announced that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in this House of the electoral division of Beaufort West owing to the resignation with effect from 21 April 1977 of Dr. the Honourable Hilgard Muller.

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

Before the House adjourned last night my leader had referred to the kidnapping incident in Owambo and the hon. the Prime Minister had indicated that the hon. the Minister of Defence would deal with it this afternoon. Therefore I do not intend to take it further other than to say that this indicates—in perhaps more dramatic a form than anyone would have wished—the reality of the situation which is facing South Africa today. It will bring home to the people of South Africa the reason for the sacrifices which South Africa has been asked to make in the interests of defence. Is is against that background that I wish to deal with the defence budget which we are debating this afternoon.

There is no need for me to restate the policy of the official Opposition towards our security and our defence. This policy has been stated over and over again. It stands on record as the commitment of our party to the security of our country and to its territorial integrity. Turning to the defence budget itself, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. the Minister of Defence on the employment of his psychological warfare department to soften up the country before the defence budget was introduced. The result was that an increase of R304 million to a total, with building services, of R1 700 million—or an increase of 22,5%—was greeted by South Africa almost with a sense of relief. That is because I think South Africa realizes that defence is priority No. 1. We, as the official Opposition, recognize that need and that priority. There are no supermarkets at which one can buy military hardware—I will refer again to that in a moment—and there are no supermarkets which sell security.

If one looks at this Vote of R1 700 million, it involves approximately 18,5% of the total main budget, and 5,8% of the gross national product. In the circumstances in which we live, I do not think anyone can say that that is an excessive expenditure. This appropriation is presented to us as a programmed appropriation, an interesting presentation which started last year, but which makes it difficult for any layman to debate it in detail. To start with, there is a globular sum of R1 000 million voted to the Special Defence Fund. The rest is allocated by programmes. That task—the allocation of priorities, the allocation of funds—is essentially the task of experts. Whether one is going to spend one’s money on missile boats, on mirages or on tanks is not a detail which anyone except those concerned with the detailed planning of strategy and of defence needs can question in broad terms.

I think that one of the fields in which South Africa is extremely fortunate is that both sides of the House have full confidence in our supreme command. When we get a Vote presented to us as this one has been presented, we accept that they have judged those priorities in the light of the circumstance which affect us. However, that does not mean that our view has changed at all on the need for Parliamentary control over defence expenditure. I do not intend to repeat the arguments. They stand on record, but I also want to place on record the fact that we have not departed from our view that a parliamentary select committee dealing purely with defence expenditure, would improve the control of this Parliament over this vast sum which we are voting today. It is inherent in any defence force in the world that there must be wastage, that there must be rumours which grow and spread, and which are damaging, particularly when that includes the military armaments aspect, the manufacture and purchase of arms. I do not believe it does the country any good. I do not believe it is good for Parliament that rumours of that nature should spread. Let me mention just one specific case. It has come to my notice that one consignment, not of hardware and not of sensitive or secret equipment, but of protective clothing, purchased by the S.A. Defence Force in one country, went on a world tour to get here. It passed through various hands and eventually landed up in South Africa at, according to the documents, five times the original cost in the country of origin. As I have said, this is not a sensitive matter and therefore I raise it quite freely. It is that sort of escalation which I believe we as members of Parliament should have access to and should be able to criticize if necessary. I mention that as an example of the way in which defence costs can escalate. Therefore I think it is all the more important that when persons make offers, as I know have been made in one case by a very responsible person, to put our purchasing organization into touch with possible suppliers, such offers should be taken seriously and followed up. But that is something we cannot control because the Minister has accepted full responsibility to this House for the money which we vote. These are the sort of things which I believe lead to a lack of total confidence. We need that total confidence.

In the budget itself there are other matters which even a layman can deal with. I want to refer to three of these. The first is the amount to be voted for civil defence. A Select Committee has been sitting on this matter and a Bill is before us which is aimed at creating a new deal for civil defence. It was recognized and it is common cause that civil defence has become almost a farce and that it was not operating except in a few major cities. Therefore we are proposing a “new deal”. Yet the amount to be spent on civil defence in the Defence Vote has decreased by 41%, from R798 000 to R466 000. This is a drop in the ocean which does not augur well for any “new deal” within the coming financial year.

Another item which has always concerned me is the chicken-feed amount of R510 000 to be voted for military intelligence. I believe that information and intelligence are some of the most important aspects of successful security. This amount remains the same year after year, indicating no apparent appreciation, of the vital part which military intelligence, as opposed to our general intelligence set-up, should play in our security. I realize that there are other intelligence agencies and that there is a co-ordinated organization, but defence as such has its own responsibility and I believe that this is not recognized in the amount to be voted.

My third point of criticism, a major point of criticism, is that although greater demands are being made on our young men, this is not fully recognized in an important aspect. Longer periods of service are required, there are more hardships than there have ever been, and everything has been made more difficult for our young men. We have recognized this only in one field, and that is the field of religious ministration, where there has been an increase to R1,5 million. Sir, we are dealing with young men with young men’s needs. We find, for instance, that the amount voted for leisure-time utilization has been decreased from R326 000 to R138 000. In other words, less than half of what was spent on leisure-time utilization last year will be spent in the coming year. Sport is another matter which is important to young men, particularly in view of the fact that there are blank periods which have to be filled. The amount set aside for sport has been decreased from R555 500 to R154 100. In the case of social welfare services, although I believe that the amount should have been increased in view of the fact that the demands have certainly increased, that amount remains almost the same. I want to say, Sir, that the welfare of our men is not a field in which we should try to bring about economies. We should ensure that in their leisure-time and in their sport, in the time when they are not facing the rigours of operations, everything possible should be done for them.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to turn to the major problem which faces us in South Africa. I am not talking of the military threat. The major problem which faces our Defence Force and this Parliament is the problem of manpower. This is highlighted in the White Paper which, as usual, contains valuable information and I compliment the Defence Force on its production and contents. It is a valuable document, and in this document itself there is emphasis on the problem of manpower. In addition to that recognition, there is the common knowledge that the three months’ call-up for the Citizen Force and commando units has placed a tremendous burden on men, their families and their financial situations and has had an effect on our economy. What is more serious, however, is that it has placed a tremendous strain on the Citizen Force and commando leadership giving voluntary extended service. It is as obvious to us, as I think it is to the department and to the hon. the Minister, that this situation cannot continue. There have been public statements and there is reference in the White Paper to a change in the situation. Units have started their second round of call-up of the same men who have already served one three month period on the border little more than a year ago. I am talking about Citizen Force units. The White Paper accepts that this situation cannot continue, and we are all expecting legislation and possibly an announcement from the hon. the Minister in this debate.

We have always supported motivated demands which have been put to us for greater demands on our youth. At the same time, however, we have pleaded, for years now, for a new basic approach to this problem. I am not talking about winning of the loyalty of our population—which is common cause and which we have debated before. I am talking of the involvement of all our peoples in the Defence Force itself for the defence of South Africa. The White Paper emphasizes a “total national strategy”—the involvement of all Government departments and of the civil power. It sets as the aim the welfare of all the people and it refers to the strains we are placing on a small minority of our population, i.e. the White male youth of South Africa. On page 21 of the White Paper reference is made to other nationals and what has been done to involve other race groups. Last week we also had the report of the Erika Theron Commission in which recommendation No. 7 calls for a national service and cadet system for the Coloured youths. In that White Paper the Government indicated that it had already accepted that principle.

Here we have a situation where heavy demands are being made on South Africa and where the Government has accepted the principle that all race groups should be involved in defence. I do not have time to deal with it in detail but we have, for instance, the Bantu Education Journal, advertising “careers for Black soldiers in the Permanent Force” and Paratus referring to “more punch for our assegaai-packing Blacks”.

The principle is accepted and has been implemented to a small extent, but I believe that we are playing with our real potential. I call on the Government, on the hon. the Minister, to translate the policy which has now been accepted, into practice on a meaningful scale. It is no use only paying lip-service to a principle or a policy. We must be prepared to apply it realistically. We must not pay lip-service to it, but implement it on a meaningful level. I know that the answer will be that we do not have the facilities, the camps or the instructors and that it will take time to organize. I believe that is simply evasion of the issue and that if we really wanted to do so—as we have done before—we could, for instance, immediately implement the first phase of a Coloured national service system. I accept it will take about two or three years to plan a complete system of this nature and to implement it, but I can see no reason why we cannot start immediately on a realistic scale and why we cannot empty one of our camps by doubling up with other camps, using tentage if necessary, and thereby providing the necessary accommodation. Why cannot we stop the drain of Permanent Force resignations by making the conditions of service so attractive that there would not be resignations? Why could we not use long-term national service instructors? We can find the necessary instructors. We should start now and not next year or the year after that. If we do this, we shall have no problem in finding the men we need. It will, of course, involve acceptance of the principle of equal pay and opportunity in the Defence Force and the recognition that every soldier risking his life for South Africa risks a life of equal value in the defence of our South Africa. If the hon. the Minister accepts that, I believe he will have the manpower he wants, and to spare. Before we turn to placing more burdens—other than for a temporary period to bridge a gap—on a small section of our people, a burden which is already too heavy for many, we should give the Defence Force an opportunity to include Black regiments in its active planning, not as servicemen, batsmen, waiters and drivers, but as operational forces. There should also be the incorporation of Blacks into commando’s. Black regiments should not merely be prestige regiments doing flag parades, but should be operational regiments. Natal could produce a Black regiment of which South Africa would be proud and officer it with experienced trilingual men who will be able to speak to the men in their own language. A colleague of mine will deal with the aspect of the commando’s in more detail. These untapped resources are there for S.A. to use. I believe there are tens of thousands of young South Africans of Colour who are loyal and dedicated to South Africa who, if given the opportunity and given recognition of their part as equal partners in our security, would be prepared to join in sharing that burden. I take the matter no further because others on this side of the House will refer to this subject.

In the time left to me I want to refer to one or two other matters. The first group of issues is what I call “hangovers from Angola”. In the first place I want to refer to the recent release of the story of Angola to the Press. This made tremendous reading and received a wonderful reception. This reception proved how right we were a year ago when we called on the Government to cut out excessive secrecy and to inform South Africa of what was going on. If it had been done then, it could only have done good internally and externally. It would have stopped the wild rumours, stories and fears which spread. Instead of doing good, the effect of releasing the story only a year later has only been to tarnish and to taint the credibility of the Government whereas we could have had a story which would have boosted the morale of our people and acted as a stimulus to their dedication to our defence as nothing else could have done. The fact that news was released overseas whilst we had an internal blackout caused a great deal of dissatisfaction, particularly in the media and amongst the public who were not able to read what people in other countries were reading about our own forces. The censorship system has led to a lot of complaints, which I have not time to detail. However, I want to raise one of them. I refer to the fact that when a newspaper goes to the authorities with a story to seek permission for it to be published and this is refused, it is entirely wrong that the story should subsequently be released to another newspaper or to other media. It has happened on occasions that permission to publish has been refused and the next thing the story is published in another paper or broadcast over the radio. I think Rhodesia sets us an example. They have no obsession with secrecy; they tell their people what is going on. They give their people a picture of what is happening militarily and the result is that the morale of Rhodesia, despite the circumstances in which they find themselves, is still high.

Morale has many enemies and I should like to refer to two of them in passing. I do so really on principle because I tend to get a little bloody-minded when I am fed a load of nonsense. Last year we raised two post-Angolan issues in this House in the debate on the Minister’s Vote. Postal services were the first. We received all sorts of undertakings and assurances that everything was fine. It was sorted out long afterwards, but not at that time. It was only towards September that the problems were sorted out and mail started flowing smoothly. There are still exceptions, but they are the exception and not the rule. At that time exceptions were the rule. Here I think we made a serious public relations blunder. We put parents’ backs up instead of having them with us. I should like to give another example, that of the initial announcement about not sending Christmas parcels. Instead of issuing an announcement like that, we should have educated parents and families on what to send. We should have limited by means of regulation the size of the parcels they could send. However, it is this sort of incident which creates a backlash. People say: “Nobody cares about my poor Johnny in the field. ” It is a question of public relations and the way in which you handle a thing as much as anything else.

The other problem about which we were being fed loads of excuses, evasions and denials, was the question of pay. Here it was, of course, a total shambles—utterly chaotic—and yet we were told: “It is under control; they will all be paid next week or the week thereafter.” Here I want to pay a tribute, a particularly sincere tribute, to the new CSMS—the Chief of Staff Management Services—who has rectified this problem. I want to say that I have not had one single complaint from units which returned after about mid-November last compared to the literally hundreds I was getting week in and week out before then. I believe this came about to a large extent by two-way cooperation. It showed what could be done by co-operation and consultation. Previously, there was a dedication to this monster known colloquially as FRED—the flipping ridiculous electronic disaster—with which they tried to pay people. It was not working, yet they continued to feed it. Now the system is working—not the machine and if there are any cases still outstanding, they are probably somewhere in FRED’s stomach. However, I have had few recent complaints and I do not believe there are serious complaints from units which came back after about November last year. The point I want to make is that when things go wrong, let us have frankness about them.

The Chief of the SADF has always been frank with me and the CSMS has been frank, but that was not always the case. I hope that this co-operation and frankness will help to ensure that we do not again have this sort of damage to morale that we had last year, because there is nothing that damages morale as much as worrying about one’s people at home, worrying about whether they have money or worrying about what is happening to them because one gets no letters.

I now want to take a completely opposite approach to a matter concerning Angola. I should like to place on record the tribute and congratulations which this side of the House wants to extend to those who were awarded the Honoris Crux decoration. The medal parade itself was worthy of the occasion and reflected the nation’s grateful thanks to men who had proved their total dedication, their courage and their willingness to sacrifice for South Africa. I should like to associate ourselves both in congratulating the men who were honoured and the Defence Force which, on behalf of the people, gave them a parade of honour to express their thanks. I hope too that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us, now that the regulations have been published, that those who were not selected for this particular honour of the Honoris Crux, but have earned the Pro Patria medal, will now have it issued to them, because it is well over a year since it was won and I think they are entitled to get it.

I have very little time left, so perhaps I can have one little quiet chuckle. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister of his answer to me last year when I lodged a plea for a kiosk for troops passing through Windhoek station. I was told that that was totally impossible—one could not possibly have that sort of thing; it would disclose military movements; it was unnecessary; they all went to camps and there were tea rooms where they could get refreshments. I now want to congratulate Windhoek station for providing space for these facilities, the service organizations which put up the hut and those operating the kiosk on Windhoek station. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am very glad that his fears, which last year made him say it was totally out of the question, have changed to now make him say that it is possible.

If there is time later I shall come back to certain other matters, but I want to conclude by referring to the security of farms in danger areas and to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give financial and practical assistance in setting up the 24-hour radio service and the security fencing which will provide security to outlying farms in danger areas. I am not only referring to our external borders, but also to areas where there is unrest, for example at Rietgat where a house was burnt down and where the people had to come together at each other’s homes … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the award of the Honoris Crux decoration it is also my privilege to extend my wholehearted congratulations to those persons and the relatives of those persons who received these awards and other awards, and in particular to thank them for their exceptional service to South Africa. This side of the House also associates itself with the awarding of decorations to the officers of the Defence Force, on 31 March this year, especially to Gen. Malan, Gen. Rogers, Gen. Viljoen present here and also, I hope, to Gen. Du Toit. I also include all the other officers who were involved. The operations for which the Honoris Crux were awarded took place under the leadership of inspired people. We know where this inspiration has its origin, and that efficient leadership was given in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban Point on his levelheaded approach to defence, a matter which is of mutual interest to us. There are a few matters which he mentioned to which I want to reply briefly. As far as civil defence is concerned, it is true that we are approaching a new dispensation. It is also true that our defence budget will still have to make provision for civil defence, because the role of the Defence Force in this respect, although not as prominent as in the past, will still be in the background and will have to be filled. We want to stress that with this idea we do not want the previous misconception that existed, i.e. that civil defence is the duty of the Defence Force, to continue. I think that we must take advantage of the opportunity to clear up all misunderstanding. The new dispensation provides that it is the responsibility of those people who are in charge of local authorities.

I am referring to the handling of emergency services and other civil services which are nothing but the defence of the community. We want to confirm in this way that, although the hon. the Minister of Defence retains the overall control when for example, a disaster is expected, the hon. the Minister may in fact delegate his powers with confidence to the provinces who will in turn see to it that the local authorities fill this very important role in the service of South Africa. With that I turn to another subject.

The hon. member for Durban Point also commented on the amount allocated to intelligence. In this regard I want to give him the assurance that I also have respect for the work done by this very important department of our Defence Force. No part, no element of the Defence Force, however small, can function if it does not dispose of an efficient intelligence service and properly evaluated intelligence. Therefore I want to concede that he is right that, if such a need exists, attention should definitely be paid to it. At the same time I think that the White Paper stresses the aspect of co-ordination which, surely, also has a bearing on our total intelligence situation in South Africa. I want to remind the hon. member that we actually do have intelligence systems which provide for the supply of intelligence to all other departments.

The hon. member also made reference to the manpower situation. I support the idea that the human individual is still the most important part of the Defence Force, in spite of the most sophisticated material and weapons which the Defence Force has at its disposal. Therefore we welcome the very clear policy approach of the White Paper in respect of the manpower situation. In the White Paper not only the need, but also the solution, is spelt out. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us further information in this respect. I am referring for example to the question of voluntary national service by White girls, which is referred to on page 18. Extending it to other population groups seems to me a very interesting thought.

The hon. member for Durban Point overlooked it perhaps when he advocated the utilization of people of colour. I find it interesting that the idea is to use these voluntary groups on the same basis as their White male counterparts. It is implied that when such people accept voluntary national service, the reckoning of their duties will be on the same basis as that which applies to their male counterparts. I think it is an interesting question on which we would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s opinion. It is undoubtedly true that the Defence Force has to compete with the private sector, because we are living in a free economy. I also find it interesting that the Defence Force is already beginning to think of introducing better conditions of service in this regard. I refer to page 33 of the White Paper where it is made possible for members of the Permanent Force to receive incentives by way of special salary increments of one or two notches, which should encourage them to give of their best and—I would say—to show a more intense interest in defence matters.

As far as technical training is concerned, it is interesting that the idea is to upgrade persons with high qualifications to the status of artisan with all the concomitant financial implications. These are all very interesting ideas. I want to ask whether, in view of the extremely high cost of training staff, particularly those who have to operate sophisticated equipment, consideration could not be given to adopting a more imaginative approach to this matter. We are aware that training costs have soared and I want to mention a few figures in this respect to the House. The training figure for an officer, a second lieutenant is for example approximately R16 000. To train a candidate officer to the rank of major, the amount may eventually total R77 000. Then we also have other sophisticated equipment, for example the Mirage and Buccaneer, that has to be operated. The question arises whether one should not consider the evaluation of these posts to ensure that the services of these people are retained for the Defence Force. Add to this the cost of training an infantryman, the person who does his national service. It is in the region of R4 000. That is a big investment in respect of a person who does his service for a period of 12 months or more. That is when he is at his most productive for the Defence Force. That is when he is in the best trained state, and that is why it is so important to me that in this respect too, when one speaks of national service, consideration should be given to the possibility of retaining the most highly productive units possible for the Defence Force.

I leave the question of manpower. I would like to say something about the alleged exceptional secrecy in connection with Angola. We heard, and we debated it yesterday evening, that except for the protection of the waterworks at Calueque and the other works at Ruacana, Angola was to a great extent an operation with diplomatic objectives. I think Moss’s articles proved conclusively that those diplomatic objectives were attained. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to proceed with his argument.

At that stage when we entered Angola on 9 August …

Thank you?

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I am so enthusiastic about the subject which the hon. member for Durban Point raised, that the hon. member for Mooi River must forgive me for not thanking him, but he knows, in any case, the goodwill which I have for him personally.

A golden thread runs from that successful operation to the events in Southern Africa at this stage. I will not say anything further about that. When we consider the role of the Defence Force, especially in these times, we must also consider the people of colour. Other hon. members will talk about the unifying role which the SADF can play in this respect. I concede that the hon. member for Durban Point is correct, but we do have the White Paper on the Erika Theron report and in this respect we considered paragraph 7. I do not want to debate the matter any further. However, the hon. Minister has already indicated the extensive role which the Coloureds already play in South African defence matters. I am referring to the fact that they are already being used on minesweepers. We know that they are being used on the minesweepers Windhoek and Johannesburg. They are used on survey ships, supply ships and boom defence vessels. There are already Coloureds in the Airforce as well. There are ships manned entirely by Coloureds, which form an absolutely essential part of the total state of preparedness of the South African Defence Force. The figure given to me a few months ago, indicates that there are far more than 1 000. In connection with the enthusiasm of trainees who come forward voluntarily for military service, I believe that the hon. member is completely over-eager with regard to the matter which the Government has already considered, and which has already received the necessary attention. As far as the other aspects of national service by people of colour are concerned, hon. members know what the Government’s view is in connection with the training of Black people. Training is being provided as the necessary training facilities are made available, and of course according to need. The availability of instructors is also taken into account in the provision of training. Other hon. members on the Government side will probably elaborate on this point.

I now want to touch on an aspect which is very important, especially at the present stage, i.e. the South African Defence Force seen in the overall context. It is so easy to see the role of the S.A. Defence Force simply as the PRP likes to look at it, i.e. as a replacement for political strategy and for political development. We on this side of the House want to register the strongest objection to that. In the first place the balance of power between the East and the West—and especially between the West and Soviet Russia—can no longer be maintained without the presence of the S.A. Defence Force. I do not want to over-simplify the matter, but it is true that 3 000 tanks are needed to maintain the balance of power in the European military theatre. Only 100 South African tanks can fulfil the same role in Southern Africa. I do not want to over-simplify the problem, but it is pretty much in that proportion that we must view the problem, and in which we must regard the contribution of the S.A. Defence Force. It is just as important to note that the West is employing a specific strategy in the European military theatre, especially in view of the milliards of rand invested by the USA and other countries in defence. At the same time it is true that in the Southern African military theatre they completely overlook the strategic factor of our geographical position, as well as our mineral wealth, and try to maintain the balance of power here by a completely different situation. Therefore, I want to argue that the West, and especially the USA, is making flagrant errors of judgment by ignoring the very important role of the S.A. Defence Force. I want to argue further that it places us, with regard to the USA and other countries, in a very strong bargaining position as far as control over certain strategic minerals is concerned.

Armaments to the value of many milliards of rand are being poured into the Middle East. Only two countries in the Middle East received R5 milliard by way of military hardware over a period of four years. Why is this being done? For what? Petroleum? A strategic analysis by an institute in Sweden demonstrated that, of a 100% use of some strategic minerals, the utilization of petroleum represented only 4,8%, while minerals such as copper, lead, zinc, nickel, chrome and iron represented the largest percentage. We know that vast deposits of lead occur in South Africa. Lead represents 11,3% of the consumption mentioned.

As a result I am of the opinion that the West has committed a vast blunder. We are therefore arming ourselves to play a role in this regard—not the role of the loser, but that of the victor.

I want to refer to another role of the S.A. Defence Force. Another merit which is mentioned in the White Paper is the reference to the manifold onslaughts on South Africa. I want to refer people who do not believe the White Paper, just for interest’s sake, to a finding of the appeal court judge, Mr. Justice Potgieter, in 1970 when he examined the security aspects of our intelligence services and so forth. The learned judge of appeal came to the conclusion that there was a military, political and economical, a subversive and espionage onslaught on South Africa. If we consider the books which have been written about this by various experts in all parts of the world, we find that this strategy can be identified. General Dutton also recently identified this strategy in a lecture at a symposium. Once again this is militarily very important, but what is the result? The stronger our stance and the stronger our military image, the more certain it is that the onslaught will be made in the other fields. Here we are thinking especially of the diplomatic and political fields, and what follows. I now want to put a question to the hon. members of the Opposition, and especially the members of the PRP. Do they acknowledge this fact and its implications? If there is a total strategy which is also aimed at the other fields, at the political and economic fields, which role should the Opposition fulfil? Can they continue, in normal circumstances in a democratic State, to fulfil the role of criticasters, or should they accept greater responsibility? Where we are dealing with a budget of R1 700 million the electorate surely has a right to expect the Opposition to act with greater responsibility with regard to their money. Sir, they can only do it by moving forward in a different gear and by fulfilling their obligations in respect of criticism in a different gear. We do not expect appreciation every day, but we do expect—and I am not speaking of the hon. member for Yeoville—sound, sensible action from the hon. member for Sea Point, not to mention the hon. member for Houghton.

I now come to another role of the S.A. Defence Force. That Defence Force ensures that we can develop internally in a peaceful and orderly fashion. Other members on this side will refer to other aspects of this. It was said during the debate yesterday that we succeeded under the protection of a strong Defence posture in creating political institutions for Whites, Blacks and Coloured which no majority rule or any other concealed form thereof will be able to take away from them. Therefore, I think that the public will once again justifiably demand from the Opposition that is should act with far greater responsibility.

Sir, I want to close by asking if we did indeed obtain a fair portion of the budget. I do not want to criticize, but I want to eliminate one misunderstanding. It is a misunderstanding which, in my opinion, was initially stressed a little by the hon. member for Durban Point, and that is that a vast proportion of the country’s expenditure is being spent on defence. The fact of the matter is that percentage-wise, less is being appropriated for defence this year than in 1964. In that year 21% of the country’s expenditure was spent on defence, against more or less 18% or 19% this year. What does this mean? It shows us the particular strength of the South African economy, which can handle a defence force budget of this size and which can at the same time provide for services in other fields. We have to, however, ask if this can always be so? The question arises if we shall not have to start working with economic models, models which make provision on the one hand for handling a defence force budget of this order and size, while on the other hand, not harming the economy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West contended that we regard the Army as being a substitute for political strategy on the part of certain people. With great respect, that is utter nonsense. The Army cannot be a substitute for political strategy. An Army is necessary if we believe that there should be peace in a country and that one should be allowed to settle one’s own affairs. Therefore anybody who believes in peaceful and constitutional means of change, will also believe that one needs an Army in order to defend oneself and to allow those political events to take place.

I can follow on from that almost immediately by saying that there is little doubt that in so far as South Africa is concerned the best defence South Africa could have and the best thing we could do for our own forces, would be to establish the unity of the people of South Africa. That would provide the best defence for South Africa. “Unity” here means not merely the unity of the White people; it also means the unity of all the races and groups in South Africa.

We face a defence budget here today on which we really have very little say in the allocation of this expenditure. The allocation of defence expenditure is largely a matter of trust. However, there is little doubt that defence expenditure is high. One has to examine what in fact the implications of higher defence expenditure are, even if one supports this high expenditure, as we do. The truth is that by reason of the high defence expenditure there is less money available to fight the battle in order to meet legitimate aspirations of the people of South Africa. There is less money available—whether we like it or not—for free and compulsory education for everyone, for better housing, for technical and vocational training, for closing wage gaps and for creating more jobs. By making us divert this money from these objects to defence, the enemy of South Africa is already partially succeeding. The task of winning the minds and the hearts of the people becomes more difficult when one cannot devote the money to the objects to which one would like to devote it. The diversion of money and of manpower to defence must—while we regard it as necessary—be regarded in that light. Is it not possible, in order to meet these tactics, the tactics that in fact we should not have the money available for these other objects, but spend it on defence, that we endeavour to combine defence expenditure and defence needs with the meeting of certain of these aspirations? I want to give an example. The employment of more Black people in the Defence Force will in fact create more jobs. The training of more Black artisans in the Defence Force and in the armaments industry will, again, enable more skills to be acquired.

The provision of housing for those extra people employed in the Defence Force and in the arnaments industry, will partly meet that problem. The giving of equal pay for equal work is again a demonstration—if the Defence Force does is—that discrimination is being removed. The appeal I should like to make right at the outset is that we should endeavour to meet this attack upon us which forces us to spend more money on defence which, in turn, does not enable us to spend adequate sums of money on other needs. We should endeavour to combine these in our approach to defence expenditure.

The second submission I should like to make is that if there is a war, that war should not be a White man’s war, but a South African war. If we approach it in that way, there can only be a real dedication to defend the country if the people whom you are asking to defend the country have something to lose and if they have an adequate stake in it. Therefore defence, politics and socio-economics are very closely linked. There is no question about it that they are vitally connected. Military leaders have told us again and again that the solution to the problems of South Africa is only for 20% military against 80% social economical and political. Full citizenship is in fact a vital aspect of this. If there is—as is suggested in the Theron Commission’s report and is referred to in the White Paper on that report—any question of conscription for Coloured people, it can only be considered if there is in fact full citizenship for the Coloured people in South Africa. I want to make it clear that I do not understand what the White Paper means—perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain it to me—where it refers to “other nationals” and, under the heading “Other Nationals”, refer to the service of Coloured people. What is meant by this? In paragraph 66 of the White Paper under the heading “Other Nationals in the S.A. Army” we find the following—

Are the Coloureds “other nationals”? Surely the Coloured people are South Africans, and if the hon. the Minister wants the Coloureds to defend South Africa, they must be South African citizens with full citizenship rights.

The next submission I should like to make, is that it is quite clear—the White Paper shows it and nobody argues with that principle—that the Defence Force needs to be enlarged. I believe it is bad for our foreign policy and that it is bad for our position in Africa that the Defence Force should present a White image. In a war situation in South Africa the war should not be between Whites and Blacks. If it has to take place, it should be a war between South Africa and the people who seek to attack it. South Africa should have its Army, its Navy, its Air Force—all of its Forces—representative of White, of Brown and of Black South Africans. It should not have a White image. The White manpower situation is such that I believe that the defence of South Africa cannot be—as it was described by a Navy man—just a young White man’s burden. It cannot be.

In regard to the type of South Africa and the type of warfare that South Africa has to meet, it is highly desirable to have a larger Army, a larger Air Force and a larger Navy, but, above all, it is desirable to have a truly South African Defence Force and an image to the outside world that it is a truly South African Defence Force. I also believe that there is an urgent need for a larger Permanent Force, not merely as a means of training other people, and not merely performing functions of leadership and administration, but there should be complete fighting units in all three services on a permanent basis and as part of the Permanent Force.

Before I sit down I should like to mention a couple of vital statistics in this regard. The total South African population, as estimated in 1976, was 26 million including the Transkei and 24 million without it. The Whites were 4,32 million of whom 2,5 million were males. The economically active Whites were only 1,79 million, and of the White males approximately 1,15 million were under 18 or over 45 years of age. This leaves approximately 1 million male Whites between the ages of 18 and 45 suitable for military services. If we only take the age group between the years 18 and 35, the figure is reduced to approximately 0,75 million. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I found it rather strange that the hon. member for Yeoville wants to relate national political matters to the Defence Vote. There is ample opportunity to discuss these issues he has brought forward in other debates. One would have thought that he would have spent his time rather on discussing the Vote. The hon. member made certain suggestions about bringing in Coloureds, Indians and Blacks into the Defence Force, but he knows full well that steps with this in view are in the process of being implemented. Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are being recruited into the Defence Force on a very much larger scale than was the case in the past. The hon. member knows it full well, because he saw them in action. We have a Coloured battalion and also Black people fighting on our borders. [Interjections.] I leave the hon. member at that.

I just want to come back briefly to a remark made by the hon. member for Durban Point. When he referred to FRED, the computer, he said that the Army persisted in feeding FRED, but that it just was not working. I find an amazing similarity between the hon. member and FRED, because from the appearance of the hon. member it would seem that he is also persistently being fed without being induced to work. [Interjections.]

When you want to make jokes, you must put up a sign so people will laugh.

In studying the White Paper one finds, inter alia, aspects which come to the fore very strongly. The first of these is that the Marxist oriented offensive against South Africa is increasing in intensity and scope at all levels, namely militarily, diplomatically, intellectually, economically, etc. If any doubt remains about this the White Paper has, once again, removed it and has emphasized the fact that we actually find ourselves in a total war. It is, admittedly, at the moment a war that is being waged at a low intensity but it is nevertheless a war that is escalating daily.

The emphasis the White Paper places on the implementation of a national strategy is of the greatest importance. In order to implement this strategy with maximum efficiency and effectivity it is imperative that we should at all times take note of the fact that this offensive is, in the first instance, Marxist oriented and, in the second instance, that it is Marxist inspired and is waged in a stereotyped, identifiable and practically predictable form. This pattern which contains general strategic elements is, however, specifically designed for Africa as a result of academic research which has already been done by the Africa Institute in Moscow since 1959. This research is specifically aimed at the collation and evaluation of information and its compatibility with the needs of the masses of Africa in order to formulate Marxist/Leninist solutions which will be acceptable to Africa. This technique was refined and applied initially by Solodovnikov who has been Director of the Africa Institute since 1964. He was and is still apparently, inter alia, a great advocate of the idea that so-called revolutionary democratic parties must be established which will accept Moscow’s ideological guidance and which will have contact with the masses.

Such a technique or plan of action embodies, inter alia, communist support for all socialist freedom movements, popular movements or any other anti-capitalists or resistance movement. Such a resistance movement does not necessarily have to involve a majority of the nation or community concerned as long as it is prepared to embrace the Marxist ideology and is prepared to indulge in chaos and revolution and to revolt against the existing order. In this effort it is oversupplied with Russian weaponry, advisers, and, as in the case of Angola, with troops from satellite countries. It is the same Solodovnikov who is the Russian representative in Zambia today and the same man who said as far back as 1971—

That this Russian of stature and the architect of this revolutionary strategy and idea is in Tanzania in Africa today as representative of Moscow is not only significant but certainly also ominous for South Africa and in particular for the countries of Southern Africa. According to the South African Digest of 8 April this year Podgorny had the following to say at a banquet in Maputo on his recent visit—

The reply of South Africa to this statement of Podgorny can be found in this White Paper and in this budget. If he or other groups or movements in South Africa and in South West Africa are of the opinion that their aims can be achieved by means of their plan of action of subversion, revolution and urban or other terrorism, as was manifested in South West Africa where we witnessed an atrocious deed a day or two ago, probably by Swapo, he will discover for the second time that he has to contend with a formidable, motivated and dedicated South African Defence Force which is prepared to fight fiercely and to the end for those things that have come into being over the years with great difficulty and sacrifice.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cradock will forgive me if I do not react to his speech other than to say that we in the UP note his comments and assure him that we are not oblivious to the strategy of the communists, either Russian or Chinese, on the continent of Africa. We are aware of it, we are conscious of it and we in this party are dedicated to doing everything in our power to ensure that communism will never have a foothold in South Africa.

I think that it is right and fair that credit should always be given where credit is due, and I therefore believe that the hon. the Minister is to be commended on his choice of a quotation at the head of his preface to the White Paper. I quote—

I should like to repeat that in Afrikaans because I think it is important—

There is no shadow of doubt in my mind that this is completely true and must stand unchallenged. However, I do feel that, as in all other fields of life, there must be a two-way traffic. There has to be a giving as well as a receiving. In this sense I therefore think it must be recognized that we can only expect from our youth returns for the investment we are prepared to make in it. Youth looks, at all times, to us for guidance and it naturally follows that if we fail them, we cannot expect the strenuous efforts that will ensure that our people will not be forgotten in history. I make these comments because I feel that I should once again like to discuss with the hon. the Minister the problems of our young men who go into the Defence Force. I am talking about the young men who go into the Defence Force prior to embarking upon a university career, as well as those who undertake their national service upon completion of their studies at university and the attainment of their degrees. Let me deal with the former. I think we need to examine paragraph 4 of the booklet Your National Service Explained. I should like to quote—

I have no argument with the contents of this paragraph. I think it would be churlish in the extreme to complain about the fact that the national serviceman must expect that there will be periods of inactivity and even boredom. This is something he has to expect. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not feel that there is a very strong possibility that insufficient attention is being paid to the fact that the minds of these young men should be put to work more profitably during these periods of inactivity. Has the possibility been explored of grouping these young men into classes which could then be addressed by lecturers, albeit it on an introductory basis, and by experts in the fields and directions in which these youngsters feel their careers should run.

I know there is the problem of instructors and lecturers, but I am sure these people can be found. As the saying goes: “Ons moet maar ’n plan maak.” The following is the type of lecture I visualize: Accountancy or commercial law for those lads who have indicated that they wish to take a Bachelor of Commerce degree once they have finished their national service; mathematics and its allied subjects for the budding engineer; the theoretical side of physical science and chemistry—the practical side can obviously not be handled at this level—for the youngster who is considering a medical or dental degree. So we could go on. I am not suggesting that these courses should stand as credits towards degrees. I am not suggesting that by any means. However, I feel that even though they may be curtailed due to the calls made upon these youngsters, these courses will serve to occupy the young people more fully and will also give them a clear idea of what they may expect in the lecture theatre at the university of their choice when they enrol there. I know the hon. the Minister will agree with me that boredom and inactivity, particularly in the case of the youth, can be dangerous and wasteful. I would ask him to give serious consideration to investigating my proposals and, if possible, to their implementation.

I now wish to move on to the postgraduate. In this regard I wish to turn to paragraph 52 of the booklet Your National Service Explained. The paragraph is headed: “Who will be employed in a professional capacity?” Let me read the paragraph—

Then the various degrees are listed, viz. architecture, engineering, land surveying, medicine, dentistry, etc. There is unfortunately a difference of emphasis placed on this paragraph in the Afrikaans translation. In order to illustrate it, I think I should read the Afrikaans version—

As I read it, it would appear from the English translation that there are two distinct possibilities: one may be appointed as an officer; and one may serve in one’s professional capacity. In other words, one may serve in one’s professional capacity either as an officer or as a private. Alternatively—and this is what disturbs me—one may not serve in one’s professional capacity at all. The Afrikaans version states that one may become an officer in order to serve in one’s professional capacity. Again the “may” is there. Again, it is possible that one may not serve in one’s professional capacity. There is, however, the difference of emphasis to which I have referred. I submit that neither is entirely satisfactory. I feel that the qualified architect, engineer, surveyor, doctor or dentist should be used in the capacity for which he has been trained at university. If this is not done, I believe the defence force is guilty of a misuse of manpower. I am sorry to have to say that I have received complaints from organizations which, having granted student bursaries, have found that students, who on the completion of their military training still have an obligation to them in terms of their bursaries—this is normal in the case of a bursary student—were during their period of national service given jobs which were completely divorced from their qualifications.

I say that this must and, in fact, does happen in isolated cases. I am not for one minute suggesting that this is the norm, but it nonetheless does happen. I raise the issue here today in order that I can again appeal to the hon. the Minister to make every effort to ensure that circumstances such as I have outlined can never occur, because of the enormous wastage of qualified manpower.

I have said before that I feel that portion of the time spent by the young doctor or pharmacist or engineer who is employed in a military hospital or a military dispensary or in the field of engineering, should be credited to them in respect of the requirements of post-graduate practical work that is demanded of them in order that they may become fully qualified professions. The doctor has to do a certain period of housemanship. A portion of his period of employ in the military hospital should be credited towards his housemanship. A period of service in the field of engineering in the Army should be credited towards a professional engineer’s certificate which requires three years post-graduate work. This is the least we can do for these men. The hon. the Minister has indicated his support for this line of thought. I should like to inquire as to whether or not there has been any advancement in respect thereof. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga spelt out certain particular problems here and I am sure he does not expect me to reply to them. He will therefore pardon me if I proceed with my own story. It is necessary for the Defence Budget to be seen in the right perspective. Very often the purpose of Government spending is not exclusively economic although every form of Government spending also has an economic effect. Thus the purpose of spending an amount of R1 654 million on the defence of the Republic of South Africa is not an economic one but it does in fact have a most important economic effect. I should like to refer to the positive economic effect of it. When the Government spends money, it is mainly with two goals in mind: Firstly to protect the nation and the specific way of life of such nation against attacks from outside or destruction from within and, secondly, to improve continually the way of life of the nation or community.

That is the basis of our democratic capitalist system. The State is there for the nation and not the nation for the State. It is senseless to try to improve the nation’s way of life when the nation is not also offered security and safety. The whole budget would be futile if it did not also contain an element which provides for the security of the nation. The percentage of national revenue or of the national budget to be spent on the defence of the country remains an open question. One can argue about that. The true patriot, the Nationalist, will naturally be inclined to spend more on the security of his country and his particular way of life. Those who are less patriotic will on the other hand be inclined to spend less. The spending of this large amount constitutes a considerable percentage of our total budget, although it is a smaller percentage than that of last year. However, I do not believe any member will honestly say that it is in fact too much.

Before I proceed, allow me to compliment the Department of Defence on the manner in which this budget with an objective has been set out. It makes the studying of it a pleasant experience.

I should now like to consider the economic importance of this budget. Firstly I want to state that national security is a prerequisite for economic progress and for foreign investment in the Republic of South Africa. It is a known fact that money seeks security, and for that reason domestic and foreign investors will not invest in a country which does not have political stability. Specifically because the economic world knows that South Africa is being threatened by communist ideology today investors will want to know certain things. They will want to know that the money they invest here is safe. They will want to know that free democratic capitalism will not be overthrown. They will want to know that their capital and assets will not be nationalized. We have to see the amount that is provided for in this budget for this Vote, as an insurance premium to that effect. It is the insurance premium we have to pay for that stability and security. We can accept the fact that the considerable amount that is now to be spent will decidedly impress domestic and foreign investors. The world now knows that the South Africans are prepared and ready to fight for the survival of their pattern of civilization together with everything connected with it, which includes the free capitalist system. We will fight for it, and the world knows it. This budget is their insurance premium for that. Security is not only of a material nature. It is also psychological. This spending also aids the strengthening and advancement of this psychological aspect.

A further important economic aspect of the defence budget is the influence it has as a stimulus to the economy. We know—the hon. member for Yeoville also mentioned it—that there is less money now that can be channelled into the normal economy. There is in fact this negative aspect. However, let us consider the positive aspect. This budget can serve as a stimulus to the economy. The fact remains that a considerable percentage of this budget will be used exclusively for domestic purposes. It must be accepted, therefore, that the defence budget will without doubt also contribute to the national product in the broadest sense of the word. When we consider the analysis of the expenditure we note, inter alia, the following aspects. I merely want to point out a few examples. In regard to staff expenditure an amount of R270 million and more is budgeted for. Besides the element of the provision of employment contained in this fact it also means that the amount will be utilized and will flow into the daily economic stream. This will happen to the advantage of a variety of categories in the private sector. Even the insurance company of Dr. Wassenaar derives benefit from the life policies it sells to officials for which they pay with money disbursed in this budget. A portion of this expenditure even flows directly back to the Receiver of Revenue in the form, of course, of income tax. The economic ramifications of this single item are much wider than is generally realized.

If for instance to note all that falls under the heading “Personnel Support”—this is Programme 7—we see that it refers, among other things, to the following: Medical Services, Religious Ministration, Social Welfare Services, Leisure Time Utilization, which includes films and reading rooms, and Sport, etc. An enormously broad field is covered and influenced by this expenditure. If we look for instance at Programme 6—“Logistic Support”, we see there that various components of the private sector are also activated to production. It is the policy of the Defence Force also to include the private sector as far as possible. This deals with provisioning, maintenance of bases, construction work, etc. The construction industry, the chemical industry, the transport industry and many others make contributions, and this is all made possible by this budget. The Defence Force’s need for armaments is enormous, and as it is our policy to manufacture as much of what we require as possible it can act as an enormous stimulus to private enterprise when certain components have to be manufactured for the Defence Force. I am of the opinion that our engineers and those in our other industries can do still more than is already being done. Every day we hear of the surplus capacity of our industries. Cannot this surplus capacity be utilized, even if it has to be done at cost? After all, the industrialist does not lose anything. The workers remain employed and the country will derive great benefit from this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I referred during the course of the debate yesterday to the fact that South African Black children had been abducted to Botswana and that they were being paid at the rate of some R20 per day by some churches. I said too that they were in fact in transit on their way to terrorist camps. I now want to bring to the Minister’s attention the role that is being played, not only in this particular case, but also in Rhodesia and in South West Africa, by some of the churches. In Rhodesia we have the situation where American and other churches are playing an undue political role. There have been prosecutions in courts of law for undermining activities and for the support of terrorists. In the case of South West Africa there are German and other churches which are also playing an undue part in political activities. We have an example in the form of what happened yesterday in the case of a mission church. The role of churches is constituting a threat to our military situation here in Southern Africa.

In America recently I heard of Mashanini, who is being financed by American churches to conduct the most virulent attack on South Africa from public platforms. It is commonly known that other churches, particularly Scandinavian churches, as well as the World Council of Churches and the British Council of Churches, are contributing funds towards terrorist organizations which are aimed at the undermining of us militarily here in Southern Africa. I want to say to the Minister that such interference by these churches cannot go unnoticed by the Minister of Defence. They constitute an undue interference in our domestic affairs. They cannot be tolerated by a nation which, like ours, is engaged in a struggle for its survival. I would say that the Minister should make his voice heard more loudly, to his colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in matters such as this.

Now, Sir, let me come to the question of what happened yesterday at Oshakati. There, according to reports, children were abducted from a mission station by Swapo terrorists. I want to ask the Minister whether our troops were authorized to guard that mission station or whether there were objections to guards being placed on such mission stations by the churches concerned. I want to say that we in these benches feel very strongly on this matter. We feel that this is probably the first occurrence of what is going to become a pattern of development in this particular sphere. I want to say that we think there should be “hot pursuit” into Angola by our military authorities to get back those children. We have a perfect right as a sovereign nation to demand that that is done. It is in accordance with recognized international law and international practice. I believe that the pattern must now be established of how South Africa will react in similar circumstances in the future. We as a country cannot tolerate interference with the sovereignty of a territory over which we have control and responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, there is bound to be an escalation of this form of terrorism in Southern Africa. I have said—and some people may call it an exaggeration—that we are in fact in a state of war in Southern Africa. I believe that. It is a war that is escalating, and those who will not face up to this fact are blinding themselves to the truth. So, what do I advocate should be done? First of all I believe that we have to develop the will to fight through a realization of our situation as a country among all our people, a realization of the need for all of us to fight for our common survival. Therefore I would suggest these things as being necessary steps. First of all the hon. the Minister should consider holding military motivation meetings in all the major cities throughout the Republic. Secondly, such meetings must be held on all the university campuses and, thirdly, among all the matriculants at the larger schools in the Republic. It obviously follows that we have to move in the direction of a larger Permanent Force. It obviously follows—the White Paper refers to it—that there has to be longer national service and the use of non-White military units.

The hon. member for Angola … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Albany yesterday advocated the establishment of Black and Coloured SSB’s. I think the hon. member for Albany made a good proposal, a proposal which should get the support of this House. Then I think attention must be given to the possibility of reintroducing compulsory cadet training at the high schools, particularly from Std. 8 to Std. 10. If the argument is that there are not sufficient instructors for this purpose, then I suggest that the hon. the Minister can find among ACF units plenty of officers who would enjoy taking part in the preparation of cadets at our high schools if they are given the opportunity.

Reference has also been made to adequate civil defence instruction. This is a sine qua non, and a Bill in this connection will shortly be introduced in the House. I want to go as far as to say that our only deterrent to those countries, which are actively seeking our downfall and destruction, is an Israeli-type Army in South Africa, an Army which is able to retaliate effectively. This Army must involve the whole nation: Black, White, Coloured and Indian, all races acting together as one nation fighting for a common survival.

I have answered this question before in reply to an interjection made by the hon. member for Houghton: How can one expect the other races of South Africa willingly to take part in the form of preparedness I have suggested? If one purposely tries to involve the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black people in a common struggle for survival and one motivates them properly, there will be no dearth of volunteers. I am one of those who believe that there is far less racial tension in South Africa than is ever suggested by the newspaper. I believe there is far more racial goodwill in South Africa. It has to be harnessed, and with proper motivation of the kind I talked about this afternoon, one will get a response from the non-White people. First of all, one has to start—this is so important—with a better motivation among the White people in South Africa, because from what I have seen in some of the cities of South Africa, there is not only a resistance to military training, there is not only a reluctance to take part in it, but there is also no enthusiasm for it. This permeates through to the universities and the high schools. Therefore the hon. the Minister must first of all give attention to the motivation—in the way I have suggested—of the people of the cities and thereafter purposely to motivate the non-White people so that there will be a realization of what we all stand to lose if communist influence and power permeates into our country.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with the attitude of the hon. member for Simonstown, particularly when he said that we were dealing with a universal enemy and that the enemy for the purposes of this debate was not the Government or the NP but the enemy beyond our borders, and that that enemy compelled us to united action. This is an original and positive attitude that will prove itself in practice in the near future. When dealing with defence, one has to realize for oneself against whom one has to defend oneself and, with what, when and how one has to do it. Since the turn of the century we have been involved in a human drama, and the opening scenes were played in Europe in the ’twenties when people were herded together like cattle in their thousands and destroyed, some of them because they had on a decent suit of clothes. Altogether more than 100 million people in the civilized West have already been destroyed and murdered. This all took place under the false pretences of those who have disguised their ultimate goal and have succeeded in separating Eastern and Western Europe by means of expressions such as détente, friendly co-existence and peace. They were the cause of the old alliance being discarded and of America’s becoming estranged from Europe. Their main aim was to weaken and to undermine. The devil has been active under the warm blanket of false slogans and the scene has in the meantime shifted to the Continent of Africa. And while we hear the guns booming in the bush, we also hear rumblings in our social community lifes, in our political life and in our religious life. Hangers-on scream for immediate change, for an immediate sharing of power and frustration without taking into account that they are moving in the same direction as our enemies and also imitating them.

At one stage, during a conference of the University Christian Movement services were held where a liturgy entitled “Virgins verging on discovery” was used. This is one of the other sounds that are heard against the background of the cannon’s roar. It creates an image of exaggerated and raw sexuality and of eroticism mixed with blasphemy—all this in a church building on the soil of our beloved country. This was followed by a speech, another sound effect, by Mathew Masekela, who said, inter alia, the following—

These are the noises we hear together with the others which say that communism is a phantom and the enemy is the NP and not this demoniac ideology. This “opium” has succeeded in blunting and undermining the sensitivity of the civilized mind. A certain Mr. Curtis says the following—

That is race hatred and class struggle. First come race differences, then class differences and then peaceful revolution. The chief actor in the scene for the violent overthrow of nations is the “bear” with its symbol of the curved sickle, which represents the bent truth, the symbol of the lie. This is our common foe. Whether we like it or not, and whether we want to make political capital out of it or not, this is the enemy who will compel us to act in unity against him. It has never been a question of a political policy, not in Europe at the time of the opening scenes of this drama and even less in Africa. In UNO they vote for a majority government and for democracy, but in Angola and Maputo those same people help a minority government to remain in power by force—those people: The peacemakers, the seekers after peace, the protagonists of friendly association! The modern world, however, has so little ability to differentiate that it can no longer recognize this duplicity, this double-talk, this application of double standards. On the contrary. It swallows this hook, line and sinker!

The message that goes out from this side of the House to the young people who are interested in the defence of their fatherland is this: You are going to get this call and must fulfil this high vocation in the spirit of the tradition that our nation has been subjected to force of arms altogether four times in this country. When there was no fatherland to which we could any longer withdraw, our nation remained here with the sacred will to be itself and to stay. With a donkey and a milch cow pulling a wooden plough the first furrow was turned, and half a bucket of mealies was planted. Our nation has not accused communism of oppression because it has suffered; it accepted this as the Will of the Almighty, and to a man it mobilized its forces and arose. This took it half a century, but it triumphed and triumphed most honourably.

And so we stand here today to carry this message further. Young people of South Africa, you not only have a proud tradition but also an exceptionally high calling. Know this then: This “religion” that is preached today has no god. Earlier in our history it was said by a Milner: “This nation shall not survive; I shall destroy its language.”; to which a Paul Kruger replied: “I tell you God says that nation will survive.” When he was asked who would triumph, Paul Kruger replied: “Most certainly the Lord.”

In this spirit we shall approach the enemy and confront him. Like David we shall not engage in détente with him for too long but with our three stones we shall take the field against him—with this difference: We shall use those three stones at the right time and to good effect.

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. member to forgive me if I return to the manpower situation, about which I was speaking when I spoke previously. I indicated that if one takes the age group between 18 and 35, one finds that we have approximately three quarters of a million young people available for military service. This figure, of course, does not take into account those who are unfit for military service or those who are in key positions or are otherwise exempt from military service. So if we look at this quite realistically it seems, depending on what the strength of the Defence Force should be, that approximately one out of every three young people between the age of 18 and 35 will be involved in the Defence Force in one form or another.

These figures, I think, illustrate that the total White male population available in absolute terms is very small indeed and is a very small percentage of the White population as a whole. Secondly, as a percentage of the total population the percentage is even smaller. It is therefore quite clear that the burden of a total war and the burden of a total war strategy, as reflected in the White Paper, would be a very considerable one indeed for such numbers of our White youth to have to bear in South Africa. We must also bear in mind that we have to consider the effect of delaying the training of young men before they can become economically active. We must consider what the long-term effect of this would be on our economy. We also have to take into account what the effect on the economy is of a call-up system for both the citizen force and the commandos.

The aspects I have mentioned lead up to the fact that I want to make a case today, a very strong case, for a larger permanent force, a much larger permanent force than is contemplated in terms of the White Paper. The White Paper itself calls for an increase in the size of the permanent force. The White Paper also quite clearly demonstrates that the citizen force is pro rata at the moment carrying a much greater burden than is actually desirable or was ever contemplated. Whereas the White Paper states that the desired percentage of the citizen force content of the Defence Force should be 34,8%, the actual content is 54,9%. The content of every other component of the Defence Force is, in fact, lower than desired. The White Paper puts forward two aspects of policy with which, I respectfully want to submit to the hon. the Minister, we do not agree. Firstly it is stated that the striking power is based on a part-time force with a strong permanent force nucleus to provide the specialist leadership. Secondly it is believed that the permanent force is basically there to provide leadership, training and administration. My submission to the hon. the Minister is that there should be more complete permanent force fighting units, particularly in the army. I ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to that aspect. We believe that the major striking force of the Defence Force should be a full-time force supplemented by the part-time force and not, as the White Paper stakes, a part-time force supplemented by the full-time force. We believe that such a full-time force, particularly in the army, should have a much larger component of Black, Coloured and Indian soldiers. The army should have part of its permanent force structure as fully self-contained, highly mobile brigades, fighting troops and not merely administrative and leadership components, as described in the White Paper. We believe that the necessary volunteers can be recruited. We believe they can be recruited from all the races in South Africa We also submit I think the figures will bear our submission out—that the cost of maintaining such a Permanent Force would be cheaper in terms of the costs the economy as a whole, including the disruptive effect on it of the type of system we have. We believe that a large Permanent Force recruited in this manner is in the long run cheaper as well as being more efficient and more effective. It would result in economically active White males who presently, as I have indicated, carry the entire burden, being called upon to a lesser extent We believe it would create greater efficiency and less wastage. Furthermore, if our suggestion in respect of an all-race content is accepted, it will produce for Africa a South African image and not a White image. We would thus be able to get away from the concept of the race war which is being foisted upon South Africa.

Sir, I wonder if I may also refer to one other aspect of the White Paper. South Africans may differ politically, but I think that all responsible citizens—we include ourselves in that—are committed to peaceful and constitutional processes. We oppose violence and condemn terrorism. We believe that South Africans must solve their own problems without external solutions being forced upon us. The White Paper speaks of factors which influence the country’s national aims and strategies. If one looks at paragraphs 20 and 21 of the White Paper, one will see the national aims and objectives set out there. Whereas one may differ in semantic details on this—some people may even differ with us in other respects—I do not believe that there is much difference of opinion in South Africa in regard to the substance of the national aims and objectives as set out in the White Paper.

However, included in the same concept of strategy, there is an item referred to as “national policies”. I want to say here and now that, in so far as South Africans are concerned, they do not fight for the Government. They do not fight for the NP. With respect, Sir, they do not fight for some of the emotional matters which the hon. member who preceded me spoke about. They fight for South Africa, but they do not fight for the policies of the NP.

But who suggested that?

Why do you not join the Army and go and fight?

I want the hon. the Minister to explain to us what is intended by paragraph 22, National Policies. There can be no question of a military strategy being designed to deal with, for instance, furthering Coloured and Indian interests by the creation of their own governmental bodies. One is not asking people to fight for that One is asking people to fight for South Africa. I cannot understand why party-political aspects must be introduced into this White Paper, thus relating those issues to the question of why people are in the S.A. Army. Politics has nothing to do with the Army. There must be people in the Army of every political persuasion.

Why do you not join the Salvation Army?

I cannot understand why it has to be stated in the White Paper that—

Then, Sir, NP policies are listed. Sir, to my mind that is not in the interests of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or any of the forces. Nor is it in the interests of the country as a whole because the average South African, the ordinary South African and every South African serves in the Defence Force for the sake of the national aims and national objectives of the country objectively stated.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, which hon. member on this side of the House has ever said that the people of South Africa should fight for the policy of the National Party. Sometimes that hon. member can, as the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, be “Harry the patriot”, but on other occasions he is “Harry the Prog”. He attacked the Government for using the White Paper to promote the policy of the National Party. The National Party government has been in office for almost 30 years and implements its policy for the establishment of peace and order. But what does this hon. member want to do? What does he and his small party advocate? They want the National Government to implement Prog politics in the Defence Force by swamping the Defence Force with non-Whites. This is what he pleaded for. I wish to state very clearly that we all agree in respect of one point, viz. that South Africa and the people who are fighting for South Africa, do so for the sake of South Africa and not for the sake of a few panicky Progressives who think more of their financial interests in South Africa than anything else.

I wish to refer to the White Paper and to the hon. member’s discussion of the manpower and his plea for a larger Defence Force. Where is South Africa to find the sort of Defence Force for which he pleaded, unless eventually provision is only made for a speckled White elite officers’ corps and the rest consisting almost entirely of non-Whites. The White Paper states how the Defence Force must be enlarged and how the shortage of manpower must be made up. Paragraph 49 reads, inter alia, as follows—

1. (a) Expanding the Permanent Force by the creation of additional posts, along with the stabilization of employment retention by means of an incentive scheme.
2. (b) Extending the initial compulsory term for White male citizens from 12 to 24 months.

Our military leaders, our military experts, tell us that in this way we will be able to meet our immediate needs. I do not think we have to take further notice of the “big solutions” which the hon. member offered, to bring into being a Permanent Force which is completely out of South Africa’s reach, as far as both manpower and costs are concerned.

I wish to associate myself with what other speakers said earlier today about the Honoris Crux medal parade, which it was also my privilege to attend. Of all the military parades I have attended—and I have attended quite a few—it was one of the most thrilling and the most moving. And what was most in evidence at that parade? It was the representative nature of that parade. It was representative in that this highest military decoration of South Africa was awarded to men who are still alive, but also to men who have already laid their lives on the altar of the fatherland. Not all the men who are still alive could be present, because some have not yet physically recovered to such an extent that they could be present. That parade was representative in respect of all the components of the Defence Force which carried out active military service for South Africa during the preceding period. It was also representative in the sense that Afrikaans as well as English speaking people received those medals. I also believe, as I have said, that all the components were present. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that men who are courageous for their fatherland, cannot be paid, but that through that medal, South Africa told them: Thank you for being courageous for South Africa’s sake.

One of the most important components of the whole setup of our Defence Force is the non-professional component, i.e. the members of the civil defence, the commandos and the national servicemen. In the few moments still at my disposal, I wish to concentrate on the national servicemen. To me, national service is that duty which is lawfully imposed on every citizen of South Africa to do his part to defend his fatherland against any military onslaught. To date, I believe, we in South Africa have not really concerned ourselves overmuch with the question as to where the order, the peace, the security, the stability, the progress and the welfare, as well as the prosperity arising from that, comes from. We have virtually accepted it as a matter of course in the South African setup and also left it to the Government and to the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Police to see to this.

I can say, without fear of contradiction, that our tranquillity, our peace and our order, our stability and our prosperity, our free economy, our political and territorial integrity, is only attributable to our military striking power, and this is the only thing which has deterred would-be aggressors from an attempt to attack South Africa. I want to ask that we should adopt the right attitude in motivating our national servicemen. It is of vital importance for South Africa and for our military preparedness that our national servicemen must be motivated to do their national service in a positive manner. There are people—we know about them—who, in a calculating manner, are bent on undermining our national servicemen’s will and their attitude with regard to their service. We believe that they should be dealt with in the same manner as saboteurs and traitors are dealt with. There are also those who unconsciously participate in the undermining of the morale of our young national servicemen. As an example of that I wish to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville. He spoke here of the “the young White man’s burden”. That sort of language undermines the attitude of our young men with regard to their national service. The hon. member for Yeoville is apparently not present at the moment. However, I wish to make the statement that he heard those words as an illustration of the manner in which the morale of our young servicemen is being undermined. My total impression is that the attitude of our people with regard to national service is extremely positive in 99% of the cases. However, I believe that especially our teachers, the family circle of our young people, our journalists and our clergy—those who influence the outlook on life and the attitude of our young people—must also concentrate on preparing our young people in a positive manner for their national service which they must do.

In this regard I wish to state that South Africa has been built inter alia by people who moved here for the sake of religious freedom. In this country religious freedom is recognized and a high premium is placed on it. A person’s freedom to practise his religion, does not mean the right to undermine the military preparedness of his country in practising his religion. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. He will understand that every minute in this Defence Vote is worth R2 million, and I have already spent R100 000 of my time.

Mr. Chairman, before I refer to the Vote, I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a matter I raised on this Vote last year. I refer to the accident that occurred in north-eastern Natal in which twelve national servicemen were injured and one was killed. I wonder if he could enlighten the House as to whether the commission of inquiry has completed its findings, and, if so, whether the mother of the deceased serviceman has been notified of the findings.

I want to refer to three aspects of this Vote, namely general training, personnel support and logistic support. Firstly, under general training, it is heartening to see that there is an increase of some R7,3 million for the training of non-Whites. We welcome this increase. It is nice to know that the Black leaders in this country have given their support in the fight against communism and will encourage their people in the defence of this land. I think the Black people will make very doughty warriors, if it is the intention of the Minister to incorporate them in combat units, which I hope it is. They certainly have a very fine military tradition, as our forefathers found out. I think that despite the injustices and inequalities in which they live in this system, they are still better off materially in South Africa than anywhere else on the continent. They are, nevertheless, vulnerable in the rural areas and in the townships and we feel that they must be trained and equipped to oppose the sort of insidious methods that terrorists employ in attacking unprotected subjects. We saw this sort of thing happening in Owambo just yesterday. What we want to know from the hon. the Minister is just how he intends to spend this increase and how he intends to incorporate the Blacks into the defence of South Africa.

I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister two considerations in this regard. The first is that we would like to feel that urban Blacks were being involved in the civil defence programmes, which are working very well in the case of the Whites in the cities. We feel that not only White citizens, but Black citizens as well, should be given the maximum preparation in dealing with emergencies. Part and parcel of this preparedness is to create an awareness in the public mind of the issues that are involved. In this connection I want to refer to a booklet published in Rhodesia. I think it is an excellent one. It shows the terrible atrocities that are perpetrated by terrorists. I think people must be made aware of that sort of thing and I think that the Minister should use the Press to assist him in this campaign. It is important not only to be briefed in first aid and fire fighting; people must also be briefed with counter-insurgency material. In addition, as a part of this awareness campaign, I would like to see the military participate in many of the parades that we have in the towns and cities of South Africa. I would like to see the Cape Town Highlanders, the Natal Carbineers or the Transvaal Scottish marching through the streets as well as civilians and commando units. Let us put onto public display what we do have, and let us also have a look at our weaponry. The second matter I would like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention with regard to the incorporation of Blacks, is the formation of small, highly trained and integrated bushfighting groups. I am thinking of something more than the Rhodesian Selous Scouts, which are combat patrols. I am thinking of small groups that are self-sufficient, which control a locality and which have contact with the indigenous people in the area. Such groups can build up a sense of security and can get a feedback of information. This could prevent the sort of surprise attack we had in Owambo yesterday. I must emphasize, however, that none of these moves will have any permanency with our Black population if their legitimate grievances which stem from Government policy are not met.

The second matter in the Vote I would like to refer to is the question of personnel support. I notice that there has been a cut of some R½ million in the expenditure on sport and leisure time utilization. I was fortunate to be a member of the Parliamentary cricket team that visited the border area last year. We noticed there that there was a general concern for leisure time utilization amongst the troops. We were very impressed with the efficiency and the morale of the troops there. I certainly developed a very high regard for our top men, the generals and other officers there, in the operational area. But, Sir, we were also aware that there was a shortage of small things, like a dart-board for chaps to put up in a tent, cards, or volley-ball equipment. I am not talking of big organized sports now. I should like to know whether this cutback is going to be made good through the Southern Cross Fund or through the South African Defence Force Fund, so that this sort of equipment, which is essential, can be provided.

Finally, Sir, I want to refer to the question of logistic support. The matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is the operation of Armscor. If one looks at this budget, one sees that the single largest slab of expenditure was the investment by the Government of some R46 million in Armscor shares. I query the wisdom of such massive investment. The simple fact is that South Africa, because of the Government’s political philosophy, is forced to manufacture its own armaments at a cost far in excess of prices on world markets. I should like to pose two questions to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I should like to know whether our armaments technology is advancing at the same rate as that of overseas weapon manufacturers. Secondly, I should like to know whether our economy can survive against political unacceptability. I think that the answer to both these questions will be negative. I suggest that Armscor should rather concentrate on productive runs of Government combative weaponry and that they should withdraw from competition with the private sector.

I want to refer to some of the criticism that has been prevalent. It is heard in every quarter. One hears it from licensed arms dealers, from hunting clubs, from Bisley shottists. The criticism is mainly directed at Musgrave, which used to be Nimrod. I want to refer to the Arms Dealers’ Newsletter. The first criticism I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention is as a result of the Government’s interference in the private sector. I quote from the December 1976 edition—

Then there is the difficulty with supply. They feel that Musgrave cannot supply the ammunition and the small arms requirements. They also say—

The third criticism I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, is the question of prices. The prices of the monopolized goods of Musgrave are far higher than in the case of imports. I have a price list here. I do not know if I will have the time to go through it. Shotgun cartridges cost R17,50 per hundred when locally produced, but when imported, R9. The list mentions other cases, but I do not want to bore the House with them. I shall give it to the hon. the Minister if he wants it. There is almost 100% difference between the prices of the locally made goods and the imported goods. To add insult to injury, the hunting season opened on 31 May last year and the very next day, on 1 June, the prices of most ammunition went up by something like 100%. This has caused a tremendous amount of disturbance in the commercial and private sector. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down will have to forgive me if I only deal with his questions at a later stage. Some of the matters he raised could form quite an interesting aspect of the debate. I shall come back to them later. If I do not do so today, I shall come back to them tomorrow. Some of the matters which he raised here, however, have been publicly dealt with over and over again through statements made by Armscor and by myself. It surprises me that the hon. member should raise them again. They have been publicly dealt with in this House and through statements. I do not know what else one can do about them. I shall discuss Armscor in greater detail at a later stage.

I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. members today for the level on which the debate has been conducted. I have been sitting here, witnessing the peaceful atmosphere. It made me think that if the Defence Force can succeed in securing the same peace and quiet for South Africa, it will have realized a great ideal. Without having spelt it out, the debate conducted here today has really been a very good testimonial for the S.A. Defence Force, because all the criticisms expressed here have been of a trifling nature. I consider this to be a motion of confidence in the Staff Council of the S.A. Defence Force and I thank hon. members for the measure of confidence which they repose in our armed forces. Our armed forces deserve it. Of course, the hon. member for Durban Point could not omit to draw a small distinction between me and the staff of the Defence Force. He has every right to do so. Listening to this hon. member, one would say that the staff have somehow fallen from the air. It is the result of the labour of years that we now have good men at the head of the Defence Force.

I should like to approach the debate from a different angle. During the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill and during the discussion on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, we kept hearing the refrain of how dependent South Africa is supposed to be on the West. I do not want to underestimate this dependence for one moment. But what I really want to discuss today is the idea that if the West is important to South Africa, it is equally true that South Africa is very important to the West. This note has not been sounded often enough from this Parliament. The Marxist threat against the RSA is not only an onslaught on South Africa, but part of a global world strategy against the West. South Africa is no unimportant link in this scheme. In the second place, it is also a fact that the attention of the West has hitherto been largely occupied by the attempts to develop a strategy for the northern hemisphere and for the Middle East. I want to allege that the West has failed, because of its internal disunity and because of its obsession with the policy of détente, to design a proper strategy—a global one, in the first place, and, in the second place, a strategy for the southern hemisphere—to counteract the Russian/Marxist strategy. Unless the West can be convinced of the fact that its strategy for the southern hemisphere is just as important as its strategy for the northern hemisphere and for the Middle East, and unless it can be convinced of the fact that it has to develop a global strategy and that the global strategy has to be pursued from a position of strength, the West will be defeated step by step. I have good reason for what I am saying. A very important document was published in America last year, i.e. The New Strategic Map. This document was prepared for the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. I quote the following paragraph from it—

This is the considered conclusion to which this important study group came. They go on to say—

I allege that there has hitherto been a deplorable neglect of this matter on the part of the Western world.

I want to quote a second authority, also from America. I am referring to the editor of the publication called Strategic Review, who wrote as follows on the subject of Western shortcomings in the winter edition of 1977—

The editor of this publication says that these statements were made by one of the advisers to the American President. The editor is Maj.-Gen. Robert N. Ginsberg, quite a well-known military figure. Listen to what he has to say—

I want to associate myself with this very refreshing idea expressed by an authority who says to the West: “Are you not seeking peace at any cost? Are you not seeking peace by running away from the fundamental principles according to which mankind has evolved through the centuries?” Until the West accepts this, it cannot take the right view of South Africa’s position and it cannot take the right view of the position of the States in the southern hemisphere and it must necessarily fail to design a proper strategy for the southern hemisphere which will fit into a global strategy to oppose the global strategy which Russia is implementing. I say that the West has neglected this matter.

However, this does not detract in any way from the fact that in the meanwhile, South Africa remains very important to the West, as explained in The New Strategic Map. I should like to add a few things to that. I should like to add our ability today to produce food to the value of approximately R2 000 million a year. I should like to add our railway network of 22 000 km, our growing industrial output worth approximately R6 000 million a year, our 46 civilian airports with their tarred runways, our six modern air force bases with workshops, our mineral wealth—as set out in an appendix to the White Paper—and our munition factories, to which some members seem to object. All these things make us important to the West, in the language of The New Strategic Map, and I think it is time we said to the West with one voice: “You keep telling us how important you are to us, but we want to tell you how important we are to you for a change!” Surely it is a fact that as long as the West remains as dependant on oil, for example, as it is at the moment, its supplies can be cut off on the sea route around the Cape. Surely this is true. Why do we have an inferiority complex and why do we keep shouting in this Parliament that the West is important to us, without saying anything to them? I dealt with this matter in the preface to the White Paper. I did justice to South Africa’s total contribution to the past endeavours of the West. I made no distinction in that connection. However, it is time the West was told bluntly, in black and white, that South Africa has never let down the West, but that the West has let us down on number of occasions. I may mention two examples. The first occasion was when the late Gen. Smuts approached the victors after the Second World War to negotiate a final agreement about South West. They let him down, and he came back an embittered, disappointed man. The second occasion was last year in Angola, when South Africa was prepared to pull the chestnuts out of the fire on behalf of the West, but was let down at the most critical moment. However, I am blamed, by hon. members opposite, amongst others, for allegedly having withheld certain facts from this House. Nothing came to light in the Moss articles which I had not said myself in an abbreviated form, in the statements made during December 1975 and in my speech made in this House in 1976. Hon. members can go and re-read them. Moss only spelt things out more clearly. But I had already given the information in a condensed form. I had said that South Africa had rendered a good account of itself in Angola. However, there were members in this House who would not believe me.

They would only believe it when they heard it from Moss.

Yes, they would only believe it when they heard it from Moss, because they were full of moss. [Interjections.] In the absence of a proper Western strategy, it is possible for Russia or for a Russian-sponsored power—I emphasize “for Russia or for a Russian-sponsored power”—to obtain sea and land bases on this continent, bases from which an attack can be made, not only on Southern Africa, but on the Republic of South Africa as well. These are the hard realities we have to bear in mind. In the second place, while this strategy is being deployed, there is a second facet we have to bear in mind—and this, in part, is my reply to those hon. members who want us to keep our young men occupied. We are engaged in a low-intensity war. What is that war doing to us? In the first place, it is putting our patience to the test, and in the second place, it is putting our endurance to the test, not only physically, but in every field. It is also putting to the test our economic potential and the perseverance and will to fight of our security forces. It is making an onslaught on these things by means of subversion and insurgence.

We are being subjected to a total strategy—this is discussed in the White Paper—in which an onslaught is being made on us in the field of propaganda as well. Here I need only refer to what was written by a man such as Brian Crozier in Conflict Studies. I do not think anyone will deny me the right to quote an authority of this stature. In Conflict Studies of October 1976 he dealt with the propaganda slogan of “Change” which is being heard all over the world. I would be the last to suggest that there is nothing that can be changed. On the contrary, life as a whole is a process of progress, adjustment and progressive improvement.

Be careful!

No, in referring to “progressive improvement” I am not speaking of people who exploit this word for their own selfish ends. As I have said, I would be the last to suggest that there should not be any progress. However, the parrot cry of “Change” is resounding throughout the world, at Marxist instigation. This is discussed by Brian Crozier, and I suggest that hon. members consult his article “The war called Peace” on this subject. In that article he writes as follows—

He makes a penetrating analysis of this and he points out how the West has to a large extent become a slave to this kind of propaganda from Marxist circles. Surely this is true.

A prominent foreign statesman told me a few months ago: “The trouble with Europe is that it loves the soft music from Moscow.” This is the problem we have to contend with today. In the light of this I want to quote another authority to prove that my standpoint is correct. I want to quote from a lecture given recently by Dr. Otto von Habsburg. He is an authority on the subject of strategy and he is probably one of the world’s foremost experts today. In this lecture, which he gave recently in Europe, he said—

I can tell hon. members that in the Defence Force, the standpoints of this person are one of the prescribed works that have to be studied today to find out what our enemies have in mind for us. He summarized these things in 13 assignments to be undertaken in order to destroy one’s enemy, and now I want to read them to hon. members and then to ask whether they do not recognize some of them. The 13 assignments read as follows—

Some of these things I see as examples, and quite a number of them have been observed in the Western world. The last two assignments are—

Have you not …

I do not know why the hon. member is taking offence at this. I was not referring to him; I was referring to a person who lived 2 500 years ago. [Interjections.] Dr. Van Habsburg also says—

I had thought that on this at least, that talkative hon. member at the back and I could have found ourselves in agreement. But apparently he is so far gone that even this does not concern him any more.

A further statement I want to make is that, in accordance with the standpoint of the Government, those in command of the Defence Force consistently try to guard against these phenomena of our times. The extent to which the Western world has woken up to the reality of Southern Africa and Africa is, I believe, largely due to the sacrifices made by South Africa in Angola and to present events in Zaire, which serve to confirm those in Angola. Therefore the time has come for this House to speak, not in isolated voices, but with strong voices, telling the West with one accord: You say that you are important to us; we recognize that, but we are important to you as well, and you must begin to realize this.

This brings me to another matter. The hon. member for Yeoville made a legitimate plea here today for a new approach to the Defence Force, for a better Permanent Force and for the use of more members of other population groups in the Defence Force. However, I want to ask the hon. member, with all due respect—I am not asking this to pick a quarrel with him—how I am to understand him when, during the discussion on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, his leader suggested exactly the opposite by saying (Hansard, 19 April)—

Now I ask the hon. member for Sea Point to say where that militarization is taking place. The hon. member need not answer me. Nor will he ever answer me. Where is that militarization taking place?

One can compare the average per capita expenditure on military affairs—as a percentage of the gross national product—in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Iran, Israel, Australia, Korea and Pakistan with that in South Africa. Then one will find that South Africa is among the least militarized countries in that group. However, one of the leaders of a so-called Opposition in South Africa alleges that the Government is engaged in a process of militarization. On the other hand, a senior member of his party, someone who sits immediately behind him and who is responsible for matters of defence, says that the Government should spend more. Of the two, whose advice am I to take? [Interjections.] I am putting the question to the hon. member for Yeoville. He must thrash out the matter with his leader, not with me. I can understand that he is an embarrassment to his leader. [Interjections.] That I can understand. However, I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that in speaking of increased defence expenditure, there are a few things we have to take into account. In the first place we must take into account that there has been a devaluation and that this has had an effect on our defence account. Furthermore, we must take into account that we have to continue our process of modernization in the Defence Force and that this, too, has an effect on our expenditure. We must also take into account that there has been an increase in the cost of certain items obtained from abroad. I could quote some frightening examples of that. In addition, we must take into account that not all defence expenditure is meant to be fired from the mouth of a cannon. In this respect I want to mention two examples. The workshops and other buildings of the submarine base at Simonstown—a contribution to the defence of the West—cost more than R500 000. The synchro-hoist and the wharf cost R3,6 million. The total cost involved in the expansion and development of the tidal basin at Simonstown, which will give that harbour a much greater capacity than it had in the past, amounted to R29 million. This is intended not only to improve the defences of South Africa, but also to serve the West.

Sir, I want to give a few other examples of the costs we have to contend with. I shall not mention any large items. I shall mention everyday components and I just want to refer to four or five of them. Let us look, in the first place, at aircraft spares. The price of a cylindrical roller has increased by 1 778% over a period of two years. This component is absolutely essential to the Air Force and its price has risen to that extent over two years.

It sounds like somebody is profiteering at our expense.

Sir, the hon. member is an authority on profiteering! [Interjections.]

You do not have to be personal!

Then the hon. member should not make silly remarks. I am dealing with serious matters and I am imparting information to this House. In the case of a support assembly, another component, the price increase has been 622%. Let us look now at a component which comes from a different country, because that hon. member has only one country in mind at the moment. In the case of valve-covers for fuel systems, the price increase has been 4 800%. That component comes from a different country, one of which he happens to be quite fond. In the case of a voltage regulator, the price has gone up by 600%. The price of a friction damper for the Hawker-Siddeley passenger aircraft used in the Defence Force has risen by 640%. This is the battle which the Defence Force has to wage, and these are factors which contribute to the increase in our costs. There is no waste. On the contrary. I want to say today that I admire our Defence Force for the fact that in spite of all these problems, they still render the services that they do in South Africa.

†The hon. memeber for Yeoville says that in propagating an increase in Permanent Force numbers, including greater numbers of non-Whites to take part in the defence effort of the country, I am bringing about higher defence spending and that this means less for education and less for creating more jobs.

*This also brings me to a point raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, namely the question of expenditure on armamants. I want to make a number of statements today, because I want to try and furnish information once and for all so that this House may set its mind at rest as far as this matter is concerned. The first statement I want to make is that there has never been such a good relationship between the private sector in South Africa and the Armscor organization as there is at the moment. In saying this, I am supported by prominent financial, economic and industrial leaders in the country.

In the second place, I want to say that Armscor has been instructed to make maximum use of the private sector.

†They must be employed to the maximum in our defence effort. This is an instruction and policy as far as Armscor is concerned.

*I now want to mention a few facts. Up to 75% of the money we spend on armaments—excluding certain vessels—is spent inside the country and this percentage is rising every day. Forty per cent of this local expenditure goes directly to the private sector. The balance of 60% goes to the Armscor subsidiaries. They in their turn give up to 80% on sub-contract to private industry. I hope I am making myself very clear.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? He said that Armscor and the private sector have the best relationship they can afford to have. Why do the arms dealers deny this in their newsletter? Secondly, the hon. the Minister says that Armscor is encouraging the maximum use of the private sector. Why is it then that they have refused an application by the private sector to build a small arms factory?

When have we refused to allow a private industry to establish an arms factory? The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Private industry has been able to manufacture sporting-rifles in South Africa for years and no one has stopped them. The first attempt that was made to establish one in South Africa succeeded through the intervention of Armscor. We were able to undertake this because we could use that machinery for other purposes as well. Now Armscor has issued another statement saying that it is not going to manufacture any hand-guns. It is for private industry to undertake this. I shall wait and see whether they are able to do this at a profit. I shall give the hon. member a reason for this. Armscor only operates in fields where, firstly, the cost factor makes it impossible for private enterprise to operate in that industry at a profit. The second reason is that Armscor moves on a different level, and that is why the State has to exercise control over it for strategic reasons, as in the case of the explosives industry and the manufacturing of propellants. These are the only two fields in which Armscor plays an active part. For the rest, it spends its money on private industry. Now the hon. member shakes his head. Now he is better informed than I am, for he has read a circular sent round by an ammunition dealer. [Interjections.] I shall comment on that circular tomorrow. Now I am discussing more important matters.

I shall speak to you privately.

The hon. member should rather devote the time he has available tomorrow to a discussion with the representatives of Armscor, so that they can get a few facts into the hon. member’s head. [Interjections.]

I have no objection to the kind of criticism that was expressed today by the hon. member for Durban Point. I shall deal with his kind of criticism. However, the hon. member must not say foolish things.

The net effect of this direct and indirect contracting of the private sector amounts to a figure of 75% plus. This in itself is no mean achievement. In other words, the criticism that we are doing an injustice to private industry is without any foundation. Do hon. members realize that some of South Africa’s foremost industrial leaders serve on the direction of Armscor subsidiaries, precisely because they want to help us to create strategic means, because they know how much this can contribute to the industries of South Africa. Some of the foremost industrial leaders of the country serve with me on the Defence Advisory Council. Would these people have served on these bodies if they had not known it to be in the interests of South Africa? The positive effect of our defence policy, the policy of self-sufficiency, is that the outflow of funds from our country is restricted to a minimum. Secondly, the private industry receives substantial stimuli, especially in this period of recession in our economy. Thirdly, essential and sophisticated expertise and technology are acquired by the Republic of South Africa, and these are equally essential for its economic survival. In this connection I should like to refer to two industries, heavy industry and the electronic industry, which have both derived benefit from the expertise which Armscor and the Defence Force have brought to those industries. The extent of this expertise is incalculable. There are literally tens of thousands of people in South Africa today who work in factories directly concerned with the defence effort, and they are White, Black and Brown. Forty-five per cent of the 12 000 employees of Armscor and its subsidiaries are Coloured people and Blacks.

I want to say a few words in reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Simonstown, the hon. member for Durban Point and others about the recent events in Owambo. The abduction, especially when seen against the background of similar acts in Africa, once again emphasizes the pattern and nature which blatant terrorism is beginning to assume in our part of the continent as well. The sooner we begin to take account of that, the better. This clearly shows that Swapo’s objectives with regard to South West Africa have nothing to do with the well-being and prosperity of the territory’s population groups. Their objectives are exclusively concerned with their own position of power and the dwindling support they enjoy, and they are prepared to sacrifice all the interests of South West Africa to achieve their objectives. Unless their action can be checked in time—and it will be checked—it will lead to further similar attacks on defenceless young people at other mission stations, especially those who have chosen not to request the protection of the Defence Force. I am waiting for responsible reaction from the Government of Angola before commenting on this matter any further, because the Chief Minister of Owambo issued a very serious statement on this matter last night. I think we must await a reply to that. Approximately 100 defenceless children were abducted because the terrorist forces were not prepared to seek a confrontation with the security forces; now they are fighting against defenceless children.

Another aspect in this connection is that amounts of R2 500 000 and R3 million are contributed by foreign countries to organizations in South Africa such as the ANC and the PAC. These contributions come from so-called do-gooders in Western countries. Swapo’s bank accounts have been swelled to an amount of R4,6 million by funds from the Western world, and the time has come for the Parliament of South Africa to raise its voice against this instead of our shouting at one another. In this connection I want to make a brief quotation from East/West Digest of January 1977, which contains the following important passage—

I say that one is surprised to find that even an organization such as the Red Cross contributes to the support of Swapo.

In conclusion, I want to make a few announcements. In the first place I want to make an announcement in connection with national service.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will be prepared to make any comment on my suggestion that there should be hot pursuit, active hot pursuit, in this particular case into Angola?

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance this is not a matter which should be discussed in public. However, I can say that as long as the peoples of South West Africa request the protection of the S.A. Defence Force, as they did individually and by means of the conference at the Turnhalle, we shall proceed and if the measures we are taking at present are not ample, we shall take other measures.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether I understood him to say that the S.A. Red Cross was contributing towards Swapo?

Mr. Chairman, I did not refer to the S.A. Red Cross. It must be quite clear that it is not the S.A. Red Cross, but the International Red Cross that is contributing, as far as medical services and other things are concerned, towards Swapo and other terrorist organizations. I believe that is wrong.

*I want to make a statement on the system of national service, a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members, on the Government side as well. During 1976, a representative committee of the Defence Force under the chairmanship of Rear-Admiral Edwards conducted a very thorough-going investigation into the whole question of the manpower of the Defence Force. Force levels, the shortcomings and so forth were thoroughly investigated and a report comprising two bulky volumes was published in which all aspects were dealt with. The committee’s recommendation is based on the finding that the policy for a future period in which operational demands of an increasing and decreasing intensity will constantly be made on the S.A. Defence Force necessitates a system of manpower supply which will be able to adjust manpower levels upwards or downwards. The present system of manpower provision used by the Defence Force cannot meet these demands. The committee recommended that the basic system of manpower supply of the Defence Force be established on a basis designed to provide specific manpower components which can link up with one another in a flexible way. In this way it will be possible to deal with the constant demands that South Africa will have to face in the future.

In order to give partial effect to this, apart from the other proposals I shall make to the Government, it is intended (1) to extend the initial period of national service for the Citizen Force as well as the commandos from the present maximum of 12 months to a maximum of 24 months. Depending on the operational requirements, a shorter term of 18 months can be enforced, or the Minister can extend the term by a further period of not more than six months, to a total of 30 months; (2) to extend the present 95 days of uninterrupted training after completion to not more than 240 days. The idea is to make this number of days compulsory in eight training camps of not more than 30 days in each of the eight years following on the initial period of service. Therefore the ten-year period of active service performed by servicemen in the Citizen Force and the commandos remains unchanged. The new system is intended to come into operation on 1 January 1978. It will mean that the voluntary extension of periods of service to 18 and 24 months and the concomitant bonuses will fall away in the future. Legislation in this connection will be introduced during the course of this session.

I also want to give the following information to the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point. We have not failed to draw on the other population groups in South Africa as well in order to satisfy our manpower requirements. For several years, the Navy has been using an increasing number of Coloured people. The same is done by the Army, and a start has recently been made in the Air Force. In South West Africa, in the operational area, 17% of the soldiers in border operations are members of the other population groups of South West Africa. Reference was made here to crack units. I do not know whether the hon. member for Yeoville wants us to take him to one of these crack units so that he can see what they are up to.

But he has been there!

Yes, he has been there. Surely he must know, then, that there are crack units, units which have held their own in combat. So there is no need for him to lecture me. He must tell his leader not to tell me that I am militarizing the country when I ask for money to defend South Africa. He must call his leader to order, not me.

Cheap propaganda!

Approval has been granted for the establishment of a Citizen Force maintenance unit for Coloureds in which Coloureds will eventually fill all the posts. Initially the unit, which will be based in Bellville South, will have a White commanding officer and Whites in certain key posts, i.e. those of company commander, adjudant, regimental sergeant major, etc. The unit will be manned by volunteers who will be drawn from all over the country and will provide for such musterings as storemen, clerks, drivers, supply handlers, field truck assistants, etc. Last year 126 Coloured trainees were trained for logistic employment in the Army and this year 172 are being trained in this branch. We hope they will form the main source of recruits for the unit. It is also intended in due course to establish a Citizen Force unit for Coloured students to undergo infantry training. Last year 102 students received infantry training. They have already proved themselves in the operational area—at their own request! This year 280 are being trained as infantrymen.

*As far as pay is concerned, the Defence Force is engaged in a process of post evaluation which will enable it to evaluate all posts in the Defence Force more accurately. Until that process has been completed, we shall not be able to make all the adjustments. However, we have already contacted the Public Service Commission, because it is my standpoint that people who are active in the operational area ought to receive the same pay, no matter to which population group they belong. I am not talking about the local people there, but about people from the Republic. We are working on these things together with the Public Service Commission. I cannot say any more than that.

I do not want to say much more on this occasion. There is only one other matter I want to deal with, a matter in respect of which I feel that I owe my friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, some clarification, and he owes me the same. Let me tell him this quite frankly. I know that he is a fighter and I appreciate that He said here yesterday that he would not allow his patriotism to be questioned. I am not questioning it I sometimes question the soundness of his judgment when he speaks of these matters. He discussed South Africa’s position in respect of the outside world and he said, amongst other things: “I believe the defence effort has the support of everybody in the House.” I think that this is in fact his standpoint, and I am grateful to him for that. But then he went on to say (Hansard, 14 April)—

I interrupted him and said: “You are displaying your total ignorance.” Thereupon the hon. member said—

My reply to this was: “I shall reply to you on my Vote.” He went on to say—

Subsequently he also tried to get at me by saying—

It was a slip of the tongue.

Surely the hon. member knows that I do not evade issues. However, I want to come back to the following statement he made—

I challenge this statement of the hon. member. His allegation is not correct, since 57%, including certain vessels, and 75%, excluding certain vessels, of the S.A. Defence Force’s current hardware requirements is met from local sources. Of the remaining 43%, approximately 20% represents expenditure on ocean-going vessels. Therefore, only 23% of our expenditure is in respect of hardware other than ocean-going vessels, and these requirements are met from foreign sources—not only one source. Consequently our own local industries are the greatest suppliers of major equipment to the S.A. Defence Force. I do not think the hon. member can expect me to go into detail about the sources of supply. But then he should not do so either. The two of us must enter into an agreement today. We must not discuss sources of supply here in public. I think the hon. member will agree with me that in the interests of South Africa, we should not say whom we are buying from or whom we are selling to. The hon. member has only to examine certain documents published by the UNO—which I can make available to him and which cannot be quoted here—to see how every word that is spoken in this Parliament and elsewhere is used to bring pressure to bear on countries. Therefore we can help by choosing our words with care. That is why I said long ago that I would not make known whom we are buying from or whom we are selling to. The other party can make this known if it wants to. I think that was an unfortunate remark which the hon. member made. I accept that he did not make it with malicious intent. Nevertheless, I thought I had better correct it.

In the second place, the hon. member also referred to the black market.

†I want to tell him that we do not buy South Africa’s requirements on the black market. He can take it from me that that is a fact.

*I shall tell him why not. Our experience has been that the arms one is able to buy on the black market can mostly be produced in the Republic of South Africa. I have also found that most of the arms one can buy on the black market are incomplete.

I did not suggest that we do that.

No, but the hon. member spoke about the black market.

I said there was such a market.

I want to make it clear that it is against our policy to buy for South Africa’s requirements on the black market.

*It must be very clearly understood that the policy is—this point was raised by the hon. member for Durban Point—not to use intermediaries if we can avoid it. Intermediaries charge commission and they ruin us. We like direct transactions and we prefer to go to a little more trouble to obtain equipment rather than to make use of intermediaries and pedlars. Pedlars are not welcome at Armscor. I want that to be quite clearly understood. If the hon. member knows a good man and he knows that man does not want to fleece us, he can contact the commercial branch of Armscor, a branch which is under very good management. They will go into the merits of that man. However, we prefer to pay more for an item, knowing that we have everything we need, rather than to deal with pedlars and to end up with things we cannot use.

I want to conclude by saying that South Africa needs more money for defence. What we are getting is not enough. It is not because we want to militarize, but because we want to modernize. We want to give the soldiers in the field the best weapons with which to defend themselves. We need more money because, secondly, we have operational requirements that have to be met, because we have to provide accommodation for them where they are trained and because we need proper storage room for our sophisticated equipment. South Africa needs more money. Mr. Chairman, you will not allow us to discuss this, but I want to make an appeal today for an organized effort by the people of South Africa to provide those extra funds in the form of savings bonds. This is not in order to militarize, but to do justice to our young people, to make better provision for the way they spend their spare time, to increase their operational capacity, to provide storage room for all our sophisticated equipment, to keep our health services on the highest level, and to build a Defence Force, not to challenge the whole world, but to defend our self-respect. We do not want to deprive other people of their rights, we want to protect South Africa’s right to work out its own future through discussion and deliberation. I believe that the spirit that was evinced here this afternoon will serve to strengthen the Defence Force, and for that I thank hon. members. I assure hon. members that I shall reply in detail to the other matters tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, in his distinctive and meticulous manner, the hon. the Minister has given much substance to this debate. It would be very interesting to study his speech in detail on a later occasion. Whilst he was telling us how much the prices of parts had risen, I was wondering when he would get around to the Bendix drive (“knormoer”). This, of course, was because I believe the hon. member for Yeoville has become a real grouser (“knormoer”) in the House. [Interjections.] I am sorry the hon. member for Yeoville is not here now, but I should nevertheless like to refer to one of the things he said. He launched a tremendous attack on the White Paper as supposedly furthering the policy of the NP. What his argument amounted to was that the Defence Force was intent on furthering the policy of the NP. I think the hon. member for Yeoville put his foot in it when he advocated a larger Defence Force. He put himself in the bad books of his hon. leader and of his hon. deputy leader, the hon. member for Houghton, and then, of course, he had to do some camouflaging of his speech. He had to back down, so he launched an attack on the White Paper. Last but not least, I want to point out that in his dealing with this last matter, the hon. the Minister has, in my opinion, once again emphasized how important it is that we be very careful about what words we use in discussing defence matters. I believe that in this regard we could cause our country, and others as well, a great deal of embarrassment.

I should like to exchange a few ideas with regard to national service on the border and the agriculturalists’ role in this. To begin with, I want to point out that we are all aware of the major problems being experienced in some rural commandos, particularly in regard to trained officers. In my opinion, national servicemen who have already been trained—particularly the younger officers—and who intend making agriculture their career, should, as far as possible, be placed in the commandos in their own residential areas on completion of their national service. Something like this would meet a particularly great need in that those commandoes would immediately be provided with a nucleus of properly trained young officers. Moreover, young men who have completed their national service are well motivated people. They could serve as a leavening agent by means of which other people could also be inspired to play their part in bringing the commandos, particularly the rural commandos, to full strength.

The hon. the Minister has just made an announcement regarding the extension of national service to a maximum of two years. I know that this is going to inconvenience some people. If we bear in mind the general position in South Africa, however, then I believe—and I am pleased to say this—that any patriot would welcome the announcement made by the hon. the Minister. I do not believe a man can be given proper training in one year. No one can be effectively employed in one year. This can only be accomplished over a period of two years.

As regards the border duty of three months, that involving members of the commandos and of the citizen force, I should like to point out a few aspects. To begin with, I want to tell hon. members about something that has come to my attention. It concerns an engineering firm that has a branch here in Cape Town as well. In that firm there is a practice whereby, when one of its engineers is called up for military service, all the other engineers in the concern automatically and voluntarily work an extra hour per week in order to compensate for the absent staff member. This is done because the concern continues to pay the absent member’s salary to him. I think this is a praiseworthy example that ought to be followed on a large scale in this country, in the case of people who are called up. We know it is a great sacrifice for any man engaged in the economy, but if organizations and businesses play their part in meeting the problem in this way, I do not think there will be any problem in the future.

Now I want to extend this point to the agricultural industry. Last week I attended a large agricultural congress. A draft resolution was considered by the congress that agriculturalists do only 30 days of border duty. The initiator of that draft resolution stated his case with great conviction but at one stage I felt sorry for him because not a single person at that congress stood up to support him in his attempt. There again I gained the impression that the agriculturalist in this country would like to play his part in defending our country. This is often difficult; we realize this. This is particularly true in our crop farming areas. We know that in those areas, this may be the cause of major problems and disruption at times. But in difficult circumstances, Sir, deferment is readily granted. In my humble opinion, other farmers, particularly neighbours, can do a tremendous amount towards relieving that farmer’s problems. I know of a district in which, as soon as a man is called up to the border for his three-month tour of duty, the people immediately come together in an organized manner and share out that particular man’s work for the period of his absence. I think this, too, is a praiseworthy example. In my opinion, agricultural organizations will have to play a much greater role in this regard. Their help would have to be enlisted in order to ensure in an organized manner that the agriculturalist who would like to go and do his military service, will be able to do so without the running of his farm being disrupted.

Moreover, I want to plead that commandos, and particularly commando officers, always be allowed to go and do their border duty. I know many of them and the benefit they derive from rendering border duty is of inestimable value to them in their units. Consequently I want to ask that the practice of commandos, and particularly the officers, being allowed to gain experience in the operational area, be continued.

Sir, I want to thank the Minister and the Defence Force most sincerely for this White Paper. It provides one with as admirable overall picture of our defence set-up. To us as members, this is extremely valuable. It gives us a very clear exposition of the bottlenecks in the S.A. Defence Force. No planners in any department are able to eliminate weaknesses, or rather shortcomings, if the problems and bottlenecks are not identified clearly. In my opinion, the Defence Force has its finger on the pulse of the most important shortcomings, and it is therefore the task of everyone who has an interest in the Defence Force to work together as a team to help eliminate those shortcomings. I think the hon. the Minister has also succeeded—and I read this in the White Paper—in ranging a structure around him that can help to solve various problems with great skill, and we want to congratulate him on this. In this regard I am thinking particularly of the Defence Advisory Council and the Defence Planning Committee. We also have a particularly high regard for those in the private sector who are making themselves available for service in this regard. With their knowledge and skill they are fullfilling a praiseworthy function and they are a driving force not only for the Minister, but also for the Defence Command Council and the Defence Staff Council. To me the analysis of the budget in the White Paper is particularly illuminating and interesting. What is particularly illuminating, is that whereas defence accounted for 21% of our total State expenditure in 1964-’65, it accounts for only 19% of the State expenditure in 1977-’78. In other words, percentage-wise, there has been a decrease. Furthermore, I also found it illuminating to see what percentage of expenditure on defence constitutes the gross national product. This is something that compares favourably with the position in comparable countries. I find this White Paper a valuable document, Sir. I think we can put it to very effective use in our constituencies as well. It brings us up to date in respect of our whole defence set up.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I just want to tell him that I have a great deal of sympathy with some of his ideas, since I too am an agriculturist. However, I shall leave it at that.

The late Chou en Lai, the former Chinese communist leader, expressed the opinion that the approaching conflict between the East and the West would be decided on the soil of Africa. Of course, at that stage he saw China in the principal role as conqueror of Africa. In the meanwhile they have largely been manoeuvred out of Africa by Russian communists with a great deal of skill.

Military experts and strategists have calculated very definitely and positively that Russia has delivered arms to the value of R160 milliard to 11 Africa States over the past five years. This is an immense amount. Over the same period they granted a mere R480 million in economic aid to the same Africa States. We know Russia’s strategy and of sending a host of advisers along with every consignment of weapons supposedly in order to train the people, but also to promote its cause in Africa We are aware of this and we have evidence of the fact that the fellow traveller of the ANC, the outlawed communist party in South Africa, received instructions from Moscow to step up subversion in South Africa and achieve results, or do without large-scale Russian aid.

It is very clear from the foregoing, and from events in Mozambique, Angola and Zaïre at the moment, that South Africa figures very prominently on the Russian expansionist or imperialist conquest list. There can be no doubt about that. If we are at all realistic, we must expect increased Russian communist infiltration in Southern Africa and in South Africa too, even accompanied by violence, as is happening in Zaïre at the moment.

I should now like to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said this afternoon, and shall try not to repeat what he said. I want to quote a certain Dr. Peter Janke on South Africa’s strategic importance for the West. He is a very authoritative member of the research staff of the Institute for Conflict Study in London. I want to quote what he wrote in the 1976 report of that institute. The hon. member for Yeoville must listen to this very carefully, because he said that they did not want to fight for the NP Government. I agree with him wholeheartedly. This Briton says—

I want to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville, and I want to differ with this Briton. The issue is not the ultimate fate of the Afrikaner in South Africa, but that of the entire White population, with the exception of those elements that are not interested. The issue is the preservation of Christian civilization and the existing values in South Africa.

America is the leader of the Western world. It can therefore quite correctly be assumed that it should take the lead in forcing back Russian expansionism, no matter where it may occur in the world, and in Southern Africa in particular. The House must listen to what an American has to say on this matter. He is an authoritative fellow of the “Centre for Strategic and International Study”. In an article entitled “World Power Assessment” he says the following—

That is America—

If we read this, coming from someone who is an American himself, we realize that the leader of the West no longer has the guts to put its foot down as regards real Russian expansionism. Taking everything into consideration, one realizes the absolute correctness and realism of the hon. the Prime Minister’s warning which he addressed to South Africa on 1 January 1977 and in which he informed us that, should we become involved in a confrontation, we should definitely expect to stand alone. No one should have any illusions about the fact that the Republic of South Africa is not only able, but prepared to fight for those things which it considers important.

The hon. the Minister of Defence has repeatedly said that the Whites will not leave South Africa, but that they will fight to survive, and that they will ward off any aggression with every means at their disposal. If we consider our preparedness, we can proudly look back at a very glorious South African military past. In my opinion, being a country which has been in existence for a relatively short while, we have one of the most impressive lists of heroes in the world today. Recently in Angola, too, our young men proved that they still have the fighting quality of their forefathers when they added a very brilliant facet to the military annals of South Africa. According to the 1976 publication of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, South Africa is a country with one of the largest defence forces on the continent of Africa. If we take the quality of our men into consideration, we know that we have a very formidable Defence Force and fighting force, when compared with Africa standards in particular, but also in comparison with world standards. The hon. the Minister and his senior officers are to an increasing extent expanding the Defence Force to the status of a symbol of opposition to everything hostile towards South Africa. This expansion is also taking place in a broader multinational context.

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke at length on the multinational parade held during the handing over of the Army to Gen. Viljoen. A report appeared in The Friend of 29 July 1976 in which the present leader of the Defence Force said that the parade which was held on the occasion when he handed over the Army to his successor, Gen. Viljoen, was a unique one, because it was the first time in history that the three main population groups of South Africa were present at one parade. Die Volksblad of 27 August 1976 carried a report of the Coloured Corps which left for border duty at the border, as we heard from the hon. the Minister this afternoon. This report mentions that Blacks, too, were already involved in border duty at that stage. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his senior officers on the orderly way in which they are mustering all the people of South Africa in order to defend South Africa against what seems to be the inevitable. After all, the native land of those people also lies within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, and they will become the victims of communism together with us, should it gain a footing here. Our struggle is not primarily to maintain the NP or the White man in South Africa—and in this connection I again agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. The primary concern is the maintenance of Christian and Western standards and values of civilization. The willingness of our Coloured people belies the prophecies of doom which are being uttered by so many people, people on the other side too, who can see only polarization and confrontation between White and Black or between White and Coloured in South Africa under the present dispensation. They belie this by showing very clearly by means of their actions that they are prepared even to give their lives to defend and perpetuate this same dispensation, the present dispensation.

I want to conclude by referring to the ever greater involvement of today’s woman in the S.A. Defence Force. In the past, South African women have made their contribution and also assisted the men on a semi-military basis. There are cases in which her contribution was of great importance. I believe that this will also be so in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, right at the outset I want to express the gratitude and appreciation of the hon. members on these benches towards the Defence Force and the department of the Minister for their friendly co-operation at all times and with all parties in the House, even with the youngest and smallest, but at the same time the party with the biggest growth potential.

You are blowing your own trumpet!

We appreciate the visits to the border and the confidential information which is regularly conveyed to us. I believe that it is of prime importance that Parliament be at all times fully informed about the activities of the Defence Force. I also want to convey the congratulations of the hon. members in these benches to those people in the Defence Force, from the highest to the lowest, who received medals this year. I believe that each one of them deserved it, and we therefore congratulate everyone who received them.

I look forward to the day when it will be possible to propose a decrease in the appropriation for the Defence Vote in this House. I am, however, afraid that that day is still a long way off. Within the foreseeable future the South African citizen will have to make more and more money available for the defence and protection of our fatherland. The nation will have to realize that more and more sacrifices are going to be demanded of it and that it will have to identify itself more and more with the Defence Force.

I support everything the hon. member for Simonstown said during the debate and would like to underline his statements about the motivation of our nation. Our children should be motivated at school and our youth at the universities, but what is especially important, is the cadets corps of the schools.

I want to emphasize very strongly that we must return to the system of school cadets that we had before, during and immediately after the war. Under this system, provision was made for the attendance by cadets of training camps which lasted from three to six weeks. Cadets in Std. 8 or 9, who could become non-commissioned officers or officers in the cadet corps, attended these camps. A lot of motivating was done there. The young boys were eager to sacrifice their holidays to attend a cadet camp. I believe that such a system could train our young people and can prepare them for the leadership positions which they will be able to occupy when they do their national service or join the Permanent Force on a permanent basis. It is important that our Permanent Force should be expanded.

We shall have to act with caution as far as motivation of our young people in South Africa is concerned. We shall have to make quite sure that this motivation is done by people who wear uniforms and not by people who give the impression that they belong to a political party, because if they create such an impression, some hon. members of this House, as well as some newspapers, will begin to think that this motivation is in fact indoctrination. We in these benches believe, however, that to a certain extent, motivation should be indoctrination; the two are so closely linked that in fact it is impossible to separate them. If the indoctrination in the motivation is directed at love of the country and the nation and at the defence of everything that we love, I believe that it is very necessary.

The hon. the Minister had much to say about the material preparedness of the Defence Force and our country. If one studies the White Paper, it strikes one that we are informed, honestly and sincerely, of the shortcomings experienced in the Defence Force. The defence budget has also been set out in detail for us. The point is, however, that if we do not concentrate on the psychological preparedness of our nation, there is little hope for the survival of all of us in South Africa.

I now want to deal specifically with the White Paper. There are a few small sections of the White Paper with which I do not agree. In one case I believe that it might be due to a slip. Paragraph 22(c)(ii), page 9, of the English text of the White Paper reads—

When I read that, it shocked me to notice the word “humanistic”, and I thereupon immediately had a look at the Afrikaans translation of the paragraph. Here the word “humanistiese” is used. I must point out that as hon. members know, I made a study of the events amongst students a few years ago and that I sometimes came in for a great deal of abuse for doing so. To me the word “humanism” is wholly evil. The meaning of this word refers to something which is not Christian, to something which is close to communism. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this word could not therefore be kept out of this kind of White Paper. There is a great deal of difference between the words “humanitarian” and “humanistic” and there is a big difference between the words “humanistic” and “human dignity”. I believe that the words “human dignity” should have been used and I should be very grateful if the White Paper could be amended as such. I do not like the word “humanistic” when we are dealing with the defence of South Africa.

†Then I want to come to paragraph 39 on page 14, and I want to make a very strong plea, not to that hon. Minister but to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the rest of the Cabinet in that respect. The paragraph heading is “SADF Economy Campaign”. Let me quote a passage from that paragraph—

*A research and development project is so important for the defence of our nation that I believe that we have to find the money to continue with such projects. I am a farmer, just an ordinary farmer. If, however, I lag behind my neighbour with respect to developments in agriculture for one year, I am bankrupt the following year or the year after. I believe therefore that it is vitally important, with regard to the modern developments in armaments and so on, that these projects should be continued with all the vigour and with the full support of the Government and the nation at large. That is something in regard to which we cannot afford to lag behind. Because of the limited manpower that we can employ, we have to have the best possible advantage over our neighbours in Africa with regard to sophisticated weaponry.

†I make a very strong appeal, through the hon. the Minister, to his colleagues in the Cabinet. This is the one area where I do not believe that we should economize. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to my mind, the hon. member for Albany is a very fine example of a good patriot. It is therefore no wonder that he broke away and ended his political friendship with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and others who struck discordant notes this afternoon. I think hon. members will agree with me that this father-land of ours is a peace-loving country and that we are intent on defending it and not on committing acts of aggression or making conquests. I am a realist, however. I look at the world around me and I see the arms race in progress and the conflicting ideologies manifesting themselves in the world; I note the expansionist drive of Marxism, I note hunger on the increase in the world and I note the astonishing population explosion. We also read about the enslavement of the spirits of millions of people. As a realist, I look at these things and am amazed that there are people who are naïve enough to believe that the Third World War, which is hotly being waged in an unconventional manner, will never escalate or develop into a conventional conflict. Since the end of the Second World War, the world has already seen approximately 40 terrorist wars, wars in which terrorism was the order of the day. What is disturbing is the fact that all those terrorist wars were won by the terrorists. Now we, too, are engaged in such a terrorist war and South Africa does not want to lose it; she may not lose it, nor will she do so. That is why I am so sorry the hon. member for Yeoville again adopted the old approach here this afternoon, namely: I support the defence budget, but …! However, I want to tell my hon. friend over there this: Even if South Africa does have the best schools, the finest houses and the most developed economy, if we lose this terrorist conflict, we lose those things as well.

They are also weapons against terrorism.

You are not so dim; you are brighter than I am!

The hon. member for Yeoville, too, very often makes patriotic utterances. I am grateful for them. However, he should rather not add the “but” when he wants to prove his patriotism to us. We are at the focal point of this conflict. We are grateful, as has already been said on several occasions this afternoon, that our Defence Force has become a deterrent to people who are looking hungrily at this fatherland of ours. We are also grateful to hear that to a large extent, the Defence Force is self-sufficient, and to know that the Defence Force, this war machine, has not been built up to conquer, but as a national army. Again I want to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville who advocated a larger professional army with a view to giving the citizenry more free time to run the economy. It is important that the economy should not be harmed, but I believe that the establishment of this national army is just as important since you and I, Mr. Chairman, as citizens of this country appreciate the necessity for us, too, to play our part in the defence of our country.

South Africa does not form part of any alliance with foreign powers at this stage. Whilst I was listening to the hon. the Minister this afternoon, I told myself: Just imagine what other countries are missing, those that do not want to listen to the voice of reason coming from the hon. the Minister once again this afternoon. Can you imagine what it would mean to the West or to some Western countries if they would only listen to this voice of reason? We want to cherish the hope that realism will evolve in these Western countries and that in due course, South Africa will be included in some form of alliance after all. At present we are not a member of such an alliance. We are aware of the arms embargo against us. We are also aware of price increases. It is interesting that the import bill for oil and military equipment exceeded R1 000 million in 1975.

Since I want to put it to the hon. the Minister this afternoon that we consider the possibility of a heavy weapons industry in South Africa, I hope to return at a later stage, if time permits me to do so, to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I want to ask that consideration be given to the possibility of a heavy weapons industry for South Africa. There was a time when France and Israel were largely dependent on America for their heavy weapons. They proceeded to the development of a heavy weapons industry, however, and today France, and Israel as well, are to a large extent independent of foreign aid as far as this item is concerned. We in South Africa have far more raw materials than France and Israel for building up a heavy weapons industry. I believe we have the necessary technological knowledge, brain power and entrepreneurial ability to establish a heavy weapons industry to provide for our own needs in this way, and also, if possible, for export to other countries.

I conclude by quoting a short sentence from a speech made by the Chief of the Defence Force, and it reads as follows—

We already have good weapons, as things are we can hold our own, but I think it would be a good thing if we were to give serious consideration, if the necessary money is available—the other components are already there—to establishing a heavy weapons industry in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I listened today with great interest to what the hon. the Minister had to tell us. It brought to mind a comment I read the other day by the Minister of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany. With reference to the German defence budget he said: “You do not get security for nothing.” The speech of the hon. the Minister, together with the massive budget we are faced with and the comprehensive White Paper, which we have studied, lends weight to the comment made by the German Minister of Defence. South Africans must know, if they did not know it before, that they do not get their security for nothing: they must pay for their security.

It is not my intention, Sir, to raise matters such as the call-up system, postal complaints and so on. The department is working on those issues. It has got its administrative work and it is rectifying those faults as it goes along. Therefore I shall not raise these matters. I am satisfied that the approach of the Defence Force, which is again made manifest in the White Paper, is one of sweet reasonableness wherever and whenever possible, bearing in mind that it cannot prejudice its primary aim and object, viz. the defence of South Africa and its citizens.

Sir, after I had read the White Paper, I put it down with mixed feelings. First of all, I had the feeling that, at last, something was being done. At the same time I felt somewhat uneasy when I read that there had been a time lapse during which nothing or comparatively little had been done, particularly in comparison with the budgets of the ’sixties—nothing was shown of the budgets of the ’fifties.

You should look at the budgets of the ’forties.

One must feel admiration for the Defence Force chiefs for facing squarely up to the needs of the country and also for telling us what those needs are and what they consider to be the shortcomings in the organization. Appreciating their difficulties, they specified aspects of national security which require attention on an inter-departmental basis. Time does not permit my dealing in greater detail with this aspect at the moment so I shall leave the details to somebody else to speak about later. One cannot but agree with the White Paper’s exposition of the national security situation and the factors which influcence the total national strategy. Every right-thinking South African, I feel, must feel that way and does not quibble about that at all. It certainly has the support of every right-thinking person. Here again, time does not permit my discussing some of the aspects mentioned, save to say that I support every word of it with regard to the internal policies which are based mainly on the question of human relationships in a plural society. We have to face up to these points; it is no good quibbling about it. We must face up to it and do our best. The words contained in the White Paper are not minced and they indicate to us in very clear terms that the Republic of South Africa is alone in a hostile world. It is a sobering thought, but at the same time it is well that we should know this. We do not form part of any alliance with any foreign power, and the weapons embargo against us promotes difficulties. We also know that financial resources are limited and that manpower resources under the present setup are limited. In this respect I am pleased to see that more and more use is being made of people of colour in the Defence Force. That is, indeed, a very comforting thought. In this respect, however, I must sound a word of discord. In this respect I feel we are reaping the ill-effects of the 1950s when, I am sorry to say, this Government’s predecessors tried to break the spirit and traditions of the Forces which had been painstakingly, bravely and honourably built up through the years of war and peace, culminating in a brilliant blaze of glory in World War II. South Africa at that time was the darling of the nations and South Africans were warmly welcomed wherever they went. This was in spite of politicians, who from positions of safety tried to detract and belittle the valiant efforts of this country’s volunteer Army, Navy and Air force.

And still do.

History will show that everything possible was done by the Government of the day, in the ’fifties, by coldly calculated design, to smash that wonderful spirit of esprit de corps which was moulded by the flames of war. Thank goodness that this has now come to an end and that at the end of the ’fifties the tide turned and a new man took over the Ministry of Defence. Fortunately for South Africa the ’sixties were comparatively peaceful years and the Defence Force was given breathing space and a chance to take on a new look and work to its present pitch of efficiency. There has been a steady growth in spite of concomitant problems and one is grateful that the Defence Force has not hesitated to eliminate them in this House and elsewhere. Sensing the urgency of the situation, the Defence Force has with resolution and calmness set about its business and has not allowed itself to be dragooned into extremes or hurried actions.

South Africa has always prided itself on its Citizen Army and I hope that this will always prevail. For this reason I plead for a sufficient and highly efficient and competent Permanent Force which will give that leadership, training, administration and expertise to our Citizen Forces. I realize it has to be enlarged, but here in South Africa we have our Citizen Force Army which forms part and parcel of the people and I would not like to see it be made any smaller. The Defence Force and the population of South Africa are and must remain integrated, and this golden thread manifests itself throughout the White Paper, I am glad to say.

As a last word I want to make a plea that the Army be left to the professionals. They are the ones who are aware of the shortcomings and they are aware of the manpower position, the economy, etc., and they are in constant liaison with industry and commerce and everybody else connected therewith. I say, leave it to the professionals and let us get on with the job.