as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, our normal sitting hours were adopted in 1975, and it was then understood that the proposals were in the nature of a trial and that there would not be morning sittings or rushed hours of debate at the end of a session, something which became known as legislation by exhaustion. However, in June of the same year, the hon. the Leader of the House moved that the House, from 16 June, would sit every morning and every afternoon, and in addition, every evening, except Friday evenings. It was assumed then that the session would end on Friday, 20 June 1975. That was five days later. Ultimately the House adjourned at 01h12 on 20 June, which meant that the House actually sat for a further four days.

It was envisaged at the time that the extended hours of sitting would only last for four or five days. This is what the hon. the Leader of the House said (Hansard, Vol. 57, col. 8108)—

Well, the new hours were applied during the 1976 session, but the hon. the Leader of the House had again to ask for an extension of the sitting hours.

Now we have a motion by the hon. the Leader of the House again. When we extended the hours to morning sittings some weeks ago, I said that we would not oppose it, but that we would accept it on the understanding that there would be no further extensions of the sitting hours during this session.

The long hours which are now proposed are not only going to last four or five days. They will come into effect tomorrow the 14th, and will probably last until 30 June. That means a period of more than two weeks. It does not make for good legislation if hon. members have to work such long hours, morning, noon and night. Hon. members will be exhausted and inclined to rush through legislation.

It is time that the Government and Parliament realized that we cannot attempt to complete our Parliamentary duties in the normal time allotted, a time which was allotted more than 60 years ago. There has always been an attempt to finish before the end of June. I note that on two occasions, long ago, the session lasted into July. The 1925 session was one of these. It only started, however, in February of that year. We have had complicated legislation this session. We have had the Criminal Procedure Bill and the amendment to the Liquor Act, as well as other complicated measures. We have had a lot of legislation submitted to the House. Therefore it cannot be contended that the extended hours of sitting are only necessary because of time wasted earlier in the session. We deny that.

The time has come for hon. members to face up to the fact that we cannot expect to finish at the end of June every year. Therefore, we will have to come to some new arrangement. We will have to rearrange the session, either to last into July or August, or to be divided into two parliamentary sessions. We will oppose this motion.

Mr. Speaker, on 23 May, when the hon. the Leader of the House moved his previous motion for the extension of hours of sitting, we opposed the motion very strongly indeed. It is our strongly held view that if the best interests of democracy are to be served, and Parliament has work to do, debate in this House must take place in conditions which allow hon. members to apply their minds without unreasonable pressure. They must have time to make reasoned decisions after careful deliberation. Sitting hours such as these proposed now, make this quite impossible.

Legislation is rushed through at a pace which does not allow adequate deliberation, and it is our belief—one we have already stated before—that legislation procedures suffer adversely. It has become impossible to digest the substance of matters which are pushed through morning, afternoon and evening at a tremendous rate.

Why are we doing this? What the Government is doing is showing its usual contempt for the democratic process. [Interjections.] They are in the majority and they are impatient of opinions expressed democratically by minority parties. If they can restrict the expression of those opinions, they do so, especially when there are important things, like school holidays, in prospect.

I think their attitude was very well summed up by the hon. the Leader of the House during the last debate on this matter, when he said in one of his usual and on that occasion very immoderate and neurotic outbursts that the country should know what the Opposition was doing and how it was wasting time.

We all know that the hon. the Leader of the House is inclined to believe that the democratic process as such is a waste of time. We believe, however, that the people we represent in South Africa should be made aware of the contemptuous manner in which the Government regards the democratic expression of opinion. I think the whole of South Africa should know this. I think they should know that to the Government the whole parliamentary process is less important than getting away for the school holidays. Perhaps I could ask the hon. the Leader of the House whether he regards school holidays as being more important than Parliament.

We have on the Order Paper a number of measures of tremendous importance. We are making major decisions on which the future of the country depends. All this has to take second place to the school holidays.

I know perfectly well that the hon. the Leader of the House will come back and talk about us wasting time. However, that is an accusation which can equally well be levelled against that side of the House, particularly at some of the more verbose Ministers or the inevitable sycophantic “dank die Minister” speeches, speeches which add nothing to any debate and have no relevance or importance in relation to the many crucial issues which confront us. In the last debate on the extension of sitting hours the hon. the Leader of the House complained about unnecessary debate on the Civil Defence Bill, a Bill which was an agreed measure and has been before a Select Committee. He blamed the Opposition for wasting time. But when one analyses the debate on that Bill, one finds that speakers on that side of the House spoke quite as much as speakers on this side of the House. Of course, it is their perfect right to do so, except that they speak a good deal more rubbish. But if they have a contribution to make, they will be failing in their duty if they do not make that contribution and express their opinions.

The debate on the last motion about sitting hours was very typical. The hon. the Chief Whip of the NP made a long tirade against us, whereas the Chief Opposition Whip made a very short speech. I made a speech of about five minutes and the hon. Whip of the S.A. Party got to his feet, expressed an opinion and then sat down. However, we had a long tirade from the hon. the Chief Whip on that side, followed by an even longer emotional outburst from the hon. the Leader of the House. This is just typical; this is what is happening all the time.

It is our opinion that if there is work to be done Parliament must not run away from its responsibility. By hurrying through important measures, without giving them the attention that they should have because conditions of debate make this impossible, we are failing in our duty. I agree with the hon. Chief Opposition Whip that if necessary Parliament must sit longer to cope with the tremendous amount of legislation which this Government passes through every year. We must be one of the most over-controlled, over-legislated countries in the world. Perhaps we should take this into consideration when we talk about wasting time.

We shall vote against the motion because extending sitting hours in this unreasonable manner is not in the best interest of democracy or of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear at once that my colleagues and I would not want to be in this House after 30 June if we can help it. We should like us to have finished our work by that day. After the new hours of sitting became known to us, however, we studied the matter very thoroughly and it became apparent that if we had to adjourn on 30 June and if we had to sit the hours now proposed by the hon. the Leader of the House, it would be impossible for any hon. member to do his work properly. We therefore have a very simple choice. We have to choose whether our wish to adjourn on 30 June should triumph, thereby harming Parliament and what it stands for. We feel that with the procedure as it is at the moment, there is virtually only one solution, and that is if we want to do our work properly, in a way which will command the respect of Parliament and of the nation, we shall regretfully have to sit until after 30 June. Therefore, unfortunately, I cannot support the hon. Leader of the House in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much for me to say. I am in no hurry to prorogue Parliament. To tell the truth, I am very happy here in the Cape. But then hon. members should put an end to stopping me in the lobby to ask me when Parliament is going to prorogue as they are in a hurry. And that does not apply only to hon. members on this side of the House. The fact of the matter is that we have had the position for many years that officials who have to come here for sessions, let their houses. So it has become usual for Parliament to prorogue during the last two weeks of June. At the moment a sub-committee of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders is investigating the possibility of different hours of sitting. The hon. members are aware of this and consequently I do not know why they are turning this into an argument. We are investigating the possibility of arranging the times better, but while we are still functioning under the present system, and officials have to let their houses and have to reoccupy them at a particular time, and there are hon. members who have children at school, these are factors that have to be taken into account. Sir, we could have saved a lot of time if fewer divisions had been called for here. I do not know why we have to have a division every time we disagree on something. This session we have already lost ten hours on account of divisions. I do not think the nation is terribly impressed by that.

[Inaudible.]

I did not interrupt the hon. member’s Chief Whip when he was speaking. Therefore he should keep quiet for a moment. He talks too much in any event. It is hon. members like him who keep this House going unnecessarily. [Interjections.] Whether he knows something about a matter or not, he talks about it in any event. [Interjections.] Sir, I have nothing more to say. The business of the House has to be completed.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—85: Albertyn, J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Nel, D. J. L.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

Noes—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; VAN ECK, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we now come to the last stage of an omnibus financial measure which deals with five Acts affecting five different types of financial institution. On the whole the provisions contained in the Bill are acceptable to us. They are good provisions with the one exception of those provisions which force financial institutions, i.e. the insurance industry, pension funds, building societies and banks, to compulsorily invest a larger proportion of their investments in Government stock and prescribed investments. I believe the hon. the Minister has hopelessly under-estimated what this measure is going to mean to the financial institutions and particularly to the long-term insurance industry and to the pension funds. I say this advisedly because the higher percentages which are provided for in these clauses are going to apply not only to new money, new savings and new investments that have to be made by the financial institutions, but also to existing investments.

In other words, a very large portion of the stream of new money and of new savings is going to have to be applied to raise the level of existing investments to the higher proportions required by this Bill. No wonder that Mr. Donald Gordon, chairman of Liberty Life and Guardian, estimated that 65% of the cash flow of the long-term insurance industry would have to go towards taking up Government stock in prescribed investments during this financial year. That is a huge percentage. The only alternative which the industry has, is to disinvest itself of investments in the private sector. This, I am sure, is a step which the hon. the Minister would not like to see happening in financial circles in the country at the present time. I have said before, and I say again, that the Government is making it very difficult for the private sector of the economy to raise its capital requirements. Unless the private sector can get off the ground with productive investments, we are not going to see real growth in South Africa at a rate which is required by the economy. We are going to have a continuation of what we have been seeing over the last few years, namely increasing unemployment and decreasing standards of living. I have said previously, and I say again, that the Government’s duty as far as the raising of capital is concerned is to mobilize the savings of the country and to encourage additional savings by way of incentives and not to commandeer savings as it intends doing under this Bill.

The Government has all the advantages on its side to raise capital on a voluntary basis and in doing so, to provide incentives to people to save more. It can give tax concessions as it has already announced it will do in the case of defence bonds and premium bonds. Those are two measures which we regard as highly commendable measures. There are other ways in which to use the fiscus to encourage saving. These I discussed when we were discussing the hon. the Minister’s Vote. There is also the idea of an index-linked bond that would be a great encouragement to people to save more. This is what the Government should be doing. It should not be raising such a big amount of capital by compulsory means. Not even the Labour Government in Britain would take a step of this nature, and the Labour Government is hardly bashful when it comes to taking away things from the private sector and nationalizing the country’s assets.

What are their tax rates?

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether the Government should raise its capital by voluntary means or by compulsory means, not what the rate of tax is. I regard this step contained in the Bill which we are discussing now as a negative step. It discourages saving because it discriminates against savers. It is a negative step because it puts the private sector at a distinct disadvantage vis-à-vis the public sector as far as raising capital is concerned. I believe that this is a bad measure. It is bad for the economy and it is going to have harmful results. For that reason we in these benches will oppose the measure at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we oppose this measure for three reasons. The first relates to the powers which are given to the curator which may be appointed in respect of certain banking institutions. The simple point that we make here is that it is a fundamental principle of our law that equity and justice should prevail. This equally applies to the treatment of creditors. Creditors should be treated equally when it comes to the distribution of assets of a company which finds itself in difficulties, whether that company be a banking institution or whether it be anything else. That principle to us is a vital one.

We believe that the concept of curatorship is very similar to a judicial management. In a judicial management, the purpose is that the entity should survive, should be put back on its feet and should be preserved to continue to conduct its business. That is the concept behind the curatorship which exists here. In a judicial management, the creditors have a say in regard to the running of the company, even though there is a judicial management. There is in fact a remedy in that the creditors can go to the courts, who act as supervisors in respect of this matter. None of these things apply in the present case. Furthermore, the powers are here expressly given so that there can in fact be discrimination as between different classes of creditors or different creditors. Furthermore, the right to damages in certain circumstances is also taken away.

At no stage during this debate has the hon. the Minister given any answer of any kind to this, let alone a satisfactory answer. It has merely been said that this is necessary because of the circumstances which prevail. The hon. the Minister has said that he also believes that creditors should in fact be treated equally, yet the legislation which he has introduced makes provision for creditors not to be treated equally. I have indicated that there are already examples of that—where the intention is in fact not to treat creditors equally. That is why, on this first ground, we cannot support this Bill.

One of the matters that I would like the hon. the Minister to deal with when he replies is whether, in respect of this piece of legislation, particularly in so far as it relates to curators, he has consulted anybody in the business sector. Have the chambers of commerce been informed about this and been asked to express their opinion? They would be fundamentally concerned with the rights of creditors. Have the Association of Law Societies and the Bar Councils been consulted? If my suspicions are correct, I believe that none of them have been consulted. If they had been consulted, I believe that they would have expressed their opposition to a measure of this kind in terms of which the power exists to discriminate in respect of creditors.

When it comes to the question of protecting savings, I believe that the time has come in South Africa where we need the kind of insurance guarantee provided by the Government for the small saver as is, for example, given in respect of the savings and loan associations in the United States of America. There a small saver knows not only that he will get his savings back from an institution, but that he will get it back when he needs it. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that this kind of protection for the small saver be introduced in South Africa.

The second ground on which we oppose the Third Reading of this Bill is in respect of the provisions which relate to brokers. The hon. the Minister says that his officials have had considerable consultation with the representatives of the broking community, as well as with the insurance companies on this matter. In this case he has consulted with them, but the fact remains that as far as these provisions are concerned, they certainly again are prejudicial to the small man in the broking business. The small man in the broking business is just as much entitled to conduct his business as anyone else.

The third ground on which we oppose this Bill is because the Minister has seen fit to increase the percentages in respect of the captive investments that institutions are obliged to make. He is forcing institutions to invest ever increasing amounts in Government and public institutions and securities. What is significant about this is that the hon. the Minister has, without doubt, been forced into this situation because of the inability to obtain all the overseas capital that he would like, under the circumstances, to get. It is quite clear that the reason for this is because this Government has not made the changes which should have been made in South Africa. The price is being paid today for the delay in political change. Over the years it has become increasingly apparent in South Africa that the consumer will have to pay a tremendous price for the delays on the part of the Government in recognizing that changes must be brought about to the society in South Africa. The institutions affected by these provisions are the building societies. The one matter which, I think, becomes clearer as time goes on is that the ordinary middle-class person is finding it increasingly difficult to get money for housing at rates which he is able to pay. What is going to happen over the years as a result of this is that the State is going to have to assume an ever-increasing responsibility for housing in South Africa because the institutions which are created to meet this need are unable to satisfy the demand.

As regards pension funds, more than half of their money has to be invested in Government and public authority stocks and no protection is given to the pensioner in respect of inflation. He is obliged to invest in bonds which give a lower return than the prevailing rate of inflation. Here, again, the hon. the Minister has no obligation to pensioners, who contribute their money, to create an investment mechanism in terms of which a degree of protection against inflation can be offered. That is obviously the index savings bond which should be made available to pension funds and to the older investor so as to give him some degree of protection against inflation in the latter years of his life. This is not a novel idea. In fact, such a bond, as the hon. the Minister knows was introduced only a relatively short while ago in the United Kingdom. Indeed, there are many examples of index-type funds in other parts of the world.

Thirdly, there are, of course, the insurance companies. If I may illustrate the point again, here there is the lack of choice in regard to investments because one is compelled to invest ever-increasing amounts in Government securities. This is in fact an indirect form of expropriation. It is an indirect means of compelling people to invest in Government securities. The element of choice is taken away and the Government insists that institutions of this kind must invest in Government securities to an increasing extent as time goes on.

For these three reasons we find we are unable to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the effect of this Bill will be that hundreds of millions of rand, which could have been used to rally an economic revival in the private sector, will now be going to go to the public sector. On the basis that the Republic has an essentially mixed economy with the private and public sectors playing complementary roles, it is absolutely vital that the private sector should not be squeezed out of the capital market by the public sector. This diversion of long-term investment away from the private sector may certainly militate against any economic upturn taking place sooner. The hon. the Minister has told us he is going on a visit overseas. If he flexes his muscles while overseas, I am sure he will be able to obtain far more foreign capital than has come in up to now. In addition to that, the hon. the Minister can introduce a State lottery. If he does so, he will find millions of rand flowing into the State coffers.

Sir, I am not going to rehash all the arguments we raised in the Second Reading stage. Therefore, let me say that for the reasons we advanced during the Second Reading we shall also oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think any fresh arguments have been raised by the Opposition parties in the Third Reading debate. The main objection is to the action I am now seeking to have approved to raise the prescribed investment limits of the important savings institutions. The hon. member for Constantia has said that I have hopelessly underestimated the consequences or implications of this. I do not think I have done so at all. It has been a very well-considered step. Let me point out to the hon. members that in effect the ratios are up 2% already. That was effected last year. We are now making provision to go as far as 5%. I would again like to say that the actuary in the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions has made a careful calculation and he finds that it is not 65% of the cash flow of these institutions which is affected, but about 50%, which is a considerably lower figure. The hon. member then said that he thought this would mean the disinvestment by these institutions of private sector funds.

As an alternative.

I think that is a considerable exaggeration as we do not expect any significant disinvestment at all, if there will be any, because of the rate at which these funds are growing. Therefore I do not think this is a practical issue at which one need to look. However, the question I want to ask again is one which the hon. member for Constantia, and other hon. members who also oppose this measure, have simply ignored, namely that where we have endeavoured to keep Government spending to a minimum—I explained it earlier in this debate—and are still required, having taken quite exceptional measures to raise revenue, particularly because of the all-time record spending on defence, where we are still required, having taken all those measures to find something like R750 million, what else am I expected to do? I say that I cannot cut Government spending further, not unless there is going to be large-scale retrenchment in the Public Service and other far-reaching and unfortunate results. So I am still left with a requirement to find R750/R760 million. There is only one alternative left and that is to raise direct taxes. That is what the hon. member for Constantia and other hon. members have completely left out of their argument. So I ask the question again. The hon. member for Constantia says: “No, you do not have to do that. You must simply encourage saving”. But we have encouraged savings in some very substantial ways. If one analyses the position one will see that. But is the hon. member saying that in addition to the present savings rate we can increase savings this year by R750 million under these conditions? It is a physical impossibility. I am prepared to say it is a physical impossibility.

You have overspent for so many years.

No, we are not overspending. Let us be fair. It is interesting that only this morning I had another very distinguished overseas banker in my office, a man who is known world-wide. The first thing he said to me was that whatever else may be said about South Africa, no one can say that we are not exercising a degree of financial discipline which would be the envy of the country he represented and many others which he knew well. He said that in the presence of the Secretary of Finance. Now the hon. member says that we must cut expenditure still further. That is not the answer. One must not try to kill the economy. Therefore I think that is rather a theoretical argument to advance. Then the hon. member for Constantia said that we must look at the United Kingdom, saying that they do not have this order of investment in prescribed assets. Of course they do not. They obtain an enormous percentage of their funds from taxation. They have practically the highest level of taxation in the world.

I say again that when the hon. member for Constantia tells me that the issue I raised is not relevant, I say it goes to the heart of the issue. It is the only alternative I have. Is he suggesting that I raise taxes anywhere near the U.K. level? With respect, I do not think one can argue the matter on that basis and I leave it at that.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to curators and said that that was one of the reasons why he was opposing this measure. He said that proposals in this legislation would lead to discrimination in respect of creditors, etc. I did try to go out of my way when he raised that matter earlier to answer that. In fact, I went so far as to introduce an amendment. If one looks at clause 21 one will see that I moved an amendment whereby the onus would be placed on the Minister to impose conditions on a curator to ensure equity between creditors. In the appointment of curators, in terms of the amendment the Minister can now impose conditions to obviate precisely this type of discrimination which the hon. member fears. The whole aim was to meet the hon. member on this point. I say this because it is entirely out of my mind to cause this kind of discrimination, if it can possibly be avoided. That provision, put in that general form, is to allow the Minister to do this in the letter of appointment. The Minister can now state that, such and such, affecting creditors, must be done or must not be done.

And will you impose the condition that there can be no discrimination?

This is the whole intention here. If there is any fear or possibility of the type of discrimination the hon. member fears, we can make use of this amendment in an endeavour to obviate it.

The hon. member also asked who had been consulted. I did mention during the course of the debate that the Registrar of Financial Institutions had consulted a large number of interested parties and individuals in many fields affected. Unfortunately the registrar could not be here today. I cannot give the hon. member a detailed list of the parties, but I am quite prepared though to let him have that. The registrar has assured me that he consulted on a very wide scale over the last two or three years in respect of this legislation. I will take that further with the hon. member in due course.

The hon. member also raised the question of the raising of the prescribed investments. He said that he thought the reason was that I was not able to obtain the overseas capital that I should obtain, and that I therefore had to fall back on this measure. I do not think we must be misled by the fact that for practical, prudent reasons I provided in the budget merely for the renewal of overseas loans to the extent of R149 million. I did that deliberately, because I know that conditions in the capital market are difficult. I did that deliberately to be on the safe side. However, I am not pessimistic in this respect. I have not ever said that capital is coming in as easily now as it did the year before last or even last year. But the fact is that we are obtaining capital. We have excellent relations with some extremely important financial institutions abroad. I am not pessimistic, but I do not think that one can reasonably say that the reason for this is that we cannot obtain capital abroad. The reason lies in the difficulties and the uncertainties confronting Southern Africa, things which are not always put very nicely abroad. For instance, I was shown a certain report today on what was happening in South West Africa. If one must accept that that is what is happening at the Turnhalle, then it is a different language to me. Unfortunately these things are not put fairly abroad, and that does not assist us. However, I would suggest that a party like the PRP might also consider giving us a little bit more assistance, instead of simply raising these issues in this critical way. The PRP could also contribute to restoring that climate of confidence which we basically certainly deserve to have. I have no doubt that the inherent strength of our economy and, if I may say so, the soundness of the measures that we are following—which can already be seen in the vast improvement in the current account of the balance of payments—will carry us through our present difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—84: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koomhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

Noes—43: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; VAN ECK, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on his appointment to the important position which he now occupies. When I first came to Parliament, our relations with the outside world played only a small part in our domestic politics. At that time South Africa was still a member of the Commonwealth. We derived some satisfaction from this because we were intimately associated with an important part of the Western power sphere and even with countries and developments in Africa.

Since then, however, the situation has changed radically. We have left the Commonwealth and we are largely isolated from the rest of Africa. Already we are standing with one foot outside the UNO. As Mr. Piet Cillié, the editor of Die Burger, recently said in an article in The New York Times, “politically speaking we may be the loneliest nation in the world today”. If, in addition, one considers the fact that it has become the vogue among Government speakers lately to inveigh against the West, one receives the impression that a form of heroic isolationism is taking root in the thinking of many people on the Government side.

Under these circumstances, the role of the hon. the Minister, the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, becomes more important than before. He has succeeded Dr. Hilgard Muller, a man who had several virtues. One of those virtues was that he was sparing of words. This quality stood him and South Africa in good stead. With the arrival of Mr. Andrew Young and others, a new style has now emerged in international politics, namely to fire away at everything and everyone in sight.

If the hon. the Minister is going to emulate this style, he will be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis Dr. Muller. In one respect, however, he has an important advantage over his predecessor. Dr. Muller began his career as a Minister in the days of Dr. Verwoerd, in a time when the Government’s domestic policy was more rigid and inflexible than ever. The present hon. Minister finds himself in a much more favourable position, for the domestic policy of the Government has become noticeably more flexible, though not sufficiently so. In the light of this, the new Minister’s performance is being watched with great interest. We in the Opposition have always adopted the attitude that a new man must be given a chance before being criticized, and we intend to adhere to this policy in the case of this new Minister as well.

The hon. the Minister has created a public image of himself which has given rise to great expectations inside and outside South Africa. Years ago, when he first came to Parliament as an ordinary member, he made an impressive plea for South Africa to subscribe to the Declaration of Human Rights in its own best interests. At his recent election in Westdene he emphasized once again that “we need not run away from the provisions of that declaration”. However, he is no longer just an ordinary hon. member who merely takes an interest in foreign affairs; he is now the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and we hope that we shall now get the necessary action from him. He was also the Government’s spokesman who promised before the Security Council in New York that the Government would do everything in its power to move away from discrimination on grounds of race and colour. In the meantime, he has returned to South Africa and fought an election in Westdene. He did it in the form of a crusade for the elimination of colour discrimination. In countries abroad, especially in America, newspapers published enthusiastic reports of speeches held by the hon. the Minister during the election. Therefore, he gave rise to renewed expectations in the outside world as well. With reference to this all I want to tell him in all friendliness that he himself has created this image of himself and that his posters in Westdene also held him up as a “man of action”. We believe that he knows what this means and what it implies.

The question of colour discrimination is of overriding importance in our foreign relations. The mouthpiece of the South African Foundation quite rightly expressed it as follows recently—

I fully agree with that—

We know that this is so, and the hon. the Minister will also realize what sharp and dangerous reactions are caused on the part of leaders abroad if their expectations are aroused and then disappointed. In 1974, after the Government’s undertaking in the Security Council about the elimination of discrimination, key men such as President Kaunda of Zambia became enthusiastic participants in dialogue and détente. After 1974 there was every hope that together, he and the Prime Minister of South Africa would initiate a new dispensation of peace in Southern Africa. However, where does he stand today? Today he has openly ranged himself on the side of the war-mongers. The blame for this certainly does not lie on one side only, nor would I want to suggest that it does. President Kaunda explained his side of the matter in an interview with the Rand Daily Mail. With reference to the hon. the Prime Minister he said, amongst other things—

I mention this because it is true that precious little has been done since that undertaking was given at the Security Council. The front-line leaders, therefore, felt that they had been let down and humiliated in the eyes of their own people. The result is—and this is the fact we have to face—that the South African Government is blamed and that the failure of our leaders to honour their undertakings is now effectively being used as a reason for turning to violence as the final means of settling the disputes that exist, instead of continuing the dialogue. It is clear that no matter what other people may do, we must keep our house in order at all times, and the undertakings we give to the outside world and the expectations we arouse should be fulfilled in South Africa without hesitation. That is why we hope that the hon. the Minister, as a new Minister, will see his role in this House as a positive and a constructive one and that he will use this House as a forum for proving to the world that he and his Government are in fact men of action and men of their word.

The country is getting its fair share of what we may call emotional politics in the field of our foreign relations. We all know the story of the double standards which are sometimes used against us. It is a pity, but it is true. This is an old characteristic of international politics, but it is also a characteristic of national politics. Where selfish interests take precedence in national and in international politics, elevated morality is unfortunately not always the norm. Therefore it is no use referring to this again, for we know that this is so and that it will always be so. There are double standards in our domestic politics as well.

†We also know the story which is so often repeated, namely “ons sal nie buk nie” and “we will not be dictated to from outside”. It is a point of view with which nobody in South Africa disagrees. National self-respect is important and no country on earth wants to see its Government go creeping before others. We would be the first to criticize the Government if it took orders from outside. We are not mistrustful of the Government in this particular respect at all. However, the Government would not be so unrealistic as to deny that they have to take note of world events and of the wider opinion. Neither will they deny that there is a need for us to seek allies and to ensure our safety and survival. Furthermore we must try to prevent differences developing into a state of conflict.

The Government has just conferred with the five Western members of the Security Council over the issue of South West Africa, and quite rightly so. They conferred in a manner which was in fact an open exercise of compromise politics. Major adaptations and alterations to policy were made in order to avoid an escalation of violence and to ensure that an independent South West Africa will be recognized and supported at least by the leaders of the West. It is of course true that South West Africa is a territory with an “international status”, according to the Government. However, the Government will not deny that also in respect of certain fields of policy in the Republic itself, it has had to follow a path of compromise in order to overcome international hostility.

We on this side have never made this the basis for an attack on the Government, or for criticism of the Government. But we must make it clear to the Government once again that we do not believe that policy should be reactive to pressure. We do not believe that there is wisdom in constantly trying to stave off disaster by employing concession politics of a placatory kind. We believe in the politics of anticipation and of self-initiative; in other words, in the pursuit of real-politik, which is a matter of skilfully adapting to international change with a view to influencing changes to one’s own advantage. That is our outlook. Let me illustrate. We live in an era of what one can call the humanistic revolution. This is a revolution against, in the first place, colonialism. There is nothing on earth to stop it. That is why over the years, before the Government actually came so far as to accept it, we on this side insisted on a policy of independence and self-determination for South West as a whole, because we believed that it was inevitable. It only remained for us to lead it along the best lines. Had the Government adopted this as a piece of real-politik 10 to 15 years ago, instead of coming forward with the politically disastrous Odendaal plan which emanated from Dr. Verwoerd, the whole course of events in Southern Africa could already have been different and far more favourable for South Africa. It is also a revolution against racialism, against underdoggism, against colour discrimination particularly, and against policies of economic inequality, which is today the greatest disturber of peace in the world. I mean racialism, of course. Against this revolution politics of concession and of bowing to pressure merely aggravates the situation. Real-politik is required. As a matter of own political initiative we should make our goal a pluralist open South Africa where government does not dominate but liberates the individual.

We have been debating lately about the concepts of majority rule, full participation in government for all, “one man, one vote” and the pressures on South Africa, particularly from countries like the United States. Government members have worked themselves into a state of great excitement over what President Carter, Mr. Mondale and Mr. Young have had to say in the last couple of weeks. I heard Mr. Young in Johannesburg. I make no apologies for having gone to listen for myself what he thinks and how he puts his case. I heard him reject the concept of Black majority rule, in other words, majority rule in a racial sense. I heard him say that he would not prescribe to South Africa political ways and means. I did read that Vice-President Mondale had replied to a question in Vienna that he saw the concept of full participation of all in government as being the same thing as “one man, one vote”. His words were: “Every citizen should have the right to vote and every vote should be equally weighted.” That is what he said. Taking everything into consideration, I never got the impression that the United States has an obsession about majority rule or “one man, one vote” in South Africa within a unitary Westminster system of government. According to this morning’s papers Mr. Carter, speaking yesterday, confirmed that their opposition was mainly based on the unfair practices of discrimination here. I want to say that what struck me indeed was the hopeless public relations manner in which Government spokesmen handled the statement about “one man, one vote”. The way the Government handled this must have left the clear impression abroad that we were still in favour of a policy of “baasskap”. That is a wrong approach. In South West Africa everyone will now get the vote, including the Bushmen. It is a form of “one man, one vote”. Nobody can deny it. Every man will get a vote, but in a system which avoids the domination of one national group over another. Switzerland, with its system of cantons and communes, has “one man, one vote”. A whole row of front line leaders of the NP have recently been holding Switzerland up as a model of multinational government which South Africa should emulate. I know they have been silenced by the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister cannot erase what they have said and he cannot change their thinking. As far as I am concerned, let the American politicians say and think what they like. America is not going to send an army across the seas to force a Westminster model of “one man, one vote” on South Africa.

In Vienna there was not even a discussion on possible steps against South Africa. My concern is that Government members have so many cadenzas over these indefinite and undefined concepts of certain foreign politicians. What we need is a greater political maturity. Real-politik demands that we accept the principle of “a vote for everyone” and a meaningful say for everyone in matters which affect his daily life. We should shout this out to the world as often as we can because what is relevant is a recognition of our cultural pluralism within a free and open society and under a system, which will, of course, have to be federal, wherein no national group will be able to dominate or suppress another. This is what we should be fighting for. It is something which we can fight for with success. This is where we should place the emphasis.

Mr. Chairman, it has suddenly become fashionable in Government politics to damn “the West” on every occasion and for every ill in the world. In fact, we have the laughable situation in the House that for their failures in domestic problems they still blame the Government of 30 years ago; for their failures in respect of homelands, they now blame British colonialism of 100 years ago; and for their international problems they now blame “the West”. It is sad, but in many respects they talk in the same language about the West as the communist powers. Western countries are not without mistakes, and they do not have a monopoly of wisdom, but we shall have to make up our minds about the side we are on, where our enemies lie and who have the best potential for becoming our friends. Basically I believe that the Western powers would like to help us, because we can also help them. However, there is a wide and deep resistance everywhere in the world and particularly in Africa against the Government’s prevailing political policies; and for a country of the Free World to be seen to associate itself with those policies is to weaken itself in the battle against communism. It is as simple as that. It is not a matter of being dictated to from outside; we are dealing with a matter of survival. To survive, we shall urgently have to evolve a just and morally defensible system. The alternative is that we stand alone, unnecessarily so, and face a solution that will come from the battlefield.

*Furthermore, I have a few questions which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. In the first place I want to say that all the indications are that our relations with the UNO may deteriorate further, with the emphasis henceforth being laid on our internal situation. The question is being asked whether the time has not come for the hon. the Prime Minister to follow up his visit to Vienna with a visit to the UNO. One hopes that the South West issue is now closer to a solution than ever before, and if the Government produces a really dynamic programme for abolishing colour discrimination, and if it is quite serious with the committee it has appointed to find a system other than the Westminster system, a system which will incorporate everyone and which will make all our people full citizens, the hon. the Prime Minister ought to be very well equipped to make an impression at the world body.

Our relations with our immediate neighbours, especially with Lesotho, leave much to be desired. The hon. the Minister was there recently. I hope he will be able to say what is being done to repair the poor relations. The hon. the Minister has also been to the Transkei, where we have to contend with border problems. The Prime Minister of Transkei recently made a surprisingly strongly-worded statement on this matter and threatened to break off diplomatic relations with South Africa if we went ahead with plans to incorporate Griqualand East into Natal. What never ceases to amaze me, however, is that the Government simply cannot get round to establishing normal diplomatic relations with our major neighbouring countries. The question is: Does the fault lie with us or with them? A prominent expert on African politics who visited this country recently, and who travelled to East Africa for this specific purpose, warned us that a terrorist army was now being raised against South Africa. He believes that its effect will be felt after a period of eight months.

I cannot tell in how far this view is correct, but what we do know is that in one or two years’ time, when South West Africa, Rhodesia and Bophuthatswana have become independent, the Republic of South Africa will border on eight independent African countries. This will have a tremendous effect on our future security. What we urgently need today, in the light of the developments, is an active policy of safe borders. As it is, almost one million people from neighbouring States are working in South Africa, people who have regular access to our country, quite apart from the situation which is going to arise when we are bordered by eight African countries. We could never get a reply from the previous hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs: we had hoped that he would be able to explain to us why we simply could not get round to establishing diplomatic relations with our closest neighbours. We had the old story of “telephone diplomacy”. Surely we have to enter into normal relations. Moscow, Peking and Belgrade consider it important enough to be represented in Lesotho and Botswana, but we do not.

There are other questions as well. I also want to know from the hon. the Minister: What progress have we made in training Black and Brown South Africans for diplomatic posts, to represent the Republic abroad? We raised this matter here for years. Eventually the Government got so far as to train a number of people for Transkei. But no visible steps have been taken to allow the rest of the South African population to participate in the promotion services of South Africa abroad. They say: “You speak of multi-nationalism, but when you look at your representation abroad, there is only one nation, the Whites.” I think it is essential that attention be given to this matter, and I should like to know where the Government stands in this connection. I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister what South Africa’s official position is with regard to Angola. As far as Angola is concerned, we have the situation that there are important water and irrigation works. And what is being done to free the South African boys who are still being kept prisoner there?

That is an old question.

I know my hon. friends on the other side are not interested in it. They are interested in party politics, but when it comes to the interests of South Africa and its people, they sit here and make a noise. They are welcome to go on doing that. In particular, I want to know from the hon. the Minister where we stand today in our relations with France. It was reported in April that the President of France had appealed to his Western allies to stop supplying arms to South Africa. France was the only country which still supplied aircraft to South Africa. It is extremely important that we be on the best of terms with a country such as France. The French Government is condemning the Government’s domestic policy in very strong terms these days. The reason why France is so important is that it is playing a leading role today, together with ten of its former colonies, in combating communist subversion in Africa. We saw the part it played in Zaïre recently. It is a pity that we, who pretend that we have to play a leading part in combating communism, do not fit into this picture, because of the poor relations we have with Africa and because our relations with France have now also deteriorated. I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister why New Zealand has turned down our proposal that they open an embassy in Pretoria.

There are quite a number of other questions and matters which will be raised by other hon. members. There are many questions we want to ask about the situation in connection with South West Africa. But in view of the fact that legislation is to be introduced and that we will have a full debate on this matter shortly, we shall not ask those questions at this stage. However, I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give a proper reply to the questions that have already been put to him.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister. I believe that he will be furnished with conclusive replies to all the questions he and other hon. members ask in this debate. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a statement which I cannot, unfortunately, allow to pass unanswered. To be specific, he intimated that the NP was inveighing against the West. He made out that our reaction to the attitude of the West could almost be seen as blaming the West for everything—if I interpret the hon. member’s words correctly. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the mere fact that over the past three weeks extensive discussions took place in Vienna with the Vice-President of the USA, furnishes proof of the fact that there is no question of a confrontation between South Africa and the West. On the contrary. When standpoints adopted by representatives of those countries are discussed and replied to, it is done with the sole aim of putting South Africa’s standpoint very clearly so that there may be no lack of clarity in regard to South Africa’s standpoint in the West, Africa or elsewhere in the world.

In the course of my speech I shall reply to certain other statements which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made. Since he referred at the beginning of his speech to our former Minister of Foreign Affairs I should like to place on record, on behalf of this side of the House, that we were privileged to have Dr. Hilgard Muller as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1964 until this year. He is one of those people whose presence should inspire gratitude in the ranks of his people. The fact that South Africa became a republic in 1961, that our country’s image had to be established throughout the world, that we had to establish ourselves as a young country, and that we could have a man like Dr. Hilgard Muller as our chief representative on the international scene to assist in the fulfilment of that task was of tremendous significance for South Africa. With his humility, his decisiveness and his integrity, Dr. Muller conveyed the true image of South Africa, the image of a country which can be relied upon at all times, through thick and thin. We on this side of the House are grateful to have been able to work with him for so many years.

However, we are just as grateful for the privilege of having someone as head of the Department of Foreign Affairs today who is still a young man. Looking at him as he sits in front of me here, I am sure that if he had scrummed for Northern Transvaal on Saturday, Western Province would perhaps have had a harder time of it at Newlands. We are grateful that he is still young. We are grateful that he has a long apprenticeship, that he has had experience, that he has been able to live with the problems of our times, with the problems of Southern Africa, and that with his grounding and his knowledge, not only of the problems but also of the people on the international scene, he was able to take over Dr. Muller’s responsibilities. We want to give him the assurance that the more than 120 hon. members on this side of the House are behind him wherever he may have to go to put South Africa’s case. I believe, too, that he has the support, not only of hon. members on this side of the House, but of the whole of South Africa when he has to represent our country abroad.

Furthermore I also want to avail myself of the opportunity to say to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Brand Fourie, to all his officials here in South Africa and to all our representatives abroad that we realize that in these times a very difficult task rests upon their shoulders. We are grateful, however, to know that we are dealing with calm and trained people, and the name Brand Fourie does not signify a person who causes fires (brande) but rather someone who understands the art of quenching them. When hon. members of all parties leave South Africa to pay a visit overseas later this year, they will come into contact with our representatives there. I believe that they will return here with the same very favourable image of those men that everyone else has had who has learned to know them over the years.

I believe that in a country like South Africa in particular we should be specially grateful for the fact that we have a Prime Minister who has a team of men to whom he can delegate a great deal of work so that he can devote much of his valuable time to our relations with our neighbouring states and to our relations with countries of the subcontinent in which we, too, live. I am grateful to have been able to stand in front of the Senate entrance to the Parliamentary Building on the day when he was elected as Prime Minister. On that day he adopted the fundamental standpoint that South Africa’s problems would be solved here in South Africa. He said this while pointing with his finger to this soil. We are fortunate that at this juncture, our foreign relations being what they are, we could have someone like him who could take the initiative in solving problems that have been dragging on and that we have been grappling with for a long time. All of us as members of this House and as South Africans must be grateful that the hon. the Prime Minister’s powers are still such today that in recent times he has been able to devote his attention to this extent, not only in South Africa but also on the world scene, to the normalization of relations between South Africa and other countries.

We are living at a time when, in Southern Africa in particular, it is becoming more and more evident what the true problems of Africa and the world are. In the first instance, it is clear to us that Russian imperialism poses the major threat to all free peoples; not only in Africa but on all other continents as well. In the second instance it is clear to us that the relationships between rich and poor nations and between the developed and developing nations and the underdeveloped nations are going to be the fundamental world issues in the future.

It is our privilege to be able to live in South Africa with its enormous potential. I believe that the role of the Republic of South Africa will be the key to the fate of virtually all nations in Southern Africa. Because this fact is realized throughout the world, the Soviet Union and its satellites are attempting to isolate South Africa in every sphere. They are attempting to isolate South Africa from its natural allies and friends in Africa because they realize that in South Africa and the surrounding countries there are minerals and other raw materials in such quantities that they could play a decisive role in the future of the world. That, too, is why they want to ensure that South Africa is isolated from its natural friends in the world. It is also because they realize that South Africa occupies a key position on the trade routes of the world they are trying to isolate South Africa in the field of defence and in other fields as well so that South Africa is unable to play its natural role in the subcontinent and the world.

It must be clear to all of us that if South Africa were to fall, the light would be extinguished for all other African nations south of the equator. It should also be equally clear to everyone that if South Africa should prosper, a golden future could await not only those living within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, but all other peoples close to us as well.

Today, with these problems in mind, I briefly want to ask: What is the situation in the Republic of South Africa itself? I do not want to refer at length to the issue of the normalization of relations between White, Brown and Black in South Africa. Other speakers will deal with that. I do not want to refer to the opportunities for all peoples to compete in the field of sport and other spheres in South Africa. Nor do I wish to refer to the process of emancipation which has been in progress in South Africa over the past decades. I only want to refer to the material sphere, that sphere which must necessarily affect each one of us, rich or poor, at some stage of our life. [Time expired.]

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

I thank the hon. member for Mooi River for the opportunity to complete my speech.

What is the position in South Africa now? In the years 1971 and 1972 South Africa spent an amount of R244 million on development of all aspects of the homelands. However, in the year 1976-’77, five years later, this amount had increased to R752 million, an increase of about 200% within a period of five years. This means that in the year 1970-’71 this country spent 1,5% of its total gross domestic product on the development of the homelands alone. Three years later, in 1974-’75, the percentage was 2,1%, whereas in the 1976-’77 financial year it is 2,6%. This means that within a period of six years, South Africa has increased the percentage of the amount its people earned which it spent on the homelands, from 1,5% to 2,6%. If we contrast this with the 0,3% per annum which the wealthy countries of the world spend on the underdeveloped countries, we form some impression of the massive scale of the aid which South Africa is providing to the developing peoples within its borders. These amounts constituted 6,6% of all Government expenditure in 1970-’71, but in the year 1976-’77 the amount had increased to 8,9%.

I shall refer in a moment to what is being said by the underdeveloped peoples of the world and the demands they make on the rich, developed peoples. If we look at these figures we get an impression of what has in fact happened in recent years here in South Africa. That, too, is why it is not surprising to see how the income per capita of the Coloureds and the Whites in South Africa has risen over the past 15 years. From 1961 to 1975 the income per capita of Whites increased by 143%. In contrast, the income per capita of Coloureds increased by 176% and that of the Bantu by 195%. In recent times, from 1971 to 1976, the average salaries and wages of Whites rose by 62,4% whereas in the case of Coloureds they rose by 74,3% and in the case of Blacks by 150,9%—in the case of the Black man an increase over the past five years of almost double that of the Whites.

Taking just one elementary form of measurement of prosperity as a criterion, we see that as far as the possession of means of transport in South Africa is concerned, the number of motor-cars owned by Whites increased between 1960 and 1976 from 651 000 to 1 665 000. If we take 1960 as our base year, the increase was from 100 to 256. In contrast, the number of motor-cars owned by Coloureds over the same period increased from 10 100 to 96 400. Again taking 1960 as our base year, the increase was from 100 to 947. The increase in the number of motor-cars owned by Coloureds was about three times more rapid than in the case of Whites. In the corresponding period, the number of motor-cars owned by Black people increased from 19 600 to 153 800. If 1960 is taken as the base year, ownership of motor-cars among Black people increased from 100 to 784. This is two and a half times the percentage increase of the Whites. I mention these figures to indicate what has been happening in the material sphere in South Africa over the past decade.

Another factor which is not always fully appreciated is that the distribution of income per family has also improved tremendously as a result of the drop in the rate of population growth of the non-White peoples. A tremendous improvement in their welfare has also occurred as a result. Over the period 1960 to 1970 the rate of population increase among the Whites was 1,47% per annum, and over the period 1970 to 1974 it dropped to 1,37% per annum. In contrast, the rate of increase of the Coloured population dropped from 2,87% for the period between 1960 and 1970 to 2,07% for the period 1970-’74.

I mention this as an example, not only to indicate that the salaries and wages in South Africa have dramatically improved as far as the non-Whites are concerned, but also to indicate that because its rate of increase is dropping dramatically, we in South Africa could have a potentially unique pattern which would be in total contrast to what is happening in the rest of the world. We could achieve a level of prosperity for our non-White peoples which in my opinion could become an example and a model for the entire world.

If we consider what happened in 1976 just before the UNCTAD IV conference in Nairobi, where the demands of the Third World were put to the developed countries, and if we take note of the pessimism which is clear from the speech made by the president of the Philippines on 26 January last year, in which he came to the conclusion that it could all eventually lead to confrontation—as he put it, either death or war in the world—we are grateful to have an entirely different situation here in South Africa. This encourages us to think that it is possible not only to solve the problems here in South Africa as regards the relationship between rich and poor, but that South Africa could also in fact become the catalyst for the development of the entire Southern Africa.

I do not have the time to go into this in detail today, but I want to state categorically from this side of the House that no other country in the world can take over South Africa’s role in this connection. As regards the consumption of power, railway traffic and the use of harbours, South Africa is indispensable and must necessarily play a key role in the development of Southern Africa. I believe that what has already been created here, institutions that serve South Africa at this stage, will in fact become the keys to the development of all the countries in Southern Africa.

Let me refer briefly to some of these institutions. Last year I referred to the role which the CSIR could play in this connection. There are many hundreds of highly trained scientists in this organization and this is something which could not be duplicated in Southern Africa for a century or two. I believe that this organization could play a multinational role in years to come. In the same way the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, too, is something which cannot be duplicated. I could continue in this vein and mention one example after the other in many spheres, of institutions which exist here and which, through their multi-national role in the future, could become the key factor in the development of all the countries of this subcontinent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the second half hour? We have listened with interest to the hon. member for Vasco who has given us a fairly extensive catalogue of South Africa’s achievements in the area of the gross national product, the gross domestic product, expenditure on the homelands and social welfare services. In a sense these figures are impressive, but the more impressive they are, the more he should ask himself the question: Why is it that in spite of these achievements, we find ourselves isolated to the extent that we do in the world today? I can only answer that question by referring to a conversation which I had with a gentleman who is now the Vice-President of Kenya. He was then the Minister of Education in an interim Government in Kenya. He said: “What you do not understand is that I was educated by Afrikaner missionaries. I understand them. I am a member of the Commonwealth Association. I read your blue books and your brown books and I know of the achievements of South Africa. We know that your hospitals are better, that your Defence Force is stronger and that your standard of education is higher than we can afford in our own country. Having said all that, may I ask you this one simple question: Can I as a Black man live in dignity in your country?”

Why not?

Until we have found a formula whereby Black, Brown and White people can live together in dignity—and that involves scrapping enforced apartheid in South Africa—we are going to be what Die Burger called “the-skunk of the world”. This is the lesson. It is not the achievements that we have attained at material levels, but whether we have managed to devise a system which takes account of human dignity and the elimination of discrimination.

Never have international affairs been more important for South Africa. Perhaps they have never been more difficult and perhaps they have never been more unsatisfactory. It is in this atmosphere that the new hon. Minister takes his post. We wish him well in his activities on behalf of South Africa. It is not only the distant countries, it is not only the United Nations, but as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned, it is the countries in and around us which present to us both problems and challenges. There is the relationship with Mozambique and Angola, the problem of South West Africa, the growing problem of Botswana, the question of Lesotho and the question of the Transkei. All of these are issues. Only very recently we had the situation in Zaïre. In that case a non-communist country was threatened by an invasion which we said was communist and Soviet inspired. Yet, because of our internal policies, our hands were tied. In spite of the relationship we developed with Zaïre when we were assisting the FNLA and Unita forces, we were unable to go in there. Instead Zaïre had to rely on the Arabs and the Egyptians and, according to President Mobuto Sese Seko, 700 Chinese. When it came to the Shaba province, the copper belt of Southern Africa, we sat helpless. We, the great anti-communists of Africa, were unable to help them. It was not because they did not want our military or economic support but because they could not afford that support as long as we apply policies of apartheid within our own country.

There are a vast range of subjects which could be discussed, but if the course of this debate we manage to tackle the question of our relationships with the West and if the hon. the Minister can manage to define his Government’s attitude to the West, both in terms of where it is today and where he would like to take South Africa, I believe we would have spent this day well. At the moment there are conflicting statements from the Government in regard to South Africa’s attitude towards the West. We have had the hon. the Minister of Defence saying—

The hon. the Minister himself, however, referred to the West in the following terms in a Press report: “Hy hoop egter dat Suid-Afrika se Westerse bondgenote soos Amerika weer vir ons beter sal kan vind.” He refers to them as “ons bondgenote soos Amerika”. Then we had the hon. the Minister of Information and of the Interior, who made that remarkable speech while the hon. the Minister was campaigning in Westdene. All the indications were that he was talking about us having a better relationship with Communist China and that we were turning our backs on the West. So seriously has this been taken up that the following was reported in the Press—

One has also had the Prime Minister describing America as the bastion of anticommunism. He said that as it was the bastion and the leader of the anti-communist West, it was also the leader of South Africa. So one has these conflicting statements and attitudes about South Africa and the West. In my opinion whatever the defects may be in the West, we should make no mistake about the fact that the West, is of vital importance to South Africa, whether you take the economy, trade, imports, exports, capital, expertise, whether you look at the vast infrastructure of cultural, scientific and educational institutions we have built up in our country, or whether you take our strategy. The Prime Minister is on record as saying: “Sonder die steun van Amerika sal die Weste, en dus ook Suid-Afrika, nie die aanslae van die kommuniste kan afweer nie.” That is very important. There are other important bonds, such as our attitude towards parliamentary government, human freedoms, the Press, and economic systems based on free enterprise. We in these benches believe that without an active and vigorous association with the West and the Free World, South Africa would not only be economically, culturally and militarily weaker, but would find it much more difficult to solve its own internal problems. What is more, we would become the victim of a self-inflicted isolation psychosis, which I believe many members opposite are already accepting as part of their general philosophy. By all means, let us talk about the importance of the Cape sea route and our vast mineral resources. Let us reemphasize our anti-communist commitment, but let us stop adopting a hollow posture of disinterest in, or even hostility towards, the West. Of course there will be things that will be done and said from time to time by Western spokesmen which, to put it in the common way, will make us mad. Nevertheless, a close association with the West and the Free World is vital to South Africa in the critical days ahead. Conversely, isolation of South Africa from the West or the Free World would be a serious setback to us, both in internal and external affairs.

The negative approach which appears to come through the Government’s spoken word recently, seems to be based on two hypotheses which the Government advances. I want to deal with these two. The first one is that they say that the West has lost its will to oppose Soviet communism and that it is prepared to sacrifice Rhodesia, South West Africa and even South Africa in the face of a determined Soviet threat. The hon. member for Simonstown agrees with this statement of the Government. I believe that this hypothesis is a very dangerous misreading of the realities of Western strategy. I believe that the West is concerned about communism. I believe that it is concerned about Soviet imperialism, just as I believe are the majority of States in Africa. Far from trying to ignore Soviet interests in Southern Africa the West is trying to combat and counter many of the Soviet initiatives. The British Foreign Secretary in the Anglo-American initiative in Rhodesia, is trying to find a situation in which the Soviets will not be able to have another sphere of influence in that part of the continent. The hon. the Minister and the Prime Minister have been engaged in long talks with the contact group led by Mr. Don McHenry. That contact group is trying to work out with South Africa a basis of solving the South West African issue. Clearly this is also an attempt to prevent racial confrontation there and the Soviet Union getting a strangle hold on that territory. I believe that there is no evidence of lack of will on the part of the West; there is a constructive effort on their part to try to counter Russian influence and to improve their own. The much-maligned ambassador, Mr. Young, last month went to the UNO conference on liberation in Maputo. Many people asked what the West was doing there. The UK Minister, Mr. Ted Rowlands, also went there. All the evidence on the text of these gentlemen’s speeches is that here they stood up before what you could call radical Black Africa and argued the case of negotiation instead of war. They were arguing the case of a peaceful settlement instead of violence. They, in fact, were countering Russian tactics. I believe the hon. the Minister knows that they had a moderating influence on the outcome of that conference and that they did spike the Russian guns on that occasion. I believe he knows that Western influence in the African community was enhanced as a result of the activities of the Western delegation at that conference. The West’s desire to see South Africa move away from race discrimination is also related to the belief that as long as we practise race discrimination in South Africa we will give, in the eyes of Black Africa, a justification to the Soviet presence and Soviet involvement in this part of the continent. Much of their activity in this part of the world is designed to try to counter the machinations and the scheming of the communists.

It is correct that President Carter recently announced a change of strategy as far as the United States is concerned. He announced that change in a speech at Notre-Dame University on 26 May. I think we would be wrong to interpret a change of strategy as a change of objective. Quite clearly, the objective is the same while the strategy is different. The United States, which the hon. the Prime Minister has described as the leader of the Free World, has correctly reappraised the effectiveness of its previous strategy. That previous strategy was based on containment which was essentially defensive in nature and which relied heavily on non-communist alliances. That kind of activity in the modern situation of its very nature tends to increase the risk of East/West confrontation. Rightly or wrongly, the United States has decided to move away from that strategy. It formulated a new strategy not based on defensive containment, but based on the confidence in the democratic system, on the confidence in the ability of the Free World to counter communism through the merit of its own system, through the merit of the social, economic and political system which is an essential part of the Free World. We should see this as a positive approach.

I am afraid that I do not have the time to read quotations from that and other policy statements. We must ask ourselves whether there is a role for South Africa to play within the framework of this new strategy of the West. Are we in a position to play a positive role, and not merely a defensive role, not merely a containing role in relation to the Soviet Union or in relation to communism? I believe we should in fact do so. I do not for one moment suggest we should let down our guard as far as communism or the dangers of Soviet Imperialism are concerned, but if we are going to be effective in the light of this strategy, we must deal with our own situation not merely by taking negative, defensive measures, but by taking positive measures. We on this side have said time and time again that we must remove the seed-beds of discontent on which communism thrives. We, who are supposed to believe in democracy, should be championing the cause of liberation in South Africa, liberation of all the people of South Africa from the oppression of apartheid. We should be the champions of liberation in South Africa. We must stop giving communists the credibility which I believe they do not deserve. We should be showing the majority of the people in our country that our system, the system of the Free World, the system in which we say we believe, can provide more social justice, more economic progress and more political participation than anything the communists can offer. We know that if we are to counter communist imperialism, we are going to have to make Black South Africans part of our system. They are going to have to be part of our system, whether it is in the social, the economic or the political sphere. Only if they are part of our system and it is a system they want to defend against the communists, have we got any hope of defeating the communists in the long run. All the money we spend on defence will be of no avail unless we can persuade Black South Africans that in the democratic system for which we stand there is a better future for them than under the communists.

The second hypothesis to which I wish to refer, is being used, I believe, to conceal from South Africans the import of the message which the hon. the Prime Minister received from the United States in Vienna. The hon. the Minister was privileged because he was present at those deliberations. I believe this hypothesis is being advanced to cover up the failure of Government policies. This hypothesis is basically that the West, the United States, is demanding that we adopt specific internal policies which they have prescribed for us. This hypothesis is very often reinforced with what I believe are relevant pieces of demagoguery, the question of “We will not negotiate our own destruction.” But the hon. the Minister is on record as saying a little while ago that the USA does not want our destruction. The hon. the Prime Minister said “I am prepared to be hanged for what I am, but I am damned if I am going to be hanged for what I am not.” Nobody is asking him to hang in the first place. This kind of demagoguery is a smoke-screen to hide the reality of the message which was conveyed to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I believe it is in our interests that we should look beyond the slogans, that we should look beyond the demagoguery and look at the essence of that message, because in that message is something of value for all of us in South Africa. That message was embodied in the phrase “full political participation and the removal of discrimination.” If those are the prerequisites for good relations between South Africa and the West, then, and the hon. the Minister knows it, that those are also the prerequisites for real peace in South Africa and in Southern Africa.

I think the hon. the Minister owes it to us to give more clarity about the nature of the message which Vice-President Mondale conveyed to the Prime Minister. He should assist this House and South Africa to understand it very clearly. He should resist the demagoguery and the smoke-screen and tell us what that message really was.

I want to put it to him in the form of certain statements so that it will be quite easy for him to deny or confirm them, depending upon whether he agrees with them or not.

The first I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that no demand has been made on South Africa to change. I agree that a serious message was conveyed, that the consequences of not changing were conveyed. One only has to read the formal text of Vice-President Mondale’s speech—which has never been rejected by the South African Government—to see that time and time again he expressed the hoped that there would be change. He said that he hoped that there would be a reappraisal, that there would be adjustment. I put it to the hon. the Minister that there was no demand as such that South Africa should change. Secondly, there was no suggestion that anybody outside South Africa, other than Black and White South Africans working together, should decide on the system of co-existence for the future. I do not believe there has been any suggestion that people outside South Africa should prescribe what we should do within South Africa. Thirdly, there was no attempt to prescribe any specific system. There was no rejection, for instance, of the federal system in favour of a unitary system which would involve a winner-take-all in a sovereign central Government. Fourthly, I believe that there was no insistence that change should be immediate or that there should not be a period of transition as South Africa moves away from the present system of apartheid to a system embracing full participation and the removal of race discrimination. Fifthly, there was no disregard by the USA or by anybody else of the need in the circumstances of South Africa to protect the rights of individuals and to protect the rights of minorities. Sixthly, I believe that there was no desire expressed or implied to see that the free enterprise system on which our economy is based should be replaced by any other system. I put that because I believe it covers the thrust of the message which was conveyed to the hon. the Prime Minister on behalf of the USA. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether in fact this interpretation is correct. I believe that instead of obscuring an important message, we should accept the challenge. We all say that we must eliminate race discrimination. Why then are we getting up-tight when that is put as one of the prerequisites for good relationships with the rest of the world? Of course we have to devise a system that provides for full participation by all the citizens of the Government of the country. Is there anybody on that side of the House who does not subscribe to this? Clearly, once one accepts the oneness of South Africa—and even if there are a few homelands, one will still be left with a heartland— within that entity we are going to have to work towards a system where each South African is going to have an equal say in the government of the country.

“One man, one vote.”

If the Turnhalle has produced a “one man, one vote” system, does that frighten the hon. member out of his wits? That hon. member is back to the slogan. Let us accept that getting rid of discrimination means that each citizen should have an equal say in the affairs of the State. Let us then, having accepted that, sit down with Black and Brown South Africans and work out a system in which this can be done without discrimination, without domination of the one group over the other, a way in which the cultural, religious and language heritages, which are so precious to all of us in South Africa, can be protected.

I believe that should be the approach which we should adopt. I put it to the hon. the Minister that he knows full well that no matter what system we adopt in South Africa, if that system is going to have credibility, either inside South Africa or outside of South Africa, that system is going to have to be the product of Black and White South Africans sitting down together and making joint decisions. This is what is wrong with the Government’s whole Bantustan policy, its homeland policy, its Coloured policy. It is a system designed by Whites and imposed on Blacks by a White Parliament. This hon. Minister, who has had some experience, should know that negotiation, joint decision-making—call it what you will—is critical to our relationships with the West, just as it is critical in our relationships at home. I believe that on the shoulders of this new hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs rests a very special responsibility. His statement of 1974 to the Security Council that “we shall do everything in our power to move away from discrimination” appeared to many people, friends and enemies alike, to be a commitment. It seemed to indicate a new thrust. It seemed to usher in a hope for a new deal. However, to date all the evidence is that inside and outside of South Africa those people who have been hoping, waiting and observing, have been bitterly disappointed by the lack of progress which the South African Government is making. When the hon. the Minister returned to South Africa, once again hopes were renewed. We had a newspaper like Rapport writing: “Verligtes kry ’n leier”. Hopes were renewed, but one could not help feeling that the effect of Westdene and the effect of the parliamentary caucus on the hon. the Minister, have already resulted in his being caught up in the confused rhetoric of the National Party. At times he has appeared to convey a blunt message to his fellow South Africans. In the course of his election campaign he used a phrase which, in simple terms, drove home to people. He said that he was not prepared to die for an apartheid sign in a lift. That is correct. However, then the hon. the Minister must say what other aspects of apartheid he is not prepared to die for. Is he prepared to die for job reservation? Is he prepared to die for the pass laws? Is he prepared to die for group areas? Is he prepared to die for bus apartheid? Is he prepared to die for the Immorality Act, for the Mixed Marriages Act? [Interjections.]

I believe it is of cardinal importance, because that hon. Minister has become symbolic, to a lot of people in South Africa. He was the man who said we were going to get rid of discrimination. I believe that he has to show that he is a man of action. I believe we should accept the challenge. We should agree that we are going to get rid of discrimination. We should also agree that we are going to find means of having full participation for all the people in South Africa. We look to this hon. Minister, with his experience, in the light of the commitment he has made, and with the high expectations there are of him, to be prepared, not only in talk and in theory, but in practice, to itemize the areas of discrimination which we are going to remove. Above all, if we are going to find a place for ourselves in the Western strategy, if we are going to be a part of Africa, as we would all like to be, I believe that this hon. Minister must commit himself as well to the concept that the future planning of South Africa is going to be carried out by Black and White and Brown people sitting down together and working out their common destiny.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the words of welcome to the hon. the Minister expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Vasco. The hon. the Minister will also perhaps remember a church service which we attended together. On that occasion the following was said—

I and all the hon. members in the House know that the hon. the Minister will in fact do this. He has the ability and he will do this in order to have his department play a role in Africa. At the same time I also want to express a word of thanks and congratulation to the hon. Secretary. I must call him the hon. Secretary. His history in the department goes back longer and further than that of anyone present here. He accompanied Gen. Smuts at the start of the UNO and since that he has constantly had to listen to the ratification of section 27 which reads—

I think it is a very good thing that what I want to call the best university in the country has granted an honorary doctorate to Mr. Brand Fourie. He deserved it. It is a degree in one’s own country and I attach very much more value to this than degrees which are obtained in other countries. [Interjections.]

We have listened to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Sea Point. I just want to put one question to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about his heroic isolationism—what a terrible expression! I just want to ask him: On what note did he sing the Xhosa national anthem on the occasion where Andrew Young gave an address? This is all I want to say about his speech.

The hon. member for Sea Point gave a long story and asked that the hon. the Minister should announce what they discussed with Mr. Mondale. When he heard what the reaction of the Vice President was, the hon. member stood up and said that it was a slogan. Later on I shall react further to this statement that we should remove the things which communism thrives on.

In October 1974 the hon. the Prime Minister, addressing Africa and the Western World, appealed for a better world. He committed South Africa to co-operation with a view to creating a better world, and especially a better Africa, with the concept of “peace, progress and development”. We should do well to stop for a few minutes and take a look at what has happened in Africa over the past 2½ years. Thousands of Cubans have streamed into Africa and what is the policy of Cuba? That revolution is Cuba’s best export. This has been openly stated by Castro and his predecessor, on more than one occasion. Over the past 2½ years more and more weapons have streamed into Africa in order to inflict destruction and incite revolution and violence at any place where there is unrest of any kind. African states which have any strategic value and in which there is domestic unrest of any kind, have been overthrown by means of revolution and replaced by a dictator, a Marxist tyranny, which no one else can ever gauge. This Marxist tyranny arrests progress, development, peace and the exercise of human rights.

As far as human rights are concerned, I have in mind one’s basic requirements, viz. food, work and freedom of religion. A survey has shown that of the 48 African states, only 8 showed an increased food production. It was discovered that in 40 of the 48 countries, an annual drop of approximately 2% in food production is experienced as against a population growth of more than 2% per year. This brings us to the conclusion that there are at least 42 million hungry people in Africa.

What has this communist and Russian imperialism with its satellites done in the last 2½ years to bring about a better way of life in these countries which they have forced their way into? If we look at the countries which have now ended up in the clutches of this Russian bear, one does not find technical knowledge or the creation of employment opportunities for these people. All we hear about is the Kremlin and the KGB sending guns and ammunition there, inciting revolution and causing the destruction of people. This process is still carrying on, in parts of Angola too. I have not yet heard of a single person, other than a political prisoner, fleeing from a country when things are going well there. What we have seen is people who flee because they are hungry, whose families have been wiped out and who are even in danger of being eaten.

The Kremlin with its organization is gradually emasculating the Western World, particularly so that it can have a free hand to do what it wants in Africa. Where will we find a better example than Zaïre? The hon. member for Sea Point referred to Zaïre. We should supposedly have rushed off there and climbed in. We know what conditions prevail there. I believe that the hon. the Minister will react to that matter. What did the Western countries do as far as Zaïre is concerned? The leader of those countries sent a big crate of Coca-Cola to Zaire in order to ward off the Marxist onslaught.

I should like to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point. I want to associate myself with his statement that we must remove those things which communism thrives upon. I should like to read him an extract from an article “Contemporary Rumania” from the book Inside the KGB by Ion Ratiu, an author who fled from Rumania. I do not actually want to quote what he wrote, but what Lord Chalfont, who is very well known to us, wrote in the foreword. I want to ask our hon. friends opposite to see if they can identify themselves with this. Amongst other things, he writes the following in the foreword—

It is that “sharing of wealth” which the hon. member spoke about. I quote further—

This, however, is not all. I quote further—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we of the S.A. Party should like to convey our congratulations and good wishes to the hon. the Minister on his appointment to the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs. The hon. the Minister has had some experience of this hot seat. He has an experienced Secretary and staff in his department. We wish him and his staff well in their endeavour on behalf of South Africa. We particularly wish the hon. the Minister well in regard to the guarantee he made at UNO on behalf of South Africa, the guarantee in regard to the moving away from discrimination based on race.

We believe we have reached the watershed in South African politics. Therefore the hon. the Minister takes over a crucial post in the Cabinet at a time of great social and political change, not only in this country, but throughout the world. We are convinced that the Republic of South Africa is moving ever more rapidly towards a situation in which there will be a greater participation by all in the decision-making processes of government and in which the social, economic and sporting spheres will be left more and more to the individual choice. We are moving in this direction. If that is moving away from discrimination—which I believe it to be—my party and I firmly support the direction to which the hon. the Minister has committed this country. I must, however, take certain members of the Press and certain members of the Opposition parties, other than this party, to task in this regard. Some of these members seem to think that all discrimination can be abolished overnight. This is an impossible task. The hon. member for Sea Point must admit that not even the policy of his party abolishes all discrimination, because as far as I know, his party still applies a policy of a qualified vote which is a discriminatory policy. I think we should shout less about the abolition of all discrimination and that we as the Opposition should give every encouragement to every positive step that is taken towards the removal of discrimination. Human society cannot exist without an element of discrimination. Even the Eskimos discriminate when they choose their wives.

We are talking about race discrimination; stick to the point. [Interjections.]

The tendency of this hon. member’s party is not to talk about the abolition of race discrimination. They want the abolition of all discrimination and they want forced integration. I believe these hon. members should stop shouting about this and that they should do something positive to help South Africa present an image to the world.

We realize that this is the hon. the Minister’s first Vote he is presiding over in the House and that there is a sort of a truce. I intend honouring that truce, but as a militant South African one often, in the light of world events and the pressures that are put on us from outside our borders, finds it difficult to be entirely passive in a debate such as this.

I want to return to what is happening right now, what has happened during the past week and what is to happen to the near future in regard to the South West African issue. I want to refer primarily to certain reports which appeared in the weekend Press in regard to the results of these talks. The hon. the Minister has repudiated the headlines in the Sunday Times, according to a report in the Press this morning. I am very grateful for that, but these are rather ugly headlines and rather ugly reports. I would like the hon. the Minister to take the opportunity today, in this debate, to reply to this even more strongly than he has up to now. When one sees headlines that say: “Troops will quit South West Africa;” “South Africa has agreed to withdraw its armed forces from South West Africa;” and “The last South African soldiers will quit the territory before it becomes independent, probably at the end of next year,” one tends to be rather shocked. Further, one reads that the agreement to withdraw South African military forces from South West Africa is believed to stipulate that they must be out of the territory on the day of independence, but that they will remain if the independent Namibian Government decides to invite them. The hon. the Minister’s repudiation of this is accepted, but I think it is the height of irresponsibility to write such things in the Press. If this was correct reporting, what would it mean? It would mean precisely the same as the stipulation in regard to the Portuguese forces in Angola and in Mozambique in 1975. It would be demanding of South Africa that she give up her forward defensive positions, built at great cost, and to allow the Marxist elements of Swapo to walk in and take over.

I can believe that the five Western nations could demand that power vacuum on the day of independence, because it is the pattern of their irrational and fear-dominated policy in Africa. I cannot and I do not believe, however, that the Government of South Africa, in the light of its recent experiences in South Africa and in the West, could ever come near to accepting what amounts to unconditional surrender and capitulation.

What would have happened to Finland if she had given up the Mannerheim line in 1938 and what did happen to Czechoslovakia after the defensive positions of the Sudetenland were given up? Our Sudetenland lies in South West Africa and in Rhodesia. God help us if those lines are lost by the process of negotiation, of appeasement or of détente. The hon. member for Sea Point said that the policy of America at the present time was to lessen racial confrontation by countering Russian tactics and by negotiation. I would like to know from that hon. member or from any hon. member of his party: At what point in time have the Americans, throughout their history since the Second World War, effectively countered Russian imperialism by negotiation? Not once, and it will not happen. [Interjections.]

I want to say this very clearly, as we believe it very strongly in this party: We cannot afford to lose our Sudetenland. It must be made clear that we will not readily given it up. The South African Party and South Africa are waiting for this hon. Minister to fully enlighten us as to where South Africa stands in the whole of the Southern African set-up. He must also enlighten us more fully in regard to the strange reports that one sees in the Press. I believe that we will get that explanation and I believe that the hon. the Minister will once again take advantage of this opportunity to totally eradicate the doubt which has been placed in the minds of people by the reports which, as I have mentioned, appeared over the weekend.

Finally, a short word to our countries of origin. I speak of the countries of origin of the White people of South Africa, Rhodesia and of South West Africa. We were placed here by our countries of origin for their own financial, business and trading advantages. Those countries must take some responsibility too for the fact that we exist here. We are not a small group of colonists who go home every year or every second year. We are a group of Africans living in Africa who go home to our own homes every night. We have no other home. These people must realize that an African does not readily give up his right to his home and the land he lives on. I sincerely hope that this image will be projected ever more strongly by this hon. Minister in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany spoke of a watershed period at the beginning of his speech. I fully agree with him that we have reached such a period and I will come back to the effect of that fact later in my speech. I also associate myself fully with his closing remarks to the effect that we are of Africa and that we should be regarded as such. As far as the rest of his speech is concerned, I am not going to follow him. I hope he will pardon me, but I am sure he will get a full reply from the hon. the Minister.

I want to return to the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Sea Point made a very strong attack, based on the fact that we were putting ourselves in a position of self-inflicted isolation.

*The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also alleged that the NP speakers talked themselves into a kind of heroic isolationism. Apparently they object to the fact that we defend South Africa and that we hit back when necessary. Furthermore, he complains that we accuse our friends in the West of applying double standards, of acting unreasonably towards us and making unreasonable demands on us. However, we want to assure the hon. member that when we act in this way and when we use harsh words in addressing our friends in the West, then we do not do so to seek isolation; we do it rather in the spirit of Luther when he said: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” When he did that, he did not do so to seek isolation. He did so in order that the truth could triumph. He did so with the very aim of opening channels of communication between the church and the people. He did so to make the Word accessible to everyone. When we refuse to give in to demands from outside, when we reproach the West and argue strongly, we do so in the spirit of keeping communications open, but keeping communications open in a way which does not violate our conscience. We do so to keep communications open in a way which does not demand of us that we renounce our right to self-determination. We do not go in fear and trembling of foreign countries like the hon. member for Sea Point. If we are criticized unfairly, then we reply.

The hon. member for Sea Point told us a story of a conversation he had in Kenya. I want to ask him what his reply was when the high-ranking person in Kenya said to him that everything in South Africa was fine and praiseworthy, but that he could not live with the discrimination here, nor with the fact that the Black man in South Africa was not accorded human dignity. Did he reply and tell him of everything that is done to promote the human dignity of the Black man in South Africa? Did he perhaps agree with him? Did he point out to the high-ranking person in Kenya that Kenya co-operates wholeheartedly with Black states where human dignity is at a far lower level than in South Africa, and did he explain to him the double standards applied to us?

The gist of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Sea Point is that the NP’s policy is responsible for the international pressure on us. They are deluding themselves. Do they not know what is going on in Africa? If I give them a few facts, I do not want to rely on NP facts, but I want to give them the facts from an independent expert on communist strategy, viz. Dr. Jan du Plessis of Association International. According to him Russia is dramatically tightening its grip on Africa. Referring to only ten African states he provides the following statistics: There are 23 910 Cubans in Africa. There are virtually 3 000 Russians working in Africa as military advisers. In Africa, military aid comes to just less than £800 million, and economic aid amounts to approximately £350 million. That does not even include the aid to terrorist groups, it is only the aid to countries. If we add to this the thousands of Black students being indoctrinated in Russia and subsequently returning, as well as the Russian military bases that have been or are being established in Africa, it becomes clear that Russian imperialism is not merely an NP scare story aimed at getting the voters on its side, but is an undeniable fact. These facts confront us in South Africa, the Opposition, the states of Africa, and especially the states of Southern Africa, with certain options which they cannot escape. I want to deal with a few of these options. Firstly I want to tell the Opposition that they have to decide whether they are going to continue with their naïve self-delusion that it is the NP policy which causes all our country’s problems or whether, on the other hand, they want to face up to the facts of Africa and Southern Africa.

The fact is that the pressure on South Africa is being stimulated by some Black states and terrorist organizations used and abused by Russian imperialism. This handful of communist-influenced states are working up feelings against South Africa and the tactics are to make South Africa the West’s red herring, so that the attention of the West is concentrated on all the alleged injustices here, while Russia quietly moves in and strengthens its influence. If they choose between the two options I have formulated for them, and if they choose correctly, they will accept the fact that even the implementing of their policy will make very little difference to the pressure on South Africa. They should stop fiddling while Africa bums. We expect from them the same kind of loyalty which we get from the new SAP. If they face up to the facts, we expect the PRP will listen more and more carefully to the hon. member for Yeoville, who is trying to advocate a firmer attitude than the lukewarm leadership of the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Houghton. Over the weekend the hon. member for Rondebosch also tried to speak a bit more positively and to advocate a firmer attitude. To him there are still things that are not negotiable. The same cannot be said for the other members of his party.

The present situation faces us with other options. The states of Southern Africa—those already existing and those coming into existence—also have to choose. They have to choose whether they want to play Russian roulette by accepting money and arms from imperialist Russia and by allowing the so-called Russian technical advisers into key positions in their countries from whence they can immobilize the country and take it over in times of crisis—on the one hand—or whether, on the other hand, they will recognize the shadow of the red hammer and sickle that has already been cast over them, for what it is: a grave threat to the freedom and independence they achieved so recently. Do the states of Southern Africa that do realize the dangers of Russian imperialism, want to rely on a weak West and a weak America which, through Mr. Andrew Young, describes the presence of ten thousand Cubans as a stabilizing factor or do they want to ally themselves, while accepting all the aid they can get from the West, with every other state in Southern Africa which wants to oppose Russian imperialism with might and main?

In the third instance, the Free World has to choose. As regards South West and Rhodesia they have to choose whether they want to fall in with the formulas set out during the recent talks and in this way help to establish stable states that will be prepared to co-operate with the West and that will oppose communist imperialism or whether on the other hand they prefer the model of Angola and Mozambique, or whether they prefer that terrorist movements, often communist-supported, should dictate and determine what happens in Southern Africa.

As regards all these alternatives we cannot prescribe: We can only persuade; we can only offer our assistance; we can only prove our goodwill and extend the hand of friendship, and then hope and pray that the eyes of all concerned, will be opened. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, every right-thinking person today is seriously concerned about the deteriorating position of the Western world as against the progress made by communism, but also as against the development of Black Power in America and in Africa in particular. Large parts of South-East Asia which used to be Western spheres of influence, are already well under communist control, while parts of Europe and Africa are also being seriously threatened. The UNO is completely dominated by communist, Eastern and Black African ideas and votes. The Commonwealth Conference which is being held at the moment is another striking example of how a conference like this can be turned into a Black conference to attack South Africa, while the atrocities committed in other countries are overlooked and do not even appear on the agenda.

We are living in a period of flagrant application of double standards and subversion of norms and recognized international standards such as there has never been before. Let us take a look at a few of the many examples which can be mentioned. South Africa is denied participation in the activities of the UNO while other countries which violate human rights in a horrifying way enjoy full status as members. In this regard one can think of Cuba, Guinea, Uganda, Russia, East Germany and others. Thousands of Indians are driven out of Tanzania and Uganda without any particular notice being taken of it in the council chambers of the world, while South Africa is attacked on the so-called suppression of its Indians and Blacks. “Twenty-five million Black Americans suffer the highest rate of unemployment, earn the lowest average salaries and control less than one half of one per cent of the economic power of the United States,” Mrs. Bourke, a member of the U.S. congress said on 22 December 1976 at a conference in Maseru.

This brings me to Mr. Andrew Young, whose conduct can be shocking sometimes and do a great deal of damage to my fatherland as far as relations in Africa are concerned. These 25 million people of whom Mrs. Bourke spoke are the Black compatriots of Mr. Young. These are his own people within the economically powerful USA. Nevertheless he travels the world and tells everyone how oppressed and poor our Black people in South Africa are, while the people in this country are actually much better off than those in the rest of the world. One can actually thank Mr. Young for some of his statements in which he gives a glimpse of his and his people’s smothered, suppressed state of mind and the racial tensions which also prevail in his own country. As far as I am concerned, he shows himself to be an extreme racist, with a deep-rooted hate towards all Whites, but especially towards the Whites in South Africa. This is an attitude which is not fitting for an ambassador anywhere in the world. Just listen to his language in front of the Foreign Services Association in Washington in April 1977—

The emphasis is on the word “hate”. When an ambassador has announced this to be his attitude in advance, how can he promote good relations with the South African Government? I ask this of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well, since he speaks so highly of Mr. Young, having been a member of his audience at a dinner somewhere on the Rand.

In an interview in the notorious sex magazine Playboy, Mr. Young declared—I shall just summarize it in a few words—that the Black majority of Africa would slaughter the Whites in Rhodesia and overpower the rest in Southern Africa. This would make White Americans so panicky that they would then attack the Black people in that country too. It would start in Atlanta and Detroit. He said he thought that “racial tensions in America lay very close to the surface”. Where does one get a clearer reflection of the political train of thought of Ambassador Young? Hate, racial tensions, violence, Whites being slaughtered by Blacks.

It is as clear as crystal that Mr. Young cannot control himself. He is suffering from an obsession. He has a nagging awareness of the fact that in spite of their wonderful American status, he and his fellow Blacks are gasping for breath in a tragic vacuum. They have been so entirely colonized that they have lost their own identity completely. Twenty-five million Black people have become untrue to themselves and have been made into what they cannot be. They have lost that something which is inherent and inseparably interwoven in the essence of every separate nation. Now the sense of loss preys upon him and his Black compatriots like the proverbial thorn in the flesh. The traditions, culture and language which belonged to him and his fellow American Blacks all those components of which a nation is made up and by which it is recognized, have been destroyed by consecutive American governments in the past. He is not guilty of it, but then he must not interfere with the South African Blacks who have a sense of national awareness.

If one makes a psychological analysis of Andrew Young, it is clear that he is always rationalizing and that he is being consumed by a desire to be himself, to be a Black man, a member and a leader of his own nation with his own language, culture and a wonderful characteristic African tradition, like a proud Zulu leader with a Mbongo to sing his praises, a traditional Tswana or a Xhosa, with his own nation, language traditions and fatherland. The lack of all these experiences consumes and frustrates this man and drive him to statements which sometimes border on political frenzy. Just look at the way in which he and the Black Americans are trying to make themselves Africa-orientated by means of their Black consciousness movements. Swahili is already being taught at their universities. Just look at the reaction to the television show called “Roots”, the story of Alexander Haley’s research on his slave ancestors from Gambia. It was reported in The Cape Times of 31 January 1977 that—

This is clear proof of their longing for national anchors and background. Now he is seeking escape by trying to force his recipe for the emasculation and violation of national identities upon South Africa. Not only does he want to neutralize separate Black national identities, he also wants the White man to sacrifice his identity. Precisely the opposite, however, must take place in America. There the minority of Negros have become “Black Whites”, even speaking with an American accent. In South Africa the minority of Whites have to become “White Blacks”, otherwise they must flee. He says it is the policy of Mr. Carter which he fully supports, which, if we do not accept it voluntarily, will be forced upon us by means of violence.

In conclusion I want to say that it is tragic that President Carter, Mr. Mondale and other Western statemen are blind to these truths. Through their short-sighted action and ignorance of the true state of affairs concerning the development of Black Power in Africa and … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vereeniging as well as the hon. member for Marico referred to the hold Russia had on countries in Africa, a hold which was constantly becoming firmer. The hon. members also made mention of the communist influence in East Africa, an influence which was also gaining in strength. However, they dealt with these things in total isolation. I wondered why they referred to them. In my opinion it would have been better to have told us why this state of affairs had come about. It came about, of course, because it used to be the policy of the NP not to establish diplomatic relations with countries in Africa. [Interjections.] In consequence of that Russia and other communist countries had the opportunity to do so. It was an opportunity which they put to good use. That is the reason for their having been able to obtain such a firm foothold in Africa.

It was only after the present hon. Prime Minister came into power that the situation started changing. The years before that went to waste. That is the reason for the success achieved by communist countries in gaining such a strong influence in Africa. So it is really the fault of the NP.

†Mr. Chairman, that is, however, not a matter I want to discuss. I would also like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment. I hope that his appointment will ring in a new era in so far as our diplomatic relations with the West, with Africa and with the rest of the world are concerned. I was particularly impressed by the speech the hon. the Minister delivered here on 27 May. On that occasion he gave the House a message, saying that it was at the same time a message to the Americans. I am not going to read the whole message. I merely want to refer to a part of it, in which the hon. the Minister said—

I know that on this occasion, when the hon. the Minister has his Vote debated for the first time, one is inclined to let him off lightly. However, I still think it is important that we should know exactly what this all means.

If this is factually correct, if in fact we are well on the road towards resolving these internal problems in consultation and communication with the leaders of all our people, then we on this side of the House welcome that frankness on the part of the hon. the Minister. There is some doubt, however, as to whether this statement is factually correct. One of the reasons for this is that when the hon. the Minister was ambassador at the UNO he told the UNO that the Republic was moving away from discrimination. He made this statement more than two years ago and since there have been no indications at all that the Government has moved away from discrimination, this has led to a certain amount of hesitation in accepting that statement as being a perfectly frank statement. We assume that the hon. the Minister, when he was ambassador to the UNO, was instructed to make this statement about moving away from discrimination. At the same time, if that is correct, we assume that those instructions came from the hon. the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who said: “Give me six months and see what happens.” We all know when he said that. He said that more than two years ago, and what has happened? I think this is all germane because, as far as I know, all that has happened is that there is a Cabinet committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to inquire into discrimination. We have not seen any report yet and we do not know how far the committee has progressed.

That was the one sign we saw. The other sign we saw was the Cabinet Council on which other race groups are represented. Those are the only two signs we have had since the hon. the Minister made his statement at the UNO and the hon. the Prime Minister made his statement about giving him six months.

What did the hon. the Minister really mean when he said that we were moving away from discrimination? I think the first thing we have to know is what sort of movement he had in mind. Did he have in mind a movement at the pace of an ox wagon or a movement more related to the Jet Age? I think it is important that we should know this. President Carter recently said: “To be peaceful, change must come promptly.” I do not know whether we can blame President Carter for saying it, because this was a proposition made to the UNO more than two years ago, and the hon. the Prime Minister also told us the six months story more than two years, in fact almost three years ago. I think it is quite reasonable to expect people to say that if changes are to come about they should come promptly.

To come back to the message to America, I would like to know, and I think other hon. members would also like to know, what the hon. the Minister means when he says that he wants to solve the problems internally, Are these problems the result of discrimination or, otherwise, what sort of problems are they? Secondly, what does he mean by the phrase: “We are well on the road towards resolving them?” I am just wondering what steps have been taken, which we do not know about, which entitle the hon. the Minister to say that we are well on the way to resolving these problems. This movement must be something which we are yet to hear of as nothing has to our knowledge taken place which justifies such a statement. What does the hon. the Minister mean by saying that we are on the road to resolving these problems “in consultation and in communication with the leaders of all our people”? Has any problem been resolved? If so, which problem? If not, what are the problems which are in the process of being resolved? These questions, I think, are reasonable and we are entitled to answers on them.

Then I would also like to know how the consultations with leaders of all our people are taking place. Is it only by means of the Cabinet Council, or is there some other means? We do not know that. We have never been told how this consultation is taking place and I think it is time that we knew. What other communication is there with leaders of all our peoples? Does it only take place through representation on the various boards? It seems so, because we have heard of no others. I assume that the problems that the hon. the Minister refers to are problems arising as a result of discrimination and that he believes that we are well on the way to resolving them. One wonders whether the hon. the Minister is in fact justified in making such a statement.

It is difficult for us to know whether he is or not, as there is no evidence at all to show that we are well on the way to resolving them. Should the hon. the Minister not be more circumspect when he sends messages to the Americans? He knows that such statements will be examined very critically by the Americans and that unless there is positive evidence to substantiate these statements, the credibility of the South African Government will suffer. I do not need to tell these things to the hon. the Minister as he knows it. Because the world is highly critical of all our actions, the hon. the Minister should have chosen his words with greater care when he made this statement. If he actually meant that a start would be made to try to resolve our problems, he should have said just that. If, in fact, that is what is happening now, viz. that a start is being made, we welcome that start. However, then the hon. the Minister should not have said that we are well on the road to resolving our problems, because in saying that he implies that the resolving of them is in sight. We have no indication that that is the case. In the circumstances it is misleading to give an impression to the Americans that we are well on the way to resolving our problems.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, as the new Minister of this department, whether he will not consider doing something for which I think there is a great need. I feel that his department must produce an annual report on the activities of his department. That is something we need very badly. If he cannot do that, I wonder whether he will not consider issuing a White Paper before his Vote is debated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg who has just resumed his seat, said at the beginning of his speech that he would tell us why Africa was hostile towards South Africa at the moment. In doing so he displayed supreme ignorance about the history of Africa. He said that it was because we had not opened embassies in Africa due to our policy. Does the hon. member not know that hardly a decade ago the whole of Africa was still colonized and that in terms of international diplomacy and protocol, it was not advisable for us to establish diplomatic relations? If we wanted to talk to the Belgian Congo, we followed the correct diplomatic procedure and spoke to the Belgian Ambassador in South Africa. If we wanted to talk to Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda, we spoke to the British Ambassador in South Africa. This is the position. The hon. member does not even know the history of Africa.

I want to pray God to make the new hon. Minister witness only one thing in his term of office and that is that South Africa will have the opportunity to convince the whole world that our policy is one of peaceful coexistence, that our domestic policy is primarily aimed at guiding the separate peoples within the borders of our country to sovereign independence and that we want to place our expertise, our techniques and our science at the disposal of Africa in order to bring progress and development instead of the unavoidable destruction which war and terrorism will eventually bring to Africa.

South Africa has no aggressive intentions. How many times more must we tell this to the outside world? We do not want to carve from the map of Africa one single square metre of land over and above what we already have. We do not want to rule over any other people. The Transkei provides evidence of that to the whole world. It may be history that Transkei obtained its sovereign independence from us without a single drop of blood having been spilt or a single shot having been fired, but it still is a unique achievement in the history of Africa, the history which the hon. member for Wynberg does not even know. It is a political achievement of which both the Republic of South Africa and the Transkei may be proud.

In this spirit we approach our task in Africa and we are always prepared to extend the hand of friendship to every Black State that wants to lend a hand in promoting order, progress and prosperity on this mighty continent.

War, revolution, terrorism and terror over the past decade have distorted the face of this mighty continent with pain. No State in Africa which shared in this, can prove today that this was constructive or uplifting for its people. On the contrary, mighty economies collapsed, infrastructures were destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people died and fear and uncertainty gripped the lives of millions of others. The standard of living of many African States are much lower today than they were a decade ago and the future does not hold out the promise of anything better for them.

In sharp contrast to this we have the Transkei, because peaceful coexistence, which is the policy of South Africa, has provided it with progress and development which are at a much higher level today that at any other time in the history of the Transkei. Transkei has come to occupy a dignified position on this large, mighty continent as a sovereign, independent State. It has done so in a way which is worthy of any nation in the entire world which has gained its self-determination by means of orderly, constitutional development.

This unprecedented achievement of South Africa and Transkei provides Africa with proof of our good faith. It must also assure Africa that we are looking for peaceful coexistence. Similarly, Transkei can also set Africa the example of law and order and of peace and progress, elements which form the basis of any developing country, throughout the world. Today the Transkei is reaping the fruits of peace and progress, while the rest of Africa has to endure in pain the bitter results of coups d’état, terrorism and civil war. This is not the eternal future we should like to see for Africa.

That is why South Africa is actively striving for peace, that is why we are telling of this endeavour of ours far and wide and that is why we are producing practical proof to everyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. However, South Africa’s position is being made unbearable by the hostility of Africa.

This position is being aggravated by the actions and the attitude of the West. According to this morning’s Citizen the West has picked sides and its choice is apparently to bid, in competition with Russia, for the favour of Africa One of the best ways of doing this, in fact, apparently the only way which will satisfy Africa, is to sacrifice the Whites of Africa In this, the West has already shown itself prepared to join issue with South Africa. To me Mr. Andrew Young, America’s Idi Amin, seems to be taking the lead in this regard. The West has already shown itself prepared to overlook the heinous occurrences in Mozambique and in Angola, to sign friendship treaties with their presidents, Machel and Neto, to condone suppression and cruelty by them, and to recognize their Marxist régime of terror and then President Carter is a champion of human rights.

I can rightly say that the West has become pitiful and afraid. They are shamelessly afraid of the five so-called frontline States of Southern Africa. This is not so much on account of their military strength, because their military strength cannot be compared with our ability, and for that I thank the Lord. It is on account of the influence Russia is exercising on Africa through them. On this score the West is apparently prepared to bow deep and low before Africa, because the West does not want to do anything whatsoever to drive Black States finally and inevitably into the kraal of the Kremlin. I agree with the West as far as that is concerned, but then South Africa must not be the prize or the victim.

America seems to have become the unwilling leader of the Free World now. From that flows its incomprehensible decision after its defeat in Vietnam that no American troops will become involved in any war, unless America’s continued existence is directly threatened. In my opinion this is a policy born out of fear, one which will inevitably have to result in arbitrary and negative decisions which will ultimately lead to the total destruction of the Free Western world.

Since the West is adopting this cold aloofness towards us at the moment and even showing an element of hostility, we must once again tell the West on an occasion such as this, when a new hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs has assumed office, that there are limits to our obligingness as regards the demands made on us. If those demands seek to destroy our identity or to sacrifice our sovereignty and to make us abandon our existing structures of law and order, we must tell them that they are pushing us too far and that the answer is “no”. We shall fight for these things with all the power at our disposal. Since I am saying this blatantly and directly, it will probably be the task of our new hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs to clothe it in fine, diplomatic language but to say it firmly and resolutely nevertheless so that the world may know where South Africa stands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman on this, the first occasion on which I am dealing with the Foreign Affairs Vote, it is an exceptionally great privilege for me to pay tribute to my predecessor. Actually, I have two predecessors, in the first place Dr. Hilgard Muller and in the second, Dr. Roelf McLachlan. On occasion I have already stated in public what a privilege it was for me to serve as a diplomat under the leadership of Dr. Muller in South Africa and also to be able to accompany him to many of our international conferences. I met him a few days after I took office. When I told him that I was quite prepared to return to Washington and that he could come back, he was not very keen to do so. He said that he was busier than ever before. I have the greatest respect for Dr. Muller. With his quiet nature, courtesy and profound humanity he won many friends for South Africa during a difficult period. But at the UNO and in the Security Council he never hesitated, under the most difficult of circumstances, to state the case of his country, his people and his Government. We wish him a restful retirement.

Of Dr. Roelf McLachlan I should like to say that he laid the foundation for the great victory which was vouchsafed me in Westdene. As far as this victory is concerned, I do not want to claim any credit for myself. What happened there, is happening everywhere in South Africa, i.e. the English and Afrikaans-speaking Whites of this country are moving closer to one another and forming closer ties with one another. What is happening, in essence, is that they are instinctively sensing which Government they can trust as far as the future of their country, their own future and that of their children is concerned. They are bewildered and in certain respects, alarmed, because we are saddled with a plurality of stupidity on the Opposition side. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that they did not want to be hard on a young, new and in experienced Minister. But I want to issue them with this invitation: “Be as hard on me as you like. I am not afraid of you. If there is anything you want to do, do it.” Enough harmful things have already been said in this debate, unnecessary things which should not have been said, and unnecessary questions which were asked and which so-called experienced “older youngs” ought to have known should not have been asked.

Before I go any further, I want to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation, at this first opportunity, to the Secretary of my department, Mr. Brand Fourie. He is not unknown to any of us. Everyone has probably read about the honorary doctorate which was recently bestowed upon him by the Rand Afrikaans University. That proved that the great appreciation for the way in which this outstanding man has done his very best over the years for the security and welfare of South Africa, at home as well as abroad, is felt in far wider circles than merely among those of us involved in politics and in Government. I also want to convey my thanks to my colleagues who made it possible for this debate to take place at an earlier stage than it should have done, i.e. right at the end because I am the most junior Minister. However, I have to go to the USA to participate in public proceedings there, and also to talk to senior American officials about our problems and our relations.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout put a number of questions to me. I think I shall first reply briefly to those questions. Where his questions correspond to those asked by the hon. leader of the PRP, I shall reply to these collectively.

They are kindred spirits in any case.

I hope to speak again at a later stage in the debate and to elucidate further the questions and issues raised by hon. members.

In the first place the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked, with reference to, as he put it, “our deteriorating situation at the UNO”, whether it would not be a good thing if the Prime Minister could go there and state our case, that the Prime Minister would be armed with good ammunition and that he would be able to achieve something for us there. I can only tell the hon. member that in my opinion the Prime Minister has never made a mistake in his instinct for and decisions on when he should go where. I think the hon. member would also agree with me that the Prime Minister has never tried to spare himself by first studying his own comfort, but that he has travelled as no other Prime Minister of this country has ever travelled before. One could almost say that he would travel anywhere on earth, under the most difficult of circumstances, whether it suits him or not. He will go and state his case, as he again did recently. If it should become necessary and would serve any purpose, we could safely leave a decision as to whether the Prime Minister should visit the UNO or not, to the Prime Minister himself.

In the second place the hon. member enquired about our relations with Lesotho. He mentioned that I had recently paid a visit to that country. Yes, that is true. I had a frank discussion with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lesotho, whom I have known for ten years. It goes without saying that we differed on a number of matters. I do not want to discuss all those differences here. It would not make my efforts to improve relations with Lesotho any easier if I had to discuss those matters in detail now.

On the other hand I suppose I may as well state frankly that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lesotho did talk to me about what he regarded as the ill-treatment of Black people in the Republic of South Africa. He elaborated on that and mentioned examples. He indicated that he could not accept our policy and sometimes referred in rather stringent terms to our policy in South Africa. Since we are both men of Africa, I, on my part, also told him candidly that there were many things in Lesotho which I could not accept. I pointed to him in all friendliness that his Government was not even an elected Government. I pointed out to him in all friendliness that throughout Africa there were systems of government which made no alternation of governments by democratic processes possible. In most countries in Africa there was no independent legal system by means of which one could take the State to court if it took one’s land for example and did not pay one enough for it. There is no freedom of the Press in Africa. Governments own the media and prescribe what the media should write. It is no use telling me, as the hon. the leader of the PRP did by way of insinuation, that I should not say such things because I would then be treading on people’s toes. People are constantly treading on our toes. For years now, we have been upbraided and cursed and untruths have been told about us. The hon. member knows that. He knows to what extent grotesque lies about us are being disseminated abroad. It is being done at the UNO, in newspapers, in radio talks, in television interviews, and so on. It is being done throughout the world. He also knows where it began. He knows that it began in 1948 and that the cause of it was that the NP Government which came into power then was equated with a crowd of race-haters. That was where it began, and it was not even African States who started it. At that stage there was not really any Independent African States. However, there were many Black students who were studying in Europe and elsewhere and who imbibed the poison from the predecessors in the party of that hon. member. That is part of our difficulty, no matter what he says. I am not saying that we are perfect or that we should not change. I have never yet said that.

However, I want to speak openly to him, too, because he had quite a mouthful to say today about what should be done and what should not be done. He knows very well that what I am saying here is the truth. He knows what chance even the hon. member for Houghton has of achieving anything in certain circles overseas—none! At times they have even described her as a Fascist. Mr. Andrew Young said that she was the only South African with whom he could not get along. Now the hon. member comes here and sounds off on such a high note and says that with their policy they will make everything “sweet and nice”. Everything will be solved overnight He can forget about it. After all, he knows America. He knows what is happening there. He knows what the after-effects of Vietnam and Watergate were, and how all these things fit in with that. Surely he knows in his heart of hearts that it will make no difference if he were to come into power tomorrow, just as Mr. Ian Smith’s policy was not able to lead to a change, and his is almost the same policy as that of the hon. member. Let us, once and for all now, speak straight from the shoulder to one another. I do not want to keep on competing in this House over whose policy is the worst or which policy has the best chance of convincing enemies of South Africa abroad. It cannot be done. Not even moderate Black leaders can do it Unless one draws a distinction between the radical demands and the fair moderate demands one is lost. That is a problem.

Thirdly, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked a question about Transkei. He pointed out quite correctly that the Prime Minister of Transkei had commented sharply on the question of the incorporation of Griqualand East into Natal. He did so in public. I discussed this matter with the Prime Minister of Transkei, with his Minister of Foreign Affairs and other Ministers. I would be misleading the House if I stated today that it was not a highly emotional issue for them. It is a highly emotional issue because—I shall simply have to speak straight from the shoulder again now—there were inter alia two fears which emerged: The one was that we would one day give the territory to the Zulus and the other was that Natal might at some time or other in the future go its own way, and they do not trust Natal. I would not have wanted to discuss these across the floor of this House, but this was inter alia what emerged. There may of course be other reasons as well. In any case, I did not agree with what was said. I tried to explain, on our part, that we did not recognize any claims which Transkei might make to Griqualand East. There was a commission of inquiry which brought out a report on the matter, and the Government reacted to it, but for argument’s sake I stated that day that I was unable to understand just how the incorporation of Griqualand East into Natal could prejudice any possible claims which Transkei might have had. That was my argument, and to this day I am still unable to understand their standpoint on such incorporation. That was one of the main aspects which we discussed. We also discussed the treatment of Transkeian citizens in South Africa. There was dissatisfaction about this on the part of the Transkeian Government. At present we are investigating a number of cases. I invited the Transkeian Government to submit examples and cases to me, for without concrete cases we cannot really take any action, or we cannot have them investigated.

We undertook to do this. We hope to introduce a new system soon which will regulate and facilitate the admission of Transkeian citizens to South Africa and which in my opinion will be a great step forward. There is an aspect which was put to me from the Transkeian side which I should like to mention here today and in respect of which I wish to request the assistance of employers in this country. I was told that employers in South Africa, now that work is beginning to become scarce, are dismissing Transkeian citizens and telling them: “Go back to Matanzima.” I do not know whether it is true. I accept that it has happened, hopefully in exceptional cases. I discussed the question inter alia with leading figures in our mining industry. They gave me the assurance that they have more Transkei citizens in their employ today than ever before. We may not penalize Transkei because they accepted their independence. Where there are cases of employers displaying such an attitude, I am making a friendly appeal to them please not to do so.

In the fourth place the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked why normal diplomatic relations were not being established with our neighbouring States. He said Moscow and Peking were doing so. I cannot always be competing with Moscow and Peking. Surely the hon. member will understand that In the second place I want to tell the hon. member candidly that it is a thorny issue. It is an extremely thorny issue. From a purely diplomatic point of view it would perhaps be the best policy, but there are practical considerations which form an impediment to that. I do not think that the countries in question are very inclined to do this at the moment, and I do not know whether it would suit our purpose best to establish diplomatic relations at the moment. This does not mean to say that we should not discuss matters with one another. It does not mean to say that we should not constantly discuss matters with one another. In fact, I foresee a further visit to Lesotho or of their Foreign Minister to us. I foresee visits to our other neighbouring States. I realize how desirable it is that we should go as far out of our way as possible and that we should do our best to keep our relations with our neighbouring States on the best possible footing. I accept that; I am doing my best in that regard and I shall make it my endeavour to go out of my way to improve relations where possible and to place them on a better footing than has perhaps been the case in the immediate past.

The hon. member asked what progress we had made with the training of Coloured, Black and Asiatic diplomats. He mentioned that we had trained young diplomats at some of our embassies, people who subsequently occupied very senior positions, prior to independence of Transkei. At present we are making it possible for citizens of Bophuthatswana to undergo such training as well. On the question of Coloured and Asiatic diplomats, I want to say that I first want to discuss this matter with my colleagues in the Cabinet. Hon. members will concede that I have not occupied this position for very long. However we shall give attention to the matter. I do not wish to comment on it today, and perhaps prejudice something which might yet produce a good result if we go about it with circumspection.

The hon. member asked questions in regard to Angola. He wanted to know what kind of relations we had with Angola at present. He also asked a question in regard to our young men who are still being held prisoner in Luanda. These are really delicate matters. I am certain that the hon. member will understand that I should not like to discuss them here. As soon as an opportunity presents itself, I shall do so in private with the hon. member. I am certain that this will be to his satisfaction. If we discuss the matter in public now, we might merely be harming the interests of South Africa.

The hon. member referred to France and to the recent appeal made by President Giscard d’Estaing to the effect that the supply of armaments to South Africa should be terminated. The hon. member pointed out, quite correctly, that France was an important country to us. That is undoubtedly true. The maintenance of good relations with France is very important to South Africa. We are trying our best to keep those relations on the best possible footing. However, I must state that unfortunately it does not depend on South Africa only. A situation is developing in which South Africa is not receiving credit for what it is doing. For example we are doing our utmost to play a constructive role in order to make it possible for the respective parties in South West Africa and in Rhodesia to find peaceful solutions to their problems. The West ought to give us credit for this.

In addition there is the situation that, within the Republic of South Africa, we are going out of our way to eliminate those things which are regarded by the Coloureds, the Black people and the Asiatics as humiliating. We are also going out of our way to create new possibilities for the future for them, for example a narrowing of the wage gap, etc. Hon. members are aware of the things on the labour front into which the hon. the Minister of Labour is at present instituting an investigation. Hon. members are, moreover, aware of the material progress—the hon. member for Vasco in fact furnished figures in this regard—which the Black people in South Africa have made.

Certainly, then, all these things are also realities. The situation of the Whites, the Black people, the Coloureds and the Asiatics certainly cannot continue to be appraised in a vacuum. We are in Africa. We are part of the continent of Africa. Why cannot we be judged within the context of what exists and is happening in Africa? I get the impression—I do not want to say that it is a final impression—that the more South Africa plays a truly constructive role in the effort to solve the problem of Rhodesia in a peaceful way, to solve the problem of South West Africa in a peaceful way, to adopt measures and take steps and announce plans at home which ought to be welcomed in every respect by the outside world and the Western world, the more the dogs are being told: “Catch him! Bite him!” This is really the case. It is a problem. In other words, we could argue that the greater the success apparently achieved in Southern Africa in reaching peaceful settlements, the more our true enemies get into their stride, the worse their fears and the more desperate they become to prevent this. That is why, regardless of what we do, the radical elements will in future create even more of a furore. They must prevent a peaceful solution from being found in Southern Africa. They must prevent this at all costs, in order to succeed in their own objectives. This may sound elementary to many people. However, it remains a fact. As the Americans put it: “That is still the ball game.” The game does not change.

The Russians understand the rules of the game. The problem is that the West no longer understands the rules at all, or is not willing to understand them. In fact, they no longer want to participate in the game at all. That is part of our problem. I do not want to be accused here tonight of constantly raising the “communist bogy” here. However, it is a fact that the Russians are causing trouble. If hon. members were to discuss the matter this evening with moderate African leaders, they would receive precisely the same reply.

If the hon. the leader of the PRP wishes to be honest, he will tell me how President Mobutu of Zaïre feels about this matter. The hon. member was there. I am certain that he will tell me that this is also what President Mobutu said. I am certain about this, for it was also said by him in public, and therefore he would also have said it to the hon. member. These are not things we are sucking out of our thumb. These are material facts and the material danger.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred briefly to South West Africa in general. I want to thank him for the responsible attitude which he displayed in regard to the possible consequences of a discussion of this territory. It is delicate matter and we therefore appreciate that attitude on the part of the Opposition. As far as South West Africa and Rhodesia are concerned, there is no need for us to be at loggerhead with one another in this House about those issues. It is not necessary at all. Constructive progress has been made as far as both these problems are concerned. Progress has been made, but it is subject to the condition that further progress should now be made on the other side—if I may put it that way. South Africa has done everything in its power. I shall have a little more to say in this regard later on.

I come now to a very important matter which was raised by the hon. the leader of the PRP. If I understood him correctly, he wanted to know from me what our real attitude towards America was. I can understand the reason for his request. He quoted the hon. the Prime Minister as having spoken of America as the leader of the West. That is true. We on this side of the House have always said that America is the biggest and most powerful country and in that sense is the leader of the West. It is the strongest country with the greatest power, the big brother, if one wishes to call it that, and it was in this sense that the hon. the Prime Minister meant it. The hon. the leader of the PRP wanted to know from me how I see our relations with that country. He also wanted to know whether my view does not perhaps clash with that of the hon. the Minister of Defence, who stated his view in rather straightforward terms, and also perhaps with that of other Ministers. I want to tell the hon. member that this is not true. Basically our standpoints do not clash. In point of fact we all feel the same about the matter emotionally, although some may perhaps express themselves in different words.

I am quite willing to debate this important question of what Vice-President Mondale and Mr. Andrew Young allegedly said or allegedly did not say further. I think it is important that we should clearly understand what is happening here. The fortunate part of it is that if I should be wrong in my view that what the present administration of the USA expects from us is “one man, one vote”, in one political identity, then South Africa suffers no harm, for then I am basing my planning on that being the worst that is being requested and on the basis that I have to guard against that and plan according to that. However, suppose the view of the hon. the leader of the PRP is incorrect. What will happen is that he will plan on the basis that America is ostensibly not demanding “one man, one vote”, but yet, in reality, have it at the back of their minds. Surely, then, it is all over with us.

Then they are going to catch him out, and the people of this country are going to ask him whether he was so stupid that he could not foresee what was being envisaged for South Africa. The people will ask him whether he could not identify and shoot down the kites which the Americans were flying in time and bring them to another way of thinking so that they could speak a different language again. How can one, as the hon. member said, get “uptight”, over-react, if one’s nation’s survival is at stake. How does one do that? How can one do too much when one’s survival is at stake? What is exaggerated about that? It seems to me as though at this point there is a fundamental difference in premise between us. I believe that if the Americans continue on their present course and with their present demands, then we are heading inevitably for weakening relations. There is not a single hon. member on the opposite side, of any of the three Opposition parties, who can tell me that they can comply with those demands or conditions, not a single hon. member. But what is happening now? The hon. the leader of the PRP is being given a black eye, yet he says that no one is hitting him. He simply does not want to recognize the fact. One cannot carry out a foreign policy in this way. Every day I see statements in the newspapers and read Press reports in which members of the American Government trample, hit out at and kick us. There are no other words for it. Not even 1% of what is actually being said about us on television and in Senate hearings in the USA has yet been told in this House. For two years I have had to endure it. Under President Ford and Dr. Kissinger it was not so bad, but now it has become really bad. It is a fact, and it is no use concealing it. It is also a fact that I draw my conclusions from definite statements of policy by the Carter Administration. How is it going to benefit me to try to mislead our people and to wish to tell the public of South Africa a different story? How can I tell them that it is spring, while to me it seems like winter? I cannot do it. For tactical reasons I could state certain matters in a softer way, but one cannot avert, conceal or cover up the basic stream. The people must know what the facts are, for it is precisely on the basis of those facts that we have to decide how we are going to react to them. In this way one gets people to say that they may be prepared to make sacrifices if what is at stake directly affects their survival. To cheat people and to camouflage matters is not going to help us at all; I am not going to gain anything by it. I shall not achieve my purpose, but will be caught out, and eventually find myself in difficulties with both my own supporters and the Americans.

The hon. member asked, and I accept that he asked it in a spirit of really wanting to know what really happened in Vienna. It would not be fitting of me to refer to the notes of the discussions which we held while we were closeted with the hon. the Prime Minister and Vice-President Mondale. But a Press conference was held immediately afterwards. The hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt with the relevant parts of that Press conference on his report back to this House. Because this matter was so specifically raised today, and because I was interrogated about it by the hon. the Leader of the PRP, hon. members must be patient for a few minutes so that we can say all there is to say about this matter. We must get this matter out of the way this afternoon so that we need not argue about it again in future. I want to quote what Vice-President Mondale said at the Press conference on 20 May. I shall not begin with the one man, one vote “slip of the tongue”, “slogan” or whatever it may be called. I want to begin where he is giving a well-considered, previously worked out and calculated opinion. I quote—

Mr. Mondale was then quoting what the hon. the Prime Minister had said to him—

He is referring to us—

He means the South Africans—

Here he is referring to the Americans—

†I should like to say to the hon. Leader of the PRP that Americans do not take it amiss if one talks frankly to them. They rather encourage and welcome that because they say the sooner people talk candidly, look each other in the eye and get it out of their system, the sooner they understand what is meant.

It was not the PRP leader so much as the hon. member for Wynberg—I am still not sure what he was trying to say—who apparently tried to teach me a lesson as to what a man in my position should do, how I should formulate my statements, etc. As far as these matters are concerned, we live in completely different times. Nowadays one talks straight and openly with one another and do not, as was the case in the olden days, need an hour to try to figure out what a certain sentence means. Be that as it may, the point I want to make is that that is what Vice-President Mondale had to say and if there is any doubt about it, I want to quote a second passage, because we cannot afford to return to this matter for ever. Further on in his Press interview he said upon being asked about the transformation or progress that ought to be brought about in South Africa, and this was part of his answer—

He was not so much concerned about the detail, the individual cases of removing discrimination. He says—

Those were his words. He was not so much interested in the little things, he wanted the fundamental transformation. What is that? The Vice-President makes it abundantly clear in the last question he answered. The question was—

Here the Vice-President is invited to take a soft line and to keep the door open, but what does he say?—

Those were his words and I cannot change it for the life of me. I did not use these words and I did not answer the questions, but I have to take notice of them. The South African public takes notice of this. After one returns to this country, everybody wants to know about it One is asked here in Parliament to explain what has happened, and now the hon. leader of the PRP is trying to make out a case that this is not what the Vice-President meant Why does he do it? [Interjections.] I can only base myself on what people say and I say that this is a dangerous line.

I put six questions to you.

I shall come to the hon. member’s six questions. They all actually form part of this. Through his six questions the hon. member tried to make out a case that the Vice-President meant something different. Either the hon. member camouflages it by saying that he did not want it immediately or that it meant this or something else. Let us cut it to the bone and get the nonsense over with. This is what was said.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to something which Mr. Young said about majority rule. I have the text here of Mr. Young’s Press statement made on 22 May, the same day on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout saw him. Mr. Young was asked specifically whether there could not be a difference in his thinking, i.e. that one can found a system of participation by all the various groups of South Africa in a Government, which is not a majority rule itself. The distinction was put to him. This was his answer—

There again I would have wished him not to say it. I do not want to be misunderstood. I would have wished Vice-President Mondale or Mr. Young not to have used these words. Once they have used them and once they have said it, this is it. What is it they want us to remove in this country? They have said that they want us to remove the whole basis of the structure of our society. They want to remove our right to govern ourselves and our right to be ourselves. Surely they want to remove that I concede to the hon. the leader of the PRP that there were tentative indications this morning that President Carter yesterday, last night or this morning, did say some other things, things which, at first glance, look far more accommodating and helpful to me. However, I would like to study them further and would first wish to see the text. I am going to the United States soon and I will take it up there further. I want to assure hon. members that I will do everything possible to maintain friendship with the United States. There is no question about it. It is only a fool that can think otherwise. This is what we are trying to do. We must also get a clearer understanding of what the United States can do to assist. In the wake of Watergate and Vietnam there has come into America a new spirit, as is stated by Americans themselves. They are simply not prepared to interfere any more in conflict situations elsewhere. Apart from their alliance with Europe, which is a more permanent and historical one, they are not prepared to interfere anywhere in the world, least of all in Africa. They will not assist us. There is no question about it I do not think we need quarrel about that point under any circumstances. The problem has become one of neutrality on the part of the United States. We want them to maintain a neutral position so that they do not actively support our enemies against us. This is how far it has developed. The hon. member is now asking me why we react so strongly. Of course I have to react in this situation. Why? I do not believe as yet that the vast majority of Americans, the American people, are against us. I do not believe that they are against us in the sense that they would not concede to us the right to survival, the right to be ourselves, the right to govern ourselves. They will not support us in regard to many aspects of the Government’s policy. Let us face that. Surely they will not do it Even the most conservative Americans do not understand a lot of our measures in regard to separation or discrimination, whatever one may call it We need not quarrel about it They cannot support it, but millions of Americans will support the right of the White nation of South Africa to exist, to be itself and to practise its national value system.

This is the point where the hon. member does not seem to understand the distinction. He thinks that he will satisfy the present American Government by removing certain measures of discrimination. I say we have to remove out-dated, obsolete and harmful forms of discrimination because we ourselves believe that they should be removed and because it is our own norms of fairness and justice, norms inherently in us, that induce us to do so. That is the way we are going about it and that is the kind of appeal that I am making in the interest of all of us. I am making it constantly. But the hon. member thinks he can satisfy a demand for “one man, one vote”. He said that he did not want to call it a demand, and I do not want to quarrel about a word. One can call it a wish, a proposal or a commitment on the American side for having good relations with us eventually. Whichever way one looks at it, it does come very close to something like a condition.

It does not matter, provided the present United States Government is also prepared to see the complexity of our situation, provided they would be prepared, as was Dr. Kissinger and members of the former administration, to say openly and squarely that the Whites of South Africa have the historic right to be in this country, that our problems are immensely more complicated than those of Rhodesia and South West Africa and therefore the solutions need not be the same. Those were helpful statements. I have not seen them repeated by the present administration. In these matters we must be candid. Surely they can just tell me if I am wrong. I will welcome it. But even if it is firmly the American position that it must be “one man, one vote”, I will still endeavour and I will still talk and discuss, because we must not give up hope. We must not give up hope because I believe that in America new voices are going up not for discriminatory practices in South Africa based on colour, but against the potentially dangerous situation that is developing as a result of Russian aggression in Africa and as a result of a new wave of stress and strain that has developed in the wake of some of the statements made by Ambassador Andrew Young, whether he likes it or not. He made those statements, and I do not think that they were very helpful.

*Sir, quite a lot was said here today about my statements about moving away from discrimination. The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to my speech on human rights. This member, whose speech I am still unable to fathom, dealt with one sentence only. It reminded me of a person who repeats the same recitation for an hour. It consisted of only one sentence: “The heavens are not so blue today” and every time he simply shifted the emphasis to another word or syllable. I must honestly say that I am still unable to understand what the hon. member was actually trying to tell me. Be that as it may, let us leave the matter at that now. I did say those things. I did say them, and I shall say them again. Not everyone on this side of the House has always agreed with me. The hon. member knows that. Of what avail is it now to wish to deceive anyone in this regard? The hon. member knows that some of my colleagues here on the Government side do not agree with everything I say, just as I do not agree with everything they say. The NP is not a monolythic party. The NP is not a grey amorphous mass which shows no signs of progress.

You could have fooled us.

There an hon. member, who has the biggest mouth I have ever seen in my life, has now said something. What I want to say is that we on this side differ among one another on what forms of discrimination are eradicable and what are not. We are debating the matter with one another. There are differences among us as to the rate at which we should effect the changes. There are also differences among us as to what steps follow logically and correctly under our policy and what do not. There are differences among us as to what is more unfair or what is less unfair, on what should receive attention first. For example, there are differences among us as to how rapidly the wage gap should be narrowed and eliminated. Surely that is not a secret. In an organization such as ours, an organization which has made such progress, there must be such healthy, candid differences among one another. However, there is one major difference between hon. members opposite and us. Whereas we can and will differ among one another on these matters, and in my opinion ought to differ, we agree on one thing and we have one sincere objective in mind: That the White nation with its individual system of values should survive and continue to exist. It is not White supremacy which I am now proclaiming here. No one on that side can accuse me of that, specifically because of what they have quoted me as saying and what I have said not only in South Africa but also in overseas forums. The White people of this country wish to survive honestly as a nation, regardless of what hon. members opposite say.

Of course. Who is disputing that?

They do not want this because of their white skins, or in order to favour themselves over others—it is as a result of the historical development which surely all hon. members opposite are aware of. Very well then; now we on this side might differ with one another on what specific course we should adopt. I am even prepared to accept that there are members in the Opposition who will share this view with me. However, there is one other major difference, and that is that the electorate of the country has expressed its utter confidence in this side of the House. Why do hon. members think they did that? They expressed their confidence in this side of the House because they know that the ultimate goal which we have set ourselves may best be achieved by this side of the House.

Hon. members opposite also know this. Over the years they have become fragmented—I am not saying this in a scornful sense. Surely they cannot imagine themselves in a situation where they will take over the reins of government in this country tomorrow. Surely they cannot believe that. Surely that is impossible. But what are they doing now? While we on this side of the House debate matters among one another in a sound manner as to how we may best safeguard our continued existence in the interests of the country and ourselves and at the same time ensure that justice is done to the Coloured, the Asiatic and the Bantu groups and that they get a fair deal, they are trying in the death throes of their existence as a party, to score minor political points off us. Now, in the year 1977, they conduct such a debate. That is why I thank the hon. member for Albany for having stated here this evening that his party will help where necessary, even though they differ from us on certain points. That is how a South African should speak who would like to survive with us. We do not hate the Blacks; we do not hate the Coloureds or the Asiatics, but hon. members know as well as I do what is going to happen if certain things are done rashly. We must take our people along with us. That is precisely what I am trying to do. What is more, I still have to convince some of my colleagues—let me say this openly—to go along with certain things that I am saying or envisaging. I can frequently see the foreign threats more clearly than some of my colleagues, but then they put forward their arguments, and as their colleague I have to take these into consideration. My arguments may be logically correct and amount to our having to bring about the greatest measure of uniformity in the country in order to muster all our strength at home in order to oppose foreign pressure and aggression. That is what we are striving to achieve. That is why I would be prepared to effect quite a number of changes within our group relations and to suspend quite a number of measures which are marring relations. I am saying this candidly. But then some of my colleagues say to me: “You must be careful now that you do not, in warding off foreign aggression, deal yourself a knock-out blow internally,” and that is also true. One should consider this, too, and I have to listen to this as well. That is how this party works, and if the hon. members did not know it, they know it now.

What is also important to us, is that we have a leader who, when we have had a few skirmishes among one another, takes the lead and adopts a certain line. Then we fall in behind him and follow him in the lead he has taken.

Who is that? Is it Andries or Connie?

That is the third and major difference. Mr. Chairman, I do not have time for jokes now, when we are discussing these serious matters. The hon. member does not know how close to midnight it really is in respect of certain things. Let me say that candidly. However, it is not necessary for us to make the situation out to be a crisis. But we should get our priorities straight now, and the Opposition should act in a more responsible way. They should set their affairs in order, too. I am now inviting them to do so. I am not trying to score political points off them. I am not trying to win debating points. I invite all South Africans to reconsider South Africa’s international situation and to ask themselves—Whites, Blacks, Indians and Coloureds—which of them would be better off if our enemies succeed in achieving their objectives. None of us would be better off. Once we have a consensus on that point, we should in my opinion consider one another’s standpoints with great tolerance and talk to one another sincerely and honestly about those things which bother us.

I concede that the Black leaders are making statements all the time and frequently do so in strong terms. They have the right to do so. Their standpoints are published in the newspapers, and this is just about the only part of Africa in which they have the right to criticize the Government. But one must be realistic. After all, a balance has to be struck in respect of these matters. Shortly before I left New York, I had dinner with a Black ambassador. As I make a habit of doing, I said to him at one specific stage of our conversation on our differences: “Look, we want to change our Government only by way of elections; we want the Press to be free to criticize; we want the courts to be independent of the executive authority and of Parliament; we want this system—those are the idiosyncrasies of that White African nation in the south.” He then said to me: “But we have rejected that system. We cannot have it. We do not want it.” In this little altercation lies the whole essence of the South African case. Do not hon. members perceive it? It is not simply because the systems of Africa are Black. There are White systems which are more dictatorial than these. The issue is not racism. Can hon. members not perceive that what is at issue is national systems and value systems within the systems, systems which are incompatible with one another, and nobody is going to make them compatible. Do not come and tell me that story. Why should we then seek scapegoats? Why cannot we look one another straight and honestly in the eye and say candidly and honestly to one another: “What is at issue is not the colour of your skin; it is your value system which is different to mine. It is not better or worse. It is not backward. Mine is not superior. It is simply different I want to keep certain things and you want to keep certain things. Let us come to an agreement You keep yours and I shall keep mine and let us reach a compromise with one another. Let us help one another economically; let us help one another in the sphere of labour, let us help one another technologically, and in this way we can go forward together on an honest basis.”

Sir, there is no other way to make provision for the future of Africa than to speak to one another in brutally honest terms. We, on our part, are doing so, and I appeal to our Black leaders to do the same on their part.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to welcome the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He and I have come a long way together and it is gratifying to see that a career diplomat has become the Minister of Foreign Affairs of our country. The hon. the Minister went straight at it when he spoke of the plurality of stupidity on the side of the Opposition. I do not want to go into this …

Why not?

Because the hon. the Minister himself admitted that there was a measure of plurality in his party as well. He boasted about the fact that, as he said the NP was not a monolithic party. That is another way of saying that there is also a plurality of thought in the governing party. Although one can take those arguments further, it is not really my intention to follow up, on those allegations of the hon. the Minister. I should like to come to a few aspects with regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

†I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe the time has come to look again at the co-ordination and control of foreign policy in this country. The field of foreign affairs has assumed a new importance, far greater than was the case in the past. Foreign affairs is now no longer only of fairly marginal interest in the conduct of national affairs, but has become vital to our survival. We play these days for high stakes and the game has got to be played according to precise rules. I think that foreign affairs these days is no game for amateurs, it is no game for kibitzers. The hon. the Minister, having come back from the USA with a large collection of new words, will realize that a kibitzer is the man who stands behind the poker-game and makes comments upon the way other people are playing the game.

South Africa has now become involved for the first time in the East West conflict The East West conflict is drawing South Africa ever closer into its orbit In these circumstances there is great importance to be attached to accurate and controlled reactions to the attitudes of our antagonists and protagonists, the attitudes of those with whom we enter into debate or negotiation, and a very careful appreciation of their significance, the exact meaning of the things they say. Policy in the United States, for example, as the hon. the Minister would know better than I do, is conducted at various levels. It is most important to understand and to appreciate the significance of the policy directions taken at these various levels, to be able to measure the one against the other, and to assess their significance. We have had, for example, several references this evening to what various people have said at various times. These are Americans who have commented on South African policy. I would like to suggest that far more important than what individual American politicians, whatever their seniority, may say to the Press under pressure, one should look at the official documents, for example the kind of document which is produced when an Under Secretary of State is called to give evidence to Congress, to the House of Representatives, to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, on specific policy as conducted by the State Department in respect of Southern Africa. This, for example, is what they say. This is direct evidence—

If that is the argument, if that is the policy, expressed on an official occasion, under controlled conditions, by a Secretary of State talking to the Foreign Affairs Committee, then I believe it is a policy which we can get along with. That is the kind of situation on which we should in fact build our relations with America.

I am mentioning these things because there have been tendencies in South Africa for various other people to “kibitz” into the game. We have, for example, the case of the Ministry of Information. The Ministry of Information has a specific duty in foreign relations. I believe that is a duty which should be carried out in conformity with and within the broader policy of foreign relations rather than that there should be an attempt to develop its own area of interest in the field of foreign relations. We have had this year, for example, an annual report produced by the Department of Information. It contained some extraordinary statements which, unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into now. However, it would surprise me very much to hear that they were in conformity with the general policy views of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It has apparently also developed its own policy in respect of Red China. This has met with a very strange and mixed reaction. It would surprise me again if that were seen to be the policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

There have been various emotive references to newspaper reports which, as I have pointed out, are very often quoted out of context, without the full background being given. Very often incomplete remarks by Carter, Mondale, Young and other people are quoted. In this regard I believe there is an undue amount of importance being attached to the remarks made by the United States ambassador to the United Nations.

There are other people who also play a full part in the making of policy, and who play a rather more significant part in the formulation of policy than the ambassador to the United Nations.

The Ministry of Defence has also a specific function in the field of foreign affairs. It has, for example, the duty to motivate preparedness. However, it is not responsible for the wider interpretation of foreign policy. We have had, for example, speeches by the hon. the Minister of Defence on the subject of Marxism. People talk about a Marxist onslaught.

*The hon. member for Parys spoke of a Marxist terror régime while the hon. Minister of Defence constantly uses the phrase “a Marxist onslaught”.

†If one looks at the whole of the Russian activity in Africa, one has to look at it in various ways. There is, for example, Marxism—a word the hon. the Minister is fond of using—which has largely to do with an economic philosophy. There is modern ideological communism, which is a different thing again; there is Soviet foreign policy, which is yet another thing. There is Comintern policy, which is the international purpose or drive of a number of communist states. There is Russian strategic planning, which is something we are seeing more of in Africa now than we are seeing of Marxism or Communist ideology. If we are going to deal with these diverse things effectively, we have to know what we are talking about. They do have a common purpose and are co-ordinated to some extent, but they are entirely different in method. It is important that those who conduct our foreign policy should be aware of these differences.

There has been talk about the Indian Ocean, a great deal. The Institute of Strategic Studies has, in fact, done a most detailed study of this matter. I believe we need to look more closely at the inaccuracies that have been used in respect of the Indian Ocean. In the Indian Ocean, according to the Institute of Strategic Studies, there are 12 Russian ships with 12 supply ships in an area extending over 28 million square miles. The Institute’s point is that it is not the large number of ships which is remarkable, but that a large navy like the Russian navy should have so few ships in such a very large area.

I want to conclude by saying that I am one of those who believes the Russian threat in Africa to be a very dangerous one. However, I believe that in the conduct of our foreign policy we must more accurately direct our attention to the priorities and not waste our time or our resources, both of which are precious, by paying too much attention to things which are inaccurately diagnosed and which are not the real dangers. I believe we should co-ordinate our foreign policy under that Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is probably a whole number of matters to which we shall be able to pay closer attention and in that regard I agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis. However, the hon. member tried to show us what modus operandi we should follow in implementing our foreign policy. I think if he were to read up on the speech the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a few minutes ago, he would get some very good hints concerning what modus operandi we should follow in implementing our policy. As pointed out by the hon. the Minister, there are so many things we shall simply have to accept and face. I think that holds true for many of the hon. members on both sides of this House. We must accept that there are many matters in the world to which we shall have to look again.

I want to discuss another matter, however, i.e. the OAU. I believe we can still play a meaningful role in the OAU. Earlier on the hon. the Minister spoke some words which made a very deep impression. He said we should talk to one another in brutally frank language. That is the pattern we shall have to use in Africa. We are definitely not an African power without military and economic power and strength. In addition we want to tell Africa that the Republic of South Africa wishes to live in peace and harmony with all states. We have no urge of any nature whatsoever to dominate or to expand.

A charter was drawn up for the OAU and we agree wholeheartedly with probably 99%, if not 100%, of the sections in that charter. I do not want to quote the charter, but I have extracted certain odd passages which I should like to read out. When one looks at the objectives of the organization as summarized in section 2 of the charter, we see that one of the points reads as follows—

We are not a colonial power. I shall come back to that point later. We are not in favour of colonialism either.

There are a large number of principles in the charter and I cannot mention all of them but reference is also made to “non-interference in the internal affairs of States.”

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, in essence there is no fault to find with the charter of the OAU. This charter could also very easily be endorsed by the Republic of South Africa. In fact, section 4 of the charter reads—

This charter was signed on 25 May 1963 by 32 members. Today there are 48 member countries, eight of which are Arab countries.

Over the past 13 years a great many resolutions were passed by heads of state belonging to this organization, as well as by Ministers of Foreign Affairs at the Ministers’ Conference. Amongst those resolutions there were quite a number condemning the Republic of South Africa. This is probably the negative side of the entire matter. There were other negative aspects as well. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout pointed out one of them, viz. the utterances made by President Kaunda, the President of Zambia, about the Republic from time to time. We know that at one time he had many good things to say about the Republic. At other times, however, he said some very ugly things about the Republic. This is possibly another negative aspect of the matter.

One could also read the reports on the OAU Conference last year. There too, many matters were raised taking a negative line against us. That conference was held in Mauritius. For example, it was said by the Prime Minister of Morocco at that conference that a crusade without a cross had to be waged against South Africa. The representative of Ghana, for example, proposed that armed action be taken against the Republic. We know, too that the ANC and the PAC of South Africa asked for military aid in their struggle against South Africa. Some members also said that they were no longer concerned with the abolition of apartheid, but that they wanted to devote their energies to achieving the liberation of South Africa. Oliver Tambo, for example, also questioned the status of the Republic. All these ugly things were said about the Republic of South Africa. In addition, sport boycotts, sanctions and trade boycotts against South Africa were called for.

Then we must also remember, however, that this OAU Conference which was held in July last year was one of the most disorganized conferences they had held during the past 13 years. There was no unanimity whatsoever amongst the people at that conference.

The Republic of South Africa must not allow itself to be intimidated by those utterances. These are made from time to time and we must not flinch from them. We must know and realize that South Africa is not part of a group of Western countries, but that it is a part of Africa and will always remain part of Africa. We must work out and seek our salvation in Africa. It is true that together with a number of African states we are ranged on the side of the democratic West against communism. That is not to say, however, that we share in this matter together with the West.

The governments of Africa must come to the quick realization that it is not South Africa, but Russia, Cuba and the communist satellites that are posing the greatest threat to Africa. We need only think of the direct or indirect support Russia and Cuba have just given the Shaba invaders. We may also think, for example, of the visits of Castro and Podgomy to Africa and of the influence which communism has had in Angola and Mozambique. All these things prove to us that South Africa is not the scapegoat in Africa and that another scapegoat will have to be found to be flogged. Resistance against the communist influence ought to be priority number one of the African states because they have to realize that when these people get the upperhand there will once again be slavery and domination in Africa. That is the only objective these communist countries have. They are imperialists and colonialists and they want to create a situation of slavery in Africa once again. The African states may rightly ask themselves who will be next to suffer under these people.

There is also a positive side to the matter, however, in that South Africa is not without friends in Africa. There are quite a number of states which are very kindly disposed towards South Africa. In this regard one thinks particularly of the speech made by the Zambian Minister of Foreign Affairs two years ago. He said, inter alia that there were in fact some stumbling blocks on the road to South Africa’s acceptance in Africa. He mentioned Rhodesia first of all. We know what the position with regard to Rhodesia is. According to Minister Mwaanga of Zambia, South Africa could influence Rhodesia in one direction or the other. The policy of the Government in that regard, however, has been very clear down the years, viz. that for our part we shall do what we can to bring about peace but that we shall not interfere in another country’s domestic affairs. Nor do we prescribe to any country what it is to do, but we have done our share as far as Rhodesia is concerned.

The other stumbling block that was mentioned, was South West Africa. As regards South West Africa as well, South Africa has already made much progress in the direction of having South West Africa work out its own salvation.

The third stumbling block that was mentioned in this regard was the apartheid policy of South Africa. As far as this policy is concerned, one may rightly say to Africa, “Take a look at yourselves, take a look at the double standards that are being applied. Is there not more apartheid in the bad sense of the word in the rest of Africa than you can see in South Africa?” If those countries were to enter into talks with South Africa, we could explain our policy of apartheid—they call it that whiles we prefer to call it our multinational policy—to very good effect. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Potgietersrus has made a very relevant and interesting speech. I hope he will not mind if I do not react to it, because I would like to take up two points with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister made two very relevant points that struck me. The one was the question of the Americans insisting on “one man, one vote”. This seems to be very important to him and if one looks at the record since the Vienna speech, one finds that the hon. the Minister has referred to it on many occasions, i.e. on television and in Press interviews. The matter seems to have been very relevant as far as he was concerned, but whether it is correct or whether it is not correct, is not relevant to the argument that I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Surely it is simply a point of departure between the South African Government and the American Government. That is all it is. There was no ultimatum. He has not been presented with an ultimatum by the American Government that states that unless South Africa brings about “one man, one vote”, they are going to something or other. That situation did not occur. Surely, all the hon. the Minister has to do, is to agree with the Americans that there is a point of departure in regard to this matter and then to get on with the real business.

The real business surely must be what the hon. the Minister wants from the Americans. We are not expecting a Russian invasion, so he does not require military assistance. He obviously appreciates that it is difficult for the Americans to give political and diplomatic support to South Africa, because that might be counterproductive to their own policies. What we really need from America, centres around money, because it is both in America’s interest and in our interest that they should make it possible for capital to flow into South Africa. They can do two things which we require. In the first place we definitely need their assurance, and that of the West, that they will make sure that there are no mandatory sanctions in the economic sphere taken against us by the UNO.

The second thing—and this is perhaps more important—is that we need the Americans to make a statement on their policy about investment in South Africa. That statement must be very positive and very pro-South African. I can point out exactly why it is in their interest and in our interest to do it. As has been said in the House—I think the hon. the Minister believes it and the hon. member for Vasco also touched on it—our problem in South Africa is not so much a racial problem as a socio-economic problem. The more the socio-economic position of the underprivileged people improves, the easier it becomes to make the necessary political changes that we all want to take place. The hon. the Minister himself said that we were contemplating certain changes because we think those changes are right. Surely it is a very simple matter for the hon. the Minister to agree that there is a point of departure on the issue of “one man, one vote” but that, on the issue of capital being invested in South Africa, there is much common ground between America and South Africa. Surely it is in his interest to find out what the Americans want from us as a quid pro quo for them to provide what we so desperately need, so that the matter can then be discussed on its merits. I would be very interested to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he has entered into that kind of discussion with the Americans or whether he intends to.

On the same plane the hon. the Minister explained his emotional reaction against certain American leaders who have said terrible things about South Africa. He said that when people say terrible things about South Africa it is his automatic reaction to defend this country and to set the matter straight. I can appreciate that but I think the hon. the Minister should also appreciate, despite what the hon. the Minister of Finance has said, that our Achilles heel is our capital account. We have a major crisis in regard to our capital account.

For the information of the hon. the Minister, we are in debt to the extent of well over 10 billion dollars. We have commitments over the next five years amounting to well over 20 billion dollars. That is 30 billion dollars that we have to find over the next five years. We just do not have that kind of money. We can provide part of it from internal resources but the majority of it we are going to have to find on the capital markets of the West. The capital market consists of bankers who are individuals who are going to decide whether they are going to lend this large amount to South Africa and it is a very important decision that they have to take. They do not always listen to what I or other hon. members say; they go by what the hon. the Minister says. They are concerned about three things. In die first place some of them believe that there is going to be a revolution here anyway and that the new régime will not pay back the debts. However, let us discount that because it is actually not all that important. The second and third reasons are important, however. When one talks to these bankers they ask what will happen if the United Nations impose mandatory sanctions against this country. They say that in such an event the economic problems that we will have in South Africa will be so critical that we will not be able to meet our obligations on capital account, and that we will accordingly have to freeze our capital account. They then ask what the position will then be in regard to their money. That is the first point The second question they ask is what will happen if the security situation degenerates. In such an event more of our resources will be required in connection with the internal security situation with the result that the economy will go down. They also ask what will happen if our political situation deteriorates and no funds are available. There may in fact be an active movement by the West to stop funds from coming in. They argue that then again we will be unable to meet our capital commitments.

So, Sir, when the hon. the Minister gets emotional and says these things about Vice-President Mondale and others, it may be just a bit of sabre-rattling, but there are people in Zürich, London and all over on whom we are desperately dependent to take that decision to lend South Africa money. They may believe that because of what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying, it looks as if South Africa is heading for a conflict with America They may consider that it looks very bad for them and may accordingly decline to give South Africa any loans. The hon. the Minister should really consider that because while he may be reacting with very good motives, it may be very counterproductive for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randburg will excuse me if I do not follow up his speech directly. The hon. the Minister will reply to him because I could not hear him very well.

South Africa’s image abroad is not a very favourable one at the moment In considering our foreign relations, I think it is important that we look at South Africa’s image abroad and that we try to establish the reasons for that image. Our image abroad is what it is because of certain circumstances abroad over which we have no control and also, of course, as a result of certain circumstances inside the country. One of the circumstances abroad which I want to mention, is the fact that people abroad have a guilty conscience about things they have done wrong in the past, and consequently they are looking for a scapegoat in an attempt to make good what they have done wrong in the past In the second place South Africa’s image is what it is because South Africa has become the victim of the application of double standards abroad.

In this regard I may refer to the speech delivered by Pres. Carter at the UNO on 17 March. He referred to America’s ideals and said, inter alia, that America’s ideals were “to advance the cause of human rights”. Then he said, “We can sometimes help others to resolve their differences, but we cannot do so by imposing our own particular solutions.” We are able to agree wholeheartedly with this standpoint. The President expressed it beautifully. It is just unfortunate that he contradicted himself when he made specific reference to South Africa later in his speech and said: “In Southern Africa we will work to help attain majority rule through peaceful means.” My standpoint is that when it comes to upholding human rights—majority rule—in the heterogeneous community that is South Africa, it is an incorrect strategy which will not work.

A report relating to America’s present-day situation appeared this morning in the Citizen and serious allegations were made against America in respect of interference in an indirect manner in the domestic affairs of South Africa. I do not want to go into that but the allegations are serious enough for me to hope that a denial will be forthcoming from America.

South Africa’s image abroad is that of a static country, of a country where no development takes place where nothing changes. We often find that people abroad think the policy of the South African Government is to maintain the status quo. Nothing could be further from the truth. We hear a great deal about changes, but what changes? No one talks about changes of policy.

The changes in South Africa that we are talking about, are changes which must necessarily follow the energetic and vigorous implementation of the Government’s policy on what is practically a daily basis. If we want to think of the Government’s policy and the changes which will follow when it is possible to implement that policy to the full, we could think, for example, of the narrowing of the wage gap. Once that policy has been implemented, it will of necessity bring about change. That does not constitute a change of policy, however, but is in actual fact a change following on the implementation of the policy. Just think about the changes which will come about by moving away from discrimination. It is the recognized policy of the Government to move away from discrimination based on race and colour alone. I believe that this nation of ours is ready to accept the consequences of the change in this field. If measures which are irritating, offending and discriminatory are removed, that action would receive the support of this nation. Any action which promotes human dignity, happiness and prosperity for everyone living here will, I believe, also enjoy the wholehearted support of everyone.

When we look at the changes and at how the outside world views us, we can look specifically at the Blacks. In relation to the Blacks, our policy is not one of oppression, but one of liberation. It is not a policy of denial of opportunities, but one of the development of people. The outside world must realize that in South Africa, here on the southern-most tip of darkest Africa, lives a nation which wants to move, a nation which does not want to stand still and become rigid, but wants to move. The question is: Which way is this nation moving through the implementation of its policy, through the implementation of the policy of this Government?

With reference to the Middle East, President Carter said: “We are doing our best to clarify areas of agreement to serve as underlying consensus.” In this regard I want to say that there is an important advantage incorporated in the NP’s policy of ethnic development. It is only through the implementation of this policy to its fullest consequences that one can eliminate the basis for a power struggle between the various peoples. When one has eliminated the basis for a power struggle between the various peoples, one has established an understanding between peoples in South Africa, one capable of developing into a definitive consensus on certain specific matters as in the case of Transkei. If anyone in South Africa wishes to make an attempt “to surface an underlying consensus”, I want to say that this is not possible in terms of the policy of the UP—nor in terms of that of the PRP—because built into the policies of those parties is a power struggle which in future must develop between the various Black peoples on the one hand and the Black and White people on the other hand. The implementation of the policy of the Government holds out the possibility of new opportunities being created in South Africa. I see a grand ideal for the young people of South Africa to strive for whether they be White, Brown or Black: The arrival at the point, when the power struggle inherent in the present situation in South Africa, is eliminated. I see that ideal as the building of a great South African consensus.

To be able to achieve that, we must take note of a few conditions. The first condition is that the Government be allowed and, by means of the support it receives from the people, enabled to implement its policy to its full consequences, i.e. to guide the various Black peoples to independence. The independence of peoples has an important advantage for South Africa, one I should like to repeat. It is only by recognizing the principle of the self-determination of peoples, only by recognizing the principle of self-determination which is an internationally acceptable concept, only by recognizing the policy of the Government in this regard and its implementation that it will be possible to establish the basis for co-operation, an understanding and consensus amongst the peoples living here.

A second requirement is that discrimination based on race and colour alone be eliminated in South Africa, which is in fact the policy of the Government. If we do this, we shall establish the basis on which the proud national character of every nation living in this country will be able to develop. It will then be possible, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it, in this plural community living in South Africa, to give everyone the opportunity of reaching full maturity. Once those opportunities have been created and this has been achieved and once, hand in hand with this, a respect has developed between people and between nations, once good relations have developed on that basis, then the young people and the country will have arrived at the moment of a great ideal being achieved, viz. the great South African consensus which still has to come. Once that consensus has been achieved, which, in my opinion, can only be achieved by means of the policy of the Government, I believe that the Government will have established for these people the greatest security that could exist for us in the future. Only through unanimity in this part of the world, through a realization that despite the independence of our peoples, the destiny of everyone of us in this country is the same because the dangers facing us are the same and because our assets are the same, shall we be able to develop this country of ours, also as far as the outside world is concerned, into a wonderful example for the family of nations in the world. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria Central has made a plea here and stated his point of view clearly. I noticed that hon. members listened to him carefully. To me that is an indication of the interest of his speech.

† Mr. Chairman, I think all of us here are agreed that we are geographically bound to Africa and that we do not form any part of Canada or America, of Britain, West Germany or France. We are part of the African continent with all its potential for peace or for strife. It is in Africa that we have to develop our military defence capabilities, our culture and economic systems. It is here that we live, die, have our children, farm our lands, farm with our cattle and where we have to find our joy in a joyless and very dangerous world. We are here to stay in Africa, and for that very reason it is necessary for the countries of Africa to find a modus vivendi with us and for us to find a modus vivendi with them. The only way of finding this modus vivendi, this co-existence, is to identify the tension-creating circumstances, the disagreements and points of friction, and to eliminate them as far as is possible and practical in a very imperfect world. In these serious times it is necessary to identify the real points of friction, not the ostensible problem, not the pseudo problem, which only serve as a smoke-screen and which might sound altruistically attractive and might be very expedient politically in the short term, but we must identify the real problems. For too long have we not looked at the real problems in Africa and for too long has Marxist imperialism obscured the true relationships that countries in Africa should have with one another. Having obscured the whole position the field was left clear for the communists to fulfil their own ends at their heart’s content and in their own time. Therefore I find it most gratifying and a cause for cautious optimism that the real friction points are being identified. I suggest this is what President Kaunda did when he used the following words, and I quote from The Citizen of 7 June 1977—

When we scrutinize this statement more carefully, we notice a few things. The first point that I want to mention is that the Republic of South Africa is not being blamed for the fact that borders have been drawn arbitrarily. Indeed, we in South Africa find ourselves in exactly the same position, i.e. we also have arbitrary boundaries. What we are now doing is that we are doing exactly the reverse. We are creating boundaries as they should have been and ought to have been had the colonial powers not drawn them arbitrarily. Secondly, a further question that should be asked is whether it is logical for these African States to fear that our policy will create strife in Africa, in that the nations in Africa, because of our policy, may want to secede from their present masters. I would argue this proposition on two premises. First of all, I would like to say that if a nation within an African State—by that I mean a nation identifiable as such, with historical land, with its culture and its language—wishes to become free, then surely that simple fact proves that we in South Africa have a grass-roots feeling for the aspirations of the other people’s in Africa. In my view that underlines the morality of our concept of granting independence. Therefore, fulminating against South Africa on the basis of immorality or morality of our policy only underlines the true African morality that we do have in this matter. The second point is that if these nations do not wish to have independence, then obviously our policy is no danger for the countries of Africa at all. However, I should like to revert to the first aspect, i.e. where there could be a danger when a nation should want to have its independence. In parenthesis I should like to say that in South Africa we have no such danger at all, because freedom here is for the asking. Any nation can ask for freedom and can have it. There is no danger here of secession. The African States can treat this problem only in one of three basic ways. First of all they can face the reality and grant independence. Secondly, they can suppress it by force of arms and thirdly, they can enhance the value of the humanity of their peoples who wish to become independent, and enshrine their human rights so that they would rather prefer to remain under their present masters. Thus, in conclusion, the answer to the problem of African States is not in waging a war of words against South Africa, not to work themselves into a state of angry frenzy— something which is counter-productive and quite unfruitful.

My argument is that our policy of separate development is no threat at all to African States. If they do have a problem I suggest introspection might just provide the answer. They should see their problem in this light.

When our hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs visits African countries I trust that the African States will accept him in the spirit I have just mentioned. I trust they will welcome him as a friend of Africa so that he and they could together identify the problems which exist, analyse them and evolve a common strategy to combat the common enemy to our mutual advantage. I would like to assure African States that they will find in our hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs a worthy and fiery champion of the cause of the whole of Africa, and of Southern Africa in particular. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on the front page of the Sunday Times yesterday, there was an article by Miss Fleur de Villiers under the headline “Troops will quit South West Africa”. True or untrue, this was no ordinary story. It will, in my opinion, harm the morale of our troops. It will arouse family emotions among those who have prisoner-of-war sons, those who have lost sons and those who have serving soldiers at the front. It can also cause concern and a lowering of morale in South West Africa itself.

The hon. the Minister followed it up last night with a complete denial. However, that is not good enough. The matter cannot be left there, because this is not the first occasion on which there has been a story of this nature. The first Sunday of March, last year, under the heading “Sorry, we cannot help, Rhodesia told”, there was a story ascribed to the General Manager of Railways. That was categorically denied as being untrue by the General Manager himself the next day. Shortly before that there was a banner headline on the front page of the Sunday Times “South African Troops to leave Angola within days”. They did not leave Angola for the next month or two.

Prior to that there was another banner headline on the front page by the same authoress: “Smith Out: Nkomo in in a week”. Now, I want to call on the hon. the Minister to take this journalist and her newspaper to the Press Council. This is a blatant case of false reporting and I do not believe it is in the interests of South Africa that such a newspaper report should be allowed to circulate and that such a newspaper and such a journalist should be left the right to publish this sort of thing with impunity.

I ask what role is the Sunday Times playing? What role is SAAN playing? And as the hon. the Prime Minister said a little while ago: What role is the man behind SAAN playing? I want to speak to the hon. the Minister this evening about, what I call, the feelings of the South African people, as I understand them. The people are uneasy. A true picture is not being given to them. By the Afrikaans Press there is a cautious Government line. By the English Press there is the awakening of a guilt complex amongst its readers and the pushing of the line of the Western powers; not a South African line at all.

Small wonder then that the readers of these newspapers are confused. Our people know what we are negotiating with Britain and with America about South West Africa, about Rhodesia and more recently, about ourselves. Our people have seen others being let down by the British. Our people have seen the overnight collapse of the Portuguese provinces of Mozambique and Angola without their being prepared in any way for what could happen in Mozambique or in Angola. No warning or information was given either by the Government or by the Press in South Africa. Our people were kept in the dark about our participation in Angola, but then they were told later that it was because the United States had left us in the lurch that we had to withdraw. I do not solely blame the Government for this, except that is has not been as frank with the people of South Africa as, I believe, it was in the interest with the people of South Africa to have been. The Government alone could decide what to divulge and what not to divulge. Only the Government knew the facts. In my view, in the light of what has subsequently come to light, it would have been far better to have played even more open cards.

It seems hardly necessary for me to warn the hon. the Minister, as an experienced diplomat, but I nevertheless want to warn him to be careful of the smooth talk and the promises of the British. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister must remember every mean and dirty trick that has been played against the kith and kin of the British in Rhodesia. [Interjections.] When the British say that they want a settlement in Rhodesia, they really mean a complete and abject surrender by Mr. Smith. What they mean is a transfer of power to Mugabe and to Nkomo because they will never ever forgive Mr. Smith, whom Mr. Wilson said would be crushed within weeks rather than within months. It is said that Mr. Smith is trying to avoid a settlement. Leaving aside the long negotiation between Britain and Rhodesia, only in September last year Mr. Smith publicly accepted Mr. Kissinger’s proposals, a package deal involving the creation of a trust fund, lifting of sanctions and the stopping of terrorism. The West, not Mr. Smith, broke that agreement. Now they claim that there was only one leg to that agreement, namely that Mr. Smith conceded the principle of Black majority rule. We should be careful. If we urge Mr. Smith to settle on the basis of Black majority rule, what is to stop Britain and America saying to us subsequently that we, too, have conceded the principle of Black majority rule?

How many pieces of silver, John? [Interjections.]

I believe we should state now that South Africa is satisfied that Mr. Smith is genuinely striving for a just and a negotiated settlement.

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South must withdraw his inteqection about pieces of silver.

Mr. Chairman, on your instructions, I withdraw it.

South Africa should say that she is satisfied with any agreement which is arrived at by the peoples of Rhodesia in Rhodesia. South Africa should say that she will regard any settlement imposed from outside by threat and pressure as against South Africa’s own best interests. She should proclaim that continued acts of terrorism against Rhodesia by neighbouring States, States with whom South Africa has economic relations, will be regarded by South Africa as acts hostile to South Africa, and that they will be dealt with by South Africa, particularly in the economic field.

I believe South Africa should publicly state now that she will maintain that her spheres of interest are within the boundaries set by the Kunene River, by the Caprivi Strip and by the Zambezi River, and that within this area of vital interest to her, we must form a common front with the people within that area against aggression.

South Africans will never forgive this Government if it should abandon Rhodesia, thinking that in doing so it will help ourselves. I do not believe that the Government will do so or that that can be the line of thinking, because it can never be justified.

On the front page of The Citizen today there is a seemingly well researched article which we in this House must take in a very serious light indeed. It bears out what I have said in Parliament in the last couple of years, and what is most disturbing is that it discloses that as part of the service offered by the Americans in South Africa is an information service in Soweto. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Is this true? I asked a question, which was answered today, inquiring about the strength of the various offices of the Americans in South Africa. No reference whatsoever was made to services and offices in Soweto. The article alleges that there are selected scholarships and visits to America by selected people to be trained as leaders. Recently the presence of consular officials at the protest meeting against the detention of Mrs. Mandela in Durban was reported by the Press. When asked for his reaction, what did the consul say in Durban? He said: “Do not be silly; it is common practice for us to send our people to political meetings.” However, this was not a political meeting, and any doubts that anybody in this House might have about the purpose of the visit of Mr. Andrew Young, can be laid to rest if one reads the information circular sent out by the information service of the USA to each one of us. Anybody who has any doubts as to what Mr. Mondale is aiming at can only read what has recently been sent to us by the information service. If anybody wants to know what the aims and the objectives of Carter and Vance are, he can only read what the information service has circulated here to us in Parliament.

The newspapers in South Africa, in this case the English-language newspapers, excuse American interference in our domestic affairs. They are full of eulogies for warnings which have been given by Mr. Young. The South African businessmen only wanted to hear what Mr. Young told them at their businessmen’s dinner. They did not want to hear, nor would they take in, what Mr. Young said at his farewell conference. If anybody in this House wants to know what is going on and what lies ahead of us, I counsel him to read those documents to which I have referred, documents which have been sent to us by the American Information Service.

Mr. Young never said a word deploring terrorism. He said he would not discourage it. He said he agreed with what he called “defensive violence”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I feel I should at this stage reply to at least one of the questions put by the hon. member for Simonstown, his question regarding American offices in the Republic of South Africa. We gave him a full list of those offices and the number of Americans working in those offices. I am not aware of the existence of an American office in Soweto.

Mr. Chairman, in all the years I have been sitting in this House, I have both given and taken. But in all those years I have never heard such a politically disgraceful interjection as the one the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South made tonight.

Order! The hon. member must not refer to that interjection. It has been withdrawn.

I beg your pardon, Sir. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South ought to be very grateful that I am abiding by your ruling, otherwise I should have dealt with him this evening as he has never been dealt with before.

I witnessed something else in this House today which is simply unbelievable and that is that the official Opposition used the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Von Brandis, hon. members who have already broken away from their party, as their chief spokesmen today. Two of the four hon. members who are breaking away from their party are being used in this very important debate. I do not know what they want to call themselves—perhaps the Four Oliviers! I find it shocking that an official Opposition can think so little of the Foreign Affairs Vote as to push the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, whom they know is no longer with them, into the debate. When he sat down there was not even a sign of applause or reaction. They sat there silently with an expression on their faces which signified a lack of interest but which attested to the fact that they had no one else in their party whom they could push in.

It was with special pride that I listened to the hon. the Minister’s reply this evening. I am particularly proud because he grew up in Rustenburg. I believe that he acquired his inspiration and his feeling of loyalty towards South Africa on the slopes of the Magaliesberg. There is no doubt in my mind that the hon. the Minister will play an exceptional role in South Africa in the years that lie ahead. I regard our Prime Minister as the ambassador in the world today. He is a leader who enjoys recognition, a leader of world class, for the simple reason that he puts his own country first. However, I must add to that that he would not do so at the cost of any other country in the world. That is why he is regarded as the leader in the world today.

A great deal is said in this Chamber about discrimination and unfortunately the official Opposition and the PRP use this concept as a political football. They use it in this way in an attempt firstly to embarrass the NP and, secondly, to seek reconciliation with other countries in the world which, they believe, will be impressed by it. When we talk about the removal of discrimination, this indicates a contrast. The approach of the official Opposition is to seek reconciliation at the cost of White and Black in South Africa. As for the NP we are looking for ways and means of removing discrimination in all honesty and sincerity. However, everything we do is belittled and pulled to pieces. The key to the removal of discrimination lies in the rights of self-determination of peoples and in the unique identity of peoples. There should be no doubt about that. If those hon. members wish to realize the concept of “one man, one vote” in South Africa, then they are not on the path to self-determination. We have to contend with an official Opposition that is prepared to channel everything on a political basis and at the cost of White and Black in South Africa.

We must look at the history of the official Opposition and at that of the PRP to determine what they have done to uplift the Black man in years past. I have never seen them in the homelands bordering on my constituency. I have never seen the hon. member for Pinelands there, but I have seen many DRC clergymen there. I have also seen many doctors, not UP doctors or Prog doctors, but Nationalist doctors. I myself have worked amongst those people for many years.

Order! Were they at least foreign clergymen, because we are now discussing the Foreign Affairs Vote?

I mention it simply to prove what the NP has done in Bophuthatswana and Transkei to promote the interest of the Black man. However, I want to quote what their own people have to say about discrimination and about “one man, one vote”. What did Mr. Alan Paton say in the Suid-Afrikaanse Oorsig of 3 June 1977? I quote—

He is a Prog.

Yes, he is a Prog—

Do you agree with that?

The hon. member must please just keep quiet for a moment. I shall read further—

That is what Alan Paton says in that regard.

Do you agree with that?

The hon. member for Pinelands is now asking whether I agree with it. A few months ago the hon. member for Houghton spoke about “one man, one vote” but now they see that there is a resistance to that concept amongst the Whites in South Africa. That is why they are now all of a sudden opposed to “one man, one vote”. Of course there cannot be “one man, one vote”. What I find interesting in the whole set-up and in all the politicking of the PRP … [Interjections.] If that hon. member wishes to make an interjection, he must do so clearly so that I can hear him.

On the other hand, there is a person like the hon. member for Simonstown. Politically I differ from the hon. member, but as an English-speaking person he always acts patriotically and in the interests of South Africa. The PRP cannot understand that it is now not only the Afrikaner who is acting in this way in the interests of South Africa. I am saying frankly this evening that English-speaking South Africans reject the PRP. They reject “one man, one vote” and that is why the PRP is all of a sudden saying that they no longer believe in “one man, one vote”. However, the hon. member for Houghton has repeatedly said that she believes in it. One can argue about the Afrikaners and the English speaking South Africans, but today there is a patriotism in South Africa which the outside world must take cognizance of. They must take cognizance of the fact that if they want to force matters on us, they will see South Africans united as they have never been before. As political leaders of the Opposition party, those hon. members will be totally rejected.

I am convinced that South Africa, with her economic potential and her mineral wealth, cannot be lost to the West. I am convinced of that but if it were nevertheless to happen, it would be a tradegy that would affect the entire world. We must remain calm and we must not take fright when we listen to what politicians in the outside world are saying. Hon. members must take note of what military strategists are saying. They must also take cognizance of what the financial experts of the world are saying and then they will find that there is a favourable disposition towards South Africa. There are millions of people in the world who are well-disposed towards South Africa and there must be no doubt about that. That is why I repeat that irrespective of which political party or president is in power in America, if he were to seek to impose his will on this Republic, a resistance would develop in his own country which would cost him his presidency. The reason for that is that this country enjoys recognition in the world and also enjoys recognition for economic integrity. Economic integrity is one of the financial rules which must be put first at all times and it is put first by this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to associate myself with the congratulations to the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this very important post. We trust that he will be happy in this very important office. We know that there are a few very difficult years ahead, but we also know that he is well-hardened to his task and that his shoulders are broad enough to enable him to serve with dignity in this difficult office. I also want to congratulate him on his successful efforts as representative at the UNO. In his efforts at the UNO he has really brought the image of South Africa to the attention of the countries of Europe. What makes it so important is that he has had to function there at a very difficult time. It was that much more difficult because he went to the UNO with a label around his neck. It was not a label that was hung around his neck by the enemies of South Africa. He went there with a label hung around his neck by people in this House. I foresee a rosy future for the hon. the Minister in the year ahead because, ironically enough, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, one of the hon. members who hung the label around his neck when he went to the UNO, congratulated him this evening on his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs. I see the hon. member for Bezuidenhout looking at me, and I just want to quote to him what he said at the time (Hansard, 10 September 1974, col. 2578)—

He continues—

He states further in column 2579—

I am not going to devote any more time to him, but I do say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout hung a label around the neck of our representative at the UNO. In spite of that, however, he has performed an excellent service and we can congratulate him this evening on what he has done there.

We cannot hide the fact that South Africa has many enemies at the present time. We cannot argue that away. We cannot fail to see that there are many enemies of South Africa abroad. We do not want to deny this either. There is talk of economic sanctions. There is pressure for majority Government, an arms boycott and other measures to isolate us.

I think it essential, however, to identify our prime enemy. What I am saying is that South Africa’s biggest single enemy today are the Russians with their imperialistic policy for possession of Africa. I repeat, they are the biggest single enemy. Russia has additional tentacles with which to help itself and with which it works. Russia, with its imperialistic policy, still remains our biggest single enemy. Southern Africa, and specifically South Africa, is this enemy’s prime target For various reasons it is Russia’s prime objective.

Those reasons have frequently been spelled out in the House. I am not going to repeat them. There is the strategic position and the mineral wealth, but there is one point that has not yet been mentioned. I want to mention it this evening. In 1952 this NP Government was courageous enough to ban the Communist Party in this country. In 1952 this NP Government was courageous enough to take a communist, who had a seat in this House, by the scruff of his neck and throw him out. That great and powerful Russia can still not forget that these few men of steel had the courage and the daring to do that to Russia.

What I find tragic, however, is that after a quarter of a century without this prime enemy disrupting the peace, there are people sitting in this House today who have said that if they were to come into power they would be prepared to reinstate that enemy as a party in this country. That is what hurts one so much. The hon. member for Houghton has said that they could again allow the Communist Party to function. I would be very interested, however, to hear what the hon. member for Yeoville, whom I do not see here at the moment, would have to say, and whether he would allow it. I am sorry he is not here. Recently he addressed the students at Stellenbosch. Let me quote from Die Matie—

I should like to hear from them what they are now going to do, because this prime enemy listens with a very finely tuned ear to what these people say in this House. They are very curious to know whether there is a future for them in this country, if this big and strong Government were to fall one day.

In Opposition circles there are people who say that it is because of this Government’s domestic policy that enemies are closing ranks against us. There are people who claim that it is because of the efforts of this Government The hon. member for Bryanston has said it repeatedly. Surely that is not true. Communists who have their eye on a country will move in, no matter what Government is in power, and that is something hon. members must please realize. The Government is prepared to make adjustments. We do not do so, however, as a result of pressure from outside, but do so to bind the people within our borders together. The adjustments the Government is prepared to make will take place in an orderly fashion. They will not take place overnight. If we are prepared to make adjustments, however, something we are, in fact, prepared to do, and which we shall do in an orderly fashion and not over-hastily, we shall ward off that great single enemy of ours and it will not return to our country.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall react indirectly to the hon. member for Winburg. I naturally want to associate myself with the good wishes which he and other iron, members expressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for the difficult task he has. I also want to associate myself with the serious reflection evidenced in the speeches of the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria Central. In that connection I want to do some straight talking, as the hon. the Minister himself has done.

It is quite clear that race and colour have today entered the central arena in the relations between peoples, and more specifically in the relations between South Africa and the peoples of the West. Thirty years ago this issue was peripheral and incidental; today it occupies a central point in our relations. As the hon. the Minister himself has indicated, there is consequently a direct relationship between our domestic policy and our relations with the Western countries, between their attitude to us and the way in which we handle our race question on the domestic scene. What this amounts to is that our ability to preserve racial peace within the country, to prevent racial conflict and to find a peaceful solution for our internal questions and problems—in other words, to reconcile the conflicting aspirations, needs, desires and demands of our multinational composition—is going to determine to what extent the West’s attitude towards us is influenced. That is very clear, and we all readily concede that the dangers of communist penetration in Africa and Southern Africa cannot be overestimated. It is very clear that everyone is concerned about that. What we fear in this connection, of course, is the military, physical domination of the peoples of Africa by the Russians and the establishment of Russian satellite states in this part of the continent. We are also fearful, in particular, of the fact that unless we can find the answers to our problems on the local front our own Black people will, to an increasing extent, possibly see the Russians as deliverers and also see the communist system, to an increasing extent, as a system that will bring them justice, equal opportunities and recognition of human dignity. That is the challenge and the problem. Unless we can therefore, by way of our policy, forestall that trend of thought amongst the Blacks, it will be no use reproaching the West and telling them to wake up and take note of our importance from a military and strategic point of view and to take note of their dependence on our mineral wealth.

If we do not achieve that, I am quite certain that we can expect greater isolation and hostility from the West. What is therefore vitally necessary in our own interests and for our own survival—here I link up with the hon. member for Pretoria Central—is to create a political and socio-economic set-up which holds so many obvious benefits for our Black people that they will choose this system in preference to any other. To the extent to which we neglect to do this, we are threatening our own existence and survival and our relationship with the Western countries of the world. The prerequisites—and here I want to link up again with the hon. member for Pretoria Central—are very clearly, in the first instance, the systematic abolition of all forms of statutory and administrative discrimination; secondly the creation of equal opportunities; thirdly the systematic abolition of forms of enforced separation based on colour and race; fourthly the removal of measures and actions damaging to human dignity and, fifthly, the creation of a political set-up in which all our groups can participate. Here I am referring to “the full participation” of which Mr. Mondale spoke and which I wholeheartedly endorse as a principle.

Obviously these things cannot happen overnight, and it would be completely unrealistic of me or anyone else to say that they could. We alone can obviously not decide what these five points embrace. It will therefore be essential—we must make an immediate start on that—to reflect, in conjunction with the Black people, on what discrimination means. It is no use you or I defining it. As quickly as possible we shall have to join those people in reflecting on the implementation of these measures, but until such time as we do so, our good faith in this connection will not be accepted. In this connection I want to state very clearly that there is probably no one in this House who is interested in a political set-up that will result in the domination of the Whites by any other group. It is completely unnecessary for something like that to be seen as a possible point of dispute between us.

It is essential, however, that in this connection we determine our priorities because the question we ourselves must ask is: What does it mean when we say—as I understand the hon. the Minister of Information to have said the other day—that we shall never allow anyone else a participating voice in our own future? What do we mean when we say that? Does it mean that we shall never allow any non-White to have any say in our economic future, the expenditure of State funds, foreign policy and the kind of political set-up we want to create in South Africa? If we want to be the only ones to decide on all those points, it is nothing but “baasskap” and will consistently remain unacceptable to both our own non-Whites and countries abroad.

All I am asking, therefore, is that when we make the statements that the hon. the Minister made, we must say what we mean when we speak of not allowing other people to have a participating voice in the determination of our own future. Exactly what does that mean? Secondly, what do we mean when we speak of maintaining our identity? What does the concept “identity” mean? Does this refer to language? Does it refer to culture? Does it refer to a way of life? Is it a value system or what is it? None of us objects to that. It is essential to our own existence and survival that we spell out exactly what we understand by the word “identity”.

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to the Vote.

I am speaking about the countries abroad. [Interjections.] I have found that in informed circles abroad there is a great deal of understanding of the complexity of our problems. We confuse those people, however, because we use terms that consistently confuse the issues, terms which engender a tremendous amount of scepticism in those people and give them cause to wonder whether we are not trying, with our terminological antics, to justify what cannot, in truth, be justified. We began with apartheid. From there we jumped to separate development, to autochthonous development, to development along individual lines, to plural democracy, to democratic pluralism, to plurality of communities, to multinationalism, to no power-sharing but, in fact, the division of power, to the canton system, to the presidential system, to umbrella systems that must work on the basis of consensus … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, what do all these things mean? [Interjections.] I should like the hon. the Minister ask his fellow party members to explain to us the exact meaning of all these terms in full. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edenvale who is one of the four—they call them the Oliviers—who are having problems in the UP, raised quite a number of matters which would actually need a whole speech to reply to. The hon. member said, inter alia, that there is a close connection between our internal policy and our foreign relations. That is so. There are, in fact, close ties between what is said to be our internal policy and our foreign relations.

The problem is that South Africa is in the unenviable position of being one of the few countries in the world which is judged throughout in terms of double standards. If there is in South Africa a system of, let us say, statutory separate development, this is dished up as the cause of South Africa’s problems. I should now like to know from the hon. member for Edenvale—he is someone who apparently endorses the idea that there should be the systematic abolition of statutory apartheid—if it is statutory apartheid, specifically statutory apartheid, to which he objects, or does he object to a distinction being made between people within a state? I should also like to know whether his objection applies only to the statutory aspect or whether he also objects to hypocritical, non-statutory distinctions being made between people in a state.

Show me a single country in the world where there is complete adherence to the view, as a point of departure, that every individual is equal on all levels. A professor from a university in Germany recently conducted an opinion poll here in South Africa. He has, in fact, been engaged on this project for four years now. He also conducted opinion polls in Europe. That professor alleges that his opinion polls prove that the feelings of German workers towards migratory labourers are more negative than the feelings between White and non-White workers in South Africa ever were, and this refers to non-White workers outside and inside South Africa. In the USA distinctions are drawn between people. It is a proven fact that the percentage of unemployment among Negroes in the USA, particularly the younger negroes, is four times as great as the unemployment among Whites in the USA. That is ostensibly not discrimination. It is simply “all nice and rosy”. What one has against this whole system are the double standards that are applied and the hypocrisy that is now becoming the norm in international politics. That is what we object to.

There are many more arguments one can advance against the statements made by the hon. member for-Edenvale. He alleged, for example, that the people of Africa, including the Black people of South Africa, see the Russians as deliverers and that the United States should be seen as a country that can offer them human dignity. I am really amazed that the hon. member, as someone with a knowledge of the Bantu in South Africa and one who, in my view, ought to have some knowledge of the attitudes of the Blacks in other parts of the country, can really think that the Black people will decide that Russia as the deliverer, on the one hand, can be weighed up against the United States, on the other, as the country that grants human dignity to states. What was the position in regard to Russia’s proxy invasion of Angola by the Cubans? When Russia and Cuba had not yet gained the upper hand there, the States of the OAU were equally divided about whether to recognize Neto as Angola’s head of state. When the Cubans eventually triumphed, however, virtually all the other countries of Africa fell in with that and recognized him as the head of state. The language they know and accept is the language of strength and power, not the language of human dignity. Where in Africa is there really the fair and equitable acceptance of human dignity as the norm? One need not even mention countries like Uganda which have made an absolute farce of human dignity. Just look at the situation of the Sudan, Burundi, Nigeria, the Congo or any other country. Where in the world, where in Africa is there human dignity? Even the United States does not accept that human dignity should be used as the norm. When the hon. the Prime Minister asked Mr. Mondale to mention an African State whose example South Africa could follow, he had nothing to say. There was no norm in Africa he could point to which South Africa could model itself on. Those are double standards and they are absolutely contemptible and abominable. The UP, particularly those four hon. members, and the PRP are forever joining in the cries of those countries that want South Africa destroyed. The choice South Africa is faced with, according to those people, is whether to be crushed to death by the hammer and the sickle of Russia or run through by the dagger adorned with the stars and stripes of the American flag. In other words, we must choose either one way to die or the other.

†Mr. Chairman, it is well known that in nature animals seek to ensure their own survival. Even a musk rat, if its leg is caught in a trap, will gnaw off its leg to gain its freedom. South Africa is fast reaching the stage where we have little option. We must be prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of our own security. We must be prepared to say that if our choice is suicide induced by the West or by the East, we do not choose suicide; we rather choose to be without our right leg, but to live. That is the spirit that will be established in South Africa more and more if the West continues to misuse the situation against South Africa by applying all these double standards.

I would like to deal briefly with the question of communism. Unfortunately, communism is a much misused word. I would say that it is not communism per se that is a danger to world peace. In various parts of the world we have various faces of communism. We have Marxism, Maoism, Leninism and Trotski-ism, all established forms of Communism in various countries of Europe. We have Eurocommunism in Italy and in France. Some socialist members of the UK Parliament are more radical than communist members of Parliament in Italy, but they go under the banner of socialism. Furthermore, there are the New Left and the new establishment in Europe called the Volksfront—a coalition between the so-called liberals and the communists. I do not know to what extent we might have a similar organization here in South Africa But it is not communism per se which is causing all the problems. The problem is, of course, that communism has one object in mind wherever it shows its face, and that is world revolution. As such it will utilize any movement or organization to achieve that object In Ireland the communists are using the Catholics for their purposes. In Africa they are using the Blacks. They are using revolutionary organizations to foster world revolution. That is the problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was with amazement and with some measure of perplexity that I observed the exhibition of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout today. I am a qualified medical practitioner who has had a great deal of experience throughout the years. I have a particular knowledge of anatomy and the human body. I am, however, also a professed Christian. I have been a deacon in my church and also a CSV group leader. I am not as knowledgeable as the ex-clergymen here, but I do have some knowledge of spiritual matters. Something has, however, taken place here before our eyes today which, from an anatomical and theological point of view, I would have thought to have been simply impossible, and that is that a man could take leave of his soul and body prior to death. The hon. member stands there talking, with those other three hon. members sitting there behind him while his spirit flits around here and tickles Helen under the chin. His speech was fairly lifeless.

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment He has already very successfully survived his baptism of fire, having thus far passed, with flying colours, the test that have been set him. In Westdene I saw him, with compassion, love and patience, speaking at great length to an old English lady. The English lady said: “It is the first time I voted for the NP, but it is not the last time.” We have also seen the same Minister, however, representing his country with force and vigour and fighting for it when necessary. The hon. the Minister’s role as ambassador, and then as the Prime Minister’s right hand in Vienna and elsewhere, in efforts to root out the concept of “one man, one vote” in a unit state, cannot be underestimated.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred to the Sunday Times. He said who and what this newspaper is. Bearing that in mind, one finds it impossible to imagine the Sunday Times coming to light with the following leader of 29 May—

Further on it is stated—

Reference is then made to the article alongside this one which also refers, as the hon. member for Edenvale said, to what Mr. Mondale said—

What I am now wondering about is the strength of the hon. member for Edenvale’s position when this paternalistic newspaper of theirs, which also represents the financial interests of the group in which he will be sitting one day, makes such amazing comments. In my opinion the hon. member has not yet quite caught up with his newspaper.

This evening I want to express a few ideas about the relationship and the understanding that exists between the Republic of South Africa and Mozambique. I am doing so for specific reasons. In the first place we in South Africa have throughout the years, as far as our foreign policy is concerned, stated that we do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. We have said that we are opposed to economic sanctions—that we do not boycott Rhodesia or anyone else—and that we seek friendship and peace in the world, and specifically in relation to our friends in Africa As time went on the question that arose was: What would South Africa do if there were to be a State in our immediate vicinity which differed from us completely on ideological grounds?

On 25 May 1974 the Portuguese Government fell and there was a coup d’état in Mozambique. Hon. members know the history of what happened then. They know that a de facto Black Government came into power in Mozambique and that the relatively enlightened Portuguese dictatorship was replaced by a militaristic Frelimo dictatorship. Hon. members are very well aware of what the position there is. The question “what will South Africa do in such circumstances?” was no longer merely a hypothetical question; it became a reality and a practical test for South Africa. The world waited in suspense to see what South Africa would do, the world with its double standards.

Last week Dr. Kaunda said again that if Rhodesia cuts off the power from the Kariba power-station it would, as far as he was concerned, be economic sabotage, but in the same breath he states that there must be very much stricter economic sanctions against Rhodesia. There are likewise double standards in the sense of America, in the person of Mr. Mondale, demanding a “one man, one vote” policy in South Africa I have never heard them saying that about Cyprus. I have never heard Mr. Carter, Mr. Young or Mr. Mondale saying that there ought to be “one man, one vote” with a majority Government in Cyprus.

With prejudice and double standards the world waited to see how South Africa would act. The hon. the Prime Minister has said, however, that we stick to our policy and will not boycott that Government economically, whatever Government it might be. All we seek is co-operation and we will not interfere in their affairs, not militarily or in any other way, unless they attack us.

The practical implementation of our foreign policy came very clearly to the fore, in relation to Mozambique, particularly in the following four instances, i.e. in regard to the Cabora Bassa hydro-electric scheme, the railway line to Mozambique and the Maputo harbour in Mozambique, the use of Mozambique’s labour on the mines and in the scientific and technical spheres. As far as the Cabora Bassa scheme is concerned, this water mass is symbolic of the tremendous forces, the tremendous potential and possibilities dormant in this powerful, sleeping giant, Africa, forces, potential and possibilities waiting to be unleashed. One only realizes that when one flies over the river and sees the mighty waters beneath one or stands on the bank of the river and looks across that great stretch of water. If one stands on the Songo plateau where the river narrows and deepens sharply into a seething water mass at Cabora Bassa, one realizes anew the tremendous possibilities of Africa. If one looks at the ambitious project at Cabora Bassa itself, it is no longer a symbol and is no longer hypothetical, being in fact a reality we are faced with.

Then one sees practical proof of the unleashing and tapping of the dormant power and potential to which I referred earlier. Six countries, i.e. South Africa, Portugal, Mozambique, France, Germany and Italy co-operated to bring about this ambitious project. Sweden meanwhile backed out. Let me just quote a few figures to indicate the ambitious scale of this project. When the final contract was signed on 18 September 1969, the project was to have cost R352 million. This has increased, since then, to R450 million. The dam wall is 120 metres high. 550 000 cubic metres of concrete were used. It was South African ingenuity that constructed a chamber in the rock under the mountain. The chamber is more than twice the size of St. Paul’s Cathedral. It is 210 metres long, 60 metres high and 30 metres wide. There are five turbines and the rotating sections of each move 2 700 tons. Each of those turbines can generate 2,5 times as much power as the whole of Mozambique can use at present. What one is dealing with there is an ambitious task which goes to prove what co-operation can mean to the people of Africa, as this has gone to prove.

I do not want to elaborate on the role of the Railways because there is insufficient time for me to do so. The General Manager of the South African Railways says that the Railways plays a significant political role in Africa. Mr. Loubser went on to sketch the new ties between the Railways and Mozambique, Zambia, Zaïre, Botswana, Malawi, Swaziland and Rhodesia, saying: “It is better to have normal trade relations with a communist country than to act in a less friendly manner.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Krugersdorp acted as a psychiatrist, I was glad to think that by the grace of God he had decided to become a politician. But since he read from his newspaper clippings I have decided that it may be better if he decides to remain a psychiatrist after all.

That brings me to the subject I want to discuss now. I think the time has come—I warmly recommend this to the hon. the Minister—for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to give serious consideration to the publication of an annual departmental report of the kind that is published by other departments. The reason why I suggest this is that hon. members come to an important debate like this with information gleaned from Press cuttings, information of a doubtful nature and origin which is often incomplete. Surely the hon. the Minister himself sometimes wonders whether it would not be better to conduct a debate on the basis of accurate information instead of the bits and pieces that are being used for the debate. It is very convenient and easy to keep things hidden and obscure in the field of Foreign Affairs. However, that creates new problems, because the less Parliament knows about the matters, the more obscure and unmanageable the debate on these matters becomes, because emotional factors come to the fore. People tend to listen to all kinds of arguments that are not really relevant to the basic problems as they are in reality. That is why I think that the ignorance behind the type of reporting about international affairs which we often find in South Africa in fact contributes to a kind of obstinate refusal to accept the basic circumstances with which we are dealing.

I do not know whether as a rule the electorate, the public, really knows about the factors that determine our foreign relations, especially because newspaper reports about foreign affairs are so inadequate. Therefore I think it would be in the interests of the hon. the Minister himself if he and his department would contribute to the debate by submitting a report like other departments do, in this case a report on our foreign relations. Under no circumstances do I want to create the impression that I want him to divulge confidential matters or discussions in a report to Parliament. I realize only too well that foreign relations are determined by thousands of confidential discussions and other contacts, things which cannot be disclosed to the public. However, there is a whole series of matters of public interest of which we should take note, where a report could contribute to a better discussion and understanding of what is really at stake in the determination of our foreign policy.

†I can think of aspects which could be included in such a report and which would be most useful to us in Parliament and would help to bring the debate back to reality and away from the rather superficial and incomplete kind of evidence that is being used as a basis for debate here. For example, it would be possible to include a summary of United Nations resolutions of concern to South Africa. For a few years the former Minister of Foreign Affairs actually produced a summary of the debates in the United Nations. I believe that there are a number of items discussed each year, apart from those directly affecting South Africa, which are nevertheless of interest to this House in that they do affect our broader relationship with the rest of the world. We could well do with more information about the specialized agencies. Resolutions are adopted there which are not secret, but are public resolutions published in the documents of the specialized agencies and which should, I believe, be at our disposal. They are not available through the Press in this country. We could also do with records of other international conferences. There have been a number of conferences of great importance to South Africa, some of them under the auspices of the United Nations and others of a more general character, dealing with such matters as the law of the sea, to give one example. Again, these are inadequately reported.

We could also do with a record of treaties signed and ratified. In principle these are tabled in this House, but they are not readily available to members. We could do with a record of public communications, e.g. letters addressed by this Government to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and exchanges of notes between Governments where these are not of a secret character. There are other international treaties or documents, very often affecting South Africa or of direct importance to South Africa. To use an historic example, there was the Lusaka Manifesto, which is not easily available in this country. We would like a report by the department of missions opened and closed, changes of heads of mission and information which would give us a general picture of the work and activities of the department and which would be informative and helpful and accurate so as to further the conduct of debates in this House.

I repeat that we are not seeking a record of confidential, private or secret information. One well understands that that would not be appropriate to the conduct of the affairs of the Department of Foreign Affairs. One well understands the reticence the hon. the Minister would have, as well as his correct inhibition in respect of such information. Yet, it is a fact that this Parliament, as this debate has shown, relies too much on inadequate information, on hearsay and on newspaper clippings. In fact, the hon. the Minister has himself had cause to complain about a kind of dependence on inadequate and unreliable information and of some of the reports about foreign affairs which have bewildered public opinion and have caused confusion of public opinion. I believe that his department can make a great contribution if it supplies to Parliament, once a year, in anticipation of this debate, a proper record of the most important transactions of an international character, the most important exchanges of notes or information of an international character, as well as the most important international conventions or conferences. These are publicly available to the people who took part and to those observers who have access to these documents and are therefore not of a secret nature; they would in fact serve, as some other departmental reports serve, to raise the standard of debate in this House when the particular Vote is discussed, to bring people closer to reality when these things are discussed, to direct the debate towards direct consideration of the real matters that affect South Africa’s position in the world at large.

In saying this to the hon. the Minister, I am not trying to create a situation which would embarrass him or expose his department to any particular kind of embarrassment, but to ask his department to contribute to the better conduct of foreign affairs by making available to this House, to this Parliament, more accurate and detailed information of a reliable kind which would lead to greater responsibility in the conduct of the Foreign Affairs debate which has become so relevant to the survival of South Africa. This debate is no longer an esoteric debate which can be conducted on the margin of domestic affairs. It has become a vital debate and I believe it would be correct for his department to make the kind of contribution for which I have pleaded.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis is really moving a tremendous motion of no confidence in the Press in coming here this evening with the proposal that the hon. the Minister should submit a report on foreign affairs to us because the Press is failing in its task. I just want to say to the hon. member that I do not believe that he should regard all the newspapers in the same light There are newspapers that are very reliable and that furnish very good reports in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, we should not like to enter into confrontation with the leaders of America, the major country of the Western world. We badly need the goodwill of this superpower. That is why we have always given them our friendship and co-operation in full measure, but when the leaders of that country begin shamelessly to interfere in the domestic affairs of South Africa in a manner in conflict with international law and with the Charter of the UNO, then we have no choice but to resist. When this happens we have every reason to ask what right Mr. Mondale, the UNO, or anyone else has to seek to compel South Africa to accept a so-called majority government which would entail the overthrow of White rule in this country, and what is more, in the subjection of Black peoples on the road to full independence. We want to ask the Carter administration: Do the Whites in Southern Africa not have human rights too? Have events elsewhere in Africa not shown what remains of the human rights of the Whites under Black majority governments? What the men of the Carter administration like Mr. Mondale and Mr. Young are asking us, the Russians are asking us too, with a view to establishing a Marxist State here, and the countries of the Third world, too, are asking this so that they can put paid to the Whites of Southern Africa.

Majority government is now being prescribed to us, but what is the situation in the rest of Africa? The rest of Africa turned their back a long time ago on the concept of “one man, one vote” or, as the Afrikaners call it, “one adult, one vote”. Out of 58 Black African States, 27 are one-party States, 20 are military dictatorships and most of the rest are semi-dictatorships. Why does the Carter Administration not prescribe governmental systems to these dictatorships in Africa, too, where instead of human rights, the law of the gun prevails? What a farce! The American establishes a special fund of R85 million to render aid to countries in Southern Africa that supposedly have a majority Government, whereas these countries which receive aid are in fact full-blooded dictatorships. I refer to countries like Mozambique, Angola, Zambia and Tanzania. Money is given to them because they have so-called majority governments. Africa is full of examples of the misery, decay and bloodshed which has resulted from the changing systems. Blind destruction of the system in South Africa could only lead to chaos and devastation from which only outside powers and not anyone inside the country would derive any benefit All the Carter Administration will achieve in this way is to make it more difficult for the White Governments in Southern Africa, particularly the Government of South Africa, to defend the sub-continent against Marxist imperialism, and to make it easier for the Marxists to extend their sphere of influence. The Red bear is already digging its claws in from the horn of Africa to the eastern and western coasts. Neither President Carter’s human rights campaign nor his pressure on Southern Africa for majority rule will save this continent for the West. Only an anti-Marxist front of pro-Western African countries can check the Red bear in its imperialism. This has been proved once again in Zaïre. It is high time the African States that recognize the danger stand up and be counted and join forces. They should realize that South Africa is their best ally against the Marxists and that South Africa is still the best bulwark against Marxism on this continent.

It is not only in Africa that the Mondale concept of “one man, one vote” is being rejected and where it does not work. It does not work in South America; nor does it work in Europe, the mother of America. For centuries it did not work there. That is why Europe looks like a patchwork quilt today. Our own Black leaders tell us just as convincingly that the concept of “one man, one vote” for the whole of South Africa will not work here. Even they are beginning to see this. Apparently it is only Chief Buthelezi with his “Chaka dream” of domination, who still supports the concept of “one man, one vote”. The Carter Administration must take note of the fact that their threat has united South Africans as never before in their resistance to Black majority Government for South Africa.

A wave of patriotism is sweeping South Africa. Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people and people of almost all political convictions stand united in their standpoint that they will fight before they commit national suicide by accepting the Mondale concept. Even the leftist PRP leadership has begun to detect this note among our people. That is why they are now beginning to do an about turn in respect of the “one man, one vote” story. I should like to quote what was said by an important liberal, Mr. Alan Paton, a man who has been honoured a number of times in the USA. This man displays the profound understanding of this situation when he tells the Americans—

I think the Carter administration should take note of this because there is a great deal of truth in it.

I want to put the question: Why do the Americans throw stones at South Africa when they themselves live in a glass house. After all, President Carter himself admits that there is racial injustice in his country when he reveals to the magazine Playboy that conditions in his own American South led him to decide “to start a crusade for Black majority rule in South Africa”. It is shocking that a world leader should try to escape his own personal guilt feelings by trying to wreak them on other people. If they are so concerned about human rights, why not then begin at home, in. America? Certain authorities tell us “the human time bomb ticks on in America” as a result of the race situation there. Mr. Edward Brooke, pioneer Black politician in the USA, told us that more than 8 million non-Whites—about a third of the Black population of the United States—“are under-educated, under-employed and are living in poverty”. According to the American Bureau of Labour Statistics the unemployment rate for Black youths was 40,3% in America last year and this situation is being aggravated because the birth rate among the non-Whites there is three times as high as among the Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, I just want to put it clearly that a profound feeling of rage is developing in South Africa due to the fact that we regard the attitude of the West as tantamount to betrayal of us. In this connection I must refer, too, to the comments made in the USA and to the kind of “code of conduct” which is being prescribed to U.S. companies operating in South Africa. The question has occurred to me as to what right the USA—and, for the purposes of my argument, any other foreign country—has to interfere in the domestic affairs of South Africa. This is an international attitude which is occurring more and more, and the hon. member dealt with it at some length. I want to convey my appreciation to hon. members for having regarded the matter of South West Africa as a delicate one, and not commenting unfavourably on it, apart from the one aspect which was raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He made an incorrect statement when he referred to the Odendaal Commission, which, in my opinion, issued a magnificent report on South West Africa. The hon. member described the report as “the disastrous Odendaal plan”. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes what it is all about. I wonder whether he has ever studied that magnificent report of the Odendaal Commission or whether he knows what it was really about.

When I consider the in-depth investigation carried out by the Odendaal Commission in connection with water in Owambo, for example, and the fine infrastructure which the commission has recommended for South West Africa, whereas long before the report of the Odendaal Commission the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had been conducting his UP propaganda in South West Africa solely for his own sake, and when I consider how, when the NP came to power in 1950, we began to establish an infrastructure in South West Africa, I remember that even at that time we realized that we were unable to continue with our plans, chiefly as a result of the heavy capital requirements of such a project. When we consider the water requirements of Owambo—apart from the water problems throughout South West Africa—and the high cost of water schemes, then we call to mind, for example, what the Kunene scheme is costing us and how valuable water is in regions like Owambo. Every now and again, during periodic droughts, Owambo is virtually faced with famine. In the past, before the Whites made their jurisdiction felt there, the Ovambos used to die in their thousands. I myself have seen in my time heaps of skulls lying about where previously there had been Ovambo kraals. They were the skulls of people who died of starvation in their huts.

Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout refers to “the disastrous Odendaal plan”. That is how he refers to the report of the Odendaal Commission when the lives of people, their daily bread, is involved. Matters of vital importance are involved, but the hon. member labels it as “a disastrous plan”. I simply cannot understand the mentality of that hon. member. He himself is a disaster. He is a disaster for any political party he belongs to.

I could continue in this vein. Just consider the fine high tension electrical wires that already extend throughout the length and breadth of South West Africa and are still being planned as recommended by the Odendaal Commission. This is supposed to be a disaster, whereas it is something which we ourselves can not do without. It is a project which will eventually cost R300 million. The issue here is the survival of the people of South West Africa, because without that infrastructure, South West Africa would not be able to support her growing population. I want to leave it at that.

I want to convey my thanks to the hon. members for Albany and Simonstown for what they said about the report which appeared in the Sunday Times. That report which appeared in the newspaper last Sunday, was really aimed solely at sowing suspicion in the minds of the people of South West Africa and was only intended to sabotage the aims which the people of South West Africa are striving to achieve.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp referred to the issue of labourers provided by Mozambique for our gold-mining industry. Under the Mozambique Convention, a major part of wages of the mine workers from Mozambique is paid to the Frelimo Government in the form of gold at the former official price of $42,22 per ounce. The Mozambique Government pays returning workers at the local rate and sells the gold at a tremendous profit at the prevailing pre-market price. This often results in a profit of R100 million annually for Frelimo. The amount is of course dependent on the number of workers which the goldmining industry gets from Mozambique. Apparently this profit-making, resulting from a labour arrangement which dates from a long time ago, will be something of the past when the revaluation of gold of which the hon. the Minister of Finance has already informed us, takes place. One often hears grumbling in the goldmining industry about this situation. I have even heard threats being made not to employ any Mozambicans if the Government continues to uphold the outdated convention at the cost of the mining industry.

Of course, there is also uncertainty as to whether the revaluation of our gold reserves will solve the problem of the big donation to Frelimo, because apparently President Machel’s government expects the South African Government to compensate for the loss which Mozambique will suffer as a result of the revaluation. I have even heard the accusation that through this convention and the obligations it entails, we are financing Frelimo in their efforts to bring the Rhodesians to their knees. I should therefore be very grateful if the hon. the Minister could clear the air in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to what the hon. member for Etosha said. He comes from a country which is going to get its independence soon and I do not want to concern myself with that. I just want to point out to him that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the political aspects of the Odendaal Commission and not to the development aspects. I am sure that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout or anyone else would support economic development in any country. However, it is the political aspects of the report that we dislike.

This afternoon and tonight we have heard such a lot of moaning from hon. members on the other side that it was really incredible. They moaned and groaned continuously about the double standards of the West. One gets sick and tired of this attitude. There was only one positive contribution, that of the hon. member for Potgietersrus. He said that we should be in the OAU. Of course we should be there, and the solution lies with the tribe of Africa which is represented by the NP. If the hon. member for Potgietersrus wants us to be part of the OAU, he only has to do one simple little thing: He must accept the human dignity of the Black man. I only want to ask one question: Is the hon. member for Potgietersrus or any other hon. member prepared to open our universities and technical colleges to people from free Africa? I also want to ask: Suppose there were a student from Ghana studying at the Madikoti Technical College in Pietermaritzburg and he had nowhere to go for Christmas, would he be welcomed as a guest in the house of the hon. member for Potgietersrus? [Interjections.] If he is not welcome, we can forget about being allowed into the OAU, because the Black man will immediately see that his human dignity is not accepted. [Interjections.] If the Afrikaners of Africa are not prepared to recognize the human dignity of the Blacks of Africa, the Afrikaner has no future. If they moan and groan about Africa, they should ask Advocate Strydom why he was not prepared to allow the Blacks to work for the CSIR in 1958. Why did Dr. Verwoerd turn down the offer of Dr. Nkrumah when he wanted to develop Africa together with Dr. Verwoerd? Hon. members on the other side of the House should answer those questions.

The Afrikaner is an African tribe. When I visited Nairobi in December, I talked with very important politicians from all over Africa. Like the Lusaka Manifesto, I also say that our situation in South Africa is not a colonial one. An African tribe gained political control over this country in 1948. The rest of Africa understands that very well. They understand tribal loyalty and group identity. They have no problems with the Afrikaner’s craving for an identity of his own. Africa has a heterogeneous background.

†I want to talk very briefly about President Carter’s Notre-Dame speech. I want to have a careful look at it. President Carter made the clear statement that the USA “was determined to work together with our European allies and the African States concerned to shape a congenial, international framework for the rapid and progressive transformation of Southern African society”. He, the President of the United States, is determined to do so. The history of United States involvement in diplomacy has not always been a very happy one. Their well-meaning, optimistic, naïve, insensitive and high-powered approach, which so often offers simplistic solutions, has been caricatured in literature and in films. Unfortunately, in many instances they have made a mess of modern history.

The history of British involvement in Southern Africa over the past century has also been a pretty sad one. However, I believe we in this House must be careful that our valid caution, which borders on scepticism to the point of suspicion, of the United States of America and the West, must not overrule the fact that we stand in that tradition—in economics, law, values and government. The countries of the West are basically our friends. We need to remember that Britain has used its veto four times in the Security Council to protect South Africa. Every time it was done by a Labour Government. We forget that. Sometimes we forget, as is certainly evident from the sort of rabble-rousing speeches we have been hearing from the other side of the House, that the West has worked damn hard to help protect South Africa against the Third World in the United Nations. I think we must remember that the West has tremendous investments here. The countries of the West realize that South Africa has a tremendous future potential and strategic value.

In his Notre-Dame speech President Carter laid down five principles on which American foreign policy is going to be based. One is that there must be close co-operation between industrial democracies in the world. We agree with that. We have no problems with the second point he has raised. He also said—and we agree with it—that he wished to reduce the risk of war with the communists while remaining militarily strong and in disagreement with ideology.

That is exactly the foreign policy of the hon. the Prime Minister. In regard to Mozambique, he has followed exactly that policy, and I am ashamed that the hon. member for Etosha criticized him for doing so. In fact, it is disgraceful that he should criticize his own hon. Prime Minister, his leader. [Interjections.] We also want to make a contribution towards reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. That is the third point that President Carter made. We, too, support the need for regional and international co-operation. The first point he made, i.e. the basic commitment to promote the cause of human rights, is also a point with which we are agreed. Even hon. members on that side of the House are agreed with the need to promote human rights. Although they dropped the Press Bill one wonders what they aim at by retaining detention without trial, job reservation and the pass laws. I think that everybody would agree that basically we are in support of human rights. I believe there is much agreement in this regard, and I would like to tell the House what Mr. Andy Young says in this respect—

The hon. members on that side of the House are religious men. The constitution of our country has a clause which states that we acknowledge the sovereignty of God and we realize that, without that base, all human rights are illusory. More than that: We have a great deal in common, because our hon. Prime Minister and President Carter have more than only a formal intellectual assent to Christian values. Both of them have a personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and all that that implies. This relationship must establish a measure of common purpose and of goodwill, which can only be to the benefit of our foreign relations.

We also seem to think that, in his Notre-Dame speech, President Carter has reneged on his commitment to fight communism. This is being so simplistic that I suggest we ought to read the documents when they come before us. Do we really believe that he is so stupid as to do such a thing? He realizes, however, that if one is negotiating with a man and one reaches stalemate, one raises a bigger issue. The human rights issue is much more powerful. The concept of human rights, the idea, the word, is much more powerful than we realize. He wants to outbid the Russians. He understands the power of the idea. Already we can see the extreme discomfort that his human rights approach is having on the Russians, on communist and totalitarian States. I do not believe hon. members on that side of the House appreciate the sense of distaste and resentment of racism that Black people have. When the hon. member on my left raised the issue of the museum at Women’s Monument at Bloemfontein, hon. members on that side of the House immediately got upset about it, to some extent correctly so. [Interjections.] If they get upset about an issue like that, how much more do Black people get upset about racism? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this high office. The hon. the Minister is by no means an unknown figure in South West Africa. We know him as a champion of South West Africa before the World Court and in the Council Chambers of the UNO, where he defended South Africa’s cause with so much honour. The hon. member for Pinetown saw fit to drag in the Afrikaans-speaking people here. Fortunately I, too, have the honour to belong to that population group. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinetown to look at what has happened in South West Africa. I want to draw his attention to the fact that 70% of the electorate of South West Africa is Afrikaans speaking, 20% is German speaking, 8% is English speaking and 2% can be described as people speaking other languages. The hon. member does not even have the decency to listen to me. [Interjections.] It is this 70% of Afrikaans-speaking people who, together with their partners at the polls, ensured a 95% affirmative vote during the referendum. This was done by the Afrikaans-speaking people, the race group that is constantly being made out to be the intolerant ones and the oppressors. It is a disgrace that the hon. member should make the statement that the Afrikaans-speaking people comprise this racist group.

I ask the hon. member to look at what is happening in South West Africa. It was this very population group that extended the hand of friendship to the non-White population groups there. It was done, however, without being over-intimate, without being ingratiatingly over-friendly and without inviting Whites and non-Whites from the street into one’s sitting room. This is human dignity and mutual respect; not obsequiousness, because that makes one the laughing stock of the other population groups.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I want to refer to previous statements in connection with South West Africa made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to refer specifically to his first visit to South West Africa after 10 years which he made in 1972.

You are talking nonsense! [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member is very touchy, as we know him to be. At the time, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout came up with a tremendous solution for South West Africa. I quote from a speech he made on 8 August 1972—

I want to ask the hon. member whether this is still his standpoint in respect of South West Africa. Did he still stand by this when he said …

If you had not been so stupid as to follow the Odendaal plans, that plan would have worked.

The hon. member has Odendaal on his brain. The hon. member represented South West Africa in this House for 10 years. What was his standpoint then? Did he once advocate for South West Africa what he is advocating now? In another speech he said—

Now the hon. member is leading the revolution. He is leading the revolution in his own party. He has undermined and white-anted the party from within. It is our privilege as South Westers, on the eve of our own birth, to view the funeral—one without wreaths—of the UP.

Why do you not go and fight against the terrorists in South West?

It is a funeral which has been hastened by him, an underminer and subverter of his own party. The hon. member has done little in the interests of the people of South West Africa but he always arrogates to himself the right to attend to them. For 30 years South West Africa was in the maelstrom of international politics. Inspired by the efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister to seek peace with Africa, South West Africa, too, set to work, and in this way the Turnhalle was born. The Turnhalle—the name means “gymnastics hall”—has now indeed acquired an international significance. What all population groups have achieved at the Turnhalle on a basis of consensus is clear, and is there for everyone to read in the draft constitution that is being drawn up. Clearly demarcated areas of authority within a greater fatherland have been established. What has been achieved is truly a triumph of the preparedness to co-operate displayed by all the population groups in South West Africa.

I want to refer to the text that was signed jointly by Dr. Escher and our Prime Minister. In that text Dr. Escher said in his report to Dr. Waldheim that he agreed with our Prime Minister that it could best be done on a regional basis as long as an overall system of government could be introduced for the whole territory. I want to make the statement that what has been achieved in South West Africa is reconcilable with the text which was signed jointly by the Prime Minister and a representative of the Secretary General, Dr. Escher. It is reconcilable with the declaration of human rights and it is reconcilable with the Lusaka Manifesto. I believe that with the necessary adaptations, the necessary will and the necessary understanding on the part of the Big Five, it will also eventually be acceptable to this Big Five.

There is disappointment in South West Africa at the fact that another obstacle is being placed in the path. But I believe that the very fact that the Black population groups are prepared to approach this obstacle once again in another way and are again prepared to co-operate with the Big Five in an effort to find a solution, must make an impression. It must show the world that the Whites of South West Africa and the non-Whites of South West Africa are seriously seeking a solution. I want to repeat: What has been achieved in South West Africa gives the lie to this prejudice against the Whites. It gives the lie to the prejudice against the Black population groups. I also gives the lie to the view that Swapo is the only body with a say in South West Africa.

We want to say to the Government of South Africa and to our fellow Afrikaners here: Thank you for the tremendous amount of assistance given to South West Africa. Thank you for the protective hand over South West Africa and particularly—at this stage over Owambo. The gigantic development projects to which the hon. member for Etosha referred bear living testimony to the Odendaal plan and the initiative and aid of the Republic of South Africa. Picture South West Africa today without that aid. We know that there are still many obstacles to be overcome, but I want to give you the assurance that we intend to work hard, harder than ever before, to show you that you will never regret the confidence you have placed in us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote last year, the hon. member for Berea made, inter alia, the following statement—

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to point to the hollowness of this argument which one encounters throughout the speeches by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members of the Opposition, namely that our international problem can be solved or eliminated by radically changing our domestic policy, our ethnic relations policy in particular.

What are the facts of the situation in which we find ourselves? The threat to South Africa posed by Russian imperialism is nothing new. It forms part of the Russian striving for world domination. From as long ago as 1946 South Africa has therefore been the target at which the venom of the international world, under the leadership of Russia and other communist countries, has been directed. This antagonism towards South Africa has gradually increased in intensity and over the past few years in particular has assumed a new dimension. Violent action against the Republic is being openly preached and encouraged, or condoned and glossed over, by countries, bodies and people from whom one was justified in expecting something different.

The attacks on South Africa, it is true, are consistently linked to our so-called policy of discrimination against the non-White peoples, and an effort is made to justify them by reference to this, but let us have no illusions on this score. The issue is not a particular love of or interest in the non-White peoples of the Republic or South West Africa on the part of those countries of the world that are hostile to us, or the maintenance of the international rule of law according to their own point of view; their sole concern is the destruction of the Republic of South Africa as an important bulwark against the march of imperialist communism across Africa, and eventually across the whole world. To that end, every situation and circumstance is misused and exploited in order to get at the Republic. And this is not going to change, irrespective of what our domestic policy may be. No change in the Republic’s domestic policy short of total capitulation can avert this threat, because the mere existence of the Republic of South Africa is one of the major stumbling blocks in the path of Russian world domination. Therefore no compromise with Russian imperlialism is possible.

The tragedy of the international community in these times is that apart from the countries that are outright hostile, there are also countries that do not care a rap for South Africa or its people and that only want to serve their own selfish interest in accordance with their own limited and deficient point of view. The world climate today partly as a result of pressure by the countries hostile to us, is such that reviling of South Africa, or worse, is to many countries the best investment they can make. Then, too, there are the so-called leading countries of the free West that have joined in the anti-South African chorus for so long in an effort to appease the enemies of South Africa that they have now become the victims of their own shortsightedness and officiousness. Furthermore, some of them lack the mettle to adopt a standpoint based on merit concerning any issue. It is therefore a naïve, and what is more, a ridiculous argument, advanced by hon. members of the Opposition that everything would change for the better if the Government would only change its domestic policy drastically and without delay. One wonders who they think is supposed to be impressed by the proposed surrender, and what benefits South Africa would stand to gain from their opinion.

As has already been said on a number of occasions, the Government is in fact prepared to make the adjustments demanded by the best interests of South Africa. It does not do so to oblige the outside world, but because the Government and the voters of South Africa are convinced that it is the right thing to do.

In this connection, however, I want to make an appeal to hon. members of the Opposition—of course, they are listening without hearing, as usual, but I do so anyway, for the sake of the record—to stop bandying about the assurance given to the UNO by South Africa’s then ambassador and present Minister of Foreign Affairs across the floor of the House and making a little petty political capital out of it. I do not think there is any more political meat to this bone and it is certainly not in South Africa’s interests to cast doubts on an assurance given by the then Ambassador and present Minister of Foreign Affairs, or to call into question the honesty of the Government.

I believe that the Republic of South Africa has an important role to play in the struggle against the march of Russian imperialism in Africa. Indeed, was it not the two Boer republics that were the first African states to take up arms against colonialism and imperialism? The fact is that South Africa is a poor market for the doctrines and philosophies of Marx, Engels and that the communist philosophy is in conflict with the traditional philosophy of Africa The German philosopher Nietzsche and his character in Zarathustra call out in frustration: “They take from me, but do I yet touch their souls?” This, too, is the position in which Russia finds itself in Africa. Black leaders accept military and other aid from Russia in order to further their own aspirations, but when they have done so, they make desperate efforts to escape the imperialist and colonialist web that their “benefactor” has spun around them. I believe that if we bear this in mind there will be a wonderful opportunity for us to take the initiative in Africa, not only to withstand imperialistic communism, but in fact, to launch a counterattack on communism. Indeed, on this front it is at present just as vulnerable as America was in Vietnam or elsewhere in those places where it exposed itself to the reproach that whereas it had done everything for that country in the material sphere, it had colonialized that population and applied a form of imperialism there. I believe that the Russians are finding themselves in this position in Africa at present—a position which we can exploit by means of a positive effort, not only so as to withstand communism in Africa, but also to oppose it actively and to defeat it.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.