Mr. Chairman, I thought it would be fit and proper that I should avail myself of the opportunity, before the discussion of this Vote commences, to communicate relevant facts in regard to the matter of Transkei to the Committee. When hon. members then discuss the matter, it will help them if they have the relevant facts at their disposal. In this regard there are a few arguments which I want to advance at the outset. The first is that Transkei is an independent State, as independent as any State in the world can be or wants to be. Nothing which is now said or done can change the status of Transkei in any way.

Secondly it is a fact that Transkei became independent knowing full well that it would not gain recognition after independence. As far as this matter is concerned, Transkei was aware of a resolution of the UN—adopted a full year prior to its independence—that it would not be recognized when it became independent. Furthermore there were the statements of leaders of the Western World, of the communist bloc and of the African States that they would not recognize Transkei as an independent State. Apart from that I personally informed the Transkei Government of a conversation I had had with Chief Jonathan, in which he made it very clear to me that Lesotho and all the other African States to whom he, i.e. Chief Jonathan, had spoken, would not recognize Transkei. In addition Transkeian Ministers travelled to many parts of the world prior to independence and made contact with a number of countries in Africa, Europe and elsewhere in order to state their case, and they are aware of the replies which they received on those occasions.

In other words Transkei accepted independence knowing full well what the precise consequences in this connection would be, so much so that on the eve of its independence I said by way of a joke to the Prime Minister of Transkei—after we had discussed the matter—that his only hope of recognition appeared to be that he should declare war on South Africa on 25 October 1976—the date of independence. So much, then, for that aspect.

Thirdly I must place on record that the Government, and I personally, gave Transkei everything and did everything that we promised and that we undertook to do. No finger can be pointed at the South African Government and no accusation can be made that it omitted to do anything that it had to do in that respect or that it did not carry out every single one of its promises.

To indicate what the relationships were I could mention for example that the Prime Minister of Transkei, with reference to our first ambassador there, told me that he was aware that it was not customary for a country to make representations for the appointment of a specific ambassador, but that I would be doing him a favour if I appointed the present ambassador, Mr. Potgieter. This was what he wanted because he knew Mr. Potgieter and because the two of them got along very well together. I pointed out to him the disadvantages of such an appointment, because Mr. Potgieter was the Commissioner General. I put it to the Prime Minister that he should consider the matter very carefully because he could be charged with having accepted the Commissioner General as ambassador, and that it could be advanced as an argument that such a step reflected on the status of his country as an independent State. His reply was that the outside world had nothing to do with the matter and that it was a request which he was respectfully addressing to me. I complied with that request.

I also want to make it clear therefore that whatever is said in this connection, South Africa can never be accused of having committed a breach of faith in any respect.

I want to inform the Committee, too, that my personal relationship with the Prime Minister of Transkei was at all times very good and never on any occasion left anything to be desired. We frequently spoke about the fact that we came from the same part of the world and about everything associated with that. Our relationship was so good that I have to report to this Committee that after we had signed the various agreements and treaties in Pretoria prior to the independence of Transkei the Prime Minister asked me whether he could speak to me for a moment in my office. Emotionally he thanked me there very sincerely for everything that had been done in the past and for the spirit in which the negotiations had taken place. Hon. members will probably recall that during the formal function that was held afterwards, the Prime Minister of Transkei pointed out how differently things were done in South Africa, for while independence in other parts of Africa had been gained with the spilling of blood, a pot of ink was all that was required for independence in South Africa. Those were his own words.

On that occasion the Prime Minister told me in private that whatever happened in future, he could give me one assurance: We would never have any problems of any kind in future, and if any problems did perhaps arise, we would approach and solve them in the most friendly spirit possible.

Hon. members will realize that prior to independence many negotiations took place between the South African Government and the Government of Transkei. Those negotiations extended over a period of years, and naturally they have a long history. I should like to ask hon. members to exercise a little patience in this regard since it will be necessary for me to furnish details of that history so that hon. members may understand the matter correctly. It is a matter with many facets and it will therefore be impossible for me to enumerate all those facets in the course of my speech.

As is the case with such negotiations, hon. members will understand that the land issue was always of paramount importance at negotiations of this nature. Indeed this will always be the case and it will always give rise to problems. No one should have any illusions about this. The present breach is concerned with the territory which is at present known as East Griqualand and which was transferred by this Parliament to Natal for administrative purposes. I believe that the relevant resolution of Parliament was supported by all the hon. members of this House.

When we discuss the matter of land, we must, as far as I am concerned, go back as far as 1969. Yesterday evening, last night and during the lunch hour I had to work through my files quickly to extract these particulars. In 1969 the Prime Minister of Transkei came forward with a request that Glen Grey, which was then Ciskeian territory and was being administered as such by Ciskei, should be incorporated into his territory. At that stage he not only asked for the Glen Grey area of Ciskei, he also requested—for the first time as far as I am aware—that the Elliot district be incorporated into his territory because, so he alleged, that district had been occupied by the Tembus in the previous century and had been unlawfully taken from them. These matters were continuously discussed.

In 1970 he came forward with a further claim to the district of Maclear. For this he also based his claim on historical grounds. When he did this, reproaches were levelled at him by certain Pondo sections to the effect that he was only looking after the interests of the Tembus and was giving insufficient attention to the affairs of the Pondos. Then, on 30 April 1970, he introduced a motion in the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. In that motion the South African Government was requested to incorporate the districts of Elliot, Maclear, Matatiele, Mt. Currie, Umzimkulu and Port St. Johns into the Transkei.

In respect of the claim to Mt. Currie, the contention was that it had been Faku’s land during the previous century, land of which Faku had been dispossessed by the British, and that we should remedy what the British had bungled in that connection during the previous century.

In the meantime his demands in respect of Glen Grey became stronger and he quite frequently claimed that the inhabitants of Glen Grey were his subjects and supporters and that they did not, under any circumstances, want to fall under the Ciskei. This demand became so urgent that it was then decided to hold a referendum in Glen Grey on 21 October 1971 in order to establish whether the people of Glen Grey preferred to fall under the Transkei or whether they would not rather remain under the Ciskei. The Prime Minister had no doubt as to what the outcome of the referendum would be, but unfortunately for him it came as a shock when 85% of the inhabitants voted to remain under the Ciskei. Unfortunately this led to a great deal of bad blood between Ciskei and Transkei, bad blood which unfortunately still exists today.

From talks I had with the Prime Minister of Transkei it appeared that he based his claims on certain maps, on other historical documents, on a book by Mr. Brownley, and so on. This led to my issuing instructions that these historic claims be investigated in the archives and elsewhere. The results of that investigation did not support the claims of the Prime Minister of Transkei.

In the meantime the Prime Minister of Transkei, after this investigation had been carried out, told me that I should please do two things. He said that I should please negotiate with Ciskei—this was a request which was made repeatedly—and make an earnest appeal to the Ciskei to amalgamate with Transkei because historically they were one and belonged together. I can give this House the assurance—this is a story in itself—that we held many talks on both sides in an attempt to bring Ciskei and Transkei together. However, these failed every time.

After one of these failures the Prime Minister of Transkei asked whether we could not negotiate with Ciskei to cede the Glen Grey area as well as the Herschel area, which more or less borders on Lesotho, to Transkei. These were very difficult negotiations. Ultimately Ciskei agreed and special resolutions were adopted in their Parliament to make it possible to incorporate Glen Grey and the Herschel territory into Transkei. The Prime Minister of Transkei then informed me that with that his land claims had been disposed of, and that he had no further claims in respect of Elliot and Maclear, but that he still felt that Matatiele and Mt. Currie should be transferred to him. I explained to him exhaustively that this was not possible and, after negotiations which we conducted, he relinquished his claims in respect of Matatiele and Mt. Currie, just as in the case of Elliot and Maclear.

Lesser demands were then put forward, to which I shall refer. I could best illustrate this by reading the letter which the Prime Minister of Transkei wrote to me on 23 October 1974. That letter set out his land claims, as at that date. I quote—

1. 1. The area occupied by the Pondos and Bacas, in the districts of Port Shepstone and Alfred (Harding) Natal.
2. 2. The Ongeluks Nek farms around Mvenyane in the Matatiele district.
3. 3. The farms projecting into the Mt. Fletcher district, known as Pitseng, north-east of Maclear district.
4. 4. The Umnga Flats adjoining Tsolo and Engcobo districts, south of Maclear district.
5. 5. Farms adjoining Cala district, west of the road from Cala to Engcobo in the Elliot district.
6. 6. The farms adjoining Weza Forest, east of the Main Road from Brookes Nek from Mt. Ayliff to Umzimkulu district boundary with Kokstad to join Mt Ayliff (Transkei) to Umzimkulu (Transkei) and the whole Weza Forest.
7. 7. Port St. Johns town and the White farms in Pondoland.
8. 8. Farms adjoining Cala and Lady Frere districts in Indwe district
9. 9. Farms known as the Bolotwa area in the Queenstown district.
10. 10. Glen Grey district.
11. 11. The whole of Herschel district inhabited by Sotho, Hlubi and Tembus (to be part of the Maluti region of the Matatiele and Mt. Fletcher districts).
12. 12. A few farms (8) in the Barkly East (North) to link up Herschel with Maluti.

Those were the demands of the Prime Minister at the moment. Hon. members will note from this letter that nothing was said in respect of Matatiele and Mt. Currie, and hon. members will also note that nothing was said in respect of Elliot and Maclear.

I then had talks with the Prime Minister again, and I pointed out to him that the first area which he had asked for, viz. “the area occupied by the Pondos and the Bacas in the district of Port Shepstone and Alfred”, was land which belonged to kwaZulu and fell under the jurisdiction of Buthelezi. His request was then that I should take it away from Buthelezi and give it to him. I then said to him: “Would you like it if I were to take land away from you to give to another man?” He said: “No”. I then asked him how he could expect me to take land away from someone else in order to give it to him. I said I had no objection to this land being transferred to him if he negotiated with Buthelezi himself. If Buthelezi was prepared to cede the land to him, I had no more problems whatsoever in that regard and it could be done. But I told him that it was not a matter in which I was going to interfere because it was a matter on his level and on Buthelezi’s level.

In respect of the other land, everything as it was requested here was given to him, with the exception of the eight farms referred to in paragraph 12 of the letter. However, this is a secondary and minor component of the overall problem. The other land which he asked for in his letter of 23 October 1974 was all given to him. A portion thereof, the area in the Bolotwa district, has not yet been fully disposed of, but this will also be transferred to Transkei.

Consequently I want to make it very clear to this Committee that there was full agreement that what we undertook to do in this regard, we did in fact do, with the exception of the Pondo area, the Weza Forest area—I told him that that was impossible—and the eight farms. As hon. members know the other portions were transferred to Transkei. That, then, was the land basis on which negotiations for independence proceeded and on which independence was granted.

As hon. members know, Transkei became independent at the end of October 1976. On 2 February 1977, after independence, the Prime Minister of Transkei again came forward with land claims. His claims then included Mt. Currie, Matatiele, Maclear, Elliot and the entire Ciskei. I then told him that we had already concluded the discussion as far as his other claims were concerned. I also put it to him that he had based his claims on historical grounds, and that we had instituted an investigation into them. What is more, I told him that we had, after all, disposed of the matter previously and that he had told me that it had been disposed of after Glen Grey and Herschel had been added to his territory.

In addition I told him that I was astonished that he had at that stage also asked for the Ciskei. He then defended himself by saying that Transkei and Ciskei were one, that Ciskei should be transferred to him and that I should do what was necessary in regard to Chief Minister Sebe. I then put it to him that it was a matter that had to be settled between Chief Minister Sebe and himself. If they were able to reach an agreement in this regard, I would have no objection to their forming a union. The Prime Minister of Transkei then wanted me to promise that I would not grant independence to Ciskei if they were to ask for it, since that would completely spoil his chances of forming a union between Ciskei and Transkei. I told him that he could ask many things of me, but that he could not address that request to me, and that if Ciskei were to ask for independence, like any other homeland, I could not and would not refuse on those grounds on which he had requested me to refuse. There are still many things one can say about this matter, but it is not necessary for the purposes of our argument.

Time went by and in January 1978 I once again received a letter from the Prime Minister in which he asked me for the transfer of certain land. The reason for his request was the intention, arising out of the investigation which took place, to incorporate East Griqualand administratively into Natal. The hon. members will recall that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put a question to me in this regard and asked whether I had received representations from the Prime Minister of Transkei.

†For the purposes of the records I should like to repeat my reply to him. It reads (Hansard, col. 115)—

*Therefore we were still in the process of negotiating, and when this announcement was made yesterday, the Prime Minister of Transkei was therefore aware that we were studying the many documents.

Now you may ask, Mr. Chairman, what gave rise to this matter. During talks which I held with the Prime Minister, he was very emotional about the incorporation of East Griqualand into Natal. His standpoint was that if the Cape no longer wanted East Griqualand and was prepared to discard it, why was the territory being given to Natal and not to him? The more I explained to him that the territory had for a very long time fallen under Natal for administrative and in fact for all practical purposes and that the incorporation was merely being finalized now, the less prepared the Prime Minister unfortunately was to accept this matter. He then levelled the covert reproach that we actually wanted to give the land to Buthelezi and that this was merely the first step which we were taking, i.e. to transfer the territory to Natal, so that it could then be given to Buthelezi. The more I explained to him that this was not the object and that it had nothing to do with that, the less inclined he was to accept the explanation.

We are therefore dealing here with a matter to which the Prime Minister of Transkei adopts an extremely emotional approach. Secondly—and I can understand this—the Prime Minister of Transkei has problems in Pondoland, but it is not for me to discuss his problems in this regard in this Committee.

Thirdly, I am aware that from time to time there were people who whispered in the ear of the Prime Minister of Transkei that his chances of gaining recognition would be good if he were to make a complete break with South Africa. I am aware that there have recently been influential people in Transkei who held talks in that connection with the Prime Minister of Transkei.

As a person I can feel sympathy for the Prime Minister of Transkei with all his problems. But the question I ask myself is this: Why try to offend and hit out at the one man who was your friend throughout this entire matter? What do you stand to gain by adopting that attitude?

But let us now, just for a moment, consider a few facets of the speech which the Prime Minister of Transkei made yesterday.

†I quote from paragraph 2—

I want to inform the Committee that our ambassador has been instructed to leave Transkei before 30 April. The same naturally applies to the ambassador of Transkei in South Africa, as well as the different consuls who have been appointed.

I take exception to the statement contained in the next paragraph. I quote—

He goes on to say—

He raised these issues again in spite of the fact that they were completely disposed of in 1974. I quote the following sentence—

This statement is, of course, a lie, as the Prime Minister of Transkei knows and should know. Candidly, I do not think that even the Cubans will believe this lie he has sent out into the world.

*It is not only a lie. I want to state here to my regret, and I say this with utter regret, that it is a lie which is unworthy of the Prime Minister of Transkei. A Prime Minister does not act in this unworthy manner if one is acquainted with the facts. If one is acquainted with the facts of the history of South Africa, then it was the Whites who had to intervene to prevent the Black people from eradicating one another in South Africa. It is the White Police who even today have to risk their lives in tribal fights to separate warring factions that want to kill each other. How one can then come out with such an unworthy untruth is completely beyond my comprehension.

†He then goes on to say—

Sir, it is not we who shall ostracise Transkei. It is Transkei that has ostracised itself. I think the Prime Minister of Transkei should do well to ponder over this situation. He then goes on, referring to the present Government, and says—

Harding and Port Shepstone have to the best of my knowledge always been in Natal. Certainly, decades and decades before this Government came into power, Port Shepstone and Harding were part and parcel of Natal, as Natalians in this House will know only too well. He goes on to say—

What nonsense! We have made Transkei independent. We have stated over and over again, as I did again this afternoon in this House, that Transkei is an independent Republic, as independent as any other republic in any other part of the world. He then refers to the letter which he sent to me and to which I have already referred.

Finally I want to refer briefly, for the purposes of the record, to the reply I sent him, as I mentioned in my reply to the question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I wrote to him on 6 February [should be 3 March] as follows—

*That, then, is the matter which I want to put before this Committee. I am sorry that the Prime Minister of Transkei acted in this manner, that he acted in a manner which is obviously to his own detriment. But Transkei is an independent State, and it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister of an independent State to act in this fashion if he is advised accordingly, even if it is consequently to his own detriment.

On the part of the South African Government I want to make it very clear, however, that no blame can be attached to us, that we did everything which we undertook to do, that it is not our fault that matters have taken this course and that, in spite of this matter having been discussed repeatedly and replies having been furnished repeatedly to the Prime Minister of Transkei, I never slammed the door in his face but acted at all times as I believe one Prime Minister should act towards another Prime Minister. I repeat that, although he came forward this year with more or less the same motivation as before, I did not insult him or slam the door shut in his face. As was fitting and proper, I told him that I would investigate the matter once again. But even before anything else could happen, the Prime Minister of Transkei decided to act as he has done. I deliberately refrain—perhaps under difficult circumstances—from commenting any further on this matter.

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

The events which took place in Umtata yesterday indicate, I believe, to us how brittle the international situation has become in relation to Southern Africa, how rapidly matters tend to move, and how serious the matters are which have to be considered— and, I assume, must have been considered— by the Prime Minister during the year since last we met to discuss his portfolio. The hon. the Prime Minister revealed certain facts. He lifted the veil and pointed at the extent of some of the negotiations which took place prior to the independence of the Transkei. Correctly, because the thrust of the statement was related to the land issue, he confined his comments to the land issue. Yet, as we in these benches will point out later on, I believe that the problem which has arisen, while it may have been triggered off by the land issue, has to be seen in the wider perspective of the intergroup relations problem here in Southern Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister correctly said that in a statutory sense the Transkei was independent, that this Parliament had made it independent and that it had accepted independence. I think the Prime Minister will also concede that independence in reality has to be seen against the background of the fact that no other countries in the world recognize that independence. This may well have been one of the factors in the background which has led to this particular situation.

The Prime Minister indicated that there had been a good government to government and person to person relationship during the negotiating period. This I can well understand; it is so that in some areas agreement was reached, and that by the time independence took place it looked as though there were no more outstanding issues on the question of land. I think all of this is correct, but I think the hon. the Prime Minister and anyone who are negotiating must realize the difference between negotiating as equal to equal and negotiating between parties who are not equal. At the time the negotiations were taking place, they were taking place between the leader of a sovereign independent State and somebody else who was seeking independence. They were not negotiating as equals, and very often agreements reached under those circumstances, which at that stage seem to both parties to be perfectly valid, do not necessarily stand the test of time. I believe that the debates which took place in this House at the time when the independence of Transkei was being discussed, in May and June of 1976, indicated this. Time and time again it was pointed out from the Opposition side that we believed that the land issue had not yet finally been resolved. It was therefore an issue at the time.

There is one issue I want to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister. On 15 February this year the hon. the Prime Minister replied to a question of mine. He subsequently indicated that he had written to the Transkei on 6 February, advising that the matter was being considered.

No, the letter was not sent on 6 February. His letter to me was sent on 6 February.

His letter to the Prime Minister was sent on the 2nd? I understand that the hon. the Prime Minister’s letter was sent on 6 February.

No, but carry on, and I shall give you the date of the letter.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand from the hon. the Prime Minister that if that correspondence was on the 6th …

My letter to him was sent on 3 March.

So in fact, in respect of this matter, representations were made on 2 February 1978, and other than advising the Prime Minister of the Transkei that the matter was receiving attention and would be considered without prejudice to the South African Government’s position, and that a reply would in due course be addressed to the Prime Minister of the Transkei, no other communication has taken place. I must assume from this statement that this matter has been in abeyance as from 2 February of this year.

The Prime Minister then dealt at some length with the statement of the Prime Minister of Transkei. I do not want to go into the details of it, but is tough, it is provocative to an extent and it is clearly extravagant in the use of its words. But, Sir, I think we have to see the events of yesterday in a much broader perspective than merely the crisp issue of land on which the break in diplomatic relations took place. Even the statement of the Prime Minister of Transkei goes beyond the land issue by inference, in that it deals with what he is going to do in the future. We in these benches believe that the developments of yesterday have much more far-reaching implications than the Prime Minister indicated in his detailed reference to the land issue. The implications are not only for us in South Africa. We believe that those implications relate more particularly to the Government and Government policy. We believe the implications are much more serious for the Government and for Government policy. If one looks at the statement of the Prime Minister of Transkei, one finds that he says three things. First of all he is breaking off diplomatic relations with South Africa on the land issue. That was the crisp issue on which he decided to break off diplomatic relations. Secondly, he went on to say—

That seems to me to go well beyond the land issue, towards the whole concept of confrontation developing between his country and South Africa.

Thirdly, in a subsequent statement the Prime Minister of the Transkei used the following words—

As one can see, this deals with the whole question … [Interjections.] … of the relationship between the Transkei and South Africa and between Black and White people on the subcontinent. I do not believe that the land issue, important as it is, is the only one. I believe that there has been a build-up of antagonism between the independent State of Transkei and South Africa on a number of issues—issues for which the Government does have responsibility—ever since the Transkei became independent.

There has always been the vexed issue of citizenship. This is a matter which was an issue at the time of independence, and we warned that this was going to be an issue again. Only last year Prof. Njisane accused the South African Government of trying to cause confusion and hardship, as far as Black South Africans were concerned, by forcing them to take Transkei citizenship. An embassy official said—

This issue was never raised.

Well, it was a statement by the ambassador, and I must assume that the hon. the Prime Minister, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Bantu Administration, the Department of Immigration or the Department of the Interior, would have taken note of so important a charge made some time ago.

Next I come to the whole question of discriminatory practices. Rightly or wrongly, at the time of independence the Transkei believed that its citizens, once they were independent, would be treated like foreign citizens of other countries and would be free of day to day discrimination. Whether they were right or wrong, it was a view, and once again the ambassador for the Transkei, in January of last year, said the following—

I raise these issues because I do not believe we can see the situation within the narrow confines of the land issue, important though it is.

Thirdly, one has had the question of the demolition of squatter camps in the Cape. [Interjections.] On each occasion this was a matter for negotiation, an issue in which the local consul-general or the ambassador believed that the Cape Bantu Board had gone further than the intention of the agreement that had been reached between those authorities and the authorities in the Transkei. So I believe that we have to see the issue firstly against the build-up of tensions over a number of issues which are germane to the administration here in South Africa.

I believe that the matter is one of serious concern. I believe that this area of Africa is too interrelated a region for neighbours to be at loggerheads. There are going to be serious implications, if the situation is allowed to deteriorate or degenerate further, in the areas of trade, labour, foreign relations and national security. If this applies to South Africa, I also accept that it will apply—perhaps even more so—to the people of the Transkei. What we believe is that if the situation is allowed to degenerate or deteriorate, escalating argument and conflict on either side, we are all going to be the losers here in Southern Africa. So, the first point we should like to make is that we would like the Government to do whatever it can to bring the relations with Transkei back to normal. In spite of the provocative words that have been used, we believe the Government should try to adopt a positive and constructive approach to the problem in order to prevent the area of disagreement from increasing, from escalating. South Africa has, I believe, both the right and the responsibility to be firm in its attitude. We are not suggesting that the hon. the Prime Minister is not entitled to be firm in his attitude towards the statement of his counterpart in the Transkei. However, I should like to suggest that the South African Government should resist any temptation there may be to use the big stick in order to resolve this problem.

What are you implying?

There is always a temptation of this kind, and we believe it would be wise if the South African Government endeavoured to put any such temptation to one side.

There is the question of grants-in-aid to Transkei. We hope that these will continue. We hope the Government will be sensitive to the damage that is being done here in the western Cape by the harsh application of the Bantu Urban Areas Act. I hope the Government will be aware of the very real angry feelings which are aroused by the demolition of squatter camps. We believe the Government should move far faster in dismantling discrimination in so far as it is applied to Black people, whether they are from the Ciskei, the Transkei or anywhere else.

We believe we should also adopt a different attitude. I do not believe that the attitude reflected in the statement by the hon. member for Moorreesburg in his reference to the Prime Minister of Transkei is appropriate coming from a member of the House. The hon. member knows what that statement contains. I am not going to quote it as I do not want to read it into the record of Parliament. But he is aware that that is not the kind of statement which should be made by an hon. member of this House to the Prime Minister of a foreign State.

So much for the short term. I believe that what happened in Transkei yesterday should cause the Government to think all over again about the basic concept of its race policy in this country. I believe it is ironic that the Transkei, which was the first homeland to become independent in terms of the Government’s grand design, should sever diplomatic relations and should declare that it was going to join the so-called liberation movement on the very day that the Minister of Plural Relations and Development appeared on television expounding on the further grand design of creating more independent States in Southern Africa. Sir, that hon. gentleman is not here. I wondered if that interview was prerecorded, because I doubt whether he would have said the same things had he known what was going to happen in the Transkei. No doubt he would then have painted a different picture. The reality is that that dream—I know it was a dream—and vision of his and of his predecessors, and of the Prime Minister and his predecessors, is starting to come crashing down to turn into a South African nightmare.

What has been said and done by Dr. Matanzima are, we believe, merely the outward symptoms of a malaise which is the direct consequence of fundamental defects in Government policy and Government thinking. These defects were there, and we pointed them out in respect of the Transkei at the time when we considered its independence in this House. However, they are there to a much greater extent in respect of all the other homelands which the Government hopes to make independent. The Opposition has identified these defects time and time again. It has warned the Government, but the Government has gone stubbornly ahead. I do not want to quote from all the speeches that were made at the time when the Status of the Transkei Bill was before the House, but the very issues were identified in those speeches: land, citizenship, discrimination and economic, opportunity. These were identified as the areas of conflict which had not yet been overcome. [Interjections.]

We pointed out again to the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development last week that, whether one likes it or not, we were all interlinked and interconnected and that there was no way in which one could separate the ultimate future of Black, White and Brown people in this country. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister again: When a Government restricts full citizenship rights of 70% of the population to States comprising 13% of the country and generating 3% of the GNP, then it is entrenching discrimination on an international basis. That is what is being done. Secondly, when the Government uses these States as dumping grounds for what it considers economically surplus or redundant people, it is increasing that discrimination and it is creating the potential for anarchy.

Thirdly, where in addition the Blacks who work and live in South Africa are subjected to all the negative features and all the indignities of apartheid which are not applicable to Whites, whether they are White South African or foreign citizens, the Government is adding to all this the ingredients for international conflict. This is what this Government is doing. It is adding to discrimination the ingredients for international conflict. Independence without the prior solution of our basic co-existence problem, the question of discrimination in social, economic and political relations, is no answer to the co-existence problem here in Southern Africa.

Do you agree with the Transkei’s claim?

The Government remains committed to the 1936 land settlement basis for independent homelands. I asked the hon. the Prime Minister, although I am pleased to hear a slightly different noise coming from the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development: Does he not realize that the 1936 settlement was there for a different purpose and not for independent homelands? Does he not realize that the land apportioned under that settlement is hopelessly inadequate for a basis for a viable, independent homeland?

The hon. the Prime Minister has reiterated that the Government’s policy is that there shall be no land in excess of the extent referred to in the 1936 settlement. The hon. the Prime Minister has also indicated in his speech at the Natal congress of his party last year that the possibility did exist of negotiation for the consolidation of land with homelands once they became independent. One would like to know whether that still stands and whether it is still the hon. the Prime Minister’s intention to negotiate with Transkei, Bophuthatswana or anybody else after independence for consolidation and for transfer of land. Does the hon. the Prime Minister not realize that it is much better to negotiate before independence than after independence? Does he not realize that when one negotiates after independence one is turning the matter into an international conflict situation? Does the Government not realize that no homeland leader, whether it is Dr. Matanzima as the Prime Minister of an independent Transkei or whether it is Chief Mangope, the Prime Minister of an independent Bophuthatswana, or any other homeland leader, has accepted, nor will ever accept, the 1936 settlement as a basis for a political solution for their people? That is a reality. I ask hon. members on the other side to name me a Black leader that accepts the 1936 settlement as a basis for land settlement in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, does the hon. the Prime Minister not realize that there will be no easing of conflict in South Africa as long as the gross disparity in wealth and economic opportunity exists between independent homelands and the rest of South Africa? Does the hon. the Prime Minister not realize that as long as these Black people, as citizens, are discriminated against inside South Africa, these States will move at an increasingly accelerating rate away from South Africa towards a common strategy with the rest of Africa? This is the reality of Government policy.

The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development said the other day that if our policy were taken to its logical conclusion as far as Black people were concerned, there would ultimately not be one Black man with South African citizenship. I put it bluntly to the hon. the Prime Minister: Does he subscribe to that philosophy? Does he subscribe to a philosophy which means that when NP policy is completed, there will be no Black citizens in South Africa? If this is so, does he really believe that this will reduce the risk of conflict in Southern Africa? Does he believe that this is the basis on which there is any prospect of getting any loyalty from Black people towards South Africa in the defence of South Africa? Does he believe that this provides a satisfactory basis for dealing with the political aspirations of the Black people of this subcontinent? The other day we asked the hon. the Minister—we have had no reply—whether he dared put this proposal to people who make out 70% of our labour force, to people who make out 56% of our most important labour elements. Does the hon. the Prime Minister really believe that he can say to the Black people of South Africa that one day they will not be citizens of this country?

Mr. Chairman, this policy of the Prime Minister has come to the end of its road. What happened in the Transkei yesterday is merely symptomatic, the opening of the wound and a emphasis on the pressures and tensions which are going to build up until the Government can find a policy which will do real justice to the aspirations of all the people in this country. Since we last met there have been two fundamental developments in South Africa. One has been the basic restructuring of the South African society and the other the build-up of pressures from outside. It is not my intention at this stage to deal with the question of outside pressures. But I think it is appropriate to say at this stage what is meant by the basic restructuring that should be taking place. It can be seen in three fields. In the first place there is the social field in which we will have to dismantle old-fashioned compulsory apartheid. I believe this is fading away and, as the hon. member said: “In a short while apartheid, as we know it, will be dead and buried.” In the economic field we have to find ways and means of ensuring that the very real gap which exists in wages, wealth and in economic opportunities between Black and White, is eliminated. In the third instance the days of exclusive White decision-making in the political field are over. We have to find a way in which all South Africans can share in the power and the decisions in the common areas of South Africa. It might be said that some areas can be taken out of South Africa, and it might be argued that certain fields of government can be given to committees or councils of a particular community. I believe, however, that the hon. the Prime Minister knows that the trend in South Africa today is that the areas over which we might be able to govern separately is reducing and the areas over which we have to govern together is increasing. We know this, and we also know that we are moving in the direction of the sharing of political power.

I believe that the voters of South Africa know that we are on the brink of fundamental changes. They see the old order going away and that apartheid is going, and they realize that discrimination must go, and they are looking to the hon. the Prime Minister in particular for a vision of the future. In the past the vision has been that of the Transkei, of separation, a vision of keeping people apart. I believe that the people of South Africa have got the good sense to realize that apartheid in that sense is dead, that we have to bring the people of South Africa together again and that we have to find the means of sharing power. Later in the debate we shall consider the specific means as to how the Government intends sharing power between the Coloureds, Whites and Asians.

The basic lesson of what happened in Transkei, in the message that was imported to this House, is that we are all South Africans, that the vision of Dr. Verwoerd is dead and that what we look for now is a new vision, a new future and a new way in which we can resolve our problems. We believe that what happened yesterday is merely the portent, the symptom of a fundamental malaise, the symptom of a Government and of a policy which entrench discrimination, and by doing so, the Government is not only bringing about conflict, but is also undermining the security of the whole of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I deliberately did not say anything contentious when I initially addressed the House. I gave the House a purely factual elucidation in the hope—a pious hope as far as that hon. member was concerned—that all members could on this aspect be unanimous in their discussion of the facts. What could be easier for this hon. member, if there is a grain of self-respect in him as a South African … [Interjections.] I make no apology for saying this. It is not the hon. member’s Government which is being indicted; it is his country which is being indicated. I have provided him with the facts. What better opportunity could the hon. member have had now than to have stood up in the House and to have said that the whole world knows that he differs fundamentally with the Government, that the whole world knows that he thinks nothing of the Government’s policy, that he thinks the Government’s policy is an erroneous and foolish policy which will ruin the country— he could have said everything he wanted to say, but I was waiting for one thing, namely that in respect of this matter, the hon. member would say to the world: In this matter South Africa has been wrongly accused. That is what I was waiting for. [Interjections.]

I want to repeat this: If one has any self-respect in one’s innermost being as a citizen of South Africa, if one has not renounced South Africa, then one must surely rebel against this. Why does the hon. member not do it? [Interjections.] I have no doubt at all that hon. members of the other parties in the House also differ with the Government. I have no doubt at all that they will say in this debate that they differ strongly with the Government and that they will criticize us, criticize us far better than the hon. member criticized us. But in respect of the factual matter which I have placed before the House, they will be on South Africa’s side and they will say so. If one reads the Hansard of the hon. member for Sea Point, what will one read in that speech?

†Am I not in the circumstances entitled to ask the hon. member for Sea Point: On whose side are you batting in this matter? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Prime Minister not required to refer to the hon. member as “the hon. the Leader of the Opposition”? [Interjections.]

I have often referred to Sir De Villiers Graaff as the hon. member for Rondebosch …

You never did!

… I often referred to him as Sir De Villiers Graaff and I have often referred to him as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

What do you intend doing now?

Now, as often as I see fit, I shall refer to the Leader of the Opposition—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—as the hon. member for Sea Point if I so wish.

Then you are the hon. member for Nigel.

I want to say to the hon. Whip that I am now dealing with his boss and not with him at all.

*But what did the hon. member for Sea Point do? The hon. member used the matter, not to defend South Africa, but to smear South Africa. I have never seen a bird which soiled its nest as the hon. member did today. [Interjections.] The hon. member tried to insinuate that this matter arose from the fact that we had not negotiated with one another as equals. I have been conducting negotiations with homeland leaders for the past 12 years and I can give the House the assurance that not a day went by without all of us conducting those negotiations as equals.

That is not what they say.

I challenge the hon. member to bring me a single homeland leader who can say that I did not treat him civilly and as an equal at all times during all the discussions we had. What is more: I told them from the very first day that we were speaking as equals.

I also want to tell the hon. member that he is trying in vain to make an argument of citizenship issue. The citizenship issue has nothing to do with this matter. Even the Prime Minister of the Transkei did not raise it as an argument. But the hon. member for Sea Point spoke here as though he had been briefed, not by the Transkei, but by outsiders, to argue the Transkeian case against South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon. member put certain questions to me which I do not wish to evade but shall reply to. He told me that he hoped that I would do everything in my power to restore the situation to normal. I have never neglected my duty to try to normalize relations in South Africa. But as far as this matter is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that the ball is not in my court, but in the court of the Prime Minister of Transkei. He has made his own bed and he must now lie on it. That is my reply.

The hon. member expressed the hope that I “won’t use the big stick”. Surely I have never done anything of the kind. Surely I have never said that I would do so. On the contrary. I have gone out of my way to state that we have honoured all our undertakings to the Transkei. It goes without saying that we will honour our obligations. I should appreciate it, though, if the Prime Minister of Transkei would refrain from meddling with South Africa’s affairs, because that could cause real problems.

As far as the so-called citizenship issue is concerned, the hon. member will remember that I quoted here in the House what Minister George Matanzima had said, that he had become a citizen of a State for the first time when he acquired his own citizenship of Transkei. He was proud of it, and he is still proud of it today. Even the Prime Minister of Transkei is proud of that. But in this Parliament the hon. member wants to tell Black people that they should despise their own citizenship. What kind of person is this? He asked me whether I was aware that the 1936 Act was not sufficient. With that he tried to arouse public opinion among the Blacks. Alas, Sir, that is a futile attempt. Since the very first day I have been discussing this matter with the Black leaders and all the other Black people to whom I have spoken. I told them—I repeat it now in order that the hon. member may take cognizance of it—that there are two aspects to the land issue.

One aspect is the 1936 Act which provided that 7¼ million morgen of land had to be purchased, for which South Africa had to pay, and that that land should be given to the Black people free of charge. I told them that that was the undertaking of the White man, the undertaking of Gen. Smuts and of Gen. Hertzog, and that I would honour that undertaking, but I told them that it was not the policy of my Government to go beyond that. I put all my cards on the table and told them that I was not prepared to go beyond that. I told them, however, that there was a second matter, namely land negotiations between one Government and another. They could take place. It is true that one Government may obtain land from another Government, but then the receiver must pay for it. If that acquisition of land entails that people have to move, then that Government itself must ensure that its people move, so that the onus does not again rest on the South African Government and so that it cannot again be said that it is a malicious Government that forces people to move. The Black people therefore know what our standpoint in this connection is. The hon. member asked me point-blank, evidently with the object of making propaganda; “Will there be any Black citizens of South Africa left?” once all the homelands are independent. He need not try to incite the Black people on that issue. I put it to them myself—repeatedly—and I repeat it now to the hon. member, that the policy of the Government is not merely to make territories independent; the policy of the Government is to make nations independent. The Government does not only make the territory of Bophuthatswana independent; it also makes the Tswanas independent. It does not merely make the Venda territory independent; it makes the Venda nation independent. That is the policy of the Government, and we have never hidden that from the Black people. On the contrary. I have myself told that to the Black people at all times. It will avail the hon. member nothing to try to make propaganda out of it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I believe he has developed a habit which is not worthy of him, a habit which he did not have in the past, namely to try to make of every argument a personal one. There was no personal attack from this side of the House and there was no question in regard to integrity or sincerity. There was merely an analysis of the situation as it was. There was an acceptance of the facts that the hon. the Prime Minister gave us. What there was, however, was an attack on the policy of the Government. And I believe that we are entitled to attack it. Every time the hon. the Prime Minister is under attack and when he knows inside himself that his policy is failing, he becomes personal. We on this side of the House are certainly not going to develop this kind of argument. We shall deal with the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister of South Africa and we shall deal with him in the light of the policies which we believe are leading the country to disaster. That is going to be our approach.

He adopts, once again, what I believe is a totally paternalistic outlook towards the issue of land. It is not a question of who is going to buy it, it is not a question of who is going to move it. We say that in the interests of South Africa, if one is going to pursue a policy such as the Government has, then one must see to it that the boundaries of these homelands are drawn in such a way that there will be economic and political viability. To do less than that is penny wise and pound foolish. To do less than that is to increase the tensions and the conflict in this sub-continent I said the trigger event in this was the issue of land. Around the world the issue is land and is a highly emotional and volatile issue. But one cannot see the problems that are developing in the relationships between the Transkei and South Africa only in terms of land. There have been other problems. There are other tensions, and as more and more citizens of Transkei are told to go back to Transkei, the economic condition is going to deteriorate, the political tensions will mount, and the conflict between Transkei and South Africa will escalate accordingly. So, for the sake of peace in Southern Africa, we ask the Government to take a new look at the question of discrimination. What Government policy has done so far is to entrench the discrimination which exists within the regions of South Africa on an international basis. What the Government has done is to transform what is an internal squabble into an international squabble. We say that before our neighbour States all turn on us, before they all line up with liberation movements, let us in South Africa have a new look; let the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa—instead of being personal and instead of making personal attacks on myself and other hon. members of this House—do what the people want him to do. Let him give to the people of South Africa a credible vision of the future. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, it is my dubious privilege, in the brief time at my disposal, to try and say a few words in reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. At the commencement of this debate, the hon. the Prime Minister—statesman that he is—stated and explained to this House, in the language of a statesmen, the problem which has arisen in the Transkei. The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition could therefore fairly be expected to make an attempt to rise, too, to the standard of statesmanship and to display the same example of statesmanship which we had on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister today.

What did we experience here today? Whereas the Prime Minister of the Transkei, the leader of a full-fledged independent country, announces that he is severing diplomatic relations with South Africa and states his reasons therefore—the reason he supplies, is the question of land and land claims—we find that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not satisfied with the reason furnished by the Prime Minister of Transkei as to why he is severing his relations with South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not satisfied with that. What exactly did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do this afternoon? He has gone so far as to tell the Prime Minister of Transkei by implication that he in fact has far better reasons why he could have severed his relations with South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it to the Prime Minister of Transkei that the reason he has advanced, is not sufficient and that he, as Leader of the Official Opposition in South Africa, can supply him with better reasons as to why he ought to sever his relations with this country. [Interjections.]

Whereas one would prefer to discuss this matter calmly—and it requires an atmosphere of calm—I must admit that it is particularly difficult to remain calm when one has to hear how a man who is supposed to be the leader of a supposed Official Opposition, evidently—and that applies to him as well as his party—loses all his self-respect as a South Africa. [Interjections.] We have indeed witnessed the spectacle today that whereas South Africa is involved in a problem with an independent neighbouring state, the Official Opposition comes forward, not as the champion of South Africa, not as the advocate for South Africa, but as the accuser of South Africa. [Interjections.]

That prompts one to ask immediately: In what role does the Official Opposition see itself in South Africa? Are they still the champion of South Africa in South Africa, or have they become the champion of powers outside South Africa? Is that what the Official Opposition has come to? From what we have heard this afternoon, we can come to no other conclusion than that the Official Opposition has not the interests of South Africa at heart, and that in their impotent rage at this Government, they are no longer on the side of South Africa, but against South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that hon. members of this House stand against South Africa?

Order! The hon. member for Barberton may continue.

I believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition added no further arguments today to the old, threadbare arguments which we have heard from him ad nauseam in the past. As far as we on this side of the Committee are concerned, we do not intend reacting over-emotionally. In the midst of all the problems which there may be in respect of this matter now and in the future, it would be extremely irresponsible to speak or react in a state of emotional upheaval. In this respect, the hon. the Prime Minister has set an example to us and to the whole of South Africa this afternoon of how one ought to act in such circumstances. It is for us to remain calm and sober in our approach to the matter and in facing the future.

My time has almost expired, but I trust that I may be permitted, as a back-bencher, to say that if the leader of a neighbouring State towards whom we have, in the past and even now, had only the best of intentions, sees fit—we hope this is not in fact the case—to meddle in the domestic affairs of our neighbouring countries, we will not afford them that privilege either. We will defend with all the means at our disposal our right to decide on our own fate and we shall never allow forces from outside, no matter from what quarters, to dictate to us and to meddle in our domestic affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half hour. It is a pity that the debate so far has taken the turn it has because I believe that all of us in this House had an opportunity and a responsibility to use this occasion to pinpoint the basic problems and the urgency of the situation facing South Africa. Instead, after the hon. the Prime Minister had outlined the factual situation of the negotiations concerning land and the Transkei, we heard—and I hope I was wrong, because I cannot associate myself with it—a form of what I can almost call justification in the listing of other grievances which led to the action by the Transkei. I cannot, as I have said, associate myself with that approach. I adopted the line, in the public statement that I issued—and I am not going to repeat this—that it was cause for regret that the Transkei Government had taken such drastic and impetuous action. That is as I see it My appeal was for the Transkei to reconsider its attitude and for the Transkei to think again. I want to put that on record as the attitude of this party. It is not for me to tell my Government vis-à-vis a foreign Government that my Government must now accede to the demands of a foreign Government.

It is my right, however, to tell my Government that its policy is wrong. My hands are clean because as long ago as 1966 my then hon. leader warned the Government and I quote from Hansard of 25 January 1966 (Hansard, Vol. 16, col. 38)—

He went on, dealing with the homelands, to say—

They did demand more and are, in fact, demanding more. He went further—

Again we now have that threat. So I say that if the chickens are coming home to roost, our conscience is clear because we warned of what could happen. We warned of the direction in which events could move. When we are faced with a factual situation, however, with sabre rattling and threats against our country, we believe it is our duty and our responsibility, as South Africans, to take the view of our country and not the view of those who rattle sabres at us.

For the rest of the debate we have had repetition of the old cliches, allegations and conclusions. I believe that this opportunity was an occasion on which we should have been looking for new thinking, new ideas and new solutions and not merely for a repetition of what we have been saying for years in this House. We have been talking of watersheds, crises, moments of truth and moments of decision for so long that they have become like crying “wolf! wolf!”

Now suddenly the crunch is here, and this has brought a new urgency to our thinking and to our politics because we are not talking of something in the future. We are talking of something in the present. Although the crisis may come from international quarters—and here I am thinking of the South West African question, the question of Transkei, threats of isolation and sanctions—the immediate urgency is here in South Africa, in our internal affairs. It is in our internal administration where the key to the future lies. Yet we heard no proposals, no positive suggestions, no alternatives to the criticism, as to how we turn that key to the future. I believe it is not just in South Africa, but far wider throughout the world that we face urgent decisions. The West seems haunted by the spirit of Chamberlain’s “peace in our time”; the ghosts of Vietnam and “peace at any price”; the age of blackmail, boot-licking and brinkmanship in international politics as a new form of imperialism starts to engulf the world. This demands of us in South Africa, as I see it, a tremendous burden of responsibility on leadership,—and not only the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Government, but also the leadership of all those concerned with public life. The responsibility rests on the leader of the Official Opposition, on myself and all others who are involved to find a new awareness, new thinking and a new urgency to the solution of our problems. The real issue is power, the question of participation in decision making in South Africa, the question of distribution political power by division devolution, or sharing.

There is a second urgent issue, namely the creation and sharing of wealth in South Africa, but I want to deal now with the question of power. Power today rests in the hands of the Prime Minister and the issue at stake in this debate is how he is using that power, how he is not using it or how he is dissipating it and where he is leading South Africa. On the evidence, he is leading South Africa headlong into trouble, headlong into confrontation, because the Prime Minister has opted for the division of power as his sole objective; that is to say, the total division of power,—plus consultation. The PFP, the Official Opposition, on the other hand, have opted for the sharing of power only,—plus delegation to sub-units. The Government has opted solely for the division of power and the Official Opposition solely for the sharing of power.

We of the NRP believe there are three essentials to a workable, secure solution: firstly, that there should be an absolute division of power over matters of intimate concern—with this power base giving to communities security from domination; secondly that there should be a devolution of power with the necessary co-ordination, particularly in the field of administration; and, thirdly, that there must be a sharing of power, by negotiation and agreement, over matters of common concern. That is what it is all about; this is the key to our survival. We have heard nothing about solutions today. However, I believe that even though we have not debated this widely in Parliament, there are many people, including many Government members, who are seriously seeking solutions. I do not believe that there are any final solutions available now. I believe that the best we can find is answers and settlements in respect of specific problems. However, I believe that the Government cannot provide these answers because it is suffering from a disease called “double-think”. This disease was defined by George Orwell as “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them”. That is a disease from which the Government suffers and from which the Official Opposition suffers. The result is a paralysis, at a time when strong and decisive leadership is most urgently needed. It is not only I who say so. I quote from the Transvaler of 9 March 1978—

This is not my view, but Government supporters’ views.

Who talked such nonsense, Vause?

It is printed in the official mouthpiece of the NP in the Transvaal, Die Transvaler of 9 March 1978.

I do not care in which paper it was printed, it is nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, there are apparently many other people who do not think it is such nonsense. However, as I have said, this of course also applies to the Official Opposition, but they do not have two wings; they have three, and there are possibly more wings to be added.

Did you count Harry?

The Government is divided, but also paralysed by their historical complexes and their extreme sensitivity to criticism. The Government lives in a dream world of power and they use that power to bring back anyone who tries to deviate. Once again I am not quoting from my own sources, but from National Party sources. I wish to quote what Willem de Klerk said. [Interjections.]

Listen to what Willem said.

I quote—

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, this is not my opinion, but the opinion of a leading supporter of the NP.

But he referred to you.

Fortunately I am not a member of the Government and fortunately I am not a member of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Chairman, we therefore have this situation, applying to the Government. Perhaps if I look back to the Roman Empire, I can find the best description for it. Let me quote the words of Macaulay—

This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the clearest description of what is happening in Government ranks. [Interjections.] I agree that the PFP does not know its rear from its van, but I am dealing with the Government. If they want me to, I will deál with the PFP. I would be more than happy to do so.

I want to test some of the fundamental symptoms of this double-think disease that I talked about. The hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt with the first one, the question of no Black citizens. He has committed himself to the concept that there will be no Black South African citizens. So that is clear. I want to ask him whether he supports the concept of confederation or whether, like the hon. Minister of Plural Relations and Development, he rejects it? I do not have time to quote, but according to Hansard of 1 February 1978, cols. 227 and 228, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development this year totally rejected confederation as a possible direction of Government thinking. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he supports that rejection of the confederal concept of working together as official policy of his party. This year again the hon. members for Klip River and Benoni totally rejected any sharing of power and I would now like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he and his Government also reject the sharing of power as a possibility in the future development of South Africa. In the third place I would like to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister stands by his Minister’s statement that there will be no freehold title to land owned by Black South Africans. Incidentally, if this is to be so in regard to Black foreigners, will it be so for White foreigners as well? We would like to know whether there is a differential principle in this regard. If we can have answers to that, then we can start to weigh the views of the Official Opposition against those of the Government in relation to whether they produce an answer for South Africa for the future.

Another disease from which the Government suffers, is the “Ja, maar-siekte”, advancing always in reverse. Some examples in this regard are their sport policy, home ownership, opera houses, private schools, job reservation, trade unions, immigration, naturalization and the use of Black troops. Each of these is introduced, however, with a “Ja, maar” emphasis. It is done hesitantly, almost surreptitiously, conditionally apologetically, and always minimized, with the result that the fruit rots before it can be picked and enjoyed. The overall result is advancing in reverse until the final outcome will be that we will be back where we were in 1948. We are moving forward to the situation that existed in 1948. I want to warn that one cannot merely tart up the old hag of apartheid with cosmetics. It has had too many facelifts already and one can already see the dimple in its chin. We cannot continue with these two diseases in our policy, i.e. the two sicknesses of double think and of “Ja, maar”.

The Government has been referring to a possible new constitutional plan. Here I have a quotation: “Three-rule move just shop talk”. It was the hon. the Minister of Justice who said that the new Parliaments would be mere talking shops. Is that so? Does the hon. the Prime Minister repudiate the hon. the Minister of Justice or does he accept that the new Parliaments in his scheme will be mere talking shops? Again we have this “Ja, maar” attitude. I seek clear answers to these issues, because I believe that what we need at this time is not a rehashing or rearguing of these old arguments that we have had before. We have done this ad nauseam …

What did we say?

I am asking for new arguments. I am seeking answers to essential questions on which to base a new deal. One cannot base a new deal on a vacuum and one cannot base a new deal on double think and double talk. One cannot base a new deal on what the hon. the Prime Minister says when his Minister of Justice is saying the exact opposite. One cannot base a new deal on what the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations says when his Deputy Minister says the opposite. One therefore has to establish—that is what I am trying to do—which of the double thinks is the official policy of the Government. We will come back later in the debate to use that base to try to give a new vision and new thinking which can offer a secure future for South Africa.

We also cannot debate and argue when the terms we use, mean different things. I also want to apply this to the Official Opposition. I am going to seek from them definitions of their terminology. I want to hear from them what they stand for, because in their case one does not have two interpretations, but three interpretations of everything.

Ask the three and a half thousand voters in Springs.

The hon. member is referring to the voters in Springs, but I think he should be worrying about the votes in his own party and his own caucus. He should be worrying about the wings within his own party. There are three clear wings in the PFP. There are the 19th century traditional British liberals, there are the modern-day academic idealists, the crypto-socialists, and there are those who fell for a confidence trick and a double-cross, those who thought they were coming in to build up a new party and suddenly found themselves swallowed up simply as “bywoners” of the old, traditional, Progressive Party. [Interjections.] One cannot build arguments on their case either because one has no base upon which to do so.

I hope that from both them and the Government we will get in this debate a foundation from which we can launch a really positive debate. I will make really positive proposals in my next speech. [Interjections.] We have had 40 minutes from the Official Opposition; in 20 minutes I have tried to lay the base for debate and I will come back and build on that base with positive proposals for the future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point has acted responsibly in so many respects this afternoon, particularly as regards the first matter he raised, viz., Transkei, that I do not wish to enter into any further debate with him. He told us that the NP should acquire a “new look” here in South Africa. During the course of this session a new word, namely “cosmetics” has been used. I suggest that the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition get together. Between the two of them they can then use some “cosmetics” in order to acquire a “new look” and as a result they and their parties may improve somewhat.

I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon that the choice facing South Africa is not an impossible one. The choice lies between what is possible in practice and what the Government has to handle. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party are occupying themselves with ideological impossibilities and impracticalities in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon that what has happened in Transkei must be seen in the context of the Government’s entire policy of discrimination and inequality of opportunity in various spheres. I want to say to him that if there is one thing in this very critical period in the history of South Africa that is of the utmost importance, it is that we, the Government, we the Whites, must find common ground with the Black nations and the other non-White people of South Africa. In order to find that common ground it is necessary for us to communicate with one another as never before in our history. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members of his party think that they have contributed anything in this debate to encourage communication by means of the type of speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made this afternoon in connection with inequality in various fields, then they are deluding themselves and he is in fact, as the hon. member for Barberton has said, prompting the people to raise further complaints.

During the recent budget debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all the other members of his party consistently harked back to the question of citizenship in pursuance of a remark made by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. I want to say to them that to try to suggest to the Black people and other non-Whites in South Africa that what the hon. the Minister said in connection with citizenship means that the Black people in South Africa will be deprived of the rights, privileges and opportunities they have always had and will have in a variety of spheres in terms of Government policy, is to be completely untruthful. Let me deal with the economic field. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is doing South Africa a blatant disservice when he tells the Black people that that statement by the hon. the Minister must be seen in the context of Government policy and that it means that we are depriving these people of their opportunities in the labour and economic fields. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that that is a false charge against the Government. What is more, seen in the context of the position in which South Africa finds herself at the moment, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all the members of his party know that that is a false charge which will eventually boomerang on the White man in South Africa. Sir, I cannot understand why these people do not show a sense of responsibility. Every word we say in this House must be weighed, bearing in mind the dangerous situation in which South Africa finds herself today. It is right and proper to say that the struggle facing South Africa is a struggle between communist and anti-communist powers. That is indeed true, but in this struggle the Communists are using the Whites because at the moment the Whites are governing the country and developing political systems in respect of the other population groups. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members of his party who have consistently attacked the Government during this session on the question of citizenship, and who have tried to draw attention to the inequality of opportunities in South Africa, are playing right into the hands of the enemies of South Africa, while the Government is doing its utmost in the political field to develop a political system which will be fair and just to those in the homelands and those in White South Africa.

As far as the development of community councils in Black residential areas is concerned, they are now trying to demigrate everything that is being done. The hon. member for Houghton referred to the then Urban Bantu Councils as “Useless Boys’ Councils”. They referred in an equally derogatory manner to other political developments such as the independence of Transkei. That is in essence what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to say sneeringly today. As regards the political situation, he said that we should revert to a situation to which neither we nor they can ever return. As sure as we are sitting here, Sir, South Africa can never turn back on the road she is travelling in order to evolve a satisfactory political dispensation. They are consequently only stirring up emotions if they try to make people believe that we can in fact turn back.

As far as economic matters are concerned, during the recent budget debate the entire Opposition referred to the inequalities in our South African society and the Government’s alleged deprivation of the non-Whites of opportunities in South Africa. However, if they look at the facts they will have to agree that we have made wonderful progress in every field.

We must not lose sight of the realities of South Africa. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to put his arguments in connection with equality in the economic field in South Africa into practice, the South African economy as a whole would collapse overnight. One cannot suddenly and overnight bring about equality. The sooner we get away from this idea of equality in South Africa the better it will be for the survival of all of us. The sooner we give practical effect to the spirit and essence of the policy of the NP, the sooner will justice be done to everybody and the sooner will there be an opportunity for everyone. Surely it is far better to talk about fairness and justice than to talk about equality, something which one knows is an ideal which can never ever become a reality? They are so fond of visiting America. I can assure them that America’s policy of integration has not resulted in everybody’s being equal. It has however resulted in some people’s finding themselves in the main stream while others have been left out in the cold and are in a more inferior position than ever before.

Hon. member often have a great deal to say about Bantu education. I have often dealt with this matter against the background of this equality argument. If the hon. member for Pinelands—I call him the “White smile of Black power in South Africa”—were to make a quick calculation, he would realize that it would cost South Africa, in one financial year, more than R2 000 million to close the gap between the amount spent on education for the Black child and the amount spent on education for the White child. They should look at what the Government has done in the labour field to ensure that justice will be done to everybody.

I want to conclude by mentioning the question of citizenship. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the NP’s policy of the separate co-existence of nations means in actual fact that all these nations, every individual member of the various nations, can live together here in South Africa and can face the future, in the face of the struggle against communism, imbued with a spirit of common loyalty to Southern Africa. When I say this I mean every population group here in South Africa and every individual member of each of these population groups. What we are doing at the moment will result in a common loyalty to Southern Africa on the basis of the political co-existence of nations and full opportunities for every individual member of those nations in the economic field. I believe that in every one of these fields, the policy of the NP actually holds within it the germ of justice and the germ of opposition to communist aggression—that the policy in actual fact holds within it the germ of peace and quiet in South Africa. One of our greatest problems is to communicate in a meaningful way with the Black people of South Africa. With reference to all their speeches during the recent budget debate the hon. members of the Opposition should also ask themselves, when they talk about equality, when they accuse the Government of discriminating against the Black people, what role they are playing in the process of communicating with the Black people. The trouble with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and with all the hon. members on his side of the House is that they have inhaled too deeply the fumes of the mine-dumps of Anglo-American. When one’s lungs are infected by an ideology, one’s tongue and lungs function together, and when the tongue and lungs work together, as theirs do, one reaches the point where through the medium of the newspapers, which hold them in the palm of their hands, one does South Africa the greatest disservice possible by consistently misrepresenting the intentions of the NP. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to submit a few questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. There was a time when the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members of the Government regularly spoke of a “Commonwealth” which they wanted to establish between the Republic and the homelands which had become independent. At one stage the hon. the Prime Minister even spoke of a “power bloc” which he envisaged for South Africa and the Black States of Southern Africa, and he gave the impression that he was working in that direction with confidence. But it has been a long time since we last heard anything more about such a power bloc, and about the concept of a Commonwealth, not a word is ever spoken any more. At this point in time the Transkei has been independent for nearly two years. Bophuthatswana has become independent, and together with the Republic there are already three basic elements around which a Commonwealth could have been built. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister pointedly what has become of the Commonwealth idea about which there used to be such optimistic talk and what has become of the broad power bloc idea which he envisaged so clearly at one time and which we all regarded as being in the best interests of South Africa. Everything indicates that today we are further from that idea than ever before and that the policy of separate development is becoming a policy of increasing isolation between all of us and of growing hostility towards us.

Our relations with Botswana have deteriorated visibly in the recent past. Cuba and the Soviet Union are being welcomed there, contrary to what is the case with us. Lesotho has displayed marked hostility towards South Africa at the UN and elsewhere, and is firmly on the side of the so-called African Liberation Movement. The birth of Bophuthatswana as an independent country took place in a spirit of great dissatisfaction—also about land. Even at his inauguration President Mangope promised trouble if his land demands were not met. And now, as part of the pattern, the Transkei has not only severed its diplomatic relations with South Africa, but has linked this to its support of the Freedom Movement, a promise to accept aid from the East and from the West, and a threat of war—just imagine!—about the territory of East Griqualand. This is a blow, not only to the Government, but also to South Africa. I trust that the hon. the Prime Minister will tell us what he regards as the implications thereof. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that there are parts of the statement by the Prime Minister of the Transkei which are not only extravagant, but also—like the story about “millions who were slaughtered”—a gross and unfair untruth against South Africa. I also subscribe to the viewpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister that he is in no way guilty of a breach of faith towards anybody. But it is his policy which is wrong. I may add that it has been clear for a considerable time that relations with the Transkei have been deteriorating. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is therefore perfectly correct. Although this is not directly connected with the statement by the Prime Minister of the Transkei, we know that at the time of the demolition of the Black squatter camps on the Cape Flats, the Ambassador of Transkei made bitter statements in connection with the treatment of his people here. He intimated that his country and his people had been humiliated by the manner in which action had been taken against them here and that the understanding between him and the Department of Foreign Affairs had not been honoured by the Department of Plural Relations.

In Transkeian circles it was said openly that before the territory had become independent, the South African Government had intimated that as soon as the Transkei had become independent, the citizens of Transkei who were still in the Republic, would enjoy the same status and treatment as, for example, a foreigner from Britain or America. That simply never became a reality. The fact remains—and I say this in a general sense— that in practice a citizen of the Transkei is still being treated like a Black man, and not as a citizen of the Transkei. I believe it is time for us to realize that we in this country have not the faintest hope of ever establishing or maintaining relations with a single African State, of ever having normal relations with a single African State, as long as the citizens of such states are in an position inferior to citizens of the independent White State and still have to tolerate discrimination on the grounds of colour. There have been regular complaints in the Transkei that the South African Government had intimated before independence that once the Transkei had become independent, it would be so much easier to dispose of the remaining land disputes. It has been proved in practice that this was indeed not the case.

But there were no outstanding land disputes.

I am referring to that because it is a fact that the people of Transkei believe that their territory has a right to consolidation, namely in terms of the promise that every nation would obtain its “historical” territory. I have listened to what the hon. the Prime Minister has said about that. According to him, the Transkei believes that the promise made by Dr. Verwoerd, namely that every nation would obtain the territory which historically belonged to it, has not been kept.

In spite of all these circumstances, it must be obvious to every single hon. member that there are other, deeper reasons why the Transkei has taken this step. From the outset, Transkei has had its eye on recognition by Africa and by the OAU. To the leaders of the Transkei, membership of the OAU is more important than membership of the UN. They know that in any case, membership of one will lead to membership of the other. It is therefore self-evident that as long as we and the OAU are in a state of conflict, and the OAU regards us as its foremost and greatest enemy—regardless of its reasons—states like Transkei, which aspire to a natural link-up with Africa, will be tempted to break with and adopt a hostile attitude towards us. That creates a grave international problem for us, and that is what troubles me in connection with the steps which the Transkei has just taken. Whatever happens around us and in Southern Africa, affects our freedom and our security more than does any talking in the conference halls of the UN. We hear from experts on Africa that, just as Swapo established a terrorist force which is directed against South West Africa, and just as the terrorism of the Patriotic Front is directed against Rhodesia, a terrorist force is at present developing which will be directed against South Africa. That is not something which we should take lightly.

In my view, the most sophisticated, and therefore the most dangerous, communistic country as far as we are concerned, is not Cuba, but East Germany. They move far less conspicuously than the other, but with far greater thoroughness, and posing a far greater threat, than the other communist countries. Informed West German circles have informed me that there is a great deal of East German interest in the Transkei and that the vanguards of East German advisers, in the wide sense in which we use the word, are already in the Transkei. In this connection I believe that there are deeper reasons for the Transkei’s break with us. Within a year or less, South West Africa will be independent and Rhodesia will be independent. In each of those countries there will also be a government with a Black majority. They will be just as keen to seek true independence from us and a link-up with the rest of Africa. The concerted struggle against South Africa, which will begin after South West and after Rhodesia, will be conducted in such a manner that those countries around us, or within us, will be undermined unless they side with the so-called freedom movement. If necessary, unwilling leaders will also be disposed of. It is a disturbing situation. What upsets us and what worries us, is that we do not get the impression from either the Government or the Prime Minister that they have any plans to counter effectively the deteriorating position in Southern Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one gets the impression when listening to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he derives some sort of malicious pleasure from the situation in which South Africa finds itself today. At the beginning of his speech he asked the hon. the Prime Minister what had happened to the socalled power bloc or commonwealth, the ideas of co-operation and inter-dependence which have been expressed so often by members on this side of the House and also by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Why does he ask that question? He asks that question because he intends saying with malicious glee: “Look, at this moment, after what happened in Transkei yesterday, there are countries which are breaking their ties with South Africa. At this moment South Africa is under great pressure as far as its international relations are concerned.”

Sir, we know that. Everybody in this House knows that we have reached a very difficult stage in the sphere of international relations. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not say this to do the country a favour. By way of the over-simplication which is so characteristic of members on that side, he tries to relate all the problems South Africa is experiencing now to the policy of this Government. He seeks to ascribe the pressure exerted upon us and the difficult and dangerous period in our history that we are presently experiencing simply and solely to the policy of this Government. The conclusion he comes to is that the tricky situation we are facing at the moment in regard to Africa and Transkei as well is simply as a result of the policy of this Government. This matter has already been thoroughly debated during the course of a private motion which the hon. member moved in this House. Recently the hon. member for Benoni also dealt very explicitly with the whole issue of our relations with the rest of the world. But it seems to me as if hon. members of the Opposition do not realize, and simply will not realize, that the problems of South Africa today must be seen against the background of the power struggle between East and West in Africa. It really has very little to do with our internal position. The power struggle between East and West has not only taken on a very subtle form these days; it has also begun to crystallize, if I may put it that way, around the heart of Africa. The questions of Southern Africa have become part of a global power struggle. On the one hand we find Russia extending its sphere of influence in Africa. To this end it is relying, no matter how subtly, on a strategy which we cannot describe as anything but military strategy. That is why there are Russian and East German advisers in Africa, and that is why there are Cuban troops in Africa. That is why there is an obvious arms build-up in many strategic places.

While Russia, in terms of its military strategy, supplies Africa with arms, the West under the leadership of the USA is participating in this struggle by way of diplomatic strategy. As Die Burger wrote last week, it is words against weapons in Africa, and words, no matter how hard, cannot ward off bullets. The dilemma of the Whites in Southern Africa is that the Western Powers apparently feel that we are the obstacle in the path of their diplomatic strategy. So to bring Black Africa within their sphere of influence, to get Black Africa on their side, they have to align themselves against the so-called White minorities in the south. This they are doing without taking proper account of the complexity of the problems here in Southern Africa on the one hand and, on the other hand, without a proper knowledge of the objectives of this Government and the things we are in fact striving for in the interests of everybody in this country. Dr. Owen, the British Foreign Secretary, said, inter alia, in his speech on 5 April—

What Dr. Owen wants is precisely what this Government is striving for. We reject the domination of one group or people by another, whether it be White domination or Black domination. We find both equally unacceptable. Our goal is to have each nation governed by a democratically elected majority government. But what the West apparently cannot understand, and hon. members of the Opposition do not want to understand, is that we cannot achieve these great ideals in Southern Africa within one political power system; that it is impossible to give effect to these ideals within a unitary state where all nations have to be accommodated. That is a viewpoint which this side of the House holds with absolute conviction, and that is where the paths of the NP and the PFP diverge. Power-sharing within a unitary state in which all the nations of South Africa have to be accommodated will not reduce our problems. It will rather increase our problems and will lead to one of the most dangerous power struggles which this continent has ever known.

It is interesting to note that a man of the status of Mr. George Ball, former Secretary of State of the USA, sees this fact more clearly than members of the Official Opposition. In US News and World Report of 27 June 1977, Mr. Ball replied to a question as follows—

†He calls it “a fantasy”. That remark shows more wisdom than the whole Opposition put together. Mr. Ball then goes on to say that even if such a multiracial State could be created—

*That is the point. To speak here quite simply, in broad and general terms, of power-sharing—as the hon. member for Houghton did in her much discussed speech of last week when she said that we should move quickly in the direction of power-sharing, or as the hon. member for Rondebosch said when he spoke of “full citizenship for everyone in South Africa”—is to take no account of the fact that there are a variety of nations in South Africa and that these nations simply cannot be accommodated within one system without serious adverse consequences for all the nations of South Africa.

What about South West Africa?

I am coming to South West Africa. That is why we also reject the plea of the PFP, which they are wont to couple with South West Africa, for a national convention.

What about Turnhalle?

Whether or not it is based on Turnhalle, we reject it, because the concept of power-sharing is implicit in the acceptance of a national convention.

But you accepted it in South West Africa.

The PFP can tell South Africa and the world that their policy is not a policy of one man, one vote— they like to say so and perhaps it is true—but the implication is that although it may not be their policy it will nonetheless be the result of their policy. That will be the inescapable result of their policy. One cannot accept a unitary state and accommodate all the nations within it, and then eventually try to mislead the electorate by saying: “No, it is not our policy that there should be one man, one vote”. It is a fact that initially the policy of the Rhodesian Government—I say this with due respect—was not a policy of one man, one vote either. But if one accepts the concept of a unitary state in which everybody must be accommodated, and one accepts one or the other form of power-sharing, no matter how it may be qualified … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to continue his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Chief Whip for the opportunity afforded me to conclude my remarks. I want to repeat the statement I made because it is so opposite to the arguments the members of the PFP like to use against the Government. It does not help for one to argue that one’s policy is not a policy of one man, one vote and at the same time argue that power has to be shared in a unitary state, South Africa. The fact of the matter is that if one accepts the concept of a unitary state, a unitary state in which all the nations of South Africa have to be brought together, and one accepts too one or the other form of power-sharing, no matter how it may be qualified, one is irrevocably committed either to majority rule and one man, one vote or to some form of dictatorship and domination.

What about federation?

That is why we on this side of the House believe that the answer to South Africa’s problems has to be found along the road of multinationalism. The power struggle in South Africa has to be defused not by way of a national convention but by safeguarding every nation against domination by another nation, by safeguarding every nation against discrimination and by placing every nation on the democratic road of self-determination. This side of the House believes that that is the only way in which we can safeguard the future for South Africa.

Hon. members on that side of the House are wrong if they think that we can safeguard the future of South Africa and curb the Marxists by, as the hon. member for Parktown suggests, bringing a few Black faces into the House or, as the hon. member for Rondebosch also implied, by changing our economic system. The hon. member for Rondebosch issued the warning in a very interesting speech last week that the Marxist threat in South Africa would increase if we did not, among other things, restructure our economic framework, have a more open economic structure. The hon. member for Rondebosch and other hon. members on that side of the House should know, however, that one cannot curb the Marxists by means of reforms. The Marxists are never curbed by evolutionary changes because in the nature of things the Marxist operates in a conflict situation. He works with revolution. He believes that the only way to change a situation is by revolution. So in his speech, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout showed a better insight into this situation. He said last week (Hansard, 1978, col. 3982)—

I repeat, “revolt against everything which is White”. The traditional Marxists believed that revolution, as formulated by Marx, had to be fermented by the workers. They believed that the worker was being exploited by the ruling class. We are now living in different times and the neo-Marxists, led by Marcuse and others, maintain that the worker has now become so much as part of the system that he is no longer the seed of revolution. They believe now that the uncommitted student, the student mass which still moves on the periphery of society, the student who as yet has no vested interests, could be the seed of revolution. I think that in southern Africa and in South Africa—and this is the point—the Marxists find conflict material in the presence of the Whites here and that race hatred forms the basis of their revolution. So the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is quite right when he says they hate everything White.

If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is aware of these dangers, why does he put his tongue out at this Government as if the points he can score against us have any meaning for the security of South Africa? It does not help if one is pleased that internationally we are in a weaker position. It does not help to allege that everything is the fault of this Government. No, we have rather to try to defuse this explosive situation and not by hurling accusations backwards and forwards or by means of a process of power-sharing within a unitary state in which everybody has to be accommodated and which eventually will lead to one man, one vote if a Marxist type infiltration does not occur before that time. Power-sharing will heighten the conflict potential. We must defuse the situation by means of a policy of the effective and meaningful division of power as this Government is doing. We must implement a policy of the effective and meaningful division of power so that we can move away from a race concept in South Africa and give greater stature to the concept of nations in South Africa.

You and Willem de Klerk think the same.

Mr. Chairman, it is not a national convention that will safeguard our future. A national strategy based on the principles of this Government, as so often reiterated, will do more to help us successfully to survive this most difficult period in our history.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg West suggested that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had oversimplified matters by suggesting that the problems of South Africa could be laid at the door of the Nationalist Government. Having listened to the hon. member when he delivered his own ideas in regard to the philosophy and the policy of the NP, I believe that he has given no indication at all that there is anything but an oversimplification in the policies which he and his party pursue.

He has dealt with what he called the vital questions of South Africa and he has made the obvious statement, the known statement and the accepted statement that South Africa and Africa are now involved in something which can be considered as a global power struggle. Nobody denies that fact because, as I say, it is a trite statement and it is well-known statement However, the hon. member also admits in the next breath that in regard to Western strategy, in a power struggle between East and West, we in South Africa somehow find ourselves an obstacle in that strategy. I think in that sort of situation we should at least be able to pause and to ask ourselves why that situation exists. Whyis it that the South African situation presents an obstacle in regard to the strategy of the West? I am not suggesting that we in South Africa should be expected to acquiesce in regard to every accusation and criticism levelled at us by the West In view of the fact that every one of our traditional allies has indicated that we are an embarrassment to them in the struggle that is taking place, I am suggesting that it behoves us more and more to look inwardly to examine and to decide why it is that South African policies put ourselves in that sort of situation. I do not believe that peaceful co-existence can be achieved in South Africa by the dismemberment of the South African society. I do not believe that the hon. member for Johannesburg West has any evidence that that can in fact be achieved. I do not think it can be said that the situation in South Africa is better today than it was before, as a result of the NP policy of separation and of creating divisions amongst people. This has not made us any stronger and it has not made us a society more able and more capable of resisting the pressures which are building up so rapidly against us. Peaceful co-existence can only be achieved if we can break down the barriers which separate our people and not by building up barriers. It is all very well for the NP and for the hon. member for Johannesburg West to talk about a policy of multinationalism, but again I believe all the evidence is there that not one of these policies will, in any way, assist us in the fight against Marxism in South Africa. Because so many of the inequalities, injustices and the imbalances that exist in South Africa as a result of the NP policy are held up as an example of democracy, which is playing right into the hands of our Marxist detractors. This in no way assists us in the situation that exists in Southern Africa at the present time.

This debate has perhaps followed the anticipated course. The hon. the Prime Minister commenced the debate by making a factual statement in regard to the unfortunate situation which has arisen in Transkei. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition accepted the facts of that statement as a factual chronicle of events and then suggested that the matter should be reviewed in perspective against the situation which exists in Southern Africa and also against the perspective of Government policy. I think we are perfectly entitled to look at the Transkei situation in this light. We are also perfectly entitled to look at a situation of this kind against the perspective of Southern Africa and against the perspective of the policies of the Government of this country. After all, Transkei is the creature of the NP and not the creature of the PFP or any other party. The whole situation of independent homelands is the creature of NP policy. It is the child of the NP and if a child turns against its parent then one is certainly entitled to question the family background and the upbringing which led to that sort of situation. This is precisely what we are doing when we look at the situation of Transkei. One must once again look at the whole question of Government policy in regard to the homelands. I think we are also perfectly entitled to look at the whole question of Government policy in regard to citizenship. It is absolutely pertinent to the issue in South Africa at the present time. We endeavoured to do this last week during the budget debate, when we put a number of questions regarding the issue of the future of the homelands, the question of homeland consolidation and the question of citizenship being linked to those homelands. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development did us the courtesy of being in the House and listening to speeches on the subject by the Leader of the Opposition and myself, but we have had no reply from him. The situation has now, to my mind, assumed a new significance as a result, in the first place, of the events that took place in Transkei yesterday and, in the second place, as a result of the extraordinary statement over SATV last night by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. The hon. Minister reasserted his belief in the continued redivision of land in South Africa and the division of citizenship relating to such land.

The hon. member for Innesdal has suggested that this is not the case, but there it was live over television and here in the House we had the hon. the Minister suggesting the same thing. Quite clearly the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development is committed to this concept. I want to quote a report which appeared in the Cape Times of this morning, a report which is identical to reports which have appeared in other papers around the country. In the article the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development described this as his political vision. I quote from the article—

When talking about artificially amalgamating people, it is ironic that this statement should come from a NP Government which for years now has artificially been moving people and groups of people about the country at will in order to fit in with NP policy. The report goes on—

So we are dealing here with composite parts. Yesterday we saw what happened in the case of one of the composite parts, the Transkei. What the hon. the Minister was in fact saying—the hon. the Prime Minister will probably endorse this—is that he is committed to the creation of at least another nine composite parts in South Africa, at the present time based upon the Transkei example. This is what is being offered to the people of South Africa at the present time. The hon. the Minister also suggested that there would be one White composite part. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he, in fact, subscribes to this “vision” of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government and all the super patriots, who are forever protesting their patriotism towards South Africa, whether they are prepared to preside over the dissolution of South Africa by giving away fragments of the country for the creation of nine or ten separate Transkei-type States. Are they prepared to preside over the dissolution of South Africa on this basis, instead of planning for a multiracial South Africa in which all people can live together in peace and harmony?

In respect of the land question I would like to say again that we have warned the Government time and time again of the dangerous consequences relating to the policy of separate development and the separate freedoms plan of the Government. There is the land issue which has been dealt with at great length and which will continue to be a basic issue, as the hon. the Prime Minister himself has conceded this afternoon. If historically one looks at the situation this is a basic issue and one has to take great care when dealing with the issue.

My time is unfortunately running out, but I want to deal with the specific issue relating to the homeland of the principal ethnic group in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what his attitude is in regard to the situation of kwaZulu, which has steadfastly refused to have anything to do with the Government’s independence proposals. I want to quote from the Inkatha pamphlet which received a massive, 100% mandate in the recent kwaZulu elections, and I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to respond to it. Here are some of the things which were contained in the mandate—

This was supported by the people representing 5 million Zulus. The pamphlet goes on to say—

The pamphlet goes on—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I make a few observations on the speech by the hon. member for Musgrave, I want to say that the pace which has been set by the hon. the Prime Minister, really appears to have been a trap for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters. I think there can be no doubt that the hon. the Prime Minister has handled this matter, a delicate matter with far-reaching implications, in a dignified, unhurried and very calm manner—a manner which, surely, has not only brought a feeling of assurance on the part of his own party members, but which will also create a feeling of calm throughout South Africa. In sharp contrast were the conduct and the viewpoints expressed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. members on this side have, however, already effectively disposed of all that.

The hon. member for Musgrave has made a few points. One of his questions was put directly to the hon. the Prime Minister, and I therefore do not think it is expected of me, or that I am capable, of replying to that. But he will most definitely get a reply. In passing, however, I want to point out a few things. The hon. member now casts it in the teeth of the NP that a country has become independent through the actions of this party and of the Government. But Transkei became independent due to its own desire to do so. It was not compelled to become independent. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly told Black leaders that not one of them will be forced to accept independence. Neither will anybody be forced to accept independence in the future.

What is the alternative? A multiracial society?

Surely the hon. member knows what the alternative is.

A multiracial society?

No, not a multiracial society as the hon. member wants to make out If he will give me a chance, I shall tell him what alternative exists in respect of the political dispensation in South Africa. In any case, it is not a “multiracial society”.

The hon. member now wants to cast this in our teeth but this side of the House is not sorry for a single moment that a country belonging to a particular nation in South Africa has become independent. We are therefore not sorry that Transkei has become independent. Nor is the Prime Minister of the Transkei sorry that his country has become independent. That is clear from the statement which he made. It appears very clearly from that statement that he is very proud of the fact that Transkei is independent and that he is the ruler of 2 million people. In so far as it is a country which has become independent through the doing of the National Government, we accept co-responsibility for that acquisition of independence and if now, after acquisition of independence, he wants to take steps which we do not like—steps which may even be dangerous—it does not render null the merit of independence as such, and we still stand by our intention of letting nations become independent in this Southern country where possible.

The hon. member for Musgrave spoke of “the breaking down of barriers”. That is familiar language. [Interjections.] There is an hon. member at the back there with a very big mouth. Just give me a chance to say my say. There is talk of “the breaking down of barriers”. It is said that they do not believe that peaceful coexistence can be attained by the policy of the NP. The difference between the Official Opposition and the NP is a difference in a basic view of the realities in South Africa, a difference in the basic handling of those realities in South Africa. How, for example, does the PFP see the reality in South Africa with reference to the human material or national material, if I may put it that way? The hon. member for Musgrave used the same language as his hon. leader did in this House 18 years ago, in 1960. He is remarkably consistent as far as that is concerned. One can trust liberals to be consistent in their views and as regards the result of those views. If these people were to be afforded an opportunity of giving political shape to this individualistic liberalism in South Africa—I do not mean the old liberalism which the old philosophers distinguished as “pluralism”—it would be a catastrophe for South Africa which even those people would not survive.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition— then still the member for Pinelands—said in 1960 (Hansard, 4 March 1960, Vol. 103, col. 2818)—

These are remarkable words—

What next? Could anybody be so insensitive to realities in South Africa? What does the hon. member accomplish thereby? It is not only the Afrikaner; it is the White man in South Africa and the different nations in South Africa, the people of Transkei, Ciskei, kwaZulu—the hon. member for Musgrave is so insistent that they do not want to accept independence—who have been dealt a slap in the face and insulted in their being, in their self-awareness and—as Chief Minister Sebe said at Potchefstroom last year—in their pride, and who are being told that they must not be proud of their own identity and that they must not claim self-determination or anything of that nature, because they will be converted into one in-differentiated national conglomeration in South Africa. That is what the hon. member advocates.

[Inaudible.]

But the hon. member says so here, or does he no longer stand by that? Has he now a new policy? Has he now new proposals?

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member would only keep his mouth shut and open his ears, he would hear something which his leader said, otherwise he will not hear him. He said: “We believe that every effort should be made to lessen those group loyalties, those group feelings, and those group prejudices.” The hon. member said further (Hansard, 1960, Vol. 103, col. 2820)—

That is really political shallowness and naïveté. He admits that there are two nationalisms. But there are not only two nationalisms. The Chief Minister of kwaZulu, Chief Buthelezi, talks about a stake which he wants in the whole of South Africa. At the same time he is a Zulu nationalist. There are various nationalisms in South Africa. The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs has said it over and over again in America; and we have said it over and over in South Africa, and we have said it to the UN, that we have various nationalisms in South Africa—nationalisms which, if one were to harbour them in one single political dispensation, would be conflicting nationalisms. These are the facts which we face. The hon. member is correct. One cannot contain two nationalisms within one political dispensation. But what does the hon. member want to do? His solution is: Break down the nationalism and put in its place a common allegiance to the soil of South Africa. We need not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to loyalty towards South Africa. But if one is so naïve as to confuse loyalty to the whole of South Africa, this southern country and its soil, and regard that as complete nationalism, then one has not yet even begun to understand the politics of South Africa. That is how those hon. members argue.

One encounters people from other countries, from a country like America, who talk more sensibly about South Africa than does the Opposition. Senator Carl Curtis—I think this is a familiar name to the Opposition—when he spoke to his fellow Americans, said—

This man has perspective on South Africa. [Interjections.] Did that hon. member plant the idea with him? Then he has done a very valuable thing. Then he does not belong in that company. Mr. Curtis went on to say—

You have been reading too much.

I am trying to present to the hon. members … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise so as to afford the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Groote Schuur. What I am trying to indicate, is that while we are saddled with South Africans who have no vision based on the realities of South Africa, the Americans are upbraiding their own people because they have not a correct view on South Africa. This is what Senator Curtis says to his people. He says—

This is a man with a very sober view of South Africa.

There is also a man like Jeffrey Gaynor who says in a booklet, South Africa, the Vital Link—and hon. members on the opposite side would do well to read that booklet; it is a very valuable one—

That is how people see South Africa, and they are correct. Have hon. members of the PFP perhaps an alternative? Have they a recipe for South Africa somewhere in the world? They do not even have one in America. Not even America, the great country which adopts a posture in favour of liberty, equality and fraternity, has it. What has remained of that brotherhood, I do not know. America is a country which has had to admit that individualistic liberalism has failed miserably. A lawyer from Minnesota, one Dutton, says that he himself is one of “a dying breed”. He says—

In this connection I can also refer to Nathan Glazer, someone who says of their own situation—and I am referring to Affirmative Discrimination—that “Americanization”, the idea of simply making Americans of all people who live in America, does not hold good any more. This is how he puts it—

Then there is still Mitton M. Gordon, and he talks about structural separation of races and national groups in America. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Parktown was there. I am indicating to those hon. members that we are not conducting a lonely monologue in favour of cultural and national differences. There are people abroad who perceive the realities in South Africa and who talk about South Africa with much more wisdom than do the hon. members of the PFP. Surely hon. members of the PFP themselves know that America has rejected the ideas of “the great society” and “the melting pot”. Nevertheless those hon. members continue, like parrots, repeating statements in a delayed action; what they are in fact trying to do is impose the defunct spectre of an American pattern of society on us in South Africa. Surely that spectre is defunct. I would advise those hon. members to go and read the writings of Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan. They should also go and read Isaacs and others. These are all people who clearly sketch this situation in America. But I need not go further into this. Glazer and Moynihan state in their Ethnicity: Theory and Experience—

That is what we hear from America. But I shall not quote any more from this.

I should like to say something in connection with what we really understand under pluralism. Pluralism is a very popular word. I know that people, for example Prof. Johann Degenaar of Stellenbosch, regard pluralism as that set-up in a country in which a diversity of interest groups, of organizations and of corporations, each guard over their own interests on an organized basis. However the idea is then that the whole population, the whole country, is regarded as so many corporations and so many interest groups, each with its own organization. The idea is then that the organizations concerned should resist any inordinate meddling and exercise of authority by the State. That is why they talk of a plural democracy. The plural democracy is therefore democracy or national power which is organized in a multiple manner, and is really opposed to exaggerated Government authority. There is some merit in this idea. That is then called plural democracy.

However, hon. members will agree with me that this is surely not the whole image of South Africa. South Africa is surely not typified solely on the basis of separate corporations and interest organizations. South Africa consists of a diversity of nations, and within the national communities we also encounter the multiplicity or plurality of interest groups and of organizations. [Interjections.] In other words, we have that which those hon. members mock at. We have circles within circles. We have nations, and within those nations we still have a diversity of organizations which look after the interests of the nations concerned. [Interjections.]

Hon. members are welcome to ponder upon this. But if they go and read a sound work such as that of Prof. H. G. Stoker on the Struggle for the Orders, they will benefit by it. They would do well to read a little political philosophy. While I now have to conclude, I just want to point out that those hon. members display an approach to politics which would make it worth their while to go and read what Prof. A. H. Murray, of the University of Cape Town wrote in The Cape Times on 1 February this year on this very idea of theirs of “a racially plural society”.

†I find myself in full agreement with my old professor, Andrew Murray, when he says—

*He then refers to the system which was forced on Central Europe in 1921 and he says it did not work—

That is the criticism of the idea of a multiracial state which he expresses. He says it does not work; in such a State, politics are organized on a racial basis. It is against that background that we say that one should look at the political handling of matters in a State where one has multinationalism and where one has multiethnicity.

One has a few choices. One’s first choice is the suppression of ethnicity and the suppression of the right of self-determination of those people. That is exactly what the Opposition wants to do: They want to tell the White man to abandon his idea of self-determination and identity and to dissolve in a greater South Africanism. That is what those hon. members want to do. They have precisely the same ideas that Milner and Lord Charles Somerset had with the Dutch-speaking Whites in South Africa.

The second possibility is shared power among ethnic groups as partners in a single political set-up with a minimum of identity, a minimum of separation, concentration on joint decision-making, and a maximum umbrella organization. That does not work.

The third possibility is the greatest possible decentralization of powers of self-determination and the least possible central or overhead control.

The fourth possibility—that is what we regard as the ideal if practically possible—is independent States for the different nations or ethnic groups.

The NP is working with the third and fourth possibilities in particular in an effort to find to what extent we can succeed in the fullest possible measure in affording the different nations the greatest possible opportunity for political expression and self-determination—and hon. members cannot deny the existence, the identity and the right to self-determination of those nations.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister who devoted the last part of his speech to pluralism, omitted to quote the conclusions reached by political scientists, some of whom he quoted, for instance Glazer and Moynihan. The conclusion is not that pluralism means complete separation, but by pluralism is understood the moving to an increasing extent into a structural form within a single State. In this connection I should like to quote the words of a well-known Nationalist political scientist who specifies—

The important words are “as elements within a State” and therefore it is clear that pluralism does not mean that we are dealing with separate States as the hon. the Deputy Minister envisages.

I want to come back to this aspect in a moment because I first want to deal with the positive aspect and then contrast it with the view of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not want to repeat what has been said before; I have already dealt with the division, the devolution and the sharing of power and the House has on record our broad philosophy of pluralism as an institutional accommodation of different groups. It also has on record our federal/confederal concept of linking these groups together and of the option or choice at local level. My colleague, the hon. member for Mooi River, will deal with this further, probably tomorrow.

I want to deal with the practical application of this concept in reality. I want to apply it for instance to Soweto. In a former debate we touched on, but did not elaborate, the concept—which could fit into the NP’s policy—that Soweto should be declared a territorial authority, a non-ethnic territorial authority, with all the powers of a non-independent autonomous homeland. Imagine the change that would make to the whole problem of cities like Soweto. Once one removes the bee the Government has in its bonnet that everybody must be classified according to their rural homelands, and one accepts that an area like Soweto can be a non-ethnic homeland, one can solve 90% of the problems which this Government is facing. They can then have home-ownership and South African and territorial citizenship within the Government’s policy. They can have a share in local government, in the administration of their own affairs up to autonomous level. They can have taxation powers to run their own affairs. So one could go on and on.

The practical application of the plural concept within one State is the issue, the new thinking, that I believe is necessary to South Africa. We are dealing with that now in Natal.

Why do you distinguish between Soweto and Mamelodi?

I do not. If Mamelodi wants to develop in that direction, why not? If Nyanga, Langa or any other area wants to develop in that direction, and does not have a common ethnic content, it should be its right to develop as a non-independent autonomous territorial authority. It can apply to any area. This is the essence of the concept of choice, of people having some option about where and how they live and spend their lives.

We are considering another development in that direction now. In Natal, where we have power, we are talking, with all the race groups concerned, about a formula for the metropolitan co-ordination of greater Durban and all its communities, again within the framework of this concept of dividing power, devolving power and sharing power. It works. It is practical and realistic, and I hope that in a very short time the fruits of it will start to be seen.

Another need we have at this time, amidst the clouds of gloom, the prophets of doom, the Masadas and people wanting to die in the last trench, is a rebirth of faith. To my mind we need a new “toekomsideaal”, a new sense of purpose which neither the hon. the Prime Minister nor the Official Opposition is giving to South Africa. We need a new political credo. People are starting to talk, to think and to move more and more into the area we occupy in political thinking. In reply to the hon. member for Johannesburg West and the hon. the Deputy Minister, I want to quote from last Sunday’s summing up of the vision of the Government and where it is going. Willem de Klerk, in his commentary, states the following—

He talks about “eie seggenskap en medeseggenskap”. He says further—

That is totally in conflict with what was said by the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

You do not understand Afrikaans.

They see total division and no “medeseggenskap”. I want to put a question to the bright-eyed visionaries, to the hon. member for Pinetown, to the hon. member for Johannesburg West who has been made to toe the line, to the hon. member for Pretoria Central and to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, the people who were going to change the Government from within and who believe in this “eie seggenskap” and “medeseggenskap”. I want to put it to the people who, like the hon. member for Pinetown, ask 13 questions of South Africa, to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the people who, like Willem de Klerk and others, believe in this concept. That also includes people like Prof. Nic Rhoodie who says: “Therefore I see future power sharing in the context of a plural democracy utilizing both federalist and confederalist devices to ensure the peaceful accommodation of general and individual rights and particularist groups.” Political thinkers, politicians, journalists, scientists—everybody is accepting the need to have “eie seggenskap” and “medeseggenskap”. Only this party breaks through the gloom and the doom, the prophecies of doom and destruction and the attitude that we must stand with our backs to the wall, because this party offers a new credo and a new vision which is more than a glimmer: It is an ember of hope which we can blow into a flame of confidence in South Africa if we have the courage to do it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point will never be able to understand the concept of separate development as advocated by this side of the House. The hon. member for Durban Point and his party follow the middle-of-the-road policy. This is a terribly convenient kind of politics to practise.

There is no middle of the road.

We have our own political philosophy.

That hon. member and his party will never understand what it means to create separate structures for separate population groups within the concept of separate development and then to find points of contact within that structure. I am afraid that that hon. member and his party have a very convenient kind of politics. They lean towards either side as it suits them.

Rubbish!

That is the middle-of-the-road politics which they follow. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members cannot all have a say at the same time in this House.

I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that the electorate gave its verdict on this matter on 30 November last year. It is because the electorate gave its verdict on the kind of middle-of-the-road politics practised by those hon. members that that little party finds itself where it does today.

They supported the NP because they thought that Pik would become Prime Minister.

I do not want to deal any further with the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to come back to the debacle in the House this afternoon on the part of the Official Opposition. While a very serious discussion was being conducted in this House about what had happened in Transkei and the hon. the Prime Minister had explained this matter with great responsibility, we found that the members of the Official Opposition were quick to spell out to the country and to the House in no uncertain terms how they practically welcomed this final collapse of the policy of separate development and apartheid in South Africa.

Would you die for separate lifts?

In the process, as the hon. member for Barberton indicated, they went so far as to suggest further arguments to the Prime Minister of Transkei which he could advance in this connection.

There is one matter which the hon. Opposition should spell out to us in this House and which we are waiting for. During the censure debate we asked them to tell us what they understood under their policy of a unitary state, since they were committed to this and to a common voters’ roll. When we tell them that this would lead to one man, one vote and Black majority Government, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that this is not true.

It will be a federal State.

I want to ask the Official Opposition whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout repudiates the statement made by his benchmate, the hon. member for Houghton, in Australia, and also the statement she made in London last year when she said that “Black majority Government is the inevitable final result of my party’s policy.” Does he repudiate her? Those hon. members keep harping on this every day. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did so only last week in this House when he said the following in his speech (Hansard, 1978, col. 3979)—

I want the members of the Opposition to spell out to us what they mean by that. After all we know that they advocate a common voters’ roll. What will be the final result of their policy? Have they come to the point where those hon. members are running away from the consequences of their own policy? As recently as 16 November last year, The Argus said the following in an editorial, with reference to a speech made by the hon. member for Parktown—

They speak here of “no guarantee”, Mr. Chairman.

Do you give a guarantee?

Why is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout always denying that it is the policy of those hon. members? He says it is not so and he strongly objects to it. A letter written by him was published in Die Vaderland on 16 February in consequence of reports published by that newspaper about the speech he made here during the censure debate. He said—

So the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is adopting a different standpoint now. Where only last year, in his capacity as a member of the former UP, he accused the PRP of advocating a policy of Black majority government, he now says that this is not the policy of the PFP, as if the PFP had a new policy.

You did not understand it.

According to him it is a policy of the PRP. We on this side of the House are waiting for those hon. members to spell out to us exactly what the new policy is. Where do they want to take us?

Last year Hoofstad conducted an interview with the hon. member for Johannesburg North. What did the hon. member say during that interview? At that time he was still the former Mr. Justice Kowie Marais. He said that they were going to implement their policy in three phases. That is the new party to which they now belong. He said that the first phase was a multiracial government for the Witwatersrarid. He said that once people of colour were represented on the third level of government, representation of the second level was bound to follow. He went on to say that if the experiment did not work on that level, another plan would have to be devised and there would be a chance to turn back. This is what the hon. member for Johannesburg North says. This was the man who was a policy-maker and this is the man who came in with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as the great genius they had caught and who caused them to become the PFP. He is speculating with the future of South Africa and he is experimenting with the political dispensation which is eventually to be implemented in this country. The hon. member went on to say in the interview—

However, he also says that if it does not work there, we must have a chance to back out, so we must wait before applying it on the highest level. This is a dangerous standpoint and it is nothing but speculation with the fate of the people of South Africa If this all is true, we are still waiting for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to rise openly in this House and to spell out to the people outside exactly what he means when he says: “Full citizenship to all the people of South Africa Full political rights to everyone in South Africa” The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is always hiding behind the statement that this does not mean domination of one over another. How is the hon. member going to prevent that domination? Hon. members in his own party are saying this to him. The hon. member for Yeoville wrote in an article in the Sunday Times of 15 May last year under the heading “The Opposition must now decide: Does it want a base in White politics”—I quote only one sentence—

These sounds are coming from their own ranks, i.e. that they are not giving attention to the security of the White man in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall definitely not deny that the statement made yesterday by Chief Kaiser Matanzima came as a surprise. But I am not going to accept for one moment that the position has become as grave or that things are so black, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made out, that “serious complications may develop if the matter is allowed to deteriorate”. I do not believe that there is any problem in life which cannot be solved. I feel that there is yet to be a problem which cannot be solved if we really have the will to solve it, even if it is with leaders of independent Black states. In this regard I want to point out that the reason Chief Kaiser Matanzima gives for his step, is not consistent with the historical facts of Griqualand East and therefore I experience some problems with it. In this regard I want to quote briefly from the report of the committee which was entrusted with the investigation into the possible incorporation of Griqualand East into Natal. It is clearly stated in the report—

Today this area is generally known as Griqualand East. It includes Matatiele and the Mt. Currie area. I quote further—

Then there is an interesting quotation by Dr. Pieter Becker—I am not going to read it now—in which he also points out clearly that the Zulu was absolutely afraid of this region and never considered conquering it. The report also states clearly—

After that Adam Kok sent his scouts to this territory and it was decided that this part of the country was definitely unpopulated and therefore perhaps afforded him and his people a place to live.

An important fact mentioned in the report, is that the Pondo tribe was one of the Bantu tribes which suffered a great deal from Chaka’s impis. By 1832 their position was desperate. They were driven across the Umtata River out of their own country. They suffered famine and were fragmented socially and politically. Under the leadership of the Pondo Chief, Faku, they began to drift back to their living area. The position was such that in 1834, during a reconnaissance campaign which the trekker leader, Piet Uys, made to Natal before the Great Trek, Faku told him about a large, open territory to the north of Pondoland in which he, Faku, would welcome White settlements. It is very clear that history shows that Faku laid no claim at all to this territory and that the Pondo tribe consequently have no claim to the territory either.

On 30 March 1977, however, Prime Minister Matanzima held a meeting. The Daily Dispatch reports the following about that meeting—

It was therefore a threat. The report goes on—

Chief Ndamazi is a Pondo. It is very clear that Prime Minister Matanzima is in the shadow of a threat which he used, viz. that he would break off relations with South Africa, and it is also clear that he is in the shadow of threats by the Pondos because, as far as Griqualand East is concerned, he has thus far definitely not yet acted as they expected him to act. We know about the breakaway of a number of members of his party who are in the cross benches in the Parliament in Umtata at the moment. As a result of these factors which made his own position in his country difficult, Prime Minister Matanzima was forced to carry out this threat of his.

We agree with you.

Good. In this regard I just want to refer briefly to a short speech which I had the privilege of making in Aliwal North when Paramount Chief Matanzima visited the territory shortly before the independence of Transkei in order to inform his followers. I told him—

This is what the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about when he said that problems would be solved in the friendliest of spirits. I want to tell Prime Minister Matanzima, not in a malicious way, but as a kind of invitation, that doors have been opened to him in South Africa, and that South Africa is there to grant him assistance, advice and support and that instead of threats, it would pay him and his people far better rather to turn to South Africa and to try and solve problems in a friendly spirit.

Surely it is clear that when Griqualand East was transferred to Natal, it was not transferred to a foreign power so that the Transkei could never get it back if it felt that it had a claim to it. It was merely a change of a provincial boundary. If the Transkei feels that it has a claim to Griqualand East, it can always invite us to discuss the matter. In that respect our doors and our ears are not closed to them. However, the path of threats and the breaking of ties which the Transkei has chosen, cannot offer any solution to this problem.

In conclusion, I feel that there is another matter which I must raise in the light of yesterday’s events. It concerns territories in my constituency in which farms are situated which have already been awarded to the Transkei, but have not yet been bought out and are still occupied by White farmers. I am referring to farms in the Pitseng region, in the Umga Flats—to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred—in the Cuba region and in the Elliot region.

The farmers in those regions had to wait a long time to hear whether their farms would be bought out or not. They made their sacrifices when they heard that their farms would be sold. Since that time they have been living in uncertainty as to when their farms will be taken over. I ask any practical farmer in the House how one can really farm under those circumstances. They know that an independent State borders on their land and that some farms are to be bought out. Those farmers must carry on farming under these uncertain circumstances. In this connection I want to ask—I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister who deals with these affairs is here too—whether the time has not come for us to take another look at the priorities in this case and for these farms in this region bordering on the Transkei, to enjoy priority and be the first to be bought out.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.