Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the Second World War the UN came into existence. In the preamble to the UN Charter we read, inter alia, that the UN was founded—

Today, 1979, nothing much has come of these constructive, positive ideals which were set for this world organization. Today, 1979, the picture presented by this planet is a sombre one, extremely sombre. If we consider the world situation, we find that countries and peoples and nations are threatening one another. Poverty prevails on an unprecedented scale. We find disease. We find strife and discord. We find that the struggle for the balance of power between the West and the East, between the Free World and the communistic world, has increased in intensity, but that the Free World is losing its will to offer resistance, if it has not already done so.

The active bridging of the gap between the poor world, the hungry world, the sick world, the ignorant world on the one hand and the more affluent world, the industrialized world, the world in which Russia may to a certain extent be included on the other, is becoming all the more unbridgeable.

We find that specifically on our continent, in Africa, little—very little—has been done to raise the living standards of the peoples of Africa. We find that large quantities of arms and murder weapons for the destruction of people have been imported to our continent. However, we find few successful attempts to ensure the people of a better life.

Seen as a whole it is oil in particular which has caused a world crisis to develop, the extent of which, in my opinion, is not properly realized yet, not even by the developed countries and the great powers, for example the USA. I think that the soaring oil prices are eventually going to cause unemployment in the industrialized countries and are going to cause the inflation rates to rise to unprecedented heights. It is unfortunately true that the developed countries are frequently the cold countries of the world, where the temperatures drop sharply during the long winter months and where people have for a generation now grown accustomed to a good life, to warm houses in the winter and air-conditioning in the summer. I want to predict that in the history of the future, decades from today, the oil crisis will be seen in the same light as epoch-making world events such as the Renaissance, or perhaps even the fall of the Roman Empire, or the onset of the dark ages. It is almost inexplicable that the leaders of the world could allow this single factor to have such an earth-shaking effect on this planet, and what we are beginning to feel now are merely the first ominous rumblings. It will get worse in future.

When one considers the quality of human life, one finds that there are at least 600 million people who suffer from a deficiency of the basic necessities of life: food, accommodation, clean water, sanitation, education, health services and employment opportunities. These conditions of famine and destitution are rampant in Southern Asia and in Africa in particular. The number of undernourished people in 1975 was 455 million, and conditions have not improved since then. In 1977 food production per capita in Africa was 10% less than in 1965—a drop of 10% over a period of 12 years. It reached an even lower level than in the unprecedented Sahel drought of 1973. Approximately 15,5 million babies die every year from a lack of basic health services. This is the figure for 1978. There are more than 11 million refugees in the world today, 3 million of whom find themselves in Africa. Let us glance for a moment at the 1976 statistics on the inequality between developed industrial countries and the Third World group. The gross national product per capita of the Third World was $150, while that of the industrialized countries was $6 200. The infant mortality rate per 1 000 of the population in the Third World was 122, as against 15 for the industrialized countries. Life expectation in the Third World was 44 years, as against 72 years in the industrialized countries. The population per medical officer in the Third World was 21 000; in the industrialized countries it was 650. For the Third World the number of school children in secondary schools expressed as a percentage of the total number of children in the age group concerned was 8%, while the figure for the industrialized countries was 83%. These few statistics give an indication of how sombre the world picture is in the sphere of development.

It is also sombre because Soviet Russia is achieving one success after another and is consolidating the successes it has achieved. Like creeping lava and suffocating gas the menacing hegemony of Russia is spreading over this planet. It is spreading ever further afield and, as I have said, it is consolidating its successes. The breeding ground of its successes is frequently poverty, underdevelopment and the fact that people have only their chains to lose and nothing else. But also where people do have something to lose, it creeps in with subversion and undermines, from within, the power structures of countries which in general show themselves to be economically sound and to have stable Governments.

It is as though a feeling of oppression has fallen upon the Free World, as though it were believed that there is something inevitable about Russian success. It is as though the mighty grip of Russia is reaching out like a steam locomotive across this planet, because the countries which have the economic and military might to stop this locomotive, are not applying that might. It is as though a hypnotic fear has gripped the Free World, and their entire outlook—including that of the USA— is based on merely reacting to possible conflict situations on their own borders, and usually it is decided to steer clear, by as wide a margin as possible, of any conflict situation outside their immediate geographic areas. This is the aftermath of Vietnam, and the disarray of the American people as a result of Watergate. It is as though the hopes which the European countries built on the USA are beginning to crumble. I may be making a contentious statement now, but if matters continue in this way, it is not impossible that the European States will in time decide that it is better to throw in their lot with Russia, that the Europeans may begin to think that there is greater security to be found for them under the umbrella of decisiveness which Russia presents in contrast to the hesitant, wavering, fearful attitude of the leader of the West, America. These are the hard facts. There is a feeling of oppression that something drastic has gone wrong on this earth, that mankind is entering a new era, an era of vast, earth-shaking changes in the political, economic and spiritual spheres. Coupled with this there is the feeling that the technological development in the West has reached the stage where the old values, norms and elements which motivated peoples and countries to great heights in art and culture, to honourable conduct, to the honouring of treaties and agreements and to the maintenance and propagation of Christian ethics and Christian doctrines, are disappearing. One takes cognizance of these things with a heavy and oppressed heart.

In this sombre world South Africa must not only find its way internationally, it must also continue to exist on this continent. For the purposes of my argument it makes no difference what democratic party is in power here, but seen objectively it is true that if there is a Government in power here that wishes to maintain order in the country, that wishes to preserve peace in the country and wishes to establish the basic conditions and norms for development and for the happiness of the people of this country, such a Government naturally, in the sombre world which I have sketched and in the specific circumstances in Africa, has an almost superhuman task. I do not think that anyone doubts that. Without faith the task is impossible.

It is true that we in South Africa are not only dealing with this sombre picture of the earth. Nor are we dealing only with all the factors of large-scale changes in the psyche and thinking of mankind and the questioning of ethical Christian values. There is also a failure to find a new mission for countries and peoples. Nor are we dealing only with despair among the youth in the Western countries and with a frustration because the present order, the present decisions which are being taken and the present leadership which is being given are no longer able to meet their needs. It is as though the youth have lost confidence in a future in which they can live a happy life while they attain maturity, can work and die in peace. That is not all we are dealing with. We at the southern point of this continent are also dealing with internal problems of a magnitude and range which, to my knowledge, no other nation in modem human history has ever had to cope with.

On the one hand we must try to remain true to the principles and ideals which gave birth to our nation, the aspirations with which we came to this part of the world 300 years ago. We must remain true to our norms of fairness and justice and to our Christian creed of love for one’s neighbour. We must remain true to norms of orderliness, to the enforcement of law on a fair, equal basis without fear or favour. We wish to and we shall remain true to our inherent, basic need to be ourselves, to apply our own system of values, to speak our own languages, to practise our religion in freedom and to allow our children to attend the schools we want them to attend, and be taught there in the language we wish them to be taught in and according to the system of values and norms which we feel is our own, is authentically ours and has given to us here at the southern point of Africa birth, life, hope and expectations.

On the one hand we must do these things, but on the other we must take into account the oppression and the constraint of this sombre world, and internally we must take into account the potential of explosion as a result of misunderstandings, as a result of the fomentation of racial hatred and as a result of a multitude of factors which can be fomented and ignited by enemies and subversive elements to the detriment of everyone in this country—Black, White, Brown and Asiatic. In addition we are not firmly anchored to in the security of great military alliances or economic treaty organizations. It does not happen in our case that many watch-fires close together can radiate a deep warmth in the cold of the night; our watch-fire bums alone in a cold, sombre night of threatening isolation.

We find ourselves at the southernmost point of a continent on which we are to a large extent being rejected. We find ourselves far from our countries of origin. We have been weaned. I am grateful that we have ultimately been weaned from any expectations of those countries of origin helping us in our hour of crisis. We must therefore be strengthened and convinced by in the knowledge that if we wish to survive, we have to depend on our own ability, skill, judgment, way of thinking and will to resist. We must also strengthen our faith.

Our position in Africa is made more difficult—as far as this is concerned, I wish to speak quite frankly—by the fact that there are leaders in Africa who refuse to admit that this nation has become and is a nation of Africa. This tree can no longer be transplanted. It will have to stand here, and die where it stands or live and bear fruit. The roots of this tree have penetrated deeply, through the rocks, and must live on pure water. The branches of this tree can be ripped off, but the tree itself cannot flee. It will have to provide a shade and weather the stormy blasts where it stands. It can never again be transplanted.

There are leaders in Africa who do not want to realize that this Government and also, I should like to accept, the leaders of all White political parties in this country wish to establish, to the utmost of their ability, a situation of peace and development for all people, regardless of their colour of their skin. However, we cannot do it alone. As far as the requirements for peace and progress in Southern Africa are concerned, there is one absolute requirement, and that is reciprocity. It cannot come from one side only. But reciprocity and sufficient mutual trust have so far been lacking.

After the Second World War the resentment of racial hatred, of oppressive discrimination based on colour was, as a result of the national-socialism of Hitler, simply directed at the Whites of this country as though it was their policy as well. It was a useful instrument of propaganda which was placed in the hands of our enemies. Our true objectives, the actual motives, were swallowed up by the twisted and distorted propaganda and lies which were and are being noised abroad about the Whites of South Africa. We are not racialists. No one who lives in this country and wants to be honest, no one who walks the streets of this country, who attends debates here, attends board meetings of our industrialists, agricultural co-operative meetings, worship services and who listens to sermons here—no one can allege that the Whites of this country are racialists, that they despise Black people. No one can justly allege that the distorted imagine of us as people who jostle people of colour off the pavements, who give Black people just enough training to enable them to be employed as slave labour for the Whites, is the truth.

I want to go further today in order to expose the intensity of the enmity being directed against us and the lies being told about us. In South West Africa this Government reached an agreement with the West after deliberation and consultation and at the request of the leaders of the democratic parties of that territory and assented to the territory receiving its independence on the basis of “one man, one vote” and to all forms of discrimination based on colour being removed. In South West Africa a National Assembly is in the process of obtaining legislative powers—in fact, it has already done so—on the basis of a majority vote. Black people form the majority in that Assembly. But in spite of that the General Assembly of the UN recommended last week that punitive measures should be promulgated against South Africa, not as a result of our internal policy in the Republic of South Africa, but after we had assented to the holding of an election on the basis of “one man, one vote” and to removing discrimination in South West Africa. Consequently I hope—and in this connection I want to make an appeal to hon. members—that we have heard the last of the claim which was made last year that this party’s policy or that party’s policy is more acceptable or less acceptable to the outside world. I hope that in future, in our debates on foreign affairs, we shall argue with one another on a sound basis and that we shall debate in the firm knowledge that not even the PFP can satisfy the outside world for even their policy does not go as far as what we have accepted in respect of South West Africa. I am simply mentioning in passing that I would appreciate it if we would now cease to argue with one another over whose policy is more acceptable or less acceptable to the outside world.

The sombre picture of the world causes the picture presented by South Africa’s foreign relations to be even more sombre. That is so. But after analysis, if one looks below the surface, it is ironic that those very factors which contribute in great measure to the sombre picture of our international relations, are also the factors which in my opinion could contribute to solutions to the problems of Southern Africa. The impending isolation creates opportunities. It is not only the Whites who stand alone at the southern point of Africa; every Black leader who desires order, freedom, peace and development for his people—and not only wants to work for himself and for his own enrichment—also stands alone, just as Biship Muzorewa and the Black leaders of SWA/Namibia are standing alone today. In exactly the same way Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi will find—in fact, he experienced this recently as a result of a rebuff which he received from a South American country—that in the end his only true and lasting allies are the Whites of South Africa. This is what I think the Black leaders of Southern Africa will discover in time and they will, in my opinion, develop greater moderation and perceive that their survival goes hand in hand with the survival of the Whites.

If one considers the rest of Africa, who is it who is intensifying the fierceness of the struggle against us? I want to speak candidly to Dr. Kaunda today. I want to ask him: What have you done to uplift your people, and how did it happen that at present there are more foreign terrorists in Zambia than the strength of the Zambian army? How did it happen that an Amin came to power, and what did Nyerere do after he had rightly toppled Amin? Three thousand people are still locked up in his gaols in his jails without trial, suffering untold hardships. Nigeria is important now because it has oil, but one day when its oil has been depleted, it will simply be dropped by America and others. What is Nigeria’s record in respect of human rights, civil rights, an independent judiciary, democratic institutions and elections? So we can enumerate them one by one, but it is not my purpose to quarrel with Africa. It is my purpose to show understanding for Africa. It is my purpose and endeavour to help Africa to gain stability, to export raw materials at fair prices and in that way make a material contribution to the economic development of our continent. For decades the Government has been ready to render whatever assistance was within its means, whenever it could, and it did so. The Government has rendered meaningful assistance. We can do far more.

During the course of the debate I shall have more to say about the recent proceedings at the UN, about the UN itself, about what has been achieved in South West Africa, as well as about my view on the future of this territory.

I should like to conclude with an idea which struck me when I read it in an editorial in one of our newspapers shortly before Christmas last year. The caption to the editorial was “Maundy Thursday”. In Europe it became the practice over the centuries to give names to certain days of the week, such as religious days, important festive days and commemorative days. This is how “Maundy Thursday” got its name. It was in fact a day of atonement in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. On that day the emperor dried the feet of beggars after court attendants had sprinkled their feet with water. This was a symbolic gesture in memory of Christ who washed the feet of his disciples. What happened was that beggars were brought together and after their hygiene had been attended to water from a silver pail was then sprinkled over their feet. After this the emperor knelt and dried their feet. He then invited them to dine with him. When their soup bowls were almost empty he gave them the remainder of the meal to take back to their own environment where they could enjoy it in a more relaxed way than in his castle. In other words, the beggars were brought together to glorify the emperor and to elevate him to such an extent that he could afford to be humble. After the ceremony the beggars were left to their own devices again. The symbolism was a lie, just as the washing of his hands by Pontius Pilate was a lie. I am levelling the charge at the countries of the West that they are inviting Africa to a Maundy Thursday. They want to wash their hands in the water of human rights while they rail at South Africa and brand it as the scapegoat of the world, the scapegoat for the problems in Southern Africa. But Africa itself is left to its fate. However, I want to tell our friends in Africa that we are not inviting them to a Maundy Thursday. To use the symbolism is a sign of a greater reality. Symbolism is important. The Mace of Parliament before us here symbolises far more than the gold from which it is made.

However, it would be a travesty if this Parliament were no longer based on freedom. It is as simple as that. I should like to say that there are approximately 40 million of us, Blacks, White people, Coloureds and Asians, living here in Southern Africa south of the Kunene, Kavango and Zambesi Rivers in various States. South of these rivers we have enough gold, diamonds, chrome, platinum, iron-ore, coal and technical skill, expertise and knowledge in the various spheres of life, from medicine to food production to manufacturing. We also have the people. It may justifiably be asked what then, is lacking. I really do not think that anything material, insurmountable is lacking. However, I just want to say that our spiritual resources as well, for example mutual trust, respect, understanding, tolerance and the ability to appreciate the other man’s argument and see his side of the matter have been unexplored. There are issues which require probing attention such as the fair division of land and political power and there are the measures and practices which are based on colour and which discriminate, harmful forms of unjust discrimination against people merely on the ground of colour. We ask our Black friends in Southern Africa to display the same courage as the Whites, the courage of the Whites not only to fight unwaveringly against the onslaughts from abroad, but also to make internal adjustments in accordance with our moral norms by means of which alliances can be forged. Just as the Black majority Government of Bishop Muzorewa was unable to gain recognition through its removal of discrimination, so, it seems to me, South West Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana or Venda will not gain recognition either. These Black States remain the target of radical onslaughts. Therefore, the same fate must ultimately befall Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana as well. We must be able to think in sub-continental terms, be able to get along with one another and cultivate trust and tolerance on sub-continental terms. The Black leaders and we must develop a reciprocal feeling of understanding and trust.

I want to point out a new example of confidence on our part in the Coloureds and Asiatics. It gives me great pleasure to be able to say that the Cabinet has approved of Coloureds and Asiatics being employed as foreign officers on the same basis and in the same way, and also at the same remuneration and subject to the same conditions of service as those which apply in regard to Whites. If only we could continue to speak frankly, to trust one another a little more and to exercise a little patience, we shall be able to ward off the onslaughts on us together. The Black people, as we do, also have their idiosyncrasies—allow me to speak candidly now. There are many facets and elements in the system of the Black peoples values which I do not look down upon, but which are not familiar to us. So too there are elements in our system of values which do not appeal to them. For example there are things such as communal grazing rights and land tenure, as well as their leasehold systems, an outlook on life and approach which differs from ours. If we talk to one another honestly, we will admit these things. They are quite elementary. Certain reproaches are constantly being hurled at us, such problem situations as the question of the urban Blacks. As solutions are found in respect of the larger constitutional problems the possibilities of solving problems such as the position of the urban Blacks become greater. The Blacks may rightly entertain expectations in confidence. But the Whites also entertain expectations. The Whites, too, have claims and rights. They, too, have toiled and gone through tribulations.

I repeat that we can tell our Black neighbours that we are not inviting them to a Maundy Thursday, that we do not see them as beggars by means of whom we can elevate ourselves temporarily in order to escape from our problems in that way. We stand together, confronted by the same problems, and we are prepared, with our skills which at this stage of our history are further developed than theirs, to support them as well and to uplift them and to ensure everyone in Southern Africa of a new era of prosperity. If the ideals which gave life to this nation still continue to draw us on, and if our desire for identity, our desire to be ourselves and to have the right to govern ourselves, will be a right which we also grant to others, this will lead us to a fair solution to our problems. The Whites of this country are not what the world makes them out to be. If our religious doctrines and our faith are the stars which guide us, I predict today that we will be led through the sombre night of isolation which now threatens us to a new dawn of development and prosperity for all the peoples of Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour, although I shall not use the whole half-hour now.

The hon. the Minister painted a sombre picture here this afternoon, and I shall react a little later to the theme of his speech. First I should like to place on record that the hon. the Minister and his department have gone out of their way during the present session to keep the Opposition informed and to furnish it with very detailed documentation, especially concerning the important question of South West Africa. There has also been consultation with the Opposition concerning matters which affect South Africa’s Information effort. We greatly appreciate this conduct on the part of the hon. the Minister and his department, not because the Opposition is looking for favours, but because we believe it to be in the best spirit of parliamentary Government and also because we believe it to be in the best interests of the country that there should be the greatest possible understanding concerning the country’s major international problems on the part of the Government and the Opposition. We hope that spirit will continue.

†Despite all the positive efforts of the past two years to bring the matter to finality, the problem of South West Africa still dominates our international relations and the signs are that it will continue to be the case for a considerable time to come. In the circumstances I believe that we should all be absolutely frank and make it clear to all parties concerned where we stand in the matter. Our first concern should naturally be the people of South West Africa themselves. One thing is certain, and that is that the vast majority of the people of South West Africa—Black, Brown and White—have not let South Africa down. They proved their willingness to have an election on the basis of “one man, one vote”, a move which was so loudly demanded from abroad. They agreed to have such an election under the supervision of South Africa and the United Nations. They have taken steps to remove all race discrimination and to create a state of individual equality. They have also undertaken to establish a Government in which political responsibility will be shared by all the people of the country. More could not have been expected of them, and I say that if this is not good enough for the rest of the world, it is all the more reason why we in South Africa should now not let South West Africa down. Those who encouraged them to follow the path they have taken—I am now referring particularly to the Government—should now stand by them without fail.

The general election of last year, which was a free and a fair internal election, showed that the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the territory support those political parties which seek a peaceful solution and are opposed to violence. With one or two smaller exceptions these parties are, by proper election, all represented in the new National Assembly or Parliament of South West Africa. I therefore hold that until such time as new or final independence elections are held, it is the duty of South Africa and of this Parliament to give its full support to the National Assembly of South West Africa and to encourage the few political groupings which, through circumstances, are not represented in the Assembly to take up the generous provision of 15 seats which are available to them.

Then there is also the position of Swapo that must be borne in mind. It is known that Swapo seeks a military solution, and it has never stopped telling us and the world that its members are revolutionaries who are out to seize power. The amazing thing is that there seem to be so many quarters abroad which still regard this as a legitimate approach. I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House are not against a further effort to try to find a generally acceptable solution on the basis of the principles to which we have already agreed. Frankly, however, I believe that there is nothing within the bounds of reason that will bring Swapo to the ballot-box. The reasons, as I see them, are obvious. There was a time when it was generally believed that Swapo could win an open election, but they know now that their chances are far from good, and their friends and supporters also fear that impartial democratic elections would spell the end of Swapo’s existence.

Quite apart from that, however, all the physical and psychological training of a terrorist and of a terrorist movement is directed towards violent revolutionary change. They are indoctrinated to believe that violence has a purpose, and it is not going to be easy to re-educate them as far as that is concerned. I believe that as long as the Soviet Union and its satellites continue to support them, and the General Assembly of the United Nations showers them with money and medals, it is unrealistic to believe that Swapo would really submit itself to the ballot-box. As Nujoma has said, they are “fighting to seize power”, whether the majority of Namibians support them or not.

Therefore, as I see it, we have no choice but to back the majority in South West Africa and to help them to defeat Swapo if they continue to refuse to return and to co-operate in a peaceful transition to independence. I believe they can be defeated. If our erstwhile Portuguese neighbours had, at the time, taken the initiative themselves to make their overseas territories independent, the whole political history of Mozambique, Angola and the other old Portuguese territories would have been different. Whatever lack of foresight we have displayed in this regard in the past, nobody can today seriously doubt South Africa’s desire and determination to lead South West Africa to full and complete independence under a freely elected Government without delay. If ever there were, in the minds of some people, grounds for seeking a military solution in the past, the cause for fighting has fallen away long ago. I believe that Swapo’s revolutionary movement could be brought to a halt and defeated.

As far as the General Assembly of the United Nations is concerned, I suppose it is too much to hope that international politics will ever be free of the stupidities and power-madness which one often also finds in national politics in many countries. However, it is not easy to know how one must deal with an organization such as the United Nations.

I see that the Israeli Ambassador, Mr. Unna, told the Press Club in Cape Town that he did not want to comment on South Africa’s own dealings with the United Nations in attempting to solve political problems in South West Africa. However, he added this, and I quote—

What was our most recent experience? After South Africa had formally negotiated with the Secretary-General of that organization and with the Western representatives of the Security Council, and had finally accepted the proposals for free and fair elections in South West Africa under United Nations’ supervision and control, the United Nations met together in plenary session and decided that South West Africa should be enabled to attain self-determination by way of free and fair elections. So far, so good. However, in the same resolution, in the same breath, before any election was held to give expression to that self-determination, they repeatedly declared Swapo to be the “sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia”. In other words, they unilaterally declared Swapo to be the undisputed winner in advance and so wished to impose a government of their own liking upon South West Africa.

It is understandable that most South Africans are sorely tempted to write the United Nations off and to put final pay to our subscriptions. However, our feeling on this side is that, however dark the picture is, it is best for our country to reject the United Nations’ hysteria but to retain our dignity as a country. I do not think that we should indulge in so much aggressive diplomacy. I believe we should take a long-term view of the matter, a long-term view of our relations with all the international organizations, including the United Nations, because times, governments and attitudes change. Nobody will deny that we are all aware of the fact that radical changes will also have to come about in our own country in the next few years. We have recently seen, for instance, a more sober attitude developing in Great Britain in respect of Rhodesia. I hope the time will come when we will give our recognition fully to the new Government in Rhodesia. The new Government in Great Britain also has openly rejected the application of sanctions against South Africa. We have seen the United States Senate demanding a repeal of sanctions against the new Government of Rhodesia, and we have seen Mr. Andrew Young raising his voice against Swapo. We have seen Idi Amin come to a fall and we have seen the mighty Shah of Iran come to nought. In our own country we have seen once powerful political princes fall from political grace. We have seen Egypt and Israel bury some of their hatreds.

The point I want to make is that in the constantly changing scene, in the world in which we live today, no international set-back should be seen as final. I am not suggesting that we should ever underestimate the harm and damage the pressures and hysteria that emanate from the General Assembly of the United Nations can do to our country. There is no doubt about that. However, the final responsibility for action rests with the Security Council. In this respect I want to say that there is no doubt about the fact that, as a country, we are in for some dangerous living, politically speaking. That is something we shall have to face. I agree in this respect with the hon. the Minister, but quite frankly I do not see any salvation for us as a country in meaningless declarations of “neutrality” and in “looking elsewhere” for friends.

*In our case, unlike in the unique case of Switzerland, neutrality would be a form of self-imposed isolation, isolation to which we dare not expose ourselves.

†Every country places its own interests first. We are just as entitled as other countries to do the same. In fact we expect it of every South African Government to serve the cause of South Africa. That is what they are there for. However, I do not believe that it will ever be in the interests of our country to be neutral in the face of the global threat of communist imperialism.

We believe that our place is with the Free World. We understand the Government’s deep disappointment, even their anger at the role of certain Western negotiators on the matter of South West Africa. We have already added our own voice of criticism. However, if Mrs. Thatcher can be in No. 10 Downing Street, and if Canada can turn Progressive Conservative, important changes should also occur elsewhere in the world. Therefore, long-term politics should not be based on those wielding power at a given time. For once we have a strong case in respect of South West Africa. There is no logic in the concept of free and fair elections in South West Africa if one of the participating political parties is to be allowed the privilege of maintaining a private army and of setting up armed bases inside the territory, whether they are monitored or not.

All the participating political parties should be guaranteed an equal chance. I believe that is what we should demand. South Africa is not a participating political party in South West Africa. There is much misunderstanding as far as that is concerned. We as a country are ready and willing to hand over every vestige of power in the territory to a Government elected freely and in peace and under United Nations supervision. The position of Swapo in the negotiations is therefore by no means comparable with that of South Africa as the power departing from South West Africa. Swapo must therefore be dealt with on a par with the other participating political parties; not with South Africa, but with the other participating political parties within the territory. Swapo should be required to compete on equal terms with them for future political power, or not at all. We therefore cannot and should not deviate from the principle of self-determination on the basis of free and genuinely fair elections in conditions of peace.

I should like to add that we can abide by these principles and that we can rightly express our opposition and indignation if and when there are negotiators who are inconsistent or playing a double role. However, there is no reason why we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I was delighted when the hon. the Prime Minister, in his interview with BBC-TV, a few days ago, revealed a note of nostalgia when he referred to our old, historic family ties with Great Britain and with the influential British world. As a country we still have many friends, as well as many potential friends. I believe it must be one of our basic aims to find a recognized place for our country within the Free World where we belong. They are in fact waiting for us. I concede that it will not be easy. It will also not happen rapidly. Too many things still have to be put right. However, I believe it can be done. Of course, we all realize that our path to a recognized place in the Free World will have to go through Africa. There is no other choice, but there is nothing impossible about that either. As a first step I believe that we should stop being on the defensive. We should come with a positive message to the world.

The other day I had the opportunity of looking at some of our information films in the Verwoerd Auditorium, but I am sorry to say that in what was being explained politically in one of the films, the main one, we were on the defensive from start to finish. Canada approaches the world with an information kit containing, amongst other positive material, a copy of a Parliamentary statute, the Canadian Human Rights Act. That is how they advertise their country. They advertise it with a positive image. When are we coming with ours, because that is the positive kind of message that we need to be able to send out to the world?

*We must try to get on the right side of the moral issues in the world. The hon. the Prime Minister rightly speaks of positive steps in this direction, of a constellation or association of Southern African States, and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has also referred to this repeatedly. It sounds good. It is an old ideal, and a laudable one too. There is not a single sensible South African who would not give his full support to that idea and who would not support the man who could make it come true. However, an acute political observer, who has been watching the South African scene for many years, said in my presence the other day that the solution to South Africa’s problem lay with two groups of nationalists—“nationalists” in the broad sense of the word and not in the sense of political parties—the Afrikaner and the Zulu. That was not an unintelligent remark. Chief Buthelezi respects the Afrikaners as a people, and I think it is time the two Bs, Prime Minister Botha and Chief Minister Buthelezi, made friends. We shall give the Prime Minister a chance to clean the stables, but when he has done that, they should get together and talk things out.

Do you think they are enemies?

If the Afrikaner and the Zulu could work out a political dispensation in which the two could cooperate, on a basis which would guarantee the preservation of the identity of both nations, the other national groups would accommodate themselves to that and the way would be paved for broad co-operation in Africa, and thus for our eventual acceptance in the Free World. We must try to create a zone of peace in Southern Africa.

The hon. the Minister and his department have a difficult year behind them, and I cannot help saying that they have served South Africa well in the international sphere. Obviously, many questions arise which we should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I want to mention only two, and then I must resume my seat.

Towards the end of last year, he made a remarkable speech at Wonderboom. In it he set out all the internal problems. In fact, he said that the danger from within was actually greater than the danger from without, and he spelt out the urgent need for drastic adjustments in South Africa. Six months have elapsed since then. He spoke in that direction again today, and perhaps he will want to tell us how much closer we have come to that ideal, since the assault from without is directly related to what he termed the assault on South Africa “from its own ranks”.

We should also like to know whether we shall try to achieve solidarity between our population groups internally, and as soon as possible, before we come to the stage where an organized terrorist army of South Africans has been raised against the Republic and we also have to contend with the grievous problems with which Zimbabwe Rhodesia and South West Africa are faced.

The hon. the Minister of Police said last year that there were already 4 000 South African terrorists being trained for action against South Africa. Therefore I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what is developing against us in this field, so that the public may be prepared, especially for the political counter-measures which will have to be taken. I shall ask some more questions about affairs later in the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I do not have much fault to find this afternoon with the speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In fact, I think he made quite a positive speech. It is perhaps as a result of the information he received from the department—he said at the beginning that the department had informed him properly— that he made such a good speech.

See to it that you too make a good speech now on the basis of the information you have obtained.

Among other things, the hon. member made an appeal for South Africa not to leave South West Africa in the lurch. I want to warn him that incorrect conclusions could be drawn from that appeal in the sense that it could be interpreted as meaning that it is South Africa’s or the Government’s intention to leave South West Africa in the lurch. Consequently one must be very careful with a statement of that nature.

In spite of the way it is being condemned, South Africa seeks to live in friendship and co-operation with the whole world. That this is the case, is demonstrated by our history up to now. With reference to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech this afternoon to the effect that the world presented a very sombre picture, that the purpose of the UN had not been realized, that there was still strife and dissension in the world and that the nations could not find one another, I think that, despite the fact that we have tried our best to show the world that we want to live with them in friendship, we have not got this message across. For some reason we have not yet managed to drive that message home to the world. One wonders why this is the case.

I am in complete agreement with the hon. the Minister that South Africa is not bent on causing racial friction. South Africa does not make the fuss about colour that the outside world wants to make out. On the contrary, I think the fuss about colour emanates from the UN and other countries, but not from South Africa. They make out that our policy of separate development is a reason why we are unacceptable to the world. If one analyses the antipathy towards South Africa in the world, one reaches the conclusion that what they make out to be our policy, is very far removed from our policy of separate development or, as they want to call it, the policy of “apartheid”.

If one speaks to foreigners, as we have probably all done, it becomes very clear, as one speaks to them, that they do not understand our policy of separate development very clearly, but in spite of that they continually come up with the word “apartheid”. They say that we must change our “apartheid”. Meanwhile they do not even know what “apartheid” means. It is also clear that they do not want to take cognizance of the development taking place in South Africa. In many fields of life development of both the Whites and the non-Whites is taking place.

It is also clear that they do not want to take cognizance of the two States in South Africa which have already been granted independence, viz. the Transkei and Bophuthatswana. If they would only take note of this and also bear in mind that independence will shortly be granted to a third State, they will have a better understanding of our intentions with our policy of “apartheid” or separate development. They persist in refusing to recognize that the Black man in South Africa is better off than a Black man in any other country in Africa.

To show how futile is their argument that our policy of separate development or, as they call it, our policy of oppression of the Black man is the cause of our unacceptability to the world, I want to refer once again, as the hon. the Minister did this afternoon as well, to South West Africa and Zimbabwe Rhodesia. In South West Africa we contributed towards making it possible to meet the demands of the world for majority government, and the Black man has taken over the government there. South Africa played a role in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, too, in getting the Black man into power there. We did not oppose it, but said that those people should work out their own salvation. Despite this they continue to maintain that our policy of “apartheid” is the culprit in the world. If one examines the morality of the argument and regards it in the light of the position in which these two States find themselves, one finds that there is discord between Black and Black within the borders of those countries. However, the UN and also the Western nations side with the radical Black man in spite of this. They do not side with the Black man who tries to bring about peace, but they side with the radical Black man. Accordingly one realizes afresh that these people are out to destroy South Africa, irrespective of our policy, and that we have been unable to succeed in impressing upon the people the point to which the hon. the Minister also referred, viz. the successes which Russian imperialism is achieving throughout the world and the fact that they also seek to extend their successes to the southern tip of Africa. If we can bring that message home to the rest of the world and the UN, we shall in my opinion, succeed in our purpose.

One cannot but ask oneself what methods we must adopt to bring our message home to the outside world. I am not an authority in this field myself. The department’s officials, the Secretary and his people are adept at this work. They are aware of the best methods. However, I want to give an example of what I myself experienced when I was in London last year together with other hon. members, including Opposition members. I once stood talking to a man in London’s great market, and he told me: “You people in South Africa are making a very big mistake. You are always stating your policy and viewpoint to our politicians, newspapers, industrialists and others.” He said: “Look at London, look at the European cities: In the evenings in particular they are swarming with young people, and you are not reaching those young people.” He said: “You must concentrate on the young people, just as the advertising media do when they want to sell something. Sport, music and everything is concentrated on the young person today.” He said: “You do not make use of that type of advertising to bring home your message. Forget all the other people and concentrate on the young people. If you do so, you will see the success of your propaganda in a few years’ time.” This makes one wonder whether one should not devise other methods to bring home our message to the outside world. Of course there are other methods, too, which can be applied. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to one of these when he said that we should not be defensive, that we should not be on the defensive and always just try to explain, but instead that we should also take the offensive. I believe this is very true. We should act very aggressively and not simply always adopt a defensive attitude when we are explaining our policy.

In passing I want to refer once again to what I discussed last year in this debate as well. We should try to make more contact with people. Not necessarily only our politicians, but also the seasoned journalists and others in our country should help to bring home the message. There are businessmen and cultural people who can help in this regard. Let us use these people to make as much personal contact as possible, not only with our enemies overseas, but also with people who are well-disposed towards us. Let us send such people to talk to people overseas. We can, for example, have a team of seasoned men at the UN to talk to the people there and to bring our message home to them. If we could do this, I think we should be able to show far better results.

I think it is time for South Africa to show its fist to the world too. It must show its fist in the struggle for the world. Like many of my colleagues, I listened the other evening to what Mr. Pym, the Minister of Defence of England, had to say about our mineral wealth in South Africa, the sea route around the Cape and the great asset it is to us. If we show that type of fist, I think we shall succeed to a far greater extent in bringing our message home too.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the statement by the hon. the Minister that the industrial countries of the world did not help to develop Africa; that we should continue to exist on this continent and for that reason should think in sub-continental terms together with the states of Southern Africa.

If Israel and Egypt, that have already waged five wars against each other, could conclude an historic peace and could ensure co-operation, there is no reason why South Africa and the rest of Africa, which have never been involved in war against one another, cannot also conclude an historic peace and ensure co-operation with one another. If we are to escape the revolution of Africa we must establish a unity of meaning and striving for peaceful coexistence between us and the Black peoples of Southern Africa as a proven fact. If we do not do so, Africa will remain our greatest stumbling block, and as long as this is in fact the case, the Western countries will never associate with us openly for a variety of reasons. This is already a proven fact.

This is why we should give greater attention than we have up to now to our diplomacy with Africa, without neglecting the home front. We must convince the White voters of South Africa of the urgency and the necessity of such a policy.

What I have just said is, however, exactly what the Government is doing. On the home front we have the reports of Prof. Wiehahn and Dr. Riekert with which the Government is dealing. The Government has issued new directives relating to land consolidation. The Government is creating a new constitution for the Republic, and the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development has appointed regional committees which comprise White and non-White members and which have to advise the Government with regard to Black people outside the Black States.

As regards our orientation towards Africa the Government is giving attention to the establishment of a Southern African constellation of States. These are exciting and dramatic political developments. This is an offensive the scope of which has never been seen before in the history of South Africa.

Let us then as a result of this be branded for the time being as people who ostensibly do everything only for the Black people, affording them benefits even above the Whites. This is an absurd statement in any case, but unfortunately I have no time to discuss it. In the end, when we have reached the home stretch of our race for survival, posterity will be able to assess such a policy directed at Africa properly and at its true value.

It is no longer relevant whether we are of European extract, whether we adhere to Western civilization or whether we are a geographic part of Africa. The fact is that our interests as a sovereign people and independent State cut across all international boundaries, and for that reason we have an interest in peace and stability throughout the world.

However, the question of cardinal importance is now: how are we to remain part of such a situation of peace. The reply is simple; it is there for us all to see: Through peace and co-operation with our neighbours, who fall into the cadre of our sphere of influence. And if development aid to Africa, to our own Black people and to the Black people in White areas must in that case form part of the offensive to penetrate to the heart of Africa, we must give that development aid, which the industrial countries never offered, to Africa, until we groan under the burden, despite the whining of a small group of White extremists who have no understanding of the reality of the situation which we are in the midst of in Southern Africa.

We neglected and ignored Africa for many decades when we were in a position to forge ties of friendship and also to provide development aid. We must not drag our feet on that path of association with Africa. No, we must do so with great purposefulness and vision. In the process we must find the necessary means and make the appropriate sacrifices. Those whom we cannot take with us in this offensive, have to remain behind, but then we must tell them flatly that we shall not allow them to wreck a strategy of this nature.

Having said this to our own people, I want to make a clear and distinct announcement to Africa as well and that is that we are a people in our right. We regard the territory of the Republic as our own inalienable property and right. This is our country and we shall fight for it. We shall not allow ourselves to be pressurized, however great the violence, into surrendering those principles that guarantee our own identity and national sovereignty. But least of all shall we allow ourselves to be driven from our own country by anyone in Africa or whosoever they want to bring with them in this process.

What I have just said does not comprise the theme of my speech. The theme of my speech is co-operation, friendship and aid to Africa. We want to provide technical, scientific and economic aid to Africa so that Africa can be put in a position to feed its people, to clothe them, to give them medical care and to provide them with permanent employment so that it will no longer be necessary for the people of Africa to act as puppets in the political arena of the super-powers. In this scene Africa is only expected to beat the war drums against South Africa continually, but in the process Africa is starving and becoming impoverished.

If we succeed in this, we have done something for Africa and its people. We can succeed in this if Africa wants to afford us that opportunity. For that reason we also ask our own Black people to create such an attitude in Africa by their influence and conduct. What is more, we also ask our own Whites to act purposefully and positively so that we may launch an offensive of this nature with the greatest possible measure of success.

Winning the friendship of the people of Africa must not be the task of the Government alone. At this stage in our history it must become a national movement, because as long as the people of Africa are the slaves of Russian imperialism they cannot be the true friends of South Africa. On the contrary, no Russian satellite State in Africa can in actual fact be a true friend of Africa. However, the Kremlin will not knowingly allow the friendship we are seeking with Africa, because it is for ever using a satellite State such as those to which I had just referred, as an agent to bring about revolutionary change in order to satisfy its own imperialistic desire for expansion.

South Africa’s willingness to form friendships in Africa and to create stability is demonstrated by South Africa’s conduct towards Zambia, which shelters terrorists that sow terror in South West Africa, destroy installations and murder innocent people. Despite this, up to now South Africa has acted in a very restrained way and has consistently refrained from taking revenge against the people of Zambia. On the contrary, as proof of our zeal for co-operation, it was the South African Railways that conveyed large quantities of fertilizer and seed maize to Zambia at the beginning of this year to support those people in their dire distress. Is this not a demonstration to Africa of our bona fides, our good intentions and our endeavour to bring about co-operation?

Can Africa not see that the economies of Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho, Transkei and Bophuthatswana, where an interstate infrastructure has been created together with South Africa and is being maintained, are much better off than the economies of Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia, where the Russian hyenas, the terrorists, devour everything before the people and leave them behind in the greatest poverty and distress? Surely the states that are co-operating with us are much better off in this regard than those who oppose us and shelter terrorists? Surely it must be possible for Africa to see this contrast clearly and distinctly. Surely it must be possible for Africa to desire stability, cooperation, development and the development of its people. South Africa holds out that message and that hope to its friends in Africa. This is what the West begrudges the countries of Africa, while it provides them with weapons with which to destroy and eradicate one another. For that reason it is our message to Africa that we must conclude peace so that those who come after us will have gratitude in their hearts instead of an external reproach towards those, whether White or Black, who today have to take the decisions on the future of Africa.

Mr. Chairman, after listening to the hon. member for Parys, to the hon. member who preceded him and also to the hon. the Minister, I am particularly pleased to note that there is a positive line developing on the part of the Government in regard to acceptance, by hon. members on that side of the House, of the fact that South Africa is part of Africa and that we have to find our place and our destiny in Africa. [Interjections.]

Where have you been living all these years?

I hear hon. members saying that it has always been like that, but I can recall when the then Leader of the Opposition, the honorary life president of our party, Sir De Villiers Graaff, actually proposed the concept of Capricorn Africa, and it was opposed at that stage. In fact, if hon. members would care to read my Hansard speeches, in the debate on this particular Vote last year, they would see that this was one of the main thrusts of the hon. members who belong to this party. Therefore I am very pleased to see that hon. members have conceded this, but I wonder whether they fully realize the implications of the acceptance of that concept. Along with my colleagues I hope, during this debate, to put the consequences and the implications of this movement to hon. members on that side.

Like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I and my party appreciate the co-operation he has shown us in the past by informing us of what is going on in South West Africa and also by distributing this most valuable document, and I sincerely hope that this document is getting very wide-spread distribution. The document reveals to one the problems and the frustrations the hon. the Minister is facing at the present time. It shows a saga of frustrated and opposing objectives on the part of the people who are concerned with the South West African situation. However, it did reveal one thing to me—and I was particularly pleased to see this—namely the Government’s repeated commitment, in its letters to the UN, to the Secretary-General and to others, to the principle and objectives that “the people of South West Africa shall determine their own future”. I think this is a very important commitment. It is a plus factor. Both the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Parys said so. I believe South Africa must now be positive and aggressive in selling the plus factors which we have to sell in regard to foreign affairs.

That raises the first point I should like to make—and it is something which my party believes as far as foreign policy is concerned—namely that South Africa should clearly identify both its domestic policy and foreign policy objectives so that there can be no misunderstanding in this regard on the part of ourselves, on the part of our friends overseas and indeed on the part of our enemies. Therefore it is even more important for all and sundry to know of, and clearly understand, these objectives, and that is why I believe that a document such as this does assist one in putting this across to people. The NRP also believes that while South Africa should always be prepared to negotiate and to renegotiate sensitive and important matters such as South West African independence, it is essential for the maintenance of our own credibility that South Africa should not make and remake foreign policy commitments at will. South Africa should not be seen to deviate from its stated objectives, not only on foreign policy, but also within domestic policy, because the deviations from the Government’s stated objectives in respect of domestic policy—as we shall show later—is frustrating our foreign relations.

Therefore, at this stage, I should like to state my party’s policy in this regard. We agree with the Government when it says that the people of South West Africa shall determine their own future. However, my party goes further. As a party we are committed to the principles of freedom and democracy, firstly for South Africa, all the people of South Africa, our commitment embodying the real meaning of the words “freedom” and “democracy”; and secondly, for those people for whom South Africa is at present responsible, i.e. the people of South West Africa. This also implies that South Africa should support any movement for freedom and democracy in Southern Africa as a whole. It should give support to these movements throughout South Africa. This commitment implies that the people of South Africa, as has been said in this report, should be free to know the alternatives of the political policies or programmes which are being proposed to them, should be free from intimidation, either from terrorists or from internal forces and should be free to choose the Government of their choice. This commitment also requires that South Africa must be prepared and must have the ability and the will to defend and fight for these objectives of freedom and democracy, should the need ever arise, as we are now doing in South West Africa. In this regard let me tell the hon. the Minister that we support what he and his colleagues are doing. It is regrettable, however, that after studying the recent history as depicted very clearly in these documents—they do not only concern South West Africa, but also Africa in general—one realizes that some of the world’s greatest democracies, as has been referred to by other hon. members, have failed in this basic duty of democratic government, i.e. to defend freedom and democracy when it is under attack. There is much evidence of this. We have seen it in Angola, in Zimbabwe Rhodesia and also in South West Africa. We must accept, however, that there are many reasons for this. There is, for example, political expediency on the part of politicians and Governments. After all, a lot of them like to stay in power, as we have had reason to see here in South Africa as well.

Some very good examples of economic considerations have also been mentioned today, for example Nigerian oil and the hold this has on the United States. We can accept that these reasons are based on self-interest, as I believe the hon. the Minister or one of his colleagues said. This is an understandable human trait which perhaps even this hon. Minister and his Government could be found to be guilty of in recent times. It is, however, a trait which often leads to hypocrisy, double dealing, the lack of resolve to stick to basic principles and to defend what I term an objective of this party, freedom and democracy. We agree with the hon. the Minister that there is evidence of this in the South West African negotiations.

Having said all this, however, I wish to remind the hon. the Minister that the Western Five are democracies, and if one studies the histories of democracies, one finds that democracies do not fight each other. Therefore we do not believe that the cause of freedom and democracy in Southern Africa is being best served by the constant slamming of the West by South Africa, and especially the USA, or by the continual harping on the deficiencies of certain politicians and political parties in the West. I am pleased to see that this has not yet been expressed with great fervour by Government members so far in this debate, but they have been guilty of this in the recent past. We believe that what is rather needed is a continual restatement of our commitment to the abiding values of freedom and democracy and to their defence in Africa and in what we would hope will eventually emerge in Southern Africa, a Southern African confederation of democratic States. It is not only the restatement of these principles, but probably more importantly the active implementation of these principles of government, in our dealings with our own people, with our own internal problems in South Africa and with those we are experiencing in South West Africa. If it is true—and from recent history and after reading the documents on South West Africa we believe it is—that some Western Governments lack the determination to defend democracy and freedom for the variety of reasons I have already mentioned, there is all the more reason why South Africa should shine out as a beacon for all to see, a small nation beset by innumerable problems of immense complexity, problems which other large nations do not have, and as a nation under attack from other undemocratic forces for strategic reasons, which we have heard so much about, yet firmly resolved to defend these abiding values of freedom and democracy as a united nation, regardless of the cost. This should be our role and our task. This is the role which I believe South Africa and the Government should, and the NRP certainly is particularly suited to, play in the present-day world.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

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

I thank the hon. member. I should briefly like to say that in regard to South West Africa, I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that South Africa has a strong case. However, I believe that the Government must state and restate its objectives on South West Africa, the freedom which we want for the people of South West Africa and our determination to defend their right to it. Secondly, as has already been said by the hon. member for Parys, the hon. the Minister should launch a massive diplomatic offensive aimed at the democracies of the world to sell these objectives. Thirdly, I believe that the Government should advise the political bodies within South West Africa to exercise patience at the present time. I am sure he has done so already. There should be no talk of a UDI at the present time. In spite of all the frustrations and difficulties, we believe the hon. the Minister should continue to negotiate with the five Western powers and the United Nations. In doing so, we believe that he should keep cool and calm, but at the same time be very clear in his objectives and be unequivocal in this regard. Fifthly, we believe that the Government, as we have seen in recent times—and we support them in this—should launch an aggressive campaign within the territory to promote not only the concept of freedom and democracy, but also the practice of these ideals in the internal relations between people and the Government of the territory. Sixthly, we agree that it is in fact doing so—the Government should ensure at all times the safety of South West Africa until such time as the territory becomes a free and democratic Namibia, if that is what they want to call themselves in the future.

From what I have already said, the question arises whether this Government can proceed with such a task without being accused by foreign nations of the same sort of hypocrisy and double standards of which we so often hear hon. members in this House accuse foreign nations. I regret to say that the Government has in recent times—and we in these benches will during the course of this debate prove this—maintained a track record of double talk and double standards. I believe that this is one of the greatest difficulties bedevilling this hon. Minister in his task of trying to sell South Africa to the outside world.

It has been such a high standard debate until now. Why spoil it?

We intend showing the difficulties which this hon. Minister has in presenting to the world the image we would like to see South Africa enjoy in the outside world. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister. He is now angry with me because I have probably touched on a very sensitive point However, I should like to ask him: How can we reconcile ourselves with the image that he tries to sell to the outside world that the Government’s apartheid policy embraces the concept of freedom for all groups, when the reality in South Africa is one of discrimination, strict control and severe limitation on personal freedom Can he deny this? It is no use burying our heads in the sand.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am afraid my time is very limited. [Interjections.] How can the Government, the hon. the Prime Minister, talk so glibly of their vision of a Southern Africa constellation of States with a common loyalty? Yesterday we asked the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development what the object of a common loyalty should be. He was unable to tell us. How can they talk so glibly about these things when in reality the very soul of the NP, its political philosophy, is one of sectionalism, nationalism and separateness? [Interjections.]

We agree that there is a plurality of people in Southern Africa. That is why the NRP’s political soul is pluralism. But this is not the case with the NP. This is not only the hon. the Minister’s, the Government’s, dilemma, but South Africa’s dilemma in the world today. [Interjections.]

I should like to conclude on the theme of unity within Southern Africa. This is the political objective and the foreign policy objectives of the NRP. We should like to debate this with the hon. the Minister. We seek a confederation of freedom-loving and democratic States in Southern Africa. We accept that, through the free enterprise system, political freedom will come. Therefore we support any endeavour on the part of the Government to promote this. However, we also accept that mankind has a deep-seated desire for freedom. Therefore the NRP believes that South Africa’s relationships with Africa cannot be separated from the issue of human rights, because respect for human rights is the foundation of our democratic way of life. No man is free if he is denied these human rights. Our own history has surely taught us this.

Finally, in endeavouring to achieve these objectives, we pledge to fight tooth and nail for all those positive objectives which are to be found in such reports as those mentioned by the hon. member for Parys—the Erika Theron Commission, the Wiehahn Commission and the Riekert Commission. The hon. member for Parys must accept that those are objectives which this Government’s political soul prevents it from accepting unequivocally at the present time. In so doing the Government makes a mockery of the talk we have heard so far this afternoon, namely that this is improving our image in the outside world. The Government is back-tracking on this, and in so doing it is harming our foreign relations and our image abroad. [Interjections.] We pledge ourselves to fighting against legislation which is designed to restrict freedom and a democratic process. Such restrictions are to be found, for instance—and I want to put it straight to the hon. the Minister—in the Advocate-General Bill. Can the hon. the Minister accept that sort of legislation? Does he not agree that that is making his role more difficult? I believe it is a great pity and a great shame that someone of the stature and experience of the hon. the Minister, someone whose sincerity and honesty we accept, should be so hamstrung by a party which is totally incapable of achieving the wonderful future it promises to South Africa, the future which we know he desires and which we know our people in South Africa desire. It is a future which we know is possible in South Africa, providing we have a different Government, providing we have a Government which is not hamstrung by such outdated attitudes. [Interjections.]

I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they really and truly believe that the putting into practice of the recommendations by the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I believe that I have hit at the core of many of our difficulties in our foreign relations. [Interjections.] The Government says one thing. It goes to a lot of expense to have commissions investigate things and presents it to the country and to the world as a great move forward. However, when it comes to the nitty gritty of administering it, of implementing it, they back-track. They are like a bunch of schizophrenics. Look at the hon. the Minister at the present time. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member cannot accuse hon. members on the Government side of being schizophrenic. He must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. However, at the present time the Government has at least a split personality. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I direct your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the Government benches as a bunch of schizophrenics? Is that not a reflection on this House? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has already withdrawn that remark. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the hon. member for Von Brandis is trying to waste my time. [Interjections.] He is trying to waste my time because what I have said has hit right at the heart and the core of the Government’s dilemma in being unable to sell itself and its policies to the outside world. This is the difficulty which the hon. the Minister has to face. We sympathize with him. We should like to help him.

Why do you not sell your policies to the public?

Wait, we are going to do so.

I must put it to the hon. the Minister that we should love to have TV time. If only we could have that we would do it. [Interjections.] A few days ago the hon. the Minister enjoyed the privilege of ample TV time to present some of the … [Time expired.]

I will give you double my time and you will still get fewer votes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we consider it regrettable that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti—whom we have always regarded as a reasonable and sensible person—had to give vent to so many absurdities here today. [Interjections.] The hon. member blew his own trumpet right from the start. However, we are grateful to note that the hon. member and his party have seen the light as well and that they are aware of the importance of initiatives in Africa. He and his party are welcome to tackle these initiatives with us. I cannot agree with the hon. member when he says that we should go cap in hand as regards the South West African question. It is time that we acted firmly in this matter, otherwise we are going to be ploughed under. We have already leaned very far backwards as far as this whole issue is concerned. We have made many concessions, concessions which I shall refer to in the course of my speech, but we cannot make any more concessions. South Africa has become the victim of the lie which is being used against us on an unprecedented scale by the international community. The image of South Africa being projected at the UN and in the Western World is a shamefully false image. It is a caricature of the true conditions here, a caricature of our policy, our point of view and the true facts about South Africa. We cannot remain silent any longer. We have to say these things outright. The international community has created a caricature of our point of view, and they continue to attack and criticize that caricature. They have made a straw doll of South Africa’s policy, and they are constantly knocking that straw doll, their own creation, down. Just recently we were again made the scapegoat at the UN. The declaration of the UN Council for Namibia of 14 May is a typical example of what a false image of us is being projected in that world body. I quote a passage from this document—

It is a downright lie and everyone knows that it is false. It is difficult to understand how this world body, in the light of the facts known to it and to all of us, can persist with so much falseness. Over a period of 30 years the international community has demanded the following from South Africa in respect of South West Africa. Independence for the territory as a whole, “one man, one vote”, the removal of discrimination, free and fair elections to the satisfaction of the UN, the return of all exiles, peaceful participation in the political process and the release of so-called political detainees. This South Africa has done, or has given the assurance that it would do so, but the international community refuses to give South Africa credit for this and persists in making more and more impossible demands. We ask the Free World to come to its senses and to cease their onslaughts on a good friend like South Africa. The international community does not want to see South Africa as anything but the oppressor and exploiter of the people of South West Africa. These people are blind and deaf to the enormous progress that has been made under the guidance and with the aid of South Africa. They simply do not wish to see it.

An American group, “Accuracy in Media”, has released a report which further proves this point. After a survey their finding was that South Africa’s image in American publications was being distorted considerably. I quote what is said about this—

One can see, therefore, why we are regarded as cast outs in the world. In these publications in America South Africa is pointed to as the second biggest violator of human rights after Russia. Just imagine! Of all the millions of people who have been murdered in Uganda and Cambodia, however, there is virtually no mention. What a distorted image of South Africa that is! A caricature of South Africa is built up and on that basis South Africa is condemned and made the scapegoat. The revelation in the Sunday Times of two weeks ago that the five Black front-line States conspired to present South Africa as the violator of the South West African plan, as the scapegoat in this whole issue, as the “nigger in the woodpile”, is another good example of this game of double-crossing and treason against South Africa. When one considers the statements of the Waldheims and the McHenrys who are only set on singing the praises of Swapo and presenting South Africa in a bad light, one cannot but wonder who is behind this conspiracy which the Sunday Times revealed. The hon. the Minister could certainly not be blamed for suspecting the West of being a party to this underhand swindling. The hon. the Minister has every reason to be upset. Who would not be upset if, while adopting a clean, honest and straight course, he finds out that deceit and treason against his country are being committed behind his back? Thinking about this, one is aggrieved afresh at the thought that the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa divulged the secrets of the country to those very people who plot against South Africa in such a manner. I want to repeat that the reprehensible telephone conversation with Mr. McHenry was a disgraceful and despicable act on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

You are talking nonsense.

We shall not forget it. We shall keep on casting it in the hon. Leader’s teeth. We want to give him the assurance: “It won’t go away.” [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, to show you how sly and shrewd our enemies are, I want to quote from an article in Newsweek of 7 May 1979. Arnaud de Borchgrave in his article entitled “Geneva’s Soviet agents” tells us more about one Dneprovsky, a man whom he describes as “the hiring and firing boss of UN personnel in Geneva”. He writes—

Then he tells us what this man’s role is in the proposed elections in South West Africa. I quote—

So one sees how these people band together and conspire against South Africa. And Communists are selected to supervise elections in South West Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, taking leave is not an easy task. I have been able to take my place in this honourable House for a long time. I have been here since 1966. During that time a comradeship has been built up which transcends provincial boundaries, a comradeship between colleagues from all the provinces. I want to give younger members in the House a bit of advice. This is a place where one encounters a great deal of tension and one must have safety value. I have found a very simple safety valve in my innate love of being a tease. I have teased everybody. I have teased the exchange, I have teased the police, but the people I have most enjoyed teasing, have been my colleagues from the Free State. My colleagues from the Free State were able to take it, and that was why it was such a great privilege for me to get to know them better and count them among my best friends.

†The late Minister Alf Trollip once said that one of the most pleasant tilings about being a member of Parliament is that you have the opportunity of having a ringside seat in the making of history.

*On a day like this, of course, one calls to mind the days gone by. For example, I recall my first benchmate in the House, now the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Those were difficult years and he was my benchmate for only about two years, but I built him up so much that he became a Minister very shortly afterwards. [Interjections.] Subsequently I had another benchmate for more than a decade, and I know of no one else in the House who could have had the privilege of having a benchmate like the hon. member for Bethal.

I want to express my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Prime Minister for appointing me to this particular office. I am conscious of the responsibilities it involves. I want to thank my colleagues in the House, too, for their congratulations, not only on this side of the House, but also on the side of all three Opposition parties in the House. It was very encouraging to be congratulated and I believe we all realize that there is a tremendous task to be done abroad in the interests of our country.

I want to express my gratitude to the Secretariat of Parliament, the exchange, the police, the messengers and particularly Oom Du Plessis and Muller who work on my floor. I want to extend a word of gratitude, too, to my neighbour in the office next to mine, the hon. member for Stilfontein. He has a very strange first name, but he has a heart of gold. Furthermore, I call to mind the hon. members who have their offices on my floor, the third floor; the hon. members for Welkom, Uitenhage and Moorreesburg. It is not an easy floor, but it is a very interesting one. [Interjections.] I want to thank those hon. members very much for their friendliness. I have a very simple philosophy.

†I believe that no man is infallible. My approach in life is that I consider that every man has certain qualities that are nice and other qualities that are not so nice. If, however, one tries to bring the best in a man to the fore, his ugly properties disappear. That will be my approach when I leave this House. I believe that one must never lose the common touch. I believe that one must try to bring out that which is nice in man.

We are a very interesting country, consisting of all races, colours and creeds. It is an interesting set-up. We, in this country, have a terrific challenge.

*Very often I become worried at the thought that our people are perhaps not fully aware of the fierce onslaughts against South Africa. Things have changed to such an extent in South Africa that one cannot compare them with the situation of a decade ago. Is there not perhaps something positive emerging from this fierce onslaught that we are faced with? I believe that in spite of this interesting set-up within South Africa we have one thing in common, and that is a common loyalty to this beautiful country. I believe in these times of emergency we shall get to know one another better and find one another in the interests of South Africa. That should be a basic priority, the direction in which South Africa should be moving, and we are grateful that the hon. the Prime Minister is trying in a realistic way to emphasize internal relations so that we can be strong at home. We can never be strong as against the outside world if we are not strong at home as well. I believe we in South Africa are doing what is essential.

†We ought to be a very grateful nation. We are a nation with wonderful mineral resources, natural resources and scenic and geographic beauty. We live in a country that has all the potential in the world, and we must develop it with everything in our power.

*I have an unshakeable faith in the future of our country in the long term, notwithstanding the problems that we have to contend with at the moment, but then we must face the future with all the challenges that it offers. We must not merely rest on our laurels because we have at our disposal mineral wealth and natural resources which can be developed, but also because we have the human material in South Africa. We need never be ashamed of our people. I believe the people of South Africa will accept the challenge of the future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by requesting you to thank the Speaker and the Deputy Chairman. I want to express a special word of gratitude, too, to you, who are also leaving. I know it is being said that two characters are now disappearing, but our paths will meet again. I want to express my sincere gratitude to you for your friendliness and for all the fine things which all of us in this highest Chamber in the land were able to enjoy. I want to express my gratitude too, to a wonderful constituency, a constituency in which I was born, a constituency in which I enjoyed affection and loyalty from my people and a constituency which, in the years ahead, will continue to make its contribution to the development of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad of the opportunity of wishing the hon. member for Rustenburg well in his new appointment. We congratulate him and wish him luck in the difficult task which lies ahead. The name Bodenstein is well known in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and we hope that the hon. member for Rustenburg will have an opportunity to add further lustre to that name. I must say to him that we do not all envy him his task. He will not only need the luck we wish him; he will also have to depend on the friendly nature he has been endowed with.

I am afraid I cannot speak with equal generosity about the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, who spoke before the hon. member for Rustenburg. In a speech which was otherwise a political vacuum he thought it right to re-launch an accusation against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He produced no new evidence whatsoever. I can only describe it as a vulgar and contemptible piece of political malice to renew accusations which have been categorically denied, both by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and by the person to whom he is supposed to have divulged secret information. I think it was an unnecessary and unpleasant addition to this debate, and I shall leave it at that.

I now come to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I cannot say that I disagree with him in the sombre picture he has painted of the world today. I believe that the world aspect has many grave features and that it would be wrong and unrealistic to deny that these exist and threaten the future of progress in the Western world as we know it. On the other hand, and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me, it would also be wrong to blind ourselves to the occasional rays of light which shine through the sombre picture and to deprive ourselves of the opportunities to turn those hopeful rays to the best advantage of South Africa in the situation which faces us. The deteriorating state of South Africa’s relations with Africa and the Western world has brought us to the brink of escalated terrorist incursions into our territory and economic sanctions on the other hand. If anything, this is perhaps an understatement of the position which we now face, for physically across our borders, and economically in respect of important supplies, such as advanced weaponry, nuclear materials and petroleum, we already defend ourselves against both a land and an economic attack. It is therefore right that in this debate we should consider, and call upon the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to explain, his present policies and his future intentions. The country is reasonably well aware of the threats, the pressures, the dangers and the double standards which are practised. Rather than react on this occasion with recriminations, however justified they may be, I think it would be right on this occasion to face the realities which actually exist and to discuss the possible remedies. It is very tempting to reply to these sorts of events in terms of pure national pride, but national pride alone can quickly lead to a state of conflict. Diplomacy is essentially concerned, not so much with national pride as with national self-interest. On that account it must therefore be directed at the avoidance of conflict, because conflict and national interest are hardly ever reconcilable.

Neutrality is in theory a way of protecting national interest by refusing to be drawn into the conflicts of other nations or of other power blocs. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with other ministerial support, has on occasion, and recently again, spoken of neutrality in East-West disputes and of developing a constellation of Southern African States by putting South Africa’s services at the disposal of its neighbours. This is understandable in the light of rebuffs and rejections by the West and also of course on account of the economic imperatives which exist within Southern Africa. It is understandable that one should try to apparently limit one’s foreign policy to the objectives of neutrality and to a closer constellation of States, but I ask whether this is sufficient to meet the full requirements of South Africa’s national interest and, if so, how should it be achieved? How, for example, will that interest be served by the threats which have been made from time to time that South Africa will no longer feel obliged to maintain supplies of strategic materials to the West? George Washington once observed— and very rightly—that it is folly for one nation to look for disinterested favours from another. But whoever saw our great strength as a mineral producer and our active promotion of markets for minerals in other countries as a disinterested favour to others? We have done this for our own sake to strengthen our own country.

Where do we seek other markets, and how will we maintain our own strength of production if we cannot find other markets? There have been ministerial statements that operational facilities in the strategic sea-lanes around South Africa should not be taken for granted. Do we seriously contemplate that the ships which carry essential cargoes between South Africa and our trading partners in the West and in the East, should be unprotected in times of war? Does anyone believe that the neutrality of South Africa’s mercantile marine will be protected in time of war or in time of serious conflict by flying the South African flag? These two examples—there are others that can be mentioned—illustrate the weakness of thinking in emotional terms and of emotional responses to the hard realities of national interests. The fact is that South Africa’s growth, its prosperity, its development and its ultimate security all depend heavily on Western trade and Western investment in South Africa. Nor can the West afford to ignore South Africa’s growing importance to the Western alliance. For us, living in a dangerously polarized world, where we exist side by side and where there is a growing interdependence of interests between us and a certain sector of the nations of the world, I think to speak of neutrality is indeed a myth.

I believe that it is true of the relationship between South Africa and the West to say that South Africa needs the West, though not at any price, and that the West needs South Africa, but again, not at any price. It is the task of diplomacy to determine the lowest price that is mutually acceptable to both sides and to arrange that that price be paid. I think this is a simple statement of a complex task, but it is nevertheless true that neither side will accept the other at any price. That price has got to be determined, and it has got to be paid. Very broadly stated, that price is Africa. By this I mean that the road to conciliation with the West necessarily runs through Africa. It means that the Western nations cannot achieve their full national interests while Africa remains hostile to South Africa and impedes them in their desire to establish a closer co-operation with South Africa. It means, conversely, that South Africa cannot achieve its full national interest without the West.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to all concerned! It means essentially that South Africa has to seek its opportunities in Africa, and that it must itself achieve the conditions for Africa’s relations towards South Africa by creating a society of equal opportunity in South Africa itself.

In this regard I would briefly like to touch on the question of our information services. I believe that it has long been accepted in our foreign policy that Africa is indeed a vital element in any reapproach or re-establishment of our relations with the Western world. I believe that if one looks at the conduct of foreign policy in respect of that branch that is known as Information, a great attempt has been made to persuade the West that South Africa’s intentions in Africa are honourable and that South Africa’s intentions at home are honourable. But I believe that we are trying to persuade the West of something which they will have difficulty in believing or accepting unless they get the reassurance from Africa itself that that is also its belief. The hostility of the West to South Africa, to which other hon. members referred, is not a natural hostility to South Africa amongst people in general. It is a concern that they cannot achieve a full and co-operative relationship with South Africa as long as that relationship will damage their relations with Africa to a corresponding or even greater degree.

Therefore, if in fact we wish to gain the confidence of the West, it is surely important that a great part of our information effort should be directed towards Africa itself because Africa’s acceptance is a pre-condition for re-acceptance in the West, and I do not believe there is a short-cut. I believe that by putting our own affairs right, by convincing Africa, bit by bit, step by step and neighbour by neighbour, that we are, in fact, creating a good society in which Black people have a fair deal, we shall create a condition of acceptance by Africa which will greatly facilitate our role in the Western world.

There are those in this House who argue that equal opportunity already exists in South Africa. There are also others who say that our opponents have other and more sinister designs on South Africa’s great wealth and its political future and that therefore no attempt that we make, of whatever nature, will be of any avail. These arguments are based on the one hand on a price that is too low and, on the other hand, on a price that is too high.

We are directly concerned, not with implacable enemies in other parts of the world—all countries have implacable enemies—but essentially with the West and Africa. We are concerned with men and governments simply seeking their own national self-interest. Simply put, as far as we are concerned, the price must be paid in South Africa itself. The Government acknowledges this when it speaks of a constellation of Southern African States. How can there be such a constellation until Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, maybe Namibia and Zimbabwe Rhodesia, under Black majority rule, as well as Angola and Mozambique, together with possibly the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and other independent homelands when they are internationally recognized, all feel they can afford to stand by South Africa through thick and thin? Most of them already receive valuable services from South Africa. Some of them have international status. However, how did they vote last week in the General Assembly of the United Nations, and why did they vote the way they did? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us, when he replies to this debate, what other new ingredient can be introduced into this situation to change it.

We are aware of the great possibilities in Southern Africa, e.g. the introduction of South African agricultural and industrial skills, the development of a transport network which may liberate the great land-locked countries in Southern Africa and create a new commerce between us, the employment of vast river resources to create hydro-electrical energy supplies for a richly productive southern continent. These things are not new. In the 1950s we saw the decline of colonialism and sought to fill the gap by a great plan for technical and scientific co-operation in Africa south of the Sahara.

That failed and we were rejected and expelled by the newly independent African States because of our racial policies, despite the contributions we had made. In the late 1950s and the 1960s Dr. Verwoerd accused the West of abdicating its guardianship, abandoning the White people in Africa and appeasing the uncommitted States. He said our strength lay in isolation in a sphere of Coloured policy. That isolation was endorsed by Sharpeville and by the breaking of commonwealth links. In the 1960s there was renewed acceptance of our links with Africa and the redevelopment and redeployment of an outward policy. Detente was a way of redefining South Africa’s commitments in terms of Western advantage as well. That hopeful policy also foundered on apartheid and was broken in Angola. The Kissinger initiative and the failure of the peace offensive in Africa are part of recent history. Dr. Mulder, always ready to complicate an already difficult situation, suggested an alliance with China. His enemies’ enemies, he said, were his friends. The 1977 general election was fought largely on such issues as Vice-President Mondale’s alleged demand of “one man, one vote” in South Africa. And so the scene was set for initially hopeful, but increasingly distrustful negotiations over the future of Namibia, against a background of implacable African hostility.

I believe that in our Africa policy we can be said to be unduly discouraged by setbacks and by insults. I believe this should be a question not so much of national pride—I do not disregard that particular element—but a matter of continuing national self-interest. If one thinks for example of Russia’s implacable continuity of purpose in Africa, despite rejection, despite insults, despite even occasional expulsion from Africa, they continue steadily along their way. I think that in this regard at least—not in others—South Africa has something to learn from the Russian determination to persist in its demands despite discouragement.

It is time for South Africa to come in out of the cold. It is time for us to return from the never-never land and to face the realities of our indissoluble interdependence with Africa and the West. We need each other, but not at any price. The task of our foreign policy is to negotiate a mutually acceptable price and to see that it is paid. For South Africa that price may be no higher than that which we are in any event committed to pay. That is to say the creation of a society of truly equal opportunities. The payment of it may not only help to resolve international tension, but will certainly enhance our domestic prosperity, and our national security as well. It should be perfectly clear to hon. members in this House, who constantly speak of the impossible demands that are made on us, that South Africa does not have to meet all demands from all people. It does not have to meet the multiple demands made by all the nations of the world, because such a price could certainly never be paid.

Last week 22 nations abstained from voting in favour of economic sanctions being applied against South Africa. Within that world of 22 there is already a future haven of safety, an avenue of progress, a possibility of future prosperity and viability for South Africa. This is clearly the area in which we must operate. We must at all times remember that the success of our endeavours to create that area of security, economic and political, for South Africa depends essentially on the kind of image and the kind of relationships we establish in Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia made the remark that diplomacy was not so much about national pride as about national interest. I should like to say that I agree with him. I agree with that sentiment he expressed. However, it also does not mean that one has to try continually to seek favour with people who demonstratively have no loyalty and very little morality in international politics. However, I shall come back to that in a moment.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said times and attitudes change. If one compares his speech with the speech he made in the same debate last year, the difference is like chalk and cheese. It is a change for the better, a change which we welcome. I mention this because I cannot refrain from referring to the rather strident discord that came from the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. [Interjections.] The truth is that he knows very well—as well as I do—that the NRP has no real policy. [Interjections.] He knows that inasmuch as that unfleshed skeleton of a nine-headed hydra—which they call a policy—can be called a policy at all, it is as unacceptable to the outside world as any other policy in this country. Should they want to be realistic they would admit it. The events in Zimbabwe Rhodesia and South West Africa are more than adequate evidence of that.

Whenever we have had occasion in this House to discuss the frequently reprehensible conduct of the current American administration, such as the spy-plane incident and Mr. McHenry’s subterfuges concerning South West Africa, we have heard cries from the Opposition benches saying that if we regard the Americans as hostile we should ask who are our friends. This immediately brings to mind an incident during the final round of Dr. Henry Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East. He was sitting in Damascus talking to Dr. Hafez al Assad when the Syrian President remarked that he could not understand why his good friend Sadat continued to bother with all the diplomacy and all the peace negotiations. If he waited long enough, said Dr. Assad, he would get everything he wanted without having to make any concessions because the Americans inevitably sooner or later left their friends in the lurch. Look at Taiwan, he said, look at Vietnam and Cambodia—inevitably the same fate will befall countries like South Korea and Israel. Dr. Kissinger could only assert vehemently that the United States was committed to the security of South Korea and Israel. What would have happened if the Ford Administration had stayed in power is pure conjecture. Certainly they were forced to abandon their friends in Angola. But under the present administration this trend has increased head over heels. Israel certainly does still enjoy the support of the United States, but only at the cost of concessions that it considers dangerous to its security and its future, and the American withdrawal from South Korea has already begun.

Since that conversation, the trend has continued in other parts of the world. The United States and the West have abandoned their friends and allies at crucial occasions in Angola, Zaïre, the Horn of Africa, and Iran where, with cynical opportunism, the Carter Administration first pledged its undying support to the Shah, then to Dr. Mehdi Bazargan and then switched its allegiance to the Ayatollah Khomeiny. I have no doubt in my mind that if the Marxist revolutionaries now opposing the Ayatollah were to come to power, the United States would switch its allegiance thence.

In Zimbabwe Rhodesia and South West Africa everything the West demanded has been achieved, everything bar handing over willy-nilly to the Marxist apostles of violence and totalitarianism. Yet there remains a curious reluctance to recognize the new Black majority government in Salisbury and the double-crosses over South West Africa have been nothing short of treasonous. Whatever the domestic policies of its friends, the United States Administration appears to want to appease its enemies at all costs and to disregard its allies in the apparent belief that they will stand by the Free World and the West regardless. Certainly, Sir, that is how the signals we have been transmitting over the decades have been interpreted by the United States.

That is where I take slight issue with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In the name of long-term interests, he apparently wants us to continue to transmit this kind of signal, to tell the Western world: No matter what you do to us, we will still be with you, we are still on your side. If there is one thing to learn from this cynical political expediency it is that international friendships have become irrelevant. It is interests that count—that is, I think, something the Opposition in particular now finally needs to learn. As I have detected from the speech of the hon. member for Constantia, he at least seems to have learnt it. I therefore appeal to them to join us in these benches in saying to the West or anyone else in the international community: If you try to hurt us with boycotts, sanctions, disinvestment programmes or by any other means, we stand united to ensure that you too will not escape unscathed. Surely all of us agree that those measures and that kind of pressure are not the means to a peaceful solution of the problems of Southern Africa.

A bipartisan approach on foreign matters has been traditional in this House. Even to this day there remains a subtle difference between the approach of the Government and the approach of the Opposition. Where we on this side of the House looks first to the effects on South Africa and its interests of Government policy, the two main Opposition parties tend to look first at how the outside world is likely to react. We must be careful, they say, not to deprive our friends abroad—and I am not talking about the odd friend but about the administrations—of the ammunition with which to defend us. Unfortunately this argument is, as I think I have demonstrated, becoming increasingly irrelevant. How else does one explain the behaviour of the new British Government when it on the one hand says that its policies regarding South West Africa will be the same as its predecessor, the Labour Government—in other words, also the same as the United States—while on the other hand it says that it will oppose sanctions? Is that the voice of friendship speaking or is it the voice of national self-interest speaking? I think the answer is obvious.

Let all of us then rather join forces in pointing out to the outside world where their interests, rather than their friendships, lie. Let us do this vis-à-vis the West, but let us also do it to our neighbours, who are not blind. They can perceive, as well as we can, how in Southern Africa every year productivity and production increase, how the standards of living for all our peoples increase and human rights improve, whereas if they look at the rest of the continent around them, they perceive a decline in productivity, a decline in production and a decline in human rights. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Benoni has made a solid contribution to the debate and I should like to congratulate him on it.

The hon. the Minister emphasized this afternoon that the countries of Africa would come to realize yet what a good and steadfast friend South Africa is. I should like to extend this capacity for good and fruitful friendship to the so-called are of crisis in the world. I think it is important that we should evaluate in this debate the milieu which exists at the moment. There is no dispute about the fact that the strategic position of the Arab world— the world of Islam—is unequalled in the world. It is the last important region in which the Free World borders on Russia. Three-quarters of the world’s oil reserves are situated there. One of the most fundamental conflicts of this century is raging there, between Zionism and Arab nationalism. It is the cradle of Christianity, of Judaism and of Islam. It is also the focal point of the struggle between communism and the West.

There are important political lessons to be learnt, of course, from the recent sensational events in Iran in particular, and one of these is that the Shah of Iran had no or very poor contact with the masses. It seems incredible that the authorities could have been unaware of the irresistible force which was building up, which the police and even the army could not withstand. The Shah was in control of 285 000 soldiers, an air force staff of a 100 000 and a navy staff of 28 000, and in spite of that, he could not resist this revolt.

Prof. George Lenczowski of the University of California pointed out four other mistakes in an article which appeared in Foreign Affairs. Firstly, according to him, there was no proper, effective party organization, and this is connected with the fact that there was no proper contact with the masses; secondly, the Government showed a terrible spirit of extravagance; thirdly, there was a failure to evaluate priorities properly; and fourthly, there was an alienation of religious leadership. I think we could learn something from all four these aspects. As the hon. member for Benoni said, a lesson can also be learned from the behaviour of the West in this connection.

Once again, we witnessed the inability of the West to try to exercise control over the course of events. The other day, the Sultan of Oman pertinently told the Americans in Time magazine that they should not allow the Russians to subvert their friends, but after the wars in Vietnam, Lagos and Cambodia, during which the Americans exploded more bombs than in the whole Second World War, they are still allergic to intervention. This remains the tragedy of our times. It was Leopold von Ranke who once said—

The aspect which I regard as the most important and to which I have not yet been able to receive a reply is the religious one. A key text in the Koran reads, in the Afrikaans translation—

One would like to assume, therefore, that the godless, materialist ideology of communism should be utterly unacceptable to the Muslims. I just wish to refer briefly to a few events in history. President Sadat decided in 1974, with the support of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, that he had had enough of the Russsians. He drove them out of Egypt. Where else in the post-war world has this happened?

The Sudan refers to Russian intervention in Africa as neo-colonialism. Even President Gadaffi of Libya is a fanatic Muslim. Communism cannot gain a foothold in Libya.

On 23 April 1977, King Hassan II of Morocco declared in Rabat that the spread of communism in Africa could only be stopped by a line of anti-communist countries extending from the Nile Delta to the Cape of Good Hope. Similarly, President Sadat once said that he would like to meet President Carter as a believer, because religious believers were bound to moral principles.

In 1976, the strength of the communist parties in the Muslim countries was as follows—In Egypt, 0,001; in Algeria, 0,002; in Tunisia, 0,002; in Morocco, 0,003; in Jordan, 0,015; In Iraq, 0,018; and in the Sudan, 0,019.

In the light of these facts and of the estimate that approximately one in three Africans south of the Sahara are Muslims, we should give top priority to the attempt to establish stout relations with the Muslim States. In this connection, the Government— perhaps I am appealing to the wrong Minister, but I ask the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to use his influence with the hon. the Minister of National Education— ought to support a university such as the RAU, which is doing excellent work in its centre of Islamic studies, under the able leadership of Dr. J. A. Naudé. Dr. Naudé writes in The Star—

From a study of the religious background of Arab countries it is clear that Islam is irreconcilable with communism. Although it is incomprehensible and reprehensible that the Ayatollah Khomeiny should have had hundreds of people killed in a reign of terror, this is equally irreconcilable with the views of Islam. I remain convinced that Russian expansionism will not gain a foothold in Iran. Therefore it is an important starting point for a later understanding with the Islamic States, and it is also our policy, to seek to develop friendly relations with these countries which could lead to diplomatic relations. Our own adherents of the Islamic faith in South Africa are law-abiding citizens with a high morality. From this quarter, too, positive sounds could be made about finding common ground with Islamic States. It is interesting to recall that during the Anglo-Boer War, there were Muslim families in the Transvaal that supported the Boers financially, and it is said that President Paul Kruger had good Muslim friends.

As far as commerce is concerned, the position is that since 1976, they have even made attempts to gain control of the Mercedes Benz industry in Western Germany. It is a well-known fact that there is great potential for developing our trade with these countries. I realize that we are still finding it difficult to convince the countries concerned of the correctness of our policy and of the fact that the idea of one man, one vote would not work in South Africa. In spite of that, I feel that we could pave the way at this stage for better relations with the Islamic States, especially by granting support to academic institutions. Dr. Naudé, to whom I have just referred, explains the matter as follows, for example—

These are positive noises which could be conveyed to the outside world. As far as our ethical view of life is concerned, we are very close to the Arab countries. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan has obviously made a very well-researched speech and I think there are some very interesting thoughts that he has brought to mind. On the other hand the hon. member for Benoni has, in his normal fashion, made his speech and scuttled out of the House like a scared rabbit before any member of the Opposition has a chance to reply to him.

Order! Will the hon. member please explain what he means by that?

Mr. Chairman, what I said was that he scuttled out of the House like a scared rabbit.

Do you mean he was afraid?

May I then use the expression “startled rabbit”?

The hon. member may proceed.

As he made an attack on the NRP, I think that he should at least stay to hear what they have to say in reply to him. It is apparent that he has not the least intention of even trying to understand what the policy of the NRP is, but if he made the faintest effort, he could certainly understand. If he was in the House to listen, he would have heard many of our members over the past two sessions explaining precisely what our policy is, although I would admit that possibly he would not be able to understand it.

I should now like to come to the position of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the task he has to perform on behalf of the people of South Africa. During the discussion of his Vote last year I told him that he had to choose between his principles and existing Government policy. I read out what those principles were in the light of statements he had made in the United Nations about discrimination and in the light of various other statements he had made, for instance in his maiden speech in which he said that he believed that South Africa should play a greater part in the human rights programme. I want to return to the basic idea that I believe that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has an impossible task to try to perform, a task which, quite frankly, I do not think he or anybody else will be able to perform, and that task is to try to sell something that is unsaleable. What I am obviously referring to as being unsaleable are the policies that are pursued by the Government in this country. They are policies which he himself, in his own words, does not believe in. What is even more frightening is that these are policies which he cannot alter. The Nationalists will always be held back by their right wing. I see that their right wing was sitting behind the hon. Minister, but is at this stage moving out of its bench. [Interjections.] He will be held back by this right wing and will never be able to make the sort of changes which I am sure he would like to make. Quite apart from the fact that they are being held back by their right wing, it looks as if that very right wing is going to gain control because it is becoming stronger and stronger within the NP.

What are you afraid of?

The consequences of this are that any changes that are made are really only cosmetic in nature because they give too little too late and advance in reverse. The most meaningful way that we in this country can improve our foreign relations is, in fact, by getting rid of the National Government [Interjections.]

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs is better placed than anyone else in this country, or than anyone else has been in the past 30 years of Nationalist rule, to accomplish this change.

He is the TV glamour boy.

That is right. He has had the advantage of the tremendous impact—and I do not want to deny him this— he has had on the minds and the hearts of the people of South Africa through his appearances on television. He has had fantastic coverage, and as a result he has built up a tremendous reputation. He has the biggest following of any politician in this country today, not only amongst the Afrikaans speaking people, but also amongst the English-speaking people. He is the one person, sitting in the benches of the NP, who could accomplish a true national front in South Africa, and I must add that a national front is something that is desperately necessary, something which all South Africans, regardless of their origin, could support, a national front which would, in fact, be prepared to get rid of the sort of image which the hon. the Prime Minister has tagged onto the NP by calling it purely an instrument of the Afrikaner. Within the NP he cannot, however, ever bring about these changes that are necessary. The hon. member for Pinetown tried his story of change from within, but was sat upon very quickly. There is an old saying: “Cometh the hour, cometh the man.” The hour is here, but I wonder whether the man is prepared to have the courage to do something about it. Until such time as we have a Government in South Africa that will accomplish some real change, and not just act on the instructions of a secret society, I am referring to the Broederbond …

But what does this have to do with Foreign Affairs?

It is basically the policies of this Government that are holding us back in our foreign relationships. Let me now come to what I believe is the best thing that can happen in South Africa in terms of foreign affairs, and that is to have a true national front in South African Government. In the meantime … [Interjections.]

Can you not think of another name?

“National front” is a bad grave name.

I am sure that hon. members of the PFP would like me to call it a progressive front, but I am not sure that that would be acceptable either. [Interjections.] Until such time as these things can be accomplished, the best thing that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs can do is to keep dialogue open. Hysterical attacks on the Western world powers are childish, a diplomatic blunder. No matter how much truth the attacks are founded on, they serve no purpose other than to alienate and perhaps drive South Africa further into the laager. It is gimmicky politics. It creates big excitement and big interest amongst the people of this country, but what does it truly accomplish in the field of foreign affairs, in the field of better relationships? I believe it accomplishes very little other than to alienate those very people who economically have been our trading partners for centuries.

At this very moment there are new Governments in power in both Britain and Canada, Governments which we hope can be more sympathetic to South Africa and its ideals, and particularly the position adopted in regard to South West Africa. What has the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs done to inform these new Governments of our position and the stand that we take in regard to South West Africa? In my submission the hon. the Minister should personally visit both Britain and Canada …

There has been a British Minister here.

That is one person whom he has been talking to. I believe it needs an approach on a wider front than just speaking to one person who has been sent out here. I believe that we have to take the ball into their court. I believe that the hon. the Minister, as I have said, should visit both Britain and Canada to give our point of view. He should take the sort of documentation with him that he has distributed in this House, as well as any other documentation he might have. He should also take his experts with him.

If you would get off my back as far as the Information affair is concerned, I would do it.

I believe the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and a team should go and have discussions with the Thatcher Government and the Joe Clark Government in Canada to put their whole foreign affairs group into the picture, not just one Minister. That could accomplish a tremendous lot of good. We all know that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a very persuasive individual. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not respond to the rather naïve speech of the hon. member for East London North, except to say that I do not honestly believe that South Africa can afford that kind of speech and the kind of speech we heard from the hon. member for Amanzimtoti earlier today. [Interjections.] When this debate started the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs chose his words very carefully. I listened closely. He tried to launch this debate in such a way that there could be the greatest degree of unanimity and a common approach to the matters of foreign affairs.

The hon. members reminded me of the rhyme about the two cats of Kilkenny—

[Interjections.] I am afraid that unless we in South Africa stand together, we shall hang separately. [Interjections.]

One of the dominant factors in world politics today is the so-called North-South debate, a debate between the First World countries, which are largely White, and the Third World countries, which largely consist of people of colour, in order to reach an accommodation on matters which will allow the Third World greater access to Western capital, technology and markets and in order to reduce the so-called wealth gap which— and this is common cause—is one of the largest causes of friction internationally today. In South Africa, where we have the world in microcosm, it is interesting that the ratio between the First World economy of South Africa, i.e. that of the Whites, 80% of the Coloureds and most of the Indians, and that of the Third World peoples of Southern Africa which surround us, is roughly the same. The accommodation that will have to be reached is therefore also very much the same. Indeed, the Third World countries in Southern Africa could consider themselves fortunate that they sit so close to the warming fires of a First World economy that can warm their own immobile and frozen economies. While it is true that the Western world’s perception of South Africa has changed, it is equally true that South Africa’s perception of itself, of its role, of its calling and of its priorities, has also changed.

*As in the case of all processes, this process also developed over a period of time and, in fact, in the light of the necessities of the world and of South Africa I believe that it started when Gen. Smuts said on his return from the UN in 1946 that he was facing “a wall of prejudice”. In 1957 the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Advocate Eric Louw, said South Africa had to accept its future role in Africa “as a calling and has to interpret its full role as an African power at all times”. In 1962 Dr. Hilgard Muller, then South Africa’s ambassador at the court of St. James said before the Royal Africa Society in London that South Africa had never been a suburb of Europe and that South Africa inescapably formed part of Africa.

Recently, during the present Parliamentary session, the hon. the Prime Minister revealed his African initiative here and expounded his vision clearly, his vision with regard to a constellation of Africa States. Then, too, we have listened to the brilliant speech of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs today.

†It is true that the only alternative to war in the sub-continent of Africa is to allow enlightened self-interests to hold sway amongst people and nations and to allow a process of give and take to enable people to reach an accommodation. However, if that is so, I think it is fair to ask against what background this process is taking place and what potential it has to succeed. I should like to state a few fundamental truths. Firstly, I believe that foreign policy, like charity, begins at home, and is therefore dependent upon what happens at home. Our conception of a Southern African foreign policy, of the possibility of creating a constellation of States is not simply a question of exchanging ambassadors or seeking to do so, but a question which invites and demands a whole new strategy, a revision of national priorities and a desire built upon the pursuit of peace and cooperation in our sub-continent.

[Inaudible.]

I shall answer the hon. member for Amanzimtoti a little later. It also involves the desire to be ourselves without denying other people the right to be themselves. I believe that South Africa, at this time in our history, is displaying the same rare ability of renewing itself in this generation as was revealed by previous generations of South Africans who also rose to the demands of their tasks.

The second point I should like to make is that since the last war more and more countries have become autonomous into smaller and smaller autonomous States. This has given rise to the factual need for association of these smaller countries into larger and larger groupings in defence of their sovereignty and of their economic independence. One sees very clearly the necessity for this in Southern Africa. It is interesting that of our 10 neighbours only two have populations in excess of one million people. That a common market is imperative as a result of the functional economics of scale in this is obvious to all. Thirdly, there is the fact that with the collapse of Angola and Mozambique, the so-called Cordon Sanitaire, a security and military threat faces not only South Africa but also Southern Africa generally. There is a growing conviction in Southern Africa that peace is a better alternative than war, including a terrorist war based on a war of attribution. The conviction is growing that if one unleashes the dogs of war in Southern Africa, everybody is going to be bitten. Out of the jaws of war we thus see emerging the imperative of peace.

Fourthly, although we take it for granted, it is worth noting what we already share in Southern Africa besides a common geography. In many respects we share a common history, we speak a common language, we have similar legal and economic systems, we all belong to the Christian tradition and, to be practical, we share an all-weather road system and there are only 22 all-weather road systems in the whole of Africa. Our rail systems interlock. There are only 28 rail systems in Africa. Our rail system is linked to excellent ports. We share a customs union. We have a common currency. We are linked to common power-grids. These things can easily be extended further. For instance, the scheme on the Umzimvubu River alone can be developed to a greater scale than the whole Snowy River project of Australia. The policy is therefore in keeping with historical realities, the geographic realities, the economic realities and the military realities of our time and of our region.

There are six wars raging in Africa at the moment and six other wars are dormant. Africa is at the moment spending more on military hardware than she is spending on agricultural investments. When one considers that 70% of the Black populations of sub-Saharan Africa are under the age of 15, one sees that we are moving towards—and we have already seen this—demographic collapse in Africa, followed by chaos as the wealth producing and life-support systems fail to cope with the aspirations and necessities of the societies they serve. Africans have seen their hard-won freedom slip through their ideological fingers, they have seen it lost to the Soviet imperialists and their surrogates. Let us not allow our diversity in Southern Africa to divide us, but let us let it enrich us. To paraphrase the words of the poet/philosopher Coleridge, a constitution equally suited to all of the countries of Southern Africa would be equally unsuited to us all.

Mr. Chairman, we have reached a milestone, and a milestone is not a place where a person or a nation spends a lot of time. It is not the terminus of a journey, but it is a stage of it. I believe we have also reached one of the critical stages in the development of our foreign policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the short time at my disposal I should like to subject to a close scrutiny a very sinister religious organization which was established after the last world war and has extended its sphere of influence tremendously since that time. Here I am referring specifically to the World Council of Churches. If one looks at this body, its theology and the various Governments and organizations supporting it, it is interesting to note the fundamental standpoint adopted by the World Council of Churches and to evaluate this council after it has been in existence for 20 years. One can check how it started in 1948 and has been developing through the ’fifties, ’sixties and the ’seventies. At the end of this decade we can now evaluate this world council as a body that is disintegrating. It is very important to ask ourselves why the World Council of Churches is not extending its sphere of influence today, but is losing it. We should also ask ourselves at once whether another set-up is not developing to take over the sphere of influence of the World Council of Churches in view of the fact that the WCC is losing it and is relinquishing its place and position in church circles, if one may put it that way. I am mentioning this because, in my humble opinion, such a spiritual transference is in fact taking place.

The World Council of Churches has continually been concerning itself with the idea of justice, equality and other concepts taken from the Scriptures, but which have taken on a humanistic complexion; humanistic in the sense that when people have applied a certain concept from the theology of the World Council of Churches, the theology of revolution, they have given that specific concept a horizontal complexion, whereas, if one consults the Scriptures from a purely exegetic point of view, and takes cognizance of what the Scriptures tell one about a certain situation, one finds that the Scriptures give one a vertical exegesis or guidance. This is why it has come about that the whole gospel, the whole theology, of the World Council of Churches has developed into a so-called “social gospel” and with the development of the World Council of Churches, this “social gospel” of the World Council of Churches, supported by various Governments, organizations and churches, especially since it has come under the influence of the countries behind the Iron Curtain, has started developing into a “socialistic gospel”. It is no longer merely a “social gospel” but a “socialistic gospel”. It is not difficult to anticipate that when Marxism expounds the theology of the World Council of Churches on the one hand, but, on the other hand, also loads it with their own concepts, we shall be confronted with a theology of revolution instead of a theology of reconcilement.

My time is limited and I should like to get to the point. When I say that there has been this shift in emphasis on the part of the World Council of Churches and that it is losing its influence, I do not have time to prove it, but I have a great deal of documentary evidence here with me. There is, in any event, a new trend developing in that what is now being demanded is not, in the first place, social justice merely on a horizontal level, but that the Christians of the world should be rallied around another idea. Meetings are now being held and as has been the history of the World Council of Churches, it is not directly in evidence, but it will become evident later on, just as happened in the case of the Christian Institute, a matter which intimately affects us in South Africa. The Christian Institute had its beginnings in meetings of Christians who gathered, and so on, until executive members of the Christian Institute made certain statements at seminars overseas, of which I should like to quote one. I shall come back in a few moments to the direction in which this revolutionary theology is tending at the moment. I quote the following from Die Burger of 12 August 1978—

She continued—

It is with sadness, but in a certain sense also with pride, that I think back of the day a number of years ago when I had the honour of burying the very first South African soldier who had died on the border. I said at his funeral that a lot of blood would still flow and that I was laying the responsibility therefor squarely at the door of the Christian Institute. In 1977, approximately five years later, we saw that this had become the official policy of these people. We can understand why the Christian Institute and its members had to be restricted and banned.

I wish to spell it out very clearly that there is again a clamour for grouping because the World Council of Churches is falling into decline. They want the “Christians of the world” to get together to talk. In the first place, theological lectures are given. At such a “plenary session”, however, members of the audience are not afforded the opportunity of standing up and putting questions and expressing points of view contrary to what is expounded there. In the second place, resolutions are then taken at such a gathering. Initially these resolutions seem to be very Christian and theologically correct, but subsequently they crystallize into militant, Marxist and ideological sediments of a revolutionary theology.

For that reason I should like to address an appeal today to the young Christian churches of Southern Africa in particular, to be very cautious when they attend gatherings at which such broad organizations and widely diffused ecumenical groups discuss unspecified subjects, since the resolutions that would be adopted there, would necessarily be the same as those which the WCC has taken since its inception. We have seen and experienced the historic development of the WCC. I want to predict today that in due course the new trends will also develop into organizations similar to the WCC. We shall not experience problems in this regard now, in 1979, but definitely in 1985 or 1989, when we shall be able to look back on the development of such organizations. I predict that that is what we can expect in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Brits has said, it is quite clear that it is very difficult for any person to accept that people who speak of religious principles and who claim to adhere to religious principles should at the same time support violence and terrorism. I think that all of us in this House reject that kind of attitude on the part of people who pretend to work for religion but who at the same time support violence and terrorism.

The attitude I should now like to adopt is that it is quite clear that many of us who are sitting in these benches do not support the policy of the Government and the policy of separate development and believe that these are things which complicate our task abroad. However, we are realists. We are not the Government and we cannot implement our own policy. At the moment, we find ourselves in a situation in South Africa in which South Africa’s whole right of existence is at stake. Our right to exist as a country and our right as South Africans to work out our own destiny are actually in dispute. I say it is in dispute especially because there are forces in the world which want to attack us. The country is threatened, and at the moment, the greatest threat is perhaps the one of sanctions, since there are in fact people who want to impose sanctions against us at this moment. We have to be realistic in this connection, and we should actually make it our first priority that the Department of Foreign Affairs should be enabled to act against these dangers as soon as possible. In that respect— whether or not we agree with the policy of the Government—it is our duty to support the department in such an attempt.

One of the most important requirements is that we should ensure that we are really able to resist that threat and that we can set our own house in order as South Africans. It is our right as South Africans to decide what should happen to our country. That is why I say we must support the attempts of the department to counter this threat to South Africa. I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that one of the matters which are bothering me is that he does not have enough people in his department; he is not getting enough money from the budget; he does not have enough offices abroad to combat the threat the way I would like it to be combated. When we look at the latest budget, we see that when we deduct the amount of R135 million—the amount allocated to Transkei and Bophuthatswana—only R55 million is left. When we look at programme No. 2, at the diplomatic service, less than R25 million is being appropriated for the Department of Foreign Affairs. When we look at the amount appropriated for staff, we find that only R18 million is to be spent on the staff. Furthermore, the staff consists of only 1 243 people. When we look at the remuneration they receive, there are only six who are paid about R16 000 or more a year, and just over 50 who are paid between R9 500 and R12 000. This is not enough.

I should like to pay them more.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister is a member of the Government I am not. I wish to draw attention to the fact that if we look at the United States, for example, the department does not have enough offices there, nor does it have enough staff. There are States in America, for example, which have a larger population than the whole of South Africa, and yet South Africa does not even have an office or one man there.

It costs money.

Yes, we must decide about priorities and the department must decide what is important to the country.

When we look at Canada, for example, we see that there is not a single office in the whole Western region of Canada. The fact is that the seat of the Progressive Conservative Party, the present Government in Canada, is in the west of Canada, and the department does not even have one office there. Therefore the hon. the Minister must get his ’ priorities right; he needs to open more offices, and he needs to make better use of members of this Parliament. There are many members in this Parliament, on both sides of the House, who could help the hon. the Minister in his task abroad. I deplore the fact that not a single member of Parliament is being used this year to assist the Department of Foreign Affairs abroad.

Who says so?

I am saying so now. If the hon. the Minister has any plans, he should please announce them. At the moment we are not aware of them.

It is still too early to announce all my plans at this early stage.

Members of Parliament find it a little difficult when they do not know themselves whether they are going to be used or not. The hon. the Minister has very able people on his side of the House who can be used in his attempt to counter the threat to South Africa. My plea, therefore, is for more money, more people and more offices.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 24.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 24—

I should like to express my gratitude to you, Sir, for affording me the opportunity to move this motion today.

The Government Printer and his staff perform a very important function as an integral part of the State machinery in the Republic. He is appointed by the Public Service Commission and his staff fall under the control of the Department of Labour. They work with very sensitive parts of our political, strategic and cultural life, and it is expected of them to maintain and display at all times the highest degree of security and to be mindful of the fact that confidentiality is, or at least should be, one of the most important features of their activities. There should never be a shadow of suspicion as to their impartiality, reliability and competence. Therefore, it was with great indignation and a sense of shock that one read over the weekend that copies of the report of the Erasmus Commission had come into the hands of certain newspapers, since these documents had presumably been printed by the Government Printer. The dissatisfaction about this was aggravated by newspaper reports that the Government Printer’s staff themselves were responsible for the dispatch of the report.

†This is prima facie a most disturbing state of affairs. It is even worse if one considers the subject matter of the report and the impact it would have made on the public if it had been prematurely published. Let there be no mistake about it: At least some of the newspapers went to very great lengths to see if it was not possible for them to publish the report as a scoop, in spite of the fact that there was an embargo label allegedly stuck on the copies which stated that no publication was to be made until the report had been tabled in this House. The Sunday Times, for example, in spite of the embargo, took legal advice to see whether it could not possibly publish the report on 3 June, that is, last Sunday. One can be sure that other newspaper editors did precisely the same.

How did this report get into the hands of some newspapers? According to The Argus of Saturday, 2 June, the final report was accidentally sent out to newspapers, news agencies and foreign correspondents by the Government Printer in Pretoria at least a week before it was due to be tabled. According to Rapport of 3 June, the sensational report pitched up at different newspaper offices before the weekend. Rapport further reported as follows—

The Citizen reported that the report of the Erasmus Commission had arrived at the desks of some newspaper editors some four days ahead of time and it quoted the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, Mr. Neville Krige, as saying that he could offer no explanation for the unusually early distribution of a confidential document through the medium of the post.

I want to say today that the public are entitled to rely on a senior Government official like the Government Printer and his staff, and that the Public Service Commission surely must be concerned that such a thing should happen under the eyes of a top Civil Servant whom it has appointed to office. The Government must offer an explanation for this extraordinary state of affairs, i.e. that possibly the most sensitive document ever printed by the Government Printer should be sent from his offices to certain newspapermen, including foreign correspondents for overseas newspapers.

Also why was the circulation selective? The Government, in the last resort, is responsible for this state of affairs. It seems to me that the Government must give an entirely satisfactory explanation to this House for what seems to me to have been either appalling inefficiency or possibly something much worse, namely that some newspapers or some persons unknown bought or influenced the Government Printer, or one of his staff members, into making the report of the Erasmus Commission available to certain newspapers before the normally prescribed time for releasing such important reports.

The Government cannot shirk its responsibility. It must either give an entirely satisfactory explanation or, if it is not able to do that for good reasons, it should refer the whole question to a Select Committee or even to a special commission appointed under the auspices of the Public Service Commission, because a thoroughly unsatisfactory and disturbing state of affairs has been shown to exist.

If one thinks back to the report of the Auditor-General, Mr. Gerald Barrie, which was either stolen from a safe or of which a copy was made and furtively circulated to newspapers, one is doubly worried. In that case the culprit is still at large! When one reads in the report of the Erasmus Commission how pressures were brought to bear on the Government Printer and his staff, and the State Tender Board, concerning the awarding of printing and publishing contracts, and of how the lowest tenders were in some cases ignored, one is naturally suspicious that the release of the Erasmus report may be part of the same rotten state of affairs.

The purpose of this motion, which has led to this discussion today, is to request an explanation from the Government which will allay public suspicion, and in the event of an adequate answer not being forthcoming from the hon. the Minister, we should like to demand a special investigation into a seemingly most unsatisfactory state of affairs. What we want to know is what actually happened, who was responsible for what happened, what is to be done about it and what steps are to be taken to prevent any recurrence of this in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that matters relating to the former Department of Information tend to be the subject of controversy. Rather than sit in judgment, I should prefer to pose a question to the hon. the Minister who is responsible, asking him, at this stage, to give an explanation to the House so that we can then make a judgment in the light of that explanation.

While on the subject of the Erasmus Commission report I want to, if I may, immediately draw attention to what is said, in the seventh edition of a book by Wade and Phillips, on the question of responsibility, and I quote—

I think that is really the responsibility which is cast upon the hon. the Minister responsible for the Government Printer in this case. To my mind the most important question that has to be answered is whether this was an accident or a deliberate act. If it was an accident, we have one set of circumstances. Then we need to have efficiency and we need to make sure that it cannot happen again. However, our judgment has to be quite different if, in fact, it was a deliberate act. That is perhaps the most important thing that needs to be said.

I also think there is something else that needs to be said. One needs to have, at a time when there are many sensitive matters in South Africa—and I do not necessarily relate that to this particular occurrence—a feeling in the country that one can rely on public servants to ensure that there is confidentiality in regard to these very sensitive matters, because if we cannot do that, if the secrets of South Africa are going to be dragged out all over the world, we are in a very serious position indeed. We have now just gone through a whole series of events which have shown that we cannot always rely upon people to protect the secrets of the State.

In dealing with the question of the report itself, the view that we adopt is, with respect, that it should have been released as soon as possible. It should have been made available to Parliament and to the public at the earliest opportunity. In regard to when it should be released, we can say that it should be released earlier, but the actual decision must be made by the Government, which can then be brought to account if it does not release it in time, according to our way of thinking. That decision cannot, however, be made for the Government by some official, whether junior or otherwise, so as to force the Government into a particular situation.

If it is to be made by other people for the Government, then the whole authority of Government, in the kind of parliamentary system as we understand it, will fall to the ground. According to reports the hon. the Minister or one of his colleagues has summoned the Government Printer to Cape Town. He has presumably received an explanation. Presumably we will hear that explanation, and depending upon what that explanation is, we will either have to ask for an inquiry or we will accept the explanation, depending upon what the circumstances are. Therefore we expect the hon. the Minister’s explanation. We want to know whether he has made adequate inquiry in order to make sure that what he has been told is accurate beyond question. We also wait to hear from the hon. the Minister whether the necessary protective measures have been taken to ensure that the officials of the State will protect the interests of the State in the appropriate manner when it comes to sensitive matters.

I do not want to anticipate any part of the report which has been referred to by the hon. member for Simonstown. I think this is not the occasion to discuss Panorama or other matters pertaining to the Government Printer. I want to leave those entirely alone. This is an occasion in which we deal only with the circumstances leading to this report being placed in the hands of other people. That explanation we must have this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects which arise from the matter raised by the hon. member for Simonstown. One has been touched upon by the hon. member for Yeoville, viz. the question of the control over a very, very sensitive document indeed, a document printed by the Government Printer and which, either from complete carelessness, incompetence or maleficence, has been leaked, delivered, handed over to organs of the Press who could have been expected to strain every nerve and muscle that they possibly could in order to be able to print it. Only the very, very strict rules of control which this House exercises over documents which are laid upon the Table of the House has prevented that document from being made public before its being tabled in this House.

One cannot help being worried about the fact that an action of this kind can take place, because one is aware of the pressure that has been put upon the Cabinet and upon the Government to take an early decision, to call an urgent priority meeting in order to decide upon the release of the report. It is extraordinary that the leakage of this document should take place immediately before a very important by-election in the Randfontein constituency previously held by the former Minister of Information, Dr. Connie Mulder. One cannot help wondering whether there might not be a very deep political motive behind the fact that this document was released in this fashion.

Quite apparently the hon. the Minister has instituted an inquiry, the results of which will be made known to this House. However, it is important to stress the fact that if the Government had taken adequate and timeous action to consider the report and to release it to the people of South Africa, this unfortunate incident would not have taken place. [Interjections.] I want to make it completely clear that one of the most important factors in the entire practice of democracy is that the voting public should be informed. Where one has a document like this, a document which has had the unfortunate effect which it has had, it becomes even more important to take note of this. When one reads The Citizen of today one sees that that newspaper says that this document has led directly to the resignation of the State President.

In the light of the importance of this document I believe the public has an absolute right to demand from the Government that the matter should be handled with the utmost expedition and that the results of the inquiry should be released to the public as soon as possible.

The second point I wish to make is this: Having come under pressure, as they did, the Cabinet brought this unfortunate state of affairs upon themselves by not taking adequate and timeous action to make this report available. What steps the hon. the Minister can take to safeguard the confidentiality of the Government Printer—this office falls under his department—is what we want to hear from his them afternoon. Really and truly we cannot allow a situation like this to continue in South Africa. We have had debates on other occasions about the Government Printer in this House. I remember some years ago, when the hon. P. M. K. le Roux was still the Minister in charge, there was a long debate on matters relating to the Government Printer, and I want to hear …

That was about a very trivial matter.

It was a matter which came to the attention of this House and it was debated in full. I think that we …

This is a very serious matter.

That is the point I am trying to make to the hon. the Minister. We are discussing a matter which is of the utmost gravity, of the utmost importance, and I think the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation.

I want to say with all the responsibility at my disposal—I am not saying it in regard to this hon. Minister—that in many other countries a matter of this nature would have led to the resignation of the Minister concerned. [Interjections.] Ask any hon. member who knows the history and the traditions of Parliament [Interjections.] It is quite apparent that in this House there are members who are ignorant of many of the actions which are taken in Parliaments in other parts of the world. [Interjections.] They simply do not know what happens in other countries and how serious the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility is regarded. I am prepared to accept that the hon. the Minister is a very competent Minister and it is quite obvious that he is not going to let the matter rest there, but that he will take urgent action to remedy the matter. I await with interest the reply of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to admit at once that the matter we are discussing here today is a serious one. I do think, however, that the hon. member for Mooi River tried to be melodramatic. [Interjections.] In the first place, I emphatically refute the insinuation that the Government unreasonably delayed the release of the supplementary report of the Erasmus Commission. If one has regard to the fact that the deadline for the report was 30 May and that the Cabinet still had to consider the report, it has actually been made available to the public in record time.

The hon. member for Yeoville said one must have the assurance that public servants are trustworthy in their handling of confidential matters. I want to say at once, specifically as far as the Government Printer is concerned, that I have been a member of this Parliament for approximately 16 years and that this is the first time that a complaint has been lodged against the Government Printer of confidentiality having been violated through negligence. That is a very good record for an undertaking such as the Government Printer, and not only for the Government Printer, but also for our officials in general. One will always find black sheep everywhere. One finds them even among clerics.

Now I come to the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Simonstown. I think it is a good thing that he moved this motion, since it is in the public interest that the matter should be discussed and its seriousness pointed out. He made the insinuation, however, that “the circulation was selective”. Fortunately I am in a position to state that the circulation of this document was not selective. I ventured to circulate the distribution list of the Government Printer among the members of every party in this House, and I shall explain in a moment how this distribution list is compiled. When one consults the list, it is very obvious that the circulation was not selective, because it was the ordinary list that is normally used.

I do not want to run away from the fact that this is a serious matter. It is a pity that this happened in an undertaking such as the Government Printer, an undertaking which, to my mind, is an excellent one. I am also sorry that this happened under the present Government Printer, Mr. De Beer. He is a man who has been Government Printer for 10 years, and who has been on the staff of that undertaking for 31 years.

Now I come to the specific occurrence. A senior stores officer—in fairness, since an inquiry is in progress, I do not wish to mention his name, but he has already been identified and has already admitted that he did this—mailed English and Afrikaans copies of the Erasmus Commission’s Supplementary Report to newspapers, periodicals and news media on 30 May 1979 in accordance with the free distribution list which has already been placed in the hands of the Opposition parties. This distribution list is the standard one that is used. The allegation was made that certain newspapers had not received the report. By way of explanation I just want to say, however, that if the name of a specific newspaper or periodical does not appear on the so-called free list, it means that it has not applied as yet to have its name included in the list. They are free to apply to the Government Printer at any time to have their names included in the so-called free list. After the Government Printer has obtained Treasury approval for this, the applicant is entitled to free copies of all reports published. In this particular case the secretary to the Erasmus Commission requested verbally that the relevant report should not be made available to the Press before it had been tabled in Parliament. I may mention that this is one of the things that will have to be changed. In future such instructions from the client or principal will have to be given in writing and the Government Printer will also convey such instructions in writing to the staff concerned.

The senior stores officer concerned, nevertheless distributed the copies, despite the instructions he had received, and his actions undoubtedly amount to at least gross negligence, something which I cannot condone at all, and which I, as the responsible Minister, regret very deeply. I express my sincere regret about the incident.

When this came to my notice, I was not in Cape Town unfortunately but happened to be in my constituency. However, immediately after I had heard of the incident I summoned the Government Printer to Cape Town, on instructions from the hon. the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Government Printer fully informed me here in Cape Town about the whole matter. After he had given me all the details, I gave him several instructions. In the first place, I instructed him to submit to me at the very earliest opportunity a report containing an amended and improved procedure for handling sensitive publications in future. If I consider it necessary to do so, I shall request the inspectorate of the Public Service Commission to check whether the amended procedures are good enough.

In the second place, I instructed him to take immediate disciplinary action in terms of the Public Service Act against the officer concerned. As a first step, the officer concerned has already been placed on compulsory paid leave. He has 22 days paid leave to his credit and I think the inquiry can be completed within that period. If it cannot be completed within that period, I shall be obliged to suspend him from duty in terms of the Act until such time as the investigation has been completed.

I have said that what happened amounts to at least gross negligence on the part of the officer concerned. However, I was not so naïve as to think that in this case it could have been merely a matter of negligence. Other possibilities, ones that are actually obvious, cannot be excluded. Consequently I also gave instructions for other investigations to be made and these have already been initiated at a high level. I am prepared, as soon as the different investigations have been completed, to report to this House. In any event, I am prepared to make available a progress report which can then be debated during the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

At this stage I cannot say much more. I trust that I have convinced this House that in these circumstances—which I myself deeply regret—I have done everything in my power to act as quickly and effectively as possible as far as this unfortunate incident is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the right to reply. Nevertheless, I should like to say on behalf of my colleagues that I am satisfied with the explanation the hon. the Minister has given us and with the steps that have been taken, and we look forward to his further report to this House in due course.

Question agreed to.