone states of Africa did a good deal of lobbying. But in the event, as we know, something like two-thirds of the members of the O.A.U. voted down the suggestion of talks with South Africa although they did not at that stage discard the idea of some form of dialogue based on the Lusaka Manifesto. I come back again to this important document which I feel South Africa has neglected, or has treated in a superficial way. It is a very important document and the Black states feel very strongly about any discussions with South Africa being held on the basis of the Lusaka Manifesto. In other words, they do not only want a superficial discussion on what the hon. the Prime Minister says is separate development and what the Black leaders of Africa construe as apartheid and the lack of opportunity for Black people in this country. They want to have some positive indication that South Africa intends to turn the direction of her policy. They do not in any way want to dictate the pace at which the changes should take place or even the extent of those changes. But they want to have some indication that the country is considering moving in the direction of extension of rights, of a just society in South Africa. Without that, I can say quite unequivocally that we will get absolutely nowhere on the question of dialogue with the African states. They are not interested in simply having an academic discussion on the question of policy for the different countries.

What has happened since the Summit Conference took place? First of all, the President of the O.A.U., the President of Mauritania, has come out firmly against dialogue. In September last year he made a statement saying: “Let White South Africans hold a dialogue with Black South Africans. It is within South Africa and nowhere else that dialogue must begin.” Gabon, which used to follow the Ivory Coast, is now wavering and another member of the OCAM, or the French-speaking states, namely Mauritius, also warned during a friendly visit here, that South Africa would have to make “spectacular concessions” in order to stabilize its relations with the outside world. We have lost one friend and adherent of dialogue, that is, of course, President Busia, so that Ghana which formerly backed the idea of dialogue, is now opposed to dialogue. Dr. Busia has been deposed by Col. Akyeampong, who is dead against dialogue. This may to some extent be offset by a few changes in Uganda where Oboti has been superseded by Gen. Amin, who actually asked for a mission to be received in South Africa, a request which was apparently simply turned down flat. We know what the position is with regard to other countries. Most of the other countries, like Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Zaire have been, and still are, against dialogue. And in the French-speaking areas, where President Houphouet-Boigny obviously has the greatest influence, there are now signs of wavering against dialogue. It seems, in fact, that dialogue is now further away than it was at this time last year. I want to say again that it was made absolutely clear to Mr. Eglin and myself when we visited eight countries in Black Africa last year, that there is no desire on the part of Black African states to see White South Africans depart from South Africa. They know that that is an impossibility. They do not even want it and White South Africans have the wrong idea when they imagine that Black Africans want to see them driven into the sea. What they want is a sharing of opportunities in this country. I believe we should give some indication of this, and not just on the sportfields where we have made these fringe concessions, but something in depth, and not even just something in regard to petty apartheid as described by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I feel we have to go much further than that. We must move in the direction of meaningful rights for the Black people in this country, in the removal of disabilities and in the opening up of equal economic opportunities, before we are going to have a snowball’s chance of ever really making any headway with other African states. It is awfully easy to make friends in Black Africa. It is one lesson that Colin Eglin and I learnt. It is easy to make friends in Black Africa.

Very easy.

The reason for this is not because of my brains or Mr. Eglin’s beauty, but because we happen to represent enlightened South Africans who feel very strongly about race discrimination and who have been fighting race discrimination. South Africa could make 350 million friends on the continent of Africa. On a more materialistic note, I might also add that she can make 350 million customers on the Black African continent. There is a lot of talk in this House about the dangers of communist infiltration, particularly Chinese communist infiltration in Africa.

Don’t you believe it?

There are parts of Africa where the Chinese are very busy and interested, but the one way in which we can undermine any of their efforts, is to make changes within South Africa. That is by far the best way. If we could improve our own race relations in South Africa, other things will fall into place. We would need to spend far less of our national budget on military hardware if we would change our internal policy and improve our own race relations. This could be done without in any way jeopardizing the future of White South Africans. Whereas the hopes were fairly high this time last year, I do not think—I may be quite wrong in my predictions—they will be realized at Rabat.

You are wrong.

The hon. member has not moved out of Rustenburg, to the best of my knowledge, for some considerable years, but of course he is an expert on the world scene! Let him stand up and make a speech instead of muttering at my back. It will be a welcome change. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton makes this mistake: She thinks she is speaking on behalf of South Africa. In reality she is speaking on behalf of a very small minority here in South Africa. To tell the truth, her opinion does not carry much weight. I just want to tell her that the success of our foreign policy cannot be measured against the missions we have. Before a mission is stabilized, many other things take place. I want to leave her in the hands of the Minister. He will deal with her further.

I firstly want to say that we are living in very interesting times. We are living in the era of great developments in Europe. You know, in years past there was always some or other European country which ruled the world. Whether because of its military strength, its ships that sailed the oceans, its traders or its administrators, virtually every European country had a turn at dominating the world. This continued up to the beginning of the 20th Century. But these peoples of Europe, who brought the world and man so many blessings, were involved in confrontations with each other, and even as short a time as 27 years ago they were still enmeshed in a tremendous stranglehold of struggles and deaths on the battlefields, which caused great destruction and was a very retrograde step. After the last war, these peoples realized that in this era of de-colonization, and the ballistic projectile, they are no longer world powers in their own right and that they can no longer play any decisive role in world politics, because the super States have taken over, i.e. the United States of America, Russia and now also China; and Africa, the third world, had woken. These sturdy peoples of Europe, who 700 years ago were responsible for the Renaissance, have apparently lost none of their ability and adaptability in meeting the requirements of the times; because a Second Renaissance began in Europe in 1958. It began when the inner circle of nations, i.e. France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg, concluded an agreement according to which they envisaged a common agricultural policy and the free movement of labour and in terms of which they established a beneficial social customs union. The primary object of this agreement was peace. The borders, which previously were military lines, became open gates through which people and goods moved safely to the benefit of each. In 1958 there was, in addition to the inner circle of those six nations, also an outer circle of seven nations associated with them. On 22nd January, 1972, that inner circle of six was extended to ten. Britain, Norway, Ireland and Denmark also joined that alliance. I think it was an historic decision which could be decisive as far as man’s future lot is concerned, because a brand new super State has appeared on the horizon, a super State in the making, which could now completely change the world’s balance of power. Apart from this nucleus group of ten, Israel, Greece, Spain and 19 countries in Africa are associated with that community. But the question is now: Where does this super State stand? Where does this new giant in Europe stand in the row of world super States? The answer is that it has a tremendously big and strong position. Just for comparison: This community comprises the biggest single trade area in the world. I am comparing it with America and Russia. Its population is bigger than that of both, i.e. 257 million as against 246 million for Russia and 205 million for America. As far as the gross national product is concerned, it is second to America. For America the figure is 993 billion dollars; for Euromart 637 billions dollars and for Russia 288 billion dollars. As far as the generation of electric power is concerned, it is also second to America. America develops 1 738 billion kilowatt hours, Euromart 909 billion kilowatt hours and Russia 740 billion kilowatt hours. With respect to steel production it is at the very top of the list. It produces 138 million tons as against 122 million tons and 116 million tons for Russia, The Government clearly realizes that this formidable new Europe would play a big role in world politics and world economics in the future. It also decided to open a mission there and to send a very competent and experienced ambassador along, i.e. Dr. Chris Naude. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Government for that. It has once again been proved that South Africa has an outstanding Minister of Foreign Affairs, a person we have great confidence in, and one who will always handle South Africa’s interests to the best of his ability. It is also a fact that these events in Europe can adversely affect our established trade interests in the immediate future. We hope that this will only be a short-term phenomenon. In this connection I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs for the way in which he put our case there.

South Africa has always had much stronger ties with the mother countries of Europe than with any other country. We also believe that South Africa’s future and the future of Euromart will be very closely interwoven and become even more so in the course of time. South Africa is and continues to be the custodian of Europe’s lifeline around the tip of Africa at the Cape. Other members will enlarge on this, and therefore I shall say no more about it now. The fact of the matter is that if things go well with Euromart, things will also go well with South Africa and vice versa. I believe that in time to come this multilateral mission in Brussels will assume great importance and play a very big role in the economic challenge South Africa is now being faced with. I have a great deal of hope and confidence. I think that things will go well for two reasons, i.e. that Euromart’s economy appears to be much more open than any other economy, for example that of the United States of America. Euromart’s inclination to import gives it an import figure of 41 per cent as against the 13,7 per cent of America. The second reason why I have great confidence in the future is that we are here dealing with people in Europe who basically understand us. They are people who struggled and fought to retain their identities. It is a community which politically has sovereign status. But it is also a community which is culturally different, with components which are economically inter-dependent on each other. It is indeed a multinational community very much like that of South Africa. They will be able to understand our problems better.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Middelland very sincerely for the good wishes they extended to me on my birthday, which I am not very proud of. When one has reached my age, one is no longer so keen to celebrate birthdays.

Unfortunately there was not much in the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for which I can thank him, except of course the good wishes. As usual he again advocated a foreign affairs committee, a permanent committee of this Parliament. He pointed out that something of this kind existed in many other countries of the world. The hon. member is aware that the country on whose Parliament our Parliament is modelled does not have such a committee. I have already stated the Government’s standpoint in this regard in the past, so I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate further on this.

The hon. member insisted that a White Paper on the Waldheim visit should have been published. However, these discussions are still in their earliest stage, and it is neither possible nor advisable to publish a White Paper on such a delicate matter at such an early stage.

The hon. member wants to know why the Government does not consult with the Opposition to a greater extent in regard to South-West Africa, and whether the Government will consult with the Opposition before important decisions are taken. This is of course a matter which rests with the Prime Minister and the Government, and one which I assume will in due course be considered in the light of circumstances which may develop in future. As in the past, the hon. member again complained about the lack of publications on the activities of my department, copies of my speeches at the UN etc. I have said in the past that these documents are available to all members of Parliament; they need only ask for them. But some of these documents have also been published by the Department of Information. For example, the most important speech I made in the Security Council has been published and is available to hon. members. There are various other publications as well. Just recently another one dealing with the court case on South-West Africa was published, which is available to all hon. members. Then the hon. member also referred to incidents at airports and at other places which harm South Africa’s reputation in the outside world. I have discussed incidents of this type before, which are human, which do occur and which do harm us, and I do not want to elaborate any further on that today.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other hon. members had a good deal to say about dialogue. Sir, in the past year this matter was not only discussed in this Parliament, but a great deal was also said and written elsewhere about dialogue after President Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast held his Press conference in July, 1971. At that conference as well as on other occasions he emphasized that his main purpose with dialogue was to bring about peace in Africa. He also explained that in this way Africa would be better equipped to check and prevent the spread of communism on this continent. It is unnecessary to repeat what has been said in the past, i.e. that we fully endorse this approach and that we are in full agreement with him in this regard. This Press statement by the President of the Ivory Coast elicited world-wide reaction. Some African States opposed it vehemently, some welcomed it, while others adopted a neutral and undecided attitude. Some even chopped and changed. But it did lead to a debate in the Organization for African Unity, a debate in which, for the first time in the existence of that organization, the advocates of dialogue with South Africa openly expressed themselves in favour of talks with South Africa as opposed to a policy of confrontation and even of armed force. This was definitely a milestone.

Of course, the idea of a dialogue between South Africa and the rest of Africa had already begun to develop long before 1971, before that historic Press conference. It must be traced back to the negotiations between Dr. Banda and Chief Jonathan, on the one hand, and Dr. Verwoerd on the other. For a considerable time both these African leaders, Dr. Banda and Chief Jonathan, openly endeavoured to bring about contact and co-operation with South Africa. They did so at the UN; they advocated it in their own Parliaments. Dr. Banda did so on the BBC. In 1970 Prime Minister Jonathan of Lesotho advocated it in a debate in the General Assembly of the UN. In 1971 he offered at the Commonwealth Conference that Lesotho should serve as a bridge between South Africa and the rest of Africa. Other African leaders also bent their efforts in the same direction and are still doing so.

I mention specifically President Tsiranana of Madagascar, as well as his Foreign Minister, Mr. Rabemananjara, and I mention the Foreign Minister of Mauritius. Mr. Chairman, these African leaders did pioneering work. They paved the way for subsequent developments. The idea of a dialogue even met with a response at the UN, where the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, based his entire speech on the idea of dialogue, not only in regard to South Africa, but in regard to world problems. The Foreign Ministers of the Ivory Coast and Madagascar and the Madagascan Ambassador all put forward strong pleas for dialogue with South Africa. In this regard I would be neglecting my duty if I omitted to express thanks and acknowledgements to the two South African Prime Ministers without whose actions absolutely nothing would have come of the dialogue idea. I am referring, of course, to the late Dr. Verwoerd, in whose lifetime the ball was set rolling by his actions in regard to Malawi and Lesotho, and then I am referring to our present Prime Minister, under whose guidance the so-called outward policy, the dialogue idea, the expansion of our African policy, really too shape. He deserves our thanks and praise for his far-sighted statesmanship, for his guidance and for the courage and optimism displayed by him in this connection. [Laughter.]

Sir, today dialogue is being generally welcomed in Western circles, and the hon. member will probably laugh at that as well. It is being generally welcomed in Western circles; I know this from my personal discussions. I know that it is being firmly welcomed and that its progress is being followed with great interest and appreciation. I also know that it is in fact meeting with wider interest in Africa than appears from public statements. We all know that it met with a good reception in the world Press, even in publications which are normally very hostile towards South Africa. Sir, I do not think I am guilty of exaggeration when I say that dialogue is becoming the fashion in international politics. In this connection I want to mention one example to you; I want to refer to President Nixon’s visit to China and read to you the following statement which he made upon his return. I quote—

As a result of what has already happened in this regard a change is taking place in South Africa’s relations with the rest of Africa. The emphasis is shifting, and this is illustrated in the use of certain stereotyped, general, popular expressions. Whereas previously expressions such as “White minority régime” and “apartheid” were constantly being harped on, ad nauseam, and there were constant references to isolation and boycotts, these expressions are gradually being replaced and are making way for two new expressions, the so-called “outward policy” of the South African Government, and “dialogue”.

These two ideas are coming into ever greater prominence, particularly outside the UN. These two concepts are being mentioned in the same breath. They have become virtually synonymous. This is definitely a change of fashion, a change to the good. This is a sound reflection of the true state of affairs, for through the application of our so-called outward policy we are putting dialogue into practice. One can in fact say that we are living dialogue. It is true, and I admit, that since President Boigny’s historic Press conference and the discussion on dialogue at the OAU, there have been no further spectacular or sensational developments in regard to dialogue. No large-scale conference has been organized to discuss or to engage in dialogue. We are not making efforts to ensure that such conferences are held either, although there may be others who are doing this. But we are putting this into practice daily; we are giving effect to this in our daily lives. We are constantly applying it on a bilateral basis, and this is being done on an ever-increasing scale, and the results are particularly encouraging and valuable.

Sir, to give you an idea of the extent of our activities I want to mention a few facts, and I think you will agree with me that what is involved here are not the points of protocol referred to by the hon. member opposite. I want to inform hon. members that during the past year I personally made contact with and held talks with members of governments of a dozen different African states. Several other South African Ministers visited some of our neighbouring states, and many of them had talks here in the Republic with Ministers from African states. Then I am not even mentioning the regular visits paid to African states by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Recently he visited all our neighbouring states, including Malawi and Madagascar, to which he led an important mission at the end of last year. Nor am I mentioning the head of the Africa division of my department and the large number of officials who regularly visit our neighbouring states. I think of missions sent to our neighbouring states by other departments.

Only last week a mission of experts in the field of soil erosion visited Lesotho, and I understand that arrangements are being made for a further mission to Malawi which will consist of experts on forestry and irrigation matters. The number of visitors from Africa to the Republic in the past year was also very impressive. In the past year we negotiated here with no fewer than 43 official representatives who came to the Republic from African states as our guests. Apart from those 43 guests, 120 other representatives came here for official discussions, while the Republic was visited by a further 260 with whom my department also had talks. That makes a total of 423. This is an average of almost two for every working day. What I am talking about now is surely not mere gestures of protocol. Many important persons from Africa travel through the Republic. Last year 210 of them were here, with many of whom we also made contact.

Incidentally, we are practising dialogue not only with Africa, but with the rest of the world as well. In this connection I want to inform this honourable House that during the past year my own department entertained no fewer than 38 official guests, persons of standing, from non-African foreign states. We had official talks with those persons, as well as with dozens of others who had come here, not as our guests, but of their own accord. Then I am not referring to the large number of important guests with whom members of the Government hold regular talks, mainly guests who are invited every year by the Department of Information.

Moreover, I want to remind hon. members of the regular visits paid to foreign countries by members of the Government. These visits are not pleasure trips, as some of our friends may perhaps think; they are hard work—believe me. The object of such ministerial journeys abroad is to make personal contact with members of other governments, to get to know them better and to discuss matters of common interest with them. I cannot sufficiently emphasize the importance, the inestimable value, of the influence which personal contact has on the relations between governments and between states. Therefore I want to express my appreciation for the fact that it is possible for Members of our Parliament to participate in overseas journeys. I want to thank hon. members who have had that privilege for the excellent work they are doing for our country. I want to give the hon. member for Bezuidenhout the assurance that I am convinced that these members of our House of Assembly and of the Other Place are doing exceptionally good work for South Africa.

But this objective is also being achieved in another way. In this regard I think of the large number of international conferences which take place in South Africa. Over the past two years since 1970 an average of more than one international conference per month was held in South Africa, almost half of which were intergovernmental conferences in which we also participated. In the past four months, from the beginning of the year to the end of last month, eight international conferences were held in South Africa, in other words, an average of two every month.

To return to Africa, I want to admit at once that the road ahead is still an uphill one and that we should have, or have, no illusions about that. Our problem is largely due to the misconception regarding the content and object of our policy, to ignorance of conditions in South Africa and to the distrust, and even hate, arising out of these misconceptions. Then, too, I must admit that there are of course many things in South Africa and in our policy as others see it which the world and Africa do not like either. Those things can only improve with time and are improving. Hon, members must remember that there are elements in the world which are constantly going out of their way to fan the flames of hatred against us.

I think in particular of the extremistic Pan-Africanists, some of whom are exiles from the Republic, while others are not South Africans. These people are being encouraged and assisted by communists and leftists. Amongst other things, many lies and untruths about South Africa are being disseminated in the outside world, lies and untruths which are only too readily believed. If hon. members do not want to believe me, they would do well to read Rapport, which had an interview with Prof. Ed. Munger of the U.S.A., a person who knows South Africa well. He tells of the line of action taken by Dennis Brutus in America, and how he was contradicted by prominent South African Bantu. But we shall continue to convince others through our actions.

In the first place we must convince them that we are in fact able to solve our problems and are in the process of solving them. We shall convince them that we are not a remnant of White colonialism in Africa, but that we form an inseparable part of Africa, and that we are able and willing to make a contribution to the development of Africa and to the furtherance of peace in Africa. Our attempts to do this will only succeed if dialogue leads to better understanding, to mutual appreciation of one another’s problems and the way in which each is trying to solve his own problems. In the second place our attempts will only succeed when dialogue leads to deeds, deeds which are there for the whole world to see. After all, deeds speak far more loudly and more convincingly than words.

It is, for example, generally known what far-reaching consequences the talks have had which have been held since the time of the late Dr. Verwoerd with Dr. Banda and with Chief Jonathan. Less well-known perhaps are the firm basis on which we are already co-operating with Madagascar and the permanent, joint committee of officials which meets regularly twice a year to continue the dialogue, to follow up decisions already taken and to investigate and discuss with one another possibilities for further cooperation. I can mention further examples to hon. members of how we are really putting dialogue into effect. I think of my recent talks with the President of Botswana, to which the hon. members referred, and my talks last week with Chief Jonathan. As is known, President Khama came out against the popular view of dialogue with South Africa. However, that does not preclude the possibility of useful and frank discussions with him, discussions such as those we held last November or December on matters of common interest, on points of difference or on misunderstandings which may arise between neighbours.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to South Africa’s alleged opposition to the road link between Zambia and Botswana. He alleged that we were opposed to it. Surely it is general knowledge, and I have also stated this in public, that we are not opposed to it. It is none of our business. We do not interfere in the domestic affairs of other states, of neighbouring states. The Government of Botswana is perfectly aware of this. Contact and co-operation with neighbouring states are of course on South Africa’s part not limited to Government action, but also take place in the private sector. In this connection I want to refer in passing to a Press statement, a recent announcement concerning a very extensive development programme in Botswana for the exploitation of copper and nickel, a project in which South African enterprises are participating to a considerable degree. The talks which I had last week with Prime Minister Jonathan of Lesotho were also particularly useful, and covered a wide field. Amongst other things, they led to the finalization of the matter of the exchange of representatives, to which I referred here last year. Hon. members suggested that there had been an exceptionally long delay in regard to this matter. But hon. members must realize that the opening of missions is not something which can be done overnight, simply by pressing a button. There are many factors which can cause delay.

†In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I wish to inform the House that, following on discussions last year, the Governments of the Kingdom of Lesotho and the Republic of South Africa have agreed on a reciprocal basis to consular representation at the level of consulate-general. Both Governments are now proceeding with the task of providing office and residential accommodation in preparation for the exchange of representatives. After careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that this particular form of representation will meet the present requirements of both our Governments. I believe that it will promote better understanding and friendly relations between us and that it will lead to even greater and more fruitful co-operation.

The hon. member for Houghton boasted about her own and Mr. Colin Eglin’s visit to Black African states. She wanted to know a few weeks ago, and today again, what happened to the Government’s outward policy. I think the hon. member will by now realize that we have a great deal to boast about. I just drew the curtain away a little bit. We believe that one should not play for the gallery. Our objective is service to our country. I wonder why the hon. member has not told us more about her discussions with these African leaders. I wonder whether she discussed with these leaders how to get rid of the Government, how to oppose apartheid in South Africa.

I do not need to learn that; I know that.

I wonder why the hon. member did not tell us what inspired the Daily Nation, a Nairobi newspaper, of the 13th October last year to write the following—and I quote:

Why don’t you ask the newspaper?

I think I shall at this stage also express a few ideas in regard to the UN, a matter which was raised by various speakers. I want to inform hon. members that, as in the past, I again participated in the proceedings last year, and I think I may say that my participation was not without a measure of success. The extremists at the UN are apparently beginning to realize that demonstrations in the form of walk-outs when the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs addresses the General Assembly, do them more harm than they do South Africa. Consequently there were no such walk-outs when I addressed the General Assembly during the past two sessions. In addition, South Africa participated last year, for the second time in the history of the UN, in the proceedings of the Security Council. I myself participated twice in the debate on South-West Africa, and after I had had to leave for Iran with our State President, Ambassador von Hirschberg, our representative there, participated further in those discussions. This participation enabled us to place South Africa’s case on record fully and unequivocally. On the whole it was well received. The South-West Africa debate in the Security Council in New York was followed by a resolution by the Security Council during its session in Addis Abeba authorizing Dr. Waldheim, the new Secretary-General, to visit South Africa. I shall come back to this at a later stage. My participation in the Security Council debate on the Caprivi incident also had good results. Inter alia, I had the opportunity there to refute Zambia’s unfounded charges in regard to violation of its territory by South Africa convincingly by furnishing the true facts. I had the opportunity to make out a strong case against terrorism. The result was that Zambia was unable to obtain the necessary support for the very drastic resolution of censure which they had initially proposed there, in which South Africa was strongly condemned. They were consequently obliged to abandon it. The resolution which was eventually passed, ignored Zambia’s charges against South Africa and declared in general terms that the sovereignty of states should be respected. South Africa was requested to respect Zambia’s integrity as well. The Zambian delegates were not at all happy about the failure of their attempt to capitalize on this incident, and their representative expressed his disappointment at the action of the Security Council in no uncertain terms. I want to say that it is a pity that the final resolution did not contain a condemnation of terrorism in South-West Africa. That was not only my reaction, but also the reaction of the American mission, amongst others. The American Ambassador in the Security Council deplored, when explaining his vote, “that the resolution did not make it unmistakably clear that unauthorized crossings of international frontiers by irregular forces or armed bands were also contrary to the charter”. On the other hand it was a good opportunity for South Africa to inform the world that terrorists were operating against South-West Africa from within Zambia, that the terrorists were sheltering in Zambia, that they were receiving assistance from Zambia, and that Zambia was paying no heed to our repeated requests and warnings that they should prohibit the terrorists from making incursions into South Africa and South-West Africa from within Zambian territory. On that occasion I concluded my speech in the Security Council as follows. I quote—

I repeat, Sir, we are not prepared to make any compromise when it comes to terrorism. President Kaunda may as well take cognizance of this. Indeed, a very great responsibility rests on him in this connection.

The question arises what our future relations with the UN are going to be. We must accept that the enemies of South Africa will not relax their efforts to use this organization against South Africa by mobilizing votes against us there; and that is not very difficult. They will not cease to keep us under constant pressure and to make things difficult for us by means of resolutions. I want to predict that their attempts are likely to intensify as we make progress and as our enemies become more and more desperate because of the success we are achieving in many spheres.

Typical of the actions taken against South Africa is the case of our credentials. Just as in 1970 the credentials committee of the UN again found last year that all the credentials, including South Africa’s, were in order. However, it was proposed in the General Assembly—where, as I have said, it is not difficult to mobilize a majority against us—that the report of this committee be accepted, except in the case of South Africa’s credentials. Sixty votes were cast in favour of this motion, while 58 states either opposed it or abstained from voting, so that this motion was passed and South Africa’s credentials were therefore not accepted. As in the previous year, the President again declared that the resolution did not affect South Africa’s rights and privileges in the organization, and that our membership of the organization was not affected either, so that we, as before, could continue to participate in the proceedings. This is nevertheless regrettable; but unfortunately it is typical of this organization. One can only hope that things will not continue in this way, and that in future there will be an increasing number of member countries which will display greater realism and a greater sense of responsibility, greater objectivity and a more positive approach.

The approval by the Security Council of the Secretary-General’s visit to South Africa is interpreted in some circles as such a positive step. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, only the future will show whether this was in fact the case. The South African Government welcomed Dr. Waldheim’s acceptance of the invitation by the Prime Minister. Indeed, at the end of that visit our Prime Minister could rightly say, “The fact that we held talks served a good and useful purpose.”

†Not only did we invite Dr. Waldheim to visit South Africa, but we also arranged for him and his following to go to South-West Africa to see as much of the Territory as was possible within the limited time at their disposal. We arranged for him to meet and talk to as many people as possible. In fact, he himself stated that he was able to meet a cross-section of the population. The visit brought home to the Secretary-General the complexity of the problem and the realization that it cannot be solved overnight. During his stay here we held extensive discussions and exchanged views with him. In the course of these discussions, various ideas emerged. Since his return to New York, we have had further exchanges with Dr. Waldheim. I now wish to inform the House that I intend proceeding to New York during the next week or two for the purpose of continuing the discussions with the Secretary-General which were commenced in Cape Town during March. I am sure that hon. members will appreciate that I cannot at this stage add anything to this statement and to the statement which the Prime Minister made in this House on 4th February this year, outlining the spirit in which we are prepared to talk to Dr. Waldheim.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. the Minister has spoken for almost three-quarters of an hour, it is, of course, extremely difficult for us on this side of the House to react to the wide spectrum of points he mentioned. Naturally one can refer only to certain aspects of it.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the question of dialogue and the outward movement which we fully support, of course. The hon. the Minister actually tried to indicate that the Government was responsible for the invention of this concept of “dialogue”. Those of us who know history, know, of course, that the first people who initiated the outward movement in this country, were Botha, Smuts and Hertzog. In those days they were virtually flayed. Because then it was wrong but today, of course, it is right. Nevertheless, we fully support dialogue and the outward movement in foreign affairs. The hon. the Minister spoke about it at length and when he had eventually finished, one asked oneself: What had he achieved by it? He told us of the hundreds of visitors who had come to South Africa. This was in fact the only fundamental thing achieved during the entire year, because last year he gave us exactly the same kind of survey. He said we were now going to have consular relations with Lesotho, but the prospect of this has been held out for years. What surprises us is that although this hon. Minister said the Government was practising dialogue, the hon. member for Von Brandis referred to an aspect which was related to that very matter but to which the hon. the Minister did not come back at all. If this Government is practising dialogue to such an extent, why do we have the following phenomenon? We have the ex-protectorates here within the borders of Greater Southern Africa. They are not countries which are detached from us; they are the countries which form part of our own common market; they are countries which form part of a common customs union with South Africa. If the Government practised dialogue to such an extent, one would have expected to have seen an example of it here. However, we know that in November last year, the Government introduced restrictions and import control. I ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government ever consulted with these ex-protectorates in this regard. Our information is that it was not done, and that there is large-scale dissatisfaction about it. The Government introduced restrictions without informing them. Is this the form in which they are practising dialogue? As the hon. member for Von Brandis said, this Government devalued our currency without any form of consultation having been conducted with Lesotho, Botswana or Swaziland.

And if they had said “no”? [Interjections.]

Order!

Is this how one practises dialogue? These other countries are also perturbed because there are more and more indications that bodies and persons in Pretoria are not prepared to allow and encourage economic development in some of these countries. I refer to a recent statement made by Mr. Van Graan, the managing director of the Lesotho Development Corporation. He tells, for example, of “how they wanted to bring in a Japanese motor assembly plant”. But according to Mr. Van Graan they dropped this project after pressure from Pretoria. Mr. Van Graan says—

Now I ask the hon. the Minister: Is this the form of dialogue; is this how we encourage our closest neighbours? When economic developments of this nature come, there is pressure from Pretoria. Is he aware of that? Was his department consulted in this regard? Is it true that pressure was exercised by our Government and, if so, who was the Minister concerned? There is large-scale dissatisfaction in these three neighbouring countries around us because they feel that they are not taken into account by this Government where necessary. Consequently this is a further reason why there is talk at present that they want to introduce their own monetary system They say all these incoming foreign investments go to Pretoria, and are placed on the central account by the Reserve Bank. They lose the interest payable on such moneys. This is why these three countries within our borders are even beginning to talk of devising a monetary system of their own.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the UN and said it was necessary for us to have contact with the UN. He was perfectly correct, of course. I feel there are other ways in which this contact may be retained as well. The hon. the Minister said that reports were available which one could read. That is true, of course. One of the practical suggestions I want to submit to him, is in fact to obtain closer contact between this Parliament and the UN, because although we do not agree with them and although we do not like the tenor of some of their discussions, the UN is, after all, still the final forum for international affairs. It is the place where South Africa is placed under the magnifying glass. For the very purpose of obtaining broader contact with them, I want to propose that the hon. the Minister use his authority in order to try to persuade the Government to send a mission from Parliament to the UN for a limited period every year, not in order to participate in the discussions, but merely as observers. This type of proposal has already been made on a previous occasion in another place, but we on this side of the House should like to bring it to the attention of the Government officially. We feel that such a mission should consist of representatives of both Houses and that the Government and the Opposition should have equal representation on it. Sir, it would be important in this respect: The members of the mission would have an opportunity of hearing what sort of arguments are advanced against us; they would see how our missions are often embarrassed there by the statements and the actions of certain of the higher bodies and persons of that side, for example, the notorious Caprivi Speech of the hon. the Prime Minister; but it would also give our members the opportunity of seeing how actions in South Africa, especially from the side of important bodies and persons here, land us in trouble over there. It would place these members in a position of being able to inform their own parties in this regard upon their return.

As long as we do not send you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to another issue, and that is our diplomatic relationships. The hon. member for Middelland mentioned America and indicated to us that he thought that our diplomatic relationships with America were improving. We on this side of the House, see it completely differently. Whether we like it or not, America is one of the most powerful Western nations in the world, and it would be tragic if some sort of diplomatic gulf were to develop between South Africa and a country like America. Sir, there is no doubt about it that there has been a deterioration in the relationships between ourselves and America. The position was recently indicated by a senior diplomat when he said that our relationships were “correct but not normal”; that indicates an immense amount. To show how this relationship is deteriorating, from the American point of view, I need merely mention the stance and the posture and the position of the State Department, which is often not only cool towards us, but also hostile. One need only think of all the lobbyists and all the pressure groups in America who are trying to persuade American investors to withdraw their investments in South Africa. One thinks of arms embargoes and boycotts, and one thinks also of how American delegations often vote at the United Nations and at some of its more important agencies. Sir, these reactions from America are not aimed against the South African people, but against the policies of this Government. While I do not suggest for one moment that we should dramatically change our whole social structure and the whole political set-up in this country in order to conform to the dictates of foreign powers, there is no doubt that many steps have been taken in this country that have not only played right into the hands of our enemies overseas, but have seriously embarrassed our friends. We notice at the present time a change in the American approach, brought about mainly as the result of the work of Dr. Kiesinger and his Security Council. The present approach is probably one of consultation rather than commitment; it is probably one of disengagement rather than involvement, and although it is true that in Washington there are still many people who have hawkish views about South Africa, I think the approach of harassment that we have had in the past is beginning to lose its edge. We feel that South Africa today has an excellent opportunity, in view of this new change in the American diplomatic approach, not only to the rest of the world but also to South Africa, to see whether we cannot review our position and put diplomatic relations on a very much sounder footing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want my anger to build up slowly, and therefore I turn my attention firstly to the hon. the Minister. I should like to congratulate him on another award he received. I am referring to the honorary award made to him a few weeks ago by the Centre for International Politics at Potchefstroom. I should like us to take note of the work of this institution, because this Centre for International Politics, particularly with its Institute for Africa Affairs, does particularly good work and research into these troubles we have in Africa today. In this era in which the politics of Africa are undergoing a tremendous flux and where we have a new government in some or other country of Africa every day, the work of this institution enables us to keep abreast of the new trends in Africa. I should consequently also like to state that if we just bear in mind that in the past ten years there have been more than 50 coups in Africa, it shows how rapidly politics has changed, and it is very important for us to take note of those changes. I should like to make this appeal—I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Education is not here now—i.e. that not only at the universities, but also at the schools, a special period of time should already be set aside to give the senior children information about certain aspects of politics in Africa. It is no use just knowing the country’s geography or its sociological structure; we must take timely connizance of its political structure. Therefore I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vasco said, i.e. that we must give more and more attention to the languages of Africa. We have our official languages, but we must bear in mind that there are twelve or thirteen countries with a population of about 60 million people which are also French-speaking. I am very glad the hon. member mentioned this, and I should like to confirm it. He and I are both learning French, and we are both struggling together. Had we been children we would already have been able to speak French very easily.

Now, as I have said, I want my anger to build up slowly. This debate has begun, and we were told by the hon. the Minister of the outside influences which are hindering us in our objects of achieving peace on earth and peace in Africa-—the Minister did in fact refer to the hon. member for Houghton—but we also have friends here. I am just going to refer you to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said on 23rd April, 1969 (in column 4574) at a time when we had just initiated our relations with Malawi. He said this—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout confirms that he is glad of that development, and when the hon. the Prime Minister gave us an account last year of the difficult work he had done in also convincing Zambia to co-operate with us, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following—

Those are fine words, sincere words, and they are well meant, but now I am angry and I now want to come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow and fling the words he used about Malawi back in his face. These were his words—

The hon. member not only insulted this country. That hon. member, who now wants to come and tell the Minister how we must move outwards, insulted his country and his own party, contradicted his leader and not one of them gainsaid him, and that is what hurt me the most. I regard this utterance of his as having insulted our State-President, because our State-President was an invited guest to that country. But he did not stop at that.

Paragraph one of the UN Charter reads as follows: “To develop friendly relations amongst nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. That is one of their objects. We agree completely with the “self-determination of peoples”, the self-determination of nations and peoples. In the same debate in which he made those contentious remarks, the hon. member said this as well, two minutes after the previous remarks—

The hon. member may still perhaps accuse us of apartheid, although we have just read you the Charter, but when he says “South Africa and apartheid”, I cannot forgive him. I cannot see that he has any right to take part in this debate. In the same sentence he also says that they have been asking for six or seven years that we have diplomats in the other states of Africa, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has joined him in saying that every year. It is not a matter of how it should be done or when it should be done, or all the steps that lead to diplomacy, but before I conclude I just want to quote to you again what the late advocate Eric Louw said in 1959 at a Sabra Congress. I quote from the minutes of the Sabra Congress—

Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says it has already been a matter of five or six years, and this gives me the impression that he wants to bring a whole lot of diplomats across the desert on a camel and wants to drop a diplomat in every independent state, and when he has done the trip he then says: “Now we want your diplomats”. That is their idea of dialogue.

In the limited time available to me I want to deal with the question of our domestic politics and policies in relation to foreign affairs. Ever since this Government came into power, which is a very long time ago, it has based its foreign policy upon the neat, readymade and righteous little formula that we do not interfere with anybody else’s affairs and therefore they are not entitled to interfere in ours. This has formed the basis of many statements by the hon. the Prime Minister in Press conferences, here in the House and all over the world. This has become the familiar rationale by means of which the Government hopes to keep hostile elements from overseas at bay. It is our submission from this side of the House that this kind of formula in this day and age is proving both futile and unconvincing. Whether we like it or not— and we quite certainly do not like it—if we face the facts, it is of little interest or concern to the rest of the world today that the basic principle of any state having a prior right of jurisdiction over its own affairs, has been for many years entrenched as a principle of international practice and law. We accept that that is the case but we also have to face the realities, and the hon. the Minister will know this better than anyone else, that ever since the Second World War and the development of the UN into an enormous hybrid organization operating in a whole series of fields, the whole international situation has changed. If one thinks for a minute about all the non-governmental organizations attached to the UN, functioning in, as the Minister knows, a whole variety of fields, as well as all the permanent political committees functioning in New York, then it seems to me that it has become worse than useless for any country in the world to attempt to take refuge behind South Africa’s neat little formula of non-interference. I sometimes think that we are really failing to face reality when we continue to do that. The hard fact of the matter is, of course, that South Africa’s foreign and domestic policies, like those of any other country in the world—it does not only apply to us —are inextricably interwoven. All of us in this House, and especially those of us who have been overseas, are quite aware that in certain countries there are public representatives or people in other high places who find it politically profitable to use us and the complex situation we face here for their own political benefit from time to time, whenever it suits them.

However, there is another aspect to this matter. The fact is that the biggest stumbling block of all to anyone who has travelled overseas either as a politician—and a politician is a sitting target—or simply as a visitor, is the demand with which one is faced to justify domestic policies at home many of which, in fact, cannot be justified at all.

[Inaudible.]

Indeed, that is the case. In a sense we have only ourselves to blame in this regard. Let us face the fact that we make so many martyrs in South Africa that we have practically reduced it to a fine art. One finds these martyrs all over the Western World. They are angry, bitter and active expatriates. I have come across them in the United Kingdom and in America. Most of them are highly articulate and, although they are certainly not always accurate in what they say, a lot of them are very forceful indeed, as the hon. the Minister himself admitted. What happens? After a time these martyrs tend to become, for want of any really effective high-level official action on South Africa’s part, a focal point for information about South Africa wherever they congregate. All of what they say, much of which is vicious and untrue, is quoted as though it were gospel truth by the local Press, by television and radio. I think we must give some consideration to the extent to which other members of the Cabinet—here I am not in any way accusing this hon. Minister —by their actions tend to make martyrs of so many of these people, and the damage they do.

Just think of the fields in which they have operated and the damage they have done us during the past decade. I name only a few: There are sportsmen, churchmen, politicians, students, teachers, victims of our rigid population registration laws, victims of our Immorality Act, university lecturers and trade union officials. There are even artists and writers who have not been immune to this treatment. For one reason or another members of the Cabinet, other than this hon. Minister, have seen fit to take action in such a way that these people have overnight become martyrs and heroes overseas. This applies to Black men, Coloured men and White men—it does not make any difference, they are all effective. I think that this hon. Minister, knowing him to be a moderate man, would be doing the country a very good turn indeed if he could persuade some of his Cabinet colleagues to consult him a little more and a little more frequently before they take unwise action in certain fields which seriously affected our international relations. I appreciate that in so many ways this hon. Minister may feel, if he will forgive the term, powerless to help ease the increasing hysteria and pressure against us, when so many of the Government’s actions here at home cannot be justified even in terms of our domestic affairs. We accept, let us be fair, that this hon. Minister is in a great dilemma, but I think any Minister of External Affairs at some stage finds himself in dilemmas of this kind. Nevertheless, the feasibility of our present strategy overseas in the face of these considerations, is completely untenable; my point being that the cry of non-interference, as though this were the one rampart we could put up, is providing no real answers. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that in the last 25 years almost every normal social, economic and political matter has become internationalized. The hon. the Minister knows that better than anybody else in this House. We are not the only country subjected to this kind of pressure. The Tory Government in the United Kingdom is subjected to extreme pressures over Rhodesia, while Portugal meets with continuous hostility over and active interference with her provinces in Africa—particularly in regard to Guinea-Bissau—and France gets her share of it for supplying us with arms. While the Republic has not in any way restricted its international contacts to those countries who have been our traditional friends, even these countries, as the hon. the Minister knows, have taken action of one kind or another against us in recent years. Some have done it in the field of sport, others by means of arms embargoes, boycotts and sanctions. These examples clearly show that our so-called non-interference dictum has had little reciprocal value for us in terms of international politics. We continue to be ostracized; indeed, I think we largely ostracize ourselves. In plain terms, I would simply say that I am talking of strategy now. Our strategy has in no way safeguarded the Republic from increasing interference from outside. Let me make it clear that to abrogate the principle of noninterference would, of course, not only be bad policy, but could lead to great complications. That is not my point. My plea is that greater thought be given by the Government to its thoughts and decisions here at home in relation to our foreign policy and the effect so much of what we do here has upon international opinion. No one overseas is going to be in the least impressed by the Cabinet’s official welcome, for instance, to Dr. Hastings Banda and his entourage, social functions and all, so long as Cabinet Ministers here refuse to attend official parties given by senior members of the diplomatic corps, merely because some of our own leaders, our Coloured and Black leaders whom this Government has placed in the positions in which they are, attend those parties. This happens whilst the hon. the Prime Minister meets them personally and cannot be more courteous as is this hon. Minister himself. If only they would change their approach in regard to the diplomatic scene her in South Africa, I think it would be of enormous value and a very good start. Surely it is time that the Government took a very good look … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the department and the hon. the Minister on the success they have had in persuading the new Secretary-General of the UN to come to South Africa as soon as possible after assuming this office so that he may personally acquaint himself here with our problems. Now that the South-West Africa affair has been removed from the juridical sphere and placed in the political arena, it is essential for us to conduct on the highest level possible a dialogue on this matter. I am very grateful that I could understand from our hon. Minister today, in whom we have great confidence, that this dialogue would be resumed within the next few weeks. We wish him strength and wisdom. To my mind the hon. the Minister and the department deserve not only our congratulations, but also our high appreciation for the fact that they succeed in making this visit proceed so smoothly and without incident. South Africa must be very grateful, for if there had been unpleasant incidents, it could have had very unpleasant consequences for South Africa. While Dr. Waldheim was here, it was a difficult time for Owambo, where a great deal of incitement had taken place, but Dr. Waldheim was nevertheless placed in a position to see all the people he wanted to see. Everything went very well, and we in South Africa are greatly indebted to the department for that.

†We can only hope that in this matter the new Secretary-General will reveal those qualities of objectivity and insight and impartiality which people have the right to expect from anyone holding such high office. South Africa had a very raw deal from the United Nations under the régime of the previous Secretary-General. Indeed, it is openly acknowledged today, that to put it mildly, U Thant was not a very successful Secretary-General. His administrative ability was nil and the secretariat over which he was supposed to preside, soon became the greatest bureaucracy the world has ever known. On the political side he became engrossed in his own particular prejudices. He showed himself to be an anti-White racialist of the first order and he was always ready to fan the flames of Afro-Asian hatred. In doing so, he openly sided with the communist bloc. The real world simply did not exist for this man for he was too busy fighting the evils of colonialism and imperialism. All his attention was permanently focused on the imagined aggressive plot schemed by the agents of colonialism such as Portugal, South Africa and Rhodesia. More than anybody else U Thant is to blame for the farce in which the General Assembly has developed. The new Secretary-General has taken it upon himself as his first major task to restore the prestige of the world body. Apparently he is well suited for the job. He has been a successful negotiator in numerous international disputes and because of his remarkable quality namely to appear to remain absolutely neutral when dealing with disputes he has earned himself the international nickname of the “Honest Broker”. It further appears on the surface that this man has the qualities most needed for the job of Secretary-General. We know, however, that he has an immensely difficult task and we wish him luck. I sincerely hope that he will succeed in his most essential task, namely the breaking of the stranglehold which the Afro-Asian world teeming with small inconsequential nations has over the General Assembly. Before that is done, the United Nations will not regain the international respect which it has lost during U Thant’s régime.

*Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Wynberg, who is unfortunately not present in the House at the moment, namely that we should abandon or water down our policy of non-interference in domestic affairs for the sake of the promotion of our foreign relations. The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Von Brandis sang the same tune. As it is in my opinion extremely important that every state should have a clearly formulated principle on which its foreign policy should be based, and as South Africa has for many years based its foreign relations policy on this very corner-stone of reciprocal recognition of one another’s sovereignty, of noninterference in one another’s domestic affairs, I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would on this occasion reaffirm our policy in this regard. Furthermore, I should very much like to have a very clear standpoint from the Opposition in regard to this important principle. Must we accept that the hon. members who spoke here, reflected the official policy of that party in regard to these matters? We on this side of the House would very much like to establish good, friendly relations with all the peoples of the world. However, we believe that such friendly relations among a large variety of nations with considerable differences in background, education, standard of civilization, interests and desires, may rest on the one golden rule of recognition of sovereignty and of non-interference in internal affairs. In fact, the draftsman of the United Nations Charter also appreciated this principle, and for that reason they made it one of the basic principles of that charter. If they had not done so, I doubt whether many of the great powers of that time, and even South Africa too, would have become members of the United Nations Organization. In a study of history we find that virtually every war and outburst of the past may in fact be attributed to the violation of this very important principle. Non-interference is indeed a principle accepted by the majority of the civilized peoples. For instance, this is what the American Information Service has to say: “We believe that nations large and small have the right to chart their own destinies without the threat of external force or interference.” Furthermore, this is a fundamental principle of international law. Stowell, for instance, says the following in his “International Law”: “Non-interference is the most important law of international law. To deny it would be to remove from international law the salutary system of terrirtorial sovereignty and to deprive the principle of the independence of states of honest meaning.” Of course, what the international code of law says and what all recognized nations accept in principle today, is not always implemented in practice. In this regard, too, one often finds that double standards are applied. That is in fact what we are complaining about. Big countries such as Soviet Russia and Red China are allowed to propagate and realize their internal policy without any interference and pressure from outside, whereas small countries, such as South Africa, are often exposed to merciless pressure from outside, so much so that hon. members of this House are yielding to it with weak knees here today. In this way South Africa was, during the past year, the victim of a great deal of pressure from outside. We had to contend with sports boycotts, arms boycotts, and so forth. But what will become of international relations in the world if the manner in which nations try to solve their national problems to the best of their ability, is exposed to such blatant interference from outside? For instance, South Africa firmly believes that its policy of development along individual lines is the only feasible, fair and morally justifiable recipe for bringing about peace, stability and progress in a multi-national community. The United States of America, on the other hand, believes that under its circumstances it can achieve the same object only by means of compulsory integration. But is this any reason why we should seize each other by the throat, because we want to achieve the same object but do so by means of different methods. Kenneth Kaunda does not like the way South Africa is being governed, but we, in turn, do not like his autocratic one-party system. But is this any reason why these two peoples of Africa should not have any discussions on so many problems which they have in common in Africa? Friendly relations between peoples are vital to peace and prosperity on this earth, and these can only be founded on one golden principle, namely that of non-interference in internal affairs and in the recognition of each people’s sovereignty to solve its own problems to the best of its ability. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the growing influence of communism, both Russian and Chinese, in the Southern Hemisphere, particularly in the Indian Ocean. I want to ask the hon. the Minister pertinently what the Government’s attitude is towards this growing influence. Is it simply an attitude of throwing up their arms and saying there is nothing we can do about it? If that is so, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister and his Government that this is just not good enough any longer. I believe there is much we can do and should be doing to neutralize the growing Communist influence without adopting aggressive tactics, because obviously we have always been a non-aggressive nation and must remain so, and without interfering in the internal affairs of those countries that are coming within this influence.

I want to make a few suggestions to the hon. the Minister in relation to a discussion which I want to have with him in regard to a specific country about which I have some knowledge and which also happens to be my birthplace, namely Mauritius. The hon. the Minister and the Committee will be aware that two important developments have taken place on that island in the last few years. One relates to the Soviet presence, while the other, a more recent development, relates to the Red Chinese. As far as Russia is concerned, it has established an Embassy in Mauritius and has also obtained permission to allow its fishing vessels facilities on the island and in the main harbour. Needless to say these fishing vessels would appear to be fitted with equipment that goes well beyond the normal needs of fishing. The sort of people who come off these ships on to the island would lead one to believe that they may perhaps not be confined to fishing activities. I want to leave this aspect without further detailed discussion. The important thing is that Russian diplomatic relations have been established between that island and the Soviet Union.

So far as the Red Chinese are concerned, they have recently provided for the island a R31 million interest-free loan. They have also been given some form of diplomatic representation, but precisely what that form is, is not entirely clear, to me at any rate, at this stage. The important question to ask oneself is why this has happened? Is it perhaps because the Mauritian population is sympathetic towards Communism, wishes to associate itself with Communism, either Russian or Chinese, and above all is influenced by that philosophy? I believe we would be making a great mistake in their case if we did take up this attitude. I believe that so far as the loan from Communist China at any rate is concerned, this has been largely dictated by economic needs and the fact that the island has not been able to obtain, for one reason or another, the financial assistance that it requires for its future from Western countries, or for that matter, from ourselves, South Africa. I think it is sad to think that we, who are so much closer to that island and who could be affected by the growing communist influence there, were not able to provide the financial assistance required.

I do not believe that this Government was not aware of the true position on the island. It is a small island with a large population, with few industries and with growing poverty and unemployment and with a need to develop an economy and to find funds from outside in order to live. It is basically a problem of economics. If one looks at it from that point of view, I believe that there is much that this Government could have done and can still do to neutralize the Communist influence. Preferably, as a first step, I believe this Government should endeavour at all costs to develop bonds of friendship between the Mauritians and ourselves. I know that there has been a certain amount of antagonism and that there are problems because of our internal policies, but I believe that despite the difficulties, there is much that could be done to establish bonds of friendship. Secondly I believe that we should be in a position, or willing to provide the financial assistance which the island requires and which it will have to seek increasingly—and I emphasize the fact that they will have to seek it increasingly—either from the Russians or from the Chinese, if they cannot get help from ourselves or from Western nations. If South Africa is serious about its concern for the growing communist influence, which is getting nearer to South Africa, I believe it is vital for us to do just this.

I would also like to know if it is not possible at this stage to establish diplomatic relations in the way which has just been announced by the Minister this afternoon with Lesotho, or which exists with Malawi. If that is not possible, I believe that an important first step would be to establish some form of economic liaison, some basis upon which we could talk to them about their economic needs and see to what extent we can supply these; for example, to what extent we could assist in establishing industries on the island which would provide the jobs that are required year by year for the growing population. This is not a matter to be left to private entrepreneurs, to those business men of this country who are willing to assist for their own private gain or for other purposes; nor is it a matter to be left in the hands of the Department of Commerce and Industry. I believe that this is something which the Department of Foreign Affairs must take in hand in collaboration with the Department of Commerce and Industry. But the driving force must be through the Department of Foreign Affairs. I believe that it is not yet too late. Depiste these two developments, I believe that there is still time for our country to establish bonds of friendship and to show a willingness to assist the country in its dire needs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave raised a very important matter here this afternoon, viz. the threatening communist influence in the Indian Ocean. But, Sir, I would say that when one is discussing one’s security, one would surely not inform one’s enemies of what one’s plans are for mounting a counter-offensive to their threat. These are matters which are receiving top priority, but I think these are probably matters which should also be dealt with and discussed with the greatest circumspection, particularly in public.

The hon. the Minister struck what was to my mind a very pleasant note here this afternoon when he told us that, particularly in Africa, the words “White minorities” and “apartheid” were gradually making way for such words as “dialogue”, and “outward policy”. I think it is very pleasant to hear those words. But I sat here wondering whether it was not perhaps time we appointed an itinerant ambassador or two in Africa. We still recall how a few years ago a man like Advocate Charles te Water undertook this task. He did very good work, and perhaps it would be a good thing to consider the appointment of such permanent itinerant ambassador/s to visit African countries and work for South Africa.

But, Sir, I actually want to say a few words this afternoon about aid to African states, technical and otherwise. By now a decade or two has already elapsed since more than 40 African states achieved their independence. These states were all underdeveloped. This was an important phase in their history, their achieving independence. But in the initial years their leaders presented them with marvellous slogans. They pointed out that they had done away with domination by foreign powers; they had brought about the downfall of previous rulers, and it was very pleasant for these people to hear these things. But as years went by this derogation of previous masters and rulers began to pall, and the people began to think that they needed more; they began to ask for development; they began to ask for progress. In themselves they are too weak to accomplish that progress and development. They do not have the necessary capital. There are other great powers which have now to a large extent advanced them the capital and finance. We think in particular here of Russia and America, and in subsequent years, China as well. But, Sir, these people, particularly the two communist powers, had ulterior motives with this aid to African states. Here at the southernmost point of Africa was the Republic, keeping a watchful eye on the situation all the time. We had ourselves reached a certain stage of development; we needed capital for our own development and our own progress. But we on our part did not remain inactive. As far as our finances and possibilities allowed, we also tried to render aid to these under-developed African states, but we had no ulterior motives in doing so. We did not want to acquire living space in those countries; we did not want to obtain a powerful hold over those countries. If one thinks of aid rendered by the communist states, one things involuntarily of the Aswan Dam, which cost R600 million. This was in fact Trojan Horse the Russians brought into Africa. We think of the Tanzam railway line, which is being financed by Red China; this is in fact the Trojan Horse Red China is bringing into Africa. But, Sir, aid has also been made available by these countries to African states in other spheres—military aid, the training of their pilots, and other military aid. All this aid made available by the communist states to the African states, one can regard as the Trojan Horses they have brought into Africa. As for South Africa, its attitude throughout was that everything it wanted to accomplish should be on a basis of friendly neighbourliness. The aid we made available—and we made a great deal of aid available, particularly to Malawi, and here, too, I think of Lesotho and Madagascar—was made available for the sake of those countries in the first place. In the second place, of course, we shall also benefit by it, economically speaking. Our imports and exports are going to benefit, and we are going to benefit in many other ways. But, Sir, when I think of the major benefits this is going to constitute for the Republic, then I want to return to what the hon. member for Musgrave said about the communist threat in the Indian Ocean. This is not only in the Indian Ocean; it applies throughout Africa. I want to quote to you from a publication of the Potchefstroom Institute, to which the hon. member for Brentwood referred here this afternoon. In this pamphlet, “Die Wêreld in Oënskou”, of March, we read, inter alia, the following (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, those are very important words, particularly for us. We think here of Portugal’s 12 year long struggle in Angola, a very difficult struggle because of the extensiveness of that country. Countries such as Zambia are now offering to accommodate the terrorists. But the solution does not lie in military force; for us the solution lies in our political sphere, and in the social and economic upliftment of those people; in that way we are going to derive the best advantages for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, we always listen with interest to what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to say. We looked forward again this afternoon, of course, to what he had to say to the Committee. It was interesting to hear that he will soon have further talks with Dr. Waldheim. As far as Lesotho is concerned, we expected he would make the announcement which he did here this afternoon. But for the rest, I must say to the hon. the Minister that we get virtually the same performance from him year after year. What I mean by this, is that the hon. the Minister paints a picture here as if everything in the garden is rosy. [Interjection.] That is the impression, and it is the same every year. I can understand that a Minister likes to present his case as favourably as possible; that is understandable, but every year we have the situation here —the hon. the Minister can look up his contributions in the debates on foreign affairs—that we hear from the hon. the Minister that things are going well and that he is hoping for the best, but as soon as the debate is over, the hon. the Prime Minister tells us in the country outside of the dangerous situation facing the country and of the tremendous escalation in terrorism on our borders and issues one warning after another. The Minister of Defence goes so far as to tell us we should not be surprised if we have to fight on our own territory for the first time in 70 years. We get warnings from the Chief of the Defence Force—one warning after another. The impression we gain of the hon. the Minister— I am saying this here with all due respect— is that he is a little unrealistic. He presents matters in too favourable a light. We have the situation here, as the hon. member behind me mentioned a moment ago, that it has become a common experience to see Russian submarines and ships around our coasts. We know of the situation with China; we know it is a non-White country which makes use of apartheid in the reverse sense in order to incite people—non-Whites against Whites—and how this will affect us; and in the midst of all these things, in respect of which we are continually getting serious warnings from other members of the Cabinet, we get a picture from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whom we really expect to speak more directly to the country, according to which virtually everything in the garden is rosy. The most important thing we miss in the hon. the Minister is a sense of urgency. Practically every question we raise here which is of a troublesome nature he simply shrugs off; he simply does not reply to it. Take, for example, the incidents I mentioned here. The hon. the Minister simply shrugs them off by saying that he has already discussed them previously, but he does not say that he or his department will help …

It is a matter for each individual. I said so last year as well.

Sir, if things which harm our country are continually taking place, and the hon. the Minister is the man who should see to it that we present a good image to the outside world, we expect him to speak more earnestly to the country about this type of thing and to tell us what his Government is doing to eliminate the grounds for this type of incident. [Interjections.] I asked questions about diplomatic functions. The hon. the Minister did not reply to these. I asked questions about dialogue and about what we should expect. Questions were put about Dr. Waldheim, and we did not receive replies to these either. It seems to me the hon. the Minister simply refuses to conduct a debate on anything which is troublesome to him. He must pardon me if I say that in the light of that I find his contribution rather unrealistic. I earnestly requested the hon. the Minister that we should receive reports in advance every year, so that this House may be informed. I requested him to provide us with reports on the activities at the UN. His reply was that we could ask for them. I do not think this is an attitude which a responsible Minister such as he should adopt. He said we should come and ask for them. This is the attitude he adopts towards Parliament. In Mr. Eric Louw’s time we regularly received a report every year on what had happened at the UN, but Mr. Louw lost his temper at one stage, and as a result of his losing his temper Parliament had to suffer; but we hoped that this Minister would restore the situation, and he has not. The Minister cannot always simply say that there is a staff shortage. Even the South African Institute for International Affairs publishes a report in both languages every year on discussions at the UN, affecting South Africa. Unfortunately it does not contain the further details we should like to have, such as the contributions made by our speakers and the standpoints adopted by South Africa. It does not contain these things, but we have all the resolutions. That institute is able to do this, but our Department of Foreign Affairs does not see its way clear to doing this for Parliament. I again raised the matter of a foreing affairs committee. But what is the reaction of the hon. the Minister? He says England does not have one, good enough for us. Well, England has a king. Should we also have a king now?

I have replied to that question for nine years running.

But we have never considered it properly. We again had an example here this afternoon of the Minister’s not being able to give this House in open session details which we should like to have and to which this Parliament is entitled, but at the same time he does not want to create a body in which such discussions can take place. And he cannot take Britain as an example, because Britain’s Parliament has completely different traditions, and the Minister knows this as well as anybody else. In England you have the closest of relationships between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. There is continual consultation between them and, what is more, they have a series of institutions, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and a whole series of special foreign affairs committees on which the Opposition and the Government are continually in consultation with each other. Consequently their traditions are of such a nature that they meet the need which is met by a standing committee on foreign affairs in virtually all the parliaments of Europe. I think it is the duty of all of us to improve the standard in this House through establishing a foreign affairs committee. In regard to the appropriation, I just want to express my regret. I overlooked a figure in regard to Canada. It was the office in Rio where the reduction was made, and not in Canada, but I nevertheless hoped that the hon. the Minister would give us some information on our relations with Canada.

Furthermore, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would report to us on the facilities—we are getting another new diplomat from a neighbouring state—which are being provided in the diplomatic suburb in Pretoria as well as here in Cape Town now. We should like to know something more about the hotel and flat complex which has been erected in Pretoria. For whom is it intended, and how is it going to be run? In addition, we should like to know whether diplomatic centres of the kind being erected here in Cape Town will be erected in other cities as well, and how much money has already been spent on it.

In conclusion, there are indications that countries such as America are considering appointing Black people to their diplomatic staff in various countries, and this may happen in South Africa as well. We know that more and more Black Americans are occupying key positions in their country, and one must expect that the pressure will increase to send Black staff to countries like South Africa as well. I should like to know whether the Government has adopted any attitude towards the American Government in this regard or whether they will merely let matters take their natural course.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has just resumed his seat, really did the hon. the Minister a very great injustice. What he actually tried to do was to create the impression that the hon. the Minister does not take the House into his confidence. But surely we have come to know this particular Minister over the past few years as being a realistic person, and a person who because of his realistic approach has always acted in a responsible way. I wonder what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout really expects from the hon. the Minister? Does he expect the Minister to exaggerate events, to become an absolute alarmist, to sow panic in our country and abroad? Surely this is not what one expects from a Minister who is responsible for the foreign affairs of any country, and I really think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would do well to reconsider this matter before coming forward with such an idea again.

In the course of the debate this afternoon considerable mention has been made of our relations with our neighbouring states in Africa. I want to confine my few remarks to a country which is perhaps situated a little further away, a country which in more than one respect bears an interesting resemblance to South Africa; but which not only bears an interesting resemblance to us, but a country which also has a lot in common with South Africa. I am referring to Israel. If we consider in what spheres Israel bears a resemblance to South Africa, we see in the first place that Israel, just like South Africa, is a very staunch Western ally. In the second place South Africa is known for having a very stable Government and a very strong, growing economy. The same can be said of Israel. In the third place it is also true that Israel is very strategically situated in the sense that it blocks the gateway which would otherwise lead Russia to North Africa. South Africa, on the other hand, is, at the southernmost point of Africa, in a very strategic position to keep the oceans lapping our coasts open to the West. We therefore bear an interesting resemblance to Israel in different respects, but we also have a great deal in common with Israel. Just as we here in South Africa are waging a life-and-death struggle for the survival of the Whites, so the Israelis have for the past 24 years been fighting for their own survival in that country. Secondly, South Africa believes in dialogue with Africa. So does Israel. Perhaps, if this does not sound too negative, I must say that I think that the dialogue we have been conducting with African countries has been more successful than the one Israel has up to now been attempting, but in spite of this it is true that we have a great deal in common with one another in that respect as well, and that one in this way also exercizes considerable influence in Africa, which is of importance to us. In the third place we are trading with Israel, and Israel with us. However, South Africa is in a very unequal position compared to Israel in this respect that our imports from Israel amount to R6,5 million, while our exports to Israel amount to only R4,5 million. Since 1953 there has been an airline agreement between Israel and ourselves, and since last year a pool agreement, but only E1 A1 aircraft are being used. The situation is such that one would think that since we have so many interests in common, very close diplomatic ties would exist between these two countries. It is also true, and we cannot deny it, that we have in the past in this particular sphere been very frequently disappointed by Israel. As far as diplomatic relations are concerned, it is true that we have since 1949 accommodated an Israeli consulate in South Africa. In 1950 this was converted to a legation, but South Africa has never had permanent representation in Israel. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is correct, as we have been able to deduce from Press reports, that South Africa has started to open an office in Israel. If this is true, we want to congratulate him sincerely on this step which has been taken, and we believe that this particular line of action on the part of this Minister and his department will be very beneficial to South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by referring briefly to a remark made by the hon. member for Algoa. He referred to South Africa as a small nation and suggested that we just had to be patient and humble because we are a small nation. I regard this as a wrong approach altogether. In the world of today, whether one were to measure it in terms of our exports or our imports or the generations of power, or whatever criterion one cares to use, South Africa is among the first 12 to 16 countries of the world. It is time we realized this and took our rightful place in the world instead of growing afraid to take our rightful place because of a false modesty and a false timidity. If we were to set our sights too low, and if we were to consider ourselves too small to take our rightful place in the world, we should be acting in an unrealistic way and we should not be realizing what our value can be and what we can contribute to the world. This just in passing.

The hon. the Minister referred to our relations with Africa, and I agree with him that it is an uphill struggle, that it is a difficult task and that we shall have to be very patient. The problems, of course, are mainly political ones. But there is another field in which we can and should make progress, and that is the economic field. If we could make a break-through soon on the economic battle-fields of Africa and in the economic sphere, it might also be easier to create the necessary contacts, the necessary political intimacy with the countries of Africa, something which is not yet within our reach at the moment. Now I want to make a suggestion which might be worth investigating at present.

†Next year, from 23rd February to 5th March, 1973, an all-Africa trade fair will be held in Nairobi. So far 36 African nations have agreed to participate. They will represent the wares, the products, of something like 250 million people. South Africa undoubtedly is the workshop of Africa and the most highly industrialized country in Africa and, equally obviously, South Africa has not been invited and will not easily gain participation. This, I think, is a reasonable test for the success of our acceptance in Africa and the progress we are making in that regard. I believe that South Africa should try, whatever the difficulties, to gain acceptance as an exhibitor and a participant in the all-Africa trade fair in Nairobi. This, if we could achieve it, would be a break-through of the first order and it would give us an opportunity to expand our export markets and to make contacts at the trade and economic level where we are strongest and most effective. If we fail, then at least we have tried.

I would like to turn again to the question of Foreign Affairs reports. The hon. the Minister is strangely reluctant to agree that the Department of Foreign Affairs owes this Parliament a reasonably lucid report of its activities. It has become customary for nearly all the departments of this Administration to submit reports. They are often detailed reports, with impressive glossy covers, of their activities during the preceding year. These reports are most useful. They serve as a very effective and useful basis upon which Parliament can debate the affairs of each department. The production of a report of this kind in fact tables, for the information and benefit of all members, the information which is required as a basis for debate. In other words, a great deal of time is saved, misunderstanding is avoided, unnecessary explanation is eliminated, because there is a solid basis of fact upon which Parliament can base itself when it debates the affairs of that department.

In the case of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the things that we naturally are interested in, the things we want to debate, are the attitudes which the Department of Foreign Affairs takes up when it represents this country in international council. Really, it is a most difficult task for members on this side of the House and, no doubt, members on that side, to get really lucid, comprehensive accounts of what is going on. We cannot see why the Department of Foreign Affairs cannot do this House the service and the courtesy of giving us a comprehensive account of its activities over the year, with special reference to the kind of commitments it enters into, to the kind of compromises it reaches, to the kind of problems it has to face when it acts for South Africa in international councils. We make this appeal to the hon. the Minister not in a critical sense; we believe it will be a constructive thing, helpful to logical debate is this House and helpful to the building up of useful and constructive foreign policies if this basic aid to debate could be made available to this House.

I now want to turn to one other point which again has been mentioned and to which we have not yet had a reply. I refer to the thorny question, or the embarrassing question, of diplomatic receptions given by some countries. I would merely like to make this point.

I will deal with that.

I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will deal with this question. We believe that the time has arrived, in our contact with foreign countries of Africa and in our contacts with people of other racial groups in this country, for a more civilized code of behaviour. If an Embassy stationed in South Africa holds a reception extra-territorially on its own ground— this, after all, is the diplomatic fiction; it is on its own ground—then, if people are invited and representatives of the Government are invited to attend, I believe it is a discourtesy to the host and a discourtesy to the guests, including the Black guests, to stay away from such receptions. I hope that we have seen the end of this nonsense. It really is quite illogical and quite untenable that this attitude should be maintained in this day and age. I should like to refer to something that was said about South Africa at the Security Council meeting at Addis Ababa. One of the remarks made—and it appears to carry general consent—is the following (I quote from the report):

This kind of in-and-out running is not impressive. It does not impress the people with whom we seek dialogue. It does not impress the people in this country, the people with whom we are seeking to engage in constitutional discussion with a view to reaching a rational and peaceable solution for the problems of this country. I have seen such people at these diplomatic receptions and there is no question but that they are hurt and offended at the refusal of the Government to attend a reception where they are present. This is not the way to conduct our diplomacy abroad; it is not the way to conduct our internal policies. I hope that this particular instance of objectionable, rude and discourteous behaviour, especially towards the honoured guests who are invited to these receptions, will cease from now on. I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence. It is embarrassing and it does us no good. It tarnishes our image.

Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize that I am not going to respond to the hon. member’s speech. I presume the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will reply to his speech and to the questions he put. I should like to express my pleasure at the very positive approach in the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the way in which he put South Africa’s approach to foreign affairs here.

I should like to bring two matters to the attention of this House briefly. The one refers to the exaggerated emphasis which, in my opinion, is placed on so-called world opinion, with which South Africa is supposed to get into step. I think the question of world opinion is completely exaggerated. It is presented as a sort of bogey with which South Africa and particularly the National Party Government is to be frightened. We are to be represented as being completely out of step with the entire rest of the world. This is more or less like the mother who was watching her son marching with the other children. He was the only one out of step, but she said her son was the only one in step. In the same way, we are referred to as being the only one in step and being out of step with everybody. I wish to recall what Dr. Eschel Rhoodie I think, said in his book The Paper Curtain. The way in which information from South Africa is kept out of the publicity media abroad makes one think that those people want to say: “I have made up my mind: do not confuse me with the facts.” But talking of world opinion, may I quote a few words of Dean Acheson of the U.S.A.? He said—

I just wanted to make this observation in regard to the world opinion with which we should allegedly get into step.

Secondly, I should like to refer to racial and political factors which are decisive in the attitude of some countries towards South Africa. One of these factors is an anti-White racism among members of the UN. I do not know whether there is still a world outside of that as well. I know there are some members who also talk of a White Racism. That may be so. However, I am referring to an anti-White racism amongst members of the UN by way of a reaction on the part of Black states against the actions of former colonial powers in Africa, those powers which occupied Africa and eventually came into discredit, left and are now being held up as an example of South Africa’s actions in this southern country, as though we too are no more than a colonial power. The people’s reaction is an anti-White racism. They come forward with the accusation of exploitation, oppression and suppression and with a denial of a distinctive heritage and a distinctive nationalism. There is even the reproach against the Church that it has done these people nothing but harm. One could ask these countries whether the White powers caused them any harm. One could also ask them whether it is only the Black states and people who have rights. This is a question which we in South Africa should also put to some quarters. To judge by their actions in South Africa, is it only Black people who have rights. Does the White man in South Africa not have rights as well, and more than that, established rights which are worthwhile and which deserve to be protected and to be taken into account?

A second factor is the distortion of the UN Charter by the Afro-Asian and other countries into a sort of anti-colonial instruction, as though the UN Charter in fact specifically contains an anti-colonial instruction. We are all agreed that mention is made in that Charter of the self-determination of peoples. Not of “territories”, but of “peoples”. Now the argument is that these colonial powers have withdrawn from Africa. The next step is that the Whites in South Africa are also merely such a colonial group which should actually disappear from South Africa, which is a foreign element in Africa which should be expelled and rejected. Hence it is argued that the Whites should be chased into the sea, that the liberation of Southern Africa should take place in terms of the expulsion of White intruders, that freedom fighters should therefore be welcomed and supported, that support should be given to terrorists and to the establishment of a majority government, even if by way of a revolution. Someone greater than I has said: “The first anti-colonialists in Africa in modern times since the occupation of Africa by colonial powers, were a White people in this southern country, the Afrikaners who revolted against the British imperialists.” They were the first anti-colonialists who were inspired by nationalism. There are people who are trying to defend Black nationalism. However, we say that we are acting in the strength of a White nationalism which recognizes the just demands of Black nationalism and wants to do justice to it.

A third factor is the exploitation of race problems in the West by the communists. There are in fact such problems. Those problems exist in the United States of America in spite of the integration legislation and all the so-called “bussing” by means of which people are forced together. That situation also exists in Britain, where there is a small minority of people which they are trying to accommodate in the large majority, without success. The same situation exists in Holland, which has a small minority of non-White people; and they are not succeeding in making those people happy. The fact that those people cannot find a solution to that problem, makes them the target of the communists. The result of this, in turn, is that these people are bending over backwards in their goodwill towards the minority groups and towards the Black states, and if South Africa does not bend over backwards in the same way and does not want to follow the equalizing tendency of the liberalistic West, she must be played off as being the racists. Furthermore, there is the equalization coercion which communist countries are bringing to bear on Western countries in order to break down borders and dividing lines and to try to create a world community. Our answer is a sound nationalism of our own and on the part of other peoples, even if they are elsewhere in Africa or in Southern Africa. We believe in a sound nationalism as a powerful bulwark against this equalization coercion and against the flood-tide of communism on earth.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes that are left, I would like to return to the theme I was trying to develop earlier in the evening. Just in passing I want to say to the hon. member for Waterberg, who always tells us about circles and how one circle sort of merges into the next, that it seems to me that he now wants to overlook one of the most important circles of all, namely the international circle, the circle of the world. He wants us to have no regard whatsoever to world opinion. He says it is of no consequence. This seems to me to be in direct contrast to the whole diplomatic outward movement policy. If the outside world is not of any consequence, why do we then have this outward movement? I think what the hon. member also overlooks, or does not realize, is that nowadays you have a form of multi-lateral diplomacy in which all nations are involved in any case. He indicates that the United Nations is what he calls an anti-White racistic bloc. Anybody who has followed the proceedings of the United Nations will of course realize that this is not so. Of course, there are non-White nations, but these non-White nations do not necessarily take up anti-White attitudes. In fact, on most issues you find that there is a complete division, half of them voting on one side, and the other half voting entirely against them. There is of course one binding factor, and that is that they all vote against apartheid and the Government’s race policy.

All segregation?

I cannot hear. When it comes to the South African race policy, then it is not only the non-White nations at the United Nations who vote against us as a bloc, but I am afraid, for the edification of that hon. member who has just sat down, that the White nations vote against us equally so. In fact, when it comes to the United Nations, there is nobody who supports us, except just occasionally Portugal.

What about Rhodesia?

The theme that I was trying to develop earlier on, was that I was trying to find out from the hon. the Minister what his reactions are to South Africa’s diplomatic relationship with the United States of America. I tried to indicate that, as I see the situation there has been a marked deterioration in the relationship between America and ourselves. I believe, too, that right at the moment the scene in America is changing. I feel we should take every advantage of this change which is coming about in the priorities which are being set in America in the field of diplomatic relations. In the last decade, America’s diplomatic approach was dominated by two issues; the possible admission of Red China to the United Nations, and, secondly, the question of America’s involvement in Vietnam. Not unnaturally under those conditions, it was necessary for America to woo the uncommitted nations of the world. Hence there was considerable pressure against South Africa. But in recent months both of these issues have to some extent been resolved. The pressure, as far as South Africa is concerned, is therefore, not of the same magnitude. I think in this case there is a change as far as America’s approach to South Africa is concerned.

I have tried to indicate, too, that in more recent years America’s foreign policy has been very much influenced by Dr. Kiesinger, the head of their security council. His approach appears to be that of communication rather than of confrontation. I think this attitude also very clearly expressed by President Nixon himself in his report to Congress earlier this year, in fact in February, when he said that “South Africa contains within itself the seeds of change”. This indicates quite a marked change in approach as far as the American Government is concerned. I think from this fact certain things follow. The principle, as I see it in America’s foreign policy at the present time is, as I have indicated, that of communication. Here the idea is that peaceful and constructive pressure upon South Africa will in the long term be of far more substance and far more formidable than the pressure of isolation. Where they intended to isolate us in the past, they are trying now to change South Africa by means of contact and communication. I think there is in America today, too, a realization of the immense American financial commitment in South Africa. It is officially estimated that the book value of American investments in South Africa at the present time probably exceeds the one billion dollar mark. Certainly American exports to South Africa at the present time are in the region of half a billion dollars a year. This obviously gives us a point of leverage. It gives us a point of contact, and I believe it is one that we should exploit. But I think that more important than all this is that there is in America today a rejection of the assumption that a confrontation between White and non-White in Africa is inevitable. The Americans have dropped the idea that such a confrontation is inevitable. They believe now that whether we wish it or not, White and non-White will have to continue to find some form of modus vivendi in Africa, and the most constructive role that America can play is to create the climate for constructive dialogue. Sir, I think it is true that as far as the approach of America is concerned, there is a marked difference from what it was a year ago, and it seems to me that in this new atmosphere we in South Africa ought to do far more than we have done in the past to establish the kind of relationship that we seek.

In this connection I would add just a few thoughts. It seems to me that our representatives in America and elsewhere—-and perhaps also certain ancillary agencies like the Department of Information—have tried to follow the hard-sell line; they have tried to sell the apartheid philosophy to the people over there, and they have tried to indicate that this is a solution to the world’s race problems. In fact, even from high positions in this country it has been said that South Africa has got the solution for the whole race problem of the world and that people will be invited to come here in years to come to come and see how successful we have been with the solution of the race problem. Sir, anybody who adopts that kind of approach in the outside world, and more particularly in America, has no understanding whatsoever of the psychology of the Americans, because you are just not going to sell it to them, and certainly not on that basis. When you talk about “separation with equality” in South Africa as being the wonderful policy of this Government, they will immediately say to you: “Can the Black man go and buy his house in Soweto?”, or they will say to you: “Can he go to the restaurants and have a meal there?”. If the answer is in the negative, then the equality part of the policy falls completely flat. I think it would be far more rewarding to the Government, in their contacts with foreign Governments and particularly with places like America, to indicate the new schooling that we are making available to the non-Whites; to show how many new job opportunities are being created, because that sort of thing is likely to have an impact, but you will just not succeed in trying to persuade America that apartheid or separate development is the solution to the race problem.

Frequently, Sir, there is also a tendency to present South Africa’s system of government as a model democratic system and as the only bastion against Communism; and then unfortunately you continually come up against the actions of this Government, such as detention without trial, such as locking a man up for several months without ever charging him. There actions are known over there; everybody knows about them. Under those circumstances they will point out to you, Sir, that these are precisely the actions that you find within communist states, and again I think that line is hardly one that will get us anywhere. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it must be a terrible situation for one to be in if one’s state of mind is such that one takes a delight in everything which is negative for one’s country, and then in the process always tries to present what is positive, in a negative light. That is the conclusion I drew from the speech made by the hon. member. When South Africa’s standpoint is attacked at the UN and in foreign countries, he derives pleasure from and enjoys this. But I want to ask the hon. member to tell this House whether he has succeeded in selling his party’s policy, specially in the United States of America. Sir, in America one can sell literally everything, but if there is one thing one cannot sell, it is the policy of the United Party. The hon. member levelled the accusation at the hon. the Minister that there had been a deterioration in diplomatic relations with America. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about. He referred here to the new atmosphere which had been generated. I agree with him that a more favourable climate is developing, but how does he come by his statement that diplomatic relations with America are deteriorating?

They say so themselves.

I cannot but conclude that the hon. member is inclined to run down everything concerning South Africa. I think that the hon. member should, basically, rid himself of that inclination; then he would perhaps be worth more to his side of the House.

Sir, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department on the quality of their representation at the UN, something in regard to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked specific questions. I was one of the fortunate members to whom the hon. member referred who were able last year to attend the sessions of the General Assembly and the Security Council for two weeks, and I returned with the impression that we have men of exceptional calibre there. Heaven preserve us if they had been of the calibre of the hon. member for Hillbrow! Our representatives there, and specifically our ambassador, Mr. Von Hirschberg, stated South Africa’s case with great dignity. Unfortunately we were unable to attend on the occasion at which the hon. the Minister himself participated. I believe that out of the discussions at last year’s sessions in which the hon. the Minister as well as the variety of brilliant officials which his department has at the UN participated, a new situation has arisen in this sense that responsible representatives there are beginning to show a willingness to listen to South Africa’s case, particularly in respect of the point to which the hon. member for Waterberg also referred, the question of the right of peoples to self-determination, which is written into the Manifesto of the UN. As the end result of that we had the visit here of Dr. Waldheim, which to my mind was indicative of an entirely new climate which is developing at the UN. This is, in my opinion, largely due to the line of action taken by the hon. the Minister and his department, apart from the debates in which our representatives there participated after careful consideration and with great dignity. It is my impression that they have contacts with the representatives of other countries on a basis of which few other countries can boast. Consequently this enabled us to make contact on a political level with the representatives of other countries who were also there. Sir, I should like to support what the hon. member for Hillbrow said, i.e. that viewed against the background of the fact that every year various Western countries send a number of their politicians there for a spell as observers, South Africa could also consider doing so. I do not want to say that we should do so on the basis proposed by the hon. member, but I think that there is much to be said for affording our fulltime representatives there, whose work occupies all of their time, an opportunity of referring political representatives from other countries, who come to them for information, to politicians from South Africa; this could relieve them of a great deal of work, and it would mean a great deal to us.

Sir, I was delighted at the standpoint which the hon. the Minister adopted at the UN, and not only there but on various other occasions, towards the greatest single problem threatening world peace today, viz. the phenomenon of terrorism. In a previous debate here last year I referred to six forms which terrorism assumes, viz. terrorism on land, with which we are having to deal to an ever-increasing extent owing to the penetration into Africa of the Red Chinese; terrorism at sea, of which we have had examples; terrorism in the air, of which we have had an increasing number of examples during the past few years, and again yesterday in a shocking case in Turkey, where people threatened to blow up a plane full of passengers in mid-air if their demands for the release of terrorists who had been sentenced were not complied with. On that occassion I also referred to spiritual terrorism, as is being practised among others by the World Council of Churches, which gives money to assassins, who have now been given the euphemistic name of “freedom fighters”. I referred to the phenomenon of diplomatic terrorism—diplomats who are kidnapped and threatened with death unless other terrorists are released. Also on that occasion I referred to violent student disturbances, which have been described as part of this technique of revolutionary warfare not by me, but by authorities on world strategy. Recently we have seen further examples of this. But these things are taken in other directions as well, and today attempts are even being made to view the terrorist as a genuine soldier. The following report appeared in this morning’s Cape Times—

So you see, Sir, there is a move afoot to turn the terrorist, who also happens to be a threat to South Africa, but who is also, throughout the entire world, a threat to world peace, into a hero, to regard him as a freedom fighter and even as a soldier so that he may be accorded special recognition. There has been the phenomenon of donations of funds to terrorists by the Labour Party of Britain, by the Government of Denmark and by various other organizations. But we can only kill this tendency if a co-ordinated attempt is made in the Free World to recognize the problem for what it is and take drastic steps against it. In this regard I should like to quote to you what Gen. H. J. Knils, the editor of a Nato publication, recently wrote—

He then goes on to say that arms are not the answer to this question—

For that reason I am grateful for the standpoint the hon. the Minister adopts in regard to this matter, and I should like to ask him from this side of the House to utilize those channels which he has at this disposal, including the U.N. to keep on adopting this standpoint on order to persuade friendly Western countries to support it.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who made a good speech, as did all his colleagues on this side, without exception, that, as regards his request that we place Parliamentarians on missions to the UN, I am considering doing something of that kind by way of experiment. In the time at my disposal I shall now try to deal briefly and succinctly with all the outstanding points.

The hon. member for Hillbrow insinuated that we are exerting economic pressure on our neighbouring states and that we are not consulting them in connection with important economic and financial decisions. I may tell him that they have in fact been brought into the picture and informed, but that the final decisions have of course been taken by us, who bear the responsibility. I deny that we are domineering these neighbouring states of ours economically. We continually have talks with them on economic matters, the possibility of the establishment of factories there, and so forth. I wonder whether hon. members opposite have made a thorough study of this matter. If they have done so, they would do well to raise it on the Votes of my colleague the Minister of Economic Affairs, because it has many facets, some of which are highly complicated.

Did Mr. Van Graan tell a lie then?

The hon. member for Musgrave expressed concern about the spread of Communism, concern which we share. That is why we are going out of our way to promote co-operation in Africa by means of dialogue and in various other ways; that is why we try to strengthen the links with neighbouring countries, why we go out of our way to try to improve the standard of living in Southern Africa in particular, and why we also go out of our way to strengthen our own internal position and that of our defence. I can assure the hon. member that we have not written off Mauritius as a result of the loan which she has received from Red China. We can, of course, not compete with the great powers; we cannot outbid the great powers when it comes to financial assistance. In one particular case Mauritius received a R31 million loan, free of interest, from Red China. Moreover, we do not believe in hand-outs. We are trying to do what we can by way of economic co-operation with Mauritius. We have had delegations here and we have sent missions over there, not without good results. We have had a trade commissioner in Mauritius for a long time, and he has been doing, and still is doing, excellent work. Therefore it should be clear that we are going out of our way to do whatever we can and we are having positive results. However, as I have emphasized, we cannot compete with or outbid these Red Chinese and other communist countries in this particular respect.

*The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked that I should elaborate on our relations with Canada. These relations are normal. Canada has, of course, applied an arms embargo against us, which it is still maintaining, but apart from that our trade with Canada is normal and is expanding. If the hon. member is interested in the figures, I can furnish them to him. We recently transferred our trade office from Montreal to Toronto and we now have a consulate in Montreal. In fact, we now have one mission more in Canada than we used to have.

The hon. member complained about the warnings issued to South Africa by my colleagues in regard to the various threats and the problems in store for us. The hon. members will recall that I have also issued warnings. As a matter of fact, I issued a warning today that we are going to encounter serious difficulties on the road ahead. I would be failing in my duty if I did not do that and if I did not adopt a realistic approach in regard to foreign affairs; I do not suffer from an exaggerated optimism. I try to be realistic, but I must also give credit to my department and others where progress is in fact made. It is my duty to do so.

In regard to the hon. member’s request that we appoint a permanent committee on foreign affairs, I want to say that I do not hide behind Great Britain. The hon. member said that all the visitors who come here are astonished that we do not have such a committee. There is one country that does not have it, but there may be many others of which I am not aware. We do not hide behind that. Our attitude is— and I am repeating it as I have stated it in the past—that the Government is responsible for our foreign relations. We are responsible to the entire country, and we shall inform Parliament and the country when it is possible to do so. It is not always possible, however, because many of the things done in the diplomatic sphere, not only by South Africa, but by all countries, are of a secret nature. They are highly confidential; we cannot blurt out all these things to members of the Opposition who want to serve on such a Parliamentary foreign affairs committee. We. and not the Opposition, bear the responsibility for the government. By that I am not insinuating that they are irresponsible persons, but we are the people who bear the responsibility and we have to decide when these things must remain confidential or secret. That is the reason, and I have already given it in the past. I am giving it again now.

As regards the reports to be furnished to Parliament by my department, I want to say that I know there is a need in this regard. I want to promise hon. members that I shall try to reintroduce that old practice, but I must remind hon. members that the activities of my department have expanded enormously in recent years. We have issued a few publications, but compiling such a report, a report which is at all worthwhile, would place a heavy burden on my department. If it is at all possible to do so without other work suffering as a result, it will certainly be done. In the meantime I wish to repeat my invitation to hon. members. When hon. members require documents, whether copies of speeches or documents of the UN and the like, they are welcome to approach me or my department.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also wanted to know about the block of flats for diplomats in the Cape. I may tell him my information is that it will be completed by the end of the year. Diplomatic missions will be advised of this and they will have an opportunity of applying for accommodation in that building.

As far as the guest house is concerned, I may say that it has been completed. I think that the work of furnishing it has been or has almost been completed, and it will soon be ready to be taken into use. The running expenses in connection with receiving visitors there will be paid from the department’s normal entertainment allowance. In future there will, of course, be fewer receptions at other places. The other expenditure in connection with construction and so forth does not fall under our department, but under the Department of Public Works. Replies have been furnished to questions in this regard in this Parliament. If the hon. member desires further information on the matter, he must please ask for it.

The hon. member for Von Brandis asked whether the impression he gained from newspaper reports, i.e. that South Africa’s accredited diplomatic representative in Rhodesia threw cold water on the ideas of the Prime Minister of Rhodesia in connection with a common market in Southern Africa, was correct. I may tell the hon. member that I have both the speeches here and that he can get the text from me if he is interested in them. It appears from these that his fears are quite unfounded. On the contrary, Mr. Stewart, our representative there, pointed to the necessity of co-operating in the economic sphere. At the moment, he said, we are practising it on a bilateral basis. There are, of course, possibilities of expansion. But, like Mr. Smith of Rhodesia, he also said that at the moment the time was not ripe for the idea of a common market. This view has frequently been expressed by members of the Government as well.

As far as the All-Africa Trade Fair in Kenya is concerned, I wish to say that hon. members know that we take part in shows in neighbouring states, e.g. in Lourenço Marques and other places. As yet I do not know what the conditions attached to this international trade fair in Kenya are. If it is possible for us to take part in it, we will most certainly give very favourable consideration to doing so. But I must remind hon. members that many of the African states are of course boycotting us, although many of them are trading with us in secret in spite of the fact that officially they are boycotting us. Our trade expansion in Africa is in actual fact taking place in a very unobtrusive way, but it is taking place.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I think other hon. members as well, spoke about the newspaper reports that the Government of the United States of America may possibly appoint a non-White diplomat to South Africa. I may tell the hon. member that if the United States of America should decide to do that, we would not object to it. In such a case we would not object to a non-White diplomat simply because he is a non-White, purely on the grounds of his colour. Our Prime Minister and I have repeatedly stated in public that all diplomats are accorded the same treatment in South Africa and that in this country we do not recognize the principle of having first-class and second-class diplomats. Now we pose the question: What are the objectives in appointing diplomats? One of the objectives is to maintain and promote the good relations existing between two friendly states. We take it that friendly states that send diplomats here will bear this objective in mind when appointing diplomats and also when selecting individuals for particular posts. Incidentally, our attitude in this regard is known to the American Government. I hope that answers the hon. member’s question.

The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Von Brandis spoke about the Government’s refusal to attend functions given by diplomats which are attended by South African non-Whites. Of course, this arrangement does not apply to functions attended by non-White diplomats stationed in South Africa or visiting this country or by official foreign visitors from Madagascar, Lesotho or wherever. It applies only to functions given by foreign representatives, whether diplomatic or consular, which are attended by South African non-Whites. We do not wish to dictate to these embassies and other missions what they should do. We accept the old approach than an embassy is virtually a part of the particular country which it represents. We do not dictate to them either. However, if they disregard our customs, they know what our reaction will be—we told them what it would be, didn’t we?—and then they cannot take it amiss of us if we do not want to attend those functions. We refrain from attending those functions not because we think that our own non-Whites are not as good as non-White diplomats or important non-White visitors or because we think that we ourselves are better than those non-Whites. We refrain from attending them because they are contrary to our traditions, our customs. [Interjections.] They are contrary to our traditions and customs, which are aimed at eliminating friction among our national groups. We certainly do make contact with our non-Whites. We have a clean conscience in that regard. Contact with them is taking place daily. Hon. members need only read the newspapers to see who the people are who are interviewed virtually every day by the hon. the Prime Minister and my other colleagues. But we do this at times and places that we ourselves choose, and we do not allow others to dictate to us what we should do in order to preserve harmony among the various national groups in South Africa. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow referred to our relations with the United States of America and certain trends in their attitudes towards South Africa, trends which were recently displayed. Needless to say, we in the Government, like all South Africans, naturally welcome and appreciate positive statements, constructive steps. I can merely re-emphasize that the South African Government welcomes communication and dialogue with other states, including the United States of America. In fact, we go out of our way to promote better communication with the United States and we do so by positive action, action on which I do not want to elaborate today. However, in spite of these encouraging signs to which the hon. member has referred, I wish to emphasize that we should be careful not to fall a victim to wishful thinking. We must remember that members of the American Administration continue to reject and condemn our policies. They still do not understand that we are a multi-national and not a multiracial country. [Interjections.] They, therefore, do not accept the right to a separate nationhood of the Whites in South Africa nor, for that matter, of the Black nations, the other people in South Africa. They attach the greatest importance to what they call “human dignity” and “national independence”, but they fail to understand or to accept that separate development has exactly the same goals. They also do not realize that the changes that are taking place in South Africa, which they notice and to which they draw attention, are the direct results and the logical outcome of the application of our declared policies. Although it is admitted by the Americans that Southern Africa contains within itself the seeds of change, they openly declare that they will strive to encourage such change. The dividing line between persuasion and interference can be very flimsy at times, very flimsy indeed. Thus it is the practical application of this policy which will determine whether or not it constitutes interference. Here I wish to leave no room for doubt that interference in our domestic affairs, no matter by whom, cannot and will not be countenanced by the South African Government.

*The hon. member for Springs referred to our relations with Israel. The question of representation was raised in this House on a previous occassion, and then I said that it was receiving attention. I am glad to say that, as hon. members may have been able to gather from Press reports, we recently opened a consulate-general in Tel Aviv, and that our Consul-General has already arrived there. It has been decided that this form of representation is the most suitable for our present needs. I trust that this will be generally welcomed.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the Secretary of my Department and his staff both here and abroad for the excellent way in which they assist me and for the splendid service they are rendering to South Africa.

Hear, hear!

My sincere thanks to them. I also wish to thank hon. members for the high standard maintained in this debate today. In general the speeches made here testified of study and a very serious approach to South Africa’s place in the world and our international problems. I welcome the fact that such good speeches were made. It is necessary in all debates in this House that members should give their best, but this is particularly the case in debates on foreign affairs, because what is said here, not only by me, but also by hon. members on both sides of the House, is put under a magnifying glass in an attempt to determine what we in the Government and in the Opposition are thinking as far as South Africa’s position in the world is concerned, while our enemies do everything in their power to find things we have said which they may perhaps be able to use for undermining the united front against common dangers here.

I think I have now replied to all the questions, and if there is perhaps something which I have overlooked, an hon. member may point it out to me.

With reference to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch and by me as well, may I ask whether the hon. the Minister will react favourably to it…?

Regarding the inclusion of members of Parliament in the mission?

Yes.

I commenced my speech by saying that I am in fact considering to do it by way of an experiment. However, a final decision has not yet been taken on the matter; I will, of course, have to consult the Cabinet about it.

Mr. Chairman, a perusal of the discussion under this Vote during the years 1970 and 1971, and a perusal of the debate which was held earlier this year on the South African Indian Council Amendment Bill, makes it necessary for one to address a few remarks to the House initially on the function of this debate. I say this because, as I shall indicate in a moment, the hon. the Minister has throughout this period taken the view that it is his function, as he sees it, to consult and to discuss matters concerning the Indian community with the Indian Council, and that it is not his function to discuss these matters in this House on the occasion of a Bill being passed or, more particularly, on the occasion of a Vote being discussed. Perhaps if I can have the attention of the hon. the Minister for a moment, we will get further on.

I am listening all the time.

Well, the hon. the Minister has remarkable powers if he can talk to somebody else and listen to me at the same time. I should like the hon. the Minister to accept from me, and to accept throughout the discussion on this Vote, that we are not concerned with his person in any way, and not to construe everything that is said by this side of the House as criticism of his person.

Hear, hear! That is a good change.

What we wish to do, is to discuss his position as a Minister and his utterances as a Minister. If we can confine ourselves to that level, we will proceed so much further.

The function of this debate, by ancient usage and by common acceptance, is to do two things. It is, before asking us to vote supply, for the hon. the Minister to give us the opportunity of discussing his past administration of his department and, secondly, for us to have the opportunity of discussing the future administration of the hon. the Minister’s department. That means that we are entitled to a disclosure of the hon. the Minister’s thinking in regard to his planning ahead for his department, and what he is responsible for. I say this because in planning for the Indian Council which was then purely an advisory and a fully nominated body. Although the hon. member for Koedoespoort said that he could give all the answers to my questions, he said he would rather leave it to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister answered nothing on that occasion. In 1971 a similar series of questions was put by me to the hon. the Minister. He-replied by saying that when it came to creating an elected or a partly-elected council, a Bill would be put before the House during which there could be a full discussion of what the Minister’s policy and intentions were in that regard. Consequently it was not necessary for the hon. the Minister in 1971, either, to give us any indication of what his planning was for the Indian community and the Indian Council. When it came this year to the Bill in question, again the hon. the Minister refused to give us any details, except partly towards the end of the Committee Stage of that debate because, he said, he proposed to discuss the matter with the Indian Council. Indeed, he went much further and said that he preferred to discuss these matters with the Indian Council and not with this side of the House.