I think ft may meet the convenience of the Committee if I begin with a brief statement affecting some of the more important affairs of my Department. It may help the future discussions in Committee if I make the start myself. The question of my leaving during this Session for the coming conferences has already been raised by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I may begin with that subject. The Government have decided that I shall be the principal delegate for the Union to San Francisco Conference as well as for the preliminary discussions that will take place in London preparatory to that international conference. We have decided that I shall be the principal delegate for South Africa, that for the London Conference I shall have with me as co-delegate the High Commissioner, Mr. Heaton Nicholls, and when I get to San Francisco the Minister for the United States will be my co-delegate. I shall be accompanied from here by a small official staff, which will be increased both in London and in the United States from the staffs of our representation there. The idea is to keep the representation within manageable limits and to take a small staff from here, and to have additional members both in London and in San Francisco. I have already told the House that I shall have to go fairly early, and I may say if I have to attend these conferences I shall not be able to take part in the proceedings of Parliament here after Easter, and I am therefore most anxious to get through as’much of my work, the work affecting my individaul Departments, by Easter. The question, Sir, has been raised about a party representation at these conferences, the London Conference and the San Francisco Conference. Representations have been made to the Government and after careful consideration the Government has decided that it will not be possible, it is not feasible to give party representation.

Who made representations?

From various sources, not from the Opposition benches, I may say. I say that quite frankly, not from the Opposition benches. The trouble is partly this; we have four parties in this House and once you start with representation on a party basis you are almost inevitably led into a fairly large representation. I shall want both for London, and especially for San Francisco, quite a number of official delegates, a number of staff delegates in order to help with the multifarious work that will take place on the various committees. Hon. members are acquainted with the procedure at these big international conferences. They divide almost immediately into a number of committees and sub-committees, and for the couple of principal delegates from the Union to attend to all these various committees would be quite impracticable, and therefore it is necessary to have an official staff who can take part in these conferences and keep myself and my co-delegates informed. For that purpose I think it is necessary to limit the size of the delegation as much as possible, and not to give representation on a party basis. Other interests have also represented to me the advisability of their being represented; quite important interests, I admit. But the Government in all these cases have had to decide against such representations, because once you give representation to Body A. or Interest A. you are let into trouble at once with B., C., D. and all the rest. There are many important intérests, and it would be most invidious to select from among them only certain to which preference should be given.

Is John Martin going too?

So the decision is to have these delegates I have mentioned, myself with the High Commissioner in London and the Minister in Washington, assisted by our official staffs. As far as San Francisco is concerned, the San Francisco World Conference, that will be confined to the drafting of the statute of the world organisation, the future organisation for peace and security, which will take the place of the League of Nations. So far as we are aware, and so far as statements have been made on behalf of the United States, there is no idea of expanding the work of that conference beyond this limited scope of discussing and drafting the statute of the future world organisation, and from that point of view too I think it would be unnecessary and uncalled for to have a large delegation representing many interests which will not be particularly concerned in this work of world organisation. Passing on to a different subject, during the last few months, since the last Session of Parliament, I have been concerned, and we have been concerned, and South Africa has been concerned with a number of international conferences of more or less importance. In the first place, as the Committee will remember, during the course of the last Session I left for the Imperial Conference in London. That kept me away for the rest of the Session, and I could only be back after the close of the Session. That conference, the Imperial Conference, dealt largely with questions of the war, questions which concerned the conduct of the war both in the past and in the future with a view to its early ending. The confrence had not met all the years of the war, and it had been considered necessary to have a review of the situation and to give the principlal leaders in the various parts of the Commonwealth the opportunity to meet and exchange views. That was the principal object of that meeting. We discussed, among other war questions, during the weeks we were together, the various aspects of our war activities, and hon. members will remember at that time the preparations were made for the great advance on the Western Front, from Normandy onwards, so they can understand the war had reached a phase where it was most important to discuss all the relevant war issues which we did. Besides this war review, and discussion with a view to the various parts of the Commonwealth would take in the prosecution of the war, the question was raised also of Commonwealth relations, relations between the various members of the Commonwealth. The question was raised by Mr. Curtin, the Prime Minister of Australia, who made an elaborate statement thereafter to his Government about the proposals we made. I need not go into all these proposals, because on review it appeared the existing machinery of consultation, of a fairly close consultation, met all the reasonable purposes of our group.’ We have, for instance, as members know, a system under which there is practically a daily conference between our High Commissioners in London and the Secretary for Dominion Affairs. Those daily talks cover practically every aspect of our relations almost continually; whatever questions arise within our group can be discussed, reviewed and considered from day to day. Besides these daily conferences there are conferences at longer intervals, monthly intervals, which the Prime Minister agreed himself to attend, so that in those cases he would have the conferences monthly with the High Commissioners. That too would keep the different parts of the Commonwealth in close touch with questions of policy, questions which concern them in common. Besides these regular current meetings from day to day and from month to month there is the Imperial Conference which meets usually once a year or once every two years. In war the meetings have been less frequent simply because of war exigencies, and it was considered sufficient for keeping the various parts of our group in constant touch with each other. The question was left over for discussion on an official level among our staffs in London whether it would be necessary to do anything more than that. It did not appear to us, or at any rate to most of us, that it was necessary to go any further than we have already gone in elaborating the machinery for consultation in our grouping. If any future suggestions can be made, we asked our staffs, the High Commissioner’s staff in London among others, to see whether there is anything else that can be suggested in order to close any gap that might exist. A further subject was discussed, the subject of migration in the Commonwealth. After a discussion no conclusion was reached. The subject itself bristles with difficulties. In the first place it was considered very questionable whether Great Britain, after the loss of life during the war, and with a view to population figures, whether it would be possible for Great Britain to send large numbers of emigrants abroad. The Dominions again were in the position that all of them considered in the immediate postwar period their primary consideration would be the settlement of their own people, the settlement of returned soldiers, and the clearing up of the inevitably difficult situation that must arise immediately after the war. It was therefore considered impracticable to make any advance, to come to any conclusions on this question of migration; that too was left over for later consideration at a more opportune time. In the course of time the staffs of our various High Commissionrs could also go into this question and see whether there were any practical steps of a minor character that could be taken to prosecute this subject. That is the position, so far, about the Imperial Conference. Besides that members will remember there was the Bretton Woods Internation Conference dealing with a subject of the very greatest economic importance to us for the recovery of the world. The Bretton Woods Conference dealt with the subject of a stabilisation fund which would keep world currency stable in the very difficult unstable period that would follow this war. It was considered there was very grave danger of inflation, that the currencies of the various countries would be in great confusion, and might get into greater confusion and that trade, therefore might be very much hampered. People would not know what to sell their products for, and the world might easily slip into economic chaos because of the instability, the uncertainty, the continual change in currencies, and it was to meet this that the proposal was made that there should be a stabilisation fund, to which the various nations would belong, which they would support and which would be able to stabilise currencies and to supply the countries which were economically exhausted or ruined, with the necessary currency to restart their industry. Whilst these discussions on the stabilisation fund were going on it became clear something more might be necessary, that besides the stabilisation fund to set things in order again after the war it may be necessary to have an international bank, an international bank on somewhat different lines from the international bank that has existed in the League of Nations, and it finally emerged from these discussions that the stabilisation fund was not enough. The stabilisation fund would be a very temporary feature to remedy the difficulties that might arise and that something of a longer range, something more permanent in its character, would be necessary; and so from the Bretton Woods Conference emerged two proposals, a proposal for a stabilisation fund and a proposal for an international bank.

The bank for international settlements?

No, an international bank. No, this would be a real international bank in order to finance enterprise in the various desolated countries which might require financial assistance to set them on their feet again. I say two documents emerge from this conference; certain shares were allotted to various nations, among others to South Africa; there was great competition for increased ratios of shares in this concern, and naturally both the fund and the bank were looked upon as factors of very great influence and promise in the restoration of these countries and also in the field of commerce, and naturally there was a competition for shares to be held by the different countries. We did not compete but we took our share in this. These were only draft agreements that emerged from this conference. All the Governments have still to decide, and naturally the governments of the various countries are anxious to see what the great powers are going to do; what, for instance, the United States of America is going to do. Is she going to accept the scheme for a stabilisation fund or an international bank? What is Great Britain going to do? The whole future of these institutions for world recovery depends in a large measure on the part these great powers and strong financial countries will play, and in the meantime we are awaiting developments to see what is going to take place. In the United States these proposals are now being discussed in congress, and we in South Africa are holding our hand to see what is going to take place as between the great powers. In the meantime we stand uncommitted as far as these great measures with great promise are concerned; proposals not without great difficulties surrounding them are being discussed, but we are deeply interested. There is no doubt that a gold producing country like South Africa is immensely interested in a stable currency to some extent linked with gold, somewhat like what emerged from Bretton Woods. There is no doubt that South Africa as a ogld producing country is immensely interested in the question of a stabilised currency, but we are holding our hand to see first what the others are going to do. I am not going into details now which can be discussed later on with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, if members so wish. Well, then there was the Air Conference. That is another important international conference in which we have taken part, the Air Transport Conference at Chicago, in which South Africa played an important part. Certain results were reached at this conference of a very important character. There was, for instance, an agreement which we can readily agree to, and which I suppose will be agreed to by all countries, that there should be, in the first place, the two freedoms, namely the international right of countries to have innocent passage over other countries, and the second freedom, the right to come down, not for traffic purposes, but for fuelling purposes and servicing at any international station in these countries. These two freedoms marked a great advance oh what there was before. Members will remember in pre-war days, foreign planes were not allowed to fly over other countries. The Imperial Air Service which we have here had to actually diverge its course because it could not get permission to fly over certain countries. I myself, when I had to journey to London, had to go by train for some of the distance in Europe, because we were not permitted to fly over intervening countries. That difficulty has now been solved and removed, and under the two freedoms agreed to at Chicago, there is the international right on the part of any state to the free use of the air over other countries, and they have the further right of coming down simply for fuelling and servicing purposes. Besides that, the Chicago Conference laid down that there shall be a certain standard of international service, to which all nations taking part would conform, so that you would not have machines which would be dangerous, and you do not imperil the safety of the air. A technical agreement was reached on these matters and a Council was set up of an advisory character which would study the question of air transport for the future. The conference could not agree on a number of points raised and after a time they had to abandon the search for agreement, and they had to be satisfied with an exploratory council to see what agreements could be reached. This question of air transport is most important for South Africa. It is important not only in international relations, in our relations with other continents, but it is especially important for our southern group. South Africa has been enjoying air services of a more or less efficient character during the war, and we are anxious to expand them, and it is for this purpose that tomorrow an air conference will be opened in Cape Town, to discuss the questions of trunk routes with other countries, to discuss the question of regional routes here in Southern Africa and the question of how to service the regional services, the trunk services and the local services, to get cheap and efficient air services for this country, both amongst themselves and with the world at large.

It is not an international conference?

No, the conference which will meet tomorrow will discuss matters concerning the British group ana there will be, in addition to South Africa as the convener of the conference, representatives of Great Britain and the various British territories over Southern Africa. We will start with this conference tomorrow and try to come to a clear understanding concerning all the difficulties of the problem, and it is our intention after that to contact our other neighbours, the Belgians and the Portuguese, who are very close neighbours of ours in South Africa, and who are an essential element in the whole set up of regional services in Southern Africa, in order to try to come to an understanding with them. This conference which will start tomorrow, and the one which will follow afterwards with our neighbours, are intended to arrive at a clear conception of what are our interests and what can be done to further them, and to see that the best is done for the development of air traffic in Southern Africa, both for ourselves and the world. The subject is of the greatest importance. There is no doubt that the air is coming into the world picture, the picture of world relations and world economy, very rapidly. It is not the war only that has shown us that air traffic for all purposes is going to play a very important part in the economic development of mankind and our development here. Finally there is the conference which was held at Dumbarton Oaks to which the great powers were members, to settle some set up for the future organisation of mankind. This conference at Dumbarton Oaks was only attended by the great powers. The other nations, the united nations, or others, did not take part. The idea of Dumbarton Oaks was to have a preliminary canter over the ground, as it were, to enable the Great Powers to clear their mind over the subject, before a conference was called to which the whole subject could be relegated. This San Francisco conference will follow up the work of Dumbarton Oaks and try to work out a plan for a world organisation. Certain questions were not agreed upon at Dumbarton Oaks and were further discussed among the great powers. There was, for instance, the question of unanimity amongst the great powers, to what extent they can agree to differ in regard to world security in future, and to what extent they must be unanimous.

That was done at Yalta.

At Yalta this was finally discussed and a plan of action proposed which will go to San Francisco for final decision by the world conference. The plan which has emerged from Dumbarton Oaks, and which has been published to the world, supplemented by the Yalta addendum as to the voting among the great powers, is of very considerable importance. The idea is to replace the League of Nations Statute by a new document and a new organisation. In fact the results of the Dumbarton Oaks conference have been published and they are before the members. The set up which emerges both from Dumbarton Oaks and from Yalta leads to a structure for future world organisation, which is, to some extent, very much like the old covenant of the League of Nations, but it also differs from it in material respects. Hon. members will remember the League of Nations was an organisation simply for consultation; not in the first instance for action. It was an organisation for consultation and to make recommendations for the avoidance of war. More it did not purport to do. The farthest the League of Nations contemplated to go was to apply sanctions of an economic character, and hon. members will remember that it was on this point, the Italian aggression against Abyssinia, that the League broke down. The old League had only machinery for consultation; it had no machinery for the actual prevention of war. The new set up differs fundamentally from this. It is an organisation to prevent war in the future and the council which will represent the new organisation in its most important aspects, will be called the Security Council; it is no longer merely the General Council of the League. It is the Security Council and its object is, when war threatens, not only to employ methods of consultation, discussion, arbitration or otherwise to forestall trouble, but in the last resort it is a body for action, and the idea is not only to take peaceful steps to prevent war, but actually to take action, to resort to force to prevent war in the future. This brought into the fore at once the question of unanimity among the great powers, and the decision come to at Yalta on this was, whilst the great powers should not be parties to conciliation procedure where they themselves were concerned, they should take part, they should be parties to any action that had to be taken. In other words, in all matters in which a great power is’ itself concerned, and preliminary steps have to be taken by way of consultation and discussion to come to a settlement, that power should be excluded as an interested party, but when it comes to action to prevent war, unanimity is necessary and a great power should not abstain from taking part simply because it is interested. The upshot of all that is that to prevent war by force, there will have to be unanimity amongst the great powers, and it is inevitable that it must be so. Hon. members will see that in the League, where action was not within the scope of the organisation, this question was not relevant, but now when it comes to the point that the great powers have to take action, it can only be forced if it is a party to the decision.

Will South Africa be represented on that council?

That is a question I cannot answer at the moment; that will depend on many questions. The constitution of the council will be this. The great powers, and I believe there are five now, will be ex officio permanent members of the council, and six more members will be elected by the body, and it will be for that whole organisation to say who will be members, from time to time. South Africa may have a chance or a hope, but do not let us be too ambitious in these matters. I have sketched simply the plan, and what San Francisco is going to do is to discuss this, there can be no doubt that there will be great difficulties about this plan. The whole subject bristles with difficulties. This is the only solution that the great powers can suggest, and they have agreed to recommend it to San Francisco, and that conference will have to go into the whole question to see whether this is the best solution that can be found to prevent war, or whether some other workable arrangement can be found. In all other respects, there is not much difference between the old league as we knew it, and the new organisation which it is intended to set up. The main difference, however, is this, that action can be taken and the part the great powers will take. We shall have to await the results of the conference, which are going to be of very far-reaching importance to this world. We all feel that war, on the scale on which it has developed and the instruments of destruction it has placed in its hands, has become so deadly a business that it cannot be faced in future. I myself feel this may prove to be the last great world war we will have to face, knowing what is going on and knowing the methods of destruction which are already in operation, and the far greater methods of destructoin which are in contemplation, and for which scientists have discovered the secrets, but which inventions have not yet been put’ into operation. Knowing all this, I feel convinced this opportunity at San Francisco is a vital moment in the history of the whole human race, and I therefore look upon this conference with the deepest interest for all of us. Small nations cannot defend themselves any more. It is quite clear from the scale on which war is conducted and with the instruments of destruction availale, that it is practically impossible for any small nation to defend Itself, and even the greatest military power of the world now has had to succumb, as it is succumbing, to these new methods of war. Unless some method is found to render war obsolete, the future of the human race is dark beyond measure. I therefore take the very gravest view of this conference and what may emerge from it, and I hope that certainly all the small countries, not only the big countries, the big powers, but especially the small countries will watch this conference with the deepest interest and hope for its future.

Can you tell us what decision was arrived at at the Yalta Conference in regard to voting power? It is not in the Yalta declaration.

I thought it had been published. The result of the Yalta Conference was, so far as the preliminary steps of conciliation are concerned, that attempts should be made to settle the trouble, to find a peaceful way of settlement; a great power which is concerned should stand aside and not take part, but where it comes to action and a question of taking steps of force, then the great power would have to take part, and there would have to be unanimity.

Is the same rule to be applied as in the League of Nations, that there must be absolute unanimity?

No, only the five great powers will have to agree. That is the distinction between the great powers and the other powers, which was agreed to at Yalta, and which will be a great bone of contention at the coming conference. The five great powers now contemplated are: The United States of America, Russia, Great Britain, China and France. France has been invited and she is taking already a very prominent part in this matter, which indicates that she is marked out for the fifth place in this set up. I thought it advisable, Mr. Chairman, to make a statement about these activities which are being carried on, and in which my department and myself are deeply interested, so that members may have some guidance on this matter.

In the remarks I have to make I want to be as brief as possible and I hope that in the ten minutes at my disposal I shall be able to put the questions I intend to put and to which we hope the Hon. Prime Minister will reply. In connection with the Prime Minister’s Vote and the discussion thereon I want to say that we, on this side, want to make the discussions as fruitful as possible and for that reason we have made arrangements that we, on this side of the House, will as far as possible, discuss one important subject after the other. Once a subject has been fully discussed and sufficient has been said about it, we, from our side, will not press the matter any further but will go on to the next point. We believe that this will make the discussions more useful and will accelerate matters. As he promised us the Prime Minister has made a statement here. That, of course, does not mean that this question has been settled. We not only want to know about the conferences which will be held there, imperial and international, and what will be discussed there, but I believe that we on this side also want to know more specifically what the point of view of the Prime Minister is. He is going there on, behalf of South Africa. In previous similar cases when such conferences were held and when he came back we were faced with an accomplished fact. I suppose that this will also happen in this instance and for that reason it is only fair that before that happens we shall hear what his personal views in connection with such matters are. The first question I want to ask is more or less the following. As the Prime Minister told us, two conferences will be held, one of the British Empire and the other one an international one. In my opinion we should have some indication as to the relationship between those two conferences. Are we going to have a continuation, although under new circumstances, of the block idea of international conferences which we had in the past? The British Empire as such is fenced in—at least that is what they want—in spite of our independence; the result usually is that when an international conference meets there is also a conference of States belonging to the British Empire. They form a bloc and they take part in the international conference as a bloc. The first objection to that is of course that it impairs the independence, the automony of the Dominions and especially their status as international units. I want to know in how far they are going to take part in this international conference with their hands tied. The matter is important from this point of view but it is also important from another point of view. If the British Empire is going to take part in the international conference as a bloc, what is going to be the effect on other possible blocs which may be formed? Russia has already made known that all its separate Soviet States will be placed in the same position; it has anticipated that in placing them in the same position as British Dominions where international matters are also under there separate control. If the British Empire forms a bloc, what is there to prevent Russia insisting that its Dominions, its states, also attend such international conferences in future as a bloc? But apart from these there is a third group; there is the Pan-American alliance, including North and South America. What is there to prevent the American States also attending the international conference as a bloc. If that is so I want to know whether brotherliness can exist between the States at an international conference? It will be a question of bloc against bloc. I think the Prime Minister should give us more information on this point. The Prime Minister spoke, first of all, of the Imperial Conference which took place; he is rather late with his information in regard thereto. That conference was held a year ago; we asked for information; no information was given or when it was given it was very scanty. Only now is he giving us some more information and I must say that that information is very grave. Just imagine every month—so the Prime Minister told us but it may happen more frequently—small subsidiary imperial conferences will be held in London. There the representatives of the various Dominions will meet. Only one Prime Minister will be present and that will be the Prime Minister of England. I want to know what else this can be but the embryo of the establishment of an Imperial Council against which we have always warned, and not only we but other Dominions also. Once a start is made with that it will develop more and more in that direction and instead of the Dominions gradually making greater use of their independent status they will be guided and dominated more and more by that Imperial Council in London. We want to know more about that and I think there will be more discussion on this point. In regard to the International Conference at San Francisco the information given is that it will not actually be a peace conference but that the meeting has been arranged only to decide the question of the future peace organisation which will have to take the place of the League of Nations or as the Prime Minister explained, in fact a new League of Nations. I now want to ask whether there is going to be held another and an actual peace conference once the war is finished and what the nature of such conference will be. The coming conference apparently is one which will only deal with limited problems or actually only one problem. How are you going to solve the further peace problems resulting from the war, territorial and otherwise, and how are you going to decide those, or is this a matter which will be left solely in the hands of the great powers which were represented at Yalta, the three great powers? Has that been decided there. This is an important point but a further question I want to ask concerns the invitations to take part in the International conference at San Francisco. Who issues the invitations, and who is being invited? In recent times certain things have happened, namely, that small nations who up till now have been neutral, have now been urged to declare formal war on Germany so as to pave the way for an invitation to the San Francisco Conference. I have seldom witnessed a more ridiculous thing than this. Declare war in name and then you will receive an invitation to San Francisco. I would like to obtain some more information about this matter. I want to know whether to this conference which will deal with a peace organisation for the world in which obviously all nations are interested, nations will be invited which remain neutral? What about Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland and the Argentine? All those countries have remained neutral up till now. Are they to be excluded although they have a vital interest in the decisions which will be arrived at in San Francisco? I think we should obtain more information about that. In connection with the world conference at San Francisco I furthermore want to know what the ultimate position of small nations will be. We want to know what the Prime Minister’s opinion is in regard to this point. He told us that the decisions will be made by the great powers. What will be the status of the small nations and in how far will they have a voice in the matter? There is a difference of opinion in regard to the point—and I suppose that will now come to the surface—whether sufficient small nations will have a voice in the decisions. There is a difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and Mr. McKenzie King of Canada. The latter said that the new world organisation should in the main be an organisation of small nations. The Prime Minister pleaded in this House that the power, the say, should be in the hands of the few great nations. [Time limit.]

May I avail myself of the half-hour privilege? The statement made here by the Hon. the Prime Minister, especially in relation to the San Francisco Conference, is important, not so much for what he said, but for what he omitted to say. But before I deal with the matter, I want to refer to what he said as regards party representation at the conference. It is clear that the request for separate representation came from the Labour Party and the Dominion Party. The refusal of the Prime Minister is a severe blow to those two parties who have supported the Government so faithfully in this Coalition, who every day even over trivial matters have supported the Government, and now they have received a slap in the face. The Prime Minister departs, as he has told us, at the end of this month or the beginning of next month. He is going to San Francisco, but he is travelling via London; he is going via London not only because it is the most convenient route, but because a preliminary conference is being held in London of all other delegates from the British Empire. In other words a line of action will be decided upon in London for the British Empire. There they will decide on unanimous and united action by the British Empire at the San Francisco Conference. Therefore, what is going to take place in London is a sort of imperial caucus conference before the main conference assembles. Other matters such as post-war questions will also be discussed in London, but these I will deal with a little later in this debate. The position is that the Prime Minister, when he goes to San Francisco, will not go as the representative of South Africa as such, but as a member of the British Empire’s delegation. In other words, when he arrives there, he will be concerned not so much with the interests of South Africa as with the interests of the British Empire. He is going there as a sort of “Empire Elder Statesman”. The Prime Minister has said, and quite rightly, that most important matters will be discussed at that conference. A new organisation will be called into being to take the place of the League of Nations. As a result of the decisions reached there serious and onerous obligations will rest on all the members of that organisation, including the Union of South Africa. If these decisions are carried out, as already set out in the preliminary Charter of Dumbarton Oaks, it will mean that South Africa will be dragged into future world wars. Therefore, I agree with the Prime Minister that it is an all-important conference. The Prime Minister is not attending a conference not knowing what is going to be discussed—it is not as in the case of an imperial conference where he sometimes does not know what matters are on the agenda. He knows exactly what will be discussed, for the preliminary Charter has already been published. In these circumstances, I think the House is justified in expecting a little more information from the Prime Minister today. We know what the organisation is going to be, and we have the right to ask the Prime Minister: What is your attitude going to be in connection with these new things which will be proposed there? One thing is certain, also from the Prime Minister’s speech,’ and that is that the League of Nations is now a thing of the past; that he admits. Up to now every year when we proposed that the Union’s contribution to the League of Nations should be discontinued, the Prime Minister always adopted the attitude that the League of Nations was still functioning; it was still doing good work and he still believed in the League of Nations. Now he acknowledges that a new organisation will take the place of the League of Nations. I hope that when later in the Committee stage we propose that our contribution to the League of Nations should be discontinued, we, under these circumstances, will not again be opposed by the Prime Minister.

He can deduct the burial fee.

Now we come to the discussions at the San Francisco Conference. In that connection, three Questions arise: What sort of organisation will be established; will that organisation answer the purpose more satisfactorily than did the League of Nations, and finally—and for us the most important question—what will South Africa’s position be in that new organisation? Is it in our interest to become a member of that organisation? At once the question arises: Why was the League of Nations a failure, as has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister? The League of Nations, as also this organisation, was built on great ideals. At the time of the establishment of the League of Nations, just as now, ideals were discussed and we were told that all nations would be treated on a basis of sovereign equality. We were told later—also by the Prime Minister during the last Session of Parliament—that the League of Nations had proved a failure because it had not the necessary military power behind it to impose sanctions, whether economic sanctions or military sanctions. The failure of the League of Nations was attributed to the lack of the necessary military power to impose sanctions. But in my opinion there were also other reasons for the failure of the League of Nations, and it is necessary today to take those reasons into account, for those self-same factors which contributed to the downfall of the League of Nations are also present at the birth of this new organisation. One of the reasons for the failure of the League of Nations was that certain great powers ruled the roost. The Prime Minister knows that. The Prime Minister is aware that in the past these great powers ruled the League of Nations, and that later two great Dowers, namely Great Britain and France together, governed the League of Nations after Italy and Germany had withdrawn. I can personally vouch for that; I was on two occasions the Union’s representative at the meetings of the League of Nations. I had the opportunity of seeing what happened there. But there was another contributory factor which is also going to play a very important rôle in this new organisation, and that is the conflicting interests which existed in the League of Nations and which will be in evidence in the future, between the different nations, and more particularly the great powers. There is one great difficulty attaching to all these international organisations and you are going +o have the same difficulty with this new organisation— namely that before you can make a success of such an organisation, you will first have to change human nature.

What is your alternative?

An individual, groups of people and also nations look first to their own interests. This new organisation has not been established vet and already you find conflicting interests coming to the fore, conflicting interests between the Anglo-Saxon element on the one hand, that is to say America and England, and the Russian Slavonic element on the other hand. When you open your newspaper you read of the coming clash of economic interests between England on the one hand and America on the other hand. The conflicting interests are already there. Those self-same clashes, those same weaknesses of human nature which you had in the old League of Nations will play a predominant part in the new organisation. The Prime Minister told us very clearly, and it is also stated in the Dumbarton Oaks announcement, that the main characteristic of the new organisation will be the use of military power. At the opening of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference on 21st August, last year, Mr. Cordell Hull, of the U.S.A., Sir Alexander Cadogan, of England, and Mr. Gromyko, the Russian representative, all three in their opening addresses laid emphasis on the fact that the new organisation will have to be supported by military power, in other words, that a sort of international police force will have to be called into being. A statement was published on 29th August, and from the statement it is very evident. They say—

1. (1) General agreement was reached on the structure and aims of the proposed organisation, to maintain peace and security;
2. (2) an assembly comprised of all peace loving nations …

A fine word!—

And may I now at this stage refer to a statement which was made by Winston Churchill last week to indicate what value we can attach to these fine statements about sovereign equality—

Then Mr. Churchill goes on—

They are the same words which the Prime Minister used a few weeks ago in connection with the Atlantic Charter. The Atlantic Charter was also welcomed at the time as a wonderful declaration which would bring peace and happiness to the world, and in this House a few weeks ago the Prime Minister acknowledged the Atlantic Charter to be an ideal which could never be realised in practice. One can therefore see what value one can attach to these statements. The Dumbarton Oaks declaration continues—

1. (2) A Security Council comprised of a smaller number of members to which the principal States would be joined by a small pumber of members periodically elected.

And the third and most important point in the statement which was published, reads—

1. (3) Effective means for the peaceful settlement of disputes, including an International Court of Justice, and also the application of such other means as may be necessary for the maintenance of peace and security.

Please note the words: “Such other means as may be necessary”. That was the statement of the 29th August. But scarcely had this statement been published when Mr. Cordell Hull announced that difficulties had arisen, and on the 29th September he said—

Therefore, it is quite evident that there has already been a clash. The organisation is not even yet functioning and there is at once a clash between the interests of the big States and those of the smaller States. From this it looks as if the position may possibly arise which obtained under the League of Nations, namely, that the organisation will be governed by a few great powers —“power politics” in the strongest sense of the word—England, Russia and America. They spoke of the Four Great Powers, but we notice now that China is no longer mentioned; China is out of favour since Marshal Chiang Kai-Shek and General Stillwell clashed with one another. Even the attraction and charm of Madame Chiang Kai-Shek cannot save the situation. It will be a dictatorship of three great nations. That will be the foundation of the organisation. On the 7th October the conference was concluded, and a comprehensive charter was compiled, comprising chapters and sections, chapter and verse, and that is why I am asking the Prime Minister—he knows about that Charter—why he does not tell the House today, with all the information before him, what his attitude to the Charter is. It is not an unknown quantity with which he is dealing. The regulations of the organisation have already been communicated to us. He has to go there to decide on these proposals. Let us now make a closer study of that Charter and the new organisation. The first aspect that strikes one is that the whole foundation of the new organisation is the obligation resting on all the members, that is to say nations, of according military assistance. I wonder if hon. members on the other side realise where all this is going to lead South Africa if we become a member of this organisation, as it has been framed in the Charter. Section 5 of Chapter 2 reads—

Section 4, Chaper 8, where they talk of how the peace must be maintained, reads—

Section 5—

Section 6—

Section 9 makes provision for—

That is surely very clear. The words are written in good English to the effect that South Africa as a member of that organisation can be called upon at any time, when trouble may arise, by the Security Council of the organisation to provide the necessary air force and the necessary military units. According to this article we can be called upon to forward supplies, ammunition and the necessary food. We can be called upon at any time to place our docks here in South Africa and other facilities at the disposal of this organisation. Far reaching consequences — are they not? They are consequences which we are open to in the event of war and troubles which are of no concern to us. Supposing Japan should again attack China in the future, then we can be called upon to supply the necessary armed forces, food, supplies and so forth although we have no interest whatsoever in those difficulties. Two days ago an announcement was made by a prominent Briton to the effect that America should be charged with the maintenace of peace in the Western Hemisphere; and that England on the other hand should be responsible for peace in Europe. But we are not in the Western Hemisphere, and we are also not in the whirlpool of European difficulties. We are on the southern tip of Africa, and why should we be dragged into this new organisation where we will be obliged to provide armed forces and so forth for disputes which may arise in Europe or elsewhere? The Hon. Prime Minister said just now that there are two differences between the Covenant of the League of Nations and the new organisation, but that in other respects there is no difference. I took the trouble to study the difference between the two. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the Prime Minister. In the first place we find, according to the Covenant of the League of Nations, that the Council of the League of Nations, or the assembly of the League of Nations, decides whether an occasion has arisen or circumstances have arisen which necessitate the imposition of sanctions, but all the members of the organisation have the right to decide for themselves whether they will participate therein or not. Under the new Charter everyone belonging to the new organisation must participate in sanctions, not on a decision of the assembly—the assembly does not play a part—but on a decision of the Security Council, which means the three great powers. We will have to participate in any sanctions which that Security Council may decide upon. This means that as a result of a decision of the Security Council, the countries must make available military forces, supplies, etc. As far as the Covenant of the League of Nations is concerned, we find that it is not the Council of the League of Nations but rather the assembly which has to decide on action. Under the charter of the proposed organisation, the assembly has no voice in the matter. The resolutions and decisions are taken by the Security Council. Further we find that in the Covenant of the League of Nations there is a definite provision as to the nature of the steps that may be taken, the measure of the sanctions that can be imposed. There is a definition. In the new organisation there is no such thing. All the say rests with the Security Council. This is also a very important difference, a difference which may have far-reaching consequences for South Africa. The principal idea is, as they have intimated, that they want to preserve world peace. They are the same fine stories which we heard when President Wilson came to light with his 14 points and with the establishment of the League of Nations. Now it appears from the statement which Mr. Churchill made last week, that the small nations will have practically no voice in this new organisation. It is an organisation intended for the great powers alone. There are two alternatives. If South Africa joins this organisation in its present form and if its resolutions are carried out in practice, then there is no way out for us. South Africa will have to provide the necessary military forces, the necessary air force, food and other facilities. But on the other hand, if the new organisation but once more appears to be a hopeless ideal, then our participation therein is again a waste of money as it has been in the years gone by, since 1918. I want to ask the Hon. Prime Minister what advantages South Africa has derived from the League of Nations as it existed. We are referred to the other functions of the League of Nations, such as the I.L.O. and similar organisations. But what advantage have we ever derived from those organisations except the reports which have been published from time to time; and in how many cases has our own Government acted on those reports? If it is nothing more than a hopeless ideal, as Mr. Churchill said, are we going to be content again, as in the past, to spend nearly a million pounds on the League of Nations and our representation there? In view of that possibility and of what this new Charter proposes, we have the right to ask the Prime Minister who is journeying to San Francisco, what his attitude will be in connection with these matters. Is he prepared to allow South Africa to be dragged into the problems of Europe and of the Western Hemisphere? We are here at the southern tip of Africa, and we have no interest in those wars. We have the right to know, as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition put it the other day as regards the coloured question: “Where is the Prime Minister leading us to?” I said, and would like to repeat that a clash of interests between nations has already reared its head. It is a conflict of interests between America and England on the one hand and Russia on the other hand. We learnt last week that France had refused to participate in the conference at San Francisco. Now we learn that Poland can also not be admitted, unless the Polish Government is acknowledged beforehand by the great powers. Poland has perhaps more interest than any other country in the conference. It is a country where some ten million people have lost their lives, a country where the former boundaries will disappear. A portion will be lost to Poland which is inhabited by four million Poles. This will be given to Russia. It is a country which is very interested in the new organisation, but Poland has not been invited to San Francisco. The Prime Minister knows our standpoint in connection with this war. We declare it to be our standpoint in connection with future wars as well. South Africa should hold back from joining any organisation which, without our own doings and knowledge, can drag us into difficulties. It is for South Africa itself to decide in future emergencies whether it is in our interest to participate in such a war or to render assistance. In a case of war, every case should be treated on its merits, and it must be left to South Africa itself to decide whether it will participate in such a war and what the measure of our participation will be. I want to repeat that I hope that when the Prime Minister rises he will give us a little more information than he has given us so far in connection with this important conference. I agree wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister when he says: “I feel that this is a very grave matter”, or words to that effect. This conference is one of the greatest interest, and we must know what South Africa intends doing in the future. In view of the fact that the whole Charter lies before the Prime Minister and that he knows what is proposed, he should give us more information than he has done so far. We want to know where he is leading South Africa.

I am glad that the Prime Minister has given a reply to the Labour Party and that he has clearly indicated that he does not want us at the San Francisco conference. I am pleased with the reply of the Prime Minister because it was candid, but I am disappointed with its contents; so much more because the Prime Minister better than anybody knows that although we have supported the Government in regard to the war effort, profound differences of opinion exist between us on these benches here and the Prime Minister and his Party, between his Party and the Labour movement throughout the world. Since we take up a certain attitude, especially in connection with international matters and especially as far as our standpoint is concerned in regard to countries which were our enemies during the war and where the voice of the Labour Party has always been the correct one when it came to the conclusion of peace, I would have expected the Prime Minister, looking at it from that point of view to have afforded us this opportunity. This is the more disappointing because in the statement made by the Prime Minister we did not notice, or he did not give us any indication, what the lesson is which we have learned from this war. Unless we have learned a lesson from the war we cannot conclude a lasting peace. Unless we have learned thoroughly from this war the peace will again be a failure. If we want to learn the lesson which this war should teach us and if we want to make a lasting peace we must investigate what the cause of the war was. If I do that, I feel that I have to go back to where the war started. Hitler rose as the leader of the German people; but why did he rise? Why did a grudge exist in the heart of the German people; why did that arise so spontaneously, and who assisted it to be able to rise in arms? British capitalism. On the eve of the war they were still supplying Germany with steel and manganese. The Prime Minister expressed one truth, certainly the greatest truth he ever said in his life—“war is a costly business”. I hope that those capitalists also realise now that war is a costly business, that they no longer can remain safely outside whilst the other people do the fighting and that the bombs will also reach them and that they will not be safe against them. Is it a fact that Switzerland has been selected by the international capitalists as a place whence they may flee and that an international agreement exists that no bombs will be dropped on Swiss soil? French, English, German— all capitalists have fled to that country. We should not forget that in its days of crisis the British people were left in the lurch by those capitalists. We have the greatest respect and admiration for the steadfastness and moral coinage of the British people who had to pass through that struggle but the British people were brought to the edge of the precipice by the lust for money and the greed of the British capitalists who had interests in Germany and throughout the world. For that reason our view on this side of the House is that those matters should definitely receive proper consideration when the foundations of peace will be laid in this conference, so that we shall not have a repetition of what has happened to the world already twice in succession. I hope that nobody, also not the Prime Minister, will take offence to what I am now going to say, for I say this in all modesty. We do not like Mr. John Martin running continually after the Prime Minister, and when Mr. John Martin is going to be present at all the important conferences, there is so much more reason for the representatives of the workers of our country to be present there.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m

In view of what I said here in regard to the definite point of view taken by us on this side, I now want to put a few Questions to the Prime Minister, and the manner in which the Prime Minister will reply to them will show us in how far he will be able to represent also the point of view of this side. My pertinent questions to the Hon. Prime Minister are the following: (1) Do you consider it essential that the opinions of this side, known as the Labour movement, should be stressed at the conference at San Francisco and should influence the decisions in regard to international questions; (2) Do you think you will be able to do so; (3) If not, in what way do you think the point of view of the Labour movement as such will be able to influence the peace conditions which will be formulated there; (4) Is it your wish that the point of view of the Labour movement should make itself felt in the peace conditions after this war, or not? The replies to these questions will clearly show in how far the point of view of the Prime Minister corresponds with our own or in how far it differs from it. No comments will be called for. The entire onus rests with the Prime Minister and I hope that during this debate he will take South Africa into his confidence and tell us what the great and expensive lessons are for which so much blood has been shed and so many lives have been sacrificed and so much destruction has been wrought. I hope that the Prime Minister will also be able to tell the people, along which lines he hopes to establish a lasting peace, so that we shall not see a repetition of what happened before, namely, an armistice between world war No. 1 and world war No. 2. I do not wish to say more about this matter. I only put these pertinent questions to the Prime Minister. From his replies it will be evident in how far the Prime Minister will be able to represent our point of view, how far he agrees or how far he disagrees with the views of the Labour Party which are well-known to the Prime Minister and of which the House is well aware; I am referring to our views in regard to international peace.

I would like to add a few further remarks to the questions I put to the Hon. Prime Minister this morning. It amounts to this, that after the explanation given by the Prime Minister this morning and the information he supplied us with, in my opinion the future, is not very rosy; the prospects for a world peace and also the prospects for South Africa are very dark. I do not think I can put it differently. The nucleus of the solution the Hon. Prime Minister suggested here for the safeguarding of the future world peace is a so-called “Security Council” and that council will consist of the great powers, I believe five of them. Their aim is not only consultation, but also action, and the action will rest with them, the decision to take action will lie in their hands. That is the gist of the whole matter. I want to point out first of all that this solution, or so-called solution entirely ignores the fact that the main problem of world peace does not rest with the small nations. The small nations do not disturb the peace of the world but the big nations do. That fact is entirely ignored here. It sometimes happens that small nations do disturb the peace but in that case the war resulting therefrom is a local affair or can easily be localised. It is a minor war. But when the big nations disturb the peace, experience has shown, especially during the past twenty or thirty years that this disturbs the peace of the world—it becomes a world war and the whole world including small and big nations becomes involved. The disaster is therefore so much greater. That problem, the disturbance of the world peace and the extent of the war depends on the big nations and not on the small ones. This fact is being entirely ignored. The second point I wish to refer to is that the decision to take action which will lie with the five great nations, will only be taken when they all agree. There will have to be unanimity amongst them. What does that mean? That means in fact that when one of them stands aside, when one of them is not in favour of action being taken or is itself involved in the matter, no action will be taken. In other words, they themselves are safeguarded against any action which might be taken to ensure the world peace. No action can be taken unless they are unanimous. If one of them does not agree, the world organisation and the “Security Council” are not going to function. I want to know how much this security is worth for the world peace in such circumstances. It lies with them to do what they like. Are they so unanimous that one may expect unanimity among them in the future? I just want to put one question to the Hon. Prime Minister. The war which is now being waged has, according to his point of view and his statements, been started because on the one side were grouped the Western European nations with governments based on the democratic system. I want to know whether Russia is a democratic country. Is Russia a totatlitarian State of not? I think there can only be one reply to that, namely, that Russia is a totalitarian State. There is no democracy in Russia, not in the slightest. If it is a fact that a war is now taking place because there were two ideologies diametrically opposed and those different powers are united in one combination, what prospect is there for a world peace? They are clashing now already, everywhere, in Greece, in Bulgaria, in Rumania, in Poland, in Belgium; they are clashing everywhere. What are the prospects for unanimity on which, according to the Prime Minister, the world peace is to be based? Then there is a further question I want to put to the Prime Minister. Does a tendency exist towards, or has there actually been already a division of spheres, sometimes called spheres of influence, among the great powers? It looks like it. It looks as if that principle was already in existence at Yalta, and also at Teheran. I shall tell you why. What is the reason that as far as the Polish problem is concerned, that was in fact left entirely in the hands of Russia? The settlement of the Polish problem did not originate with Britain or America. It is a Russian settlement. The same applies to the Baltic States. In Greece we find a clash between the Communists and the Anti-Communists but the settlement there was left in the hands of England, and Russia did not say a word about it. England has interests in the Mediterranean. Its position there is at stake and the agreement apparently is that the Greek settlement will be left to England and that Russia will not interfere there. If that tendency is to be developed further, it will mean that one part of the world will be left to America, another part to Britain and still another part to Russia and that every one of them can do there as he likes. What is the further implication of that. It will mean that the small nations in those areas will be at the mercy of the great power in whose sphere of influence they are situated and which can play the tyrant over them. That means that the big powers give each other a free hand to tyrannise small nations. That is as I see the matter, and unless the Prime Minister is able to shed an entirely different light on the situation, the future of the world is darker than it was before. As the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) pointed out, South Africa, on account of the provisional agreement already reached, will be a very small nation to be dragged into war by the great powers if action is decided upon and we cannot do anything about it. In that case there will no longer be such a thing as neutrality. We will be dragged in but the big nations can safeguard themselves against action as a result of that principle of unanimity. That is the position.

The attitude taken up by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is one which has been repeatedly exposed in this House, and in the light of the attitude which they still persist in, I think there is one point one should continually emphasise, that the freedom and security of small nations, as has been shown in the past, depend not on isolation but on the great powers of the world remaining united and at peace. As long as the great nations remain in agreement with one another, there can be very little danger for small nations, but if the great powers, who have borne the brunt of the war, fall out, there is very little chance for the small nations of the world at large. Now the position has clearly been shown to be this: In Great Britain, in the United States, in the Soviet, there is a determined effort on the part of these three great powers to co-operate to win the war and that after the war they should work together to maintain peace, just as they have worked together in the war. All those who take a realistic view of the position believe that that is necessary. Mr. Churchill, Mr. Anthony Eden, members of the British Labour Party, leaders in the United States and the Soviet have shown by their statements that they believe that unless these three great powers co-operate, there can be no peace for the world and no hope for the immediate conclusion of the war. Those who have been trying to create differences between England, the U.S.A. and the Soviet, are simply trying to do something that will break down the peace of the world and jeopardise the safety of small nations. It has not only been repeatedly said by Mr. Anthony Eden, Mr. Churchill and our Prime Minister that unless the three great powers stand together there can be no peace, but even one of the leaders of the young Conservative members, Mr. Quinton Hogg, in the House of Commons said that if the great powers should fall out, if by any mischance there was to be friction and division between them, there would be no hope of preventing the re-emergence of Germany as a military power and a menace to the world. And the same thing applies to relations between England, the United States and the Soviet; if there is to be friction between them, there is nothing to prevent Japan from emerging as a menace to the world and so to South Africa. Our attitude should be not to throw a spanner in the works and to cause friction, but to try to support the Prime Minister. Mr. Churchill the other day said we must try to retain co-operation to the fullest extent, and only by doing that can we maintain the peace of the world. Apart from that I believe that neither Mr. Churchill, our own Prime Minister, nor Mr. Stalin, have abandoned the ideal of ultimately securing an arrangement by which, in time to come, disputes between nations shall be treated exactly as disputes between individuals; and there shall be an international court of justice to deal with disputes and an international police force to enforce the decisions arrived at. I am sure the Prime Minister, who had taken an active part in the formation of the League of Nations, and who believes in international peace and co-operation, and consultation instead of force, will, in spite of the present realistic position which has necessarily been adopted, use his influence in the councils of the world to see that we travel in the direction of establishing an effective international court of justice and an effective international police force. I want to put another point to the Prime Minister. At the present moment arrangements have been made whereby the representatives of the Dominions are to meet in London prior to the San Fracisco Conference—and may I say that the greatest factor for the security of South Africa is the fact that we are a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and in that way intimately associated with one of the great powers that will have to decide about the peace of the world? There is a conference to be held in London so that the representatives of the Commonwealth can discuss matters before the San Francisco Conference, and can talk in San Francisco with one voice, as far as possible. I would like the Prime Minister to consider, although it may be too late, having a conference with the Rhodesias and other British African territories before he leaves for the conference. Perhaps with today’s methods of travel it is not too late. In any case, I hope that the Prime Minister will see that there is a discussion between us and the Rhodesias and other British territories before the London Conference so that, as far as the interests of Southern Africa are concerned, the representatives will speak with a united voice and not be divided.

I do not think there is anybody in this House who will differ from the Prime Minister as regards his conception about the seriousness of the developments which we can expect in the future. He probably feels that a difficult period in the history of the world may be reached and that a serious problem stares us in the face as regards future peace, future civilisation and also the future of Christianity, if I may put it that way. The question which arises with each of us and which surely the Prime Minister has asked himself is whether there are not certain basic principles which have been tested throughout the ages and which deserve cardinal consideration when those problems are being considered. We do not want to adopt the attitude of a court of justice which has to judge of the sins of individual nations. But the Prime Minister will receive great assistance from the consideration of this question, whether the application of the principles of right and justice which have been tested throughout the ages should not receive their rightful place when deliberations proceed about the basis for the future. The Prime Minister will be faced with a tremendous responsibility when he attends the conference, not only because he represents South Africa but as one of the responsible world figures; and I now want to ask him a few questions in connection with questions which evidently have reference to South Africa. Soon after the beginning of the war the two great powers came together, namely, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of England, and on that occasion they gave the world a statement full of high ideals, which was accepted by the world as the basis of the aims with which the war was being waged and by means of which it was attempted to ensure a lasting peace for the future. Steadily those high ideals and principles on which right and justice could have been founded were gradually watered down until it reached the stage where our Prime Minister, who originally stated that our Government accepted the Atlantic Charter, a few days ago told the House that he doubted whether those high ideals of the Atlantic Charter could now still be applied in practice. In those statements of the Atlantic Charter especially three points emerge which were raised last year by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition and which can safely and profitably now be repeated, namely, that the big nations entered into the struggle not for self-aggrandisement. That is the first statement—that nobody would seek gain for himself in the form of territorial expansion and extension. No territorial changes would take place, except as the result of agreement with the nations concerned. That is a beautiful idea. The next was that no nation would be obliged to subject itself to a form of government which was not its own choice. That was the beautiful statement to the world concerning the war aims of those two great nations. Gradually there was a watering-down of that statement. A few years after that there was the meeting in Moscow, and then appreciable amendments were made. Then there were Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta, and already we are on the way to San Francisco. The world accepts that this high ethical statement at Washington—it was calleci the Atlantic Charter but that nomenclature has now evidently gone astray, and therefore I call it the Statement of Washington—was not made to bring the nations of the world under a wrong impression, that it was not done merely to improve their morale for the struggle; the world did not accept that it was made purely to persuade countries to participate in the war, but that the object was to make impossible the failure of the peace. If it is not true that it was meant seriously, then the world has been faced with a fraud which is unimaginable, and which emanated from the two leading big nations from the representatives of two big nations. If that was the aim, the Prime Minister and his colleagues will have to make a statement to the world as to why those high ideals have now become impracticable. Recently I devoted a large amount of attention to the work of the present Lord Keynes, who during the peace negotiations at Versailles was in Paris for six months, and who, while he was there, inter alia devoted his attention to the economic problems of the peace as well as to the political results of the decisions of Versailles. I do not want to take up the time of the House by quoting very much of it, but I should like to bring this extract to the attention of the House—

In 1941, when the Declaration of Washington was made, it was made by two nations because they were in distress. They were in serious trouble, and therefore they made that declaration in order to receive support for their war aims. What circumstances can justify that now the world and the war have taken a different turn, now that the war will probably have a different end, those basic principles which were announced should be regarded as impracticable. I say that in those circumstances the world has the right, humanity has the right to ask why those ideals are not practicable. I think that the Prime Minister and his colleagues must revert to the weight of the eternal truth that only justice can ennoble a nation. I refer to the high ideal of the Declaration of Washington. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) have already pointed out the deviations there were from that. But I now come to a few prominent ostensible inconsistencies. The first affects the procedure followed in the formation of the new League of Nations. It is a fairly general conception that if one day the world were to come to the stage where we have a lasting peace, then the discoveries of science and the enlightenment of the world as regards knowledge must no longer be used for the destruction of nations. I think that that is an incontrovertible fact. The tragedy is that if humanity shifts from standpoint to standpoint according to external circumstances, there is no lasting ground for peace, and that condition we had in the past of fear of war will remain in existence if one nation uses its knowledge for the destruction of another nation. [Time limit.]

I do not know what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) exactly meant, but he put this proposition before us: “The security of small nations depends on peace”. But what about the insecurity? Every small nation which has been dragged into this and into previous wars was dragged in by the great nations. Take countries like Holland, Belgium, Lithunania, Finland and others. Those who were not dragged into it by Russia and the Allies were dragged in by Germany. The difficulties which have just been pointed out by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not that small nations enter into a war voluntarily, but that they are directly or indirectly dragged in. I now want to point out that the decisions of Dumbarton Oaks amount to this that only the interests of the great powers will count, and not the interests of the small countries, as was evident from the reply of Mr. Churchill to a question in the British House of Commons. He there clearly said that he draws a distinction between the interests of the great powers on the one hand and those of the smaller countries on the other hand. I now want to put a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the unanimity of which he spoke. The declaration issued by the “Big Three” at Yalta said only this—

I followed the newspapers fairly carefully but I did not find a Press report in which the information appeared which was today given to us by the Prime Minister. He has now for once given this House information which has not yet appeared in the Press. The information given to us by the Prime Minister is evidently information which he received direct from England, since that time, about the procedure laid down. According to his statement today there must be unanimity between the great powers before action can ensue. The Prime Minister also said this morning that he is in regular consultation with England. His words were: “Regular consultation and also daily talks with the Union High Commissioner”. Therefore there surely was consultation about the arrangements in connection with Poland. When, however, a little while ago I put the question whether there had been consultation about Poland, the Prime Minister replied, No, he does not know anything about it. I put a further question to him which I based on the Press reports, whether it is true that the High Commissioner for South Africa is consulted regularly and almost daily, and is in conference with the heads of Whitehall and Downing Street. The Prime Minister did not give me a satisfactory reply. I am now interested to hear that that is so, and the Prime Minister will now, in view of his confession of this morning that our Government is regularly consulted, be able to tell us whether he is in favour of the arrangements at Yalta, inter alia about Poland, and whether he approves of that portion of Poland east of the Curzon line, which includes four million Poles, being given to Russia. I however want to come back to the, Dumbarton Oaks discussions which resulted in the coming San Francisco conference. One of the hon. members on this side handed me an interesting article which appeared in the “National Review”. The hon. member for Troyeville a moment ago said that we only busy ourselves with propaganda, and that we are trying “to throw a spanner in the works”. I think that the Prime Minister will recognise that the “National Review” is a very well-known and highly regarded English periodical.

The Conservative periodical.

Yes, that is right. The article to which I refer appears under the heading, “Dumbarton Hoax”, and I now wish to point out to the Prime Minister that it is not as a London Cockney would say “oaks”, but “hoax”. The writer of this article adopts precisely the same attitude which I adopted this morning, namely that nations react like individuals. The individual looks to his own interest, the group looks to its own interest and the nation looks to its own interest. He says—

I agree with every word. He then proceeds—

And finally this—

If the Leader of the Opposition, or I, or any other member on this side of the House say such things, it is described as propaganda, and the hon. member for Troyeville says: “They are throwing a spanner in the machinery”. What the writer said there is quite correct. The Prime Minister has probably seen the Press report which appeared a few days ago, that Russia would not evacuate Hungary and Bulgaria before being convinced that in those countries a government would be formed which is sympathetic towards Russia and which is communistically orientated. The position is then this, that Great Britain can expect serious trouble with Russia. The Prime Minister himself warned in his explosive speech and spoke of Russia as the colossus of Europe, “the mistress of Europe” as he called it. The Hon. the Prime Minister is certainly not such an idealist, and so little of a realist, that he does not realise that the might which Russia is busy building up in Europe must lead to a clash of interests between Russia, on the one side, and Great Britain on the other side? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in the course of his characteristically querulous remarks, said that we in South Africa, situated as we were at the remote tip of this continent, have no interest either in the East or in the West, or in any other part of the world for that matter. That seems to me an astonishing statement coming from one who regards himself as an authority on international affairs.

I said “no interest in wars”.

“Wars” and “affairs” are the same now. That statement flies in the face of quite recent history. Take Europe, for example; twice in one generation have we been involved in wars which had their origin in Europe and we have found ourselves drawn into the vortex of European national rivalries.

That is because of our membership of the British Commonwealth.

In neither case could we have stayed out. If Britain had been overwhelmed, Germany would have claimed South Africa as part of the spoils of victory. The hon. member interjects. He obviously believes we have no real concern with the affairs of Europe and we shall continue to be involved in its recurrent conflicts as long as we remain an integral part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That is what he means to convey by his interjection. That view seems to me to be quite unrealistic. Europe is the forcing house of imperialism. South Africa, with its rich resources, its warm climate, its cheap native labour, is far too rich a prize to be ignored by any imperialist power. It is clear where our place belongs. In so far as the lessons of this war have any value in shaping future policy, it is clear that isolationism is impossible. Even an independent South African republic would be compelled to adopt one of two courses; she would either have to enter into some treaty arrangement with Britain which would be more binding and automatic than any obligation which the Commonwealth imposes on us, or alternatively, she would have to make friends with the poten tial aggressor and thus, in practice, become the vassal state of a rival imperialist power.

Is that based on 1899-1902?

If you do not know recent history—

Why do you not go back to 1881?

Why do you not go back to 1877?

The question is not whether we can disinterest ourselves in the affairs of Europe, but whether Britain will emerge from this war strong enough to act as a stabilising factor in a new world order. Her prestige will no doubt be enormous, but it is doubtful if Britain could continue to rank as a first-class power if she lost the support of the Dominions. Britain would no doubt be ready to exercise a rôle of leadership, but how much she could achieve would depend on how much material and moral support she receives from the rest of the Commonwealth. If the Dominions add their strength to that of Britain, they will ensure that a strong Britain will stand by them, or better still, that a strong Britain will be able to exercise sufficient authority to maintain a stable equilibrium in which the danger of war will be reduced to a minimum. It is, of course, clear that the support of the Dominions cannot be given unconditionally but only if Britain pursues a policy to which they can subscribe and which is best calculated to ensure peace and tranquility on a just and stable basis. In other words, the prestige of Britain is involved in her handling of the problems of the peace settlement, and Dominion support depends on how she handles them. That is why the forthcoming Imperial Conference is of such supreme importance. Coming at the end of the war in Europe, it will obviously concern itself with the peace settlement and will serve to evolve a united commonwealth attitude towards the problems of peace and reconstruction. The hon. member for Beaufort West has laboured to convince us that the new world organisation for peace which is now in process of taking shape, will in fact not be an improvement on the old League of Nations, but will be just as ineffectual. If that is so what is the logical inference? Surely it is a powerful argument for continuing our association with the British Commonwealth of Nations and entering wholeheartedly into its counsels. Outside the Commonwealth, South Africa would be a negligible factor in world affairs. We should have to resign ourselves to a wholly passive rôle. Our fate would be decided for us, not by us. On the other hand, as a member of the Commonwealth we can be an effective political force. We can help to shape and even motivate Commonwealth policy. It seems to me that the attitude of progressive-minded people towards the Commonwealth should be governed by this consideration: The Empire, whatever its defects, still represents a unified system; and in the present anarchy of international relations we should cling steadfastly to any unity we have already achieved. We should certainly not seek to multiply the number of so-called independent states. We should encourage every tendency towards cohesion and resist every tendency towards separatism. That seems to me to be plain commonsense. Surely both honour and self-interest dictate that we should co-operate with the rest of the Commonwealth and take a full share in its privileges and responsibilities.

During the speech of the previous hon. member I called out: “Woe to South Africa”. When a member of the House of Assembly holds a demonstration in the House and pleads that South Africa should now take up a position which will strengthen the position of England in the world, then I cannot imagine any less worthy attitude which can be adopted by a member of Parliament. I do not want to expand upon that, but I say “Poor South Africa” when a national representative adopts that point of view. I should like to put two questions to the Prime Minister with reference to the decisions contained in the Declaration of Moscow which was issued about three years ago. The Declaration of Moscow determines—I think it was the predecessor of this conference—that the following conference must determine that a general organisation should be formed, to be decided upon by the San Francisco Conference, and that countries should be admitted “on an equal basis, all peace-loving nations”—

Important aspects are raised here in connection with the organisation to be brought into existence. Firstly, it is said that it must be peace-loving nations who can join, and secondly, that all such States will be able to join. It is three years ago that this was issued, and at this stage we may ask the Prime Minister, seeing that evidently no further statement was issued, what the definition is of “peace-loving”, which peace-loving nations will be allowed to be members of the organisation. May we correctly accept that it will not only be the belligerent nations, as one can evidently deduce from the name of the organisation which will be called into existence? May we accept that all European nations, all the neutral nations, who were not involved in the war will also be admitted as fundation members of the society. It is of special interest to receive a reply to this question, especially with an eye to the name of the organisation about which I shall say a few words in a moment. Must we accept that not only the belligerent nations but also all the neutral countries, a number of which were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, will also immediately receive access to the organisation? And what about the other nations which are today not incorporated in the “united nations”; on what conditions will they receive access those nations which formed or form the Axis group? Will they also be allowed to join the organisation? If the organisation must execute its function of ensuring peace, those other countries will also have to be allowed to join. Therefore we should like to know how this world organisation will really be constituted; will it really be on the basis of sovereign equality for everybody? That is my question in connection with the membership of the organisation. A second question I should like to put is by reference to the title. The title which has been published so far is the “United Nations”. This name will evidently be given to the new organisation. Recently an article appeared in the “Fortnightly Review” by Lord Cecil, a member of the English aristocracy who participated in the former peace conference, or at any rate was intimately interested in it, and he declared that during the previous conference at Versailles, the aspect which enjoyed special attention was to prevent the impression which could have been caused by the name of the new organisation, that it would include only the belligerent countries. He especially laid stress on that aspect. Where a new organisation is now being instituted, what is the object of having a name which has reference only to the nations who today stand on one side? Does not the Hon. the Prime Minister think that this will sound a false note from the very beginning and will arouse suspicion and mistrust in connection with the aims of the organisation? To me, as someone who has up to now always hoped that the world is going forward to meet peace, it is a depressing fact that the name of the organisation refers to those powers who are today gathered on one side in the war. Let the Hon. the Prime Minister accept that it is not only condemnation we wish to express. But I am filled with sadness and doubt when I note the steps taken and the discussions in connection with the organisation which is to assure an exhausted world of peace, a world which is tired and worn out and deadly pale as a result of the war. If one reads the report about conditions in the world one doubts of a humanity which can permit such things and is still callous about conditions which continue to exist. Here a Council of Five is being called into being which in the first place will have the power to exclude themselves, as the Leader of the Opposition said. That is an aspect which I again confirmed this morning when I saw the White Paper of the British Government which also reiterated that they will be able to exclude themselves. In the debate referred to by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in the House of Lords last week, Lord Winton used the expression that the organisation which is now aimed at is an organisation to keep the “small boys” in order. It is tragic to hear such a statement from a responsible person in the Upper House, that it is an organisation to keep the weak ones in order, but to exclude the great ones from any responsibility. Of the 11 members there will be six from the small powers, and when the small countries are concerned, a majority will decide, but if one of the five big powers are concerned in a matter they must be unanimous or else no steps will be taken. What does the Hon. the Prime Minister expect to be the result of such a system on Western civilisation, that Western civilisation of which he and I are products? There we have two countries which have had very little contact with Western civilisation, and which stood outside, Russia and China. With a view to the standpoint adopted by them, in the past towards Christianity, what does the Prime Minister expect will be their point of view as regards Western civilisation and Christianity as a whole? Does he not feel anxious, as a responsible statesman, at this time of his life, that that combination may lead to the downfall of Western civilisation? [Time limit.]

The point of view I should like to express differs slightly from some of the sentiments that have been heard during this debate. I feel that we have been stressing far too much this point of view that South Africa must in every way guard her own position and make no contribution towards those members of this British Commonwealth of Nations, this family we are proud to belong to, that we should help ourselves in every way and do nothing to help those others who have been assisting us to fight this battle. That reflects very badly on the Opposition. We should emphasise the point of view put forward by the Nationalist Opposition is not the point of view of the vast majority of people in South Africa.

It is the point of view of every other nation.

I am convinced the majority of people in South Africa are prepared to make an effective contribution, and the Government would do very well to tell the world we are prepared and proud to make that contribution, and that these complaints and that these small-minded ideas advanced by the Opposition are not in any way representative of South African opinion. South Africa is prepared to make a contribution to help many of these war impoverished peoples. Whether that contribution shall be a financial contribution, or whether we should contribute food is a matter the Government could very well decide. Here we have something that the people of South Africa would be proud to do, and one does not like to hear such sentiments as we have heard from the other side. They do not like to be reminded in any way of the war or their attitude in the war, or the part they have played in the war. In a few years’ time they will feel somewhat embarrassed if the old question is put to them: “What did you do in the Great War?” They are thoroughly ashamed of their attitude, and I think we can ignore them entirely. They do not represent South Africa, and we can go forward and make suggestions to our fellow partners in the British League of Nations, and propose practical ways in which we can help. I am surprised that more hon. members have not spoken along these lines. The other day when we were discussing the financial position of South Africa I felt rather ashamed of the figures the Minister of Finance was reading to this House, indicating that we had during these five years of war strengthened our financial position, as compared with every other member of the British Commowealth of Nations. I felt there was something in that we could not be altogether proud of, and something we should search our hearts over. We went into the war with our eyes open and we pledged ourselves and pledged South Africa; and South Africa honoured that pledge by returning this party with the biggest majority any government ever had in South Africa. If we could make a bigger contribution we would be doing more towards honouring that pledge. I suggest we might make a direct food contribution to help some of our partners. We heard the Minister of Agriculture state that in view of the shortage of food steps were being taken to import meat and other food from overseas. I believe the people of South Africa would be prepared to do as the people in America, Australia and Britain are doing; we would be prepared to tighten our belts and let some of this food it is proposed to send here go towards helping some of the people who are in a worse position than we are today. I think if that suggestion was put to the people of South Africa by way of a referendum or Gallup poll, the answer would be “We are prepared to make the sacrifice in order to help.” In respect of this food which is supposed to be imported, and which hon. members are afraid will result in a higher price than is being paid today, and in that way embarass the country, I would suggest that Britain should be told we no longer need that food, especially in view of the fact that her own supplies have just been cut down. We might say “We do not need that imported meat, we have enough meat.” If we are a little short it will do us good to make that sacrifice. I would again emphaisse that those countries that are making these contributions, that are willing to make contributions to Unrra, Holland and Greece and various countries where thousands have died of starvation, these countries have for five years been living on a bare subsistence ration. These people have not known for five years what it was to be really well fed. In spite of that they are prepared to cut down their supplies and to send food to those peoples who are much worse supplied than they are themselves. I would commend that attitude and ask hon. members opposite whether they think that people making a contribution of that kind, are down and out, whether they are bankrupt or are near to being bankrupt. Those are the people the world will need in years to come. I for one am glad to be related to people of that kind. We in South Africa should support the Prime Minister 100 per cent.; of course I know it is not possible to give 100 per cent. support, but we should support him in an overwhelming manner if when he goes overseas he tells the people of these great nations he is meeting that South Africa is prepared to support him along those lines.

We have listened to two peculiar speeches from the other side. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett), wants to associate himself permanently with the decision of 4th September, 1939; he wants us under all circumstances always to follw the lead of Britain, whatever Britain may do.

I did not say that.

Then we had the peculiar speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) who, in the most cold-blooded fashion declared here that all the great nations of Europe and the breeding places of Imperialism, and that. South Africa is such a rich country, so rich by virtue of its gold and cheap labour, that the great imperialistic countries—I take it that he means Great Britain, Germany, Russia and America—will never allow South Africa to remain in existence as an independent nation. We can exclude Germany now, which leaves three, and the hon. member cold-bloodedly declares that those three will never allow South Africa to be an independent country. Those are the three nations which the Prime Minister says must gather to frame measures to prevent the world ever again being involved in war. It is said that one has to become cynical. I regard myself as being too young to become cynical, but if those are the three nations who must see to if that the small nations of the world are never again involved in war, then even before the Prime Minister goes to San Francisco it is hopeless, if what the hon. member for Hillbrow said is correct. I am sorry to say that I think he is correct with the possible exception of America. I think he is right. I am convinced of it that those great powers will use their power to force the small nations to do what they wish the small nations to do, not for the benefit of the small nations, but to exploit them economically and to use them as they want to use them. It is a miserable position into which the world has sunk, but I should like to see that we, and especially the Prime Minister, must consider whether there is no more hope than that for the world, whether it is not possible for us again to return to a position where we will say that the independence of every small nation and the sovereignty of every country is so important that we should make an independent and self-sufficient entity of that small nation, a moral entity, and that through that moral entity it will have the right to a vote, not because it is great or small, but because it is self-sufficient and independent and wants to control itself, just as certainly as the great nations, and that it will not only be three, four or five great nations who will have the right to the vote, but every small nation. I say that each small nation must be given a vote when we deliberate as to how the peace of the world shall be preserved. Exclude Germany if you like; Germany is not a danger for the immediate future.

It was a danger.

There is a much greater danger. The Prime Minister is going overseas and I hope he is going there to make a real attempt to help the cause of future peace in the world. Our salvation lies therein that we shall not be delivered over to three or four great nations of whom it cannot be said that they will not take away the independence of other smaller nations or exploit them. Can you say that of Great Britain? No. Can you say it of Russia? No. One cannot say it of Germany, but Germany is now out of it. One could perhaps say it of America, but American methods will be different. She is not so much interested in territory, but she has a different imperialism which in future might perhaps become stronger and stronger, and that is economic imperialism. But I leave the matter there. I say we may just as well not go over there to speak to those people, because it would be of no value at all unless they recognise that every nation in the world has the right to a vote when it comes to questions of peace and the rights and independence of smaller nations. Every small nation is entitled to an equal vote because it is an actual entity and because the soul of that small nation, which wants to protect its independence and freedom is worth just as much as that of the great nation which wants to rule it and which is only out to leave no small nation which is rich, no small nation which has good resources of riches and income, in peace. They regard it as their mission in life to swallow those small nations and to destroy them and to deprive them of their independence. Fortunately the truth has emerged from one of the members on the Prime Minister’s side, and if it had come from this side they would again have said as the hon. member for Griqualand West (Mr. Fawcett) said: “Yes, there we again have the pettiness of that side of the House.” But it did not come from this side of the House; it came from the hon. member for Hillbrow. He spoke the truth. I now say, let us seek a way; we can find a way, and that way will not come from the side of those great and powerful nations; it also comes from the small nations. I want to ask the Prime Minister: Go over and try to obtain equality of power for the vote of every nation in the world which really has the Object of preserving peace and which says that it is willing to be attacked by all the other nations if it departs from that path. I fear that the path which now lies open is simply an opportunistic path, a path indicated by the three great nations, and I ask the Prime Minister, let us find the right path.

Apparently, from my understanding of the remarks made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) he is intent on pleading for the independence of small nations. I have no fault to find with that. He is probably urging that the Prime Minister should go, and from the point of view of our own independence bring our standpoint prominently into the foreground. I hope that I have understood the hon. member aright. Then he subsequently said: Can you expect Russia to acknowledge the independence of a small nation; can you expect England to acknowledge the independence of a small nation? In this respect I cannot follow the hon. member. He takes up the standpoint that we are independent, and then a little later he says: Can you expect of England that it should acknowledge the independence of a small nation? The implication is that England has trampled upon us and overwhelmed us, and that is why we cannot function independently. But in the same speech the hon. member makes an appeal to the Prime Minister to defend our independence. Both propositions cannot be sound. The one is right and the other is wrong.

What wonderful logic.

It is in this way that the misunderstanding occurs on every occasion, owing to such equivocal statements. To the one you must hold up this side and to the other you must hold up the dark side. The hon. member says that he hopes the Prime Minister will look after our interests. As far as I am concerned it is not only a hope, I am quite confident. The Prime Minister has been solicitous concerning the interests of this country right through the war, and has led the nation through the darkest days that South Africa has even known and the darkest days that the world has ever known, and it is consequently my conviction and my firm belief that he will represent our interests as no one else would be able to.

As the Prime Minister is going to the San Francisco Conference as a representative of one of the small nations of the world, it is also our hope that his line of action there will be to try to introduce into this new organisation which will have to take the place of the League of Nations, machinery which will afford more protection to the small nations of the world than what they have had hitherto. We have the right, as one of the small nations, to expect this of him. As one of the small nations we have the right to expect that he will not go too far in looking after the interests of one or other of the four or five great powers and in promoting them, but that he will go there to protect those small countries that feel that they are seriously menaced, or that they are in the position that in the future they will be seriously menaced by the great powers. We should like to feel that he is going there to try to provide machinery to make our position together with that of other small nations, safer than it has been in the past. The position of the small country, so far as its security is concerned, has undoubtedly retrogressed during recent years. Previously there existed negotiations between great countries and small countries; previously moral obligations still existed. The moral obligations have in any case played a very important rôle in negotiations between those countries. But I must say that particularly during the present war materialistic motives have entirely supplanted those moral considerations. This war has shown one thing to us, and that is that small nations right through the world are being bullied by the great powers acting in their own interests. We cannot get away from it. Just take the position of the South American Republics which, with the exception of the Argentine, were bullied into coming into the war. They are not taking any part in the war, but they were forced by America and also by other countries to come into the war. We have seen the same thing with Egypt; we have seen the same thing occur with Syria; we have seen the same thing happen with Roumania and Hungary, which were bullied by the central powers to take part in the, war on their side.

And Bulgaria.

We have seen that Finland has been bullied from two sides. We have seen that the same methods have been applied to Turkey, though not with the same measure of success. We have seen that other countries have been carved up in a most materialistic manner.

But what was the cause of that?

I am not concerned about what was the cause; I am stating the fact.

Begin with the cause.

We have seen how other lands have been cut up and absorbed in a most materialistic way by the great powers. Am I not then entitled to say as an individual who belongs to one of the small nations of the world, that we who belong to the small nations fear the future, and we especially fear the standpoint of the great powers towards the small powers, and that is why we expect when we send someone to San Francisco that such a person, representing a small country, will act in the interests not only of our small country but also in the interests of all the small countries in the world. Then one asks oneself this question, whether this machinery that is now going to be created will be able to grant that security to small nations that they would like to enjoy? When we look at the League of Nations that we had we can only come to the conclusion that it was a failure. It was a very beautiful and idealistic effort, but it failed, and why did the League of Nations fail? The League of Nations failed principally, in the first instance, because little idealism was to be found in Geneva at the sessions of the League of Nations, because the victors of the previous war dominated the scene and exploited the League to entrench the Peace of Versailles in the future. That is one of the principal reasons why it was a failure, because questions that were brought before the League of Nations were never dealt with by the League of Nations on their merits if one of the great powers was seriously concerned in it, but before matters ever came up for discussion by the League of Nations a decision was always made by the various great powers.

In the hotel lounge.

Yes, in the hotel lounge, before the League of Nations assembled, and decisions were made in favour of those great powers who had the say there. I ask anyone: Show me one example of aggression, military aggression or economic aggression or aggression of any sort at all, in which one small nation in the League of Nations obtained protection against the aggression of a larger country. You cannot show me that. I say it was idealistic. I admit it. The object of the League of Nations was idealistic, but the machinery was such that not a single small country received protection from the League of Nations during all the years it functioned. The one small country that received a little protection was Abyssinia, when sanctions were applied against Italy which, in practice, made not the slightest difference in the result of the war. Now we have come to the beginning of the end of the second war. Machinery was created after the first war that the small nations looked to with hope for protection. That machinery proved a failure. Now new machinery will be created which will be an improvement on the old machinery that owing to defects did not serve its purpose. Will this new machinery give to these small nations that protection that they did not obtain under the League of Nations? If one looks at the manner in which this machinery is being built, one can only infer that small countries will have even less protection than they have had in the past, because in the old League of Nations the position existed that at any rate theoretically if aggression were perpetrated by a great nation towards a smaller power, the League of Nations could take action against that great power in order to prevent it perpetrating aggression against the small power. Consequently in theory the old League of Nations had the right to take steps against one of the big powers if it committed aggression in respect of a small power. In this instance the organisation has not even that right. The only right its has is this; if one of the small powers commits aggression against another small power it can step in and prevent that aggression. It could, for instance, as in the case of the war between Bolivia and Paraguay, which the old League of Nations could not stop, step in and put an end to the aggression once it decided who was the aggressor. But where the aggression is perpetrated by one of the five Great Powers it cannot intervene, under this machinery that is now being created, and stop that aggression. It cannot do it, because the position is such that unless you have unanimity in that council of the five Great Powers it cannot take action. You cannot have unanimity when one of those Great Powers is the aggressor. Consequently you will not have unanimity, and then according to its own constitution it cannot take steps against one of the Great Powers when such a great power is the aggressor against a small power. Now you arrive at the position that this machinery will not provide the slightest protection to small countries against aggression by one of the Great Powers. Most of the small countries of the world are in a position to defend themselves against aggression by another small country, but the small countries of the world do not fear aggression by another small country, but aggression by one of the Great Powers. It is not necessary for me to go into details of that. We have observed that at least four States in Europe disappeared as the result of the aggression of Great Powers, and we have seen that aggression is going to be perpetuated by the peace that is now going to be made. We have seen that Poland was carved up in the most materialistic manner and that the carving up of Poland is now going to be perpetuated by the peace we shall have. Am I not right in saying then that we, who belong to the small nations, should be afraid of aggression not from the small nations, but from the big powers, and the machinery that is here being created renders it impossible for a big power to protect a small nation against aggression by another of the big powers. In other words, the fear of aggression that we harbour is being perpetuated in the future. The position of the small powers has become weaker and weaker in recent years through them being regarded more and more as pawns in the game of chess. Small countries are thrust aside in the interests of the great powers, and this position is being confirmed for the future, and the small powers instead of being accorded security by the machinery that is being created, do not get security but that inferior position in which they were placed during the war, and that inferior position will be continued in the future as the result of the machinery that is here being created.

The statement by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that he himself is going to San Francisco is an occasion for extreme gratification for more reasons than one. But it is equally an occasion for disappointment that the rightful claims of other organisations also to be present at the San Francisco Conference, are not being met. There are a number of organisations and classes, it is true, who advance the claim that they should be present and must be a party to the San Francisco Conference, an important conference of that nature, which will not only set up the machinery for the establishmnet and the maintenance of peace in the future, but which will lay down the conditions for peace in this present war. A number of different organisations have made the demand that when the conditions of peace are to be discussed, they must be present and they must be parties to it. The Trade Union Movement, the Labour and Trades Union Movement has consistently throughout the war made a just claim that when we come to discuss the conditions of peace, the voice of the working man must be heard. It is quite true that the industrial and commercial classes may seek representation at a conference of the nature of the San Francisco Conference, but each claim must be considered on its merits, and while the industrial and commercial classes are perfectly justified in making a claim to be present at the San Francisco Conference, I think that judged on its merits their claim must be dismissed on the ground that the Prime Minister himself is capable and competent to look after and protect and guard the interests of the industrial and commercial classes. The Prime Minister himself would be the first person to lay claim to being able to adequately represent the interests of the industrial and commercial people, and a claim which they would readily accede to. That is one reason why it is cause for gratification that the Prime Minister himself is going to the conference. Another equally important reason is the very stature of the Prime Minister himself. His acceptance in the world sphere as a man with considerable influence, as having a great personality, as a man who could properly represent the interests of South Africa, but the demand which has been made in South Africa during past years is that at such a conference the voice of the working man should be heard. This was achoed at the international Trade Union Conference recently held in London where a specific resolution was passed calling upon the Labour and Trade Union movements in all countries of the world, to see that they are adequately represented at the San Francisco Conference. I feel that in this country the denial of that claim by the Prime Minister in his statement this morning and his dismissal of this claim is not one which can readily and easily be accepted, and not only the Labour and Trade Union movement, but I believe there is another class or section of our population which has a proper and just right to be present at the San Francisco Conference. I refer here to the womenfolk I say that the voice of the women should be heard at the San Francisco Conference, and if the voice of women were heard more in the questions of war and the necessary conditions which will have to be set up to maintain peace in the future, I believe that the San Francisco Conference will prove more successful than we can otherwise hope. It is perfectly true that everybody cannot be present at the San Francisco Conference; all those who would like to send representatives cannot possibly be allowed to do so. They can be present not necessarily as delegates but they can be present in a consultative capacity in another direction. The London Conference of the various Dominions which is to be held is a preparatory form of work, so that there is some co-ordination between the Commonwealth at the San Francisco Conference. This is in the very least a conference at which other interests of South Africa should be heard and should be represented. I know of the occasion when we had the privilege of attending a conference in London last year. That conference was something in the nature of preparatory work which was not unrelated to the subsequent conference at Yalta between the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the President of the United States of America and Stalin of the U.S.S.R. The conference we had in London was something to discuss the very things which were finally decided at Yalta. In exactly the same way, the London Conference will be a preparatory conference which will help to mobilise and condition the minds of the people in the general direction which will cause a ready acceptance of suitable proposals, when they finally meet in San Francisco. I submit to the Prime Minister that the Labour and Trade Union movement will not readily accept his dismissal of their claim to be represented at San Francisco, and if that is not possible for reconsideration, then in the very least and in the very minimum he should consider the question of giving representation to the voice of the working classes in South Africa at the conference which will take place at London prior to the San Francisco Conference. The Prime Minister dealt with the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and the set-up of an international bank. Here again, we find certain preparatory work, particularly the establishment of an international bank which will greatly help to guide and establish trade relation between the various countries in the world, and the Soviet Union is not an unimportant country in the world. From time to time in the future it may be necessary, it should be necessary, for us to have some actual relationship between the Government of South Africa and the Government of the U.S.S.R. Some number of years have passed since the Soviet Union first sent a diplomatic representative to South Africa in the nature of a consulate-general. But years have gone by without any reciprocal action on the part of the Government of South Africa. Although the U.S.S.R. is a country which has a definite influential effect on the whole of the international relationship, on the set-up of an international bank and the future of world trade, it is consistently subject to attacks in this House from Opposition benches. The Opposition benches consistently insult the Government of the U.S.S.R. I have no doubt that the Government of the U.S.S.R. is not in the least moved by the insults which come from the Opposition, but I say it is a deliberate insult …. [Time limit.]

In connection with the remarks that the previous speaker has made over the representation of Soviet Russia in our country, I think the answer to that is that Russia’s representation at the moment in South Africa is kept on for the sake of the dissemination of communistic propaganda in this country, as it has done in the past in every country where it has had representation.

That is not so.

Nonsense.

Hon. members may say that, but they know themselves that that is so. The Russian Ambassador had on that account some difficulty in England, and he had to leave. Later there was trouble in France, and on every occasion it has been proved that the Russian embassy promotes communistic propaganda in the countries concerned. We do not want to have communistic propaganda promoted here. We have no trade relations with Russia, and why does Russia retain her representatives here? They are doing this merely for the purpose of supervising communistic propaganda and to stimulate it. For that reason the Russian Consulate has the second largest staff of any consulate in the Union. They have no trade relations with us, and the only reason why they have so large a staff is that which I have already given. The Prime Minister has also spoken this morning about other conferences, and for the moment I want to leave San Francisco, which has been fairly well discussed, and turn to the preliminary conference that will be held in London. Before I come to the London conference I want to pause in connection with the Prime Minister’s reference to the Air Conference that will commence in Cape Town tomorrow, and which has been limited to representatives of British territories in Africa. The Prime Minister has laid special stress on the fact that the object of the conference is to make arrangements to co-ordinate and expand air services on the continent of Africa. I can only say that this side of the House greatly regret that if this was the object of the conference, it was not enlarged to include representatives of all territories in Africa. The Prime Minister has himself stated that Belgium and Portgual are our neighbours, and he has stated that a conference with them will be held later, when this one has concluded. In my opinion that is the case of putting the cart before the horse, and it is very unfortunate that this conference that is taking place tomorrow has been confined to British areas only. Everything will be thrashed out and a definite policy laid down, and then they will go along with their fait accompli to the other conference of representatives from the whole continent of Africa. Proposals will be presented to that conference, and the Belgian, Portuguese and French can then not do otherwise than either to accept or reject them. Though we all agree that there should be an expansion of air services throughout the whole of Africa, we believe that a mistake has been made here, and that this conference ought not to be confined to representatives of the British territories. Now I come to the London conference. The Prime Minister stated this morning that they would first hold this conference in London. We have stated that it is a sort of caucus gathering with an eye on San Francisco, to ensure that the British Commonwealth speaks with one voice. But according to Press reports it appears that the London conference will not be confined to preparations for San Francisco, and that other matters, particularly post-war problems will be discussed at the London conference. This appears from a report that was published last week in the “Cape Argus”. It emanates from the London correspondent of the “Cape Argus” and it appears under the headlines—

The article was written in the “Evening Standard” by Lt.-Col. Sir G. le Q. Martel, D.S.O., M.C., head of the British Military Mission in Moscow since 1943. He writes, inter alia—

That is what I referred to this morning. We together with England must now bear the responsibility for the whole of the rest of the world, while America assumes responsibility for the Western Hemisphere.

Who wrote that article?

Lt.-Gen. Sir G. le Q. Martel, head of the British Military Mission in Moscow since 1943. His article was considered important enough to have been telegraphed and to have appeared under a double column heading in the “Cape Argus”. From that it appears that there are other matters that will be discussed at the London Conference, and that those propositions regarding which we as an Opposition have sounded so many warnings in the past, will again be mentioned there, namely, that an imperial military staff shall be created for time of peace as well as for time of war. We have already voiced warnings against that, and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said again this morning that there should not be a ring fence erected around the British Empire. It is not only a question of the creation of a military Empire Council after the war, but it is also very clear that there are other matters that will be discussed. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is attending the London Conference, and that he told us this morning that he is being regularly consulted by the British Government, we may accept that he has already received the agenda. I hope that the Prime Minister will take the House into his confidence, and that he will tell us what will be discussed at that conference; if it will merely be confined to preliminary arrangements bearing on San Francisco, or whether, as indicated in this article, there will also be discussions on post-war military and economic problems. We know that there is a movement in England not only in the direction of imperial political unity, but also in the direction of the economic unity of the British Empire. I know that the Prime Minister denies this but it remains the fact that the address given two years ago in Toronto by Lord Halifax interpreted the policy of the British Government. Seeing that he is the British Ambassador in Washington we may accept that in Toronto he spoke as the spokesman of the British Government, and there he intimated that the British Empire must be made a unity in the economic sphere. I know that there are many English-speaking people in South Africa, and also members on the opposite benches who are attached to the idea of imperial political unity. That is their opinion, and I leave it at that. But when we come to the other aspect, namely that of economic unity, then it is high time that those who take an interest in the future industrial development of South Africa should take serious notice of what is afoot. We notice the pronouncements that are made by prominent British statesmen on the necessity for the expansion of Great Britain’s export trade. They say that the great fight must be for the expansion of exports after the war—“export or perish”. [Time limit.]

I think it must be very, very many years ago that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister last went to a real Imperial Conference. I think the Imperial Conferences of the last 15 or 20 years have been represented, as far as South Africa is concerned, by the Nationalist Party, and I know in those 15 or 20 years South Africa has got closer and closer to Great Britain. I think there is no doubt about it that under the representatives of the so-called Coalition Government led by Mr. Havenga and others it has taken South Africa closer and closer into the folds of the British Empire. My hon. friend who has just spoken went very close to supporting the British Empire and saying that Great Britain was the mother of all freedom.

Did I say that?

Your leader, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), said it in 1926.

I have never said that.

I would like as one of the older members of the House to thank the Hon. the Prime Minister for the extraordinary way in which he has led South Africa since September, 1939. We are now approaching the end of the war, it is slowly hastening to its close, and when I sit and look at the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister I wonder when we shall see him back in this House. The work now lies overseas, and perhaps it is the greatest job of his extraordinary career he is coming to now, and when our friends oh the Nationalist side of the House get up and say he must look after the small nations, is that not the history of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister? He fought for a small nation in 1900, and in 1907 he obtained full responsible government for his small nation, the Transvaal Colony. Had it not been for the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister going over to England and sitting with Mr. Campbell-Bannerman right through the day and deep into the night, we would not have had that freedom today. When I look back on the history I wonder where my hon. Nationalist friends or their fathers were in those days. Never before in the history of the world has responsible government been given so early to the conquered nation by the conquerors. Did the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister not look after the small nations at the Treaty of Versailles? Was it not the Prime Minister who looked after Ireland, the Irish Free State, and was it not the Prime Minister who looked after Palestine and looked after South Africa? We wish him Godspeed and hope that he will come back soon, and while he is away we will try to hold the fort. I would like to address one word to the Prime Minister. I appear to have been right; many years ago I pleaded with the Prime Minister when I believed that he was setting out to bring about a federation of all the States of Southern Africa. I have discussed this with him before and I think I am right in saying that he wanted to bring them all in so that we could be one country of 30,000,000 people, and not a small country of a few million, and I say that if the Hon. Jan Smuts, the Prime Minister, cannot do that job, I am afraid the job will never be done. I cannot see anyone else who has the power and foresight to bring about a federal State of Southern Africa, and if we lose that opportunity now, then, as I believe the Prime Minister once said to me, we will have “missed the bus”, and I hope we are not going to miss the bus. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, a Field-Marshal of the British Army, remains the only one who can control the matter. Why cannot we bring in the Rhodesias, Kenya, Basutoland and Swaziland and other British territories now, and why cannot we go right up as far as Kenya? I have discussed this matter with leading men in Kenya, and they are prepared to work with South Africa and the Rhodesias will do the same. My friend (Mrs. Ballinger) on the left there says the natives do not want to come in. If only my friend will go and talk to the natives, they will come in. South Africa does not treat her natives badly; she treats them well, but I do not want to get on to that point because it is out of order. The natives will come in. Thousands of natives from the Rhodesias have trekked out to come here and look for work, so if we treat them so badly, why do they come here? I do not want to get on to the ground of the native question, but I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell us something about the future of South Africa. When we look at the statue of Rhodes not so far away, we remember that he said that “your hinterland lies north”, and then he was talking only of the Rhodesias, but I think our hinterland lies right up to the Equator. Our children and our relatives have held that country for civilisation, held it 25 years ago when the Prime Minister commanded them and held it today. Where would we have been if it were not for the South African forces who went up North and chased away the Italian forces? We are entitled to talk Imperialism, and ask the Prime Minister to take them in. Are those countries we have saved, and the Rhodesias, coming in under the Union Jack or under the South African flag? South Africa is going North, and it is determined to go North and have a very much bigger population. Now the Prime Minister is going to the conference, will he give voice to our cry that we want to extend our boundaries so that we can leave to our sons and their sons a country not of two or three million whites, and eight or nine million blacks, but ten or twelve million whites and twenty or thirty million blacks. We are the only white people who live on the Indian Ocean which is a black man’s sea, and unless we consolidate our interests and become a great country and remain inside the British Empire, we shall perish. [Time limit.]

This debate has lasted for some time, and I think it is time that I answered some of the more important points that have been discussed. I wish to express my thanks to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) for the praise that he has accorded me.

Tomorrow he will say something else.

He has accorded me more praise than is my due, but the hon. member is correct that the whole of my striving has been to ensure the knitting together of the parts of Africa, the parts of Southern Africa, that belong to each other; parts that must necessarily work together for a stable future on the Continent of Africa. To me it has been a very interesting, an exceptionally interesting discussion that we have had here today. We are not only dealing with a big subject, but also with an amazingly difficult subject in respect of which there are many points of view and many sides. I am certain that many of the arguments that we have heard from both sides of the House will be heard again in San Francisco. These are questions which go to the foundations, and which are extremely difficult to answer. I must admit that questions have been put here to which I have no answer, and the future alone will decide them. The future of humanity depends on the force of circumstances, but here arguments have been used to which I will revert, and on which I will dwell for a moment. There are points that have been mentioned here which are definitely not correct, and regarding which I should like to voice my opinion. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has stated, and he has been supported to a certain extent by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that the preliminary conference in London is going to be a sort of caucus, and the South African representative will be a member of the British delegation, and that in that way our independence will suffer and our status be undermined, and that for that reason it is a wrong step. On that I would like to say this, that in my opinion it is not only necessary for us to have those preliminary discussions in London, but it is in the general interest, and it is entirely correct. We form a group. We cannot get past that. We stand in a group that works together. We are in that as independent, as sovereign independent states that continuously consult each other in order by that means to map our course. That group has mutual consultation, but this consultation does not signify the surrender of their individual status or independence. Our attitude is this that it is the trend in affairs that there should be more and more conversations and consultations and to form groups to protect common interests. What is happening already today? Here I am being blamed because I am attending a meeting in London. But what happened in America? The American Government has already convened a meeting of the Pan-American Union, where matters are being discussed. America has consulted all the states of South America to ascertain what their attitude is in connection with the resolutions that will be taken in San Francisco. That is nothing new. The whole course of affairs is developing in this way that groups are being formed that co-operate on broad lines to protect their own interests. That is happening today on both American continents. It is one of the ideas that was expressed in the draft plan for world organisation made at Dumbarton Oaks, namely the idea of a regional organisation. Groups are being formed so that there may be a workable organisation. In order to make the world organisation workable we have to form small groups, and one of the ideas that was broached in the Dumbarton Oaks plan is that the way is being opened within the framework of the world organisation, and that groups will be formed for co-operation. There can, for instance, be a group representing Southern Africa. Then there may be a Western European group. There can be an American group, there can be an Eastern group; there can be a Pacific Ocean group. It is a practical idea which has long been in the minds of thoughtful people as the right direction to take in the future. A great world organisation is too unwieldly and too comprehensive to be able to act energetically to attain its goal. But if we have small groups formed in this way vigorous action can be taken along the lines on which the organisation is striving. Accordingly I have propagated this idea that in Africa, too, we should strive towards the formation of a group, and that we should look for our own path. I will not enlarge further at present on the composition of those groups, but I want to say that the most solid, the best and the most effective group that has been formed, is the British Commonwealth. That Commonwealth has already been tested by actual events. We have together survived the bad weather of the past, the smooth and the rough, but we have marched on as a group and protected our status and safeguarded our interests. The group have protected their interests in an effective way. I do not think that we can find a better example of how a group can co-operate than the case of the British Commonwealth that has in the past co-operated by consultation and in other ways, to protect their common interests. The group will meet again to protect their interests. It is not directed against other countries; it is not directed against America or any other country in the world. It is our procedure; it is what we have continuously done and what we shall do again. The hon. member for Beaufort West asked whether in London we shall go beyond the discussion of the Dumbarton Oaks proposal. The Dumbarton Oaks plan will be discussed in London He here read out what had been stated by someone who is unknown to me regarding what will be discussed in London, namely, that there will be a sort of military organisation with the establishment of a military staff, and economic measures, and that such things will be discussed. This is all news to me. I can tell the hon. member that my information from the notices that have reached me officially is that the only matter that we shall discuss in London in the short time that we shall have at our disposal will be the Dumbarton Oaks plan and the conference at San Francisco. If I must turn to the discussions that have taken place today and the various standpoints that have been revealed, and realising as I do the great difficulties that there are confronting humanity, then I must say that in the few weeks that we shall be busy we shall need every moment for the discussion of the matter, and so far as my information goes there is no idea of discussing other matters. The gist of the whole matter is the subject of great states and small states. There is no doubt today that this is the crux, and the discussions here also touched on that, the distinction that was not drawn in the League of Nations but that is now being drawn in the proposed world organisation between great states and small states. But is this distinction not an acknowledgment of facts, of irrefutable facts? By the acknowledgment of our status in 1926, by the declaration of our Dominion status, expressions were employed that are applicable here, and that are applicable to the whole world. A distinction has been drawn between “status” and “function”. In respect of status all can be equal, all can be sovereign, all can have full say, their status can be equal, perfectly equal; but when it comes to functions then the one is small and the other is great, then the one is weak and the other is strong. This is the position in our British Commonwealth and this is the position in humanity. The old League of Nations, in connection with which I had a certain measure of responsibility, was drawn up with the idea that it should be universal, that there should be absolute equality for all, and special obligations were not imposed by the League of Nations on the great powers. But under the new organisation that is proposed, it is felt that a greater responsibility rests on them. There rests on the great powers a responsibility that is greater than that resting on South Africa, or on any other small state. You will see that there is a distinction between status and function.

Then of course it is not a world organisation.

You can have a world organisation just as you have a Commonwealth organisation. But you must look facts squarely in the face, and the big fact that we have to face up to is that there are great powers with amazing power and also amazing responsibility. It is impossible to expect from South Africa what you expect from the United States of America. That is quite impossible. So long as you adopt that standpoint the whole matter will be in confusion and nothing will come of it. What is the position? Today the whole argument ran along the lines that it was the great powers that constituted the danger, that the danger came from the great powers and not from the small. If that is so, is it not a natural and logical conclusion that if the danger comes from the great powers you must impose on them a special responsibility, and the primary responsibility that we wish to impose on them is that they should co-operate. If this does not happen then I agree the world is lost, then it is finished. If the great powers begin to fight amongst themselves, it is of no use signing documents, it is of no use making any efforts. I do not, of course, know whether the plans will be accepted, but I am speaking of the proposals that are now known. The proposals have still to be dealt with and will be discussed at San Francisco in all their bearings. But I am speaking here about the idea itself. To me it is clear that if we want to emerge from our difficulties we must place the principal responsibility for world peace on the great powers, and the first point is that they should meet together.

To divide the world amongst themselves.

There will perhaps be restive horses amongst them. In the case of a troublesome ox you put it with a tame span in order to make it tractable, and the only hope for the future of the world is to bring together the five great powers—or whatever number there may be. I do not know what the number in the future will be, but we must do everything in our power to tie down the powers that have the power and on whom the responsibility rests. If this does not happen it is of no use talking about these matters and talking about small nations. We shall all be swallowed up. But the matter appears to me in this way, that there must be a fixed understanding between the great powers that they should work together, and any one of them will think twice before it strikes out on its own course. You will be binding them to each other, something that did not happen in the old League of Nations, and you impose on them the obligation of co-operation in the future. Otherwise the future is dark. There is a difference in regard to function, and if we admit that then we must also admit that the real responsibility for world peace does not rest with the small nations. The poor little things hope for the best, but they cannot attain it. Look facts in the face and impose the responsibility on the great ones to see us through our difficulties. That is the plan that was made by the great powers themselves at Dumbarton Oaks, where the three great powers accepted the responsibility themselves. They stated that it would be a good thing if the small nations came together and sat and voted on an equal footing at the conference, but that they themselves would have to undertake the responsibility to protect the world peace, because the power was in their hands and they could not shelter themselves behind small nations. I do not know whether that outlook will be accepted at San Francisco. I am only discussing the idea that is before us, but I must honestly admit to this House that with my experience and knowledge and perception of affairs, unless something of this sort is done and unless we impose a special responsibility on the great powers to preserve the world peace, we shall never have world peace and we shall go forward into a future that is dark.

What was the case in the old League of Nations?

There was no distinction made.

Oh yes, there was the Council.

I explained this morning that the whole idea now is to call a security council into being, no longer a general committee in which there could be pressure by anyone that could gain the status of a full member of the general council. This is now a body where the great powers will work together and stand together to safeguard the future and to preserve world peace.

Or to make trouble.

The opportunity to make trouble is there; it is human. But I maintain that there is a much better chance of co-operation. If the five can link up together and the responsibility is placed on them, there will be much more chance of co-operation. The one that wants to drop out and take its own course will then know that the others are against it, that it will be involved in a great war and that it will perish. That is what has happened in two wars now, one great nation walked out and imagined it could get the power into its own hands. Now they will know beforehand that when they jump out everyone’s hand will be against them. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me, and this is an important question, whether there will be another world conference. You must understand that the conference at San Francisco is something entirely different to what the Paris Peace Conference was, In Paris at that time not only was a document drafted for the future peace of the world, but the booty was portioned out, the world was divided into nations, and peace was finally made there. The question is, what is going to happen now? San Francisco is merely going to work out a charter, as it is desiginated, for the future world peace. What then about the territorial changes that will take place?

When will the booty be divided?

That is the same question that the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) asked. I can only say I do not know whether there is any such idea. It is difficult to see how you can have such a conference, knowing what happened at the last conference in Paris. It is difficult to see how such a conference can take place to settle everything. Of course, I am only speaking for myself, and I am expressing my personal opinion. I do not know what the great powers think and what they may have up their sleeve, and what is going to happen. I am speaking without authority, and I am giving only my personal opinion. But it appears to me probable that the shaping of the peace will be a matter that will last for years. It is going to be a very difficult task. Nations will have to be consulted. You cannot run the show as was done in Paris. To a certain degree action will have to be taken along the lines of the Atlantic Charter, that is to say in regard to future forms of government, territorial division, etc., action will be taken in accordance with certain principles. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) spoke about the Atlantic Charter.

In regard to certain territorial matters, was Yalta final?

There is nothing final that I know of. It is difficult to say what is final. It is becoming more and more apparent to me when I look at all the difficulties in Europe, the position in the Balkans, the position in Central Europe, in Hungary, in all the groups of States in Central Europe, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, all these countries if you survey the situation today I personally cannot see how peace can just be made in a moment and a proper workable solution found. It must occur over a period by long consultation by experimentation — along that road we shall have to travel, and not by convening a peace conference that must find a solution within a specified period. I do not really see how that can happen.

Is the Polish question still an open matter?

That is just one of the open matters. The hon. member apparently did not follow the resolutions at Yalta. A commission was appointed by the three great powers that were represented there, Great Britain, the United States of America and Russia. They appointed a commission, and the commission has now to investigate whether a government can be found for Poland. At the moment there are two governments in existence for Poland. One is sitting in London, and the other, the so-called Lublin Government, is now I believe in Moscow. You have already in Poland a situation which looks like civil war. You have two governments. The great powers said at Yalta that at the moment they found the matter insoluble, they did not know where to draw the line, in general they thought of the Curzon line as the eastern boundary of Poland, but they did not know exactly how it should run. A commission was appointed to see whether they could not work out a plan after consultation with the two opposing governments, after consultation with the people who are interested, and if they cannot evolve a plan in regard to the position in Poland, they will have to make arrangements. Here you have an indication that you cannot have a world conference as you had after the previous war. In respect of all these countries arrangements will have to be made to evolve a plan later on after consultation with the peoples and consideration for the various interests in order eventually to arrive at a practicable arrangement in Europe. Accordingly, if the hon. member asks me what about a peace conference, I should like to say that it appears to me that a similar ad hoc arrangement for the solution of almost insoluble problems is impossible. It will take time. I repeat, however, that it is my personal opinion. A number of other points have been mentioned here, but I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them. I think I have dealt with the principal points that have been mentioned.

What about the military provisions.

The military provisions are still in the developing stage, and we shall have to see at the conference.

What is your attitude in connection with these provisions?

We shall have to listen to the discussions and to the considerations. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) expressed the opinion that in the world today there are two definite ideologies, the trend of the Western Democracies, and a totally different totalitarian ideology in the east of Europe and further east, and that the two must necessarily lead to another great world clash. That is the opinion that was expressed by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. There is a certain measure of danger that humanity will be divided into these two great ideologies, into two groups. That is all the more reason, in my opinion, if such a danger exists, if the idea exists that there is such a danger, it is all the more reason that we should do our very best to bring them together before things develop any further. That is precisely the idea of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, and I hope it will also be the idea at San Francisco, that where you see the seeds of danger for the future, the danger that the world will divide into two groups that later must necessarily clash, try to bring them together, and do not begin to slander them and libel them, do not adopt that policy, but tackle things from the start and bring the great powers together and see whether these views cannot be reconciled, so that the peace of the world can be assured in the future. It seems to me that even if you adopt the pessimistic opinion of the hon. member for Stellenbosch, the course that is now being taken is the best. I do not believe that the opinion that we must necessarily move in this direction is necessarily correct. You must keep your eyes open, and people who want to deal realistically with things and know history and look the facts in the face appreciate the dangers that exist, but we must just try to prevent that. There are many sorts of imperialism. There is Jingo imperialism, there is economic imperialism, there is ideological imperialism —there are all these dangers in the path of humanity, and only by bringing the people together as was done at Yalta, only by sitting down at a round table and discussing things and deciding on a common basis, only then will we be in a position to preserve the harmony of humanity and the peace of the world. I am sorry to have heard from the the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and also from the hon. member for Forsdburg (Mr. Burnside) that they do not agree with the Government where I stated that we had decided not to have party representation at the conference. The hon. member for Fordsburg stated that there are certain interests that I did not take into consideration, and that there are the interests of the Labour Group and the interests of the women’s groups that should be given consideration. He said that I could represent the others, that could be left to me. I do not believe that the rest of the country would approve that attitude. There are great interests, but as regards representation I do not think for a moment that we can set to work on the basis of party political representation. However, I shall do my best in connection with the staff that is accompanying me to give representation to the various interests, to the Labour Party as well. My idea is to take with me someone who is absolutely au fait with Labour adiminstration and the outlook of Labour in this country. It will not be neglected, but I cannot go with representation on a political basis. I think that was the principal point that was mentioned.

I appreciate the spirit in which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has replied to this debate, but I cannot say that we are satisfied with his reply. It was an interesting reply, in the first place because the Prime Minister’s answer in respect of many of the points we mentioned was “I do not know”.

No one knows.

But when we put the position to the Prime Minister: Here are the proposals that contain certain provisions in connection with the use of military power, as adopted at Dumbarton Oaks, chapter and verse. The Prime Minister is going to represent us at the conference at San Francisco. We have of course the right, as members of Parliament, seeing that he will represent us, to ask what his opinion is regarding these things, but he merely says, “I do not know”. He says he will see when he gets there, or perhaps when he reaches London.

You, of course, have an opinion.

I am not the man who is going, but the Prime Minister is going. We have certainly the right in regard to this point which is at the heart of the proposals, to ask the Prime Minister what his opinion is. Nothing of this sort existed under the League of Nations, namely, the provision for military action; that every member is obliged to provide an air force and also military units. We must have the right if the Union is to be subject to such obligations, to ask the Prime Minister what his opinion about them is, and from our Prime Minister we can only get one answer. “I do not know”. What struck me most in the Prime Minister’s speech was the note of despair running right through it. He talks about the pessimism of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer), but one thing was very clear, and I am glad to notice it, that the Prime Minister is really concerned, because he realises himself how serious the position is going to be for South Africa. He says, for example, that if the great powers fight amongst themselves it is no use drawing up documents; and then he proceeds to say, because he realises what a serious thing it is he has stated, that he thinks there is indeed a chance for co-operation. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister whether there is really any hope for co-operation, bearing in mind what has already happened during the last two or three months. He admits further that the proposed organisation will be one of great nations. The Prime Minister admits that. He has referred to the minor rôle that must be played by the smaller countries. The “poor little things”, as he called them. He says that they can do nothing, and that it is the great nations that will make the decision. We have thus obtained an admission from him that the whole organisation that will be established in San Francisco will be an organisation of great nations. They will play the principal rôle. The Prime Minister agrees therefore with what I have said, and with what Mr. Winston Churchill said in the last few days, when he declared that though we might deplore that there is a difference between the great and the small, between the strong and the weak in the world, there undoubtedly was such a difference. Now we also have the admission of the Prime Minister, and just as Mr. Churchill did our Prime Minister also spoke about hopeless ideals. This organisation that will be established in San Francisco will thus be in effect an organisation of the great. The Prime Minister shakes his head, but he said just now: What can the small countries do; it is the big nations that must bear the responsibility for the preservation of peace. In other words, the whole organisation that will be established is an organisation in which the great powers will call the tune. Unfortunately, it is just these great powers that are the cause of wars. The Prime Minister admits that it is amongst them that the difficulty will arise. Two years ago he said in London that it was a serious fact that the governments in Europe must face squarely, namely that Russia had become an enormous power in Europe. He said “Russia has become the mistress of Europe.” He added to that that it was a position that we have never yet had in the history of the world. The Prime Minister knows that England went into this war for one reason, and one reason only, and that is the preservation of the balance of power in Europe. Voices have already been raised in England stating that the arrangements that will be made at these conferences will signify nothing, and that England should return to its traditional policy of the preservation of the balance of power. But the transference of power has already gone too far. England cannot return to that, because Russia has become the mightiest state in Europe. The Prime Minister has said that himself, and he must admit that dissension has already occurred. Mr. Churchill has also stated in an announcement something that I read out here a little while ago in reference to the dissension that exists between the Allies—

The Prime Minister seeks to create the impression here that everything is in order, and that no difficulty will occur between the great powers. The germ of serious difficulty between England and America is already there in connection with the post-war competition in the sphere of trade and air services. Why did the Chicago conference fail? For one reason only, namely, that that competition between America and England is already in progress. America is continually boasting about its great mercantile marine, about its great air fleet and the great export trade it is going to develop. The Prime Minister knows that if there is one thing that contains the germ of future wars and trouble it is competition in the realm of commerce. I maintain that seeing that the Prime Minister has today adopted a pessimistic attitude, I agree with him that he has reason to be pessimistic. We admit that he has reason to be pessimistic if it is going to depend on the five great powers whether the peace of the world will be preserved in the future, because I maintain that the germ of dissension already exists between them. In his speech the Prime Minister admitted that possibly there will not be a peace conference in the ordinary sense of the term? Why not? If there is co-operation between the Allies, as he wishes to affirm, why cannot there be a peace conference? The Prime Minister has adopted a pessimistic attitude that clearly shows that he has little hope for the future. As far as the London conversations are concerned, he has stated that it is entirely “correct” and natural that there should first be preliminary conversations in London. That may be so in his opinion, but then the Prime Minister should not try to justify his attitude by referring to what Mr. Churchill stated about the regional arrangements and similar arrangements in the same light as the British Empire regards it. The British Empire is not a geographical division; he should not compare it with the Pan-American union. There one has to deal with a geographical entity, namely the Western Hemisphere. But the British Empire is not a geographic entity or group, it is a political entity.

I have listened to all the arguments and questions and to the lengthy discussion that has occurred here today. It does not weigh so heavily with me, nor does it weigh as heavily with the people of South Africa as this one point that we have the privilege of sending a great leader to that conference and to the peace conference as well. We are thankful that he is fit and well and that he will be able to represent us at those conferences in Europe. We trust him implicitly and he is worthy of our trust, because in 1899-1902, in 1914 to 1918 and again in 1939 he has shown that we can trust him, because there is only one thing that weighs with him, and that is South Africa first. What he has done has been to save South Africa if not from one misery then from another. We are thankful we still have him, so that we can send him to the conferences to attend on our behalf. We only pray that he will be spared to represent us there, because we know he will do his best for South Africa at those conferences he is attending. When he returns from those conferences it may perhaps be asked why he has done this or that; but we are convincéd that what he does there will be for the good of South Africa, and we only pray that he will be spared to do that work for us.

The speech of the hon. member who has just sat down reminds me of the village where both the Prime Minister and I were born and where I recently met a person who was taught in Sunday School by the Prime Minister and myself. I asked that person what he had learnt from the Prime Minister and his reply was that he had only learnt one hymn from him ‘‘Siegs vertrouwen, dat is al”— have confidence, that is all. I am afraid that is what the Prime Minister is still teaching his followers today. But if we send somebody like the Prime Minister to attend a conference, he should tell the world what the ideas and expectations are with which he is proceeding to that conference. I agree with the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) who said that during the discussion of this matter the atmosphere in this House was rather depressed. The Prime Minister himself was also in a depressed mood. I want to examine what he said here. Take, for instance, his statment that according to his opinion, no peace conference in the ordinary sense of the word will be held. There will be no peace conference like the one held after the end of the last World War. Why not? Simply because there exists no agreement and there can be no agreement within a measurable space of time between the great powers which have to take action in regard to these matters. When they meet they will quarrel and for that reason it will be a question which will drag on for years and years. That is pessimism of the highest degree. The question was put to the Prime Minister: Those great powers are quarelling and is the result not going to be that the small nations will remain outside that organisation and that everything will depend on the large nations remaining together? What was his reply? His reply was that we should urge them to do so. They carry the responsibility and they must remain together. Advise them not to quarrel amongst themselves. What did that advice produce in the past? We are simply where we were and we are even in a worse position than we were. What we are afraid of is that although they will make peace and stand together they are going to do as follows. They will say: Let us divide the world amongst ourselves into spheres of influence and if troubles arise, say for instance in the South American states, the other countries will stand aside. It will then be a matter for the United States to keep the peace there, and when the United States settles such a dispute between the nations concerned, not on a basis of law and justice, but in the interests of the United States and because it is in the interests of the United States, the latter will simply trample upon the rights of those nations, and the others will not interfere because otherwise it would create discord amongst the Big Five; the same may happen in Europe and in the other spheres of influence. The same thing may happen in the Far East. I am afraid of such arrangements, and what will happen to the rights and freedom of small nations? In those circumstances they will be entirely unprotected. I believe that the security of the world will rather be found in an organisation where the big nations have less say and the small nations have more say than they had in the League of Nations. There the smaller nations all complained about having too little say. I am afraid that when the big nations alone have to fulfil these functions, although the other countries have an equal status—they have an equal status but no say at all—then I am afraid that just as some big nations withdrew from the League of Nations in the past, large numbers of small nations will then declare that this new organisation is no good, that they are only sitting there as ornaments and spectators and that through the system of spheres of influence they are at the mercy of this or that big nation—this is no good to us and we are going to withdraw from it—and then we shall have a worse position than we had in the past. I want to ask the Prime Minister another question. This question is not so closely connected with the conference which is to be held now. After the war a peace will have to be concluded. The Prime Minister knows well that a spirit of revenge is rampant. I want to mention a few instances. There is for example Lord Vansittart, of whom the Prime Minister has not heard before.

No, I know all about him.

In the British Parliament this Lord advocated the view that everybody who had belonged to the Gestapo should be shot, and many people think along the same lines. We cannot say that no notice should be taken of what he says, for the British Government itself did take notice of it. When he advocated those things in the British House of Lords, what did the British Prime Minister reply to it? He said that they would certainly take notice of it and would take it into consideration. It was not ignored; on the contrary it will be taken into consideration. Then there is Spaak, the Belgian Prime Minister. What did he say? Germany should have all its industries taken away and those industries should be transferred to the West, amongst others to Belgium. Germany must be weakened to such an extent that it will no longer possess its own industries. In other words, the means of existence of 80 million people in the heart of Europe must be taken away from them. Can we obtain peace in that way? Then there is the American Minister of the Interior, Ickes, who said that all the oil in the world must remain in the hands of America, England and Russia. Possibly they will now give a little to France also, but the oil must only be supplied to the countries who were allied to them in this war. That is the revenge. That is the same attitude that was taken up at the end of the last war and I should like to hear from the Prime Minister whether he is going to do anything against it. [Time limit.]

I want to reply at once to this question. In my opinion this is an extreme tendency of revenge and excessive passions against the enemy, and they are entirely out of the question. If we are going to proceed along those lines, the result will be chaos in Europe, and it will only lead to create a more dangerous position in Europe than the one that existed in the past.

Why did you not say so long ago?

I have said so since Paris. I am still saying it. Unless the position is tackled in an entirely different spirit, Europe will be turned into ruins from which it will not recover for generations. There you find hundreds of millions of the most valuable human beings in the world, there you find the mother countries of the world; that is the Europe to which we owe our entire civilisation, and if we were going to act in the spirit depicted here by the Leader of the Opposition, we would make a heap of ruins of Europe from which it would not be able to rise for generations.

And what was the spirit at the end of the last war?

I believe we have learned the lesson. I do not think that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition should devote his sole attention to a small majority crying in a spirit of revenge and retaliation. I believe that there is sufficient common sense in Europe and in the world to see that the peace which will be established will be a peace of justice and one which will acknowledge the right of existence of the peoples of Europe. I am positive that things will not happen in the spirit which he outlined just now.

Mr. Chairman, I have been one of those who has been pleading for many years in this House for a discussion on foreign affairs, and I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister for making a full statement this morning. Let me hasten to add, however, lest the Prime Minister may think I am congratulating him, that his full statement was very far from satisfactory to myself and my colleagues. I am glad he went at length into the position of the Commonwealth, and it is in that connection that I want to say a word or two. I have said so often in this House that we, as a portion of the Commonwealth of Nations, are committed to the foreign policy of Great Britain, whether we like it or not.

We should like it.

Whatever the British Prime Minister does goes for the Dominion Party, but that does not follow as far as I am concerned. I am saying that whether we like it or not we are committed to the policy pursued by the British Parliament, or rather, by the British Foreign Minister, and the history of the few years that preceded the present war shows us that the British Parliament was not only pursuing a half-hearted policy, but a half-headed policy, and it was their lack of appreciation of the situation in Europe that resulted in this war. If they had listened to the present Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, many years ago, they might have avoided the war; and then we find that willy-nilly South Africa, Canada and other component parts of the Commonwealth were committed to a policy they did not want to follow, and with which they were in entire disagreement. The appeasement policy of Mr. Chamberlain at Munich, a few years before the war, did not find general acceptance in South Africa, yet it was pursued, and as far as I know, neither South Africa nor any other portion of the Commonwealth had any influence whatsoever in altering that line of policy. Now I gather from the Prime Minister that this kind of business is going to continue. At the conference held in London last year, despite the frantic efforts of the Labour Prime Minister of Australia it was apparently decided that no vital changes would take place in regard to Commonwealth relations. In other words it was decided that daily interviews and regular exchanges of opinion, and periodic Imperial Conferences were sufficient to hold the British Commonwealth together; and the whole question was banned whether we, as portions of the Commonwealth, are entirely bound by the foreign policy of Great Britain or whether we will have some say. I do not know the meaning of the expression “consultation”. I know in the last war there was a large body of opinion that came to the conclusion that the first step towards world peace was the abolishing of secret diplomacy. But that seems to have gone by the board, and all we know is that certain consultations are taking place, and many months after the event we understand that they were apparently satisfactory. The point I want to make in regard to these consultations is that this House of Assembly never has anything to say. The Hon. the Prime Minister is going to San Francisco now and we do not know the line he is going to take, and he does not know the lines this House wants him to take. He appears to be a law unto himself in this respect. He knows what horrible instruments of war may yet be used, and even be used in this war. If he does not effect something in the way of lasting peace then it may be the end of civilisation, and I want to suggest to the Prime Minister that he is not the only one concerned about the perpetuation of civilisation. I want to suggest we may also have some feelings in the matter. We want to have something to say. I agree that there are many difficulties about party representation, but surely there is no difficulty that can be placed in the way of the South African House of Assembly saying that this or that should be done at the San Francisco Conference. We have not said it, and we have not had an opportunity of saying it, and I doubt whether, if we did, the Prime Minister would take any notice of it. The Prime Minister will take his own line. He is going to have with him as a codelegate Mr. Heaton Nicholls. I have a high regard for Mr. Heaton Nicholls as a High Commissioner, but I have no regard for him as a co-delegate for the Prime Minister, and just now I can hardly remember who is our Minister Plenipotentiary in Washington. I believe it is Dr. Gie. I am not casting any reflections, but he has been away for a long time and I am quite satisfied he cannot be acquainted with the changed opinions which have arisen in this country during the period of war and be able to represent them adequately. I must say that I find the Hon. the Prime Minister’s statement very unsatisfactory indeed. The Prime Minister has an international reputation. I want to say with all due deference and humiliation to the Prime Minister that he, as General Smuts, has a world-wide reputation which demands that he shall be listened to by any conference he wishes to address, but that is an entirely different thing to him as Prime Minister of this country, going to do something on which the people in this country, and particularly the elected representatives, have never been consulted. I still feel a mistake was made at the last conference in London when the delegates did not support the opinion of Mr. Curtin that something more than weekly or daily talks and conferences were necessary to put the affairs of the Commonwealth of Nations in order. The Prime Minister has said: Let us not be too ambitious. I agree, but I can remember other occasions when he has asked the people of South Africa to be very ambitious. I remember an occasion when he painted a picture of South Africa being one of the greatest countries in the world. I want to draw his attention to this picture that whether in peace or in war, it is important to remember that South Africa still remains in the centre of the world. [Time limit.]

Together with other hon. members I want to express my appreciation for the statement the Hon. the Prime Minister has made in connection with the remarks in the previous part of the debate. I just want to ask him whether he did not feel himself that there was an atmosphere of depression in this House after his first declaration, and particularly after his statement that he himself is despondent of any prospect of a lasting peace after the war, and that a long period will lapse before a lasting peace between the nations can be concluded. I want to thank him for the reply given to the question of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that he personally, representing South Africa, will strongly oppose any retaliation measures from which enormous economic implications may arise for the whole world. The previous peace of Versailles was followed by a period during which not only the utmost misery was to be found in Central Europe, but during which for some time even the larger nations found themselves in a position of misery as a result of the misleading provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. I am now referring to Great Britain, France and Italy. In that treaty could be found provisions in regard to economic advantages which could never be realised. I therefore want to express my appreciation that the Prime Minister will oppose any repetition of the history of Versailles as far as retaliation measures are concerned. More than evere before the position today is no doubt that the economic interdependence of the world has developed to such an extent that every country will to a large measure be influenced by the suppression or the progress of one single component, however small or large it may be. I would like to put another important question to the Minister, and although he has given us a reassuring reply in regard to the previous question, there is a further matter about which we are gravely concerned. The Prime Minister will remember that in one of the 14 points of 1918 the principle was laid down by President Wilson of America that population groups should not be sold or exchanged. That is one of President Wilson’s 14 points. From discussions in the immediate past springs the question whether this principle is still as fundamental as it was 27 years ago and whether the misery which may result from its non-acceptance would not again plunge the world into disaster. I am now referring to the reply of the Prime Minister in connection with the shifting of the Polish borders. I refer to the possibility of the implications of the shifting of population groups at present living in East Prussia. I do not want to anticipate the future but people who can speak with more authority than I can, hold out the prospect of the possible annexation of a part of East Prussia and also part of West Prussia by Poland. This will mean that population groups of millions belonging to one nation and which have been part of that nation for centuries and have formed a unity, will be separated or incorporated in a new state which will be antagonistic towards those population groups unless you make provision for the shifting of those population groups to the mother country. I assume it concerns about five million Germans. What prospect is there to provide an existence for these millions of Germans in central Germany? If effect is given to the suggestion that these Germans should remain inhabitants of Poland, you will have a new cancerous growth for the future, a new cancer which cannot be remedied by any other means. That must remain an irritating sore. That must give rise to future irritations which will again result in a war. The replacement or shifting of those millions is just as impracticable and I shall therefore be glad if the Prime Minister will give us an assurance that his views are still the same as they were in 1918 when he accepted the point of view of President Wilson that one cannot sell or exchange any population groups. There is one more point to which I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention and that is in connection with his acceptance of the composition of the Security Council and the stipulation that that Security Council cannot take action unless its five members are unanimous in regard to the taking of such action; what is the position if one of them for instance would not be in agreement with the remaining four. That is to say if one of the five—take as a possible one Russia which I do not want to condemn, but take Russia as an example—if Russia were to attack Finland or Bulgaria or Rumania, would that mean that if the other states did not approve of it but could not reach unanimity, Russia would have a free hand? Would that mean the start of another war? The same applies to other nations. I do not want to envisage such a position for a single moment, but it is a theoretical possibility. The Prime Minister himself a few years ago stated that the position of the nations of Western Europe should be strengthened against those other nations, and he suggested the formation of a West European bloc, and that the small nations of Western Europe should form a group together with Great Britain. What would for instance be the position if England —I put this as a theoretical case—would say that it is in her interest to tie certain countries more and more closely to the British Empire in order to form a greater power. I am only referring to a possibility. Would that not be the commencement of new friction and new conflicts and new wars? I want to advance as my modest opinion that since the Prime Minister has agreed that this unanimity must be accepted as the guiding principle for the Security Council, he should do his utmost to have it revised so that the majority can take action in such a case. I want to subscribe wholeheartedly to the statement by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the League of Nations would not have been such a dismal failure if a broader basis of free expression of views had been tolerated. Seeing that the small nations are now to be entirely excluded I think that we have reached a stage of despair which will not lead us any further.

Today we have buried the League of Nations. That is the effect of the words of the Prime Minister. In the past we have paid a considerable amount towards the League of Nations. We have paid our share to the doctors and midwives at its birth; we have paid to keep it alive and now during its final illness—or as the English say, in its last declining years—we have also contributed; now it is dead and the funeral expenses have to be met. I intend proposing that we do not contribute to the funeral expenses. Every year we have moved that the contribution to the League of Nations should be deleted; every year the Prime Minister pleaded here. But now the Prime Minister has admitted that there is a new organisation which will take the place of the old League of Nations. Therefore the League of Nations is officially defunct. On the Estimates of Expenditure provision has been made for an extra £10,000. The original amount was £23,000 but this is now being increased to £33,000. I maintain that we are not prepared to pay towards the funeral expenses, and I therefore move—

Then there is one point in regard to item A.7. “Contribution of the Union Government towards Unrra, £250,000”. Last year we already voted £250,000 and the year before that we had the expenditure in connection with its birth, £25,000. From Press items it now appears that serious difficulties have arisen in connection with Unrra. Hon. members on the other side most likely have noticed the recent statement made by Mr. Ewatt, one of the Cabinet Ministers in Australia. In Australia there is serious concern about the Unrra. We on this side are not opposed to contribute, where charity has to be given, but we are not prepared to contribute towards an organisation in which everything is not as it should be. I therefore also move—

Before me I have a cutting from the “Cape Times”—this is a Sapa news item—which reads inter alia—

Then the names are given—

I should like the Prime Minister to reply to the following question: We can understand that the S.A.W.A.S., which is a military organisation, had to select some of the workers, but something which needs a further explanation is why the Jewish Board of Deputies which is a recognised secret and sectional organisation, should be asked to select some of the workers. The Prime Minister shakes his head. Apparently he does not know about it, but I want to assume that Unrra is acting on behalf of the Union Government and if that is not the case it should be the case for we have already contributed more than £500,000 of the taxpayers’ money. If the Prime Minister actually knows nothing about this matter, he should know about it. The headquarters of Unrra, wherever they may be, should only deal with the Union Government. I definitely assume that the children of Greece, Jugoslavia and the Dodecanese cannot all be Jewish children. I want to be fair. Even I would not have objected if work had to be undertaken in Palestine that such work should be undertaken by Jewish workers. But here we are dealing with the children of Greece; are only the Jewish children starving and are they the only ones to be rehabilitated? No, I want to ask the Prime Minister to be so kind as to give us an explanation why the Jewish Board of Deputies was asked to select workers. I therefore propose that we should delete the amount for the League of Nations and also the amount under item A.7.

When I was interrupted by the time limit, I was developing the theory that so far as the working of South Africa is concerned—and I presume it applies to all the other Dominiums in the Commonwealth—as far as we are concerned we appear to be sending a representative of South Africa to the San Francisco Conference on a par with the lesser lights of the United Nations. As I said, the Prime Minister—fortunately for us, as I have already said, he has a world-wide reputation—but the Prime Minister actually will be more or less on a par with the representatives of nations like Turkey and people who declared war at the last minute on the invitation of Mr. Churchill. That, to me, is an anomaly. I would like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to make some attempt to explain it. In the first instance we are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We seem to be committed to the foreign policy being pursued by Great Britain. On the other hand we have a direct representative on the San Francisco Conference, where we are obviously not one of the Big Five, and not being one of the Big Five, I presume we shall have to cast our vote on exactly the same terms as Turkey and other nations which made a last-minute declaration of war. That seems to me to be entirely wrong. If this kind of thing is going to continue, we are going to build up a form of organisation which is going to defeat its own purpose. I may be wrong, but I think it is a point which the Prime Minister ought to explain to us. Do we go to the San Francisco Conference as a portion of the British Commonwealth of Nations—I do not think we do because if we are going to be given voting power, we cannot possibly be attending as a portion of the British Commonwealth of nations. If on the other hand we are not going as a portion of the British Commonwealth, then we are relegated to the same position as a country like Turkey. I must candidly confess that I have very great misgivings about the new organisation that is to be set up. I am not criticising the Prime Minister. But it does seem to me that this story of unanimity —not his story—is something which is going to be almost impossible to attain. As the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister explained it, it looked to me that one of the five powers may actually be the culprit in some trouble that may arise, and when the preliminary negotiations have broken down, then unanimity must be gained between the five powers, including the culprit before any possible steps can be taken. That is how I understood the Prime Minister’s statement. If that is so, I cannot see very much hope for us. However, nothing can be done at the moment. I just want to pass on to say a word or two about the five powers themselves. The Prime Minister said that small nations can never defend themselves in a war-like world. I agree of course. But it seems to me he may have gone a step further and said that small nations can actually cease to attend conferences such as the San Francisco Conference, because they cannot defend themselves in a war-like world and however sensible their views may be, however high their ideals may be, they are not likely to be paid any attention to. It looks to me as if the world in the future is going to be run by the five great powers. Up to recently it was the three great powers, and one realises that during a war-period these great powers were entitled to run the world because they were running the war; they were producing most of the sinews necessary to run the war; they were making the sacrifices and laying down the strategy, and I think they were the best people to get on with the job. These three great powers have now been extended to five, China has been included. I cannot see why China should be included as one of the five powers which is to run the peace. I cannot see why France has to be built up to become one of the five great powers. I gathered from the Prime Minister — not from what he actually said but from the way he said it— that what he has already said about France before the British House of Commons is something to which he adheres. This is possibly the first time since I have been in this House that the Prime Minister and I have agreed on any subject. I have very grave doubts as to the wisdom of building up France into a great power and giving France the right to be one of the five powers which is to run the peace. I believe that sooner or later we will find ourselves in very grave difficulty because of this very policy. France is now to be included as a fifth power—I am not sure whether she is the fourth or the fifth; it is apparently a toss-up between China and France — but China, like France, will probably have to be built up after the war with Japan. For the life of me I cannot see why France should be given preference and why the component parts of the British Commonwealth should be relegated into subordinate positions amongst the United Nations at the conference. Then there is one final point. It is so difficult to criticise because everything in this world these days appear to be arranged for us. I know it makes a very good news story. I know that possibly the public gets a very great thrill out of Conferences being held in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, out of conferences held in Persia or out of a conference held at Yalta or elsewhere. But I think we are fighting for democracy. It looks to me as though democracy is going to have very little to say about the form of organisation that is being built up to ensure the peace. People generally are not being consulted. We know that the strategy must be left to generals and that the generals must carry out that strategy heedless of the possible consequences. But we are now attempting at least to lay the foundations for an everlasting peace, but the people generally throughout the democratic countries have nothing to say about it whatsoever. All we do is that we wake up one morning, to read our newspaper and we find that either the Big Three or the Big Four or the Big Five have held a meeting here or there or somewhere else and that an Avro-York plane has been commandeered and that they have done the job in record time; they give out to the public as much as they want the public to know. The Prime Minister himself has admitted that the general groundwork of the future arrangements has already been arrived at and when he goes to San Francisco—for the life of me I do not know why he goes there because he has a more important job to do here. If he is only going there to take part in the framing of the constitution of something that has already been arranged, I am quite sure that is not a job that calls for his high capabilities, and he would be of much more use to the House of Assembly.

I just want to say in answer to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) that I do not think we would be doing justice either to our own position or to the public opinion of South Africa if we did not go to San Francisco at all, simply because we are smaller than other powers.

Send someone else.

No, we always put our best foot forward. We may be small, there may be other great powers, greater than ourselves; but that is no reason for running away. Then my hon. friend wants to know whether we will attend the conference on a par with Turkey. That sounds rather Pharisaical. We admit that Turkey has not played the same distinguished part that we have played in the war, but that is no reason for saying that because the great powers have chosen to invite Turkey to come, we will not go. I think my hon. friend will agree that we cannot adopt that attitude.

*The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) put certain questions. He asked why the Jewish Board of Deputies had busied itself in the choice of officials for Unrra. The arrangement that the Government made in connection with the choice of officials for Unrra was this. The House should know that the officials are not paid. It is unpaid people who go there. They do not get any salaries or allowances. The Government asked the S.A.W.A.S. organisation and the Red Cross to make the necessary choice of workers, both men and women, for Unrra, and I believe what happened is this, that the workers who were selected were chosen by the S.A.W.A.S. and the Red Cross organisation, and amongst them quite possibly were Jewish friends, and a farewell party was given to some Jewish representatives for Unrra, but the selection at the request of the Government, was done by the Red Cross and S.A.W.A.S.

Is the Sapa announcement that the selection was made by the Jewish Board of Deputies wrong?

Yes. That cannot be the case, because we left it in the hands of S.A.W.A.S. and the Red Cross.

Did the Red Cross not leave it to them?

No, they would not do that, but it is very likely that there are Jewish friends amongst the workers who have been chosen.

Why are five out of the six Jewesses?

No, I do not know how many are Jewesses. I know that the choice was left to the two organisations, both semi-government organisations, the S.A.W.A.S. and the Red Cross.

There seems to be a nigger in the woodpile.

The hon. member seems to assume that what I say is not true, but that what Sapa says is true. I have given him an explanation of the actual position, of the arrangement that we made.

Then the difficulty is with the S.A.W.A.S. for having selected only Jewesses; you have that fact.

The position is as I have explained it. Then the hon. member proposes that certain votes should be deleted, one of which is the vote which perhaps will be the last vote, namely the amount for the League of Nations. I cannot agree with that. I must oppose the proposition of the hon. member. It will perhaps be the last vote. I do not believe that we shall have to vote anything further for the League of Nations. As things are going now it almost seems as if the League of Nations will not exist in the future, but it is necessary to make the final payment, and this payment is bound up with the Labour organisation, the “International Labour Organisation”. The Committee knows that there are activities in connection with labour affairs. The political activities of the League of Nations have been suspended for a long time, but there are certain other activities that have been maintained, particularly in connection with labour matters and certain statistical work that is of great importance to the world. It has been kept going, and that is why we are paying this amount.

Have we derived any advantage from the work?

The world labour movement is convinced that the I.L.O. has been of great value in the improvement of labour conditions throughout the whole world. That has undeniably been the position. Labour standards have improved throughout the world as a result of that work.

In South Africa as well?

Our standard was very high, but there were countries whose standard was not so high that competed with us. If you have world trade and in some countries the wages are unusually low, and people are living on a low level and they compete with us we cannot make a living, and the purpose of the International Organisation was to raise the standard in all countries so that the countries that compete in trade with each other would be more or less on an equal footing.

Why has the amount been increased to £10,000?

Because special expenditure was contracted in connection with a conference at Philadelphia or somewhere. A big conference was held. In addition to that certain members dropped out and did not pay, and the remaining members have to pay more.

And we are paying more.

We are still working under the provisions of the statute of the League of Nations that divides the burden among the members who are there. But on the last occasion various countries withdrew.

The rats are leaving the sinking ship.

They may leave the ship but we are not leaving the ship. Then the hon. member moved to delete the vote for Unrra. That is reprehensible in the highest degree.

As a protest against the organisation of the business.

The hon. member is under a misapprehension. I have seen the rumours in the Press and I consulted the British Government about them. I myself was concerned that we should have to pay large sums to an organisation that was exposed to all this criticism. I made enquiry and the answer was that it was entirely wrong. There is no doubt that Unrra experienced the greatest difficulties in connection with its work in the Balkans. The committee knows that in the first place, there was almost a state of civil war in Greece, and I believe that one of the members of Unrra was killed there, and as a result Unrra had to withdraw temporarily from its activities in Greece. Similar difficulties were experienced in other Balkan states. There was a chaotic position, war being waged by one against the other, and it was virtually impossible for Unrra to continue its activities, and owing to that it appeared as if Unrra had withdrawn entirely. From that arose these rumours, but the British Government gave me the assurance that they were absolutely erroneous.

Have you seen the statement by the Australian Minister?

He possibly went by the Press reports, but I believe I followed the right course in asking the British Government what the truth is, and the answer is that the actual position is not at all as it has been reflected in the Press. It is unnecessary for me to enlarge on the terrible state of affairs in Europe.

Will the assistance be only given to allied countries?

No, it is not confined to allied countries. A great deal of the work is being done in Italy. There are the occupied countries, the devastated countries, where assistance will have to be granted. This is a system to save what still can be saved. Because I expect that if we are not careful post-war conditions will be worse than they are during the war itself. There is the malnutrition amongst the people on account of hunger. There has been deterioration of the people to such an extent that unless energetic action is taken, a state of distress will arise in Europe that is almost unimaginable. For this reason the British Government sent over its food reserves on a very large scale, and owing to that England will now have to cut down its food rations. America is also taking action now, and in order to assist is cutting down its rations. In those circumstances I think it is our duty as a Christian humanitarian people, to assist where assistance should be extended, and we should not merely owing to a rumour about Unrra, suspend our efforts. I have the official assurance that this report is wrong.

We now have the statement of the Prime Minister, but I hope that nothing will be paid out until the Government has at least more certainty about things. If money is being voted it must be spent properly. In principle we are not averse to assisting where distress exists in Europe, but where distress exists we do not want that there should be discrimination between one and the other. As far as concerns the League of Nations, I hope that the League of Nations has made a will, and that the Prime Minister, before he makes further money available, will see that he is included in the will. I hope that it will not be made after death but before death, so that we shall know what will be done with the balance of the money. Now I come to another point that we should like to deal with, and it stands in relation to the establishment of the new world organisation, namely the question of mandates. Mandates were given to various nations, and the various mandatories were made responsible to the League of Nations. Should the League of Nations disappear the whole question of the mandates will have to be considered de novo. I think the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister will admit that if the mandates remain in existence the question arises to whom will the mandatory power be responsible. That affects us, of course, in general, but more particularly in connection with South-West Africa, which is a “C” mandate. I think the Prime Minister should take us a little more into his confidence. As the question of the mandates will no doubt come up for discussion at San Francisco, he should tell us what his plan is in connection with South-West, and what his proposal is in connection with it. If he accepts my standpoint and I presume he will do so, that South-West Africa should now be incorporated in the Union, as the whole matter is coming under discussion de novo, then the question arises what status he wishes to accord South-West Africa. I think South-West Africa would like to know the position. Today the position with South-West Africa’s administration does not differ very greatly from the manner in which the native territories are administered. In the native territories such as the Transkei, you have a representative body, the Bunga, but it is an entirely subordinate body, and actually the native territories are governed by means of proclamation by this Government. South-West Africa’s position does not differ greatly from that. There is, it is true, a legislative assembly, elections take place there, but the Government nominates members and can see to it that there is a majority of representatives of the Government Party there. With the number that the Government may nominate it is able to turn the scales in its favour. My personal opinion is that if South-West Africa is being incorporated, it should receive the status of a province, the full status of a province. I suggest the Prime Minister should tell us whether that is his standpoint or not. Has the feeling of the people of South-West Africa in regard to this matter been consulted to any extent, or will it be consulted? These are matters of importance to the people, and they hang together with the whole question of the mandate. There is another question that arises, and that is what is going to become of the Germans who are living in that country, and who had Union nationality, Union citizenship? They had it for a long period, and exercised their rights under it. Then an Act was adopted by this Parliament to deprive them of these national rights, and thereby they were declared foreigners. I have seen reports that a plan exists to send them all out of the country, to deport them. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with the idea, and if not whether he will be prepared again to grant Union citizenship to the Germans in South-West Africa. These are all questions of importance in connection with South-West Africa.

I am very glad that the position of South-West Africa has been brought up by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a very important matter, one of extreme importance to the people of South-West Africa, the more so as frequent mention has been made in the Press of there being a movement afoot to place mandated territories under international control. Now you can understand for youself that the population of South-West Africa feels suspended half-way between heaven and earth, and they do not know where they are and what their future is going to be. As regards the slight constitutional development that has occurred, this Government has unfortunately done nothing about it. The little power it has, was received by the legislative assembly in 1925 from the Nationalist Party. But that power is extremely limited. The composition of the legislative assembly is such that it is of little value. Twelve members are elected by the voters of South-West Africa, but the Government has the right to appoint six members, and these six take their places on an equal footing with those who have been elected. Then they have to select an executive committee and in addition to the executive committee there is an Advisory Council, the Advisory Council being comprised of the Administrator (appointed by the Government) and four Executive Committee members and three further persons who are appointed by the Government. Thus on the Advisory Council that has the greatest authority in the country, the Government has a definite majority. The Government can convert into a majority a minority of supporters in the Legislative Assembly by its appointment of members, and assuming that things went entirely against it in an election and the public voiced its displeasure with the Government, and elected a majority against the Government, the Government could transform the position, even if there was a two-thirds majority against the Government, so that with the assistance of nominated members it would have the majority. The whole position is consequently a farce. These people are now feeling very anxious. Their present position is that in respect of their own affairs they have virtually no say. It is so bad that an election is now going to be held although in the course of 14 years there has been no delimination of seats. In the meanwhile the Government came along with legislation which automatically disfranchised 25 per cent. of the voters. The result is that in some constituencies there are twice as many voters as in others. You find for instance that Luderitz and Grootfontein combined have fewer voters than Stampriet or Otjitwarongo. Luderitz and Swakopmund together have fewer voters than Stampriet or Warmbad or Otjiwarongo. That is the position there, and the most peculiar thing is that when the Prime Minister appointed his six members to the council he entirely ignored the Nationalist group in South West Africa. Forty per cent. of the voters are Nationalists, but they were entirely passed over. The English-speaking section, which numbers only 2,000 souls, was given one representative, and the German-speaking section had a representative, but not the 40 per cent. Nationalists; and it is very peculiar that though the Administrator made recommendations, the Prime Minister set them aside, and himself selected and appointed without the advice of the Administrator. The present position is that the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, has even appointed a German-speaking citizen of the country. I may just mention that this German-speaking citizen fought against us in the last war, and in the present war two of his sons are fighting against the Union forces. He was appointed to the Legislative Assembly, but not one of the 40 per cent. Nationalists were appointed. The Nationalists received no recognition, but a German-speaking citizen who had fought against us in the last war, and who has two sons fighting against us in the present war, has been appointed. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would not give some consideration to the Nationalists. His answer was, “No, that is not my intention”. However that may be, these are matters of very great interest to the people of South-West Africa, and they would like to know the attitude of the Prime Minister. What is his intention? The League of Nations no longer exists to make a decision. We should like to have the position clarified. By way of question early in the Session we asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware of the position in connection with the delimitation of seats and whether he would defer the pending elections until there could be a new delimitation and he also refused that. Now we turn to the Press. There you have an extraordinary position, and I understand there are officials who are conversant with the position and who can enlighten him on it. The position is that the Prime Minister’s party in South-West Africa has two newspapers, one in English, the other in Afrikaans, but both newspapers are the property of an enemy subject. This enemy subject engages the editors, and these are the Prime Minister’s organs, his Party’s organs. This Press does a great proportion of the Government’s printing work, and incidentally a large amount of the military printing work as well. It is an enemy subject who has the printing works. I wish him good luck. He is also entitled to publish a newspaper in German, and the circulation of that German paper is much larger than that of the two newspapers of the Prime Minister’s Party. That enemy subject was the publisher of a pro-Nazi paper before the war, namely the “Beobachter” in Windhoek, and his officials must have informed him of that. But when the war broke out he merely changed the name, and now he can carry on. We are wondering whether the Prime Minister has been well informer in regard to the position in South-West Africa. I think he will agree that if it is necessary to have pure administration in our country it is doubly necessary that there should be no corruption in South-West Africa, because we are only acting as a mandatory in the name of the League of Nations, on behalf of the nations of the world. I invitetd his attention by means of a question to a certain recent transaction there. His reply was that the question concerned their Legislative Assembly, I know this, but I should like to draw his attention to it, and one of the persons he has appointed is concerned in it. I will not mention his name, but that person nominated by him acted in relation to this transaction on behalf of the executive committee, on behalf of the Advisory Council, and at the same time on behalf of the sellers of the property—he is the attorney for the seller and at the same time he is the purchaser on behalf of the Government, and that person was nominated by the Prime Minister. [Time limit.]

I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) has stated, that things are not running smoothly in South-West Africa. I do not know what supervision the Prime Minister exercises there. We know, for example, that last year a provision was suddenly made for the determination of minimum wages for farm labourers. I believe it was vetoed by this Government. A policy was introduced to put an end to certain licences which caused great dissatisfaction, and I believe that there too the Government intervened. In connection with such important matters is there not consultation with the Government, or does the Administrator take his own line with his Council, which is comprised of a number of nominees? Or does the Government exercise any supervision? I should like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to inform us what supervision the Government exercises, so that wrongful actions may not be done. I was myself recently in South-West Africa, and I must say that I found the position there very unsatisfactory. There is apparently a state of tyranny, and there is very little liberty. I myself was shadowed and spied on by the police from the moment I arrived until I left. I was there on a business visit, and if I went to see anyone the police were there immediately afterwards to enquire what I had done there.

The Gestapo.

Nothing else than the Gestapo. The hon. member for Vredefort and other friends underwent a similar experience. One person I visited told the police that they should address their equiries to me, but they did not do that and they stalked me. T do not know on whose orders, and you have ho peace at all. The officials are kept under so much that they are too scared to do anything that the majority may not agree with, for fear of persecution. The officials are dead scared. Old and tried friends of mine were afraid to see me, or ask me to their home. They said that they were watched so closely that when I went away their lives would be a hell.

Is it the Administrator?

It is the Administrator’s unsympathetic attitude towards any person who differs from them. There prevails an extremely undesirable state of affairs. The hon. member for Vredefort made mention of an enemy subject who is treated better than Nationalist-minded Afrikaners, and who is even pampered. But all who have Nationalist sympathies have a bad time. I myself investigated a case of an Afrikaner who was interned but who eventually was released. A little while after the commencement of the war some people who had drunk too much provoked him. All that happened was that he became angry and he exclaimed “Heil Hitler”. I do not want to approve, but he was a young man and as this was the only complaint against him why should he remain for years in the internment camp? But in the meanwhile the Government is supporting enemy subjects by giving them work. Can we be surprised that the Afrikaners are becoming embittered in the circumstances? They feel that they have to take a back seat as against enemy subjects. I am not speaking against the Germans there, but why should there be discrimination? These people are simply being subjected to a reign of terror. There is fear of them being hounded, and as I have stated, some of my own friends were afraid to invite me out. I found numbers of complaints there. The people are afraid to be seen on the street with us and to take us to their homes. Officials have said to me that if they refuse to contribute to war funds they are called in and told that it has been learnt that they are not prepared to contribute. They simply have not had the freedom to say no. That is not the way to treat people, and I hope that the Prime Minister will investigate the position in South-West Africa and why the dissatisfaction exists. There is an effort at overlording things by the Administrator and the people who have been nominated by him. Afrikaners who differ from him have not the slightest chance. This occasions bitterness, and we want to express the hope that there will be a change with a view to obtaining a greater measure of contentment in this mandated territory.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has made an attack on the Administrator. The Administrator is well known to me. He is an excellent official, one of the best we had in the administration.

Yes, but he is a bully.

He enjoys my full confidence. I shall enquire into the complaints of the hon. member, though I doubt whether those charges have any grounds. I do not believe there is a reign of terror, as the hon. member has stated here. This spirit of complaining and fault-finding has been unrestrained. My opinion of the Administrator is that he is a just and honourable official who is doing his duty to the best of his ability.

Why then should we always be shadowed by the police?

Is that true?

Yes, I can prove it.

That is something that can be enquired into.

They cannot even hold a congress but the police are there.

Possibly, but that is in the normal course of their duties.

If they are at a United Party Congress it is of course to prevent trouble.

Yes, police may be there, but not for the reasons mentioned here. The more important question has been broached by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the future of the mandate. If the League of Nations lapses, then the mandatory system also lapses. That is an uncertain matter. It is something that must be gone into at the conference at San Francisco. If a decision is taken for a new world organisation it must be stated what should happen with those organisations that were the outcome of the League of Nations, and there must be some arrangement in connection with the mandates. My own opinion is that the best solution will be to get rid of the mandatory system and to attend to the matter in a different way, even though we have to send a report to another organisation. The mandate will have to be abolished, and the territory can be incorporated as a province of the Union under a special provision. I do not think that the existing provincial arrangement as it stands in relation to the four provinces of the Union, will be applicable in all respects to a territory like South-West Africa. The circumstances are different.

How are they different?

They are different because the position is entirely different.

In what respect?

In many respects. The question will have to be dealt with by Parliament. South-West Africa is being administered under an Act that was adopted by this Parliament, and when that incorporation occurs it will be a matter for this Parliament to decide. As it appears to me, a special arrangement will have to be made whereunder present provincial legislation that applies to other questions will be applied there in certain respects, though in other respects departures will be made. It is impossible to discuss that question now. It will come up here when events have taken that course, and the Parliament of the Union will then have to consider the question carefully and closely.

Will it be in an inferior position compared with the other provinces?

I do not know whether I shall have to make that decision. Perhaps the hon. member himself may have to decide. I cannot now anticipate the decision of Parliament; I do not know what future legislation will be. I can only give it as my humble opinion that if South-West Africa is incorporated, it will have to be under provisions which will not in all respects be identical with those applying to the existing provinces. It is not a question which we should now argue or dispute. It is my personal opinion that it is a matter on which this Parliament will have to decide in the course of time.

When the additional estimates were before the House, I sought the opportunity of making some comments regarding the High Commissioner’s office in London. At that point I was drawing attention to the fact that a number of Imperial soldiers, passing through South African shores, had not only received hospitality which caused them to write in glowing terms to their people, but a number of people who passed through our shores themselves expressed the desire, when the war was over, if at all possible, to settle in South Africa. These general factors have caused a general flow of people going through the doors of South Africa House.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th Jtnuary, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he Would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 20th March.