, as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Offices of Profit, reporting that the Committee had been unable to complete its inquiry.

Report and proceedings to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions.

Report to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Pensions.

Report to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in lines 18 to 29, to omit paragraph (b);
2. (2) on page 3, in lines 30 and 31, to omit paragraph (c).

The effect these two amendments, if they are carried, will be to make this an entirely elected council. I want to point out too at this stage that if these two amendments are accepted, the amendments standing in my name in respect of clauses 6 and 8—amendments which are in fact consequential upon the acceptance of the amendments moved to clause 1—will fall away.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister repeatedly proclaimed the principal virtue of this Bill as being the provision of a council for the Indian community which will be largely representative. I think this change relating to the Indian Council has been widely acclaimed inside and outside Parliament. During Second Reading I made it clear that despite the opposition of my party to the principle of racially separated councils, we saw this Bill for what it was, namely an amendment to the existing legislation in terms of which there is in existence an Indian Council. In that sense the principle involved in this legislation is-to make that council largely elected instead of totally nominated. For that reason we on this side of the House indicated that, despite our opposition to the system, we supported the Second Reading because it provided for a fundamental improvement in the method of the composition of the existing Indian Council. That was the attitude taken by us during Second Reading.

We were also motivated by the fact that in addition to the severe limitation of its powers—a limitation necessitated by the system itself—the council was to a large extent being hamstrung because of its being a nominated body. It has always been open to attack on the grounds mainly that because it was a nominated body, it could be in no way regarded as being representative of the Indian community. The council itself has been very sensitive of this disability in respect of the vital question of its power to be able to talk to those who claim that it is representative of the Indian community which it seeks to serve. Quite recently we had the example of the attitude of the Indian Council and of the Indian community to the Government’s constitutional proposals, when the Indian Council itself said that one of the reasons for its total rejection of these proposals was the fact that it was a nominated body and hence not really able to speak on behalf of the Indian community.

Now we have at least a council which will be largely elected and which will have the merits of perhaps being regarded as a better barometer of Indian public opinion. I said at Second Reading that the registration of Indian voters to participate in the elections of this council had been most encouraging. I think the figure indicated that some 70% of those eligible to register had in fact registered. So we do at least have the situation where we are going to have a council which is going to be far more representative of the Indian community.

However, in support of the amendments which I have moved to this clause, I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why not go the whole hog? Why have a council which is almost entirely elected, but still allow for five nominated members to the council? I believe the hon. the Minister should not retain the principle of nominated members at all.

The proposed new section 1(b) reads as follows—

1. (i) three members appointed by the leader of the majority party in the council if the number of the elected members on the council who are members of his party is 34 or more; or
2. (ii) if the number of the elected members on the council who are members of his party is less than 34, two members appointed by the said leader of the majority party and one member appointed by the leader of the Official Opposition in the council.

The proposed new section 1 (c) provides for—

This means in effect that the leader of the majority party is certain of having at least four of the nominated members to add to the number of his elected members, and that he will possibly be entitled to nominate the full five. Why is this necessary? During Second Reading, both by way of interjection and during his reply to the debate, the hon. the Minister used as an analogy our Senate. He indicated that the Senate had for years provided for the principle of having nominated members. He also used as an example the question of the convenience of being able to nominate members. I believe, however, that the analogy of the Senate, as advanced by the hon. the Minister, is a very bad analogy indeed when we are dealing with this particular legislation. The Senate has never been a directly elected body. It has been a body which has largely been created by the electoral colleges. Provision has also been made through the years for certain of its members to be nominated. What we are dealing with here is a council which, in terms of this legislation—and that is, as I have said, the main merits of this Bill—will be an almost entirely elected council. I believe that in that context it is not correct that provision should be made for nominated members in addition. If we are going to move towards a situation of giving the Indian community a council which is elected on the basis of a direct vote, I believe it is quite wrong to provide—in the same legislation and for the same council—that some of its members should be nominated by some other authority.

The other argument advanced by the hon. the Minister was—if one can term it that—the argument of convenience. He said there were often cases of people who, although they possessed the necessary qualifications, have for some reason or other not been elected. I believe that is an equally bad argument. In a democratically elected council, I believe, the question of convenience in regard to the membership of that council is one which should be settled at the polling booth. If there are people who are qualified to sit on this council they should take their chance during the election. They should take their chance along with other candidates. I do not believe that there should be some privileged group who should sit and await nomination by some higher authority. I believe the principle is wrong. I believe it is wrong to confuse the issue of nominated members with a council which is largely to be elected. It is for these reasons that I have moved the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the two amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in lines 18 to 29, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:

1. (b) five members appointed by the leaders of the parties represented in the Council, according to the principle of proportional representation.

1. (2) on page 3, in lines 30 and 31, to omit paragraph (c).

In motivating these amendments I want to examine, firstly, the rather laborious argument of the hon. member for Musgrave. I think the amendments of the Official Opposition must be looked at first. These amendments to me clearly demonstrate the utter irresponsibility of the Official Opposition. In fact, I would suggest that their two amendments clearly demonstrate their irrelevance in this House. Who is advising the Official Opposition? Who is behind this new “verkrampte” outlook of theirs? If ever I have seen anything “verkramp”, it is the proposal to omit paragraphs (b) and (c) in their entirety, as motivated by the hon. member for Musgrave. These are amendments that go completely against the wishes of the Indian people. They go against the best interests of the Indian people. The amendments seek to remove in its entirety the possibility of the Indian people nominating individuals to their council. Surely the hon. member for Musgrave must realize that the nomination of a member by a fully elected body—I stress the words “fully elected body”—means that such a nominated person is in that sense also elected.

Nonsense!

Oh, for heaven’s sake! “Nonsense”, says the hon. member. 40 People are elected and they are then to nominate five others …

As we nominate Senators.

As we nominate Senators, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti says. It is the caucuses of the parties that elect them. This is contained in the legislation for the Coloured Persons Representative Council and it is contained in the legislation applicable to this Parliament. Whichever way one looks at it, even our Senators are elected by way of being nominated by the various caucuses of the various parties, but—and this is my problem with the hon. the Minister—this is done on the principle of proportional representation. Section 30(3) of the South Africa Constitution Act makes reference to this. It reads—

This is what I seek to have embodied with my first amendment before the House. There I ask for five members to be appointed by the leaders of the parties represented in the council according to the principle of proportional representation. We in the NRP support the principle of having five appointed members. We believe the Indian Council can benefit immeasurably by this because it can then include in its ranks men and/or women with, firstly, special qualifications; secondly, with particular knowledge of the important aspects that affect the Indian people, and so forth. The circumstances are manifold. I want to say again that I cannot for the life of me understand the amendments moved by the hon. member for Musgrave …

Neither can I!

… which will have the effect of removing all reference to nominated or appointed members and thus restricting the Indian Council.

Let me get on to our problem. We feel very strongly about the basis of such appointments. The basis of the appointments as outlined in the proposals currently embodied in the paragraphs we are dealing with, i.e. paragraphs (b) and (c), is in our view completely wrong. We feel it is unfair and we feel that it goes against the very principle of democracy. Let us examine the situation. I think we dealt with this to some degree during the Second Reading debate. If the majority party has in excess of 34 members, that party will in fact nominate all five members for appointment. The minority party will have none. This, incidentally, refers to only the Official Opposition and no other minority party as may be represented in that council.

I see the hon. the Minister looks puzzled, but if he will care to examine clause 1 he will see that it clearly states “… one member appointed by the leader of the Official Opposition in the Council”. There is no provision for any other members should they be representative of other minor parties represented in the council. Therefore the best that can happen to the combined Opposition is that they can have one nominated member. I submit that this arrangement can and will upset the balance of representation as determined by the democratic process. We feel very strongly that there should be five appointed members to the South African Indian Council and that they shall be appointed in accordance with the principle of proportional representation. In this regard I would urge the hon. the Minister once again to look at the South Africa Constitution Act and to use that as a guideline in determining how these five people shall be appointed to the South African Indian Council.

Mr. Chairman, I think this discussion has been enlightening and interesting, and I also accept the sincerity of the motives of my hon. friends opposite in moving these amendments. They are interesting, but I think we are fundamentally unable to find one another here because our approach is different. This body, in our view, is a parliamentary body which may develop—and I am sure will develop—into a fully-fledged Indian Parliament in due course. In the Second Reading debate, although no one is committed to that policy in voting for this Bill, I did emphasize that I had it at the back of my mind, when the Bill was drafted, that the body would develop into a fully parliamentary institution. That is the first point. Secondly, in developing for the Indians an institution that will be a parliamentary institution, we did not want to deviate too much from our own parliamentary system here in South Africa, and indeed from the model on which we base our political conduct in this House and in the Other Place, i.e. the Westminster System. We are thinking of amending the Westminster System, but not of abandoning it. Therefore this clause is based on the traditional South African system and also seeks to remain very close to the Westminster tradition. In respect of our Senate, there has been the principle since 1910 that after the Senate has been elected by the electoral colleges, the Prime Minister advises the President on the appointment of what I think were eight members originally. Then, in addition to that, the electoral college comes together and elects a further number of Senators for each province on a proportional basis. That is exactly what we are attaining here. We are remaining true to the South African tradition, because for the Indians, for the Coloureds and, in future, for us there will not be a Senate. There will be no Senates for these people. So we want to retain what I believe is a healthy principle, i.e. nomination partly by the executive and partly by the legislative body, and I think it should already be provided for in this Bill, and it should be done in the one and only House that the Indian Parliament will have. For that reason this provision has been included and for that reason I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. Nomination is not, as the hon. member for Musgrave suggested, a departure from the democratic tradition or practice. It is done in many democratic Parliaments. Indeed, I think the most remarkable system of nomination one finds in the mother of all Parliaments, in Westminster itself, where the House of Lords, which is a hereditary body, has its numbers increased from time to time by the creation of peers by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Government.

That is an Upper House.

But now there will be no Upper House and yet one wants a system of nomination, as we do. That is where we differ. We want a system of nomination for the reasons I have stated during the Second Reading debate. It is the prerogative of the executive—in the case of two members and the prerogative of the elected body in the case of the other three members—to elect members who have a special contribution to make, to elect members who perhaps fell by the wayside, but have a place to fill in that Parliament. I think that is very sound, and I am glad such a provision is contained in our proposals for the future constitution of this Parliament as well.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why he differentiates between the two methods of nomination, one by the Prime Minister and one by the executive, when both are done on the recommendation of the Prime Minister?

No, only the nomination of two members by the State President is done on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

The others he appoints himself.

How can he? There is nothing in the legislation to say that he appoints representatives of the Opposition. I am afraid I do not understand what the hon. member is driving at.

The majority leader selects under both systems.

Let me have a look at the clause.

The proposed new section 1(c).

The proposed new section l(b)(i) reads as follows—

I see the hon. member’s point now. However, the leader of the party and the leader of the Opposition represent those two bodies. I cannot for a moment conceive that he will make a suggestion without conferring with his colleagues. It is merely more efficient and more streamlined …

But paragraph (c) is exactly the same since in terms of that the leader of the majority party shall again recommend two people for appointment as members.

The position is that in the one case the members are nominated in terms of the prerogative of the executive. The leader of the majority party then acts as the head of the executive, as the hon. the Prime Minister does in our Parliament. In the case of the others, the leader of the majority party acts as the member of the council leading the particular party in that body. There is a difference, and that difference is what we are trying to enshrine in the Bill.

He still picks them both times.

As I was saying, we have the precedent of the House of Lords and also other precedents. We intend applying a similar system to the other Parliaments that we will still create, and therefore I regret I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave.

The hon. member for Umhlanga accepted the principle of the nomination of members by the body concerned. The nominations are not made by anybody outside. At present the Minister can nominate members, but with the passage of this Bill that will no longer be the case. The hon. member wanted them all to be nominated by the Indian Council and none by the executive. As I have explained, it is in order to maintain the tradition that is established in South Africa that we are doing this. The parliamentary system is a cruel system in a way. The spoils of war go to the victor in this case as much as in any other forms of combat. Therefore I think I must stand by what I have suggested and retain the prerogative of the executive to nominate additional members to that body.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendments I have moved. I cannot agree with the analogy he drew with either the House of Lords or the Senate. As I have said, the difference is that we are dealing here with a body that is directly elected by the people concerned, i.e. the Indian Council as elected by the Indian community. I believe that in these circumstances it is not correct or healthy to have a combination of both elected and nominated members. I think the systems are entirely different. If the hon. the Minister set out, as I believe he did, to try to give this council more credibility by making it an elected body, he should have made it an entirely elected body and not both an elected and a nominated body.

On the issue of the difference between the two types of nominated members provided for in paragraphs (b) and (c), I think the question here is really what the prerogative of the State President is. According to these provisions three members shall be appointed by the leader of the majority party while the other two will be appointed by the State President on the advice of the leader of the majority party.

Is the State President bound to accept the advice of the leader of the majority party in the council? If he is, there is no difference between the two types of nominated members. I think that is really the issue. Or does the fact that provision is made for them in different paragraphs imply that the State President has the right to veto any people nominated by the leader of the majority party? What otherwise is the difference?

In your argument you are overlooking the whole first part of subparagraph (ii).

Not at all. What is the difference between the three members appointed by the leader of the majority party on the one hand and the two members appointed by the State President on the advice of the leader of the majority party on the other hand? What is the power of the State President in regard to the second provision? If he has the power of veto, then there is a difference. However, if he does not have that power and he is obliged to accept the advice of the leader of the majority party, there is no difference. That is our problem. The hon. the Minister has not satisfied us in that regard either in the Second Reading or in the reply he has just given. My concern with regard to this matter is that the natural balance of power in this elected body, the political dispensation resulting from the choice the people have made, can be upset by an authority to nominate members that might upset that balance. In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister indicated that he is not prepared to accept the amendments I have moved, I want to move as a further amendment—

1. (2) The members appointed in terms of paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) shall have and exercise the same duties, rights, privileges and immunities as elected members of the Council, except that they shall not participate in any vote taken in the Council on a motion of censure of or no confidence in the executive committee.

Although it is a limitation, it is not as much as I would have wanted. But it would at least ensure that a vital matter, such as a matter of confidence in the council, will be determined by the elected members of the council and that the nominated members will not be able to interfere. This would be far more in keeping with democratic traditions, at least in regard to the vital matter of whether there is confidence or not in the Executive Committee. I therefore moved the further amendment in regard to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I must point out to the hon. the Minister that I am unable to understand his explanation in regard to the Senate. Section 28(1 )(a) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act provides that the Senate shall, inter alia, consist of—

As I understand the situation, these Senators are nominated by reason of their special knowledge either the Coloured people, the Indian people or the Bantu people that pertain in the particular province for which they are nominated. The Act also provides that other Senators shall be elected by the electoral college. Therefore I do not think the hon. the Minister has a very good analogy when he comes forward with that particular suggestion. We can understand that it may suit the Indian community to appoint people with specialized knowledge who will act in that council and provide them with the expertise which they may not have among the body of people who are elected. That we can understand and that we can support. However, we feel that a basis in terms of which a proportional number of members are allocated to parties represented in that elected body, would be more fair and reasonable. I do not know why the hon. the Minister is unable to accept that particular part of our amendment. It does not upset the principle of having people nominated, a principle in which we are in favour of. The hon. the Minister has talked of the spoils of war and he also said it was a cruel system. I would like to know anybody who knows more of a cruel system than we do. However, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he can safely accept that amendment because it will still allow the majority party the majority of the numbers who are …

Do you not understand? In practice it goes to the caucus in one case and in the other case not.

I understand that completely. However, I cannot see what objection the hon. the Minister can put forward that it shall be a nominated number…

That is what the Bill provides.

… five people nominated in proportion to the members elected for every party in the council. The hon. the Minister has not argued that case with us. We ask him to argue the case with us so that we can understand what his problem is. That is our problem.

He has argued with you.

If you will agree to ask the hon. the Minister to argue the case, Mr. Chairman, I will appreciate it. I want to point out that we are moving an amendment of our own in this regard and that the party on my right has also moved an amendment. According to the rules of the House only one is going to be put. I therefore want to make it quite clear that in voting we will be voting for our amendment. Should the amendment of the party on my right be rejected our amendment will then fall away. I want to make that quite clear. Of course we regard our own amendment as being superior. However, the rules of the House will not allow us to vote for it separately. I hope that is quite clear.

Mr. Chairman, the problem is that my hon. friends opposite, born and bred in the British tradition, do not understand the workings of the Westminster System. [Interjections.] In terms of the Constitution of Westminster government is seen as consisting of three tiers; the monarch or the State President, the executive and the legislative body. [Interjections.] What we are doing here is that we are giving recognition, in allowing the appointment of additional members of the council, to the functions and the interests of the executive in the first instance. We say that the leader of the majority party—in South Africa he will be known as the Prime Minister of the Indian people—will have the right to go to the State President too and, on the basis of considerations that weigh with the executive, ask for the appointment of certain members. The Legislative Assembly in turn, nominate two people through its leaders. That should satisfy the hon. member for Durban Point. In the one case the leader goes to the caucus and in the other case he acts under the prerogative vested in the head of the executive.

He picks in both cases.

No. I am sorry, but that provision has to stay in the Bill as it is part of South Africa’s tradition. This provision will become more important as we shall deal with other similar Bills in future which will affect the other Houses and therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendments.

What does the magic number 34 mean?

The number enables us to find a more simple formula than the proportional election formula that we have in the case of the Other Place at the moment. There are 40 elected members of the Indian Council and they have to appoint proportionally three more members. Hon. members will therefore realize that there should be one for the majority of every group of 13 in that assembly. If the council is therefore elected, the majority party must automatically get two representatives, while the party with the majority amongst the remaining group of 13 will elect the third representative.

It is as simple as that.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart negatived and amendment (1) moved by Mr. B. W. B. Page dropped (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart negatived and amendment (2) moved by Mr. B. W. B. Page dropped (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Further amendment moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment which appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Orange Grove, as follows—

The effect of this amendment is that we wish to ensure that the normal principles and conventions apply in regard to the dissolution of the Indian Council. Clause 3 as it appears in the Bill, provides that the council, of which the life is normally five years, “may at any time be dissolved by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette …” The State President may, furthermore, extend the life of the council for a maximum period of a further 12 months if an election for the council were to coincide with an election for the House of Assembly or for the CRC. In this case we are dealing with the Indian Council. I am conscious of the admission made by the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate, and also this afternoon, that in drafting this legislation he had in mind the Indian Parliament proposed under the Government’s constitutional proposals. That is why we are particularly concerned and particularly cautious about what powers the State President is given in this legislation. The same principles and conventions as are applied by the State President to the dissolution of this Parliament, the White Parliament, should surely also be applied by him to the proposed Indian Council. In his remarks on the previous clause the hon. the Minister referred to the British tradition of some hon. members of the House. I do not want to become too involved in a deep constitutional argument, but one can refer to the indivisibility of the Crown in days gone by. There have been many debates and ample precedents in history—both in this country, before becoming a republic, and also in other countries—on this very issue. That is why we are very cautious when we are dealing with this sort of principle in legislation. We know that the power of the State President—irrespective of his legal powers— in respect of the dissolution of Parliament is governed largely by convention. We know, for instance, that the power is not an arbitrary or absolute one, but that he has to act on the advice of the executive. This is a principle which I should like to see enforced also in regard to the Indian Council. In terms of this clause, the State President appears to have absolute power, either to dissolve the council or to extend its life for a maximum period of 12 months beyond the five years which is set down in the Bill.

Firstly, we believe that the State President should only be entitled to dissolve the council on advice of the executive of the council itself. However, as I read the clause, the State President can at any stage on his own volition dissolve the council. On whose authority will he do so?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he realizes what the position would have been if what he proposes had been the law in South Africa on 4 September 1939?

I realize that, but what are the conventions? Section 7(5) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, provides—

So, provision is made for certain conventions to obtain. I am concerned as to whether these conventions are going to obtain in regard to the S.A. Indian Council and, if so, what are the convebtions which would obtain? I believe that if there is to be a dissolution of the council, it should surely be on the advice of the executive of the council. I want the hon. the Minister to assure me on that point because as I read the clause this is not the case at the present time.

Secondly, I am still in no way satisfied in regard to the provision in the clause which relates to the extension of the life of the council for a period not exceeding 12 months if the dissolution of the council should in any way coincide with elections for this House of Assembly or the CRC. The hon. the Minister was not clear in his reply to the concern which we expressed in this regard during the Second Reading debate. It does seem clearly to be a move on the part of the Government in framing this legislation to ensure that, where necessary, simultaneous elections cannot be held for the White Parliament, the Coloured Parliament and the Indian Council as it is at the present time. My question is: Why should there be the need to prevent simultaneous elections taking place? We on this side of the House believe that we are dealing here with a South African community who are all going to be affected at various times by similar issues, and even on the Government’s basis of separate representation there seems to be no reason whatsoever why elections should not be held simultaneously dealing with common issues of the various groups concerned. I therefore find it strange and unacceptable that provision should be made for the extension of the life of the council if by any chance the dissolution of that council should coincide with the elections of the other bodies.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to state that we shall not be supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. Although the hon. member may find it strange that provision is made for the extension of the duration of the council for a period not exceeding 12 months, I should like to point out that in section 71(1 )(b) of the Republic of South Africa Constitutional Act, 1961, we have exactly the same provision applicable to our provincial councils, where the period can actually be extended to 18 months. So, we on these benches have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the clause and shall accordingly support it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reassure the hon. member for Musgrave immediately in regard to the first point of his argument. The conventions which apply in the relationship between the State President and Parliament in terms of our constitutional law also apply in his relationship with the S.A. Indian Council. Because these conventions are purely conventional, they are not written into the legislation. I may also say that there is a clause which stipulates that if there is anything which is not provided for in this Bill as far as procedure, etc., is concerned, the precedents of this Parliament will apply.

I now want to deal with the second and more interesting suggestion, and that is that there is something strange about our inclusion in this Bill of a clause which stipulates that the State President can exercise his discretion to avoid simultaneous elections. I want to assure the hon. member that we merely do that because at present—and probably for the next five or 10 years—we simply do not have the machinery to conduct three elections on one date. We cannot organize elections for Coloureds, Indians and Whites on the same date. We do not have the staff and there are not enough people in those communities with the necessary experience. However, I am confident that as time goes by and the people in these communities gain experience, the need for such a provision will fall away. We can then reconsider the matter. For purely practical reasons, however, it is necessary at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply to the first question and the assurance he has given me in regard to the operation of conventions concerning the Indian Council: Does this specifically mean that the State President, in dealing with the question of the dissolution of the council, will act on the advice of or in conjunction with the executive of that council or does it mean that he will act on the advice of the Cabinet of the White Parliament?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will remember that the convention relating to the dissolution of Parliament, the South African precedent, is not an absolutely binding precedent, because on 4 September 1939—that is why I mentioned it to him—the then Prime Minister lost the support of the majority of the House and the Governor-General at the time refused to dissolve Parliament although it was recommended by the Prime Minister. There is therefore a certain amount of discretion left to the State President in times of crisis. I am quite sure that if some crisis arose for the Indian Council, the State President would also be permitted to exercise some discretion in the matter. However, it will still be the same as the convention concerning this Parliament.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The argument in support of this amendment is basically the same as the argument used in support of our amendment to clause 3. Again we want to be sure that the State President is bound by the same principles and conventions in relation to the Indian Council as he is in relation to this Parliament. In terms of this clause the State President shall in the first place appoint the leader of the majority party as the chairman of the executive and shall, in the second place, on the advice of the chairman appoint three others. All these members will hold office—in the phraseology of the clause—“during the pleasure of the State President”. In terms of the proposed section 10(3) the State President shall, furthermore, fill any vacancy in the Executive Committee in the same manner. Legally it would seem that the State President’s hands are tied in two respects. In the first instance he must appoint the majority leader as chairman and, secondly, he must follow the advice of the chairman in appointing the other three members of the Executive Committee.

My basic constitutional questions in this regard are again whether the State President, in the exercise of these powers, will, in the first place be able to act arbitrarily; secondly, whether he will be guided by the White Cabinet and, thirdly, whether he will be guided by the Executive Committee of the Indian Council. Later on one might well ask whether he will be guided by the Cabinet Council, but I shall leave that matter to be debated next year or on subsequent occasions. However, as far as the provision as it stands at the present time is concerned, I should like to know what the constitutional position of the State President will be in the exercise of the powers which are given to him in terms of this provision. Again, we would prefer him to be bound by the normal conventions and principles which obtain.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is a bit premature in suggesting that. At present this body still has the powers and functions of the old South African Indian Council; it is not yet a Parliament. Therefore sovereignty in South Africa in every respect continues to reside in this Parliament and in certain respects the State President will have to act on the advice of this Government. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. If, at a later date, we can reopen this matter when other Bills are before Parliament, we could hold an interesting discussion, but I do think, with respect, that my hon. friend is a little bit premature at present.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Orange Grove on the Order Paper, as follows—

I think the amendment is self-explanatory because it has certain advantages for the smooth working of the council. If the situation should arise where there is a coalition or pact, one can run into difficulties if one limits the definition of “majority” as is done in this particular clause at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Rondebosch for this amendment. I think he is raising a special aspect, and, as he said, there might be embarrassment in future. For that reason I have pleasure in accepting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of unnecessarily prolonging the debate on the Third Reading. However, I think it is necessary to restate our point of view to the legislation at this stage. We have stated our position clearly in the Second Reading and also during the Committee Stage, namely that we are opposed in principle to the principle of separate racial councils, but that we recognize in this legislation elements which are an improvement. Our attitude in this debate has been that we also recognize in this legislation elements which are very similar indeed to the suggested amendments to the Constitution on which the Government has proposed and, indeed, the hon. the Minister has on more than one occasion said that he has had these amendments in mind when drafting this legislation. When we look at the legislation before the House at the present time we look at it on the basis of a system to which we are opposed, i.e. the system of separate racial councils. We also look upon it on the basis of a trial run, perhaps, for the Government’s constitution proposals, and in those two senses we would not normally support the legislation. However, as I have said, it is an improvement on existing legislation. There is an Indian Council in existence, and the principle we see in this Bill is the principle of doing away with a council which has been entirely nominated, and of replacing it with a council which is going to be largely elected. In that sense it is an improvement. If we were to look at that principle, we would obviously accept it as an improvement. Inasmuch as it makes this council an almost entirely elected body it is certainly a improvement, because it makes it much more representative. This is a council which, I believe, will be a far better barometer of Indian public opinion than that we have at the present time.

I do not think one should have any illusions as to how this council is going to be used. I think that amongst the Indian community there will be found competent and able people who will participate as sincere representatives in the operation of the council. I believe they will do so in the best interests of public service, and that they will endeavour to serve their community to the best of their ability. I also believe that the Government should be under no illusion that the Indian Council will become a subservient servile body that will agree with the Government at every instance.

They are not expected to!

I believe the Government should realize that the Indian Council, as in the case of other racial councils that have been created in South Africa, will be used as a platform from which not only the Indian community will be served, but from which will also be set out very often the views of the Indian community in opposition to basic Government policy. I think the Government should realize that this is likely to be the situation operating in regard to the Indian Council. I think that the Indian Council, also as a representative body, will use the opportunity provided of trying to speak on behalf of the Indian community, but not of doing so in isolation from other racial groups. I believe that, as time goes on, the Indian community, which is conscious of the fact that it cannot operate in isolation from other racial groups, will more and more use this council as a platform in order to try to bring about greater co-operation and alliance between itself and other racial groups in South Africa.

I hope that the Government, which is creating this legislation, which is providing for a largely elected body, will treat the representations by the Indian Council with sympathy and with understanding when this body is used by the Indian community to speak on behalf of the community and to deal with its attitude towards the larger community in South Africa. I hope that the Government will respond to the council, treating its message as a message coming from a section of the South African community which is entitled to be heard in the wider councils of South Africa. In the sense in which this Bill is an improvement on the existing council in that it provides for an elected body, in the sense in which it will give us a far better barometer of Indian public opinion, we on this side of the House will give this Bill our support at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I have never in my life heard such grudging support for a measure as I have heard from the hon. member for Musgrave. In my Second Reading speech I referred to the fact—and I stand by it—that this was the beginning of the end of our current political structure as we knew it today. During the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister said—I think I quote him correctly—that this body was a parliamentary body. This being so, I believe that this fully elected Indian Council now clearly establishes the group identity of the Indians in the sense that here he is with his council fully elected. Irrespective of what the hon. member for Musgrave says, I believe this is a fully elected council and I do not accept it as being anything other than a fully elected council. We have a White Parliament, as we know. We will have an elected Indian Council and, similarly, an elected Coloured Council. These are the forerunners of the changes that are to come. Let us face facts. As from next year, this Parliament will be the Parliament for Whites, and for Whites only. Legislation which we are introducing today and legislation which will probably be introduced in the future, will ultimately create out of this Indian Council an Indian Parliament. The hon. the Minister has already foreshadowed it. Let me hasten to assure the hon. the Minister that we are not going to be associated with that legislation until such time as we have examined it. That Indian Parliament which will be created, we presume, side by side with a Coloured Parliament, and that will put us in a situation where clearly group identity is established for the Whites, the Coloured and the Indians. I want to ask the Official Opposition where they stand in this regard. I contend that they are now completely and utterly irrelevant as a result of their strange utterances in support of this particular measure, because they are in fact supporting the ultimate establishment of group identity for the Indians.

Absolute nonsense.

This is precisely what they have done here this afternoon. It clearly indicates their complete lack of direction, and of course their complete and utter lack of policy. All that was said here today and in the Second Reading debate just passed them by. They have missed the ball. They have missed it completely.

Why do you not worry about the Government?

I am worried about the Government, but I am also very worried about my country.

Let me say that we on these benches, in line with the way we have always acted, act responsibly and we will therefore support this measure for what it is. It is a step in the right direction. This is something we believe should have been done years ago, because it puts decision-making in respect of the Indians where it belongs; in the hands of the Indians. We wholeheartedly support this measure at Third Reading, although I must confess that we would have liked to have seen the acceptance of our amendment in respect of the appointed representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude taken by the Official Opposition I think is understandable. I think they were in a position where they could not very well oppose this measure, because it makes of the South African Indian Council a fully representative body. I think one can also appreciate their stand that they are in principle against the concept of separate institutions. One is inclined to believe that their attitude is probably based on the realization that half is better than nothing at all. We on this side of the House will have to accept that we differ fundamentally from the Official Opposition and that there is no way in which our attitudes can meet.

The reaction of the NRP to this Bill, however, is an entirely different matter. The NRP, which happens to be the majority party in the provincial council of Natal and is still a political factor in that province, although it is only in the provincial council, has seen fit enthusiastically to endorse this Bill in all its stages. Some very interesting questions arise from the support of that party for this measure. The NRP has said, since its inception, that it believes in the plural nature of South African society, and according to its proclaimed statements to that effect, one could possibly expect it to go some way towards local self-determination in the creation of separate institutions for the Coloured and Indian population groups. Consistently since the establishment of the NRP, however, its members have been stating quite clearly that they believe in common institutions, in common legislative authorities for the White, Coloured and Indian people.

Where?

In the pamphlet they published before the election last year they said quite clearly—

They end that particular paragraph by saying, with reference to federal elements—

Read it properly. Do not misinform the House.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

… I have some difficulty in divining how I can misinform the House by reading verbatim from a pamphlet of the NRP. [Interjections.] The very last sentence in this particular paragraph states—

They do not know what they are saying.

We are listening here to a story which is entirely different to what the voters of Natal had been told they can expect from an NRP administration.

Rubbish!

That is rubbish, and you know it! You should be ashamed of yourself!

They have already shown, in Natal, that they want to implement this principle of group identities— I give the hon. member for Umhlanga that much—but group identities given expression within common institutions. [Interjections.] They have already shown that they want to implement that principle in Natal.

That is right.

They have indicated as much by the steps they have taken towards giving local affairs committees full membership of local authorities.

Do you not agree with that?

We have already seen that in Natal. [Interjections.] We have already seen the first steps in that direction in the statements of their leaders, the hon. member for Durban Point…

What do you think about Sunday cinemas?

Order!

… about the establishment of consultative committees as a fore-runner to the ideas they want to implement.

Tell us about Sunday cinemas.

It is quite clear that although the NRP accepts the plural nature of South African society and the concept of group identities, it does not endorse our concept of separate institutions.

You are waking up!

They have shown that quite clearly. I therefore think that it is incumbent upon the NRP to tell the voters of Natal exactly where they stand and how they reconcile their pronouncements in their election pamphlets with their statements here: how they reconcile the concept of institutions in which, on a separate roll basis, there will be representation for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians with their support for this separatist measure which is before us today. It is, after all, a fact that 90% of the NRP’s representation in this House comes from Natal. It is also a fact that 85% of the community this Bill will serve are resident in Natal. Much as we welcome their support on this measure, I think the NRP must make it quite clear to the voters of South Africa that this Bill is a natural step in the development process which has been set in motion by this side of the House and which would quite clearly have as its ultimate goal the establishment of separate parliaments for Whites, Indians and Coloureds. It has come out in this debate according to what the hon. the Minister himself has said that we on this side of the House see this as a parliamentary body. I think the NRP should tell the people of South Africa in the first instance whether they accept that this is but a further step towards the establishment of separate parliamentary institutions for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, because the NRP have cast all sorts of doubts on the S.A. Indian Council and on the idea of separate institutions.

If hon. members in the NRP benches have any doubt about their public utterances, I can quote from another pamphlet of theirs in which one reads: “Fidel Castro and Leonid Brezhnev want you to vote Nat”. The pamphlet, complete with a hammer and sickle, was distributed in Johannesburg. One also reads in it of “Coloureds, Indians and Whites in one political system on a negotiated basis”. That is the sort of scurrilous thing that was distributed by the NRP who, this afternoon and throughout the debate on this measure, have been sweet reasonableness and who have been trying to show the world that they are, if anything, as close to the Nationalists as one can possibly hope to get. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not averse to giving another member of the NRP the chance to speak. The hon. members must now give the hon. member a chance to continue with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the hon. members of the NRP must tell the voters of Natal and of South Africa that their support for this measure is in effect no more and no less than support for the first step in the constitutional process to which this side of the House is leading the country. Last year we presented this process to the voters of South Africa and we have received their endorsement of it against the bitter opposition of the members of the NRP in this House and of their candidates across the length and breadth of the country. If the hon. members of the NRP accept that this is a step in the direction of the creation of an Indian Parliament, as they have said, they must also tell the voters of South Africa whether they accept the logical consequences of that step.

If they do not accept it—the hon. member for Umhlanga has indicated that the fact that they support this Bill does not necessarily mean that they support the constitutional proposals that will come before the House next year—they must also tell the voters of South Africa how in their view under their administration, if they were ever to come to power—heaven forbid!—the S.A. Indian Council would feature in their concept according to the election pamphlets they have distributed amongst the voters.

Who are you talking about? Which party are you talking about now?

If the NRP say in their pamphlets that every group or community of the three we are talking about will be represented in every authority which has jurisdiction over it, it means that under their policy each of these three communities will eventually have representation in this House. It can mean nothing else.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, in the light of this Bill and what the hon. member has just said, he is trying to say that this Parliament will at some time in the future have jurisdiction over the Indian people in this country?

This Parliament at present has jurisdiction over White, Indian and Coloured. I am asking the hon. member whether, according to their statements here … [Interjections.]

Order!

Our position is quite clear: Three Parliaments will evolve in due course and each Parliament will have jurisdiction over its own matters.

Correct!

I am trying to get—apd that is what the Voters of this country have every right to expect—to the logical conclusion of the attitude taken by these hon. members. When they support this measure, do they also support the further step? Are they prepared to say to the people of South Africa that they are prepared to support the further step in the process which we have inaugurated, or do they want to go some other way? Do they in their federal concept see this South African Indian Council becoming a South African Indian Parliament? Do they see it as a provincial, local or regional body which will stop there? The hon. members of the NRP must tell the people of South Africa whether their support for this measure means that they will support separatism up to a particular point and no further. They must then tell the people of South Africa up to what point they are prepared to accept separatism and from where their concept of pluralism or federalism—call it what one may—will start operating. The blatant truth is that this party has told the people of South Africa that it believes in group identity, that it believes in some form of regional or group autonomy, but that it also believes in an eventual mixed super Parliament which will act as an overall body…

A Cabinet Council.

… which will be elected “on a separate roll basis”. If the difference between our party’s and their party’s constitutional concept is so slight as to be negligible, it is time that they told the people of South Africa so.

You must tell the people of your own policy.

If the difference is still substantial, they must point out how they can reconcile their support for this Bill with their constitutional concept.

Mr. Chairman, I find it rather disturbing that a fairly intelligent hon. member from Natal had to tell us this afternoon about the considerable difficulty he is having in understanding NRP policy. I think this difficulty arises essentially from two view points. Firstly, it is doubtful whether the hon. member for Umlazi was in the House when this party put its point of view so clearly during the Second Reading and Committee Stage of this Bill. If the hon. member for Umlazi was not here we can understand his ignorance of these things.

I was here.

For the benefit of the hon. member, and perhaps other hon. members in the ranks of the NP who may be having some difficulty in the interpretation of our policy, I would like to point out that the logical conclusion of the process which has been started by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs today, is a federal and confederal structure of Government in South Africa. We do not—and let me repeat that for the benefit of the hon. member for Umlazi—do not believe in separate institutions which are going to fragment South Africa. We believe in a unified South Africa where every South African, Black, White, Asiatic and Coloured will be a member and a citizen of South Africa. The point of departure of the policy of this party, is that we believe in a sincere devolution of power and not the separation of people into fragments of South Africa.

I think the second problem which the hon. member for Umlazi is having is that he has now discovered that his party is moving into the accepted facts of political life and that the failure of NP policy leaves them only the alternative, and in this case the right alternative, to move into the realm of the policy of the NRP. I can appreciate the contortions and the discomfort from which the hon. member for Umlazi is suffering in regard to this particular Bill. He is now trying to draw red herrings across the trail by asking questions, while it is quite obvious that he can find the answer by studying our policy. Furthermore I believe, as we have mentioned during the Second Reading debate and as emphasized by the hon. member for Umhlanga, that this party does not, by supporting the Bill commit itself to the probable outcome of the constitutional arrangements, which we hope will still be discussed in the House at a future date. What we are concerned about here is to give the Indian South African the opportunity to control those issues which are of intimate concern to themselves, by themselves, through an elected council and not a nominated one. We believe that this represents a considerable improvement in the position of the Indian South African of today and that is why we are voting for the Bill. If we are here building towards the future, we believe that we are laying the corner-stone and the foundation for what will ultimately become a federal and a confederal political system and not one of separation with separate institutions in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by expressing my gratitude to the hon. members of the Opposition in allowing me to pass the legislation through all its stages now. I also wish to express my gratitude to them for the spirit in which the discussions took place. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Umlazi, for he brought life to the debate by putting a few very pertinent questions to the NRP. What shocks me in particular in this regard, is that pamphlet, which he was so kind as to send to me, in which the accusation appears that the communists want the nation to vote for the National Party. Hon. members of the NRP should remember that the information section of their predecessor, the UP, had a fine reputation and that they should not destroy this now that they have become the heirs to that party. It is clear that the standards already differ somewhat. I should like to express gratitude to the hon. member for Umhlanga in particular. As a result of the hon. member’s participation in this debate we have a much clearer understanding of certain aspects of his party’s standpoint. What I find encouraging, is the fact that they openly commit themselves to maintaining group identity, ethnicity, in South Africa. In this regard they are showing progress and in so doing they find themselves, of course, on common ground with the Government. No matter how much we differ in other fields, in this field we have the same idea at the back of our minds. Even if we also differ as far as methods are concerned, I believe that we will be able to conduct far more fruitful debates with the NRP on this difficult ethnic question in South Africa in the future.

They have the ability to act constructively. They will be able to make a contribution to debates which will really benefit South Africa I appreciate this very much and am also glad that this is so.

The hon. member for Musgrave put the standpoint of his party once again, i.e. that they are voting for the measure, not because they support the principle of separate institutions, but because they think that the existing Indian Council is improved hereby. We fully understand the hon. member’s standpoint in this regard, and I repeat what I said to the hon. member during the Second Reading debate, i.e. that the fact that they support this measure, does not commit them in any way to the further measures to be introduced with regard to the implementation of the constitutional proposals of the NP.

†I agree with the hon. member for Musgrave when he emphasized the fact that the Indians are a responsible community and that they will use the body which we are creating in the Bill to the benefit of their own people. In this respect I agree with him fully. It is because of the experience that the Government has had with our Indian population, through the existing S.A. Indian Council, which is half nominated and half elected by an electoral college, that we have decided to go further and to give them a fully elected body. It is in a way an expression of confidence by the Government in the South African Indian people. I am glad to see, in the light of the discussions of this Bill, that the same confidence is shared by other parties in this House as well. I can give the hon. member the assurance that this council will not become a servile body. On the contrary. When one has a body like the present S.A. Indian Council—which is partly nominated and only partly elected—often taking up the independent attitude that they have taken up, and achieving for their people as much as they have achieved, it is surely a remarkable record and a wonderful testimonial which this body has earned for itself. Therefore I have no doubt that now that we have a fully elected body, they will continue to do good work in the interests of their own people and also in the interests of South Africa. I say this because I am sure that the Indian people will never put the interests of their group before the interests of South Africa. They too will be South Africans first and in that respect they may even be an example to some of us in this House.

Once again I should like to express my thanks to the hon. members for their support of this measure. I look forward to a fully elected S.A. Indian Council that will play a significant and worthwhile role in the political life of South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. I want to compliment the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department. They made available to us a departmental “Review of proceedings at the United Nations in 1977 on issues affecting South Africa”. It is a document of 565 pages and is certainly the most thorough and forthright account of its kind to have been placed before this House. However, it is a most disturbing account to those who value the life and security of our country. It tells the unhappy story of how 1977 became the blackest year in the history of our international relations. It tells of the catastrophic consequences which first Soweto, then the death of Biko and thereafter the actions of the Government on 19 October have had for all of us and our country abroad. It tells of how we managed to let the whole White order in our country look cold and brutal and worthy of destruction. 1977 was undoubtedly the year of the last straw; it was the year in which we “lost” the West.

The events which I have mentioned led directly to the convening of the Security Council of the UN and their decision to place a mandatory arms embargo on our country.

It was the first time in the 32-year history of the UN that action was taken in terms of Chapter 7 against a member State. As we know, Chapter 7 deals with situations identified as “a threat to the peace”. Every State will be required to cut off from us all sales or transfer of arms, spare parts for previously delivered equipment, para-military police equipment, and materials for the maintenance and production of arms. Most Governments, if not all, including all the Western leaders and Israel, have responded to the embargo resolution, and have indicated their compliance with this binding decision. From 22 to 26 August 1977 a “World Congress on Apartheid” was held in Lagos in which altogether 112 Governments participated. They passed what is called the “Lagos declaration for action against Apartheid”, and as a result, the year which began March this year has been designated “International Anti-Apartheid Year”, and world-wide machinery has been set in motion to promote the further isolation of our country—economically, culturally, politically and militarily. The action contemplated against us includes further forms of sanctions against us and a bid to boycott airlines flying to and from South Africa. Nobody on this side of the House is suggesting that sanctions alone will break South Africa. We have told visitors from abroad over and over that when South Africa experienced the Atlantic blockade in the Second World War, our country coped with the situation and in fact developed from what was largely an agricultural country into an industrial one. It made us more self-sufficient than ever before.

Sanctions are counter-productive, but it would be foolish of us not to take seriously the harm which could come to pass from such action. I want to be frank. What we are seeing coming into operation, is a global plan for action against what is called the apartheid régime and apartheid. I am not using this term for the purposes of embarrassment or even to start a debate on the question of internal race policies. I believe we all should do everything in our power to free our country from the label of apartheid. However, our problem is that the word is being used abroad in the most condemnatory sense imaginable. It is used by every speaker in every speech in the United Nations, in every resolution they pass in the United Nations and in the Security Council, and in international conferences under their auspices, affecting South Africa. More than ever before the attack upon us is taking the form of an attack upon apartheid. If any evidence is needed, it can be obtained in this report by those who do not stay in close touch with world events.

The universal hatred of apartheid is so intense and so fiercely crusading in spirit that it threatens more than the system of apartheid; it now threatens South Africa itself. Something in the nature of a holy war is building up against us. This war is going to be waged in the name of freedom against apartheid.

Recently I read an interesting statement reflecting the kind of strategy we can expect to be employed against us. We should keep this in mind. The ancient Chinese Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, said—

It would be shortsighted of us not to realize how powerful the weapon of apartheid is against us. It excites and unites people against us. It is exploited by none more successfully than the members of the Soviet block. What we have to do about it, we shall have to do now. As a Black representative told the Security Council, his country would fight against apartheid even at the price of a pact with the devil. The Russians are not at all popular in Africa. It is only that we have become so unpopular. In the light of the gravity of the situation, which is very clearly reflected in this Review before the House, I want to ask the hon. the Minister pertinently—and I want to say that I know that he has proved himself to be a hard fighter and unafraid to face realities—whether the Government realizes how serious the situation has become for us and what the main psychological weapons are that are being used against us. Is it the Government’s honest intention to abolish all discrimination based on race and colour without resorting to evading definitions? In other words, do they foresee a stage where we can sincerely tell the people in our own country and the rest of the world that apartheid is no longer the official policy of South Africa?—because it will not help to change our terminology as long as the substance of the policy remains.

As I see it, what is unfolding before our eyes in Africa is the beginnings of the battle for Africa, and our country is the ultimate target. Africa is shaping to be the world’s largest theatre of conflict. In our country the West and the Western leaders have been accused of being as good as cowards, and of heedlessly allowing the Soviet Union and its satellites an open route in Africa. I hope not, but we may hear this note again in the debate this afternoon. It is a superficial point of view which we on this side of the House do not support. We know that it lies in the nature of the democratic system that the democracies tend to move more slowly and less precipitately than the dictator systems. Dictator systems have none of the disadvantages of public debate over and prior approval of their actions. However, history has proven, before and during the Second World War, that once the democracies put their foot down they always show that they stand for something which they are prepared to defend and fight for. I believe that that point has now been reached in Africa, fortunately. In Paris, important planning conferences on Africa are taking place. The regiment that parachuted into Kolwezi two weeks ago was French. The first contingent of a Pan-African peace force is on its way to Zaïre and is being transported by American military aeroplanes. In Washington, President Carter has urged the 15 Nato countries to expand their military vigilance to Africa to counter Soviet and Cuban intervention. In London, the British have taken a strong supporting stand. The question that we ourselves will have to answer, is where we as a country are going to stand, or land, in the developing struggle in Africa? One thing is clear. It is not going to be enough for us merely to say that we are anti-communist, which, of course, we are, because on that note alone we shall not be accommodated or supported. That is not going to be enough. Whatever we ourselves may think, the democracies on their part believe that we are anti-communist because we want to preserve the status quo, i.e. the ruling policies which all of them reject.

As a matter of interest, this is what the United Kingdom representative in the Security Council said last year in this regard, and I quote from the hon. the Minister’s Review. He said—

He was referring to the Government’s actions of 19 October last year. He went on to say—

Whether we like it or not, that is the attitude with which we have to contend in the difficult position that faces us. In this respect may I say that I was also interested in a statement made by Dr. David Owen, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in the General Assembly of the United Nations, relevant to the problems of Southern Africa. He said—

I do hope that hon. members on the Government side realize that the term “pluralist democracy” is by no means the same as the partitionist idea of “plural democracies” to which the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development has hitched his wagon. As much as many States in Africa are opposed to Soviet communism, that does not diminish their demand that South Africa should be forced to change its policies. This is the dilemma which is unfortunately facing the Western countries. Regrettably we are not seen as an ally in the struggle.

On the contrary, we are regarded as a burden. Naturally, we here heartily welcome the growing Western initiatives against Soviet expansionism in Africa. As I see it, however, we should not readily believe that the greater Western opposition to Soviet expansionism is necessarily going to result in greater peace and security for us. It might—I do hope not, but it might—in the circumstances lead in fact to greater opposition against us because of the reaction which the Western powers fear if they are understood to be defending the status quo in Southern Africa.

Therefore, in the light of this, I wish to appeal to the Government, in the interests of the survival of our country and in the interests of other countries in Africa which are also threatened by Soviet imperialism, to come out boldly and unequivocally on the side, not of anti-communism alone, but on the side of the alternative to communism, namely Western democracy. Of course, it would require dramatic action on our part. It would require the total abolition of all race-discriminatory laws and practices, and also a reasonable timetable in which it should be accomplished. That, however, is the only way in which we will be able to place ourselves in a position of being an ally and of playing the role we ought to play in Africa, as well as of having allies in the developing battle for Africa.

*Mr. Chairman, our second source of concern is our relations with our immediate neighbouring States.

Honestly, you are the most frightened politician in the whole world!

A recent event we experienced was the Transkei breaking off its diplomatic relations with us, terminating its non-aggression pact with us and presenting itself unequivocally for service to the forces against South Africa. It was the spirit of hostility in which these steps were taken—not so much the resultant danger to us of that move—which gives reason for dismay. Over the weekend we read reports about the visit of a Cuban mission to Lesotho. At this time the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had talks with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lesotho. Therefore he will be in a position to give us more information with regard to exactly what is happening.

I have to say, however, that regardless of the nature of the explanations of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lesotho, I am afraid that this is the thin end of the wedge as far as the Black areas nearest to us are concerned. What we are going to see in future—and I shall be very glad if I am wrong—is that every neighbouring State, including the independent Bantustans, will be drawn one by one and step by step into the onslaught against us. All of them are, in some way or another, going to become springboards for action against South Africa. The leaders who do not want to co-operate, will simply be forced to, or else their lives will not be worth much. However, I want to state clearly that it is reasonable and necessary for the Government to make it clear to everyone that any neighbouring State that allows its territory to be used for military attacks against us, should expect a counterattack from us. This should be absolutely clear. [Interjections.] However, Mr. Chairman, it would be fatal if we did not also act more positively, because the saying “foreign policy begins at home” is nowhere more applicable than here. We shall have to disarm our enemies and if we cannot, by political and diplomatic means, create a position where our nearest neighbours would like to live in peace and confederacy with us, and we with them, then the Government has failed our country in its greatest responsibility. Then the sluice gates from the east, west, north and south and from inside will be opened against us and we shall have no future in South Africa.

This brings me to the position of South West Africa.

†I am of the opinion that, unfortunately, we are still a long way from the end of the South West Africa question. As things are, I cannot see how the territory can achieve independence successfully before the end of this year.

Why not?

Why not? What a stupid question! You still have to have an election, you still have to have voters’ rolls and you may have to have a demarcation of constituencies. Only then can you elect a constituent assembly. That constituent assembly must sit. Do you think that they can in one week draw up a new constitution for South West Africa? Sir, I am not going to reply to stupid arguments. I say that as things are, I cannot see—let my friends argue differently if they like—how the territory can achieve its independence, however much we would like to see it, successfully before the end of this year. I am afraid that we will have to be realistic and plan a fresh time-table for independence. It is a great pity, but there is no reason why we cannot turn a set-back like this to good advantage for South West Africa and for ourselves. Unfortunately, Sir, the economy of the territory is suffering heavily under the present burden of the continuing political uncertainty and instability. On every occasion where members on our side had the opportunity of discussing the South West Africa question with members of the Western contact team, we stressed and explained the need for finality. However, we would be unreasonable to lose sight of the fact that there are many parties involved in the question of a settlement. There is the Security Council, where a veto right applies, there is the United Nations, there is the South African Government, there are the peoples and parties of South West Africa, there is Swapo abroad, there are the “frontline” States, and there is the OAU. Unfortunately, the distrust that exists among the parties was and is also one of the most difficult obstacles which faced and still face the Western negotiators. All these parties had to be considered when the proposals were formulated and all of them have to be considered in the final commitment if the objective is to be reached of a peaceful and internationally acceptable independence for South West Africa. We believe that we should not allow ourselves to be tempted to try to identify scapegoats for any delay which has arisen. Considering all the handicaps and difficulties which had to be overcome, wonders have been achieved as between the Western group and ourselves. Unfortunately sharp controversy has arisen over the timing and the scope of our recent attack on Swapo bases in Angola, and the charge has been made that this has let Swapo and others off the hook at a critical moment in the final negotiations. Explanations have been given on both sides, and I believe it would be best for all to leave the matter there because the remaining facts before us are clear enough. The Western Five put their final proposals to us on 30 March of this year.

And to Swapo.

To these terms they are now morally and formally committed. On 25 April our Government signified its acceptance of the terms. It could not have been an easy decision for the Government, considering that most of the proposals run contrary to what they stood lor in the past, but we appreciate this and once again express our full support for the stand taken by the Government. In fact, I am tempted to say that it was the most statesman-like step taken by this Government in the 30 years since it started to control South West Africa. All of us realize that there is a need for finality, and the Western group too, of that I am absolutely convinced, but as things are we believe that it would now be a mistake if we did not give the Western Five a fair and unimpeded opportunity to round off their efforts. We can, of course, go it alone and take the internal route, as it is called, obtaining unilateral independence for South West Africa, but that would be seen as mere paper independence. The military conflict would escalate and spread, and the whole of the sub-continent might become a theatre of war, with our country in the thick of it.

It would be far better for us to use the extra time at our disposal to create a favourable climate for the elections that will have to come sooner or later in South West Africa. Take the Western proposals as the guideline.

There is the question of the repeal of all remaining discriminatory and restrictive laws and regulations. The Administrator-General recently said that he only had power to remove those forms of discrimination which affected a free election and no more. So there is plenty of work still to be done in that respect, and every step forward in that direction will redound to the benefit of the democratically minded political forces in the territory.

There is still a wide and dangerous area of economic disparity which requires urgent attention. The demand for economic equality is going to play a decisive role in the elections to come in South West Africa, and we should prepare South West Africa for that now.

Then there is the important question of prisoners. Any political detainees held without trial should be released or taken to court, and in this regard I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come for the Government to transfer the founder-leader of Swapo, Herman Toivo ya Toivo from Robben Island to South West Africa for the Administrator-General to consider his release.

In London, if reports are reliable, Mr. Andreas Shipanga, who is another of the Swapo leaders, and was recently released from prison in Tanzania, has indicated that he is prepared to accept the Western proposals for a peaceful settlement. The 400 000-strong United Evangelical Lutheran Church in South West Africa has powerful influence, particularly amongst the Ovambo people in South West Africa, and with their help the internal followers of Swapo might yet be won over to the cause of a peaceful settlement in terms of the Western proposals. It is significant that even before we accepted the Western proposals on 25 April, the church leaders—and particularly the leaders of the Lutheran Evangelical Church—adopted and accepted the proposals of the Western nations.

De Vries does not speak on their behalf.

Dr. De Vries and Bishop Auala signed a statement accepting the proposals of the Western Five. It would therefore be in our interest to do everything in our power to get their assistance in the situation in South West Africa. Strangely enough, the very best way in which we here can help the people of South West Africa is by taking early and dramatic steps within our own country to bring about political change here, because this would restore faith in the White man everywhere in Southern Africa. It would strengthen the hands of those Blacks who stand for co-operation with the White man, and it would enhance the position of our country in the eyes of many in Africa and in South West Africa who are now its enemies. In short, our attitude is that the Government should take no action in respect of South West Africa which is not positively in accord with the terms of the Western proposals; at least not until such time as the Western leaders are in a position to indicate finally that they have succeeded or failed in their efforts.

*No other group of nations finds itself in the same position to negotiate between the various parties involved in the South West Africa question as these Western Five. This is a fact we should not lose sight of. In the further course of events we must have sympathy with that idea.

There are quite a few questions about other matters we should still like to put to the hon. the Minister and we shall do that during the course of the debate.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout dwelt at length on the situation in South West Africa. What we on this side of the House feel unhappy about, is that the hon. member tried to imply that it is the Government that is retarding the democratic process in South Africa, that it is the Government that is preventing the proposals from being put into operation.

He did not say that at all. You should have listened!

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout still manifests the attitude that the Government of South Africa is responsible for the deterioration of foreign situations. I do not hold it against the hon. member; I do not want to take it amiss because it is his privilege as a member of the Opposition to criticize the Government here. The tradition in the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Vote has always been that this debate was conducted on a very high level; that when foreign affairs were discussed, they were discussed as unanimously as possible. I want to tell the hon. member that I am of the opinion that he tried to speak in a responsible manner in this debate. It is not so much what he said that I want to take amiss of him, but what he did not say. As chief spokesman of the Official Opposition, an Opposition that is listened to abroad to a far greater extent than their importance and relevance in South Africa warrants, the hon. member passed very coolly over the greatest danger that is threatening Africa and ultimately South Africa as well today. He did not sound any clear word of warning about what is happening in Africa. He did mention that there were positive sounds about the dangers in Africa emanating from the West; he mentioned the French involvement and action in Zaire, matters which all of us welcome very much; but he did not point out that what Africa needs today, is active, purposeful action on the part of the West. Russian intervention in Africa is simply continuing unchecked. It is becoming the pattern in the south, in the north and in central Africa. It is no longer possibly for any African country to feel safe today. First of all it was Angola by means of which the Cubans moved into the strategic Southern African zone. After that it was Ethiopia, and recently Zaire. As far as Cuban involvement in the Ogaden Desert in Ethiopia is concerned, ambassador Andrew Young adopts the almost unbelievable standpoint that we should not overestimate the importance of that desert region. According to a report that appeared in Die Burger on 24 May, Mr. Andrew Young said—

According to Mr. Young, that is. However, the fact remains that the Russians are becoming involved in a purely internal Africa affair on a massive scale. This is rapidly becoming the pattern throughout Africa.

†Mr. Chairman, it is time for the West and for America, in particular, to stand up and be counted in Africa. The Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, America’s most important ally in the strategic Red Sea region, has called upon the United States to act. In an interview published in the Washington Post of 15 May the Minister is quoted as having said the following—

The Minister then appeals to the United States and I quote again from the same article—

*For the West the hour of credibility in Africa has in many respects arrived. They will not only have to speak about what is right, but they will also have to stand by what is right and do what is right in Africa. If a standpoint is adopted with which not every one is satisfied, there is always the fear that those who are not satisfied will call in the Cubans. It is a fear that will have to be eliminated if the West, and America specifically, want to retain their credibility and influence in Africa. If morality is advanced as the point of departure of one’s foreign policy, that morality also requires one to defend the values that one professes. One is grateful to hear concern being expressed about this situation in Western circles. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to a few examples of this and one is also grateful that the President of America has associated himself with these circles. Even in America there are more and more responsible voices that are beginning to be raised, asking America as the leader of the Western community to shake off its Vietnam syndrome if it wants to play a meaningful role in Africa. In this regard I should like to refer in particular to Senator Moynihan and Dr. Kissinger who, according to a report that appeared in the Washington Post on 18 May, expressed themselves as follows on the situation in Africa. Firstly Mr. Moynihan said—

Dr. Kissinger said the following—

Mr. Chairman, the Russo-Cuban strategy in Africa is clear. They would like to disrupt stability and order in the strategic territories of Africa The issue is the destabilization of Africa. That is why the maintenance of stability and order is of the greatest importance in Africa. Not only is it necessary for the development and progress of Africa, but especially to ensure that Africa remains free of any foreign domination. In Southern Africa, South Africa is the most important stabilizing force. This may not be overlooked. If South Africa is forced to the point, however, where our ability to maintain stability and order is endangered, it will have tragic consequences, not only for Rhodesia and South West Africa, but for the entire Southern Africa. The weakening of South Africa will not promote peace in this subcontinent, but will merely strengthen the hands of the Russo-Cuban forces. In South Africa we are aware of the fact that major, important changes must take place and are taking place on this sub-continent as well as in South Africa. In fact, South Africa itself is taking the initiative in this regard, by way of the Government, in order to make these changes possible. South Africa and the Government have pledged themselves, however, to see that these changes will take place by way of negotiation and consensus and that these changes will take place in an evolutionary manner. We want to prevent Russian or revolutionary Marxist action groups simply forcing their will upon the people. We want to prevent what will in actual fact be a mere Marxist enslavement being introduced under the banner of so-called freedom, so-called liberation.

†In the light of what is happening in Africa and in the world today, South Africa finds it extremely difficult to understand how Mr. Andrew Young can equate South Africa with Russia and Cuba. In a remarkable interview published in The Times of London of 22 May Mr. Young is reported to have said the following—

[Time expired.]

I am merely rising to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I should like to convey my thanks to a very good Chief Whip.

†I wish to continue the quotation in which Ambassador Andrew Young is referring to South Africa. I quote further—

Mr. Young apparently uses the same criterion when he compares South Africa with Russia and Cuba as when he declared that the Cubans had a stabilizing influence in Angola or that we should not get upset about the Cuban presence in the Ogaden as it is merely a desert area. The most remarkable statement made by Mr. Young, however, is what he has to say about the Patriotic Front. He argues that the Patriotic Front is applying nonviolent methods in Rhodesia and I quote again from the same interview—

Mr. Young, when asked—

replied—

*It is this type of statement by a senior member of the American Administration that makes one seriously doubt not only the ability of that Administration to interpret the situation in Africa correctly, but also the will of the Americans to stand up and be counted in Africa.

There is also another side to our relations with the West, however, to which I should like to give attention, a side which I feel is not always emphasized sufficiently. I therefore want to say at the outset that we should be careful that, in our reaction to the negative approach of some Western spokesmen, we do not forget the enormous amount of goodwill towards South Africa which still exists in these countries. It is very easy to interpret statements like those by Mr. Andrew Young and others, as a standpoint of the people of that country, to generalize it and then to typify it as the American, English or German attitude. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is still a tremendous amount of goodwill towards South Africa in these countries and many people have an understanding of the complexity of our situation. There are various close ties that bind us to these countries for instance historical, cultural, church, academic, financial and many other ties, ties that should be expanded to the benefit of all.

We in South Africa must realize, however, that all criticism of South Africa is not with malicious intent. We have good friends abroad, people who differ sharply with the policy of this Government, but they have confidence in South Africa, in its people and in its future and want to help to develop this fine country in the interests of all. Among these people I should like to single out those in the economic and financial community this afternoon. They often have to put up with tremendous criticism because they invest in South Africa, and if one speaks to some of them, it is clear that in many cases their investments in South Africa comprise a small percentage of their total foreign investments. These people could easily argue that it is not worth the trouble and criticism to remain in South Africa any longer, but they remain nevertheless. They know that they would create a dangerous precedent as international enterprises if they had to be forced out of South Africa for ideological reasons and if they had to withdraw here. Today it may be South Africa and tomorrow another country. International affairs simply cannot be conducted on such a basis. Nevertheless I should like to express my appreciation of various large enterprises and businessmen who, through their involvement in South Africa, have contributed to the standard of living for everyone in this country having been improved. They set the good example that concern about a situation does not mean that one has to withdraw from it, but that one can rather make a greater contribution by means of one’s involvement than one’s withdrawal.

The problem with these businessmen, however, is that irresponsible words and deeds in South Africa often vastly complicate their position abroad. The mat is often pulled out from under their feet. South Africans will have to realize that we are living in a new situation and that there are obsolete practices that simply cannot be maintained. On the other hand we ask that the world should be fair to us. If morality is the criterion according to which they measure South Africa, then that same morality demands that they should apply this measure honestly and consistently. We ask that there should be understanding for the extent and complexity of the problems in South Africa. We ask for understanding for what this Government is in reality doing. It is the intention and policy of the Government to make human dignity and political rights possible for everyone in South Africa. It is the intention of the Government to accommodate the political rights of the Coloureds and the Indians fully by way of drastic constitutional changes and to move away from discrimination based on grounds of colour alone. We are giving the urban Blacks greater powers on their way to full self-determination. We are overcoming the tremendous problems of housing, education, social welfare, etc. in order to improve the quality of life for everyone in South Africa, regardless of his colour.

We are not asking not to be criticized, reprimanded or reproved. We are open to criticism and persuasion and we are aware of the fact that these things are wrong. We are not perfect, but—and this is the point—we are convinced that the policy that the Government is following, is an honest, realistic attempt in the complex situation in which we find ourselves to do justice to the right to self-determination of the various peoples.

I want to conclude with a final remark about our foreign policy. I want to point out that our foreign policy must take into account the fact that we in South Africa are part of Africa and at the same time part of the West. We are actually part of two worlds: We have our roots in Africa, but we also have our roots in the West. These two worlds meet in South Africa. Therefore, we can never be completely like Europe, just as we can never be completely like Africa. This intermediate position plays an important role in our relations with the world. Although we are part of Africa, we will never fully be able to take over the values and lifestyle of Africa, just as we will never be able to comply fully with the demands of the West. Our position will remain an intermediate position. That is why it is obvious that there will be limits to our relations with the countries in the northern hemisphere, just as there will be limits to our relations with the countries in Africa. It will not be possible for Africa or the West to determine our path; we shall have to determine our path ourselves taking into consideration what is right and fair to all the people of South Africa. Our foreign policy will have to take its compass reading from what is in the best interests of South Africa and all its people. In this spirit I should like to tell the Government and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department that we appreciate the good work that they are doing and that we pray that they may be granted the strength to continue doing it.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I should like to deal with our relations with the USA. I hope to reply fully at some later stage to the questions and the arguments put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In any event, in the course of my discussion of our relations with the USA, I shall be replying to a very large extent to quite a number of the hon. member’s problems and questions.

Before doing so, however, I should first like to reply to the question he raised with regard to the Cuban visit to Lesotho, as the matter is of a delicate nature. In this connection I should like to say that no country in Africa is as aware of the danger of Cubans in one’s midst as is the South African Government. No Government became aware of the intrigues and the evils engineered by these people in Africa at so early a stage as did the South African Government. We hope and trust that our fellow African countries, especially the moderate African countries, will realize and know—and there are signs that this is so—what they will have in their midst if they start allowing these people into their countries, under whatever pretext.

As far as South Africa is concerned, it is our standpoint that independent countries have the fullest right to establish diplomatic relations with whom they like. Independence confers that right upon a country. South Africa cannot dictate to Lesotho or to any other State in the world and tell it that it should not send missions to Peking, for example, or that they should not establish diplomatic relations with whomsoever they like. We cannot do that, and we do not intend doing that. But there are also other aspects involved in this matter. If the actions of other countries result in the interests and security of South Africa beginning to be threatened, South Africa, too, has a right to make itself heard—there must be no doubt about that.

I do not think it would be in our interests to discuss the question of the Cuban mission to Maseru here in this House today. Hon. members will remember that a mission left Lesotho for Peking a few years ago. At the time it gave rise to a fair amount of frantic activity, writing and speculation. But as everybody knows, Lesotho did not establish relations with Peking. I trust that the Government of Lesotho will respect the wishes of the people of Lesotho in this regard. For this reason, I think I may be so bold as to address an appeal to hon. members to leave the matter at that for the time being.

I have said that I should like to devote attention this afternoon to our relations with the USA. There are good reasons for that. The USA is the leader of the West, and to a very large extent our relations with the USA are characteristic of our relations with virtually all the other countries of the West. There are differences in emphasis, there are ad hoc differences and individual differences on a bilateral level between South Africa and the various Western countries. Instead of giving a review on a country by country basis, we can shorten the matter by rather giving a review of our relations with the USA, because they are so important to us and are representative of our relations with most other Western countries.

†Mr. Chairman, South African-American relations must be seen in the context of the perceptions and policies of the present United States Administration, which came to power at the beginning of 1977. The present United States Administration sees that the balance of advantage in the pursuit of international relations lies with the Western technologically advanced countries rather than with the communist bloc. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the underdeveloped world requires vast economic and technological assistance, which mainly the Western World can give it. Even the communist world requires technological know-how from the West. Secondly, at this stage in history, the Third World’s potential wealth consists substantially of raw materials, and the West forms the major market for their raw materials. Flowing from this perception, the United States has concluded that it should rather emphasize its relations with the Western industrialized countries and not seek to counter Soviet initiatives and expansions at every point throughout the world. Regardless of the political ideologies of Governments which may come to power in Third World countries, it is felt that economic realities will sooner or later compel all of them to seek co-operation with the West. Thus, anticommunism or anti-Marxism, such as has been the consistent policy of the South African Government, is not necessarily regarded as a virtue by the United States any longer. This is a fact, painful as it might sound.

It would appear that the United States assumes that the Soviet Union would overextend herself and that she would not be able to fulfil the rising expectations which her presence in Africa is generating. Sooner or later, the African Governments brought into being by Russian subversion and intervention, would become disillusioned, and they themselves would somehow get rid of the Russians and the Cubans, or in the words of Joseph Kraft, a columnist writing in the Washington Post on 20 April 1978—

There might be merit in this argument and reasoning but then only from the American point of view, not from the African point of view. If the United States is proved right, it could conceivably work out in such a way that, after the lapse of many years, if not decades, Russian influence in Africa might be reduced. Yes, I concede that. However, the moderate African leader correctly sees years and years of Soviet domination and suffering ahead of him, and for him it is not enough to hope that perhaps someday a new flower might arise from the desolation and destruction inherent in Soviet imperialism. In addition, the United States Administration takes its cue from the disillusionment of the American people with corruption in high places, in both the Government and the private sector, and taking inspiration from the Civil Rights Movement in the United States has made human rights an important, if not the main, pillar of its foreign policy. The Administration is beholden to a considerable degree for its election to power and its aspirations to repeat its election victory in 1980 to the Black electorate in America and is thus bending over backwards not to forfeit the support of the Black American voter. In this process the American Administration is extremely sensitive about any friendly association with White South Africa, assuming that White South Africans are the enemies of Black people everywhere in the world.

This is not only an enormous error, but in proceeding from such a premise grave injustices are perpetrated against all South Africans: Black, White and Coloured. We all must pay the price.

Another related aspect of this issue is that the proponents of majority rule in the United States compare the multiracial society in their country with the multinational situation in the Republic of South Africa. Members of the United States Government continue to equate the position of the American Black with that of the South African Black. We reject this equation. The American Black is an American who was divested of his African personality, language, culture and traditions. The South African Black had not been a slave and had not been uprooted. He is a member of a nation with its own language, culture, traditions and way of life, living in his continent. The problem of the United States is indeed exclusively one of race and minority rights. Ours is that of accommodating the demands and aspirations of differing nationalisms.

Pres. Carter’s assumption of power coincided approximately with the realization, in the United States, that it was no longer self-sufficient in raw materials, and particularly that it was vulnerable in regard to oil. This fact has given rise to a developing relationship with Nigeria. The United States feels that it is imperative for its own interests to maintain the best possible relations with Nigeria. Many believe that in this case the strict application of high moral attitudes might be too expensive.

Thus Evans and Novak, two associated columnists, wrote in Washington Post of 12 April 1978—

Also underlying American foreign policy has been the shock of defeat and humiliation in Vietnam, which has given rise to a resolve by the American people not to become militarily involved abroad again. As a prominent American Senator put it to me personally during my tenure of office in Washington when we discussed the actions of the United States in Africa at that time—and I vividly remember the words of that Conservative Senator—

The result of these factors together has been that the United States has concluded that good relations with White Governments in Southern Africa at the expense of its relations with Africa were not in its interest; that South Africa’s internal policies are irreconcilable with its own human rights policy and with its own concept of the dignity of man and that there are not strong enough reasons to soft-pedal this issue; that it will on no account intervene on behalf of White Governments in any conflict which might emerge in Africa; that the only satisfactory policy in South Africa which it will accept as the basis for good relations with the United States is a policy of majority rule in one geographical entity, as expounded by Vice-President Mondale in Vienna, or “full participation”, whatever that might mean.

In fact, there have been efforts to moderate some of the extreme statements since Vienna. I welcome these efforts, but we are still waiting for a clear statement or exposition on the part of the United States which would reassure us that the United States is not in fact seeking a solution in South Africa based on majority rule in a single constitutional entity.

This is a brief survey of the state of our relations as I see it at present. On the basis of what is known of United States policy vis-à-vis South Africa, I must conclude that the United States’ viewpoint is that the Whites must in due course accept a subordinate role in the decision-making process but their presence would be tolerated to keep the economy going. I would like to continue this discussion at another occasion, when I will also deal with aspects of the South West African and Rhodesian issues.

Mr. Speaker, may I have the privilege for the second half hour?

I am glad that the hon. the Minister has taken this early opportunity to make a statement on Lesotho. I am also glad that he reiterated the right of independent States to conduct international relations with whichever other nations they wished. I was also glad to hear that no Government was as aware of the dangers of Cuban and Russian involvement in Africa as is this Government.

The question which I believe is relevant today is why is it that a historically friendly and neighbourly country like Lesotho is now seeking aid not from South Africa, but from communist States. I believe this is the question that is in fact relevant in this debate today, namely what is lacking in our relationships with other countries which is leading to this increasing isolation and the increasing threat to South Africa in the form of sanctions, terrorism and so on, as we see happening in Africa today. I am quite sure that in the light of the reality of these things this hon. Minister will not deny that the greatest threat which is facing South Africa today is our growing isolation in the face of mounting communist expansionism, not only in Africa, but throughout the world. It is because of the seriousness with which we in the NRP view this matter that we will during the course of this debate examine—and I hope hon. members on that side of the House will respond and rise to the debate—where the fault lies in these deteriorating relationships. We will show that part of this problem—and I believe the Government has got to accept this—lies with the Government itself. It lies with the Government in its reluctance to reject boldly outmoded policies, policies which no longer meet the needs nor the requirements of South Africa in a developing Southern Africa. We will also put forward alternative policies and ideas as we always do in debate in this House. In so doing we will point out where Government policies have failed.

We also would like to submit that international relationships are two-way affairs. Peaceful relations between countries can only result from mutual respect of one party towards the other. The question that we must put in this debate, not only to ourselves in this Parliament, but also to all Governments who are concerned with the mounting tension in Africa and throughout the world, is: On what basis do nations achieve mutual respect for one another? I think we will all admit, and most South Africans will admit, that South Africa has been the international whipping boy for many years and that the intensity of this attack has increased in recent years. While we in these benches sit in opposition to this Government and recognize its faults and launch our attacks on the Government because of it, we also see the flaws in the so-called morality in so many of our critics today. How can there be mutual respect between nations when we hear the double-talk and see the double standards on the part of certain Western nations which, in our opinion, should know better? There is, for example, the statement of the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Andrew Young, a statement of just a few months ago proclaiming that the Cuban presence in Angola has a stabilizing influence in that part of Africa. How does one line that up with that of his boss, President Carter, who just a few days ago said that it was the interference of the Cubans based in Angola that precipitated the horror and the massacre in the Shaba province of Zaïre?

Are we not entitled to ask what game the chief Western negotiator on South West Africa, Mr. Donald McHenry, is playing when he accuses South Africa of being responsible for the spiralling of violence in South West Africa when South Africans attacked the Swapo base in Angola, whilst he and all the five Western negotiators know that it is South Africa which has accepted the Big Five proposals and Swapo’s Sam Nujomo who has rejected them, it being Swapo which has publicly proclaimed that it intends stepping up its campaign of terror and violence and which was, in fact, in the process of mustering a major terrorist incursion into South West Africa from the Angolan base which was attacked by our forces?

They said nothing about that.

They say nothing about that. Are we not entitled to question this type of international diplomacy? Are we not entitled to ask whether this is due either to total incompetence or to a lack of a true understanding of the communist threat to Africa which could set the continent alight, as has happened in Shaba? Is it, on the other hand, perhaps an egg dance by a nation which has lost either the ability, the know-how or the will to act as a leader of the Western world? The facts are that while Russia, for the past six months, was stockpiling the strategic mineral cobalt, the United States seemed to have been totally unaware of the fact, and also of the impending rebel incursion into Shaba province, one of the world’s major cobalt producers. It is only now that the United States appears to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. I do not intend pressing this matter further. A colleague of mine will do so at a later stage in this debate.

I must ask, however, whether we South Africans, in the light of these experiences, are not entitled to ask our friends in the West whether they would not perhaps now concede that their perception of politics in Africa might have been wrongly founded and that we South Africans might after all, in spite of our many faults—and we are going to point out some of them later in this debate—have a greater understanding of the realities of Africa today. Could it be that the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Prime Minister Callaghan, has hit the nail on the head with his recent statement that a number of explorers are setting out from America to discover Africa for the first time? Whatever the reasons for this unsatisfactory state of affairs, we in the NRP believe that South Africa cannot afford to rely on the naivety of some of the woolly-headed liberal thinking which dominates certain sections amongst our friends in the West today, or the dangerous self-interest of certain groups which stand to benefit, one way or the other, from the turmoil which can occur—and has in fact occurred in recent times—in Africa.

In finishing off this particular matter I do, however, wish to say to our friends in the West, and to the hon. members on the other side, that we in the NRP are prepared to examine ourselves. We are prepared to criticize ourselves—in fact we do criticize ourselves—when we find that we are wrong, and indeed we shall criticize the Government. We also welcome constructive criticism from all sides. However, we assess our position here in Africa in the light of our own historical experience and our understanding of the interplay of human relationships in our extremely complex plural society. We also do this in all humility in the spirit of our own Christian and Western democratic heritage. Probably most of all, we do it in a realistic manner based on the knowledge of past and current history in Africa which clearly reveals the horror and consequences of intergroup conflicts within plural societies. We do not, however, assess it in the light in which some other non-African nations view it and in the light of how they with their limited experience think things should be done in our country.

I should now like to turn to the hon. the Minister and return to the point I mentioned earlier, viz. that I am sure the hon. the Minister will not deny that the greatest threat facing South Africa is our growing isolation in the face of mounting communist expansion. Foreign policy is usually an extension of internal policies. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with that. We have many friends in the world who would sincerely like to remain our friends.

However, the policies of the Government are alienating us from many of our real friends. It is a fact that the Government’s policies and actions deeply embarrass them and, whether we like it or not and whether the NP believes it or not, the Government’s policy of apartheid is out of step with the rest of the world. The world’s perception of South Africa is apartheid—on this particular aspect I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—and to them apartheid relates to White domination. The reason for this is on the Statute Book of this Parliament. The reason for it is the historical legislative programme of this Government which has entrenched White domination over certain members of our community. The hon. the Minister has been forced to sell apartheid to the outside world and the facts show that he has failed miserably.

Apartheid is not for sale.

The hon. the Minister cannot deny that because, as I have said, surely South Africa’s foreign relations is at its lowest level ever. I am quite sure that in the hon. the Minister’s heart of hearts this unsavour part of apartheid is also an embarrassment to him and to the delegations he sends to various parts of the world.

Not only has the Government’s external policy failed, but its policy of granting sovereign independence to homelands has also back-fired.

That is rubbish.

This will be dealt with in depth at a later stage by one of my colleagues. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that what formerly was an internal matter over which this Government had total jurisdiction has now been transformed into another external problem which is going to bedevil and greatly complicate his role as our Minister of Foreign Affairs. Surely it has become most urgent that a total review and re-assessment be made of our position in respect of certain pressing issues. Surely we must do what is right for South Africa and not just for the NP, or just for Afrikaners or, for that matter, just for the Whites of South Africa. South Africa needs a new deal and the hon. the Minister knows it. He spoke about it at the United Nations. The hon. the Prime Minister also knows about it. He spoke about it a while ago when he said: “Give us six months.” The problem is that they fear the right wing of their party. The hon. the Minister and also the hon. the Prime Minister are prisoners of their own party.

I should like to pose for a moment the question whether the right wing of the NP will determine our survival in Africa, or rather, whether a new dispensation uniting all South Africans, White and White, White, Brown and Black, will not have a greater chance of securing our survival in Africa. In my discussions with certain of the diplomatic corps, I found that there are three problem areas that persistently crop up and that hon. members on that side of the House persistently tend to ignore. The first is the lack of a suitable political structure which will provide a meaningful say for all the groups in the political scene. We have just seen from the hon. member for Umlazi in the previous debate—he is not here at the moment—the contortions to which that party go in trying to justify themselves and their position. The Government’s road towards a new constitutional dispensation in South Africa can be equated with pulling a person’s teeth one by one. It is a most painful experience. Secondly, the diplomatic corps will tell you that the continued existence of legislative discrimination based on colour to the detriment of people of colour is another unacceptable fact of life in this country. Years ago, when the hon. the Minister was Ambassador to the United Nations, he said that we were committed to the removal of discrimination. Certainly, we have seen the removal of certain discriminatory practices, but this is not visible to the eyes of the outside world. They do not see it as something positive and, once again, it is like pulling out one’s teeth one by one.

Thirdly, there is a reluctance on the part of this Government, both in its policy and by the actions of its Ministers, to take due cognizance of the accepted interpretation of the rule of law. I do not attempt to debate these issues at this stage, but I wish to point out that many hon. members in the Government benches have in the past said that they are White Africans and that they are of Africa. I agree with this because I also consider myself as a man of Africa. However, the fact is that while we are of Africa, we are not accepted by Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister made a brave attempt a few years ago to foster détente in Africa. What happened to it? Perhaps it is proceeding behind closed doors. If this is the case, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why this is necessary. Would it prove too embarrassing for those involved should it come out in the open? Friendship with Africa cannot be undertaken unilaterally. A primary precondition for any détente is a commitment by South Africa to internal change within South Africa. South Africa has much to offer other African States, but if we are to succeed in our objective of becoming an active part of Africa and of becoming a true friend of Black African States, we have to begin by relating ourselves to Africa. We must make an effort to depoliticize our relations with Africa; that is to say, we must stop trying to sell apartheid and the apartheid philosophy as those hon. members were doing when they screamed their approval of apartheid this afternoon. We cannot sell this to Black Africa; it is anathema to Africa and to every Black man.

You have apartheid on the brain.

There are, I believe, certain positive things which we can do to win friends in Africa. Firstly we must commit our nation to a firm declaration of our intention to evolve a new constitution based on true pluralistic principles, principles which have been clearly stated in debates in this House by members of this party. Pluralism is saleable to the West and to Africa alike. However, it is only saleable if it is linked to the removal of discrimination which is based purely on the colour of a man’s skin. That is the second positive thing which we can do to improve our international relations.

Is that another of those things with the small balls?

This is something to which the hon. the Minister, as I said earlier on, committed us in the United Nations. However, what has happened? The third positive step we can take is to bring Blacks into our economy. That is to say that we must, in political terms, remove the dominant cleavage between Whites and Blacks which at present relates the Whites in South Africa to the “haves” and the Blacks to the “have-nots”. A fourth positive step would be to promote a Government sponsored council for technical co-operation which would not only let Black Africa know what South Africa has to offer—and we have much to offer as far as technical expertise and knowledge is concerned—but which would also show that we are serious in our offer of assistance. We can promote exchanges between cultural and sporting bodies provided we have begun to relate ourselves to Africa. A fifth positive step would be to establish a new style of diplomacy which is different from the old style which was adequate for our traditional friends in the West. It must be a type of diplomacy which is positive in its objectives, and not vague and vacillating as this Government is with its constitutional proposals and in the removal of discrimination. It must identify South Africa with Africa and relate to the problems, the potential and the challenges of Africa, challenges in which we can have a great part. Such a diplomacy must boast of our commitment to Africa, of our achievements as Africans in Africa, our development as an African State and, if we are true to our commitment, it will be a diplomacy which can boast of our achievements in the field of human relations and progress in inter-group relations in a plural society. Our diplomacy in Africa in these times must shy away from the power-bloc mentality and must stress the value of belonging to an economic bloc to which South Africa can offer many tangible forms of assistance in the course of friendship in the mutual interest of all.

In conclusion I wish to say that our foreign policy must expose Russia as a neo-colonial power whose strategy is aimed at the domination of Black Africa while it poses under the guise of being the liberator, the one who will free the oppressed. The time was never more ripe than the present for South Africa to offer a more attractive alternative to Africa. Suddenly certain African countries are finding themselves financially bankrupt, unstable and in the great danger of once again becoming colonized by a far more oppressive form of domination than that of their former masters. South Africa has a role to play in these affairs, a role which will not only ensure our survival in Africa, but which has the potential to raise us, as South Africans, to the heights of the most admired and the most respected nation in Africa. For us to achieve this, however, depends on decisions which are taken in this House and on the actions of the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House who, every time we stand up to criticize the negative sides of apartheid in the Government’s policy, rise to defend something which is only getting South Africa deeper and deeper into the mire.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the remarks by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in connection with our policy and the deterioration which it supposedly causes in our foreign relations, I just want to tell him that our political points of departure are so vastly different from theirs, and so irreconcilable, that we cannot argue this fruitfully within the scope of the debate of the Foreign Affairs Vote. In my view, the hon. member’s speech would have fitted in better in the Third Reading debate on the budget.

With reference to the remark by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to the effect that regardless of what the Government may do, South West Africa will not attain independence before the end of the year, I want to tell the hon. member that if I were to agree with him, I should do so purely because, in my view, America is obviously making an effort to hand over power in South West Africa and in Rhodesia to the revolutionary forces of the Black extremists. The proof for that is to be found in America’s condemnation of, among other things, South Africa’s recent limited military action against Swapo camps in Angola, and America’s refusal to recognize the settlement in Rhodesia. If America succeeds in this, it will turn to South Africa and try and do the same here. It is doing this in an attempt to regain lost ground in Africa.

In my view, South Africa should therefore prevent America from realizing its aims of handing over these two territories to the revolutionaries, because as against the arms which Russia is supplying to Africa, and the soldiers which Cuba is supplying, the gift which America is offering with outstretched hands, is the Whites of the entire Southern Africa because, from the point of view of America, that is the only thing that will satisfy Africa. America is evidently doing this without realizing that Russia’s ultimate objective is the USA itself, with a view to total world domination. America is doing this without realizing that Russia’s planned warpath to Europe and from there to the USA, runs along the oil routes of the world and through the sources of production of strategic minerals. It is doing this without realizing that if South Africa were to fall into Russia’s lap, its road will be clear to Europe and from there to the USA. America is doing this without realizing that its present political and economic policy towards South Africa is in fact doing us more harm at present than communist aggression itself. One can then hardly help gaining the impression that the West is doing the work of the communists for them in Southern Africa, namely to make an attempt to overthrow the existing order by force. Judging by America’s actions, one almost gets the impression that it is the Russians themselves who are issuing the instructions from Washington, and not from Moscow, for the destruction of the Whites in Southern Africa. One really wonders secretly how many communists are already in the highest positions in the State Administration of America, and how many of them occupy executive and policy-making positions within the UN. In this connection, G. Edward Griffin writes in his book The Fearful Master: A second look at the United Nations—

In respect of the position of communists in executive and policy-making positions of the UN, the same author wrote—

In other words, it is clear that the top structure of the American Administration and the executive and policy-making positions in the UN are saturated with communists. Apart from that, the communists have a definite world strategy. They know only too well that if they can succeed in ensnaring America, the rest of the world will be theirs. With the blueprint for world domination clearly before them, the Russian masters are systematically laying the snare for America throughout the world. The snare is also being laid here in South Africa by means of the political and economic onslaught against South Africa from behind the dollar curtain.

Because the USA is the only power on earth which has the potential of really effective resistance to the Soviet plan of world domination, Russia’s blueprint for the conquest of the world has been designed, finally and primarily, to destroy America itself. That is Russia’s final objective. But America goes on unconcerned and pretends that it does not know this. They carry on without realizing that if the red flag with the hammer and sickle were to fly over America one day, it will have been planted there by the Americans themselves through their weak-kneed attitude and their total impotence to oppose the Kremlin successfully in Africa and in Southern Africa at this stage. Instead of that, America now wants to shelter behind an African army to which they want to lend only logistic support.

The mighty America has become shamelessly afraid to maintain its position as the leader of the Free World with energy and military courage against the communist challenge, wherever it appears in the world. America prefers to withdraw, hesitatingly and fawningly, and to maintain a low profile in diplomacy with a view to appeasing Russia, while Russia does not hesitate for one moment to step forward, to fill the gap, and to leave no doubts about its objectives of world domination. However, America must realize that if it succeeds in establishing its influence in Africa, that would never be tolerated by the Kremlin. In view of my humble position, I know it is not for me to address a significant warning to the mighty America in this connection. But it is my undisputed right to express my deepest concern about the fact that up to now America’s African policy is heading for total chaos, if not the destruction of the Free World. It is therefore perhaps fitting to remind the Americans of something which George Washington once said, namely—

South Africa, from where the balance of power between the two most important oceans of the world, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, can successfully be controlled, and from where the oil routes to the West can effectively be blockaded, and where some of the world’s largest reserves of strategic minerals are deposited in the womb of the earth, has therefore become a very important and desirable target for Russia in her total strategy for world domination. The USA should therefore give high priority to stability in respect of the politics and the economy in South Africa, a stability which this Government can guarantee it. But America does not do that. Perhaps the time has come for us to ask America frankly:“Why do you want to destroy our country and hand it over to the communists? What possesses you?” Perhaps we should tell the US: “If you do not want to believe that you are thereby jeopardizing the entire Free World, then at least leave us alone. Do not meddle here. We cannot fight against you and the communists together. Do not use your vast economic power to coerce other countries into instituting sanctions and boycotts against us. Look to your own survival, because you will not be able to save the mighty America by destroying us.

Would I be altogether wrong, then, if I were to ask America to come to her senses and to pull herself together, as the leader of the Free World which we, too, look up to, before it is too late?

Mr. Chairman, right at the outset I want to establish a theoretical framework within which to air a few ideas concerning the relations between the Republic of South Africa and the USA. I want to ask what the aim of a country’s foreign policy is. One must concede that although policies differ from State to State, there are nevertheless certain basic objectives that are universal for any foreign policy. Many writers have expressed themselves on this point. In a recent work by G. C. Olivier entitled Die Buitelandse Beleid van Suid-Afrika, a work published in 1977, after an analysis of the opinions of a number of other writers on this aspect, the writer comes to the conclusion that the basic aspects of a foreign policy consist of—

1. 1. The maintenance or protection of political independence, a specific way of life, territorial integrity and national security.
2. 2. The objective of a life of social welfare for its citizens.
3. 3. Enhancing the State’s prestige.
4. 4. The development of a specific ideology.
5. 5. The development of its national position of strength.

Essentially, this amounts to an attempt to obtain the maximum advantage from the actions of other States and, in conjunction with that, to limit the effect of a disadvantageous action to the minimum. If we assess the success of the Republic’s foreign policy according to this framework, we see that we have in fact succeeded in the more basic objectives concerning the protection of the territorial integrity and the assuring of a fair degree of prosperity for the inhabitants, but that as far as the secondary viewpoints are concerned, especially the development of our ideology, we have achieved little success.

The USA, as the most important power of the Western World, has a major influence on South Africa’s international position, due to its enormously powerful position. In the nature of things the USA is closely involved with any international liaison of the Republic, especially on the multilateral level. The USA, with its policy of promoting its own image through the idea of freedom, human rights and democracy, easily falls prey to enemies of the Republic, enemies who are making increasing demands for pressure to be exerted on South Africa. Consequently, its influence in the unaligned world, the Third World, is the dominant factor in its policy towards South Africa. It cannot but take into consideration the influence of its rivals upon the Third World. I believe that just this factor has assisted in bringing about the involvement of the USA in Africa, in Rhodesia and in South West Africa in particular. A policy of nonintervention would be considered a hostile action by these countries. It is also most improbable that the USA would try to maintain by means of a task force any settlements of which it may be the author, in Rhodesia or in South West Africa. Nevertheless the USA has to take into account the fact that South Africa, like itself, is basically a capitalistic country. It is therefore tempered to a fair extent by this similarity as well as by its investments in and trade with South Africa. That is why reference is often made to the dualism in the foreign policy of the USA. We often ask ourselves, or rather, we often make the statement, that the more we come into contact with the West, the more we are convinced that the Wise Men came from the East. Nevertheless, if we take a calm and sober look at the USA’s policy towards the Republic, and then assess and analyse it according to the basic objectives that I have quoted from Olivier, we can come to no other conclusion but that the USA’s policy is also aimed at the fulfilment of these basic objectives. The territorial integrity and national prosperity of the USA are in no danger. The prestige of the State is high and its efforts clearly aimed at enhancing it. The USA’s political ideology of freedom, human rights and democracy, is the cry that is being hurled at us even by the Marxist world. The national position of power of the USA is among the highest in the international comity of nations. The conclusion one has to draw, is that for the present, it therefore seems as if the USA is achieving nothing but success. But the question we can put to the USA, is whether the same apparent success can also be obtained in the long term. By striving for short-term success at the moment, the USA is playing into the hands of communist imperialism. The noises that the USA is making at the moment in opposition to the communist world, do not frighten anyone. We have an idiom that says: “Barking dogs do not bite.” The communist world is convinced that the USA will not intervene while it consumes the fat sheep of the Third World, piece by piece.

We have an alternative for the consideration of the USA. We ask them please to consider the solutions that we want to present to them in our philosophy. South Africa is a microcosm, a world in miniature. It is not by chance that the relations between White and non-White in South Africa are approximately equivalent to the relations between White and non-White in the cosmos. It is not by chance that the tension in the world also occurs in South Africa, the world in miniature. Nor is it by chance that the communist imperialist of the world majority is also embodied in the imperialism of Black Power in South Africa. As the USA tries to defuse the tension in the cosmos, as it tries to administer the international problems, so the Republic tries to administer the microcosm of South Africa. Will it cost the USA so much to make an experiment, which, if it were to succeed, could form the foundation for exploiting this method in the world on a large scale? We therefore ask the USA: Tell the Third World to give the Republic of South Africa a chance and invest in the implementation of the policy of the Republic of the consolidation of the Black States, the national self-determination of all nations here, of the removal of discrimination, specifically through the implementation of the policy. The USA must concede that in the policy which is being implemented, full freedoms for all, human rights and democracy will also occur to the extent they think that they are not found here at the moment.

May I also make a request of the hon. Opposition, and perhaps the Official Opposition in particular? I make this request of them because one sometimes has the idea that the other opposition parties do understand it. South Africa’s estate will be administered by the NP—solvent or insolvent. The voting public has decided on this and it is as a fait accompli, however little they may care for it. The issue is therefore the implementation thereof, moving away from the label of racism to a label of nationalisms. If the Opposition wants to play a role, it will have to do so within the framework of the realities. Then they ought to point out inconsistencies in the implementation of the policy of the Government if they are of the opinion that such a thing occurs. They ought to point to opportunities, within the reality of the policy, before those opportunities have perhaps passed by. What they must stop doing, however, is to put forward a policy which, as an alternative policy, is as far removed from the policy of the Government as east from west. With an opposite pole as a policy, there is no chance of the Official Opposition ever making a meaningful contribution towards solving our problems.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively and I agree with the analysis made by the hon. the Minister of the United States’ outlook on South Africa. Indeed I welcome what the hon. the Minister said here today. The only thing that puzzles me is why he chose to make this particular statement in isolation here today. I therefore get the impression that he probably wants hon. members of this House to express their feelings on South African and American relations at this stage.

It was not my intention, however, to talk today about South African and American relations, not at this stage of the debate anyhow. However, in the light of what the hon. the Minister said, I feel obliged to make a contribution along those lines. I think it was high time for the hon. the Minister to bring to the attention of the American people the feelings of ordinary South Africans about the attitudes of the American Administration. If I remember correctly the hon. the Minister said last year that he was going to make an appeal to the American people over the heads of the American Government. I hope that is still his intention. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what concrete steps he has taken to give effect to that attitude of his.

As South Africans we object to the downright hostility that is being shown to the Republic by the American Government; not only by the American Government, but also by the agencies of the American Government at all levels. One thinks for example of the American information services here in South Africa. What possible need is there, e.g. for the American information services to be showing at the moment the film Roots to hundreds or perhaps thousands of South Africans? For what reason is that being done? It has nothing to do with us here in South Africa. We never had slaves here in South Africa to the extent that they had African slaves imported into America. It has no possible relevance to us today.

When I received an invitation to attend its showing I wrote to the American Information Services objecting to that invitation saying that what South Africans would like to hear was what the current position in America was, more particularly the situations in Harlem and other cities where there are Black populations living in indescribable poverty.

I want to refer today also to something I have referred to in this House before. That is the unhealthy liaison between the American Embassy, the American consuls and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members of his party. [Interjections.] The last American Ambassador to South Africa seemed to be living in the pockets of the members of the PFP. At the same time they seemed to be living in his pocket. [Interjections.] The expressions used by them in this House and the expressions used by the American Ambassador could not have been a mere coincidence. They always used the same sort of terminology. [Interjections.] I now refer to the active hostility shown towards us as a country by America and by the agents of America, in particular, to the visit by Mr. McHenry. It has been marked by a rudeness and arrogance which was climaxed by a dinner he had with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what he discussed with Mr. McHenry and what identity of purpose the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can have with a man like Mr. McHenry. It is also a pity that during the last few days we have had statements by American Peace Corps members operating in neighbouring countries, statements which were calculated insults to the people of South Africa. I think that it is high time that the Minister sought, on a formal basis, to make representations to the American Government against the continual insults and arrogance shown by Americans to a friendly country like South Africa.

I was not planning to speak about the relations between the United States and the Republic of South Africa, but I would like now to deal with these relations, and in particular with what is happening in regard to South West Africa.

*On 12 April I warned the hon. the Prime Minister not to attach too much value to the negotiations with the Carter administration. I quote my own words in this House, as follows (Hansard, col. 4495)—

I think I was right. Since then South Africa has accepted the proposals of the five Western powers, and since then the Carter administration, through Mr. McHenry, has sought only for excuses to accommodate Swapo and to slander, criticize and disparage South Africa. The McHenry/Swapo alliance forms, in my opinion, an amazing spiral of arrogant and incompetent mistakes. These are people who tolerate little of the truth and show scant respect for reality. Mr. McHenry, driven by his own fanatical colour prejudice, is apparently determined to be as offensive as possible in his negotiations with South Africa.

†I met an American the other day who had travelled in the Pan-American Airways aircraft that had brought Mr. McHenry to South Africa. I wish to give you an example of the attitude of Mr. McHenry to South Africa. In the presence of this American he was asked whether he would like to have some red wine, and in particular whether he would like a Cabernet. He asked what wine they could offer and the American hostess said to him that she recommended a South African Cabernet as one of the best Cabernets that one could get. He then said: “Don’t bring me anything of South Africa. I want nothing to do with South Africa.” That is the man who a few nights later, had dinner with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

*It should be brought to the attention of America that there is a limit to the number of insults a self-respecting nation can take from people who do not keep their word. We went out of our way to accommodate the five Western powers and we did everything possible to comply with the wishes of the Five, for the sake of the approval of the Security Council. But eventually they will betray their own proposals because of a lack of the ability to stand up to the General Assembly. We can no longer make the interests of South West Africa subject to the indeciveness and bungling of the doubters of Pennsylvania Avenue. Uncertainty about South West Africa has to be cleared up, because the people of South West Africa are ready for and entitled to their own independence. The machinery has to be put into operation now to grant them that, regardless of the interests of those who are, in any case, not interested in democracy, human rights and peace, i.e. the Swapo leaders. If the United States wants to continue to be the interceders for communist robber bands, then let them be. The Carter administration, in any case, has a long history of support for lost causes. We cannot continue to try to satisfy people—at the expense of those to whom we have responsibility— who are determined not to be satisfied. I tell the hon. the Minister now that it is high time—and this is my humble opinion—the Carter administration takes note of the reality, the perseverance and determination which we always mention as our own heritage. It is time that we do fearlessly what we believe is fair and right. We can wait no longer.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown indicated very clearly what his attitude towards the PFP is. I believe this debate should take place in a responsible manner, and I want to agree with the hon. member for Simonstown. I think one of the greatest problems in South Africa today is the fact that we are dealing with an Official Opposition—especially the Leader of the Official Opposition—who may be communicating on many levels. He is someone who would like to create the impression among various people and countries that he has influence in South Africa, that he talks on behalf of an Official Opposition, and that he may one day govern South Africa. [Interjections.] Of course that is a dangerous situation. If he were to have the background and the necessary impetus from his party—and let us be honest in this debate—to sit in the governing party one day, the world could take notice of his utterances. There is, however, something I should like to say to the world. They may think they have a sympathetic ear in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. However, they are paying attention to an ear which is completely closed because it will have no effect inside or outside South Africa. [Interjections.]

The Republic of South Africa has made a vast contribution to the stability of this continent in the past. It is still making this contribution, and will continue to make it in future. This cannot be disputed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout or the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, and I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Amanzimtoti would just listen for a while. [Interjections.] It is ironical that in spite of this contribution of the Republic of South Africa to the stability of Africa, there are still arms embargoes and proposed economic sanctions against us, as well as all kinds of other things to harm South Africa.

What happened this afternoon, however? In a calm atmosphere in this Chamber the hon. member for Bezuidenhout attributed the cause of South Africa’s problems to one concept, viz. apartheid. Then the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, a man from the banana-growing area of Natal, came up with the statement: “It is due to apartheid.”

Are you getting the message?

If people have such a vast lack of knowledge of international politics, they should rather talk about sugarcane which they know something about and should not take part in a debate like this. The things they say are irresponsible.

*The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about the old apartheid, about Bantustans and all these things. In my opinion he attached a certain connotation to apartheid. A certain connotation was also attached to moving away from discrimination, an image which is misinterpreted by the world. In future, I feel we should rather talk about greater opportunities for people of a different colour. This party is committed to what I have just said—to afford greater opportunities to other nations, people of a different colour in South Africa. We are committed to it and we believe in it. However, we do not believe the reasons raised by those hon. members, i.e. that if we abandon these rights of self-determination, that the world at large would accept South Africa and that this would appease them. That is not our approach. Our approach is primarily an honest approach to those people who live within the geographical framework of South Africa to improve their future. The hon. members opposite are not intensely interested in the future of those people. They see this merely as a move by means of which they can appease the Western world. Let us have no doubt about this: Even if the concept of self-determination were to disappear completely in the present circumstances, we would not have friends in the world overnight. This struggle goes far deeper than that. This struggle is for Africa. A conflict situation between the West and the communists is what is at stake here.

I firmly believe that the party to which I belong is not based on hate. If our policy were based on hate—and that is what makes me feel unhappy in this House—we could no longer have been in power today, but this party would have disintegrated by now. Over the years this party has asked nothing of our neighbouring States. The people of South Africa and this Government do not ask anything of Africa. The only thing we courteously ask for is decent relations with Africa. We do not ask anything of the world, except acknowledgment for what we are doing.

If we are ostensibly such a discriminatory, racist and aggressive country, show me a country in the world which is trying constitutionally, as South Africa is doing, despite the fact that South Africa is becoming geographically smaller as a result, to establish independent countries. We are creating countries which will be completely independent of South Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke disparagingly of this. I think that an injustice is being done to Transkei and Bophuthatswana when they are quoted as examples to support the statement that they are appendices of a policy. I want to make it clear that with regard to Bophuthatswana that country is still going to prove that the policy of allowing Black States to become independent is the correct policy and that it is an honest policy. The world must realize that. Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout realize that the greatest part of Bophuthatswana itself consists of the Bushveld igneous complex which is praised by geologists all over the world as the richest mineral area in the world with a greater potential than the Witwatersrand, if those minerals are exploited and enriched? Nevertheless, this country gave Bophuthatswana its independence. This country was prepared to relinquish this mineral wealth to a country which became completely independent. In the decades that lie ahead, this Government will show the necessary sense of responsibility to conduct a dialogue with a country like Bophuthatswana and that will be an example of inter-state economic liaison. The two countries will complement each other. Economically they will come to an agreement and they need each other in the development and expansion of Southern Africa.

Despite the fact that this debate started on a note which was not the right note, I courteously want to ask the hon. Opposition something. South Africa is going through one of the most difficult times in its history. I want to say in all sincerity that I expected more from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He tried to simplify matters. He tried to create the impression here that the NP and this Government is the cause of the situation in which we find ourselves. This is just not the case.

Did you read the report the Minister tabled?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout should please not try and refer to a book without saying which book it is. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is committed to a course—and I want to repeat this—which is aimed at creating greater opportunities for people of colour. However, this should be done in a responsible manner.

†One’s priorities must be right, because it can cause the greatest embarrassment for other people in this country if that is not the case. When one talks of greater opportunities for people one must be very careful what those opportunities are because one can embarrass people by giving them opportunities that may turn out to be predicaments. One must be careful because if one talks about opening tearooms and nightclubs and even opening up Sea Point it may turn out to be an embarrassment for people who have not had the opportunity or do not have the background to enjoy those facilities. One must think before one asks for those things. When one asks for greater opportunities the question is: What are the great opportunities in South Africa?

*What have we not done in the political sphere to afford the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asians opportunities? Our efforts are honest and sincere. What have we achieved in the field of labour by means of the Wiehahn Report? What has the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development achieved in Soweto? We are making efforts to develop South Africa every day. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member for Rustenburg for cracking the joke about the prospect of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition becoming the Prime Minister of South Africa. I am equally grateful that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition laughed as heartily as we did because it shows that he agrees with us that the prospect of him becoming Prime Minister is very remote indeed. However, that fact should not give the Official Opposition the licence for irresponsibility which was demonstrated this afternoon in the opening tirade by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I was alarmed to hear his interpretation of the book in question in which he said that 1977 was the year in which the White order in South Africa was made to look so cold and brutal that it was worthy of destruction.

I did not say that.

Those were the hon. member’s words.

You distorted my words.

In this tirade he attacked this Government’s policies and was regrettably …

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may not say that that hon. member distorted his words.

He misquoted me completely.

The hon. member first has to withdraw those words; then he can explain.

I shall withdraw the word “distort”, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member, however, misquoted me completely. He was not listening properly. [Interjections.] However, that does not matter, because I am not interested.

That does not change the tenor of his speech and his rather vicious attack on this Government’s policies in which, I regret to say, he was joined by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I would like to point out that Mr. Mondale’s formula for full participation was defined further in October last year by the security adviser to President Carter, Prof. Zbigniew Brzezinsky, who said the following—

I am sure we all agree with that—

He also went on to say—

It is the same Prof. Brzezinsky who at the time of the Angolan war aided the passage of the Clark amendment, about which President Carter is complaining so much now. It is this amendment which is tying his hands behind his back so that he cannot act against the Russians and the Cubans in Africa. What did Prof. Brzezinsky say in that instance? He said that there were two conflicts in Africa, viz. a north-south conflict between the Whites and the Blacks and an east-west conflict. He said that the north-south conflict was the more dangerous one and needed priority whilst the east-west conflict could be relegated to the background. Fortunately Prof. Brzezinsky is now singing a different tune and, in as much as his harder attitude towards the Soviet Union both in Europe and in Africa is taking effect, we naturally welcome that, because any assistance by the West or any action by the West to curtail this blatant Soviet expansionism on our continent must indeed be welcomed by all South Africans.

The blame for our situation today both the bigger Opposition parties placed fairly and squarely at the door of the Government. I think certain questions are pertinent in this regard and need to be answered. The questions are: What is the cause of the West, and particularly the USA, being so utterly despised in most of Africa today? What has contributed most to the collapse of our most promising détente initiative of 1974 when we were in the process of uniting anti-communist States against the threat to Africa, which followed upon the capitulation of the Portuguese empire? What has caused South Africa’s policies to become less acceptable now than they were in 1974, in spite of the substantial movement away from discrimination that we have made since then? Who, outside the communist bloc, has done most to further communist expansion in Africa? Regrettably the simple two-word answer to all four questions is: The Carter administration, and not this country. If it is this country and if it is apartheid, why is the Soviet Union today fast realizing its ambition to create a Marxist condominium in the whole of the Horn of Africa? Why have we just experienced the second Shaba invasion? How did the events in Angola take place? Certainly none of our policies pertain in those parts of the world, but still they were the first targets simply because they were more unstable than this country. Their ethnic problems were more exploitable than those in this country. That is the reason why. Anybody who therefore tries to put the blame for American and Western attitudes on us, is not speaking for anybody in South Africa. I can only agree with the conclusion reached by the hon. member for Simonstown that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was either very well briefed by the State department for his actions here this afternoon, or, if he was not well briefed by them, he took it upon himself to supply them with further ammunition against this country for use in the more favourable climate that is developing in the USA vis-à-vis communist expansion, both in Africa and in Europe. I would like to forgive the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for falling into this trap, because I know that the NRP generally, although they disagree with us, are not an unpatriotic party.

It is also true that we got involved in the Angolan war and I have to go back to that issue because of the Clark amendment. We became involved in the Angolan war at the request of certain African leaders and at the request of the West. These African leaders did not at the time find our policies so reprehensible that they were not willing to meet the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Information or myself. They were quite willing to talk to us and they allowed us into their countries then. It was only after leading members of the present Carter Administration prevailed upon the Democratic Party dominated Congress to cut off aid to the anti-communist forces in Angola on 19 December 1975, that our initiatives in Africa began to fail. Why did this happen? It happened because it was quite clear to moderate Africa, both Black and White, that it was being left shamefully in the lurch by the Western world. When these countries, helpless as they are with their small armies, found that they were not getting support from the West against the Soviet advance, what did they have to do? They had to go back and try to make friends again with the Soviet Union.

That explains why President Kaunda, who at the time said that the Soviet-Cuban action in Angola was that of a hungry tiger with its deadly cubs, now says that they are friends again and is even inviting Cubans back into Zambia. That is the reason why the West is despised not only in South Africa, but also through the whole of Africa. It is perceived as weak and whatever Africans do admire, they do not admire weakness. The Soviet Union is perceived as strong and therefore although they might dislike the Soviet Union, they have to curry favour with it because they fear it. When we finally withdrew from Angola the hon. the Minister of Defence said that we were not prepared to fight to the last man for other people’s interests. He also predicted that the countries next in line would be Zaïre and Zambia. We have had two invasions of Shaba in Zaire and President Kaunda is averting invasions by currying favour with the Russians. This is the tragedy and the tragedy is to be blamed fully and squarely on attitudes then prevailing in the American Congress among the people who put Jimmy Carter into power. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the debate today started off extremely well with a balanced, careful analysis of the foreign relations situation by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. His speech was balanced, moderate and good tempered. It was followed by another speech, that of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which again was moderate and reasonable, and which I think had the clear intention of taking some of the heat out of recent utterances about the USA with whom we shall be involved, whether we like or not, for a long time in the continent of Africa. I shall come back to this subject later in my speech.

I want to go on to say that regrettably the high tone set by these two hon. gentlemen has not been greatly helped by certain other contributions. I am thinking in particular of the contributions of hon. members such as the hon. member for Parys, the hon. member for Simonstown, the hon. member for Rustenburg and now by the hon. member for Benoni. These contributions have introduced a new, rather naive note; i.e. the curious attitude that in diplomacy and foreign relations it is dangerous to have any communication with the people who are your critics or are your antagonists. We even heard the laughable suggestion that hon. members of the Opposition should not meet visiting Americans in case they should say hostile things about South Africa. [Interjections.] This is a level of naivety which is quite unbelievable. It is, in fact, the function of diplomacy and the essence of the conduct of foreign relations to meet not only your friends, but to talk also with your enemies and your antagonists; to heal breaches and not merely to rub each other up the back. I believe the suggestion that we and the American Embassy talk a single language is entirely ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous— it’s true!

We perhaps study the same things and look at the same problems, but this is the duty of every diplomatist. If some hon. members did this and relied less on the glib words they read in the Press and depended less on the superficial treatment of foreign relation questions, we would hear less nonsense in the House during the foreign affairs debate. [Interjections.]

I want to go on to deal with the question of our foreign relations. I believe the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is fortunate in that the Opposition on this side has traditionally taken a very responsible and careful approach to questions of foreign affairs. Both the hon. the Minister and the country are fortunate that this should be so. It has not always been the case in this country. I have recently been reading some of the debates which took place in the pre-war period, i.e. in 1937, 1938 and 1939, and some debates which took place post-war. There are examples in those debates of very powerful attacks by well-known personalities such as Dr. D. F. Malan and Mr. Eric Louw on Gen. Hertzog, the then Prime Minister, and after the war again by the same gentlemen on Gen. Smuts. In the midst of the political heat there was courtesy, but there was very powerful criticism, to an extent greater than we consider to be reasonable or advisable to maintain in debates in the House today.

I nevertheless believe that the Opposition has a duty in these matters. The Opposition has the right to ask certain questions and to state certain views. Because of the moderation with which we have stated these views, it is unreasonable to hear from certain hon. members on the other side of the House that we are playing with the enemy, that we are peddling information to or receiving it from the enemy. It is entirely nonsensical and not worthy of further attention in the House.

In relation to South West Africa I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he, when he rises to speak again, will inform us what the lines of authority are in dealing with this matter. We have been generally in support of the Government in the way in which it is trying to settle this affair. We believe the Government has conducted the affair well and that it has been moving towards the right conclusion. We have given our support to it. We do feel some concern, though, for the manner, according to reports which are available, in which things appear to happen. People or policies appear to become unco-ordinated. I refer particularly to the role of the Administrator-General. We believe the Administrator-General should not only play a key role in the devolution of authority towards a clear solution and towards independence of South West Africa, but that he also should be seen to be doing it. Yet one sees other things happening and one hears speeches by hon. Ministers who are not the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and one hears threats of further incursions into Angola. Is there a central authority commanding the whole of this, and if there is—I believe there probably is and certainly should be—should it not be seen to be the case? As far as we as the Official Opposition are concerned, we have certainly watched these matters with a good deal of concern. In the light of information which has been made available, we are uncertain as to exactly who is running the show and who is pulling the levers. I believe it is time for the Government to give attention to that matter and to ensure that not only we, but also the world at large, should see a consistent policy commanded by consistent people who are seen to be pulling the same levers. There is too much in and out running in this issue. If there is not, we should like it to be seen that it is not so.

I now want to discuss the question of the changing dimensions in Africa. I believe the hon. the Minister was right to introduce a new note in regard to America’s and the West’s role in Africa. It is timely and it is a great pity that the speakers to whom I have referred, were not sensitive enough to pick up the new tone in his speech and to follow suit. It is time to recognize the fact that in Africa we now face a new emphasis and a new danger in that the Russians have moved from being cautious opportunists in Africa into the role of eager interventionists. I think this is a new dimension which will involve the countries loosely described as the Nato group and the countries loosely described as the OAU group in a new cold war conflict with the communist alliance in Africa, a conflict in which South Africa will not be left untouched. We are too important in Africa to be excluded from whatever happens in this conflict. We therefore have to look to our own role in Africa and our own relations with those countries which are, possibly against their will, inexorably being drawn into this new struggle in this broadened arena of the cold war, because that is what Africa is. Whether we like it or not—and I think nobody in the House would like the prospect—the fact is that we are going to be involved with the Western side if we are to survive. As with other countries who have been involved with the West, as in the case of the Nato alliance, we shall find that pressure will be brought to bear upon us to conform to the broader objectives and the broader strategy of the West. We shall find that because the security of the West is built upon a philosophy or an ideology of human rights, we shall have to come to terms with human rights ourselves.

It will be the price—if you like—that this Government will have to pay. It is seeking to come to terms with human rights in its own way, but I believe it may have to move faster, it may have to move more deliberately, it may have to achieve these objectives and it may have to see this new involvement in Africa, not only as an obligation, but also as an opportunity. There are many disadvantages in the Cuban/Russian presence in Africa and, heaven knows, the dangers are greatly increased in consequence. However, there are also opportunities for us, opportunities not only to get rid of the surplus luggage in our own ideological equipment, but also to find ways of rejoining the Western community, to find ways of restoring our relationship with the West. I believe we are involved in a new dimension, in a new conflict, in a new game in Africa and that the hour has in fact struck for a new approach in our foreign policy in the light of these new dimensions.

Mr. Chairman, I have no fault to find with the last part of the speech by the hon. member for Constantia. On the contrary, as far as the last part is concerned, I agree with a great deal of it. We must be constantly reviewing and making adjustments to our role in foreign affairs, especially in Africa, and also in regard to the Western World and other parts of the world. As far as the first part of his speech is concerned, however, we know that there are people on that side of the House who make a positive contribution in connection with our foreign affairs. But then, unfortunately, we have the discordant noises, the non-positive contribution, as we had this afternoon from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and from the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, when they criticized us about our domestic policy, which actually has nothing to do with foreign affairs. In fact, they tried to put words in the mouths of our enemies with which they could attack us. Over the past decade or two, South Africa has become accustomed to being attacked from all over the world. We have been reviled and we have had to endure distress and scorn, practically day in and day out. During the past week, however, we have heard a few positive noises. We must nevertheless guard against considering it as a wind of change. But one nevertheless feels that a kind of reality has penetrated to these people and that they are now setting a different priority although it is not a wind of change in favour of South Africa. When we hear these noises, we must not sit still. We must follow up these sounds with everything we have. We must be under no illusions and think that the hostility towards South Africa will not continue. We must not entertain expectations of the positive noises that we have heard. We must not consider them as goodwill or overtures to South Africa In some way the noises we have now heard from abroad, must not pass us by. I feel that we should make positive efforts to make personal contact throughout the world, personal contact, because we are also dealing with a war of hearts and souls and we must play a part in that war of hearts and souls. We must arm our men, too, to fight that type of war. We have many well-informed people in our country who will be only too willing to make a contribution in the best interests of South Africa. For instance, I think we should avail ourselves of this opportunity, now and in the future, to send our informed people abroad, and not on a small scale, but on a large scale, so that they can be ambassadors for us there. Firstly, we have our politicians. Some of them have a great deal of time at their disposal during the parliamentary recess, time that they can put aside for this purpose. There are the parliamentary groups that go on tour every second year. I feel, however, that this is much too little. We must make more use of these people.

Secondly, of course, we also have journalists in our country, newspapermen who are very well-informed and whom we can use as travelling ambassadors. They can make contact at their own level with the communication media of the world, with newspapermen elsewhere in the world, with radio and television people elsewhere in the world, and also make a very positive contribution at their level. We have very able economists and businessmen who can also make an enormous contribution at their level.

Then, too, we have our professional people. We saw recently what Prof. Chris Barnard has done once again in the interests of South Africa. Similarly, I believe there are many other professional people who can be roped in for this purpose. We think of our academics, for instance. There are also many of them who have made a thorough study of foreign affairs and the world’s attitude towards South Africa. We already have organizations like the Africa Institute, the Sentrum vir Internasionale Politiek, at Potchefstroom, Assosiasie Internasionaal, the South African Foundation and the Vryheidstigting van Suider-Afrika. We can also make use of these organizations and their people. Moreover we can use White and Black to do this work for us. Each can work in his own sphere. What I am in fact asking for is the introduction of a squad of travelling ambassadors, people who should not only be appointed sporadically to do this work, but who can be used on a large scale year in and year out. For instance we could send them into Africa. We could also send them to Europe, the Far East, the Middle East, North America and South America. When we used them, we would certainly expect them to report back to us so that follow-up work could be done in respect of the work they had accomplished.

Now of course I know—and in fact this is the first objection to my argument—that we do not have the necessary funds to tackle this project. I feel, however, that defence is South Africa’s first priority. I do not mean only military defence, of course, but also defence against the war aimed at the heart and soul of South Africa. That is why I believe that R1 million per year is nothing to spend on this tremendous insurance policy in the interests of South Africa. Let us finance these people that we want to send out into the world, and pay their travelling and accommodation expenses, as well as their other essential expenditure. I feel that we could reap considerable dividends from this. It is certainly the case that personal contact is always better, and it always yields greater dividends than correspondence. We have nothing to hide; absolutely nothing. That is why I want to take a standpoint diametrically opposed to that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. They made such a tremendous fuss about the word “apartheid” and everything it implies. In contrast, I feel that we should not be on the defensive about the word “apartheid”. I believe that this word has a positive message, a positive message, namely to eliminate friction and the domination of one nation by another. We must therefore eliminate the misconceptions that exist in the world about the word apartheid. We can also do so by making use of those to whom I have just referred. We must send them out so that they can point out the potential of our policy. It may be difficult for them to do the necessary research at all times and to obtain the necessary information and statistics from the relevant departments. Perhaps it might also be a very good thing if the Department of Foreign Affairs were to draw up a fact sheet furnishing all the necessary data and statistics. We know that we cannot always simply go abroad and throw figures at the people there; some of them are not interested in that. But nevertheless one must be armed with those facts. There are already a few societies that do this type of work in the interests of South Africa, and one is very grateful to those societies. I also believe that one could actively support them financially in their work in the interests of South Africa. There is a tremendous amount of work, however, that we can do in the interests of South Africa. These ad hoc actions and events in Africa, like the one in the Shaba province, offer no solution to the problems of the world. Ad hoc solutions have never resulted in long-term success. What we must do, is to present our policy here in South Africa to the world as a long-term solution. The world must realize that it cannot govern by means of ad hoc solutions, and the sooner we can bring this home to them, the better it will be in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, that the work being done by our non-official ambassadors, and those that he mentioned, viz. Prof. Chris Barnard and Gary Player, is producing very positive results. But what have we had here today from the very beginning? From the moment the hon. main speaker of the Official Opposition and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, the main speaker for the NRP, got to their feet, they thought fit to don the pious robes of a priest here and conduct a funeral service for South Africa. I want to tell those two hon. members and their parties that the epitaph and the funeral service may apply to the two parties concerned, but the NP in this country has much more go left in it than they are trying to imply. Unfortunately, one finds a very disconcerting tendency today amongst those who address our general public, and here I include academics and professional people who address the general public by way of the written or spoken word. This tendency manifests itself in an unnecessary ultra-negativism. I believe it would only be a fool or a person with a pair of political dark glasses who would want to allege that South Africa is the most popular country in the world, but to allege on the other hand that we no longer have any friends in the world, is just as stupid and irresponsible a statement.

The Minister himself said so.

If the hon. member would keep his mouth shut and his ears open, he could comment over the weekend. To be obsessed with the negative debit side of the account and never to take note of the positive credit side, is to create an unnecessary psychosis of fear and an unnecessary negative resignation amongst our people. That is why I want to say today—and prove it factually— that even today, in the middle of 1978, South Africa still has a great many good friends abroad. South Africa still has a very decisive role to play in the world and it is in fact doing so. I want to begin with the fact that South Africa is still a member of scores if not hundreds of international organizations. I want to divide these organizations into three categories. Firstly, there are the non-Governmental organizations of which South Africa has always been a valued member. These are organizations with membership throughout the world. We need think of a few of them only, for example Jaycees, Round Table, Lions International, Rotarians and many others that function world-wide. Then there are also the inter-governmental organizations where the members are involved in treaties and agreements. Here one can think of trade agreements, tourist conventions and agreements and treaties in connection with passport and visa control.

Thirdly—and this is very important—there is the group of larger international organizations as well as the so-called specialized agencies of the UN. Here one only has to think of South Africa’s share in the development and conservation of Antartica and the South Pole and of water research. There is also South Africa’s participation in health organizations, where it plays a leading role in connection with malaria and the elimination of the tsetse fly. Then, of course, there are also the large organizations in which we play a valued role. I am thinking for example of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Universal Postal Union and the International Aviation Organizations. It is clear that South Africa plays its role because it still has friends that are not prepared to … [Interjections.] … I shall include agriculture here too.

Yes, please do!

South Africa plays its role because it has friends that are not prepared to be intimidated by the communists and the fellow-travellers of the communists in an attempt to isolate South Africa. Unfortunately South Africa is saddled with some of these fellow-travellers in South Africa itself, but I shall leave the matter at that. Let us move away from this. If it is true that South Africa is the hated country …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said: 1977 was the blackest year in the history of this country. I want to give that hon. member just one example, however, of this blackness of our history. In spite of a world-wide recession, South Africa succeeded, in comparison with 1975, in pushing up its exports from R7,593 milliard, to R10,743 milliard in 1977. Is this the hated country with 1977 as the worst year in its history? Various countries struggled to buy. They could not afford to buy, but nevertheless they bought from this hated country and this was in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Parktown advised them not to invest here, to say nothing of buy! I therefore allege that South Africa has many friends and friendly buyers, people who are the realists of the world and know that one cannot continue to exist merely on ideological prejudice. The number of countries that traded with us in 1977, increased from 123 to 140. The hon. member, however, did not mention this. He was simply engaged in composing an epitaph. We could mention many other examples.

Since time does not allow me to go into this more extensively I want to refer to one other aspect only. We know that 1975 and 1977 were not such good tourist years for us. In 1977 things did improve. Do hon. members know what the figure for February 1978 was in comparison with February 1977? In February 1978 there was a gain of 8 163 tourists, or 18% on the previous February. Of course it is easy to say that it was only the people from a few African States and Rhodesia that visited our country. I want to quote a few more figures, however. Do hon. members know where the increase actually took place? Here are a few figures: Argentina, 146% gain; Belgium, 81%; Italy, 35%; Canada, 45% and Asia 36%. I know that hon. member is going to say at once that it can be ascribed to Taiwan. This is not true, however, because there was 57% increase in visits by Japanese people. I repeat: We do have problems. We accept our problems. However, we should not do anything in our own country to aggravate this. On the contrary, we should do everything in our power to give our friends the opportunity of stating our case abroad. But surely they can do so. If they come here, they not only visit South Africa. They also visit the other African States. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti where in Africa they see the best housing for Black people, the most motor-cars with Black drivers and the highest standard of living. In spite of the blackest year in our history, they see these things here in South Africa. Why do people like Mr. Frans Josef Strauss, Mr. James Clarke of the Western-Australian Parliament, Mr. Julius Tahia, Senator Barry Goldwater and Senator Sam Ajakawa come to visit South Africa? Because they hate us? In that case they could surely visit other countries. They visit us because they still have an intense interest in South Africa, because South Africa still has friends in the world. The hon. members on the other side, however, must be careful that they do not convey the built-in hate that they have for the NP to our friends who visit us and indoctrinate them with it, so that those people leave our country with a hate not of the NP, but of our country and of our people. We must be careful of that. That is what we should be afraid of. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of different ideas expressed here this afternoon which have obviously been of considerable interest in the foreign affairs field. I should like to go back to a statement initially brought into the debate by the hon. the Minister himself and later taken up by other speakers as well. I think that that statement should be very carefully analysed and pondered on not only by hon. members in the House but by all the people in South Africa, and by all the people I mean all the people: Black, Brown and Asiatic as well as White. I would also suggest that the countries in Africa take note of the point the hon. the Minister raised here, viz. that a change in foreign policy has become apparent in the USA since the Carter Administration came into power.

An analysis of the Carter Administration’s global strategy reveals some frightening and rather abhorrent practices. I know that the American people themselves do not all agree with the policies of the Carter Administration as far as global strategy is concerned. I raise this matter because I believe South Africa will have to think very carefully—the hon. the Minister obviously has done so—of the counter-measures and counter-strategies South Africa will have to use if we are to survive successfully as a democratic country in Southern Africa. I have said that I believe that the American people do not all subscribe to the philosophy and policies of the Carter Administration. To illustrate this, I need but point to the very good news we received today by way of The Citizen, viz. that the proposal by an ad hoc monitoring committee in the United States to prevent South Africa from getting bank and credit facilities was defeated, in the words of The Citizen of this morning—

I think that that is very good news. It illustrates that we do have friends in the United States.

It is, however, obvious that there was a change in the United States foreign policy from the time the Carter Administration came into power. That policy is of particular relevance to the South African situation. An analysis of the policy indicates that the change that has come about has resulted from the fact that the USA and the Carter Administration in particular has realized that the name of the game in the future survival of the world’s countries is to gain access to the scarce resources of the world, namely oil, chrome, vanadium and other strategic minerals. What is of particular significance is the fact that the Carter Administration, in its attempt to gain access to these vital scarce resources in Africa, must have taken certain definite decisions regarding their stand in the defence and implementation of democracy in Africa, as a policy stand. I believe the Carter Administration has decided, rightly or wrongly, that they would sacrifice democracy in South Africa if that would give them access to scarce resources. I believe that the policy statement of the United States is clearly demonstrated by a statement made by ambassador Allard Lowenstein, a US special representative to the United Nations on political affairs, when he said the following in a broadcast relayed in the SABC’s programme “Current Affairs” on 20 April—

I think that sums up very clearly the stance which the United States is taking in the African context namely that they are not prepared to take overt action to get democracy accepted as a form of government in Africa. I believe they consider it more important to get their economic policy implemented and to have access to scarce resources even at the price of seeing democracy go down the drain. I believe that this strategy is not accepted by the bulk of Americans, but it may well become—and I think the hon. the Minister should take note of this—the strategy to be employed by other Western nations within the foreseeable future and in the very short term, when access to scarce resources is going to result in a nation having to take a decision as to what is expedient politically in order to ensure that that particular nation will have access to scarce resources. We have heard from the hon. the Minister himself and from other sources about double talk. We have seen the vagueness of objectives which the Carter Administration wishes to see other countries following. We have seen the manipulation of mass communication media in order to achieve certain ends. I regret to say that even in this country of ours we find certain political parties that also subscribe to double talk in order to camouflage the real objectives which they wish to achieve, notably the Official Opposition. This party, like the Carter Administration, is not telling the people in its own country what its foreign policy is all about. In the same vein I believe that the PFP is not telling the people of South Africa what its strategy and objectives are.

I want to demonstrate this if I may. Because the time is very short I want to come back to what I said, namely that there is a considerable amount of coincidence—beyond the law of chance—between the modus operandi of the Carter Administration and the PFP. I would like to refer to an incident which occurred fairly recently, namely on 22 May. I think hon. members will remember that there was a strike at the President Steyn mine, which happens to be part of the Anglo-American group for which the hon. member for Pinelands is the official labour consultant. In that instance a number of Black miners went on the rampage. This was reported on in articles which appeared in The Cape Times and The Argus on 22 and 23 May. According to these reports, a number of African miners went on strike due to dissatisfaction with the rations which they were given and certain other aspects relating to their canteen. What was the response of the PFP to this and how does this relate to the question of double talk and the undermining of the existing establishment? I quote from The Argus of 23 May 1978, bearing in mind that the cause of the strike was the policy of the company concerned. What did the hon. member for Pinelands say to this? I quote—

This is a typical example of the utilization of the mass media to undermine the existing order, if one may call it that, and spokesmen making statements which are irrelevant to situations which actually occur. I think it is abhorrent that the hon. member for Pinelands should also participate in this double talk which we are finding so evident in the attitude of other countries towards South Africa. The reason why South Africa is always the whipping boy is because this apparently allows other nations to gain favour with the African States. I believe that the Carter Administration will accept any form of government in an African State, irrespective of the political consequences because, as the hon. the Minister has said, it will still allow them access economically and technologically to that nation. I think the writing is on the wall.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, during the supper break I looked at the speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and in it I found no search for the potential for a solution to South Africa’s problems. I sought optimism in it and I also sought realism and a knowledge of our ability and our own potential. All that I found there, however, is that we have more than enough conflict potential to make us a burden to the West. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout found enough potential for us to destroy ourselves. He also found enough potential to let loose a wave of discontent and discouragement in South Africa. It is deplorable. Earlier today the hon. member for Durban North gave the reason for the aloofness of the USA towards Southern Africa in the sense that the USA exercises options in favour of protecting human rights at all times, even at the cost of democracy. I believe I understood the hon. member correctly in this regard. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well as the hon. member for Durban North, however, overlooked a very important aspect, an aspect that can tell us a great deal about our present problems in South Africa and that may also point out a possible way of handling them. In this regard it occurs to me that the balance of power that exists between Russia and the USA, to be specific, has been disturbed in favour of Russia. The fact of the matter is that it has been 16 years since Kennedy forced a decision in favour of the USA against Kruschev and his Cuban missiles, by means of sound judgment and tactical power. Sixteen years have elapsed. Kennedy’s action was based on a philosophy and a strategy of stability that the USA could maintain at the time, stability in the sense that in the first place, there could be no advantage for Russia by being the first one to make a nuclear attack, and in the second place, it did not dare to start any adventures openly anywhere else in the world. This was the situation. Another feature of that stability was that the Soviet had no desire at all to challenge the USA. Alas, that stability no longer exists today. We can summarize the history briefly as follows:

From 1950 to 1966 the USA had an overwhelming power in its favour, from 1967 to 1969, the following words of Nixon described the situation well: “We retained a significant superiority. Today, 1970, the Soviet Union possesses a powerful and sophisticated force approaching our own.” In the period 1976 to 1978 strategists like Solomon from Pittsburg and others maintain that—

They are referring to Russia here—

That is where we stand today. The fact is that, in the vacuum created by the negotiations around Salt I, the Soviet Union succeeded not only in expanding its fleet, but also stepping forward with a tremendous technological effort to disturb the balance of power to such an extent that America can no longer allege today that it has the upper hand.

It is therefore very important for us to know what strategists of world standing are discussing today. They are discussing the fact that the credibility of the American leadership and the ability to withstand pressure from the Soviet Union in the long term, is being questioned. This is the crux of the matter. An important feature of the period in which stability was maintained by the USA, was that no adventures were undertaken by Russia. Similarly it was also a feature that if such adventures had been undertaken, they would have served as a challenge to the other party that the challengers no longer respected the force of the power that was being challenged. The USA could do it and became involved in Vietnam, inter alia, when they had the upper hand at one stage. They proved it by acting openly. But what happened after that? We know the history and we know about the ascendancy gained by Russia after that. The point is that with these actions these two countries told one another that they did not fear one another. In this regard I am referring to intervention on a smaller, conventional scale and challenges directed at the expansion and establishment of interests. The first indication that we had in this direction, was Angola. This was the first notice to the West that Russia no longer fears them.

The fact is therefore that we here in Southern Africa, specifically in South Africa, are involved in this dialogue on the balance of power. The question arises: What contribution can we make in this regard? I find it a pity that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not go into this aspect. He is the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition on foreign affairs, but it is only conflict potential that engages his attention and he does not investigate South Africa’s potential of making a contribution to restoring the balance of power in favour of the USA and the West in order to ensure stability and peace. [Interjections.] This is the serious fault I find with that hon. member’s speech. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is apparently going to speak during this debate and we should like to hear from him whether he recognizes this potential and whether he wants to find the opportunity to develop that potential.

South Africa’s potential therefore lies in various factors. A few of these factors are our natural resources, our ability to produce food and our strategic situation. The mere fact that these factors are being attacked today, by leftists, militant strategists from the Eastern bloc, shows us how important these factors are. For instance we know that a Sovietologist who appeared in South Africa last year, announced that these factors are no longer important. They also went out of their way to disparage the strategic role of the Cape sea route by alleging that the USA no longer needs it. The counter-argument is very clear. If the balance of power is disturbed in favour of Russia and the USA cannot maintain itself, the USA needs this very factor in its favour. Surely it is logical. It is also noticeable to us that the USA does not take note of the fact that its own oil supply around our coast has increased from almost nothing in 1965 to about 2,5 million barrels in 1976-’77. This represents 30% of the USA’s oil requirements and it comes from the Persian Gulf. Similarly there has been a strong drop in the oil supply to America through the Suez Canal. Another factor that is important, is the fact that the total oil flow to the West around the Cape coast has increased from 0,8 million barrels per day in 1965 to 18 million barrels per day in 1976. We are therefore not surprised that this potential of South Africa is being disparaged and brushed aside.

Further factors are the potential of South Africa’s industries and agriculture, but particularly South Africa’s potential to handle and manage its own affairs, and our ability to find a solution concerning our domestic affairs. The latter potential, however, can only be fulfilled if we have stability. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not examine these factors either.

It is therefore necessary for us to say that we can make a contribution towards restoring the balance of power. We can make this contribution by means of what we have received from Providence and what we have brought about for ourselves, but especially by our determination to stop the Black bear and the Brown bear. It is also to be found in our ability to ensure that we are not intimidated by smaller conflicts on our borders and away from our borders. We have the will to oppose or even eliminate any base that poses a meaningful threat to us.

With this notice that we want to serve on Russia, we say that we have a role to play in this very important struggle between the East and the West concerning the maintenance of the balance of power. We are prepared to make our contribution in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, no matter how one may argue this matter, we have to accept that in world politics today, it is a matter of a struggle between East and West. It is also an indisputable fact that in the long run South Africa will not be able to escape this struggle between East and West. That is so because Africa has become one of the most important arenas in which this straggle is being waged, and South Africa is ineluctably part of Africa. However difficult it may appear to us at this stage, we have to accept that we cannot escape an alliance with one of the two great power blocs in the world. There can be no misunderstanding whatsoever about the fact that up to now, South Africa has always sided with the West and with the moderates. Unfortunately the other side of the coin is also true, namely that time and again our allies have let us down.

Now it is certainly true that one can clamour about the unfairness of dual standards and amorality until the end of time. But there is one reality of which we shall certainly have to take cognizance, and that is that at the moment, the West and the moderates in the world arena cannot see their way clear to being regarded as allies of South Africa. This state of affairs is also connected with another reality, and that is namely that the Security Council of the UN has today become the focal point around which world politics revolves. The UN is the place where punishment is meted out. It is the one organization in world politics which, by its measures such as sanctions and boycotts, can, humanly speaking, materially influence a small country like South Africa.

In South Africa’s straggle to change this picture, there is one dominant factor—and although it is often being said these days, I believe that its importance cannot be overemphasized—and that is that our greatest strength lies in associating ourselves with Africa. The road to acceptance, the establishment of ties of friendship and alliances with the West, runs through Africa. For that reason I believe that the normalization of our relations with Africa presents our greatest single challenge in the field of international politics.

The question now arises whether South Africa is succeeding in normalizing its relations with Africa.

If one analyses a few of the events which have recently taken place in the Africa arena, one sees certain positive indications which confirm that we are indeed succeeding in that goal. As a result of South Africa’s military action against the Swapo camps in Angola on 4 May 1978, Western sources expected that everything pertaining to their South West African initiative in Africa would collapse. It was expected that the front-line States, in particular, would react sharply. And yet, although there were the expected condemnations, the reaction in general has been moderate. One of the reasons for this moderate reaction is surely the fact that the invasion of the Shaba province in Zaïre was probably already in an advanced stage of planning. What is of even greater importance to us, however, is the fact that the front-line States are evidently still willing to assist in persuading Swapo to return to the conference table. Evidence of this is Tanzania’s decision to release Shipanga, an action which can bring further pressure to bear on Swapo.

What is also important, is the moderate statement by President Bongo of Gabon on South Africa’s acceptance of the Western settlement plan. This statement was issued after South Africa’s action in Angola. Probably, too, it was President Bongo’s statement which caused the West to react more moderately and which led to Mr. Waldheim’s moderate statement on this matter. It is interesting that this reaction, too, is further proof of the fact that the West is to a great extent, guided by how it thinks Africa will vote in the world body.

The moderate reaction from Africa could perhaps also be ascribed to the fact that South Africa accepted the Western settlement proposals. In doing so, South Africa had once again illustrated its willingness to solve the problems of Africa in a peaceful way. For many years, there have been scornful references to South Africa’s so-called “back-door diplomacy”. The indications are that this type of diplomacy is forcing its way to the surface.

With the Angolan war in 1976, the moderates in Africa succeeded for the first time in polling 50% of the votes of the OAU when there was an attempt at a unilateral condemnation of South Africa. The polarization between the moderates and the radicals as a result of that, has since increased considerably, and was again forced into prominence with the invasion of Shaba. Undoubtedly, these events have further intensified it.

There is even talk in Africa now of a peace-keeping force to counteract the Russian/Cuban military threat. Add to that the fact that many African countries are going hungry, and that South Africa has the food they need.

When one observes all these factors in the African arena, I think there can be no doubt about the favourable climate for a South African breakthrough on the continent of Africa. Consequently I believe that the next phase of South Africa’s diplomatic offensive in Africa has probably become necessary and that every effort should be made to bring the so-called “back-door diplomacy” even closer to the surface. Without furthering the dangerous polarization in Africa, we should accept the realities and exploit them to our benefit.

A settlement in South West Africa can undoubtedly contribute a great deal to our cause in Africa. Even if the settlement cannot satisfy everybody, but in any event the moderates in Africa, I venture to state that it is not all that far-fetched to say that the South West African issue may give rise to the moderates in Africa winning a vote in the OAU for the first time. It is therefore essential that on the one hand, the South West African issue should be handled with the greatest circumspection and that on the other an attempt should be made to satisfy the moderates in Africa rather than the West, and America in particular, in this matter.

If South Africa can succeed in gaining the respect and the confidence of a substantial part of Africa, its position in the world will be made considerably easier, because the West listens to Africa. It needs their votes in the world organization, and therefore the West will only accommodate South Africa in the Western bloc if it is the will of Africa.

These are the realities surrounding the struggle for power which is being waged in Africa. If South Africa succeeds with a diplomatic offensive in Africa, it will also succeed in solving its problems in South West Africa and in respect of its home-front, and I believe South Africa will then make it easier for a moderate Africa to move closer to her on this continent. I therefore believe that if South Africa can meet this challenge, it will make a mighty contribution towards a glorious future for our country.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I should like to reply to some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I should like to start by dealing once more with his suggestion that our international problems are caused by our internal situation and by our internal policy. I would have hoped that by now, after we have crossed swords on this issue so often in this House before, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would realize that his party has no hope whatsoever of ever satisfying the demands of the United Nations and of the radicals, unless they are prepared to capitulate completely and to accept the United Nations’ concept of majority rule, or “one man, one vote” in one political entity. However, I did not hear the hon. member discuss that point here today. For years his demand was that petty apartheid should be removed, that the ugly and rough sides of apartheid should be done away with. Today, however, I did not hear him say a word about that. Now all of a sudden he simply wants to throw overboard the whole concept of multinational development.

I never referred to multinational development, but to apartheid.

However, that is not going to help them. I am not prepared, after so many years, to try to prove the obvious any longer in this House. The PFP know they have no hope. They know what the demands are and they know they cannot meet them. Apparently not even Rhodesia can meet them. They know that the outside world is not concerned with the improvement of the living conditions of Black or Coloured or Asian people in this country. The radical world is no longer interested in that.

Let me illustrate this. The United States is consistently and constantly urging us to improve the quality of life of our Black people by for instance providing better education, better training, better housing and higher salaries. I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is correct to put it like that. The hon. member will agree with me that we are consistently, continuously being urged, being pressed—if I may use the word—by the United States, by the Western Governments and others to do just that.

However, these things require money, vast amounts of money, and money can only be generated if their is sufficient economic development, sufficient economic growth in South Africa. South Africa is today committed to narrowing the gap between Black and White advancement. That is a fact. This Government is committed to do that. However, at this very juncture, our capacity to generate the funds required for this purpose is being hampered and inhibited by the restrictions placed on our economy by campaigns for disinvestment and by threats of sanctions. This is the situation.

The current issue of the influenciai business magazine Fortune points out the following in connection with the American experience—

That was in the United States—

In other words, anyone who wants to destroy racism in this country should invest here. However, they do not even want to do that. This is the point I am trying to make. I do not want to engage in invective and acrimonious debates with the United States, but if we are to conduct a constructive debate with the United States, these contradictions should be removed. There is no other way of doing it. We are dealing with the welfare and with the progress of the Black peoples in this country, and unless this tendency to punish South Africa, to take punitive measures against this country, is removed from the minds from certain United States officials, I feel myself entitled to conclude that the United States Administration is simply not concerned about the welfare of the Black people in South Africa.

There is another aspect to which I should like to refer. This point is illustrative of the vindictiveness in the minds of some Americans and it was actually raised by the hon. member for Simonstown. I refer to the self-denying lengths to which the headquarters of the American Peace Corps are prepared to go to offend South Africa A decree was issued by the Director of the USA Peace Corps that its volunteers in neighbouring territories here were prohibited from receiving medical treatment in South Africa. Instead Peace Corps workers were required to fly all the way to West Germany for treatment. This decree, which I understand has subsequently been downgraded to an “advisory” in terms of which Peace Corps workers are advised to avoid medical treatment in South Africa, should be seen against the background of the Administration’s recent relaxation of travel restrictions for Americans to countries such as Cuba, Albania and North Korea, countries with whom the USA has no diplomatic relations and with whose internal policies Washington presumably does not agree.

*There we have it clearly. We can talk for hours tonight and try and try to score debating points off one another on this serious matter, but one gets the impression that the harder the Government and the country try to get closer to the goalposts, the further back the goalposts are moved every time. It almost does not matter what we try to do. There cannot be an hon. member in the House—let us talk frankly with one another now—who can tell me that what has been done in the field of sport in this country, is purely a cosmetic metamorphesis. Such an allegation is simply not true. Hon. members will probably agree with me that my colleague, Dr. Piet Koornhof, has toiled unceasingly …

Too late.

No, nothing is ever too late if one genuinely wants to do good. If that is the standpoint of the hon. members on the opposite side, we might as well all give up and run away, for then it is too late for their policy as well. It is then also too late for what they are doing, because what country in the world is going to support their policy? What happened the other day when a certain Black leader gave his opinion of their policy? [Interjections.]

The important point tonight is that when, in a debate on foreign affairs, one knows what is involved and what is at stake, namely the great struggle for the balance of power between the great powers, one knows full well that as we sit here tonight, it is no longer of any avail to conduct debates in Committee, when the Foreign Affairs Vote is under discussion, on what party in this House has a policy which might possibly satisfy the radical world, because we all fall short. We can forget about that. What can indeed be debated, is how we could possibly bring about changes so that internally we can achieve a strong position of goodwill, prosperity and good relations towards one another, so that we can offer the greatest possible resistance when this onslaught is made on us from outside. In my view there can be a healthy debate about that, but if there is a party which is represented in this House at this juncture—as far as I know, the Communist Party is not yet represented here … [Interjections.] —which wants to tell me that it hopes to satisfy the hostile outside world with its policy, it may as well forget about it. I shall be grateful—in fact, I think it would be in the interests of all of us and even in the interests of our relations with our Coloured, our Asian and our Black people— if we can now drop that kind of petty argument and rather constructively encourage and supplement one another in respect of those matters which could build up our internal strength so that we can stand together against the outside world to show them that there is a lot of good in this country. There are mistakes, but there is also a lot of good. There is much that is noble in the relations between our people. There is much hope in the relations between Black, Brown, Asian and White people in this country. Let us build on that; let us, for once, tell the White people that they are not as bad as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout makes them out to be. Let us say for once that there is still much goodwill between the different population groups of the country, because we see that every day. Hon. members can walk with me through the streets of Cape Town, Pretoria or Johannesburg during the day …

Tell that to Steve Biko.

The hon. member must listen to this. The other day there was a foreign Black man who was paying a visit to our country, and when the hon. the Prime Minister asked him what had impressed him most, he said: “Sir, I think you may laugh at me, but I find here that people do not push me from the sidewalks—in fact, they are friendly—and in a shop where I bought toothpaste, the young lady behind the counter treated me in a much more friendly manner than I would be treated in Europe.” This might sound childish, silly or ridiculous, but this is the type of goodwill which members on the opposite side should also talk about. Talk about it a little, and hon. members will see how that will help them. It will encourage them to think more positively. We are not underestimating the seriousness of our situation. I have given a realistic summary here tonight. My department has given a balanced review—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must admit that—of the seriousness of the situation at the UN. We are not trying to hide anything in this connection. But it will not help us to repeat the same old arguments year after year about who among us in fact stands a chance of satisfying the radicals. Not one of us does! Let us accept that now and rather conduct constructive debates on constructive aspects.

If Bamford were to do that, he would be less sour.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout posed a very important question. The question was whether the Government realized how serious the situation against us was, or words to that effect. I think I have already indicated, in the brief statement I made earlier, how serious the situation is, at least how serious I consider the situation to be. I took our relations with the United States as an example of our relations with the whole Western world.

However my remarks on this issue would be incomplete if I failed to point out that there are also positive elements in our relations with the United States and, like ourselves, I believe there are those in the United States Administration and elsewhere who would like to see an improvement in our relations. In high-level contacts we have identified some of these areas which might receive further and urgent attention. Hopefully these positive elements will in the future be explored with the same vigour that had been devoted in the recent past to the negative aspects. A ray of hope can be seen in the differences of opinion—it is not known how substantial they are—which appear to be emerging within the American Administration concerning Russian and Cuban activities in Africa.

In this connection allow me to quote briefly from a statement issued by the Republican members of the Senate recently. I think it was during the first week in May. They said—

This was a positive statement. The element that appears to have been underplayed from the beginning, in the United States’ broad global strategy, has been Russian military might and its eagerness to apply this might opportunistically. It seems that the Russo-Cuban intervention in Zaïre, following on the heels of the Ethiopia-Somalia conflict is causing concern at least to some members of President Carter’s Government because of its long-term implications. We welcome the latest statement by the President of the United States concerning the serious threat to African stability posed by the Soviet Union. Similarly there are indications that the threat posed by the Soviet Union outside Africa is apparently now also being recognized. I quote what President Carter said at the opening ceremony of the Nato conference in Washington on 30 May. He said—

That is the President of the United States. The Prime Minister has already welcomed this. The concern expressed by the President of the United States here was also voiced by other Nato leaders. We welcome these statements and hope that this will lead to a more constructive and realistic appraisal of the situation in South Africa and of the threat of the Russians and Cubans to the stability of Africa. It is also heartening to read what President Eyadema said recently in Paris when the French-speaking African countries met there. I think it is worth to repeat in this Parliament the words of a fellow African in this regard, a person with whose views on this matter we can agree completely. The President said—

Indeed, as a representative of my Government I associate myself with these views expressed by President Eyadema of Togo.

There is, however, another serious aspect affecting our relations with the United States that I cannot omit to mention. Never before in the history of our relations have the radical elements, information media and anti-South African organizations succeeded in injecting so much emotion into the American public approach towards South Africa. This is also reflected in a number of legislative proposals against South Africa which are being launched even outside the Administration’s official programme in the US Congress. I emphasize this because this illustrates graphically the tremendous task—difficult, but challenging—which lies ahead of us not only in trying to convince the Administration of the fairness and realism of what we are trying to do here, but also in correcting the distorted picture which American opinion formers and legislators have of South African affairs. I do not want to burden the House with all the details, but I think I should give hon. members an idea at least of some of the proposals that are being taken up at the moment in the United States House of Representatives. These include a resolution designed to deny tax concessions to American undertakings in South Africa which pay South African tax; a resolution to forbid the import of South African goods manufactured under conditions of wage differentials or work reservation; a proposal to end all existing military licence agreements between the United States and foreign firms by which armaments can be supplied to South Africa; and the proposed termination of the export to South Africa of non-military products, such as aircraft. I may mention that the proposed export of Cessna light aircraft has been opposed. Just before the week-end, a proposal in the House of Representatives for a total ban of United States export-import bank facilities to South Africa was rejected in favour of a resolution that restricted the ban to items supplied to the South African Government or to semi-Government bodies or in respect of items which might be made available to the S.A. Police, military or other security services. Exports to the private sector were exempted from the ban provided the companies involved endorsed a specified set of equal employment principles and supported negotiations with labour unions. Significantly, a further amendment to extend the same conditions to communist countries was narrowly rejected. During January 1978 Senator Clark, chairman of the Africa Sub-committee of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a detailed study with recommendations also aimed at curtailing United States-South African relations.

From what I have said, it is clear that the pressure on South Africa emanates from many spheres in the United States, both official and unofficial. We must not be under any illusion about this matter. There is no indication as yet that the situation will improve in the foreseeable future as far as this aspect is concerned. On the contrary, we cannot rule out a further deterioration. From our side we must do everything possible to arrest this trend. By that I am not suggesting that we should abandon our principles, but that we should continue and intensify our efforts to convince the Administration and the United States opinion formers of the realities of the situation facing Africa, South Africa in particular, and also the role that South Africa has been called upon to play within this framework, because we have a role and I believe we are going to play it. I would like to inform the House that my department is working day and night to endeavour to improve this situation. As hon. members are well aware, my department works quietly behind the scenes. Publicity, in any event, is only self-defeating when one is dealing with the delicate matters in which we are involved. Contacts and discussions between Governments are also as a rule of a confidential nature.

In assessing South Africa’s position within the turmoil of this troubled world, we should, above all, retain the correct perspective. Our relations with the United States are important, but we also have relations with the rest of the world. These relations are very strongly influenced by what is happening in South West Africa and Rhodesia. In particular I wish to stress the importance of these developments on the attitude of moderate African countries towards South Africa. It was general knowledge that shortly before the initiative of the five Western countries last year in April, the hostility towards South Africa in respect of South West Africa was reaching alarming proportions, far worse than now. Indeed, not only Africa, but virtually the whole world, was clamouring at the time for sanctions and for drastic measures against South Africa. The same pattern was discernible in regard to Rhodesia. But because of the constructive efforts and role played by the South African Government, the climate, particularly in regard to moderate Africa, changed. Today there is a willingness on the part of a greater number of African countries than in the past to view with more understanding South Africa’s position in regard to these matters. This attitude may, of course, change if, as a result of circumstances beyond our control, international acceptability of resolutions in respect of South West Africa and Rhodesia are not achieved. On the other hand, if this is achieved it could, through moderate Africa, have a marked influence also on our relations with other parts of the world. To that end we will continue to do our very best.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I would like to say that we greatly welcome the moderate tone and the reasonableness of the hon. the Minister. As I said earlier today, I believe that there is a change of circumstances in Africa, a new set of conditions is coming to the fore and might provide an opportunity for South Africa which has not existed up to the present time.

Perhaps I should leave aside the hon. the Minister’s remarks—which I frankly thought were unnecessary—about the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who made a most rational speech. It has become a habit to operate against the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on a voodoo basis namely to make a little image of him and to stick pins in him in an effort to assuage the anxieties and disagreements on that side of the House. In fact, he spoke most responsibly, and it is a great pity that it was not recognized on that side of the House.

However, I want to come back and refer to the speech of the hon. the Minister. I believe there is recognition by the hon. the Minister that apart from the elements in the United States who have given cause for offence in South Africa—and we were rightly offended by some of the things that were said—there is a trend of goodwill in the United States. There are a great many people who are responsible in their attitudes, who realize the significance of South Africa, who recognized the possibilities of change in South Africa and who wish us well.

I believe it is wrong to carry on, as some hon. members have done in the House today, behaving as though the whole of the USA were irrational, hostile and unreasonable. I believe that we have to deal with the responsible members of the administration. I also welcome the reference by the hon. the Minister to the fact that not all African States are hostile. It is important to recognize that South Africa’s fate depends not so much on what the radicals of the world say about us, as on what the Western nations, the Nato aligned nations, think about us and what the African nations think about us. I believe that the Houphouet-Boigny people of Africa are more important in the long run than the Idi Amin people. If we can get something going in Africa and if we can get recognition by the Western world, North America and Western Europe, then Africa, or the greater part of it, will in fact be prepared to seek out ways and means of living with South Africa. There is yet room for improvement in our relations. I therefore again want to say that I welcome the constructive and positive nature of the hon. the Minister’s remarks as against the kind of highly critical, hopeless and hostile remarks which we have grown accustomed to in recent months. I believe that we should not talk ourselves into a state of despair or hostility about our chances with the Western world and the African world. I believe that we need to adopt a more optimistic, sanguine, hopeful and a more constructive approach.

I would now like to refer to something which has not yet been touched upon during this debate. This issue is significant in Africa, because amongst those things that the African States are looking for, in addition to non-domination by foreign ideologies and the removal of neo-colonialism, is keeping Africa free of nuclear proliferation. While South Africa has a special case, which I shall deal with if I have time, I believe that we have to bear in mind that amongst the other things that we have in common with Africa, is the desire to ensure that this continent will be safeguarded against the dangers of nuclear warfare and of nuclear proliferation. South Africa has perhaps had an unfortunate history in this respect, although South Africa has generally been punctilious in obeying the non-proliferation commandments. It has in fact, when involved in nuclear trading, been careful to accept the regulations and the rules which are laid down by the International Atomic Energy for the non-proliferation of nuclear material. South Africa has, in other words, accepted the basic safeguards. In its bi-lateral agreements, which have either operated together with the international safeguard agreements or in parallel with them, South Africa has on the whole been careful to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I believe we have a good record in this regard.

However, we are running into certain difficulties, because we have thought it right, up to the present stage, not to sign the nonproliferation treaty, which is regarded by many countries as being essential to safeguard the human race against the dangers of nuclear proliferation. It is indeed a very difficult question. It is right to say that we have not been treated entirely fairly in this respect. It is also right, however, to look at the other point of view. I believe that there is, in the USA, for example, very grave concern aimed not at South Africa in particular, but about the fact that proliferation is proceeding despite the non-proliferation agreement. In losing its commercial control over such things as enrichment, the reprocessing of nuclear fuels, its control over the recovery of plutonium from nuclear fuels, the USA has also lost its political leverage. The USA administration itself is under very heavy attack in its own country for having lost this control and advantage. It is being said that if they had insisted on countries signing the non-proliferation treaty and obeying all the regulations, then they would not have lost control, and that, for example, before signing a deal with South Africa to supply fuel for a research reactor at Pretoria, they should have insisted on South Africa signing the non-proliferation treaty. This did not happen only in the case of South Africa, but also in respect of many other countries as well.

Non-proliferation is a very important part of the defence of the Western world, because should this thing get out of hand we are all in danger of getting blown to pieces. South Africa is the leading nuclear power in the African continent, notwithstanding what happened in Vienna. What happened there was a total injustice and it was totally unjustified. The fact is that South Africa remains the major nuclear power on the African continent and we also have a role of leadership and example to play here. I believe it is time for us to reconsider whether we cannot set an example which would not only improve our own status in respect of the future supply of nuclear materials, but would in fact re-emphasize our position as leaders in the nuclear field on the African continent. This would be an enormous addition to our prestige and our role in the important aspect of the development of Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister made a statement in August 1977 stating that South Africa was seriously considering accession to the non-proliferation treaty and was prepared to discuss the matter with the United States. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister—he is sure to know this—whether these negotiations have taken place and whether they show any signs of success. I also wish to make a reproach against the hon. the Minister because I put a question on the Order Paper not very long ago in which I asked whether such discussions had taken place and whether any changes in South Africa’s obligations under the treaty were proposed; if so, what changes. The hon. the Minister rather smartly replied to this question that since South Africa has not adhered to the non-proliferation treaty it has no obligations under the treaty to which changes can be proposed. Quite clearly this was no more than a smart evasion of the question because I was asking whether we were renegotiating, whether we were discussing new conditions and whether we were discussing some way of improving the conditions under which one could adhere to the non-proliferation treaty. As I said, the hon. the Minister, avoiding information rather than giving information, said that we did not belong to the NPT—I can assure the hon. the Minister that I was aware of this when I asked the question—and said further that since we did not belong to the treaty we had no obligation. I should now like to repeat this question to the hon. the Minister. I believe it is most important that South Africa should set an example in Africa in this regard. I need not convince anybody that the dangers are real and that we should, in fact, use this opportunity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia began his speech by congratulating the hon. the Minister on a very moderate and sober speech. I could pay the hon. member the same compliment. The years in which he was in the diplomatic service have taught him to choose his words very carefully and to set a watch before his mouth at all times. I only wish he could teach a few of his hon. colleagues to count their words as well. In contrast to the hon. member for Constantia there have been hon. members on that side of the House, to be specific the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that have sketched a very sombre picture to us and have told us in a very fanciful fashion of all the dangers threatening us. The hon. member even spoke about a “holy war of freedom against apartheid”. What the hon. member should have said—he knows very well that he should have put it like that—was that a war was being waged against the caricature which the world and hon. members opposite are making of our policy of separate development. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Why does he persist in using the word “apartheid”? Surely the hon. member knows very well that it is an emotionally loaded word. Or does the hon. member want to use this word intentionally in order to stir up feelings against this country? [Interjections.]

You used the word for 30 years!

I want to discuss the storm brewing against us, and the negative and positive things we see in it. I want to agree with the hon. member for Pretoria East who said that if we emphasize the debit side so excessively and do not stress the credit side, we are thereby creating a psychosis of fear—and that is the most disastrous of all mental states in a time such as this.

However, I do not wish to discuss this at too great length because I do not really think it is an attitude which is to be encountered to a significant extent among our people; on the contrary, I find the opposite to be the case. There is more to give us hope for the future than to weigh us down. The thing that did not offer much hope or inspire much confidence was the attitude of the West—I hope I am correct in using the past tense “was”— because until last week many of us were very discouraged about the attitude of the West.

However, there are now encouraging signs of a change taking place. Shaba demonstrated to us that Marxism is not such an inexorably moving force as some of us had thought. Over the past few days, very welcome and reassuring statements have been made in the world, including a statement by Mr. Harold Brown of the USA who we heard over the weekend. He stressed that Africa, with its strategic minerals and its geographic situation, was in fact of importance to the West. There are signs that more and more people are today beginning to realize that the struggle being waged in this subcontinent will determine not only the future of Southern Africa but also the future of the West.

I had wanted to start by referring to the negative things, but it seems that they have already become more positive. I want to discuss the forces building up against us and the apparent incapacity of the West to put up stronger resistance than a feeble protest. Under our gaze the negative is becoming positive. There are other negative things—the hon. the Minister referred to them—things for which we shall probably have to wait some time yet before they become positive. He himself expressed the opinion that this verbal campaign against us could increase in intensity; but hope maketh not ashamed; we are not giving up, because the positive will eventually triumph. We can discuss the double standards being applied against us and the unfair and unreasonable accusations which bear no relation to the facts, but we who believe that in the long run the lie cannot stand up against the truth, and who believe that the truth will eventually triumph, will not lose faith. One of the truths—I am terribly pleased that the hon. member for Umhlanga finds me entertaining—that must be put across at all times is that there is nowhere on this earth where the gap between the Western world and the Third World is narrowing to the extent that it is here. Between 1971 and 1976 the salaries of Whites increased by 64% and those of Blacks by 150%. There is of course a tremendous gap still; bigger than we would like. This is a fact which we do not conceal. However, we are narrowing that gap.

In the foreseeable future we shall have to co-exist with people who have a guilty conscience and then point an accusing finger at us about those things which they themselves are guilty of. I believe, too, that the indisputable facts of the matter will eventually have the last word. The other day I heard the absurd charge being made against us that we were engaged in a struggle of extermination against our Black people. Where does that charge come from? In the 17th century there were a few hundred thousand Black people in South Africa; today there are 19 million. In a certain other country there were 4 million Redskins at that time, and today there are only 1 million, and those people point a finger at us. There is an onslaught against us, an onslaught of a diabolical, godless ideology, and there is something positive that can be derived even from this negative matter. If the onslaught against us has achieved one thing, it has strengthened our will to survive. It has intensified our patriotism as never before. It has aroused a spirit of sacrifice among our people such as we have never known before. It has also brought about a national unity such as has never been encountered in this country before. There is a propaganda onslaught against us, and it hurts, but however paradoxical it may sound, even in this there is still advantage to be derived, and we can derive benefit from it. The positive is to be found in the negative. There are people who are carried to heights of emotion about all the injustice supposedly being committed against the Black man in our country. Now it is true that people with the strongest prejudices and the deepest hate of us have become our greatest champions in that they have come here to see for themselves what is going on here. In this way this malicious propaganda has at least made us known. This is the first step.

The second step is that people discovered that the people causing that propaganda are malicious, and former enemies have become our friends. We have an inextinguishable faith that one day, when the storm against us has subsided, we have a role to play in Africa, a role that we shall play because there is a need for us to do this. We have a contribution to make to the people of Africa, a contribution which could refine and improve the life of millions of people. Africa needs food. There are 40 countries in Africa in which the food production is dropping by an average of 2% every year. Their population growth is more than 2%, so that the need is steadily increasing. Not only do we have food to export to those people; we have agricultural expertise to export. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to shift the accent to the practical, the psychological and immediate action and say a few words on a Total Offensive Strategy for South Africa.

It is true that there are times when to be known in a bad light is better than not to be known at all. In our case there is no option in any case, because we are pretty well known, but unfortunately, in a very bad light.

How can we cash in on this? How can we turn this minus into a plus? Here is one example: Because the world now looks upon South Africa as such a terrible villain people will pick up a piece of literature, a brochure or an “information chart” about South Africa, more readily than they would have done otherwise. Let us visualize a pocket folder, a sort of “information road map” in pocket folder format, which one can open up and even put up on a wall. Each folded panel could perhaps be in a different colour, containing comparative information about South Africa—the good and the bad. South Africa could be compared with, let us say, the five or seven leading Western countries and the 12 or so countries from the other four worlds. Also, towards the end of this publication there should be a “Vision of our Future”, a kind of “Manifesto of Intent” to indicate what we expect to look like in 10 or 15 years time. On the front panel of this folder there could be a huge, typical South African lion, and between his teeth a big bone; and written on that bone in big, bold, golden letters: “Southern African Realities.” On his back would be Margaret Gardiner, recently chosen as Miss RSA to represent South Africa in Acapulca, Mexico, amongst some 150 other girls from around the world, and also Pat Malgas, her princess, the Black girl from Guguletu, both smiling happily— the White and the Black together. If this piece of literature is factual and self-critical a vast number of organizations right around the world will help us distribute it. Of course, it should also be put into the hands of each and every South African because most of us do need it too.

Let us briefly look at three of the challenges facing us: Firstly, our survival is at stake and therefore we need “total mobilization”. Whatever we do, however good our intentions may be, we can take it for granted that the “Red Onslaught” against us will continue, for this is to-day the most desirable part of the world.

Our Foreign Department bears the brunt of the attacks on us, but every other department is also involved. We have in fact reached a stage in which we need an ultra-dynamic and aggressive attack from our side, an attack in which the energies, not only of all Government departments, but of South Africans of all races and of a large number of foreigners, of all races, should be mobilized.

We certainly also have to reach inwards to South Africans, especially to the leaders in all our communities in South Africa. We need to reach inwards to South Africans of all races, and with special communication accent on the non-White people of South Africa.

Our non-White people must become more acutely aware of the alternatives available to them. They must become aware of what policy, what philosophy will ultimately mean the greatest security, the greatest prosperity and the greatest happiness for them. We must make sure that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will soon not only have his official ambassadors working for him.

We must make sure that soon he will have hundreds, thousands—maybe hundreds of thousands even millions—of people of all races both inside and outside South Africa promoting this country, playing a positive role in the interests of South Africa.

More concentration on the masses is necessary. We should remember that there are very few countries in the world where one political party has remained in power as long as the NP has been in power in this country.

Secondly, we do not need a perfect, but we need a saleable “survival package”; saleable both outwards and inwards. It is here again where only the present Government is strong enough and competent enough to produce a package which we will be able to sell both inside and outside South Africa; which we will be able to sell to a large enough number of people to make it meaningful and to ensure our survival. I underline that we need to “sell” it both inside and outside South Africa. Only this Government can produce such a package. This is a fact, imperfections and all. Anyone who runs away from this reality can only be a fool living in a fool’s paradise.

Many people differ with this Government on many specific issues. However, as regards the basics of its policy it is the only formula so far devised in this country which is acceptable to a large enough number of people to make it meaningful. This we have to regard as an accepted fact.

Thirdly, renewed action should be taken and rapidly stepped up. Let me mention an example. We need a strong department, which I should like to call the Department of Information and Strategy. Its inward action should be considered just as important or even more important than its outward action. The fact of the matter is that significant change is taking place practically every day in this country. The world, however, does not comprehend, or appreciate or want to acknowledge the value of peaceful evolutionary development rather than revolution and bloodshed in typical African fashion.

Many South Africans in all political parties do not comprehend or appreciate how often we play into the hands of our enemies through a careless word or deed. This is something to which the inward action should be directed in an effort to do something about it.

In the second place we urgently need a sales instrument such as I have visualized in the beginning. It should be factually and self-critically compiled. I believe we shall get almost every, pebhaps even all service organizations such as Rotary, Round Table, Lions and Jaycees to help us with the distribution. I am quite convinced that the Press too, or a large part of it, will want to play an active role. Let us remember the words of William Hazlitt—

In the third place we need an almost fanatically “balanced viewpoint” Press. I often visit Johannesburg, our financial capital, our international airport, our show window to the world. This is the city in which foreigners from all over the world meet with us first. In the morning I find under my door at the Landdros Hotel all the Afrikaans and English newspapers. I glance through them all and very often I can swear to myself that I must be living in two different worlds at the same time. This is just not right. Since practically all of those from the outside world who communicate with us, are able to understand English only, this issue involves momentous responsibilities. It is here where I plead that we should not sacrifice our country on the altar of party political pettiness.

In the fourth place we should give greater attention to the other four worlds. The West may be wonderful, but the West alone is not enough for us in our ambitions. We should also work actively to move towards friendship and an alliance with the Fifth World States. We already have an association of “client states” with Israel and the Republic of China (Taiwan). With the escalation of the Left Vendetta against the strongly anticommunist countries we should be able to find others like South Korea, Zaïre, the Argentine and even Iran, Brazil and Saudi Arabia on our side or willing to enter into such an alliance with us. The Fifth World is already an evolving reality and its economic potential is enormous. In such an alliance South Africa is most likely to be the strongest, the most diversified and the obvious leader.

We should also not neglect our many, many friends in the countries with whom we have traditional relations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown, who has just sat down, has read us the parable of the lion and the dolly-bird. This reminds me that one can in fact liken him to a toothless lion. He came through the election roaring, but the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP caucus have obviously drawn his teeth and a contribution in the sense of a change from within is blatantly not happening.

Following on this, let me say that we had, almost exactly a year ago—on 13 or 14 June 1977—the Foreign Affairs Vote under consideration. At that time we had a new Foreign Minister, a man who was speaking on his Vote for the very first time. South Africa expected great things of this Minister of Foreign Affairs. When he was first elected to Parliament in 1970, he had served for 17 years in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Here was a man, of all the Cabinet Ministers we have had, who patently should know his job inside out and backwards. He should indeed be well qualified. His sentiments and his principles seemed to be more humane and reasonable than most of those who sat in the opposite benches. Again, as I have done earlier, I want to quote from the maiden speech that he made in this House on 20 August 1970 (Hansard, Vol. 29, col. 2165)—

He was talking of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. He continued—

These were the words of the hon. the Minister, and he was making the plea that we should identify ourselves more strongly with that making the plea that we should identify ourselves more strongly with that today.

Then again in 1974, addressing the United Nations, he said the following words—

He also said, in the same speech—

He came in as Minister of Foreign Affairs just when the attack on South Africa on the basis of human rights, which was being pushed particularly strongly by the Carter administration, had increased enormously, had gathered enormous pace. Andrew Young had taken the matter even further. Here, in passing, I should like to say that the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, called Andrew Young, in Hansard, 1977 col. 9966, “that much maligned man”, which to me seems to be an extraordinary statement.

Let me continue with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, however. The one thing that is totally rejected by all foreign opinion is discrimination based on skin colour, and we must get rid of this discrimination, not necessarily to win outside support for South Africa, but for the sake of our own consciences and for the sake of our own country.

This, then, was the background to the appointment of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There were so-called “verligte” statements, statements in the United Nations and in this House with which we in these benches fully agreed. He appeared to be a man of very high principles whose thrust for an end to discrimination would win us friends in the outside world. What, however, has been the reality? What has happened? Do we in fact have more friends in the outside world? Do we find that discrimination has been done away with in any shape or form? Have we even made any noteworthy moves away from discrimination in the last year? No, we have not. The hon. the Minister knows that his hands are tied by discrimination, and diplomacy is no substitute. Does he really believe that he can change the party from within, with or without the help of the hon. member for Pinetown? We still have a Mixed Marriages Act and an Immorality Act. In this very session the hon. the Minister’s party once again totally rejected the idea of doing away with these two Acts which do this country tremendous harm. I want to ask him whether he agrees with the retention of these two Acts. Is he in favour of the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act?

Yes.

I am quite sure he does not need that hon. member over there to answer for him. We know and the Press knows that he is fully capable of ansering for himself.

Another point I believe we must lay at the door of the hon. the Minister is the situation as regards the infringement, which is all I can call it, in foreign affairs and in the activities of the department he controls by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development and his jet-setting Department of Information. What about South Africa’s incipient 007’s who in fact fly off to the Seychelles to conduct negotiations with the President of a foreign State? What right do they have to be interviewing foreign Presidents on behalf of South Africa? Surely, that is the job of the Department of Foreign Affairs and, surely, the fact that it has happened is a direct slap in the face for the hon. the Minister from the Department of Information? There are many stories of parties given all over the world by the Department of Information, parties that were not in fact organized in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs. We know that the Department of Foreign Affairs does not control the Department of Information. We should like to know how much the Department of Information controls the Department of Foreign Affairs. Is the Cabinet keeping control of their “verligte” Foreign Minister through that department? One wonders, Mr. Chairman!

We believe it is time that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs stood by his principles. In the last year he has clearly made his choice between his party, his principles and his country. I do not believe that he has stood out as a man who has courageously stood by his principles which he has clearly stated over the years. We wonder whether he will go down in history as a politician whose principles were drowned by his party.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member insinuate that the hon. the Minister did not stand by his principles?

The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, in the time remaining to me, I want to deal with another statement that was made. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the speech by the hon. member for East London North to which we have just listened was pathetically weak. It is not worthwhile reacting to such a speech. I just want to say to him that if a survey were to be made today of the country which has fared best in removing discrimination, South Africa would be far in the lead.

Do you really believe that?

One notes with relief that in the West, the issues at stake in Africa are beginning to penetrate, and that after the incursion into Zaïre there has been a modicum of understanding in the West of the Russian abuses of power in Africa. One is grateful for the degree of concern shown in the West after the massive Marxist penetration into this subcontinent. It is just a pity that America did not listen to us and check the Marxists in Angola together with us. If that had happened, there would not have been any incursion into Zaïre, nor would there have been such a slaughter of people. One can only hope that the West will realize in time that Swapo and the Patriotic Front are minions of the Marxists and that in their dealings with these people the same mistakes as were made in Angola will not be made again. We can ask why the West is so slow to read the writing on the wall. Do they not know that there are blueprints in the Kremlin worked out to the finest details, whereby to establish a Marxist power bloc in Southern Africa? The communists’ master plan to subject Africa was spelt out in black and white as long ago as 1962 at the Tri-Continental Conference. It is amazing that the West is so shortsighted, despite this. Whereas South Africa has tried to hold the fort for the West in Southern Africa to the best of its ability, they make common cause with the communists in attacking South Africa. Do they not realize that South Africa is the strongest bulwark against communism in Southern Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister put a very important question to the West on Republic Day. He asked the West: If you see the threat, why then do you withhold arms from the one stable Western State on which you can rely in a crisis? One could go further and ask America: Why do you want to isolate us? Why do you not boycott and isolate the communist countries? Instead of boycotting the communists, they are feeding the Russian bear. I want to mention one example. Over the past year, large American banks have lent R5 billion to the communist countries of the Eastern bloc, whereas we have to plead for a loan when we want to electrify Black cities and towns in South Africa. America is prepared to sell arms to dictatorships, to one-party States and to the most undemocratic Governments in the world, but not to South Africa, which could be of great value to it in a power struggle with Russia in Africa. The Western world does not reject contact with communist Governments. On the contrary, they seek contact; they seek détente. In countries like Italy, France and Holland, communism is a respected political movement with millions of adherents. Where it suits them they fraternize with the communists, whereas we are given the cold shoulder. We are stymied at every turn by America. Time has run out and the West will have to shake off its weak-kneed attitude rapidly and adopt a firmer stance in regard to the spread of Marxism. America, the leader country of the West, will have to abandon its weak attitude and provide leadership to a leader-hungry, anti-communist world that longs for strong leadership. Since the Carter administration took over in America, America has forfeited much of its prestige. It can regain some of that prestige if it shows the world that it is a leader country not only in name, but a leader country which also has the courage to check the advance of aggressive communism. The time has never before been as ripe as it is now, now that there is a strong desire among the countries of the free world to be combined in an anti-communist bloc under strong leadership. We surely have the right to ask why naked double standards are being implemented against us. Nothing that happens in South Africa can be compared with the political, religious, race and ethnic conflicts which have tom communities apart and caused the slaughter of more than 12 million people in Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia over the past 20 years. South Africa is constantly being attacked about its supposed infringement of human rights, but in Cambodia the new Marxist régime has exterminated 600 000 people there without anyone taking any notice. A journalist who was there wrote the following—

The same situation is to be found in many other countries as well. Conditions here are constantly being spotlighted by the world, whereas increasing poverty and misery prevail in the countries of the Third World. According to the latest annual report of the International Labour Organization, approximately 70% of all people in Africa live in great poverty and 40% in the utmost poverty. It is predicted in that annual report that if there is no change, within 20 years there will be 150 million unemployed men in Africa. Already 30 million people in Africa go to bed at night without eating. That is the situation, whereas South Africa is the only country in this subcontinent which has the ability to produce enough food and which is therefore capable of averting a major famine—a disaster. However, South Africa is not being put in a position to perform this task. Is it not, then, foolish and senseless of the West, particularly America, constantly to undermine South Africa? What could South Africa’s position have been today, and what would our level of development have been, if we had not been so unjustly hindered? We have never been afforded an opportunity to fulfil our real and rightful role in Africa. It is a fact that human freedom is dwindling throughout the world. Authorities are of the opinion that only one out of every five people in the world today lives in total freedom. Ten years ago it was two out of every five. Therefore, every year man is becoming less free. However, in South Africa this process is reversed, because today more people enjoy more powers and more freedom in regard to self-determination in South Africa than five to 10 years ago. Why are we not afforded recognition for this? Criticism of South Africa can be expressed, but no criticism can be levelled at us with regard to matters such as freedom of the Press, religious freedom and an independent judiciary. Even if we were to look at these matters critically, the population of South Africa still enjoys greater freedoms than the inhabitants of at least 120 other countries. If we consider the way in which the wealth of the world has been shared, we find that there is a growing gap everywhere as far as wealth is concerned between the so-called White countries and the Black countries, and between the White and the non-White races, except here. Here that gap is narrowing. However, the Western world does not wish to perceive these aspects. It is a great pity that this is so, and we can only hope that a change will come about one day. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, vast, evil and destructive forces are looming on Africa’s horizon. At the moment we are waging a titanic struggle in this country against the forces of darkness which are also lurking on the horizon. It was Lenin who said: “The most fruitful ground for the infiltration of Marxism is in the sphere of religion because religious people can most easily be misled and will accept virtually everything if it is couched in the terminology of religion.”

Thirty years ago the World Council of Churches was founded in Amsterdam. At the time this council cherished ecumenical ideals and maintained that it would operate on a humanitarian basis by granting assistance to fugitives, for example, and by looking after the hungry.

At the moment, the World Council of Churches, which has also launched an attack on South Africa, is a soviet of world churches which is propagating pernicious Marxism. At the moment, 42% of the members of the central committee of the World Council of Churches are from the West; 28% are from Russia and 30% are from Africa and the Third World. Due to the admission of the Soviet bloc they have now gained the majority, viz. 58%, in the council.

The World Council of Churches has been converted into a political instrument and the Soviet Union is playing an important role therein.

The General Secretary of the World Council of Churches has said, inter alia: “Chaos and anarchy are acceptable when they help to bring about political changes.”

The World Council of Churches is a mouthpiece of the Soviet Union but it is being financed by the naïve West. The onslaught is aimed at South Africa today and it is therefore no wonder that a former secretary of the World Council of Churches has received the Lenin peace prize. That is why vengeful monsters and monstrosities are attacking South Africa today, and the people on the other side of the House are asleep. They discuss apartheid and the greatest nonsense under the sun. I have never heard people talk such a lot of nonsense. Do they not appreciate the gravity of the matter?

Are they unaware that there are vengeful monsters that are tearing South Africa apart? There is the bear that wants to smash everything to pieces, there is the lion with his sharp claws with which to maul us and there is the bloodthirsty leopard. The hon. member for Yeoville who is sitting so quietly this evening must take care. He should have spoken a long time ago but he is sitting there sleeping. [Interjections.]

Africa is symbolized as a leopard. The aim is to gain world power and hold sway. This endeavour is practised under false names. It was first practised under the name of democracy, then that of dictatorship, then, later, that of capitalism and eventually socialism, communism, Marxism and the power struggle between the West and the East. People must wake up because terrible monsters are appearing, sly and cunning monsters. Intelligence, ideas, soberness and wisdom are no longer to the point. Nor is it any wonder that it is very clearly stated—

I now want to deal with the method adopted by these people and how they aim eventually to conquer Southern Africa, specifically South Africa. They are doing so by channelling funds to Africa. I want to point out that these donations have increased every year.

The first World Council of Churches donation in 1970 included $100 000 to Southern Africa, as against only $50 000 to other parts of the world. In 1971 the donation to Southern Africa doubled to $200 000 as against a mere $62 500 elsewhere in the world. In 1974, Southern Africa received $322 000 from the World Council of Churches, as against $25 000 for America and $ 10 000 for Asia.

I do not even wish to talk about the anti-apartheid groups and all their activities. Since 1970, Swapo has received between $20 000 and $50 000 per annum. These people are therefore carrying on their activities on a vast scale. Five Black groups in Southern Africa are receiving money from the World Council of Churches. They are Swapo in South West, the African National Congress, the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania in South Africa, the South African Congress of Trade Unions and the Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle in Rhodesia All these people are receiving money, and the ultimate aim is to destroy us totally. Efforts are being made in every possible way to bring South Africa to its knees.

This is the hell that has broken loose and the diabolical forces at work to destroy this country. I have before me a copy of a song from the youth division of the World Council of Churches which is blasphemous. We are religious people and members of the Opposition who are still religious will be shocked if I read this song to them. I think it is disturbing how the Deity is dragged in here as well. The song goes like this—

Then comes the chorus—

These are the blasphemous things that are taking place in an effort to destroy us. These creatures assume various shapes today and one intent upon destroying each other. Their mouths are red with blood today. Their iron teeth tear and devour. With their slogans of equality and freedom they want to offer so-called justice and peace to all people. Under the cloak of Christianity they trample and tear. Under these colours they are fishing in troubled waters. While the hon. the Minister of Police has constantly to step in and one hon. Minister after the other has to address the people, they are engaged in incitement and committing violence, terrorism, arson and murder and encouraging their moral decay. They talk about terrible things.

The people who speak of apartheid in these terms have no understanding of it. They do not realize what this Government has done to ensure their security. Those animals will tear them apart when they leave this House tonight. Those hon. members must beware of those animals.

The best insurance policy is the NP. Those hon. members must take out a policy on the NP. It is only the NP that can save them. Time again I can prove that if it were not for the NP they would not have been sitting here tonight and they would not have been secure. It is pointless to laugh about it. I am serious now. It is time we took these matters seriously.

The World Council of Churches says these terrible things and interferes everywhere. They say, for example—

They want to attack us and kill us. However our guarantee is the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We are proud of our Cabinet. [Interjections.] In the years that lie ahead we shall continue to rule this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have been thinking of some of the highlights which have occurred since we had a discussion on foreign affairs in the House last year. I should like to refresh the memory of hon. members. We have had, for example, an internal settlement in Rhodesia. However, as soon as it was reached, the Western powers refused to recognize it. In recent months, particularly in Rhodesia, there has been an increase in terrorism accompanied by a dismantling of the traditions and the laws of the country. I believe there is a very serious danger of anarchy in Rhodesia, anarchy on the same scale as in Angola and Mozambique. In the case of South West Africa there was the Turnhalle agreement just before the debate on foreign affairs took place last year, but no sooner did we have agreement, than there was intervention by the Western countries, resulting in months and months of negotiations and delay. Earlier this year an international agreement was reached, an agreement which was held up by some as a highlight. However, no sooner did we have this agreement regarding South West Africa, than the West once again refused to carry out its side of the bargain. More recently they used our necessary raid into Angola to blot out a Swapo base as the excuse for not carrying out their obligations under the agreement. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is a very real danger of anarchy in South West Africa if under any circumstances we withdraw those South African forces, which maintain internal law and order in South West Africa, and our troops on the border.

Another issue which arose since we last met last year, was the mandatory arms boycott.

I single out only these three things as being what I call highlights of what has happened between the time we last met and now.

If I were to sum them up, I would say that everything in regard to our foreign relations has deteriorated. I think that is why the hon. the Minister has spoken so seriously to us tonight and given the country such warnings. In the case of our immediate neighbours, let me say that Rhodesia is more vulnerable now than ever before to the Patriotic Front, and South West Africa, I believe, is more vulnerable now than ever to Swapo. This is the result of those delays that have taken place since the early part of last year and are taking place now, delays to which we have either reluctantly or of necessity been a party.

I now wish to say something about Rhodesia. Rhodesia has always been of vital interest to us. I would remind hon. members that not so many years ago we sent police to combat terrorism on the Rhodesian borders. We said then that we sent police to Rhodesia to prevent terrorists from coming through Rhodesia to attack us in the Republic of south Africa. Thereafter, I believe as a result of pressure from Western countries, the police were withdrawn. When the Victoria Falls Conference was about to take place we saw fit to send our then Minister of Foreign Affairs to ask for the release of Nkomo and Sithole. When Dr. Kissinger visited Southern Africa, after meeting the hon. Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister in Europe, South Africa itself helped to set up what I call a Kissinger “package” agreement. No sooner was that agreement arrived at and accepted by Mr. Smith than it was thrown out by the Western countries. We welcomed the internal settlement at the end of last year, to which I have already referred, but it has not been accepted by the West, and now an Anglo-American plan is being mooted and pushed. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that the Leader of the Opposition in the German Parliament Mr. Joseph Shams said the following about the Anglo-American plan—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us here tonight what South Africa’s standpoint is about that Anglo-American plan they are now trying to foist on Rhodesia. We have a responsibility to Rhodesia, not only on the basis of arguments that have been used in this House before, but also because it is in our own interests to see that there is not anarchy under any circumstances in our neighbouring countries. We cannot just sit back and hope for the best. We must come out boldly and say that we support the internal settlement in Rhodesia, finish and “klaar”. Then the people in Rhodesia will know, the present uncertainty having been removed, that South Africa stands by them in their hour of need.

In the case of South West Africa we have again had intervention by the West and there have been endless visits and conferences. South Africa accepted the Western agreement. There was the raid on the Swapo base. McHenry came to South Africa recently. He was not seen by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but was seen by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. From South Africa he went to the Front Line presidents, for some reason best known to him. From there he went to see certain church leaders in South West Africa. I am quite sure that it is vitally necessary in the interests of the people of South West Africa, White and non-White, that that agreement which was arrived at by them should be carried into effect. We cannot rely on the McHenrys of this world to go around and negotiate, as it were, on our behalf. There is uncertainty on our side that is killing the situation in Rhodesia and is killing the situation in South West Africa.

As far as we in South Africa are concerned, let me tell the hon. the Minister that there are many, many South Africans who are deeply concerned about what happened to those two South Africans who were murdered in Botswana. It seems to me that we have brought diplomatic pressure to bear on Botswana, but what is the position? What is the reaction from the Botswana Government to it? In the case of Swaziland and Botswana we had a report in Die Burger in the last few days to the effect that there are something like 4 000 terrorists being trained in Zambia and Tanzania, terrorists who are entering or stand poised to enter South Africa from Mozambique through Swaziland, from Zambia through Botswana. It is often said in our newspapers that Zambia is a training base for terrorists, that Angola also has training bases for terrorists. What is happening may I ask to our interests in Ruacana and Calueque, in Angola? The Cabora Bassa scheme was partially financed by South Africa. Since it is often said also that Mozambique is the launching pad for terrorism in South Africa, will the hon. the Minister please tell us what we are doing to protect our interests in that country?

Now, I want to conclude with another matter. As far as I know we do not pay dues any longer to the United Nations. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that we will not pay dues to the United Nations until at least the arms embargo against South Africa and the other discriminatory measures against South Africa have been lifted. We recently received from the hon. the Minister a summary of the actions of the United Nations against us. As I understand it we have no right to reply in the United Nations, no right to defend ourselves. This is having an appalling effect on the diplomatic staff of South Africa in America. It is generally having a demoralizing effect on South Africans, and it is encouraging those inside and outside of South Africa who seek to bring about radical change in the Republic. Many people think that the time is long overdue for us to take another long and hard look at our membership of the United Nations, to ask ourselves what benefit it is to us. The liberal lobby will naturally say that as a result of membership we can belong to United Nations Agencies. However, from what agencies have we not been excluded in recent years?

Sir, for many, many years Spain got along quite happily without being a member of the League or the United Nations. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us tonight what the benefits are to South Africa of continuing to remain a member of an organization that does nothing but villify and slander South Africa without acknowledging our right to reply. Many people think that we should withdraw from that organization. If we were to do it, we could perhaps contribute to the ultimate demise of that organization, an organization which, in my opinion, has given rise to the farcical idea of foisting on the world some form of selective world government which so far has only emasculated the West and has benefited the communist block in the world.

Mr. Chairman, the problem of hon. members on the Government side is that they cannot even keep up a debate like this one. They seem to be failing in spirit this evening. The position of the hon. the Minister, as I see it, can be aptly described by using the words of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in which he says—

That ever I was born to set it right!

What I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister is this. We are faced with the situation in which the normal balance between the right wing and the left wing in the entire world has simply disappeared. What we have now is a left wing which is in total control of the media. It has at its disposal immense resources, which are used, amongst other things, to attack the position of South Africa One of the problems is that this country of ours is one of the last representatives outside of Europe of the conservative, individual free enterprise way of life which is absolutely vital to the continuation of the Western system. I can understand that it is for that reason that we are under attack from the left-wing media and from the left-wing countries in the world.

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that what in fact is happening is that there is a turnback towards the right wing throughout the world, and that we in South Africa have a chance, probably the last chance the Western world is going to have, to so influence the Western world in order to blow back into them some kind of courage, some kind of belief in themselves. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that the problem which we face today, the problem as also sketched by the hon. member for Simonstown, is that the Western world has lost faith in itself, has lost faith in its own mission to lead the peoples of the Free World towards a system which is the opposite of communism, a system which leads away from the dominance which communism and the left-wing media have established throughout the rest of the world. This country of ours, I believe, is today in a crucial situation. One of the problems we have with the hon. the Minister was outlined by the hon. member for East London North. The hon. the Minister made all kinds of promises, declarations and statements but has not been able to deliver the goods. I accept the fact that the situation in South Africa is changing, and while the situation is changing, the demands of the Western world—he is quite right about that— are escalating at this stage to such an extent that we cannot keep pace. The hon. the Minister’s own credibility is involved because he has made statements which have create opinions, hopes and expectations amongst people in the outside world, opinions, hopes and expectations which he has not been able to satisfy, given the situation we have in South Africa—and we are not debating the rights and wrongs of that particular situation here today. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in fact, we are not approaching the situation in the wrong fashion by trying to sell what we are doing against a background of change which is taking place too slowly from the point of view of the outside world which expects so much more of us.

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that there are incalculable assets that South Africa has, and those assets start with the leadership that we as a group can establish here in Southern Africa. We can change and revolutionize the entire way of life and the expectations of the whole of Southern Africa, and in the West we shall achieve recognition for what we are doing when it becomes apparent that the quality of life, the hopes and aspirations of the people who share this part of Africa with us, are changing and increasing. The hon. the Minister must understand that it is within our capacity—and by “our” I mean the people of Southern Africa as a whole, but even more specifically those of us in this Parliament who are involved in politics here—to create a giant at this southern end of Africa which can cast a shadow over the whole of Africa. Let us accept one thing, however, when we say that. Let all of us who are White people accept one thing right now, and that is that the sort of giant we are going to create here is going to be very largely a Black giant, but it will be a Black giant in whose creation we as White people will play an absolutely vital part of inspiration, leadership and guidance, supplying the expertise and the sort of technical knowledge that will enable us to play the part that we need to play in Africa and that Africa needs from us.

How are you going to safeguard your position?

We can do that so easily. I have shown the hon. member so many times but I shall tell him again. Let me also tell the hon. the Minister this evening that it is by participation that one safeguards one’s position, participation in what is going on here around us and what is going on in Africa to the north of us. [Interjections.] Let me take as an example the hon. the Minister who sits in front of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The expertise that we have in the agricultural field is a priceless asset that we have and can export to the countries of Africa where I can see a darkening situation as far as food is concerned. Let us, however, understand one thing. Hunger and deprivation are creating primary pressures on the leaders of Africa, primary pressures which are quite distinct from the pressures which the Communist Party and communism are creating in Africa. If we are going to succeed in convincing the Western world of our use to them, and if we are to succeed in reinspiring them with a sense of mission, it is going to be on the basis of what we can contribute, in a practical fashion, to the countries of Africa to the north of us.

I want to suggest that in the whole of this situation the free enterprise system which we espouse in this country, and in which we are increasingly involving the Black population, is probably the one thing that is going to succeed in creating for us voluntary ambassadors, Black people who can go into Africa and show, from the example of their own lives, experiences and achievements, what can happen if the Black people of Africa would simply accept us for what we are, as people who have something to say and who have something to give them, who have the leadership which they so vitally need.

I think that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be well advised to look again at the sort of effort that is being made to project our image into Africa. Let us not play the political game, looking for friends and that sort of thing, because we know and he knows—he said as much—that we cannot satisfy the demands of those people in that situation. We should play it in a low key. We should make an indirect contribution, and here I am thinking of contributions by people like the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and other hon. members of this House who are experienced in agriculture. They can go to those countries and show them and help them. That is the sort of thing we ought to be doing. We should be concentrating on investment capacity, technology and all that sort of thing. There is also another thing that we should do. I think we should also have the humility to accept that we can learn from Africa. Consider a country like Malawi which has realized its agricultural potential. It is the only Black African country that can export food on a significant scale. Then one thinks of the situation in Transkei for instance. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that, if the Chinese had Transkei, they would be able to feed the whole of Africa from it. I do not doubt that at all. What we should do is to learn from the people of Malawi the way in which they have been able so to organize the whole of their agricultural set-up that from that little country they can export food to the rest of Africa and have a balance of payments that is favourable to them in spite of the fact that they have no natural assets at all. I think we in this country are making a mistake in concentrating so much—it is obvious to us because we are in politics—on the political approach and trying to find political answers with which, as the hon. the Minister himself has said, we will never satisfy the Western world. Every time we take a step forward— we are taking steps forward and we are progressing—there is an escalating demand because the people who are ranged against us cannot afford to have us make a success of it because, as I have said before in the House, communism cannot live in Africa with us here as a successful society. I think, therefore, that this is something we have to approach not only from the political aspect but also from the point of view of what we can give Africa on a practical day to day basis. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we should perhaps look into that kind of aspect in the effort we are making to sell ourselves. As regards the question of our participation in what is going on around us as the key to our success in Africa, I think that this party stands above everybody else in the House in putting that point of view forward.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River and I must say that his speech was patriotic, although perhaps naïve. I would say that we in this country are bent on creating not one Black giant, but many Black giants and in the process making a big giant of White, Brown and Indian South Africans. We cannot only consider one Black giant. That is not our policy and he knows it. As regards his policy, I do not understand it and I cannot elaborate on it at all.

*What I should like to discuss this evening is a credible foreign policy. I should like to express a few ideas on this, particularly in view of the fact that the non-credible foreign policies and double standards of certain countries are the order of the day today, and words and speeches in reality have no meaning anymore. If you will grant me a few moments, I want to say that I really do not take it very amiss of the outside world, because I had the privilege of listening to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to tell the hon. member that his words, too, had no meaning, and that his speech was meaningless. He said today—

He said that the entire world was opposed to the apartheid régime and apartheid. He went further and said—

These are two different stories. It is almost like a camel with two humps: If the front one becomes uncomfortable, one rides on the back hump of the camel. In the world of today, agreements are no longer accepted either. After an agreement has been concluded with a great deal of difficulty, one finds that ploys are being used in an effort to circumvent the agreement. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is also playing into the hands of those people who concluded agreements with us, and who want to circumvent them. He said that we should not accept the Western proposals. He said that it is not necessary for us to become hasty over South West Africa. He said—

He did not say: “Take these proposals as final” or “Take these proposals as agreed upon.” He said: “Take them only as a vague guideline”. I must honestly state that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is an example to me of what is happening in the diplomatic sphere abroad. Agreements there mean nothing, because they are not essential, and words have no meaning. The powerful nations of the world can get away with conduct of this kind precisely because of the vast military, economic and political power that they have at their disposal, while the medium powers and smaller powers have to accept this with resignation. However, the wheel turns, and the future of South Africa, as a medium power, in the world and in particular in Africa as our geographic birth place, lies in the formation and the implementation of a credible foreign policy. I shall indicate what I mean by that. A credible foreign policy means that friends as well as foes know where the Republic of South Africa is going. They must also believe that a country is able to implement its policy. It is important that they should realize that a country has the power to implement the policy which it advocates, even if it is in the short term. To make such a policy known throughout the world, one should in the first place proclaim the policy, one should make it clear. I want to refer to four points which we in South Africa have repeatedly already made very clear.

Firstly, we do not interfere in the affairs of other people, and we also expect other people not to interfere in our affairs. Moreover, the people in South African and in the territories we administer must decide for themselves. Secondly, we are moving away from discrimination on the basis of race and colour. I want to reproach the hon. member for East London North a little in his absence. That hon. member is inclined to make personal attacks on hon. Ministers. I recall that he attacked an hon. Minister unnecessarily during a previous debate, and he did so again during this debate. I want to make an earnest request to the hon. member for East London North not to become personal with hon. Ministers. When we argue, we play the ball and not the man.

The third aspect which I deem important, is that we are anti-Marxist, and fourthly, of course, we want to stabilize Africa. This is also my reply to the hon. member for Simonstown, who spoke about various other countries. I agree with that hon. member that it is in our interests to stabilize Africa and Southern Africa. These two aspects are clear. We must publicize our policy, and also what we have already done. Secondly, we must disseminate our policy. The policy should also be acceptable in practise, and we should implement it positively. It is this aspect which I want to spend some time discussing.

We implemented our policy of anti-Marxism, together with America, when we fought in Korea. Unlike America, however, we manifested our policy in a positive way in Africa, and made it discernible to all. We undertook a limited attack on Kasinga and in that way—and to this we must refer—a second Kolwezi was prevented in a portion of Africa over which our sphere of influence extends. It is time that this was mentioned. African States must see that we are prepared to carry out our policy as we proclaim it, and that we have the power and the will to do so. I want to make it clear that in the circumstances of our time we can no longer follow a policy of “I hear nothing; I see nothing; I say nothing; just leave me alone”. The time has arrived when South Africa can no longer sit still. We must unmask the Russian bear, Cuba, and we must take co-ordinated action with the outside world, and internally, with those who want to take action to safeguard Africa. I believe that the time to do that has arrived. Africa has seen what happens when the bear and its cubs prepare a lair for themselves in a country. At this stage Africa will follow a leader which is prepared to provide leadership. I am not saying that we are that leader; we are only a small nation. However, Africa will show respect to a small nation which reacts positively.

I have now said a great deal in general. I dare not be more specific, but in my opinion I have nevertheless stated my standpoint. In this connection I just want to tell the hon. the Minister and his department that if there is any Minister who acts positively and who speaks straight from the shoulder, it is the hon. the Minister who is at present in charge of this portfolio. I want to compliment him on this, because it is what is required of South Africa at this juncture. We have to do so. Nor can we allow only the hon. the Minister to state the policy. There must also be a credibility and a will to implement that policy. Consequently it is necessary for the people of South Africa themselves to realize that we must have the will to sacrifice where necessary and to indicate to the outside world that we wish to and we shall implement our policy where it is within our means. This is very important. We must concentrate our strength and our power like the rays of the sun through a magnifying glass so that a strong focal point can be formed. In this way, too, South Africa, with its limited means would fulfil its calling in South Africa, if all its people would decide to concentrate and combine our strength. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this evening. I found it very interesting that the hon. member began by referring to the conference which was held in Lagos from 22 to 26 August last year. The hon. member referred to the 112 countries which attended that conference and also to the so-called Declaration of Lagos in which South Africa was condemned and which consequently led to action being taken against us in the UN by way of further resolutions and the so-called Anti-apartheid year. However, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout conveniently omitted to mention certain information, and I think it is important that we ask him to furnish such information as well, since it is very relevant to such a debate as this. That conference at Lagos was not only arranged and attended by 112 states. It was arranged by the UN and the OAU in conjunction with the so-called Liberation Movements: The African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress. This is very significant, because much of the emotionalism, of the resolutions and the motions which flowed from that congress, can be directly ascribed to the actions of the communists against South Africa in international conference halls. We must try to persuade the hon. Opposition that the communists are not only trying to conquer Africa in the military sphere, but that they are also, in international conference halls, leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to destroy South Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout should get hold of the latest thick document which presents a survey of the proceedings at the UN in connection with South Africa, and in particular read the resolution of the UN pertaining to the international anti-apartheid year.

From page 358 to page 363 of this report, reference is made to the “Programme for the International anti-Apartheid Year” and then in general to action in all spheres which the various countries have to take against South Africa. Here we see a constant thread which is of significant interest particularly to us in South Africa, i.e. that what is crystallizing from this offensive in the international conference halls of the world is that our enemies are pushing two organizations to the fore as the freedom fighters, the people who have to bring about the freedom of the Blacks in South Africa, viz. the ANC and the PAC. Knowing the extent of the onslaught on South Africa, knowing how vast the propaganda machine is which is being set in motion against South Africa in the world and knowing that it is an almost superhuman task to counteract this propaganda with the truth, the hon. members of the Opposition must ask themselves: What is their role? Is it their role to try to make the world believe from morning until night here in this House—as they did again in this debate today—that it is in fact this Government which is responsible for the dilemma in which we find ourselves? a question which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must find the answer to himself is whether the alleged 4 000 ANC and PAC members and terrorists who left South Africa should become the tail which wags the dog in South Africa in the days to come, or should we in South Africa—as the hon. the Minister indicated—try to achieve solidarity between the stable White Government and the non-White peoples here?

I want to point out to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that realities in South Africa, for example the Transkei, are condemned in this document of the UN. These are realities which neither the PFP, nor the Government, nor anyone else in South Africa will ever be able to do anything about. Would the Official Opposition, if they were to come into office, be so crack-brained as even to try to comply with the requirements of the UN and attempt to force the Transkei and Bophuthatswana, by military or any other means, back into a political dispensation which the UN and PFP holds up as a kind of unitary Utopia which the entire world will accept? I want to tell those hon. members that they are being foolish in their political argumentation. The hon. the Minister indicated that we were dealing with a major onslaught by communism and that it was a struggle between East and West, an ideological struggle.

I should like to single out one component of this struggle, a component which is becoming more prominent by the day and define it as a revolution of racial emotion which is at present sweeping across the world. We here at the southernmost point of Africa, whether we like it or not, are unfortunately at the centre of this international revolution of racial emotion. The feelings of the African States, Black people and other peoples throughout the world are being stirred up against us here at the southernmost point of Africa for one reason and one reason only—because we are a White régime.

It is on account of apartheid!

It has nothing to do with apartheid. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is too foolish for words in making a statement like that. [Interjections.] In Africa there are 20 one-party states and 19 military dictatorships. These are Black minorities which are governing in Africa. In South Africa it is a White so-called minority which is governing, according to international and African standards, but the emotions of the entire world are being poured out upon us. The NP, with its policy of ethnic diversity and of neighbourlinness, is building up a structure which inherently means that we can cause a Southern African declaration of human rights to develop in all spheres here in Southern Africa. If our policy is implemented to its logical conclusion it will lead to political rights for all people, economic justice for everyone in South Africa, regardless of race or colour, and justice for all people in the social sphere. We shall then be able to reach the culminating point where we shall be able to say: Here we stand in South Africa as a White government with our own declaration of human rights which affords every individual the opportunity of developing and making progress.

To achieve this however we need stability, and we can only achieve that stability if we remove the emotional from politics. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition to play their part as well in this connection. Reference has already been made to their role and to what they are doing. Reference has also been made to their liaison with all kinds of people throughout the world. I am profoundly convinced that we as Whites have a part to play in Africa. The NP and the White man in South Africa have a message for Africa and that message is that it is not only a Black Government which can govern in a stable way and that it is not only Black people that can ensure that justice is done to all, but that this Government as well, with stability as a basis, can ensure that justice is done to all. I want to tell the Opposition that if the White man in South Africa capitulates, that will be the end of stability. I want to ask them what will then become of Africa. One lesson which the American Government still has to learn is that it is absolutely necessary for the stability of Southern Africa, and of the entire Africa, that the White Government at the southernmost point of Africa must be a stabilizing factor and must play a leading role from now unto all eternity. It is true that the Government in many respects is sitting on two stools. We are sitting on a Western stool and on an African stool. I should like to advocate that we as Whites in Africa, White Africans, one of the strongest tribes of Africa, should identify ourselves wholeheartedly with the aspirations of the people of Africa. The aspirations of the people of Africa are to escape from poverty and disease, to place themselves on a road of development and to develop and progress in all spheres of life. This is the crux and essence of the policy of this Government. With tears in my eyes I ask the Opposition what right they have—unless they have already capitulated irrevocably—to tell the entire world that it is our policy which is responsible for the emotions which are being poured out upon South Africa.

In the minute at my disposal I want to discuss one of the beautiful gems … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before reacting to the speech by the hon. member for Innesdal I want to refer to the earlier speech by the hon. the Minister. I am a little disappointed that the hon. the Minister did not reply in full to questions I put concerning his policy, although I can understand him being in the position of having to look to his political wickets. Consequently I shall leave the matter at that.

He again came up with the old story that our party’s policy was not acceptable to the world either. However, whoever said that there was any party in South Africa whose policy is acceptable to the “world”? That is a childish statement. We cannot say that there is a single party in the entire world which is acceptable to the rest of the world. For example, the Communist Party in Russia is not acceptable to England, and the Conservative Party in England is not acceptable to the Russians. Can anyone occupying the high position of the Minister of Foreign Affairs adopt the standpoint that whole world consists of one place, one bloc …

I did not say that.

It is impossible to satisfy the world. There is no party that can satisfy the world. One cannot satisfy the East and the west at the same time. After all, who would say that the Communist Party satisfies everyone in the world? That is a ridiculous approach. Our standpoint is that the least we in this country ought to be able to do is to have sufficient friends to be able to say that we have allies. That is all a country can attempt to achieve. Every country in the world has enemies, but there are very few countries that are without allies.

Our standpoint is that we as South Africans have a great deal in our favour. We have the experience and we have know-how. We have the raw materials; we have the military strength and we can provide many people with employment. We have human materials, and if we all work together in the promotion service of South Africa it ought to be a great asset to us. The only thing counting against us—and it is not I who wants to use the word “apartheid”—is apartheid. Earlier today I said in my speech that I was quite prepared to abandon that word, but what would it help? Throughout the world, in every speech made against South Africa, the word is used. Even the hon. the Minister himself, when he addressed the Security Council in 1974, discussed apartheid and said there: “To use the words of my Minister of Sport, if by apartheid in sport is meant discrimination on grounds of colour or race, then apartheid is disappearing and will disappear from sport in South Africa.” [Interjections.] There is nothing wrong with that. I am satisfied, but the hon. the Minister spoke about apartheid that had disappeared in sport.

And it has disappeared.

Well and good! All the hon. members opposite are nervous now. That is of course because they are guilty. If the hon. the Minister could say in the Security Council that apartheid was disappearing from sport, because he knows that apartheid is the problem of South Africa, then I have the right to ask him, in all sincerity, whether he will stand up and say that apartheid will disappear in all other spheres: yes or no? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister failed to reply to that pertinent question. [Interjections.] What hon. members on that side of the House do not realize is that one can give apartheid any other fine name, but it will be to no avail. The apartheid encountered in our country consists of laws like the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, the Group Areas Act and legislation relating to race classification. These constitute a standing insult to every man with a coloured skin. [Interjections.] It is an insult to make it a crime for a man with a coloured skin to have an intimate relationship with a White.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member if he can quote any Black man who has expressed himself in public as being opposed to the Immorality Act, for example?

The question reveals his total lack of contact with Black people … [Interjections.] I could show that hon. member so many quotations. He should also read the speeches at the UN, but he does not take the trouble to do so.

I am referring to Black people in South Africa.

I noticed this afternoon that no one in this House intimated that he had read this document or had read the introduction.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether his over-reaction on this occasion is due to the presence of Mr. Hoppenstein in the gallery?

No, Sir. What counts is that while I stand here, Mr. Hoppenstein has to sit in the gallery.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

I shall not reply to a question by that hon. member because he told a lie in this House.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it. Sir, that hon. member told an untruth in this House and until he withdraws that untruth I shall not reply to a question by him. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.