Mr. Chairman, when we commenced with the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday, I was particularly impressed by the positive speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Allow me to tell him that. I have had the privilege of sitting and listening to speeches in this House since 1964. I think this is the first time since 1964 that I have heard the hon. member for Bezuidenhout making such a positive speech. However, I differ very drastically with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on one point, and that is that we belong with the West.

With the Free World.

However, I just want to make a single remark about the speech made here yesterday by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. He completely disturbed the fine atmosphere and the fine spirit of this very important debate in Parliament by the standpoint he put forward here. [Interjections.] Hon. members should just listen to what he said when he spoke about our relations with Africa, and I quote—

He then addressed himself to the hon. the Minister and asked: “Can he deny this?” Our relations with Africa, and, through Africa, with the world, have at no stage in our history been of such cardinal importance and so critical as they are at this very point in time. That is why I say that in my opinion, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a very good speech, since he did not adopt this kind of approach. If those hon. members of the Opposition examine the documents of the UN and the remarks, attitudes and declarations of the OAU, they will see what tremendous damage this type of nonsensical, unnecessary and untrue argument has done to South Africa over all these years.

But you are the people who create the policies.

There is something I can tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in a few words. As long as there are different races in a country, as is the case in South Africa, as long as there is a diversity of peoples, there will always be differentiztion, whether it is by way of laws or not, and as long as there is differentiation between people, there will always be other people who brand that differentiation as discrimination, and there will also be other people who, like us, say that it is not discrimination. Consequently they must refrain from telling the outside world and Africa that every form of separation in South Africa constitutes discrimination. They must refrain from speaking of restrictions we ostensibly have in South Africa in order to try to maintain the existing order in the interests of the various Black peoples as well, as though this constituted an encroachment on the rights of individuals in South Africa. I want to say frankly, because this is a fact, that in this late hour of South Africa’s history the most important thing of all, the predominating factor in our African politics and our foreign politics, is that. White, Coloured, Black and Asian have to find one another here, that we must reach an understanding and that we must be able to accept and respect one another. They can read any paper by any scientist in the world, they can go and look in any country in the world, even at the great prophet of human rights, the USA, but they will see that this Government’s recipe for peaceful coexistence is the only possible workable recipe. [Interjections.]

Do they have discrimination on their Statute Book?

Like the parliamentary dining-room.

I do not consider our recipe perfect in all respects. Nor do I think that we have a perfect solution, but my colleagues and I know that if our recipe does not work, good relations and peaceful coexistence in South Africa will collapse. Then our relations with Africa would collapse and our international relations would collapse completely too. Among Black people and Black leaders in Africa and in South Africa there is at this stage of history a hypersensitivity about certain issues of which we must take cognizance. They are extremely sensitive about the concept of human dignity and slighting of such human dignity. Therefore, when we make statements in this House, we must ensure that we do not contribute, like the hostile world outside, towards inculcating the concept among the non-Whites in South Africa—for it is, after all, a false one—that this Government’s policy constitutes a slight to their human dignity.

Cover up the truth.

At the moment South Africa is the punch bag of the West and of Africa. Contrary to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, I want to advocate today that we dissociate ourselves, except with regard to relations in the economic and other fields we should like to maintain with the West, from a too close association with the West. We are of Africa. The West are attacking us at the moment in order to get at Africa. They fight with us about political concepts such as freedom and democracy, but they are really fighting Africa. They fight with us about all sorts of other practices that ostensibly encroach upon human dignity. They do this in their endeavour to get at Africa. I think we should examine the whole course of colonial history in this regard. Allow me to quote just the beginning and end of a poem by President Senghor of Senegal. It is a beautiful poem, and President Senghor, who is a very moderate person, begins his poem as follows—

He goes on to tell about the injustice committed against his people through slavery and the subsequent colonialization. He ends the poem—

After all, there is a worldwide revolution of racial emotion which is culminating under the incitement of our enemies in South Africa. We must deal with this, and to be able to do so we must get to the crux of the matter. The crux of this revolution is an anti-White emotion, an anti-White racism. Many States in Africa regard us without justification as the descendants, the last remnants of colonialism. We must establish a place for ourselves here in Africa. We in South Africa cannot continue to fall between two stools. We do not belong on the Western chair; we belong on the African chair.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether we could not consider something in the nature of an Africa Year. Must we not associate ourselves with something like a Pretoria declaration of human rights? In it we must spell out our intentions as regards the nations and people of Africa in such a way that the accusations against us by the enemies of South Africa to the effect that we are ostensibly oppressors, will disappear like mist in the morning sunshine. After all, the Government’s policy does not make us oppressors. The Government’s policy concerning the Black people of Africa is a policy of the equal coexistence of people.

What I am saying now I am saying to our people as well: Anyone who thinks that the NP’s policy of separate development implies anything other than that equal people should live alongside one another, each with his own say in his own matters on an orderly basis, is making a mistake as far as our policy is concerned. This is the essence of our policy which hon. members of the Opposition also fail to perceive, and it is this that causes them to make such ridiculous allegations against us. Those allegations are then released to the world and cause the Black people in South Africa to boomerang against us.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, I want to say in all seriousness that that country should be a lesson to every White person in South Africa. Why do I say this? Even though only 5% of the Ovambos—this is by far the minority—gave their support to Swapo, this bothers and concerns me because in the last analysis one cannot win the diplomatic struggle and the struggle for the goodwill the hearts and minds of the people of Africa with all the millions of rands one invests in weapons.

It is cause for concern to me if our enemies’ cries of oppression, and the charge of Government tyranny brought by intellectual Black people are given a sympathetic hearing. I am concerned about the fact that all the allegations of this kind made against us are given a sympathetic hearing. Our biggest task in our diplomatic offensive in Africa and in our diplomatic offensive in the entire world through Africa, lies here in South Africa itself in the developing of sound relationships among the nations and people here by means of the recipe and the foundation of our policy which entails the equal coexistence of people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. member for Innesdal is of the opinion that since 1964 I have only made one positive speech here. I had thought that I was one of the most positive critics … [Interjections.] But he meant it very well and therefore I am not going to pick a fight with him about it. I think he is labouring under a misapprehension. When we plead for our membership of the Free World, that does not entail that we deny that we are an African state. Of course we have to be primarily an African State. We have to find accommodation with Africa, and that is our highest priority. It is very good to see the hon. member’s enthusiasm. He spoke about a Pretoria declaration. Well, precisely 15 years ago I said from the Opposition benches that there should be such a declaration. We are working in that direction and therefore we are not in conflict with one another on that score. Nevertheless I want to point out to him that we see no inconsistency in our seeking to be accepted, in the worldwide fight against communism, as belonging with the Free World. That does not have to conflict with our priority of finding accommodation in Africa.

Unfortunately I have only a short time left in which to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions. Last year the hon. the Prime Minister last year convened Parliament for a special session to discuss the report of the Erasmus Commission. During a recent interview with the BBC he said that if outside intervention in Zimbabwe Rhodesia assumed such proportions that our interests could be affected by it and that we might have to act, he would convene Parliament to decide on the matter. I want to say here and now that we welcome this attitude, because Parliament has a special role to play in matters which could mean war or peace for South Africa. I am pleased that this is recognized by the Government. There is a suspicion in certain circles, particularly abroad, that the spadework is being done for what is being termed UDI in South West Africa. I personally do not harbour that fear—or let me rather put it this way; that I do not believe that the expression UDI can be applied to South West Africa. Rhodesia was 6 000 miles from the mother country and was already, for all practical purposes, an independent country with its own Defence Force. It was therefore able to declare UDI against the mother country. South West Africa, however, does not have its own Defence Force and is still connected to South Africa in various fields, for example, railways, harbours, airways and public service, with the result that it is impracticable for it to become independent from its foster-mother without the cooperation of South Africa. Therefore, it cannot effectively rebel against South Africa. However, because that suspicion and misunderstanding exist, particularly abroad, and because propaganda is being made to the effect that South Africa is engaged in double dealing in regard to South West Africa and wishes to guide it towards independence unilaterally, I wonder whether it would not be advisable for the Government to give everyone the assurance that no sudden or unexpected steps will be taken with regard to South West, but that in that case, too, if Parliament is not in session at the time, too, it will be convened to decide on the matter before any final or irrevocable decision on the status of South West Africa is adopted. I should like to recommend this because after all, it is an area concerning which we have an international responsibility. I want to add to that that up to now we have supported the Government in the steps it has taken in respect of South West and that we should like to continue doing so, because I think it is in the interest of South Africa. I only ask, in view of the propaganda against us, particularly abroad, that the assurance be given that no unexpected steps will be taken by the Government.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister made the important announcement that Coloured South Africans and South Africans of Asian descent will be appointed in the foreign service on an equal basis. This is something we have been advocating for a long time and it is a sign of progress. The omission of Black South Africans, however, was conspicuous and will create misunderstanding in many circles. I think that an additional explanation by the hon. the Minister is called for. The hon. the Minister painted a very sombre picture yesterday when he warned us that we in South Africa would have to take into account what he called “the potential of explosion”. We shall need the assistance of all South Africans—Coloured, Black and White. I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasized this. Allow me to quote from a speech he made in Bloemfontein—

They are indeed being trained in the Defence Force and in the Police Force and therefore we shall also have to train them in the diplomatic service. I think that the Government will have to make a final decision fairly soon concerning the future place of the Black man who will remain as a South African after the partition policy of the Government has reached its saturation point. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree that this matter will have to be cleared up before any Black neighbouring State, including our previous homelands, will enter into a formal Southern African alliance with us. In fact, the inclusion of Black people in the diplomatic service is, in my opinion, an essential prerequisite for what the hon. member for Innesdal has just advocated, viz. the crbation of a pattern of co-operation in Southern Africa.

Good relations with our neighbouring countries has a direct bearing on this, of course, and is of very great importance. At one stage the relations between us and the Transkei and between us and Lesotho were a little on the rough side. In fact, I wonder what became of our ambassador in Transkei, Danie Potgieter. However, there are definite signs of improvement, particularly in our relations with Transkei. I should be much obliged if the hon. the Minister would make use of this debate to give an outline of his expectations in respect of our relations with our immediate neighbours in particular. Furthermore, I want to ask him whether it is not perhaps time for a special ambassador—someone who will fill a similar position to that held by Mr. Charles te Water in the old days—to be appointed to give particular attention to our relations with our neighbouring States. I think this is of very great importance.

Some time ago I put a question to the hon. the Minister about the propaganda services from neighbouring countries which are beamed at South Africa and are fed by the UN. These are already assuming the proportions of what one could call a radio war. The reply which the hon. the Minister gave to the question, is that the propaganda service already amounts to approximately 40 hours per week and is beamed from, inter alia, our immediate neighbours—Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland—and, further north, from Zambia and Tanzania, apart from the broadcasts from Cairo, Peking and Ethiopia. I should like to know whether we are monitoring this propaganda war. Are we aware of what exactly is going on and are we paying sufficient attention to possible and necessary countermeasures?

Then, too, I wish to mention one other matter which also concerns South West Africa, and that is the question of Walvis Bay. There is no dispute between us and the Government about the status of Walvis Bay. It is South African territory; there is no doubt about that. We must, however, take into account that it will in future become a bone of contention, not only with the outside world, but also between us and a new Government in South West Africa. The one thing I should like us to avoid, is for a social and political pattern to develop in Walvis Bay which is different to what is happening in South West Africa. To be quite practical, with Walvis Bay falling under the Cape Province, we cannot afford all manner of minor separation measures to be introduced in Walvis Bay at this stage, measures which could lead to much dissatisfaction, because there is a free interchange of people between the rest of South West Africa—Swakopmund is situated only 32 miles from there—and Walvis Bay. It is going to be very noticeable and will cause tension. I think it may have been unwise to annex Walvis Bay to the Cape Province. I think it would be better if we treated it as a unit separate from the Republic, so that we would not have that problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was a great pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Innesdal. He spoke with enthusiasm and conviction of South Africa as an African country. It was also good to hear the hon. member for Bezuidenhout displaying responsibility in saying that we are an African country. It is just a pity that he is the only one in his party who says that. Others, unfortunately, are not yet convinced of that because they are employed by and involved with major financial interests.

I now wish to refer to what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said. The hon. member blurted out here what he thought was bad in South Africa. It reminds me of a short poem I read, the last two lines of which go like this—

That is exactly what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti did.

It is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate, so much the more because the image of the Department of Foreign Affairs has acquired a dynamic dimension. The department has built up an image of standing up for South Africa and of not being prepared to see South Africa intimidated or slighted in any way. The department puts South Africa’s standpoint fearlessly to the great and lesser powers of the world. For that we want to thank the department, and particularly the hon. the Minister, for his action. The people of South Africa are tired of being pushed around by large and small nations. We are a people who are prepared to co-operate. We are not prepared to be pushed around at will by the great and other powers.

When we discuss Africa and say that we belong in Africa, we must take into account that it is important that we must identify what we have in common with Africa. We must consider what is in the interests of Africa and also what is in our interests. The argument I wish to advance is that at this stage Africa is being recolonialized. When we look around us we see that Africa is becoming recolonialized. Africa has not yet escaped the chains which bound it which it tried to break after the Second World War. On the contrary, South Africa is being colonialized by the ties and bonds of the neo-colonialists of the 20th century. Who are the people who are trying to colonialize Africa again? Expansionistic capitalism and the imperialistic Marxists are colonializing Africa and Southern Africa in a new way in order to exercise power over them. South Africa does not wish to be colonialized. We do not want to be dictated to by other powers. Our economy must not be controlled by other powers. We want to stand alone. Nor do I believe that the other peoples in Africa are prepared to be colonialized again. For that reason we must emphasize this community of interests we have with African States. Southern Africa and Africa must realize that nowadays colonialism is no longer effected by the physical takeover of land and factories but by the overseas control of the entire economy of the country by way of the manipulation of the prices of, for example, copper and other raw materials. In this way Africa is still being enslaved by overseas countries for their own purposes. Today colonialism no longer takes place merely by way of the occupation of a country by a military force but by way of political manipulation of the political attitude of leaders of peoples. Without occupying any country these neo-colonialists from overseas, the non-African countries, are therefore manipulating the political decision-making process of Africa. Africa must realize this.

There is a third aspect of this issue of colonialization. Colonialization also takes place in another way. The defence forces of African countries are being assisted by advisers from other countries who use these people only to achieve their own aims, even though it be at the cost of the blood of the people of Africa. These overseas countries are in a position to maintain large military forces because Africa pays for them, and in this way Africa is being weakened economically.

The question is whether Africa can find a solution for its economic and other problems. Africa will be able to solve all these problems, just as long as it begins to identify the problems properly. If Africa wants to ask why it is struggling economically, it will see that this is so because it has to pay with its blood to carry out the wishes and the aims of neo-colonialism. Africa is paying with its blood, politically and economically, and the time has come for Africa to become aware of this. I now wish to ask a question. A tree is known by its fruits. What advantages has Africa enjoyed since the Second World War as a result of the so-called aid offered by the neo-colonialism of expansionistic capitalism and imperialistic Marxists? What advantages have accrued to Africa? Africa is even worse off. It is chained down more than ever before. I only want to refer to Eritrea, Ogaden, Tajad, Sahara, Uganda, Zimbabwe Rhodesia and South West Africa. All these places are full of troops, wars and poverty and these are the fruits reaped by Africa as a result of neocolonialism.

I want to put it very clearly that Africa today is bound and Africa must begin to realize that it must escape these chains that bind it. My question is: Can Africa achieve this?, because I am a part of Africa and I want to achieve it. I do not want South Africa to be bound in this way. I am deeply convinced that we can do it; we can arise and we can get rid of the foreign forces that exploit us for their own gain. But in order to do so we must take note of the colonialization that is taking place. We must have the will to break those chains, and then we must take steps to identify our own interests.

I do not know what the solution is. I cannot say today what Africa must do. It would be presumptious of me to do so. However, there is one thing that I do know, and that is, I know where we must begin. We must begin to speak to one another. In the interests of Southern Africa and in the interests of Africa we must now begin to speak to one another with the aim of ridding Africa, Southern Africa, of this neo-colonialism that is being unobtrusively forced on us. We have the minerals, but we do not have an Opec bloc or an Arab bloc in which we stand together. We have the best land and we have the people to produce food, but Africa is being plagued by wars so that it is unable to provide its people with food. The economic potential in Africa could make it a leader, but this is being negated and arms are being sold to Africa, not in the interests of Africa but in the interests of the great powers. That is why I say that we must begin to speak to one another. We must begin to speak to one another and find common ground and the National Party in this country will find common ground with Africa because we are anti-colonialist. We shall therefore find common ground. However, nations do not speak to middle men. We must therefore speak as people to people and as Government to Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should first like to deal with an issue raised yesterday by a number of hon. members. The issue concerns the question of neutrality or non-alignment on the part of South Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Constantia and others referred to it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that meaningless statements about South Africa’s neutrality in the present world were not helpful. I fully agree with him. The hon. member will also agree with me that meaningful statements are helpful. I should like to refer him to the following statement I made in Zurich on 7 March this year—

This was the statement I made. It was carefully worded after consultation with the hon. the Prime Minister, and it reflects the Government’s attitude. We are not against other countries; we are for ourselves. We are not anti-West; we are for Southern Africa. This has to be understood clearly.

Are we anticommunist?

Of course we are. But that does not mean that we are not willing to trade with all countries of the world. We shall trade with anyone, because we do not believe in boycotts, in trade or economic sanctions. It has been this Government’s policy all along. We are endeavouring to mould together our interests and the interests of all the other States of Southern Africa into some form, into structures to give expression to that moulding together of common interests. It should embrace the desire of a common approach in the security field, the socioeconomic field and even the political field. Within joint structures we could discuss political dispensations, on condition that the self-determination of each nation of the region is respected. The leaders of Southern Africa in a spirit of mutual trust and friendship ought to have the opportunity to talk, air their views and say to each other what they do not like about each other’s policies. Such discussions among friends can do no harm. But if we, the States of Southern Africa, wish individually each to steer our own course, it would naturally inhibit the practical implementation of this whole project, this constellation of States that we have in mind and that we wish to bring into being. It will inhibit our joint efforts if individual States of our region support opposing multilateral entities. In any event, South Africa cannot undertake this venture alone. We must do it together.

If our interests and the interests of all the States of the region require that we should steer a course midway between East and West, then that will be the course which we should adopt. If I understood the hon. member for Constantia correctly, he said that we should at all times follow a course which was in our interest. I therefore do not see any basic divergence in our views. If that is what hon. members have in mind, I fully agree with them namely we will follow a course which best serves our interests.

I would also now like to say a few words on South West Africa as the issue was raised by several speakers yesterday and again today. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the whole matter fully on a previous occasion in the House. I issued to all hon. members a volume containing certain basic documents as well as a volume compiled by our mission in New York, and reproduced in South Africa. Perhaps the salient features of events surrounding South West Africa are not known sufficiently, and that is why I want to deal with them again briefly.

It is important because I feel that we would appreciate the Opposition’s support in this matter. It is a very important matter. From the remarks made by hon. members of the Opposition yesterday, I think I can say we have advanced a long way towards unanimity on this very important matter.

It must be remembered that for more than two years we were engaged in the most difficult—sometimes almost intractable— discussions and negotiations with the five Western powers. It must be remembered that we have by now a track record, a track record of what we were prepared to do. We have a track record as reflected in our letters, discussions and in the fact that this Government accepted the settlement proposal of the West on 25 April 1978. We indicated that we would implement that settlement proposal in good faith. What is not readily understood is that that proposal contained very painful provisions which went beyond what we had understood to be the position during previous negotiations. It was not easy for the South African Government to accept those proposals. It was not an easy matter for the democratic parties in South West Africa to accept certain provisions of that proposal, particularly those provisions dealing with an enormous United Nations presence in the territory and the reduction of South African troops to a minimum of 1 500 after a stipulated period of visible and confirmed peace in territory. It was extremely painful. Furthermore, our relationship with the United Nations cannot be described as a happy state of affairs. We do not like each other. The UN and this Government are not very fond of one another. To put it mildly, we are not pals. It was difficult for us to accept the eventual proposal that a large and substantive United Nations military force and civilians ought to be introduced into South West Africa. It was not merely this Government alone who felt that way. Many of the Black leaders of the territory actually said to me at the time that if there were going to be too many United Nations personnel present in Owambo, Kavango and the Caprivi with their jeeps, land-rovers, flags, uniforms and badges, their people might start thinking that Sam Nujoma had virtually taken over. They associate Sam Nujoma with the United Nations, and quite rightly. The United Nations’ General Assembly only last week again reiterated that Swapo was the sole and authentic representative of the people of South West Africa and ought to be supported by the United Nations. The result is that in the minds perhaps more of the Black people than the White people the United Nations is almost indelibly associated with Swapo.

They are completely biased.

Thank you, I accept that. They are worse than that. However, these are some of the basic reasons why I say that it was no easy matter for this Government and for the leaders of the democratic parties in the territory to accept the proposal of 25 April last year.

At that time the Administrator-General reported to us that leaders of the various democratic parties in the territory had emphasized that the proposal also provided that there would be independence by 31 December 1978. They asked for a guarantee that there would at least be elections before that date. I consulted the Cabinet and we said that the proposal provided for this in categoric terms—not “by” or “more or less” 31 December 1978. It stated categorically that at the latest independence should be achieved on 31 December 1978. It goes without saying that to achieve independence by 31 December 1978, the election provided for in the settlement proposal had to take place before 31 December 1978. We were therefore entitled, in terms of the western proposal, to give the assurance to the democratic leaders of SWA that there would be an election before 31 December 1978. That is exactly what we did.

We made it clear to the five Foreign Ministers who came to this country in October 1978 and who had discussions with our new Prime Minister at the time—he was Prime Minister for only a few days when we were confronted with this problem—that we could not interfere in the internal affairs of South West Africa. We informed them that we did not have the power to force measures down the throats of the leaders in the territory which they themselves felt could not possibly be consistent with free and open election. We have to respect the wishes of the people.

The cornerstone of the Government’s approach in respect of South West Africa is to let the people decide their own future for themselves. The South African Government does not have an internal policy inside South West Africa for South West Africa. It has an internal policy for the Republic of South Africa—a good one, a solid one, the only one that can ensure peace and prosperity for the peoples of this country. However, as far as South West Africa is concerned, our approach is that the people inside South West Africa will decide on their own future. We will accept their decisions. Our commitment as far as South West Africa internally is concerned, is that we will guarantee—we are committed to do so—their safety and their security—in other words, that we will assist them to resist aggression from outside until they can handle their own security themselves. This is our basic approach.

I think I have now also answered the question put to me by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

After informing the five Foreign Ministers in October last year that we were still willing to implement the settlement proposal, but that elections ought to take place in December and that we would thereafter endeavour to persuade the leaders of the territory to co-operate in the implementation of the proposal, I visited New York towards the end of November 1978 to have further consultations and discussions with Dr. Waldheim and with Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. I also met with Pres. Carter. These discussions were constructive. I returned. Elections took place. A few days before Christmas 1978 the Prime Minister and I went to the territory. We went there at a time when there was a general atmosphere of euphoria. The DTA had won the elections hands down. They wanted to get on with the task of governing the country. They said that the UN settlement proposal— the same one as proposed by the Western powers—categorically stated that independence would be achieved by 31 December 1978. Swapo could have participated. All political parties that wanted to participate peacefully in the elections, had been invited to do so. The DTA stated they desired to get on with the task because they had been given a mandate by the people of South West Africa, a mandate of 80%.

We must bear in mind under what extremely undesirable circumstances the registration of voters took place. Swapo was against it and consequently actively endeavoured to sabotage the registration attempt. The United Nations were against it and with all the means at their disposal attempted to sabotage it. The five Western powers were against it. Just about everybody in the outside world was against it. Yet the registration was successful. Thereafter came the election. Again the whole world agitated against it. Swapo intensified its campaign of terror with the object of wrecking the election. The election results confirmed that an overwhelming majority of the people of the territory was in favour of achieving independence on a democratic and peaceful basis. They had had enough of the terror, abductions and intimidation of Swapo. For so many decades the International Court and the United Nations, by way of its various organs, had attempted to decide their future and had made and issued resolutions on South West Africa without taking into account the wishes of the people, never coming forward with any constructive proposals. Here at last, they said, they had what they had fought for in the past. They said the South African Government had given them freedom and had allowed them an election on the basis of “one man, one vote”. This was it. This was what they wanted.

The Prime Minister and I addressed the Constituent Assembly at the time, to keep our commitment to the West and to President Carter when I met him at the end of November 1978, he encouraged the South African Government to persuade the leaders of the territory to co-operate in the implementation of the proposal. He told me that if the South African Government could persuade the leaders of the territory to go ahead with the implementation, and I could let Dr. Waldheim know this before the end of December, it would open the way for better relations between us. I conveyed the President’s sentiments to the hon. the Prime Minister; he agreed and we went to South West Africa and did just that. But at first the leaders were somewhat disappointed. I remember some of the leaders asking me, before taking leave of them in Windhoek that day, whether I expected them to go back to Owambo and to tell their supporters in Owambo that they had fought the election for nothing, that nothing was going to crystallize out of it, that they would not get a Government and that the election promises they had made to their voters would come to nothing, at least for the time being?

I do not say that they left Windhoek in a state of despair, but they certainly left in a state of disappointment although they understood that what we had done we had done for them and for our sake and, as we saw it, for the sake of the whole of Southern Africa. They therefore agreed that it was better, in the interests of the whole of Southern Africa, to go along with the expeditious implementation of the proposal. Immediately thereafter I urged Dr. Waldheim to arrange for Mr. Ahtisaari to come to South West Africa and South Africa as soon as possible for discussions on the final implementation measures that had to be taken and also some outstanding matters. Mr. Ahtisaari came. He was in Cape Town, towards the middle of January to the last week in January, and we discussed various matters. The composition of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group was a matter which was handled directly between Dr. Waldheim and myself. Dr. Waldheim presented us with a list of countries. We provided him with a list containing our suggestions. He had difficulties with just about every country on our list. Eventually I accepted every country on Waldheim’s list, bar one. That was the way mutual “consultation” worked. The proposal states that he should consult with us about the composition of Untag. It was I, however, who accepted all the countries on his list, except one, and that was if I remember correctly Bangladesh. The leaders of South West Africa suggested another country from the East. They thought we could get a better country than that, for certain reasons. We accepted virtually all the other suggestions regarding implementation presented to us. After the Swakopmund talks, which preceded the Cape Town talks, Mr. Ahtisaari complained that he had gained the impression that there was not sufficient co-operation as far as the implementation of the military programme was concerned. Gen. Malan, who was sitting next to me, immediately suggested that Gen. Phillip and Gen. Geldenhuys could work out a practical implementation plan—which they did in the space of two days. The two of them worked it out together. It was not Gen. Geldenhuys’ plan. It was as much Gen. Phillip’s plan as it was Gen. Geldenhuys’ plan. Hon. members will remember that Gen. Phillip is Dr. Waldheim’s UN Commander. The Government accepted that, although in that plan there were also some rather difficult issues which were not all that easy for us to accept. Again however, to facilitate implementation, we accepted. When Mr. Ahtisaari left he told me that he was just going to report to Dr. Waldheim in New York and would then fly out to the front-line States, hoping also to see Mr. Nujoma. There might however, he said to me, be a problem regarding the monitoring of Swapo forces in neighbouring States as required in terms of the agreement, the settlement proposal. He said that to me. He never, however, questioned the provisions about that requirement in the agreement. He said that the front-line States might find it difficult to accept an Untag force on their soil because they might consider that as an infringement of their sovereignty. I explained to him that under the United Nations’ Charter member states could not complain about a Security Council decision in terms of article 25 of the Charter. All members of the United Nations must, in good faith, comply with Security Council resolutions adopted in good faith. So, in advance and voluntarily, States which join the United Nations sign away that part of their sovereignty. All States which are members do so. So it is no argument saying that one’s sovereignty would be violated by allowing an Untag force on one’s soil. One has agreed to that by signing the Charter. Nevertheless, to assist him I said that if that issue were to present a problem, he could overcome it by informing the front-line States that the South African Government would agree to Untag forces monitoring South African troops on South African soil near the border. I offered that in a desperate attempt to get the whole process implemented.

The position at that stage then was that we had accepted the countries on the list, bar one. We had drawn up a practical military implementation plan. We had come to an agreement on the status of the UN personnel to be stationed in SWA, that is to say an agreement on their rights and privileges. My legal advisers and other departments had worked very hard to get that draft agreement ready in time. We tentatively agreed that cease-fire day was to be 26 February 1979 and that shortly before that date the first contingents of Untag would arrive. Gen. Malan in a further effort to co-operate, intimated that, as visible peace was established and camps became available and vacant, he would consider assisting them with accommodation—against payment, naturally.

That is the length to which we went and that is what we accepted—after having been cheated on several occasions. I told Mr. Cyrus Vance and Dr. David Owen in Ambassador Andrew Young’s office in New York, not behind their backs, but to their faces: “I have been cheated.” They then all looked down at the floor and not into my eyes. There are newspapers in this country who think one must buy freedom at all costs. One cannot. It is impossible. The price might be too high. If the peace they desire requires capitulation to Terrorist forces and surrendering the country to destruction then the price is too high.

What happened then? Swapo simply continued with its murderous, heinous aggressive attacks against the innocent people of South West Africa. They never ceased their brutal acts of murder. I reported over 400 incidents of aggression of killing innocent civilians and intimidation and the spreading of terror and fear in the minds and hearts of the people of the territory. This made no impression. Dr. Waldheim recently stated that we were just “squealing”—squealing about the death, the torture and murder of people! That is how he looks at it.

Who is that?

Dr. Waldheim. I do not have so much against him personally. I do not think, however, he always knows what is going on in his office. But be that as it may.

Then came February; implementation day was approaching. On 20 February we learnt of statements by Sam Nujoma. We monitored a radio transmission from Luanda. That transmission was a mistake, because the West, Ahtisaari and others, would have preferred that Nujoma did not publish his statement. However, we monitored the radio broadcast from Luanda and heard what Nujoma was demanding. He was demanding that Swapo troops be admitted into South West Africa with arms and be designated to locations where they would be restricted to bases. Just imagine the psychological advantage of such a step to this terror organization. What they could not achieve militarily, they wanted to achieve by means of new demands under this UN plan. Secondly, he rejected totally and unconditionally the monitoring of any Swapo forces outside South West Africa. What would the situation then be in terms of these demands of Nujoma? He would obtain what he had been unable to obtain through military success: Firstly bases inside the territory with the very considerable psychological advantage which such bases would create for Swapo in an election. Secondly, no one could check what his forces outside SWA were doing. Thus he would have nothing to lose. If he were to win the election by these improper means, well and good for him. We would have had to get out and would be faced with a refugee problem to the tune of three-quarters of the people of that country who would have left—of that I am convinced. Secondly, if he were to lose the election, he would be in a better military position titan before the election and could carry on his war. What is more, I have received information that Nujoma was told that in any event he need not fear anything. At the end of the election, a fair and open election attended to by UN officials, Mr. Ahtisaari is required to issue a certificate to the effect that the elections were indeed free and fair should that have been the case. Nujoma was told: “Do not fear. If you lose, the certificate will never be issued.” How is that!

Who gave that assurance?

He was told this. What then could he lose? No matter what we or the democratic parties of the territory do, we can never win.

That is the tragic history of events. I have brought the clear and categoric provisions of the agreement to the attention and notice of the West. The hon. the Prime Minister has done so too, as also our various ambassadors in Western countries. I have met with our ambassadors twice since November last year in Europe. We have sent note upon note, message upon message, to the various Governments of the West. We have tried to get the truth through to them and we have asked them repeatedly: “Gentlemen, is this fair? Is it fair that you deviate from your very own proposals submitted to my Government, while you know how difficult it was for us and the democratic parties of the territory to accept them in the first place?” The answer came back time and again: “Yes, but… It is still better to accept the latest proposals. How will we stop the war? How can we end the conflict? What would happen to Swapo forces outside the territory? They are virtually doomed to carry on the war.” In other words, to end the war, we have to become a party to the installation of a terrorist group in South West Africa against the clear and confirmed wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of the territory. This Government, if it has a choice between brief remission, brief popularity to avoid sanctions and punitive measures for a brief period on the one hand, and standing by its commitments to a fellow State in Southern Africa, on the other hand, when those are the alternatives, it prefers to stand by its commitment and to suffer the consequences for acting in an honourable way.

I should like to return to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

*I agree with speakers on this side that this hon. member made a constructive speech, and I thank him for that. It was a constructive speech containing interesting ideas. He referred to the indication given by the hon. the Prime Minister that as far as Zimbabwe Rhodesia was concerned, we would convene Parliament under certain circumstances of large-scale intervention from outside to discuss the situation. The hon. member regards this as the correct thing to do and I agree with him. If I understood him correctly, he then wanted to know two things from me. In the first place, he wanted to know whether—I could almost put it this way—we would take any unexpected or surprise steps with regard to South West Africa.

No, I do not believe that any surprise steps are being taken; the propagandists against us believe that.

My reply to his question is no, and I made it clear in a letter to the Foreign Minister of the five Western powers that what has happened in South West Africa cannot be termed UDI. It is not a unilateral declaration of independence. Some of the leaders of South West Africa would like to have greater powers conferred upon the National Assembly at this stage, but there are good reasons why we cannot confer executive authority upon the National Assembly at this stage. Instead of that, the Administrator-General will be assisted by a council consisting of members of the National Assembly. This council will assist him in the performance of his executive duties.

We did give legislative authority to the National Assembly, because the hon. member understands that the political momentum in this territory must not come to a standstill after so many months. The fact that the momentum is being slowed down by the months of negotiations is causing problems. The people there want to get started properly; they are heading for independence, and neither the Government nor the UN can prevent that. It has been promised to them; the people are claiming it and it must come. It is their right. We are applying the brakes, precisely because we would still like to give the West the chance, if they believe there still is a chance, to continue negotiating about possible ways of overcoming the obstacles. If they want such a chance, the Government is prepared to talk to them for the umpteenth time. The implications of a total break-down for Southern Africa are still so serious that we must remain patient. On two points the Government cannot yield, however, because the people of the territory would rebel against it. Swapo must not obtain bases in the territory contrary to the agreement and Swapo forces must be confined to base and have their bases monitored by Untag. Therefore we have said that we should return to the original proposal which we accepted. Meanwhile, I expect no surprise steps in South West Africa, so I can reassure the hon. member as far as that is concerned.

South Africa expects South West to consult us and not to take its own surprise steps. The conduct of the leaders there has been responsible in the past. The hon. the Prime Minister said recently, when we were addressing quite a number of the leaders in Windhoek, that he would appreciate it if the parties could achieve the greatest measure of unanimity with regard to SWA’s reaction to the international proposals. We hope that the leaders will act responsibly at all times, in spite of quarrels among themselves, something which we find painful, of course, and which we hope will be settled in the interests of the territory and of Southern Africa.

As regards the hon. member’s question whether we shall definitely come back to Parliament if the status of the territory has to be changed, I must tell the hon. member that I cannot reply to that now. That is something the Cabinet will have to decide. As far as I remember, and I am speaking under correction, the law made by this Parliament provides …

The legislation with regard to the Administrator-General restricts it.

The hon. member should go back a little and look at the previous legislation. We shall have to see whether that legislation does not perhaps empower the State President to grant independence to the territory. If it does not, I accept it. I cannot say now that we must or shall definitely come back to Parliament.

Do you not think it would be a good thing if you did?

It will obviously be done if Parliament is in session. The hon. the Prime Minister keeps Parliament informed on a regular basis. He comes to Parliament with his important statements. He is the man who makes a point of taking Parliament into his confidence. That is why he does it. However, the hon. member will understand that a situation may develop while Parliament is not in session, where we may have to give effect, in a given situation, to the representations and laws of the National Assembly of the territory. One can imagine that one may have a situation where one could hardly tell the people of South West Africa that because one is not ready for them, they have to wait another six months. That is all I can say at the moment. However, this is not the last word on this subject. It is a question to which I cannot give any final reply today. It is a question which must be considered by the Government, not only by myself. It is an important question.

As far as propaganda from neighbouring States is concerned, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked whether we were monitoring transmissions made by them at the request of the UN, in which we are attacked. We monitor some of them. We are fairly well-informed of what is broadcast, and I personally discussed the matter with the Foreign Ministers of a number of our neighbouring States on a recent occasion. I told them frankly that it was not conducive to good relations with South Africa. They said that they would consider my opinions and convey them to their Governments.

The hon. member also asked whether it would not be in our interests to entrust someone with the specific task of seeing to our immediate Black neighbouring States on a regular direct basis. This is an deserving idea, but I want to point out to the hon. member that my department is already organized in such a way that the sections dealing with these countries are headed by officials with ambassadorial rank, and that they are continually visiting these countries, either with me or on their own or at my behest. But his is not an idea I want to turn down. I think it is a positive idea, and we can consider it. In fact, I have discussed this with the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and asked him whether we could not establish a section which could constantly go from one neighbouring State to another to maintain continuous personal contact with the Governments of our Black neighbouring States. We shall give renewed attention to this.

As far as Walvis Bay is concerned, the hon. member said that the administrative pattern developing there should not differ from the one which applies in South West Africa. This is a very delicate and difficult problem. The hon. member will understand why. All I can tell him is that the Government is aware of the delicate aspects involved and that the Government will go out of its way to avoid creating conflicting and irreconcilable situations there which could reflect adversely on us abroad. In fact, it is being considered whether we should not give Walvis Bay its own director-general to administer it while taking into account as far as possible the currents and events in South West Africa. As the hon. member rightly said, the people are moving back and forth all the time. It is important to us that we should retain our sovereignty over that territory. As the hon. member knows, we have large interests there, and it will certainly be possible to negotiate with a new friendly Government in South West Africa about the future and the use of Walvis Bay. They will have full use of that harbour so that their import and export facilities will not be obstructed in any way.

I shall come back later in the debate to the other questions asked by hon. members, including the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to conclude by repeating that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a constructive speech with constructive proposals.

Mr. Chairman, the points raised by the hon. the Minister were obviously well listened to, and therefore there remains very little for me to say regarding them because he was, in fact, answering hon. members who spoke before me. However, I think the significance of what the hon. the Minister has said goes beyond the scope of the immediate settlement of the South West African and the Zimbabwe Rhodesian questions. The implications of a non-settlement in South West Africa, and no international recognition for the settlement in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, also have a significant bearing on the other issues raised by the hon. the Minister in terms of the new vision of a penetration into Africa and the moulding of the togetherness of our immediate neighbours on the southern part of this continent. I believe the hon. the Minister will agree with us when we say that unless there is an internationally acceptable settlement in South West Africa and international recognition of the settlement in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, the prospects for the survival and the effectiveness of any constellation of States in Southern Africa are pretty dim indeed. These are the pivot points for co-operation between South Africa and any of our neighbours, both within our territory and to the north of us, let alone the relationships we are likely to have in future with other countries, both in the West and in the East.

It is indeed encouraging to see the patience and the strategy exercised by the hon. the Minister and his department in coping with the many frustrations and difficulties which they no doubt have experienced, and are still experiencing, in trying to find an amicable solution to the South West African problem. However, while a very considerable amount of time is being spent on those issues—and rightly so—and while vast amounts of money are being spent on correcting the ideas of the misinformed public in the rest of the world outside South Africa, we in this party believe that there is an urgent job which has to be done in South Africa as well. While we are spending millions of rands on the thousands outside South Africa, we may well be in the process of alienating millions within the boundaries of South Africa. What will it gain South Africa if, in the process of converting a few thousand people overseas, we lose sight of the fact that we are also losing the goodwill of the millions within the borders of South Africa?

I particularly want to refer to the venomous attacks made on my colleague, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. These were totally unjustified attacks in the light of what he said in this House yesterday. I want to point out to hon. members why those attacks are unfounded. The hon. member quite correctly pointed out to the hon. the Minister, and other hon. members on that side of the House, that if we do not take cognizance of the effect that what we are doing internally will have on our external relationships, we could well stand accused by other nations of also practising double-talk. I want to give a classic example of acts perpetrated by that side of the House without due consideration of the effects on South Africa of the reaction of our neighbours to the north of us or our friends overseas. I want to use the one example of the Advocate-General Bill, which is totally misunderstood by a number of people in South Africa and by many people outside South Africa. It is only understood by a very small number within the party on that side of the House. I should like to say that the goodwill which is painstakingly generated, at a cost of millions of rands, by the hon. the Minister’s department overseas, can be undone in one day, because the one thing which has created a good image for South Africa overseas has been the fact that South Africa still had a free Press, a fact which the hon. the Minister’s department has used very successfully. He has at least been able to tell those who criticized us overseas that we still have a free Press in South Africa. The very next thing they see, however, is the introduction of a Bill such as the Advocate-General Bill, tabled in this House and vociferously supported by hon. members on that side of the House. What clause 4(3) of that Bill stipulates, however, is that the Press can now be gagged.

You are talking nonsense.

We are not going to re-debate that whole Bill, but I want to point out to the hon. member for Von Brandis that that is the sort of action which will lead to accusations that there is double-talk in South Africa as well as in other places.

That is what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti was warning the House about yesterday. He was warning the House that we should not undertake action which would be interpreted as double-talk, something of which we accuse other people. I think the hon. member for Amanzimtoti may well have the opportunity to speak again in this debate, and if he does I am sure he will explain to hon. members opposite that their attack on him was totally unfounded. I agree fully with the hon. member that in many instances that side of the House, and the Government in particular, lays itself open to accusations of double-talk because of the lack of forethought which goes into many of the actions it perpetrates. They must wear the cap if it fits. We in these benches shall always defend South Africa without qualification, but we cannot support or defend foolish action by people on that side of the House.

In the short time still available to me I should like to return to the problem raised by many other hon. members before me, the question of South Africa in a neutral position. The debate at the moment is apparently about whether South Africa should or should not adopt a neutral stance vis-à-vis the West. I believe that South Africa has already been driven into a neutral position. I do not believe that we actually, at this stage, have a choice in deciding whether we want to adopt a neutral position or not I think recent history, that the past three years, for example, has indicated very clearly that South Africa has been effectively isolated by many nations, including our great trading nations in the West our partners, from the utilization of the normal means available for diplomatic activity. I believe that this new dynamic in international politics, covert activity and political elasticity, has in fact successfully isolated South Africa from the normal international interaction which any pro-Western nation can expect. By virtue of this type of strategy which has been employed against us, South Africa is already, and has been for the last two years, in a position of neutrality. I do not believe that there can be any debate about whether we should or should not go into a position of neutrality because I believe we have already reached that point. I say that because the international forums of debate have been closed to us. Our right to participate in those forums has not been championed or defended by our so-called Western allies. The news media which are normally available to other diplomatic missions internationally, the mass media, have not been available to us either, as one would normally expect from a member of an alliance or a Western pact. Therefore if we look through all the evidence of the past two years, evidence of our international interaction, it should become very clear to every South African that we have already been put into a position of neutrality. Since we have been put into that position, the question is what initiatives we have and what diplomatic course our country should steer? We in this party believe that we should not do anything to alienate us from the West any further. Yet we cannot help but agree with the hon. the Minister that our real future lies in relationships with our immediate neighbours in the southern part of this continent rather than in attempts to pursue further re-entry or a return to the Western fold in the traditional sense. I believe the actions of our Western trading partners, our ex-allies, have indicated very clearly that they would, in fact, prefer to see us remain in a neutral position.

I believe that the further issue raised by the hon. the Minister regarding the strategic value of the coastal route around South Africa, the Cape sea route, has also to a very large extent diminished in importance as far as our Western friends are concerned, by virtue of the technological development which has occurred in the war-front zone. I do not think it is more necessary for the West to defend the sea route round the southern tip of Africa by conventional means than it is important for them to establish bases here. I do not believe that is important. If the enemies of the West wanted to interfere with their oil supplies they would not do it at the southern tip of Africa. They would do it at the source of supply, which is the Arabian Gulf. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the hon. member for Durban North for attempting to justify, particularly in the light of the statements that the hon. the Minister made today, the remarks made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti yesterday, i.e. that in the conduct of our foreign affairs the Government has a track record of doubletalk and double standards. I would never accuse the hon. member for Durban North of having a jingo approach towards affairs in this House. That is the last thing I would ever accuse him of, but I certainly would do so in the case of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. There is no question about that. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who has appeared as the main speaker on foreign affairs for that minor party in the House, should surely realize that in the post-colonial era, when the European nations were chasing one another, for over a decade, to free Africa from the so-called colonial yoke, they could not do so and at the same time recognize the continued existence of a White nation on the African continent. With the advent of the Carter administration in the USA and its placatory attitude towards Marxist aggression in Africa, and particularly in Southern Africa, America could not recognize the continued existence of a White nation on the Southern African continent either. This attitude on the part of the USA, and the reliance of the Western and European countries on America for their defence, gave further impetus to the Western countries’ past approach of not wanting to recognize the possibility of the continued existence of a White nation in Southern Africa. This has been the basic problem that we have had to face in the conduct of our foreign policy abroad and not the acceptance of our internal policy, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti stated in his speech. I also want to tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that one gets nowhere in conducting one’s foreign policy, as was implied in the hon. member’s speech yesterday, by cringing before the political leaders of other nations.

Who said that?

The hon. member did. It was the clear implication of everything the hon. member said, i.e. that South Africa, this Minister and the rest of the Government should start cringing before the political leaders and the political opinions of other countries.

That is nonsense.

That was the clear implication of the hon. member’s words. I have his Hansard here.

Read it.

When we talk of foreign policy and the conduct of foreign policy, we can only talk from a position of strength, and that is why our defence policy is just as much a part of our foreign policy as is our foreign policy itself. We do not try to talk from a position of weakness, but from a position of strength. Throughout South Africa’s history, in conducting foreign policy over the years, we as a country have never interfered or adopted a recriminatory policy against any other country in Africa or anywhere in the Western World.

What about Angola?

This policy has been consistently followed by the Government in spite of provocation from other countries and other political leaders abroad. We as a country have always sought friendship and mutual co-operation with all nations, and as we have developed our reserves, our technological know-how and the vast mineral resources of our country, we have used them and we have traded in peace. We have openly made these national resources available to the Americas and to the rest of the Western world. We have a long record of honourable international dealings.

World organizations are weighted by the views of 48 countries of Africa, but it is often found that in terms of United States’ or other Western standards those countries could hardly be described as open democracies in that they are either subject to a dictatorship, are ruled by military junta or have a one-party State, i.e. are ruled by one party without an Opposition. We as a true democracy, however, accepting as we do the United States’ and other Western countries’ rules, have been politically ostracized, and policies devised in world forums led to our being placed under considerable pressure.

The question that we and the rest of the Western world must ask ourselves today is not how important the world is to South Africa, but rather how important South Africa is to the defence of Western democracy and how important South Africa is to the maintenance of a stable Southern African continent. To answer this question, many points can be raised, but I should only like to submit two points that I feel should be submitted.

With our vital and strategic mineral resources, apart from gold and its importance to the world monetary system, we are the major source of the world’s platinum, chrome and various other minerals. We have the world’s major deposits of asbestos, copper, manganese, vanadium and other minerals. As a producer, we are first in platinum, chrome, gold, manganese, antimony, vanadium and andalusite. We are second in the production of vermiculite, diamonds and asbestos. We are the third best producer in the world of uranium. One can go on and say that we are the fifth best producer of coal and phosphates, but the point I want to make is that, in short, we rank as one of the four leading mineral-producing nations of the world. Together with our immediate neighbours in Southern Africa, South Africa holds the key to the security of the Western World against Marxist threats.

The vulnerability of the Western world, perhaps to a lesser extent the United States, is entirely dependent on only two factors, viz. the goodwill and co-operation of South Africa and its neighbours in Southern Africa. I should like to submit to the hon. the Minister that the availability of these vast resources to the West should, as has indeed to a certain extent been announced by the hon. the Prime Minister, be a cardinal factor, as is a strong defence force, in conducting our foreign policy.

We also have a second great asset that we can offer, and that is our importance to the world in the field of basic human rights, to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has made reference, which is a far cry from the concepts, held by other overseas political leaders, of full and equal participation in government. Basic human rights in Africa, which contains 18 of the world’s 29 poorest countries, are important. As a State in Africa, we lead in the field of basic rights such as the right to be properly fed, decently clothed, adequately housed, the right to have elementary medical care, remunerative employment, better education for children, training for skilled work and equality before the law. The fact is that the world’s, particularly the Western world’s, political moralists should look at these factors. As a country or government we have never claimed to have found all the answers. Let me mention, in passing, that in the field of major development programmes within our own borders our expenditure exceeds the entire United Nations’ technical assistance budget to the whole African continent. We are still trying to assist our neighbours, and even now we are looking for ways and means to extend this type of assistance. I have, by only citing these two points in the time available to me, indicated why we in these benches want meaningful co-operation and closer relations between South African and the rest of the world. We do not want a fruitless confrontation. From the Western world we want incentives to co-operate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Von Brandis. He made a very fine speech.

It is said that a decent person cannot be bought, and that when he can be bought, he is not worth the price. Now, I should like to tell the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and those who think and speak as he does, that South Africa is not for sale. What is being done here, is being done in the interests of South Africa and its people, and not with a view to buying the goodwill of the West or of any other country. In his speech yesterday, the hon. the Minister spoke of the sombre world in which we live. It is in this darkness that the hypocritical international politics of today is being practised, because it cannot stand up to daylight. In his statement of 7 May, Mr. McHenry of the USA said, inter alia, that one of the reasons why the negotiations with regard to South Africa had failed, as he put it, was—

Surely he knows that is not true. If it is a question of fear of the Black states in Africa, one would have to look for that fear in the West. In fact, the hon. the Minister again pointed out this afternoon that a very obvious fear of Swapo and the Patriotic Front was discernible in the West. It is the West, then, that talks of a free and open election but which, for fear of Black African states, does not want to accept a free and open election. We also see this clearly in the election that was recently held in Rhodesia. The Western Five conferred together to hold a free and open election there. Now that a free and open election has in fact taken place, now that a Black government has been put in power there, the mighty USA, the leader of the Western Five, is not prepared to accept the responsibility. Now they claim it is the responsibility of Britain to decide whether or not they are going to recognize the new Government in Zimbabwe Rhodesia.

The South African Government has by its actions surely shown unambiguously that it does not begrudge any country the right to decide on its own form of Government, that it is prepared to co-operate with any country on one condition only, that there should not be any meddling in each other’s affairs.

If there is one thing which—if I may put it this way—South Africa fears, it is that communist imperialism could paralyse the Black States of Africa to such an extent that we on this continent would experience the greatest famine and massacre of all times. Such a development in Africa would have an impact on the West, in particular, which is dependent upon this continent for most of its raw materials. In recent times the USA, in particular, has come to realize that a single commodity such as fuel could mean either its survival or its downfall. If chaos were to be caused in this continent, America would certainly be one of the first countries to suffer as a result. It is the viewpoint of South Africa that we not only wish to co-operate with the countries of Africa, but that we indeed must co-operate with the countries of Southern Africa, since we are dependent on each other; since the fuel crisis, in particular, makes it all the more essential that we should co-operate with one another.

However, it is also necessary that in these times we should not be hypocritical with regard to this co-operation, but that we should co-operate openly so that the people of Africa may know that they receive not only friendship, but also food, from South Africa, as opposed to the armaments they receive from the communist countries and that it is food on which their future will have to be built, and not the weaponry they obtain from the other countries. I think the conduct of leaders of African States at the UN and on other platforms, in particular, sometimes create the impression among their own people that there is only hatred between us and them. I believe, however, that the survival of our entire continent depends upon whether we acknowledge our mutual interdependence.

I should like to make special reference to two of our friends who have left us in recent weeks. I refer to Dr. Dawie De Villiers and the hon. member for Rustenburg. These are two people with whom we have long shared the restful atmosphere of the House. Time and again in the debate on this Vote, they made outstanding contributions about our relations with the outside world. The hon. member for Rustenburg made another excellent speech yesterday, but I wonder whether he realizes that when he leaves this country and this restful atmosphere at the end of this month, he will be on his own, as our other representatives abroad are on their own in the struggle.

Ever since Gen. Smuts said that the powers mustered against South Africa were overwhelming, those onslaughts have never abated in intensity. Time and again they have increased in intensity and otherwise. We still remember the days when we stood in jubilant crowds at the airport to welcome a Minister of Foreign Affairs such as Mr. Eric Louw on his return from the UN. We recall the thrill of welcoming back Dr. Verwoerd and that same Minister of Foreign Affairs in South Africa after they had attended a Commonwealth conference.

I think we have become accustomed to the onslaughts against South Africa. We no longer have that feeling towards the individual who has to carry on the struggle abroad on his own. We can no longer imagine how a person such as Mr. Eksteen must feel when he, representing a member country as he does, has to walk out of the council chamber amid the jeering of the other members while Sam Nujoma can remain present. If there is one man in this House who can visualize what the atmosphere and the feeling must be like there, it is the hon. the Minister who himself had to experience a similar humiliation. I do not think there is one of us who realizes what sometimes has to be endured in Bonn, Paris, and London.

I therefore wish to make an appeal to everyone here, particularly to the hon. members of the Opposition, and particularly to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member actually requested yesterday that hon. members of the House should be permitted to go abroad to state South Africa’s case there. We know how our means of communication have improved. We know how a discussion that takes place in the office of a Minister today, will be known in America tomorrow if somebody merely wished to pick up the telephone. We can state the case for South Africa just as effectively from this House as we could do it abroad, but we can also wreck it as effectively from this House as we could abroad. Listening to some of the speeches made here, I feel intensely sorry for the people who have to represent us abroad. We who pose here as patriots, we who are all in the boat together, are making the ship sink because we think we are far removed from the outside world. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is striking how little the voice of the hon. member for Losberg differs from that of his brother, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training. I suppose it must run in the family!

†I want to refer briefly to statements made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs last year, statements which I think were, in many ways, prophetic. He said last year, in this debate, that by this time next year, that is now, we would still be conducting the same kind of debate with the West, that there would be a deteriorating situation, that there would be constitutional uncertainty, that the constitutional uncertainty would get out of hand in South West Africa and that the Government was likely to lose credibility, not only amongst Whites but also amongst Coloureds and Blacks. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that his words last year were truly prophetic and that that would indeed have been the case had we not taken the further constitutional steps which he also, at the end of his speech last year, thought it might be necessary for us to take in conjunction with the peoples of South West Africa.

In spite of the intervention of the Western powers in October last year the Government, I believe to its credit, went ahead and assisted the people of South West Africa in electing a National Assembly. I think that was a brave step, and I am certain it was the correct step to have taken. I also believe that those elections in South West Africa, just as those which were recently held in Rhodesia, were free and fair elections. Only a biased person would not agree with me. It is a fact, however, that there is to a large extent a loss of credibility in South West Africa, amongst the people of the territory, and a lack of confidence which still persists, more particularly amongst the White people. There is a strong feeling—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will be aware of it—among many responsible people in South West Africa that there is the danger of South Africa abandoning South West Africa. I am therefore very pleased to have heard the hon. the Minister say categorically today that there is no possibility of that happening. Surely it must be obvious to the hon. the Minister that the negotiations with the Western powers have got us absolutely nowhere and that we cannot reach a fair agreement with the United Nations. The Waldheim report deviations, for example, and the double-dealing by the friend of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, are surely evidence enough of the fact that we can get neither fair play nor justice from negotiating further with the Western powers or from the United Nations.

I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Minister today to recognize this as a fact. The original agreement made with the Western powers has been so distorted that it cannot be said to have any chance of being successfully implemented. The Western powers are not even prepared to stand by the terms of their own agreement in support of South Africa in the United Nations. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will realize that there are a number of people who feel very strongly that we can no longer believe, irrespective of what they might have believed at the time of the making of that agreement with the Western powers, that it is in any way in the interests of South Africa or South West Africa to have a United Nations task force brought to Southern Africa. I personally never liked the proposal. In the light of what has happened in the past year, the deviations from the agreement and the double-dealing, South Africa is no longer, in my opinion, bound by the terms of the agreement that it made with the Western powers. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that I hope that it will not be long before he too will realize that it is not in our interests, under any circumstances, to allow United Nations troops to come to South West Africa. There have been quoted in this debate words recently spoken by the Ambassador for Israel. He said—

I would say that the presence of United Nations forces in South West Africa, which would only be a prelude to those forces also being used in Rhodesia, is a guarantee for disaster in South West Africa and, indeed, in Southern Africa. I hope the hon. the Minister will be realistic and that it will not be long before he sees the utter hopelessness of continuing to negotiate with the five Western powers, who are dominated by America.

The hon. the Minister himself gave us a picture in the House last year of the many, many instances of America’s hostility towards us. I see no signs of that hostility towards us having abated since the debate last year. The picture has not changed. The Youngs, McHenrys and people of that kind are inveterate enemies of the people, and particularly the White people, of Southern Africa. I think, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will be wise to give careful consideration to going ahead with the wishes of the people of South West Africa, just as the Rhodesian people have gone ahead with their own elections and are now, as individuals, seeking recognition from other individual countries. I believe it is far better for the hon. the Minister to decide now that negotiations with the West and, through them, with the United Nations are not in our interests, and that instead we should assist the peoples of South West Africa to self-government and that we should on their behalf negotiate with individual powers, just as the people of Zimbabwe Rhodesia are trying to do at the moment.

The picture has changed in the last year. There is a Conservative Government in Great Britain, which I think is a hopeful sign; there is a new Government in Canada, which has not yet shown its hand; and there are definitely problems in America for the Carter regime. I think it would be better for us to negotiate with individual powers, by which means we may be able to get a more friendly reception, than to continue to negotiate with a block of powers, the five Western powers, dominated entirely by America.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. I wonder whether he would be good enough to tell the House why, in the light of what has happened in the United Nations recently where we have been denied the right to put our case, an utterly unfair decision, and where we cannot possibly get fair treatment as has been proved time and time again, we remain a member of that organization. What sense is there in that? There are many people who ask this sort of question. I should like the hon. the Minister to give, perhaps, consideration to a reply indicating the advantages to South Africa in our continuing to remain a member of a body which does nothing but denigrate us and which creates, I am afraid, a very, very bad psychological effect here in the Republic.

In the light of what the hon. the Minister said to the House today, he can only be said to have gone out of his way—and, obviously, he is acting on behalf of the Government—to try to obtain agreement over South West Africa. He has referred to the years of negotiation with the West. He has referred to the agreement of April last year. He has referred—and I was surprised to hear him admit this—to the very, very painful provisions in that agreement with the Western powers, which involved, as he said, the use of United Nations troops and civilians in South West Africa and the reduction of our forces to the miserable number of 1 500. He referred to the promises, for example, of independence by the end of last year. He said he accepted every single country on Dr. Waldheim’s list of countries which would make up the Untag force. He said he even went so far as to allow Gen. Malan to accept the implementation of the military side of the plan of Gen. Philippe. We have had experience of Ahtisaari and we have had experience of the double-dealings of the front-line presidents. He said himself, in exasperation, that he spoke to the Ministers in Washington, telling them that South Africa had been cheated. Why then do we delay? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown can always be depended upon to deliver a provocative speech on foreign affairs, and he has raised several issues of some importance which, no doubt, the hon. the Minister will turn his attention to. The question of South Africa’s continued membership of the United Nations is, in fact, a matter which causes concern to the general public. All of us are, on occasion, asked to explain why it is that we continue to be a member of that organization despite its attitude towards us. I happen to believe that our membership does have a certain value, but no doubt the hon. the Minister will presently be able to explain this more fully.

The hon. member for Simonstown also referred, in his speech, to the Western countries who are dominated, as he put it, by the United States of America. I wish to speak briefly on relations between the United States and South Africa, because the fact is that there has unquestionably been a cooling off in relations between our two countries. I think it is worthwhile to look at some of the more important reasons for that cooling off in relations. And I am not here referring to things like the spy-plane incident. I am referring to fundamental factors.

I think the first reason for the cooling off in relations between South Africa and the United States has been the policy of the Carter Administration itself. American Presidents, from Kennedy through to Ford, have fundamentally adopted the same approach to South Africa. It has been described as the “communications approach”. While deploring race relations policies and practices in South Africa, the Americans nevertheless believed that there was a certain advantage in close relations with South Africa, whether these took the form of commerce or trade or whether they were cultural, diplomatic or whatever the case may be. The fact is, however, that with the advent of the Carter Administration there has been a change in this respect. The communications approach in policy has been questioned and the United States policy towards this country has become stridently critical, coercive and to a certain extent prescriptive. It is natural, in a situation like this, that at the official level South Africa would respond and, in the course of time, inevitably respond negatively. That is one reason for the cooling off in relations between South Africa and the United States.

In the second place there is no question that in official circles, and more generally, there is a lack of confidence in the role of the United States, as the leading country in the Western world, in the global conflict between let us call them the Western democracies on the one hand and the countries in the Soviet orbit on the other hand. There are several events which I believe point to this and which, I believe, have had a marked impact in South Africa. I think that most notably the precipitous decision in December 1975 of the US congress to cut off aid, covert or overt, to the South African forces in Angola had a profound effect on South African attitudes. The American attitude on Taiwan, the vacillation of the Americans in the Horn of Africa and the attitude of the US in Iran have also, shown a lack of determination to confront the Soviet Union, and consequently in South Africa there has been a fall-off in confidence in the role of the United States, particularly in a situation where the Soviet Union is vigorously pressing its objectives.

There is also a third reason, and this relates to the policies of the United States toward the international problems of this region. Here I refer to South West Africa and to Zimbabwe Rhodesia. The hon. the Minister, in his intervention earlier this afternoon, spelt out in detail the ambiguous role of the United States and its vacillation in regard to the South West African issue. Zimbabwe Rhodesia, however, also very clearly illustrates this. The official attitude of the United States towards the internal settlement, its attitude towards the April elections in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, its attitude now towards the veto which has been built in for the White minority in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, the fact that it seems to be quibbling about those powers, those protective provisions, those guarantees to the White community, have had a profound effect on White South African perceptions of the role of the United States. There is just no question that there is a fundamental conflict of perceptions between the USA and South Africa in interpreting the Southern African situation. To the American Government the issues of Southern Africa are primarily foreign relations issues. Those matters, which are primary issues to us, which in fact affect our security and survival in the long-term, are secondary issues as far as the USA is concerned. One way of putting it is to say that because South Africa gets in the way of the USA’s relations with Nigeria, the USA must adopt a tough line in relation to South Africa. The fact is that as Rhodesia has become internationalized, as also South West Africa has become internationalized, South Africa realizes that whereas up to now it has co-operated with the Western countries and with the USA, has tried to find solutions on Western terms, the USA is not to be implicitly trusted because our interests are not the same. There is, in fact, not the convergence of interest which is necessary if we are to have unity of purpose in our response to the problems of these two regions.

The fourth reason for the cooling off in relations between the USA and South Africa seems to me to be due to the fact that there is a much greater sense of self-assurance in South Africa itself in the conduct of our foreign policy and in our approach to the world. There are several reasons for this. In the first place we have suddenly begun to realize the importance of our country as a source of minerals. In the second place we have come to appreciate our strategic military capacity which seems to have grown considerably over the last 18 months or so. Thirdly there is a much greater appreciation of the possibilities of regionalism, the possibilities which there are for the promotion of inter-State relations within the Southern African region. Fourthly, there is the confidence that we can find answers to our problems, measured not by what a Lord Carrington expects of South Africa, not by what Ambassador Andrew Young asks of South Africa, but by answers which meet the very real needs and aspirations of all of South Africa’s peoples. As a matter of fact, this self-assurance has also been reflected in the speeches of most Opposition members in the course of this debate, particularly in the speech of the hon. member for Constantia, who spoke about South Africa coming in out of the cold, and in the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. What one wishes to stress, however, is the fact that this cooling off applies at the official level only, that South Africa is not turning its back on Western countries, in fact that it cannot afford to turn its back on Western countries. What needs to be stressed here is the fact that we do have many friends in the USA and in many other Western countries. One thinks, for example, of the businessmen in the USA who face tremendous pressures to disinvest in this country but who are, in fact, maintaining their interests here. In the second place we are conscious that we need their capital and their help in the development of this country and in the creation of jobs for our growing population, which is probably one of the biggest problems which this country faces. In the third place, although it is correct that we are of Africa and that our destiny lies in Africa, the fact is that there is only one worthwhile political tradition to follow and that is the Western political tradition, with its Judaic-Christian values of justice, order under the law, freedom and values, like that which have been evolved as a part of that tradition. This Western tradition is the only worthwhile tradition, and it is only by creating a South Africa on these concepts and there values that we shall, in the course of time, come to play our full role in the international community.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made a well-considered speech with regard to a matter about which he is clearly well-informed. He must excuse me, however, if I do not take his argument further.

South Africa today finds itself to an increasing extent in a world which is being confronted with dwindling mineral sources and fast-growing populations that are demanding their place in the sun and can no longer be satisfied with purely political ambitions. South Africa therefore finds itself in a world in which strategic resources have acquired a new standing. For many countries, the availability or otherwise of mineral resources have become a determining factor in the safeguarding of their ideals on the national and international levels. South Africa has an important role to fulfil, seen against the background of growing concern in the world about the supply of resources and energy.

It is estimated today that trade in mineral resources and energy is the most important sector of trade between the developing and industrialized countries. The role which mineral-producing countries are going to play in the provision of important resources to industrialized countries, is in fact ushering in a new era in history in which resources diplomacy will be of the utmost importance for creating mutual understandings and cooperation in the world.

The procurement and supply of resources is destined to become a factor of decisive significance in international relations. That is why nations are today thinking more about the procurement of strategic resources, because in this atomic age, their arms factories and their industries cannot do without them. One need only look at the consequences of the revolution in Iran to realize what a major influence a single mineral such as oil can have on the world economy.

South Africa has been regarded as a mineral treasure chest for many years, mainly because of its gold and diamonds. In the past few decades, however, South Africa has discovered a large variety of other mineral riches. Therefore it is being acknowledged to an increasing extent by leading personalities throughout the world that South Africa is of key importance to the West. Apart from the USA and Russia, South Africa has the richest mineral deposits in the world. South Africa possesses more than 50% of the total world reserves of six of the economically important minerals.

If one also takes into account that South Africa is at present producing minerals to the value of R780 000 million per annum, one can gather from this how dependent the West has become on South Africa in this field; that the West has become nearly as dependent on these strategic resources as on oil. Europe already depends on imports for 70% of its needs in respect of mineral resources. The USA depends on imports for more than 50% of its needs in respect of 20 mineral resources. It is only really the Soviet Union which can compete with South Africa in respect of the production of strategic resources, such as chromium, platinum and vanadium, while South Africa is able to produce much more for world use.

It is alleged that for that reason South Africa is in fact the main target of Russian imperialism in Africa. Because the West is so dependent on South Africa’s resources and because most of the rest of Africa’s resources are in the hands of countries hostile to the West, all Russia really has to do is conquer South Africa to enable it to deprive the West of these resources. Accordingly it is alleged that today’s conflicts are really about the control of strategic resources. Whoever controls the strategic resources of the world, can determine the balance of power in the world. If, therefore, Russia could obtain control of South Africa’s strategic resources, it would control the production of more than 80% of the world’s reserves. That would place the West in a virtually untenable situation. Russia does not need South Africa’s large strategic resources, but the West does. Therefore it is a natural aim of Soviet imperialism to deprive the West of South Africa’s resources, because by so doing it can disrupt the Western economy and can establish a stronger bargaining position for itself with regard to the West.

The oil crisis of 1973 indicated for the first time how vulnerable the West is in its fight for survival with regard to its mineral resources. The problems the world is experiencing with oil at present only serve as further confirmation of this.

It is against this background that more and more experts are coming to the conclusion that the West is indeed no longer master of its own economic stability. It therefore remains an indisputable fact that the most important strategic resources the West needs today, can be provided by South Africa.

It is a fact that it is being said more and more that in the world and in international politics today, self-interest is the highest norm in the determining of foreign policies. If that is true, one may ask: Is South Africa exploiting to the full the important role it plays in the supply of strategic resources? If self-interest is the highest norm in international politics, is South Africa deriving the maximum economic benefit from the strategic resources we are blessed with?

Over the years South Africa has had strong economic and cultural ties with the West, partly as a result of its socio-political history. South Africa has always shown its good faith and reliability as a supplier of strategic resources to the West. In this process, South Africa has had an important strategic and stabilizing influence on the supply and the prices of these resources, to the great benefit of the Western economy. Nevertheless South Africa today finds itself in the position of being the object of unceasing political and financial pressure from the West. There is little appreciation on the part of Western Governments for the role South Africa plays as the supplier of strategic resources.

Therefore I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister delivered a timely and significant message when he said recently that South Africa’s commitment to the West should not be taken for granted. If it is true that we are not committed to the West as a matter of course, the question is whether South Africa should not forge ties with countries of the Third World to a greater extent Should there not be more flexibility in our foreign policies so that South Africa, too, may be assessed at her true value and not merely taken for granted by the West?

Against this background it is therefore quite obvious what an important role strategic resources could play as an instrument in South Africa’s foreign policy and in its present economic and political battle with the international community. Therefore, we believe that in framing our foreign policy, under the leadership of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this powerful influence may also be used in this field as a lever whereby to develop it to the benefit of South Africa’s future.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the hon. member for Geduld raised the question of our resources and our trade with the West, because it is actually in that context that I should also like to speak. What concerns me is the view that some people seem to hold, i.e. that merely by saying that they should like to have greater bonds with the countries of the Third World, perhaps greater commercial ties with them, that automatically becomes possible. It is not possible, however. That is the problems. It is the same argument the previous Minister of Information advanced in wanting to trade with China. One cannot choose a trading relationship unless both parties agree to it. Whether we like it or not—and it does not matter how much we say that we are of Africa, and we really are, that we are Africans and that our destiny is in Africa—the truth is that our relationship with the West is what is vital to us at the present moment. It is vital to us because we are firstly judged by Western standards. South Africa’s Government is not judged by the standards of the rest of Africa. It is judged on civil liberties, on the basic concept of democracy, on the freedom of the Press, in fact by Western standards and not by African standards.

Secondly—and I tried to say this earlier— the greatest priority at the present moment, in regard to our foreign policy, is South West Africa. The reason why that is a priority is that it is in that sphere that the threat of sanctions hangs over South Africa. The hon. member for Simonstown has said that we must forget about the Five and just talk to Canada and the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom cannot at present, decide entirely on its own what its attitude is going to be at the United Nations. It has major responsibilities towards the European Economic Community. It also has a close link with the United States. So we must not live in the dream that the United Kingdom is going to act quite independently of the European Economic Community or the United States. We have to face the reality. In regard to South West Africa, we have to deal with the Five. What disturbs me is the philosophy which is increasingly being propagated in this House, i.e. that we should move into a state of isolation, depending either solely on ourselves or on Southern Africa as a whole. That ignores the fact that South Africa depends for more than 50% of its gross national product on trade, on imports and exports. If we do not have that trade we cannot have the wealth we need to solve our internal problems, and there is no question about it that South Africa needs a high degree of growth and prosperity in order to solve its internal problems. Therefore, I am gravely concerned at the increasing talk of isolation. The argument of the hon. the Minister almost convinced me—perhaps wrongly—that his view was that in South West we are in a no-win situation. I understand the problems and am fully conscious of them. However, is it in fact appropriate for us to accept that there is a no-win situation? I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that I believe that the solution is still to talk to the Five Western Powers. I think the solution still is to incline towards some kind of understanding with at least the Five Western Powers because I believe there is a possibility of doing so.

If I may I here want to draw a very sharp distinction between the approach that was adopted in a statement by Ambassador McHenry to the International Relations Committee of the House of Representatives, in a paper delivered on 7 May, and the statement by Ambassador Young whom one cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, regard as the greatest friend South Africa has ever had. There is a marked difference between those two statements. To my mind, the reason for this lies in the fact that Ambassador Young, when he spoke to the United Nations on 30 May, said specifically that he was talking for the Five. He said it in so many words. There are two very significant passages in this statement. The first states—

Therefore, they are not banging the door on us. On the contrary, they are keeping it open. Therefore we should keep the door open as well. The second point, which is perhaps equally important, is that on the crucial issue, on which there is no difference between the Government and ourselves, namely on the issue of bases in South West Africa, speaking for the five Western powers the ambassador made the following statement—

In other words, the presence of bases, in the minds of the Western five, is not an absolutely essential ingredient. The problem is how to deal with the forces inside. There, interestingly enough, Mr. McHenry gave the game away as it were, because there he said, in dealing with this very issue—

He goes on to say—

I shall come back to that in a moment. What I am saying, however, is that there is an alternative. There is a possibility of a solution which is acceptable to us. I believe that if we are going to avoid sanctions we will have to follow this course. We will have to try to continue to talk in order to make it quite clear that we in South Africa are the ones who are for peace, and that it is in fact Swapo and those who support them, who are for war, for conflict and for terrorism.

I want to come back to the issue raised by Ambassador McHenry.

Do you support the presence of UN troops in South West Africa?

I am going to deal with that right now. I want o deal first with the question of the elimination of Swapo’s armed presence in the territory, the question of which it is alleged that South Africa is seeking to gain in peace which it cannot gain in conflict. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that one cannot have a purely diplomatic solution here, because the matter is essentially related to a military solution. Swapo is only interested in a military solution. The point which I want to put to the hon. the Minister—a point which has specific reference to the fact that it is alleged that we are seeking to gain in peace what we cannot gain in war—is that I believe we have to gain it in war in order to demonstrate that there is no room whatsoever for Swapo’s armed presence in the territory. Swapo has to be eliminated. There is no question about it. I believe that the answer to this allegation is that we should demonstrate in no uncertain fashion that we are able to eliminate Swapo from South West Africa in war; that we do not seek to obtain anything in peace which we cannot obtain by means of our own resources.

That is where the ball game changes. The ball game has in fact changed. Then the whole situation is different. I believe that we have an obligation to see to it that Swapo’s terrorism is eliminated from South West Africa. We have an obligation to see to it that peace is maintained there. I believe we have the resources with which to accomplish it. Therefore we should do it. I must say with great respect to some of those … Perhaps the words “great respect” is wrong, because I have no respect at all. However, I want to put it to those who seek to equate the peacekeeping activities of the South African Army with what is being done by Swapo, that they are entirely mistaken. That is something, I believe, we have to have removed entirely from the scene. Our job is to keep the peace and to eliminate terrorism in that territory. As far as they are concerned, they are the terrorists who seek to achieve by violence what they can never hope to achieve through the ballot-box.

That is why I put it to the hon. the Minister that, in the first instance, he must keep on talking. In the second instance, one talks from strength and one does not allow oneself to get into a situation in which one can be accused of trying to achieve in peace what one cannot achieve in war, namely the elimination of Swapo from South West Africa. If we do that, I believe, we will demonstrate to the world not only that we are strong and able to defend ourselves and that we do not speak from weakness, but also that, in our strength, we are the ones who believe in peace, who believe in the Western democratic principles that should be applied in South West Africa. I submit, with great respect, that the combination of strength and of the willingness to talk is what will really provide the solution to this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member for Yeoville is now advocating a declaration of war. It is not at all clear to me.

I will eliminate them.

The hon. member for Yeoville makes a mistake if he thinks the Government did not act with great responsibility with regard to the problems in South West Africa. In the second place I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville again to stop insinuating that there are people in this House who say that we should move towards isolation. I think the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. the Prime Minister and other political leaders are hard at work every day talking—and this is going to be the main theme of my speech—to the leaders of interested countries throughout the world in order to state South Africa’s case. I think we should move away from the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville that we are heading for isolation. He also said that we should keep our doors open, but surely the hon. the Minister did say that the doors of South Africa remain open. What he did say after the last round, was that South Africans no longer interested in taking the initiative in reopening the discussions. However, our doors are open. We were not at fault. We stand by our word. It is they who suddenly adopted other standpoints. It is they who came back to us and said we should have further discussions. Our doors are open for discussions day and night.

I should just like to express a brief word of praise for the hon. the Minister’s unremitting hard work. He told me recently that he did not even get a chance to put on his night clothes since he does not sleep any more. He and his staff are working day and night in pursuit of what we want, i.e. peace in Southern Africa. I think this House should propose a motion of thanks and praise for the work he and his staff are doing in our country and elsewhere, for their unceasing hard work for the sake of peace in Southern Africa.

Our Republic is 18 years old. I think hon. members will agree with me when I say that in these 18 years our Republic has grown economically and in all other fields. What is also important to me is that in these 18 years our political thinking has developed immensely and has become mature. In these 18 years, persons and bodies have fought hard in international forums for recognition of the concept and principle of the self-determination of peoples. During these 18 years, responsible persons and bodies have tried everything to warn the West and African countries and to point out the dangers of Russian imperialism that is being supported by Russian satellite countries or States such as Cuba and, these days, particularly East Germany as well. In these 18 years, South Africa has become an important leading country. It is a fact that South Africa has become the heart and the hope of Southern Africa’s dream of development and stability. On the part of our neighbouring States there is a growing realization that they and we need one another, a realization that the welfare and progress of Southern Africa can only be ensured by the recognition of the interdependence between these States and us, and of our mutual co-operation. We have not only become a leading country, however. South Africa is already a source of power in Southern Africa, and she wishes to become this to an even greater extent in the field of peaceful development. I have an article here that refers to a survey in the Washington Post in January 1969, and the Washington Post is not exactly one of our friends. In the article it is stated that—

Then the Washington Post uses these significant words—

This is excellent testimony to the effect that our country could be a source of power to countries around our borders, that she already is, and could become even stronger in this regard. I also have a brief report here from The Argus of 1 March 1979. In that, they refer to a confidential report the EEC countries published and in which they stated inter alia—

Further on, we find these words—

I suppose by this they mean the Black States—

South Africa has never tried for its own egoistic reasons to play off one Black State against another, thus making things difficult for one another.

Our fatherland would like to be a creative source, a source of power and a leading country, not merely for the sake of being a front runner but in order to co-operate with our neighbouring States in the interests of peaceful, orderly development in Southern Africa to help develop the standard of living, since—and I am not saying this facetiously— Africa has a need for a rising standard of living. Southern Africa has a need for greater security, for food, and for better health conditions, and we are in a position to assist and we should like to assist, because we love Southern Africa as we do South Africa, because this is our homeland, our fatherland.

Finally, it remains a tragedy to me that certain member countries of the UN do not have the ability to regard the needs of Africa and particularly the sincerity of our country and our Government in our intentions with the States of Southern Africa with realism. It is a fact that the UN believes that South Africa is out to destroy, that South Africa is out to become a new colonial power, and that South Africa practises slavery. The hon. members for Yeoville and for Schweizer-Reneke and I sat in the Chambers of the UN in New York and listened to those people telling blatant lies about what we in this country were doing to our Black and Brown people. It was stated there that we treated them like slaves and even murdered them. These were scandalous lies, so much so that we felt constrained to walk out; we simply could not bear to listen. It is tragic that those countries are constantly engaged in vilifying our country’s intentions with development in Southern Africa and South Africa. It remains a tragedy to me that the States of Southern Africa remain the step-children of the UN. If Transkei, Bophuthatswana and other Black States that are in any way favourably disposed towards us or that have moderate leaders, talk to us, they, too, are expelled and the fires of hell are heaped upon them. It is time that responsible persons and bodies, whether in individual countries or at the UN or in the five Western countries, became as concerned as we are about what the fate of South Africa and Southern Africa would be when the Russian bear straddles Southern Africa and gains control over many of the things hon. members referred to today and yesterday, for example the mineral wealth and other possessions, in order to suck the life-blood of the West and of what is dear to us.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate the matter any further with the hon. member for Yoville; I think the hon. member for Worcester has dealt effectively with the arguments he raised. I believe hon. members on this side of the House have dealt effectively with the themes and arguments raised by hon. members on that side of the House.

Inter-state relations may be expressed in various ways. They may be gauged on the basis of diplomatic relations and economic ties between States. They may also be gauged by the number of treaties States conclude with one another, and also from the nature and content of these treaties. In the Southern African context, I think there are two aspects in particular that make the law relating to treaties of great importance and particularly interesting: In the first place, the treaty as a legal manifestation, and in the second place, the treaty as a political instrument. Considering the treaty as a legal manifestation, it strikes one that learned writers such as McNair, and also the Vienna Convention of 1969, require certain conditions for it. Such a treaty has to be in writing; it has to be entered into between entities with an international personality; it has to be regulated by international law; and a legal obligation must arise from it.

It is important to note in particular that it has to be entities with international personality that enter into a treaty. The reason for this is that colonial States, protectorates and non-selfgoverning territories are subject to certain restrictions and are not always qualified to conclude treaties of their own accord. A further aspect to note is the fact that in terms of international customary law, a treaty is in force and fully effective if it has been concluded in a valid way. In terms of Article 102 of the UN Charter, it is qualified even further. It is not its validity as such that is qualified, but it is required that all treaties entered into by a member country should be registered with the secretariat of the UN so as to enable the secretariat to publish such treaties. Non-registration does not entail invalidity; it merely means that the country concerned cannot avail itself of the provisions of the treaty if it were to be placed in issue.

Unobtrusively, I think, a drastic and dramatic development has taken place here that is characteristic of our deteriorating relations with the UN. During the past few years we have concluded approximately 120 treaties with Bophuthatswana and the Republic of Transkei. In terms of the requirements I have referred to here, not a single one of these treaties is recognized as valid by the international world, since the States with which these treaties have been concluded, do not enjoy de jure recognition of the international community, a recognition that would have placed them in a position to conclude treaties with us independently. This is but another manifestation of the erosion and withering of our relations with the UN. What is important is the fact that no South African treaty is ever submitted to the UN for the purposes of registration and publication any more. In this respect, the UN and certain of its organs have become irrelevant to South Africa. In my view, that does not in any way mean the end of treaty agreements. It merely ushers in a new era of treaty patterns that may be utilized as an important instrument in the quest for our own UN in this southernland, namely peace, prosperity and development. Everything indicates that the debate on the merits and potential of co-operation in Southern Africa has already been positively disposed of. The question of how this cooperation should take shape, is the point on the agenda now before us. I remain convinced that treaty patterns in the Southern African context will increase in importance and that in the short term at least, this is the only way in which States in Southern Africa, unfettered by political prejudices or military priorities and prejudices, can, in specific fields, combine their mutual interests on an ad hoc basis. I am of the opinion that many presidents could be quoted in support of this argument, over and above the 120 treaties I have already mentioned. Here I am thinking specifically of labour relations between South Africa and the BSL countries, certain other fields, technical in nature, and also health aspects.

When I say this, I am convinced of two things: In the first place, the recipe for the present does not lie in fixed, structured political bodies, but rather in the humble field of the rendering of services and co-operation as laid down in the treaties; and in the second place, treaty patterns independent of the UN and its prescripts, need not function in a disorderly way and in a legal vacuum, because they could be upheld in an orderly way by common interests in Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to react to what the last few speakers have said. I am very glad that the hon. member for Worcester said that our doors are still open to overseas countries. We in the NRP agree with him. We are also concerned, as the hon. member for Hillbrow said a while ago, that people are talking about slamming doors and saying that we must isolate ourselves. If we were to listen to the hon. member for Simonstown and follow his advice, we should be on the point of isolation.

I was referring to Government bodies.

I agree with the hon. member for Worcester, but on the other hand the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens attacked the USA. I think he may be right when he speaks about people such as Andrew Young, Carter and Don McHenry. We recognize that these people are not pro-South African. These people can by no means be regarded as friends of South Africa, but they are not the whole USA. They are not the people who are going to stay in power. The fact that there are millions of good Americans who are sympathetically inclined towards South Africa must be taken into account. I think the hon. the Minister is very well aware that there are millions of people in the USA who are very well-disposed towards our country and we should never insult their country because of a few people, because these things change, as we have seen in the case of Mrs. Thatcher in Britain. We may all of a sudden have a Mr. Reagan or a Mr. Connally as president of the USA tomorrow or the day after, and then it is a different matter altogether. I therefore do not think that we must consider slamming doors in the face of our Western friends.

†I want to make a very strange request here this afternoon and I intend to stay away from the South West African issue which has dominated this debate up to now. I want to put forward a request which may save our international image—the little that is left of it—and I specifically want to prevent a stick being raised against our country. A campaign which is being waged overseas at the present time and is gaining tremendous momentum, is the “Save the Whale Campaign”. This “Save the Whale Campaign” is a campaign which can take on astronomical proportions as did the “Ban the Bomb Campaign”. There are millions of rands involved in this campaign. Ambassador Dawie de Villiers has already been notified of this campaign and he knows all about it. I want to bring it specifically to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs because this campaign is not waged by long-haired hippies overseas as the “Ban the Bomb Campaign” was waged some years ago. It is spearheaded by true conservationists and it is certainly not a trivial matter. It has serious consequences for our country. As hon. members know, our track record in respect of conservation on land is such that we can hold our heads very high. Our conservation record in South Africa is extremely good. We are known in the world as one of the top conservationists as far as conservation on land is concerned, but when it comes to conservation in the sea our conservation record stinks to high heaven. What I want to impress upon the hon. the Minister is that this has become an urgent matter, the reason being that next month the International Whaling Commission will be sitting, and on that commission we can correct our image. I think that our image should be seriously discussed with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs before this commission sits, because when it sits we are going to have to reply to a number of questions which have been put to us. This matter is therefore very important at this stage. I think the hon. the Minister must, on behalf of S.A. inform our commissioner of international repercussions and of how we have voted in the past. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows what our voting record was in the International Whaling Commission. I believe that as conservationists we can be ashamed of our voting record in that commission. We have consistently voted with Russia and Japan against moves proposed by the Western world for the survival of the whale. I think however that at this late stage we can still clean our slate. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to take a look at the documents I shall send to him directly after I have completed my speech. He can take a look at the Seychelles’ proposals which will also be put to this commission, and we must remember that Seychelles is a member country of the OAU. The way to build bridges to Africa is to get together with these people. I suggest, in fact, that we go along with the initiative which has been taken by the Seychelles. The Seychelles has proposed the establishment of an Indian Ocean sanctuary.

This suggestion proposes the proclamation of a sanctuary which reaches from Cape Town all the way to Sydney, an Indian Ocean sanctuary in which whaling will be prohibited for ever. Although we are not a whaling nation any longer, I should like us to be a spearhead. I should like us, as South Africans, to be very proud of being part of this initiative. The commissioner will also have to answer to the charge of piracy that has been levelled against South Africa. Are we, in this part of the world, guilty or not? I am specifically referring to the Sierra, that little pirate ship which is operating all over the world on behalf of a small group of people. We must not allow our proud conservation record to be denigrated by a despicable little pirate ship owned by a Mr. Andrew Behr of Cape Town. The good name of our country can be vilified by him, a man who is making millions of rands by wiping out whole herds of endangered species of whales.

I should like to read a passage from this document which I shall send to the hon. the Minister directly after my speech. This document, which is an opening address, gives evidence of the activities of a whaling vessel operating, outside the control of the International Whaling Commission, with Japanese and South African assistance. This ship is owned and operated by South Africa, but flies a flag of convenience. I quote the following from this document—

This is a document which is produced by the Seychelles. I add the final paragraph—

Short-term gains are not for South Africa; they are for a very small group of people who are involved in this and who are making millions out of the murder of these whales in the oceans of the world. I ask the hon. the Minister not to react directly to this, but I should like him to take a very careful look at these documents and to discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, because it is a very serious matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and I should just like to comment on the first part of his speech, i.e. the part where he spoke about slamming doors. I do not know whether the hon. member listened correctly to hon. members on this side of the House, but I think he interpreted them incorrectly if he listened to them and heard them correctly, because I cannot imagine any hon. member on this side of the House ever proposing that doors should be slammed or that South Africa should go into isolation or break off any link with any country, particularly with the Western nations. I do not believe this is the case and I shall come back to this later. As far as the last part of his speech is concerned relating the story about the whale, I consider it too big for me, and he and the hon. the Minister will have to sort it out.

Up to now the debate has been very interesting and I want to associate myself with the proposal by the hon. member for Worcester that this House should pass a motion of thanks to the hon. the Minister for the work done by him and his department. I honestly think that bearing in mind the sombre picture he sketched they most definitely deserve thanks for the long hours, the holidays and the weekends they and their families sacrificed. By far the biggest compliment received the hon. the Minister yesterday was the one he received from the hon. member for East London North. The hon. member invited him to become the leader of a party which he would apparently follow. Indeed, he implied too that if the hon. the Minister were to lead the new party, they would reject their own leader. I think this was the greatest compliment he could receive in this debate.

It was interesting to listen to this debate, but one wonders whether things are so simple. I listened to hon. members who said that our strategic position and our strategic supplies should be used as a countermeasure against onslaughts being made on us. I listened to the hon. member for Yeoville when he said that it was not so easy simply to say that we should forge new economic ties with African States. I agree with him that it is not so easy, when one says that it should be done, to go ahead and do it at once. On the other hand, we are of Africa and must speak out of Africa. As far as Africa is concerned, the old saying ex Africa semper aliquid novi applies. That is why, when we discuss Africa, we must understand Africa. It is a pity that the Institute for International Strategic Studies says that Africa’s military expenditure since 1975 has risen from R850 million to R2 975 million. It is a pity that this money is not rather spent on food supplies. In these times, I believe that we shall have to live with that, because that is Africa. We shall have to live with the fact that double standards are being applied against us. A specific example of double standards being applied against us and against the rest of Africa, is clearly apparent from a speech by President Carter, as made in Lagos, Nigeria, on 1 April 1978, when he said, inter alia, the following—

He goes on to say—

As against South Africa, however, those principles and concepts do not apply. That is why I believe that as far as our situation in and our whole strategic view of Africa is concerned, we should perhaps consider carrying out a re-evaluation as far as our African policy is concerned. The hon. the Minister made a statement recently in New York about a possible constellation of Southern African States. I believe that everyone accepts this. The economic benefit this entails for all inhabitants, of whatever colour, is known to everyone. It cannot be disputed that it would be to the politically advantage of every country and of States as a whole.

That raises the question: Why then does everyone not seize upon this? On various occasions invitations have been addressed by the State President and by the hon. the Prime Minister to any country to co-operate with South Africa—the latest occasion was just recently. Again, therefore, the question arises: Why are countries not eager to accept this offer? The immediate and obvious reply is of course that countries cannot afford to cooperate openly with South Africa, because at present we are the polecat of the world.

On the one hand there is the indisputable fact that countries are not reluctant to cooperate with us in secret. This fact has already been made known in public by, inter alia, President Banda of Malawi and Bishop Muzorewa of Zimbabwe Rhodesia. The real advantages of co-operation with South Africa are, in my opinion, realized and accepted by everyone and have moreover been indisputably proved. However, on the other hand, I believe that the not-so-obvious reason for the lack of open co-operation is that Africa, among other things, is not prepared to cooperate with us because it has lost its confidence in the Western capitalist world. Although we are of Africa, we are inseparable from the West and we shall have to accept that because we are inseparable from the West, we may not be able to enjoy the confidence of Africa at this stage, as we have in the past.

Over the past few decades Africa—and this includes South Africa—has found that it cannot depend on the word of, or an agreement which is entered into or which will be entered into with, the West. It is clear that the West can no longer make decisions, or that after they have been made, the West changes its assistance in an impractical or arbitrary way. This is done to prevent South Africa from being in a position to exercise its rightful influence in Africa. On the other hand communism, with its relentless power politics, has given rise to fear in Africa, because the peoples of Africa know that in contrast to the West, the East will give effect to its standpoint.

Between these two elements South Africa has tried to propagate its détente programme with Africa over the past few years. This policy has borne fruit to some extent, but on the other hand I believe that it is now time for us to enter a new era in a more pragmatic way, and in order to give direction to this new era, I should like to suggest the following factors: Firstly, I want to suggest that we should try to shorten and strengthen our logistic lines or lines of communication with Africa. Secondly, I want to suggest that we demarcate an area in which we shall be able to provide total assistance. Under the concept “total assistance” I include economic aid in such a measure that additional aid need not be requested. Now one asks oneself whether it is not necessary in this regard, too, for private enterprise to be of greater assistance to the fund of R1 billion or more, as proposed earlier this year, in order to protect its own interests. Agriculturally South Africa is pre-eminently suited to giving leadership to Africa. Here we can assist in solving the greatest single problem in order to help feed the hungry mouths of Africa. I also believe that in the military field we should be prepared to step in, if circumstances demand it. This principle has already been emphasized by the hon. the Prime Minister when he indicated recently that we might be compelled to intervene in Rhodesia if chaos threatened. I believe that this concept of total aid could succeed, because the economic realities, on the basis of a long-term cycle, indicate that the world’s monetary system is heading for an inevitable re-orientation with a great possibility that gold could play a prominent role. This would again enable us to provide economic assistance in Africa.

Then, too, there are clear signs that political realism is breaking through on the international level and that in addition, starvation is fast becoming widespread throughout the world and is destroying populations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I spoke earlier today about the composition of the UN’s military contingent for South West, I said that we had objected to the inclusion of a certain country. Although we had misgivings about the country I mentioned, too, it was actually Finland that I had in mind.

Hon. members on that side of the House, especially the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, said that there should not be any change in the status of South West Africa before we had discussed the matter in Parliament. I then referred to the applicable legal requirements. I do not think that hon. members on that side of the House agreed with me at that stage. I have since consulted the South West Africa Constitution Amendment Act, Act No. 95 of 1977. From this it appears, according to my interpretation, that my standpoint is correct. I quote—

I think this principle is also spelt out fairly categorically in the preamble to this Act. Therefore I just want to record the legal position and confirm that this is a matter which rests with the Government. The Government will have to discuss it. I should prefer not to discuss it any further now, because it is actually a delicate question too. I should prefer not to wake any sleeping dogs as far as this is concerned.

Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also asked in passing what had become of ambassador Potgieter. Ambassador Potgieter has left the foreign service.

In addition the hon. member asked me why we were only going to appoint Coloureds and Asians on a permanent basis in the diplomatic service and not Blacks as well. The reason is that the Government envisages a dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Asians. Through their respective constitutional organs, they will jointly constitute a State, and these three population groups will represent that State in the outside world. That is the position. It was an act of confidence which I envisaged yesterday by indicating even at this early stage that we seriously intend to implement those constitutional proposals. We hope, therefore, that we shall have everyone’s co-operation in doing so.

Surely it is known that our policy provides for the independence of the Black States. The Black people are being trained by us. Therefore colour as such is not a factor. I myself was an ambassador at an embassy where Black people were trained, under exactly the same circumstances as the Whites. What is important here, therefore—and allow me to say this quite frankly—is that colour as such has now been removed as far as the appointment of South African diplomats is concerned. It has now been removed. I therefore hope that hon. members will not stir up any more trouble about this and will not try to bedevil a positive and well-intentioned act of confidence, as they have so often tried to do. If they are looking for trouble about this aspect, they will get it. If they go on with this and want a fight, I shall conduct the debate on other matters in order to start a proper fight. I am warning hon. members that I do not want to hear any more about this. It is not in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

There is no need i for threats.

The hon. member for Yeoville is the last one who ought to speak. He is the very last one who ought to open his mouth now.

Just do not threaten us.

Order!

And the hon. member for Yeoville must stop gossiping.

I am not gossiping. [Interjections.]

That is all you do.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also asked me how I saw the future. He referred to a speech I had made at Wonderboom. That was on the Day of the Covenant last year. He rightly pointed out that I had said that day that we should guard against allowing our internal situation to develop in such a way that we are eroded from within and that we should prevent internal currents from bringing us to our knees. Then, I said, we would not need sanctions or a UN or an assault from without. That is correct. It is because of that very danger that the Government is going out of its way to stimulate orderly development inside the country.

When one looks back over the past few months, it is clear that in spite of the difficult circumstances created by the Information situation, in spite of the constant negotiations conducted with the West, the UN and the outside world about South West Africa, in spite of the difficult situation with regard to Zimbabwe Rhodesia, in spite of the problem situations which we experienced with our neighbouring States immediately around us, the Government has proceeded—as the hon. the Prime Minister said on the steps of the Senate—to establish an orderly, clean Government dispensation and to try to ensure that all our population groups are treated fairly and justly. There has been the Wiehahn Report. There has been the Rieckert report. Now propaganda is already being made to detract from the importance of these things and to belittle and disparage the positive elements they contain and systematically to present them to the outside world as cosmetic white-wash, as lacking in any positive substance.

There have been major constructive steps forward under this Government in the course of the past year. Sitting in this House this afternoon, we know what our greatest and most painful dilemmas are. It is not necessary for us to try to dish them up to one another any further and to advance arguments in an attempt to get the better of one another with debating points. There is not a single party represented in this House that can say honestly and with conviction that its policy, and the things it stands for, can be sold to the radical world. There is not a single hon. member who can say that. That is the first statement I want to make. We are ourselves intent on taking a critical look at our internal problems, for by creating stability and peace and order, by creating contentment and progress internally, I believe we shall eventually be able to break through to the outside world.

We on this side of the House do not desire isolation. If we did, why have we been negotiating with the five Western powers for two years, under the most difficult circumstances imaginable? I frequently spent more time in an aircraft than on the ground. That is not pleasant. It is not pleasant to fly to the UN. Nor is it pleasant to associate and hold talks with people who often turn their back on one and do not stand by their agreements, and although I have pointed this out, and had to point out the scheming that went on behind our backs, in the public interest and in the interests of truth and of justice, we on this side of the House have nevertheless persevered. We have not turned our backs on our negotiating partners. I repeat what I said earlier: We remain willing to talk to anyone who wants to come and talk to us in all sincerity about the implementation of the South West Africa settlement plan we accepted on 25 April 1978, which was accepted by the Security Council of the UN. This is on record. In this plan all the provisions are spelt out very clearly. All the South African Government is asking, at the request of the leaders of South West Africa, is that the Swapo bases, wherever they may be, should be monitored, as was categorically laid down in the settlement plan. I think hon. members all agree that this should be so. Secondly, we ask that no Swapo bases should be established in South West Africa in conflict with the agreement. I think all hon. members are agreed on that, too. If I have a consensus of opinion on these two points, then, I say that I am prepared at any moment to talk to the UN, Dr. Waldheim, Mr. Ahtisaari and the five Western powers about the implementation of that agreement, as accepted by us. I hope the matter has now been clarified.

I come now to our situation in Southern Africa. The hon. member for Constantia asked whether the Black neighbouring States would stand by us through thick and thin.

†I think “through thick and thin” was the phrase he used. But surely it must also be of importance to them to know whether we will stand by them through thick and thin. Our common interests demand that we should stand by one another. He asked about their voting in the General Assembly last week. Referring to the South West Africa debate, he asked: “Why do these countries vote the way they did last week at the United Nations?” He ought to know. He himself was in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The situation at the General Assembly of the United Nations is not a normal one. Group intimidation at the United Nations is very strong. To start with, a request was made by the African Group to have this resumed to the session of the General Assembly. In such circumstances it is extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, for an individual African country not to toe the line or dance to the tune of the majority because that country would thereby make itself conspicuous. It would stand out like a sore thumb. That does not mean, however, that what the countries did in truth represents or reflects their real attitude. I can tell hon. members here today that while I was on occasion having discussions with the head of state of a certain African country, his ambassador actually took the initiative in the United Nations against us on a certain issue. That is the position. I do not say that we have to accept that situation. I am merely explaining the situation. We will continue to direct our efforts at changing this situation. We are working actively to improve it.

My question was a rhetorical question.

I accept that. It is worth mentioning, however, that Swaziland did not vote for the resolution in question. It is also interesting to note the explanation of the vote delivered by Botswana. Botswana reserved its judgment in regard to paragraph 12 of the resolution. That paragraph calls upon the Security Council to consider punitive or enforcement measures against South Africa. So there are rather hopeful signs from the part of our Black friends and neighbours as far as this matter is concerned.

I think that they already realize, or are realizing to an increasing extent, the necessity for not siding with those radical aims because those radical aims are directed at them as well. They, too, are targets of the radicals, the Marxists, and they know it. I think that as this realization penetrates, as they become more aware of it and start to bear the brunt of it and experience the intimidation and see the danger thereof to their own survival—I believe that we shall be drawn closer and closer together. That is inevitable. It is no longer only the South African Government that is expressing the wish that the leaders of Southern Africa should come together. I believe it is inevitable, for the survival of the Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Asians in Southern Africa, that the leaders should come together to start talking about the security and the socio-economic development of the whole region and about a just political dispensation for the whole region. I think it is inevitable that we are going to move in that direction. Whether it is going to happen soon as a result of a spontaneous realization on the part of all of us of the necessity of standing together or whether events are going to force us together I cannot say. It is my firm opinion that our survival depends on our willingness to resolve our problems around a conference table. The only alternative is destruction. The only alternative is the subversion and collapse of one country after the other, as single units. Either we join forces and together become a strong force through which we can develop the whole region and undertake joint responsibility for the security of the region and assist each other in our economic plans and development, or we allow our common enemies with common aims against all the moderate leaders of Southern Africa to shoot us off the branch like birds, one after the other. That is as I see the alternatives.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would concede that geographical propinquity and economic advantage are not enough, and that in fact much depends in the case of these relations on the status of Black people in South Africa? That was the import of my rhetorical question.

I fully realize that, but I am saying that the geographical and economic imperatives in this particular instance will tend to be the determining factors. It cannot be denied that they are strong forces. Those are not, however, the only factors. There is another important reason, which is that we are sincere and genuine about bringing about, a just dispensation so that all the peoples would wish to defend the freedom of the area. We are sincere in wishing to eliminate forms of discrimination which are seen by Blacks in this country as humiliating and which are unnecessary for the survival of the various nations, including the White nation. I have referred to the Wiehahn Commission’s report. I have referred to the Riekert Commission’s report. I have referred to steps taken by the hon. the Minister of Labour. I have referred to the sports policy based on merit that has evolved in this country. So I can go on. I can go on endlessly. The Government is committed to an attempt to bridge the wage gap in this country. I say again: Go out into South Africa and gauge the goodwill that really exists between Black and White. I say: Let us encourage all our people, all our leaders, including the Black leaders, to promote such goodwill. Goodwill is a reciprocal element. It cannot just flourish on its own, unilaterally. The Whites of the country stand ready to assist and help with the development of the Black people. They are genuine in trying to bring about for Black people in this country a better quality of life. We are not, however, prepared to negotiate ourselves out of existence. We must be straightforward with one another as regards our cultural and historical values, norms and sociological affinities and preferences irrespective of colour.

*This is something we all have to learn, including the Black leaders. However, I believe that greater confidence is developing. I am convinced, not only that the territorial and geographic imperatives of our situation will force us to get together, but that goodwill and the increasing mutual confidence will support those imperatives and enable us to achieve practical solutions to our problems in Southern Africa. That, briefly, is my view.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti started off well yesterday, but in general his remarks were not constructive. It was as if he developed a speed wobble as he proceeded and then had no brakes he could apply, with the result that he lost control. I understand what he was aiming at He made an attempt to link the South African Government’s commitment to freedom and democracy in South West Africa to South Africa’s internal situation. There is no link. I have already made it clear that there is no parallel. I have told him that the Government’s approach towards South West Africa is that the people inside that country—because South West Africa is not part of the sovereign jurisdictional area of the Republic of South Africa—should decide on and determine their own constitutional future. We have not interfered in any way, and our track record in this matter proves it. We are an independent State and our independence dates back quite a while. I believe that we comply with all the requirements of independence. We effectively control this country; we are governing it effectively and what is more, we are governing in accordance with civilized norms and standards. Naturally we are guided by the diversities and disparities which exist. Identifiable nations who wish to have their own independence can have it. We have not reached the end of the road. We have indicated that we will look again at the whole thorny issue of consolidation, as we will look at several other important matters. We are in the process of doing it, and hon. members need only look at the Wiehahn and Riekert reports and at other measures which are still envisaged. All I can say to the hon. member is that South West Africa and South Africa must not be confused with one another. I will not interfere in the internal solution of South West Africa and we do not want them to interfere in ours. The same applies to Zimbabwe Rhodesia. There is no other way in which Southern Africa can develop mutual trust. The individual countries can disagree with each other and talk about their disagreements, but eventually we in South Africa must retain the right to determine our own constitutional future, just as we have conceded the right to the others to determine theirs.

The hon. member says the five Western powers are democracies, and he warned against the constant slamming of the West, particularly the USA. He said it would not help. Of course it will not help if out of the blue, arbitrarily, one pours out hostile and critical statements on any country or anybody in the world. On the other hand, however, this country must state its case. The hon. member cannot on the one hand say to me that we have to employ a more aggressive method abroad in stating our case and in explaining our situation, and then on the other hand say that I may not react firmly when our vital interests are threatened. It was Neville Chamberlain, as hon. members will well remember, who endeavoured to appease, who tried at all costs to stop a war, but eventually that war cost more in terms of human lives and material than it would have cost had they in time stopped the tyrant from tearing up agreements and contracts.

I have already said that the South African Government is committed to safeguard the security of South West Africa until such time as they themselves can look after their own security. In the meantime, the hon. member says, we must keep cool. Well, hon. members can see how cool we are.

I consider that I have now replied to the main issues raised by the hon. member for Constantia. Generally speaking, his remarks were constructive, not quite as constructive as those of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but he is approaching the same degree of constructiveness. The hon. member agreed with me as regards the picture I drew of the international scene, but added that we must not be blind to the occasional rays of light. I fully agree with him. We are not, and wherever a ray of light is detected, we are encouraged by it. What is more, there are indeed rays of light. As far as the neutrality issue is concerned, I replied to that issue earlier to-day as well as to the question of voting in the General Assembly last week.

The hon. member for East London North endeavoured to draw me into internal political polemics, but I am not going to be drawn. The NP has a strong leader, a leader with vision, a leader who believes in God, a leader with long experience and a leader to whom all on this side of the House give unconditional loyalty. [Interjections.] This is our position, and I have nothing to add to that.

The hon. member says we cannot sell what we are doing. Can we sell the Wiehahn report abroad?

Yes, if you stick to it.

And the Riekert report?

Yes, if you stick to it.

And the other measures the hon. the Minister of Labour intends taking? [Interjections.] And the appointment of Coloureds and Asians in our diplomatic service on the same conditions as Whites, is that saleable?

That is taken for granted.

Is our sport policy saleable?

It is taken for granted.

The standard of living achieved by our Blacks in this country compared with the standards of living elsewhere in Africa—is that saleable?

That is not saleable.

The number of Blacks at school compared with the position in the rest of the world—is that saleable?

That is not saleable either.

What about the housing projects for Coloureds, Asians and Blacks in this country and the amounts which we have spent on those projects?

Not saleable.

Well, it is a plus factor.

A plus factor. I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for that remark. We have made a lot of progress and I am very glad that I have this admission. I invite hon. members to assist South Africa in the future by selling those items which I have just indicated. As a matter of fact, I can add a long list of other items as well. The hon. members know that there are many more items which can be added.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I still have to reply to the speeches of the hon. members on this side and if there is time available after that, the hon. member may certainly ask me a question.

Can one sell the Advocate-General Bill?

That is exactly the question I wanted to ask.

There are a lot of positive achievements in this country. There is a lot of goodwill in this country. Let us sell it. We must sell it together. We must avoid being small-minded this afternoon and therefore I invite hon. members of the Opposition to assist us in selling the good and the beautiful of our country. That is all I am asking.

We do that.

I thank the hon. members for that. That, then, is settled. However, I am not finished with that particular hon. member. He said that it was an impossible task to sell the unsaleable. He said that whatever changes occurred were only cosmetic. Did he use those words?

Yes, I did.

Is the hon. member now sorry for having been so negative?

No.

Is he still unrepentant?

Completely.

I should like to quote to the hon. member from a foreign newspaper which is usually severely critical of and hostile towards this Government—

This comes from the Washington Post. In other words, the Washington Post is now better disposed towards us than the hon. member for East London North. I gave him the chance to be a little bit better than the Washington Post of 27 May 1979. I shall give the hon. member time to reflect on this and to repent, and then we can again talk about this later. I am sure the hon. member is capable of atonement.

Are you accepting the Wiehahn and Riekert reports totally?

I am not talking about “totally”. Nothing will ever be totally good enough for that hon. member. I am talking about the broad outlines, in broad terms. I want to know whether those reports represent a step forward. These reports are recognized as such abroad by South Africa’s most vehement and fierce opponents, but I cannot get the same out of hon. members on the other side. What a situation! A minute ago they promised to assist me in marketing the positive aspects of this country, but the Washington Post is far in advance of them.

Accept those commissions’ reports and bring the legislation before this House. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville said yesterday that we were short of people, money and offices for conducting our foreign effort. He said that South Africa’s right of existence was at issue. That is correct. We are indeed being threatened. He said that the greatest threat at the moment was sanctions. He did not include other threats in referring to this. That is also correct. However, he said that we should be realistic and that the Department of Foreign Affairs should be enabled to counteract the danger as far as possible. I am with him all the way. He said it was the primary duty of everyone to ward off threats so that South Africa would be able to set its own house in order. He referred to the amounts appropriated in the budget for the department’s staff, for salaries and for operating our offices. I agree with him. It would be ideal if we could have about 20 offices in a country such as America, where I was ambassador myself. The American population is 215 million. One could also look at the populations of the individual States. I think the State of Tennessee has a population of only about 3 million, but its economic, production and other figures are approximately the same as those of South Africa. The gross product of Tennessee is about equal to ours. That State, with its relatively small population of 3 million, is bigger, as far as its economic and technological qualities are concerned, than some countries where we do have representation. However, the problem remains one of funds. And then there are political factors which have to be taken into consideration in determining our priorities. The hon. the Minister of Finance is the man who formulates the financial policy of this country. Many slices have to be cut from the budget cake.

But priorities have to be determined.

That is the crux of the argument. Who determines priorities, and how is it done? I like to tell my colleagues that my Vote is priority No. 1, but my colleagues also have priorities. My colleagues who have to build essential roads, dams or airports, who have to subsidize certain activities or to subsidize farmers in drought conditions, are all entitled to put their priorities. [Interjections.] No, wait a minute. Life is not so simple. If one gave this budget to five of our best financiers or economists, we would see how they would disagree amongst themselves and how they would differ about priorities. That is where the problem lies. There is just a certain amount of money in the budget kitty. The Department of Foreign Affairs does its work to the best of its ability with the available funds. I have had a new mission opened in Chicago and our mission in New Orleans transferred to Texas. Within the limits of the available funds, we try to make adjustments to achieve the most effective representation we can for South Africa. I shall try again to see whether we cannot get more money to open more offices. But it is not very easy.

I also want to come out in support of better salaries for our men. I think my men work very hard in this country and overseas. They work in isolated, depressing and difficult circumstances. I am not saying that other people in this country are not doing the same. Our police and our soldiers are largely in the same position, often perhaps even more difficult and more desperate. But we could consider a way of conferring greater professional status, for example, on the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs when they return to South Africa. As long as they are overseas, they receive adequate allowances which enable them to maintain a decent South African standard of representation there. However, I welcome the sympathetic ideas expressed by the hon. member concerning this matter.

He also said that we should make greater use of MPs. I asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs two or three weeks ago—I did not do it to steal his thunder—whether he could not investigate the possibility of having a team of Parliamentarians go to New York this year when the UN is in session, not as members of our deputation, although I can assure hon. members that they would not easily find a seat there. Nevertheless, it should be a valuable experience for our members of Parliament. I shall also investigate the possibility of making greater use than in the past of members of Parliament of all parties to go overseas to attend certain meetings, symposia and seminars and to become more involved in our overseas effort to introduce our country and its problems to the outside world.

†The hon. member also said we must keep on talking with the five Western powers about South West Africa. But what have we been doing for two years? We have been talking for two years. I am keeping it up all the time and I shall continue to do so on the stated basis, that we cannot allow the establishment of Swapo bases inside the territory and that Swapo forces must be restricted outside the territory to bases wherever they might be. I trust that the hon. member agrees with that. Our door is open. I recently discussed this whole matter again with the British envoy, Mr. Luce, a deputy minister, who visited us here in Cape Town. We had lunch together and I had a three-hour discussion with him. It was a fruitful discussion. I told him that we are still interested in talking. I cannot take it further than that. The hon. member also referred to armed Swapo personnel inside South West Africa and said that Mr. Andrew Young had stated that the issue was really how to deal with that phenomenon, or problem, of Swapo armed personnel in the territory and that they were not really insisting on a specific way of resolving this issue. If that is the case, well and good. I can honestly state that up to now that was not our perception of the attitude of the USA because the West delivered to me in writing their opinion indicating that they supported the idea of the establishment of Swapo bases inside SWA. But certainly we can still discuss the matter if it is agreed that Swapo would not be allowed to be designated bases inside SWA. However, the point is simply that nobody who attended our discussions can have any doubt in his mind that Swapo armed personnel inside the territory must on ceasefire day in terms of the settlement proposal go back to their bases and be restricted there. If they want to return to the territory, in terms of the proposal, they must come through designated points of entry where they must lay down their arms and where they can then be issued with identity documents in the same way as all others in the territory—something which has now been undertaken—and in that way they can participate peacefully in the political process.

The hon. member for Durban North says that South Africa has no choice in the matter of neutrality and has already been driven into a neutral position. To a great extent the hon. member is quite right. However, the point is how to use this positively. He said that our friends would prefer us to remain in a neutral position. That is perhaps also correct. He also said that we should do nothing to alienate the West. I am not doing anything to alienate the West, but the West must for its part not do anything which humiliates this country and makes it more difficult for us to live in peace and to proceed with our positive, constructive plans in this country. We can demand that from them. He suggested that our future lay in good relations with our neighbours. I fully agree with that. Although the hon. member proceeds along a different course of reasoning, he appears to come to the same conclusions that I have already set out. I presume that he also agrees that we must also not attempt to retain the goodwill of the West at any price. Our own interests must remain paramount. I hope he agrees with that.

Then, as far as the question of the blue whale is concerned, I thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for the documents which he sent to me, but he will know that this actually falls under the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I shall certainly bring the matter to his attention.

It has international repercussions.

We shall certainly give attention to the matter to the extent to which my department and I are concerned with it. I have also taken note of the sentiments expressed by the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Potgietersrus identified one of the basic problems with which South Africa has to contend in its dialogue with the international community, and that is the persistent refusal to judge our policy programmes on the basis of realities. We are condemned on the basis of a misrepresentation of our policy. I agree with the hon. member that our programme of making greater contact with people abroad should be aimed at all sectors of the community, including young people. It should also be done more aggressively, and I myself like to take part in it. One corner-stone of South Africa’s policy programme for promoting peaceful development and stability in Southern Africa was emphasized by the hon. member for Parys, and that is the need for greater contact, liaison and dialogue with our fellow African States. It is important that we should support a new African vision advocating practical and constructive development aid by South African Whites to our neighbouring States. He expressed some stimulating ideas in this connection and I should like to thank him for doing so.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North referred to an interesting and credible motivation for the venom against South Africa in the outside world and for the emotional nature of the onslaught that is made on us. It is difficult to reconcile the insincerity of the motives against us with the principles of decency.

I believe that I speak on behalf of the House when I say that we greatly appreciate the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Rustenburg, who is about to take up an important post in the service of South Africa abroad. His optimism, composure, balanced judgment and helpfulness are qualities which have already made him well-liked, and on behalf of all of us I wish him strength and success in his new career and I tell him: “Good-bye and everything of the best.”

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Benoni yesterday referred to something which has lately been occurring more frequently on the international scene, something which holds a sober message for South Africa, i.e. the inability of Western Governments to stand by their commitments. Friends and past allies are abandoned unceremoniously for self-gain and short-lived self-interest. This is indeed something which this House should take cognizance of.

*The hon. member for Brakpan focused the attention of the House on a political reality, a reality which certainly merits serious consideration in the interests of political stability and economic stability in parts of the world where the Marxist influence is threatening to gain a foothold. He developed the idea that the Muslim world offered a natural and built-in resistance to communism because the Islamic philosophy was irreconcilable with communism. The hon. member consequently advocated Government should support for a centre for Islamic studies at the RAU. I am quite in favour of such support and I hope that Parliament will vote the necessary funds for the establishment of such a centre. I thank the hon. member for his proposal. It certainly has merit. The hon. the Minister of National Education is sitting next to me, and I hope that he heard what I said and that he will make the necessary funds available before becoming the Administrator of the Transvaal.

†The hon. member for Maitland would wish dialogue with Black Africa to be pursued with great vigour and determination. This is an idea which underpins our relations with the international community at large. The hon. member’s evaluation was incisive and has high-lighted the most important aspects of such a policy. I thank him for his constructive contribution.

*The hon. member for Brits sounded a warning against the influence of the World Council of Churches, a warning which cannot be over-emphasized, because this influence could have destructive results which could assume incalculable proportions. In the light of the evil propagated by extremists in that organization, South Africa must be on the look-out for the evil that can be spread under the cloak of respected religious institutions.

†The hon. member for Simonstown also made a constructive contribution, and I thank him for it. He asked me whether, in the light of the United Nations’ severe hostility towards South Africa and particularly in the light of the General Assembly’s denial last week of our right to address the Assembly, to state our case, it was still worth being a member of that organization. If I understood him correctly, that is what the hon. member wanted to know. The hon. member ought to know that I am not particularly fond of the United Nations. Of that I can assure him. The fact remains, however, that by removing oneself from that world body, one does not achieve anything, because one cannot escape the further attention of that body. It will remain focused on South Africa and South West Africa. One cannot escape from that by simply removing oneself from that body. In the short-term it might perhaps be more pleasant not to have to listen to the fulminations against South Africa in the United Nations. It might be soothing, but I believe that in the long-term we ought to be there. I believe that we are part of the family of nations and that we must have our rights restored at the United Nations one day. I believe we can make a contribution within the technical agencies of the UNO, and we must therefore not despair. I can inform the hon. member that we do not pay membership fees. I think that by now we owe the United Nations approximately $7 million, and we shall not pay unless and until our rights are fully restored within the organization. In the meantime the United Nations is useful to us. All our communications are reproduced in United Nations records and are distributed all over the world. Therefore, it is not that we get nothing out of it; it is just that we do not pay anything for it at the moment. [Interjections.] Therefore, as far as I can see, there is not sufficient reason to quit the United Nations. Furthermore there is a school of opinion which questions whether it is possible in terms of the charter of the United Nations to withdraw membership. At any rate, at present there are still certain distinct advantages attached to our membership of the United Nations.

*The hon. member for Innesdal said that instead of closer association with the West, we should focus our attention on Africa. He suggested a declaration to give expression to South Africa’s identification with Africa. I fully support the idea that our foreign initiative should be Africa-orientated in the future.

The hon. member for Pretoria West said that Africa was being recolonized. It is true. There is a threat of increasing imperialism— Russian imperialism and also Western financial-economic and ideological imperialism. Africa must recognize this danger betimes, and South Africa’s aim should be to counter this threat through aid and identification with common African aspirations. I associate myself with the hon. member’s view. It is a realistic one, and I hope the House will give its full support to the Government’s attempt to develop closer ties with moderate Black States in particular.

†The hon. member for Von Brandis emphasized the honourable record and integrity of the South African Government in its dealings with foreign Governments. The unreliability of the West has been amply illustrated in recent times. South Africa should use its leverage in foreign policy, especially its mineral reserves. I welcome the suggestion, and I agree with the hon. member that South Africa has much to offer to promote peace and stability and economic progress in Africa. With the support of this House, this policy direction will be pursued with determination in the future.

*The hon. member for Losberg described with great realism the intensity of the international onslaught on South Africa. I appreciate his words of encouragement to our foreign representatives. It is appreciation such as this which lightens our task, even though it is so demanding, and which provides welcome moral support for our officials and myself.

†The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens identified perceptively reasons for strains in relations between he United States and South Africa. He focused on important issues and elements available to be employed in the conduct of our international relations. In addition the hon. member demonstrated an appreciation of the important forces to be utilized in pursuing our objectives of peace, stability and economic progress. I listened with much interest and appreciation to his perceptive and well-constructed view of propagating a strong and self-assertive role in our relations with foreign countries.

*The hon. member for Geduld emphasized the economically favourable position of South Africa because of its wealth of strategic minerals. I support his view that the bargaining power derived from this economic advantage should be used in our political relations with the international community. Economic interests are a meaningful factor in influencing the attitude of Governments. We have had many examples in recent times of the way this situation has been used to promote political expediency which sacrifices principles for the sake of short-sighted selfish gain.

On behalf of my department and our foreign representatives I note with appreciation the kind sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Worcester about our efforts in the interests of South Africa. I particularly appreciate his support for the policy of promoting our relations with Africa. The successful implementation of this initiative is of fundamental importance for the future of South Africa.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp raised a very interesting theme, namely patterns of behaviour in Africa. His discussion of the implications of these patterns and of relations between States was illuminating, and I believe that this can be a meaningful factor in the maintenance and promotion of good relations between nations.

The hon. member for Vasco expressed constructive opinions and advanced well-considered arguments. I want to thank him sincerely for what he put so clearly and succinctly to us this afternoon. He made a positive suggestion advocating the establishment of a specially demarcated area in Southern Africa on which South Africa could focus its total attention and ability in favour of development aid. I welcome the recommendation and assure the House that the details of his suggestion will be taken up by my Department in the consideration of our strategic alternatives.

Before coming to one or two other matters, I should very much like at this stage—before my time runs out again and I am deprived of the opportunity to say something which is of such great concern to me—to say a few words in connection with the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Brand Fourie.

He has been serving South Africa for many years. He has come a very long way—since the days of Gen. Smuts all the way to the present time. He was present when the Charter of the UN was written. Those gripping ideals which we read in the preamble to the Charter are partly his work, in fact. It was a young man who went to that world organization in those days with ideals typical of a young South African and who tried to incorporate that idealism into the Charter of that organization. Throughout the years he has never spared himself. There have been years in which he travelled overseas up to 30 times. Wherever one goes, he is ready for the fray at short notice. He has served successive Prime Ministers with irreproachable loyalty and dedication, untiringly and unceasingly throughout the years. I therefore want to tell this fine representative of South Africa—and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of us all— that we are grateful, that this House is grateful, that South Africa is grateful for all he has done and is still doing for this country.

Hear, hear!

When we are together on overseas trips and we find ourselves in difficult situations, which is constantly happening, he displays an ability to delve into the past and to find something there, not to obscure the crisis of the moment, but to bring new perspective to an apparently intractable situation by pointing out what happened in 1939, or in 1942, or in 1946, or in 1951, or in 1953, thus giving balance and perspective to the present problem. It is his ability to put matters in perspective, his tranquillity and his composure which have contributed so greatly to the fact that South Africa is still able, in the midst of all the onslaughts and threats, to maintain a relatively healthy situation of internal peace. More than anyone else, I suppose, he has kept the wolves from the fold, he has fought to prevent sanctions against South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to say something about the officials of my department as well. They are a small group of people, as the hon. member for Yeoville rightly remarked. They are a small group. In the whole of the USA, I believe, the total staff in our various offices does not much exceed 18 men from Foreign Affairs. In Washington there are only about six people of the Department of Foreign Affairs, I believe. In New York, San Fransisco, Chicago and Houston and elsewhere there are only an average of two Foreign Affairs men in an office. This is a small number; a small number of people who are doing good work and who have to analyse and observe the whole political trend in the USA and represent our country. Exactly the same applies to Britain, France, Germany and all our other offices abroad.

While I am speaking here, it is true that we have offices all over the world, that the sun never really sets on all of them and that there is always a South African office where our people are working in daylight. They are far from their fatherland. They stand alone but they are not alone because we stand by them. I should like to say in this House that South Africa is proud of these men, who, alone and lonely under difficult circumstances in foreign lands, do not lose their confidence in their country and in its cause, and not only do not lose it, but state it in a convincing way. I should like them to read in Hansard that this is the sentiment of this House, the highest assembly in the country.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Chairman, there is a final matter I should like to touch upon. I have sent hon. members a summary of the various branches within the framework of the UN that deal with South Africa and matters affected Southern Africa. I should like to refer to them briefly—I have a little time left—in order to raise a particular matter here. As hon. members know, the UN consists of various organs. When I hold a sketch of these organs up like this, it may seem like a monster at a distance. It is in fact a monster, and looks like one. Hon. members will see that it is a hydra-headed animal consisting of main organs like the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Secretariat and the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council. There are also various committees, sub-committees, commissions and nests of subversion.

†In the first place there is the Trusteeship Council. Then there is the Security Council and its committees to watch over the enforcement of sanctions in the case of Zimbabwe Rhodesia and, with regard to Security Council resolution 421, the arms boycott resolution, to guard against that resolution being broken. Then there is the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Namibia who is involved in the implementation of Security Council resolution 435.

On the side of the secretariat, there is the Department of Public Information, which issues a constant stream of anti-South African propaganda. There is the Centre against Apartheid.

Then one has the World Court which is today so composed that, irrespective of the merits of a matter that may come before it, it would arbitrarily decide against South Africa.

Then there are the General Assembly and its main committees. The first of these committees is the Special Political Committee. There are also a First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth committee. These are all main committees and all hostile to South Africa. In one way or another every year each of these Committees deals with items aimed against South Africa. Then one has the Committee of 24, the so-called Decolonialization Committee, actively working against southern Africa, the Special Committee against Apartheid, the Council for Namibia and the Commissioner for Namibia, as well as the UN Educational and Training Programme for Southern Africa, the UN Trust Fund for Namibia and the UN Trust Fund for South Africa. Then one has Specialized Agencies which, strictly speaking, should have nothing to do with political matters whatsoever. They have, however, been instructed wherever possible to denigrate South Africa, to harm South Africa and to do their very best to work towards the destruction of order and good government in this sub-continent.

Then one has the Economic and Social Council and its Commission on Transnational Corporations. This commission’s task is to investigate American, British and other European transnational corporations as far as their legitimate activities in this sub-continent are concerned and to bring out reports against them, to intimidate them and their directors and to create another forum for action against corporations, bodies and organizations abroad who are friendly to this country, trade with this country and operate in this country to the advantage of Black people in this country. I want to stress this. Corporations which are advancing the quality of life for the Blacks in this country are prosecuted and condemned by the United Nations. For that they have a Commission on Transnational Corporations. Another branch of the Economic and Social Council is the Human Rights Commission with a Sub-Commission on Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities, working against South Africa. Then one has the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Southern Africa, also with their fingers in the pie to get South Africa. In this Council the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid is studied and adherence to it closely monitored. On the basis of a convention that was concluded a body was established to start working towards the enforcement of what they call a Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. People guilty of furthering the aims of this “heinous, abhorrent, apartheid regime” must eventually, according to this convention, be punished like the accused at the Neuremburg trials. Then of course the ANC, PAC and Swapo are well-loved within the United Nations-framework. They have observer status and they may use the facilities of the United Nations. Swapo is allowed to address the General Assembly of the UN while the South African representative is not allowed to do so in a case in which this country is a direct party in the sense that its co-operation is being sought towards implementing a UN supported plan. Yet we are not allowed to state our case in the General Assembly, while Swapo is.

Then there is still a host of other committees. There is an A d Hoc Committee on the Drafting of the International Convention against Apartheid in Sport. This is how the UN monster is spreading its tentacles. In respect of every discipline of life, sooner or later they would probably draft a convention or treaty binding all States in order to advance the undermining of South Africa. Soon it will be economics, trade, diplomatic relations and finance. This is the way in which they think they can contract us out of existence.

I now want to mention a few facts apropos this host of bodies and committees. Let us look at the General Assembly. It now has 151 members, representing 151 States of the world. Of those 151 only 44 are classified as free, 44 as partly free and 63 as not free at all. This classification is not mine. It is the classification of Freedom House in New York, which is a liberal organization with no reason whatsoever to be friendly towards South Africa.

Let us look at another one of these committees, the Committee of 24, the so-called Decolonialization Committee, whose main task is to destroy the so-called remnants of colonialism in Southern Africa. In that Committee of 24, according to Freedom House, 5 are free, 3 are partly free and 16 are not free at all. That means that 16 out of the 24 countries represented on that committee, who are supposed to liberate the oppressed people of Southern Africa from the “Nazi, Facist and tyrannical regimes”, probably never had elections in their countries or do not know the meaning of the word democracy. They have no freedom of the Press, no freedom of movement and no independent judiciary at all, but yet they are appointed to liberate the “oppressed” people of Southern Africa.

Let us take another committee, the Special Committee against Apartheid. It consists of 18 member countries. Of these 18 countries, 2 are free, 8 are partly free and 8 are not free at all. Let me also refer to the United Nations Council for Namibia. This council is supposed to administer and govern South West Africa. According to General Assembly resolutions this Council should long ago have been in the Territory, in Windhoek, to govern South West Africa according to their norms and standards. This council consists of 31 member countries. According to Freedom House, 8 of them are free, 11 are partly free and 12 are not free at all. Hon. members can see the irony built into this tragic situation.

In December we held an election in South West Africa at the request of the leaders of the territory. An overwhelming majority of the people voted for certain parties, certain leaders and certain representatives under circumstances which have been described by objective observers as being fair and square.

The majority of the members of the Council for Namibia, which according to the UN has to govern the territory and to whom we are supposed to have handed over the government of the territory, do not know what an election means and their citizens do not have civil rights in their own countries. As a matter of fact, the lives of many of the members who sit in that Council are in danger when they return home. They have no courts to go to and they have no protection before the law whatsoever.

It is against this background that my department must work for South Africa. That is the reason why I have given hon. members a very brief survey of how the United Nations family, if one can call it a family, is working against South Africa, and of what my department has to do to overcome, to resist and to persuade.

*As far as South West Africa is concerned, it may happen in the future that the Security Council may sit and may comply with the request of the General Assembly that coercive measures be taken against South Africa. I do not want us to have any illusions about this matter. It is one which has far-reaching implications and dangers. Hon. members must know what powers the Security Council has in this connection which can be used against us. I think I should refer to some of them for the sake of the record. Hon. members must remember that the Security Council has now been asked to meet in terms of chapter 7 of the Charter of the UN to consider enforceable steps against us because, as they put it, we refuse to co-operate, and because, according to them, we have practised deceit. Imagine: We have practised deceit as far as the implementation of the UN plan for South West is concerned! I want to quote from chapter 7. Article 39 reads as follows—

On the basis of this article, they will probably present the situation in South West Africa in such a light that our insistence on the implementation of a clear agreement will be alleged to constitute a threat to world peace, as a result of which the Security Council would obtain jurisdiction in terms of this article. Article 40 reads as follows—

I quote Article 41—

I quote Article 42—

In the light of South Africa’s record of cooperation and integrity and of South Africa’s offer to implement the UN proposal in respect of South West Africa—they know it has been made in all sincerity and we are still prepared to do it—I do not think that the reasonable States are prepared at this stage to invoke the provisions I have just quoted. But one can never be sure whether they will not yield under pressure of the radicals, as they so often have in the past.

I just want to say in conclusion that we in South and Southern Africa must wean ourselves of the idea that our salvation will come from outside through a process of wishful thinking. We in Southern Africa must accept once and for all, without hating others and being antagonistic, without alienating the West or the East—this must not be our intention—that we are on our own. We must accept that we have enough raw materials and material means to work out our own destiny. We must also accept that there is enough goodwill, fairness and confidence among our people to work out a solution for Southern Africa, a solution which will be viable and which, in the long-term, will be an example to the world of how people of different colours, of different backgrounds and degrees of development, can co-operate in peace with one another and can uplift one another to the mutual benefit of all. This is our challenge. I believe we have the means. We have the people, and the goodwill is there, but it has to be developed. I believe that the faith is also there, and I believe that if we go about it in a spirit of sincerity, we shall be richly endowed with blessings from Above.

Vote agreed to.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Vote No. 35.—“Information Service of South Africa”:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is experiencing certain problems, but we are experiencing the very special problem tonight that, as far as we are concerned, there cannot really be any question of debating tonight, since the princely total of 15 minutes of speaking time has been allocated to us in which to deal with this whole Vote. For that reason there are only two aspects to which I can refer. [Interjections.] Our problem is not one which we can solve now, because it is one of those situations that has to do with Parliamentary rules, and I leave it at that.

Fortunately a special opportunity has been created for a debate on the Erasmus Commission report and this enables us to leave the past aside, in so far as one can separate the two, and instead merely touch on a few aspects with regard to the future.

We understand that the new Information service, under the leadership of Mr. Engelbrecht, has had to commence under very difficult circumstances, with the problems of the former Department of Information in its lap. We sympathize with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs because he is still sitting with this baby, for whom he is not responsible, in his lap. I must say that, judging by the work of the former Department of Information which still has to be sorted out by the Information service, I am absolutely amazed that they have been able to do any positive work whatsoever since last year. I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to wish the new staff everything of the best and I sincerely hope that in the interests of the Department of Foreign Affairs and in the interests of the country, we are able to deal with the Information scandal as swiftly as possible and to get it behind our backs.

Arising out of the situation that prevailed, there are two matters, inter alia, about which we are naturally sensitive and about which the country will be sensitive. The one is the question of control of taxpayers’ money and the other is the use of the taxpayers’ money for party-political purposes. Obviously our attention will be focussed on this to ensure that that type of thing does not happen again. Our request to the hon. the Minister is that we should just like to hear from him that it will not happen again—after all, there is no guarantee that he will always be the Minister in control of this—we should also like to hear that it will be made impossible for such a situation to occur again. I therefore hope that he will be able to explain the situation to us. Of course there will still be secret projects, because every country has them and we have no fundamental objection to them. Of necessity there will also be utilization of secret funds, but we want to know what machinery has been created to prevent such an uncontrolled and loose handling of State funds from occurring again, as has happened during the past four to five years to the severe detriment of this country and the taxpayer. In the second place we should also like to hear what role he envisages Parliament will play with regard to confidential and sensitive projects in particular, and projects financed out of secret funds. I believe there is a feeling that Parliament should be brought into the picture in some way to ensure that, irrespective of audit controls, Parliament, too, should be able to keep an eye on what is being done so that if necessary, criticism can be expressed.

The second aspect to which I referred, is a matter about which we feel very strongly. I believe we all agree that it is politically unethical to utilize the taxpayer’s money to further party-political interests. I know it is not always easy to distinguish between where national policy begins and where party-political policy in regard to affairs ends. As I see it, when the Government has piloted a law through Parliament and has initiated certain action on that basis, that which flows from legislation and decisions of this Parliament, becomes national policy. Until such time as party-political policy, which is changeable, is moulded into legislative form, it is not national policy. We should like to have from the hon. the Minister not only an assurance, but also an explanation of the type of action that will be taken so that we can have absolute confidence that publications such as The Citizen and others that were there openly for the promotion of party-political and not national policy, will not be established again.

Finally, I just want to say that as far as the new activities of the new Information service are concerned, we wish them everything of the best, as I have said. I have examined the annual report. One again notices one major deficiency. We discussed African ties and our need to become a country of Africa at some length this afternoon. I hope the hon. the Minister will furnish guidance to his new department, as soon as they are rid of all the old burdens, so that we can now begin to distribute information on a much wider scale in Africa. If we are unable to achieve a more favourable attitude in Africa, a very difficult future indeed awaits us.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for the open mind with which he observes and approaches the new Information Service. The staff are indeed people who should not only be given a chance, but who should also be thanked, for not only have they been accomplishing their task in a creditable way throughout, under what have probably been the most difficult circumstances under which officials of this country have ever had to work, but they also stepped into the breach for South Africa in spite of the heavy burden which the Information scandal imposed on them, their wives and their families. On the occasion of a conference with our Information men overseas, one of them asked me whether I realized how painful it was that the head of Information who had thought up all erroneous things and had caused the debacle, had disappeared from the scene while the body that had had to do all the sound work and had had no part in the irregularities, had to endure the blows and chastisement. That sums up the position and feelings of many of these officials in the Information Service of South Africa.

Before elucidating the new managerial setup in our Information Service tonight, in the course of which I shall reply to the questions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I trust to his satisfaction, there are certain aspects that I must emphasize. South Africa has suffered a severe setback as a result of these tragic events. Our enemies have gained an advantage. Unless we shake off this monumental emotionalism which it has brought about, unless we now get ourselves out of this sorrowful state, all of us in this country will have to pay the price; all of us, all political parties and ultimately, too, the Black leaders, the Coloured leaders and the leaders of the Asiatics, everyone in South Africa who advocates clean administration and wants to build new development processes and structures in Southern Africa, will have to pay the price. The result will be that we will be inflicting wounds on ourselves until we have bled to death. And all this to the delight of our enemies. Moreover, we would be burdening the staff of our Information Service to such an extent with frustration and with an impression of apathy towards them as persons and indifference to their difficult task that we could no longer, to my mind, expect them to retain their enthusiasm for the cause. If, after everything that has happened, after all the misery, all the sorrow and the pathos, after the price that has been paid, there are individuals who still wish to continue, like vultures, to consume the last fibres adhering to the bones, let them do so by all means, but they must know that they do so to their own detriment and shame.

My appeal to hon. members of this House, and also to the country, tonight, is this: Not only should you give my staff in the Information Service a fair chance now, but please display gratitude and appreciation as well for what they have calmly been doing for all of us at home and abroad under these very trying circumstances and during this very difficult period extending over several months. They had to find their way and do their work calmly, with honour and with integrity, in spite of the adversity they suffered, in which they were in no way instrumental. There is not a single person in the Information Service who was aware of what the Rhoodies were getting up to. It was deliberately concealed from the members of South Africa’s Information Service. The dirty water did not siphon through to the storeys below the top level, and fortunately so. That is also the reason why these officers are still inspired people. It is because they had nothing to do with it.

Allow me just to sketch the problem of a senior officer in the Information Service. On a certain occasion the Press telephoned him. He was a Press liaison officer.

The overseas Press?

No, the Press here in South Africa. Representatives of the Press came to him and said: “We have information that you people own houses overseas, as well as stands, cafes and restaurants,” and goodness knows what else. “We have information that you people own cattle at Vrekvêr.” The officer then asked Dr. Eschel Rhoodie about this: “Doctor, I have received inquiries from the Press about this matter. Is this correct?” To which Dr. Rhoodie replied: “Man, surely you know this is nonsense. This is rubbish. Why should we be interested in that? Go and tell them that.” The Press persisted with the charge and inquiry. The officer went back to Dr. Rhoodie and said to him: “Doctor, I think you should check with National Security. Perhaps they own these things.” Dr. Rhoodie undertook to find out, after which he summoned the officer and informed him: “I am telling you for the last time that this is nonsense. Tell that to the Press. Why can’t you tell them the truth?” The officer then explained the state of affairs to the Press, as he had received it from his Secretary, whereupon they laughed in his face, because they had information of their own. That was of course another facet which I should not like to go into too deeply now. However, I do wish to put one question tonight: “How long did some of the South African newspapers know about these irregularities? How many files did they have on these matters? How much evidence did they have on them? How long did they conceal things from the public of South Africa? Why did they do so? Who made the actual disclosure?” I shall let these questions suffice. I leave it to their consciences to supply those answers to the public without any cover-up. [Interjections.] Let us now wait for the answers.

You sat in the Cabinet for months but you never asked questions. Why did you not?

When a country such as ours has become the target of an unprecedented psychological onslaught one cannot deal with the onslaught by means of a conventional approach.

None so blind as those who will not see.

This aspect is summarized by Mr. F. M. Comford in a book he wrote with the title Micro-cosmographia Academica, (Cambridge, 1953), and I should like just to quote a single extract from that book because it sketches this aspect so strikingly, even though it might not appear very acceptable at first glance. He put it this way—

This can apply to members of the Opposition—

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Let me just finish, if you do not mind. There will be sufficient time.

The point I wish to make is that it is obvious that the conventional practices and working methods are inadequate to ward off an intense trans-national, unconventional propaganda onslaught on the public of South Africa. It is also obvious that South Africa will have to employ its own unconventional methods and launch its own counter-actions against the prejudices and the political motives of the anti-South African front.

In saying this, I am not condoning conduct without any rules. I am consequently grateful that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout agreed right at the outset here this evening that any country, and South Africa in particular, should be able to have secret projects. However, I am not one of those who say that this should be done without rules, lavishly and without restraint, for personal gain and without control. This Government has never been in favour of that type of approach, regardless of the object and regardless of the project.

It is an indisputable fact that human observation, generally, is non-objective. It is coloured by prejudice, by attitude and personal values and norms. The communist bloc was quicker to discern and exploit this human phenomenon than the West. They are past masters in the sphere of psychological analysis, of what makes people act the way they do, and how one can influence them to act and even to think the way one wishes them to act and think. It is as elementary as that. While the West spends vast amounts to send mechanisms to the moon, to Mars and to Jupiter to explore and conquer outer space, very little is actually being spent on research into the human psyche, into the spiritual side of the human race and into what it is that makes men think and act. The Russians appear to be ahead of the West as far as this discipline is concerned. As I say, the communist bloc has been concentrating on this field for a long time. It is for that reason that it has become necessary to project South Africa to the outside world. The Russians have not only mastered these disciplines in respect of their own domestic situation and in order to condition their own people. It also works the other way around. They are carrying out research into how one could, psychologically, destroy a country such as South Africa. They are studying and analysing this problem. The Russians have a particular approach. In the light of a country’s history, its cultural and religious structures, they ascertain what it is that motivates that country and its people and gives it strength and courage to offer resistance to subversion and threats. Then they analyse in the finest detail how those achilles’ tendons should be severed, what methods of subversion have to be applied, and this is supplemented by psychological campaigns, slogans and persuasion, and the influencing of ideas through a multitude of organizations, on the one hand to create dissatisfaction among the Blacks, Coloureds and Asiatics, and on the other hand to arouse fear among the Whites. At the same time, an effort is made to break down their religious feelings and faith and gradually to make them become hopeless, discouraged and semi-hysterical. Eventually their will is broken and they submit to the demands made on them, until ultimately they are so enervated that they can no longer govern themselves. This places them on the road of concessions which cause the whole structure of order to collapse. This is the method that is being employed in a masterly fashion. But that is not all. The Russians work through our enemies, through the UN and through 686 private organizations in the USA, for example church organizations, sports organizations, cultural organizations—the whole lot—to get at us. This octopus already has its tentacles on all levels and is sucking blood, trying to destroy this country and all her people—not only the Whites.

Projection is of course also a mechanism that sublimates guilt feelings, and certain Western countries have many guilt feelings about intolerable conditions in their own ranks. This is a point I should like to make. The unconventional onslaught is primarily psychological. We have to accept that. It does not matter whether it is waged in the economic arena, or in the arena of negotiations or persuasion. It remains directed at the conquest of South Africa by means of verbal and visual bombardments and a low intensity shooting war.

After these introductory remarks I should now like to come to the Information Service of South Africa, to the problems it has experienced during the transitional phase since Dr. Rhoodie, was succeeded by Mr. Schoeman and later Mr. Andries Engelbrecht and to a prospect for the future. I ask for some time for this. I shall try to deal with this as quickly as possible, but I think in view of what our Information men have had to go through and endure and in view of the actuality of the problem, I must deal with it as comprehensively as possible. In the first place I wish to point out that since the departure of Dr. Rhoodie, the Information Service as it is at present constituted, has had to function under extremely difficult circumstances. Let us first consider for a moment the primary objectives of this Service, so that we are better able to understand the other subjects I wish to deal with. There are two primary objectives. The first of these is to improve the attitude towards, and the image of, the Republic of South Africa, and in the second place, to ward off the psychological onslaughts on the Republic. This has been very simply stated, but is nevertheless very important. What are the main functions of the Information Service? They are the following—

1. 1. Promoting information on the Republic.
2. 2. Co-ordinating the publicity services of the Government sector.
3. 3. Elucidating Government policy and aims.
4. 4. Determining public opinion and informing the Government accordingly.
5. 5. Countering the verbal and visual onslaught on the Republic of South Africa.
6. 6. Organizing meetings, seminars and exhibitions with a view to exchanging of ideas, image-forming, and the combating of propaganda.
7. 7. Administrative and professional services.

These are briefly the tasks of the Information Service.

I come now to the things that went wrong in the former Department of Information, and I just wish to indicate what the main reasons for this were and identify them. In the first place planning, executive powers and control were vested in one and the same person. That was wrong. The Auditor-General was not included in the administration of the secret funds. Delegation was either nonexistent, or was poorly defined and without inherent responsibility. Control measures were sidestepped under the cloak of secrecy. In my opinion these were the basic reasons why things went wrong in the former Department of Information.

As far as methods and procedures were concerned, I wish to state that during the transitional phase we found that, strangely enough, the Information Service was very poorly equipped as far as communication technology was concerned, especially in view of its important communication function. It is almost incomprehensible how ironical it is that millions of rands were spent on “airy-fairy” things, while the department, the Information Service here in South Africa, did not have the necessary communication technology. Rhoodie was too busy with his schemes to bother about that. I should like to quote examples. We have 22 foreign and seven internal offices. At head office there was only one telex machine that had to serve all these offices. That is impossible; one cannot do that. The tiny tape-recording machines used at Press conferences, were inadequate and obsolete. What does such a little machine cost in comparison with the costs of the projects which Dr. Rhoodie undertook?

The cinematographic and development equipment for films was obsolete and inadequate. The studios where visitors and other people should be properly received, were unsatisfactory and did not comply with the required standards. The condition of the equipment caused faulty production. That was the situation we encountered within the department, but in the meantime Dr. Rhoodie travelled to the Seychelles and to Montreal, and bought cattle at a cost of thousands of rands for the farm Vrekvêr! Hon. members know why I am pointing out these facts. I have to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance for money. I shall have to obtain money to modernize and standardize the basic communication technology. It is for this reason that I am pointing this out to hon. members. I trust that I shall receive the necessary support.

What have we done to rectify matters? On 1 September 1978 I accepted responsibility for file new Information Service. At that stage—and this is important—the Information Service was not undertaking any secret projects. At that stage, the secret projects were assigned to the Van den Bergh Committee and not to the Information Service. Hon. members must please bear this in mind.

I wish to refer to the posts in the senior cadres. There were five senior posts, of which only two were effectively filled, and of which one was held by a temporary Director-General. There were two vacancies. That was how matters stood at the time. Hon. members know that the entire top structure of the former Department of Information had departed. They were gone. Les de Villiers, Dr. Deneys Rhoodie and Dr. Eschel Rhoodie were the men who had those projects in their hands in a secret planning section to which no one ever had access, except for Gen. Van den Bergh it seems. When this head was severed, the department had to be downgraded. In my opinion, that was in fact unfair at that stage, because we had to provide these services again at a later stage. However, I wish to leave it at that, because I do not want to get involved in a quarrel with the Public Service Commission tonight. I only want to come up for my men. In fact, we had a continuous struggle to get new posts created and to get suitable personnel appointed. What did we do in spite of all that? In October 1978, Mr. A. J. Engelbrecht was appointed as the new Director-General. He immediately carried out a comprehensive management survey to identify objectives, eliminate bottlenecks, and promote efficiency. He appointed a management committee consisting of the branch heads. The committee meets on a regular basis and deliberates on the operational policy, objectives, and strategy in order to achieve their objectives with the available organizational structure, the staff establishment, the finances and the means within the scope of fixed rules and regulations. Joint decision-making is now leading to a new team spirit and a better co-ordination of the Information Service as a whole. It gives me pleasure to be able to say this. Since the end of 1978, the management committee has been supported by a liaison committee consisting of the divisional heads and senior information controllers at head office. Delegations have been put in writing. Formerly, that was not the case. It has now been put into writing in order to prevent control being vested in the wrong office. Control has been separated from the executive functions. For example, the Head of Publications can no longer call for and approve tenders, and certify invoices himself. In one particular case this procedure created serious problems, which have consequently been reported, but I do not wish to elaborate too much on that tonight. A new publications and library committee has been established for proper control over purchases. The directives read that no publication may be purchased before the Publications Committee has recommended that it is essential and would achieve the expected results. Every recommendation for the purchase of a publication has to be accompanied by an indication that Treasury and Tender Board regulations have been scrupulously complied with and that funds are available. After the order has been executed, various officers have to certify, in accordance with the directives, that the order has been satisfactorily executed. Consequently that possible loophole for malpractices has now been eliminated.

These are only a few examples of the way in which the management and administration of the new Information Service is taking place. As far as the foreign offices are concerned, too, several conferences have already been held, for example in November 1978 and in March 1979, which I attended in person, to eliminate bottlenecks and motivate our overseas representatives. Co-operation has been re-established with the Public Service Commission, the Treasury, the Government Buyer, the Government Printer and the Department of Public Works—this is important—and consultation is once again taking place on a regular basis.

As far as motivation is concerned, it is a great challenge, under the particular circumstances I have sketched, to ensure a motivated staff corps. It was even necessary—I regret having to admit this—to allow the Head of Publications to retire on pension at an earlier stage owing to his lack of motivation and his inability to operate within the administrative processes of the Government and the guidelines of sound administration. Generally speaking, it must be said that the administration of the former Department of Information left much to be desired. Deficiencies such as poor administrative training, inadequate control over stores—which had often not been inventoried—poor control or no control at all over order forms, distribution bottlenecks, and so on, proved that there was a serious lack of administrative guidance and that this situation had prevailed over a long period. We have to admit that, and these are then the steps that have already been initiated and implemented to eliminate those weaknesses.

The most important aspect I wish to state positively here this evening is: What are we now setting up as our objectives? In the first place, the Information Service intends, as soon as it has rid itself of the burden of the old projects, to concentrate on the improvement of the provision of information to the South African public. Plans are already being devised for the improvement of the existing source of information or data bank and for linking it up to other existing relevant data banks. In this way it will be possible to retrieve information on practically any subject that has not been classified. To a great extent, the Official Year Book will be used as a data key. Secondly, work is already under way, at home and abroad, comprehensive communication plans and these plans are being drawn up in such a way that it will be possible every year to give thought to objectives and to how they could be achieved, and on whether the various overseas offices have the necessary facilities for that purpose. The value of such a master plan in which the targets are also properly identified, is obvious.

In the third place, it is the operational policy of the Information Service at present not to do anything in secret unnecessarily. Before a proposal for a secret project is approved it is very thoroughly investigated. It has to be entirely in the interests of South Africa if the project has to be classified. Only then is that decision taken. To operate institutes at universities with secret funds, institutes that could be openly supported by the State, is simply to look for trouble and to conceal potential misappropriations. That type of spending does not take place any more and can no longer take place under the administrative structure and control measures that have now been introduced.

In the fourth place, owing to the success of the foreign visitors’ programme and follow-up seminars abroad, this programme will, with optimum participation by the private sector, be considerably expanded. We appreciate the co-operation of Opposition parties and their contributions to the programmes that are planned for these Government guests, and we should like to convey our gratitude to them for doing so. The co-operation of the Opposition parties ensures that the visitor leaves the country with a balanced impression. Similarly we appreciate contributions by leading figures of other population groups.

As far as visitors are concerned, we hope to have further consultations with the private sector and to discuss openly and frankly the position of visitors from our country to other countries and overseas visitors to our country. We want to see if we cannot, somewhere and somehow, establish a central organization to co-ordinate and rationalize, so as to ensure that there is not too much duplication in this field. The basic idea is to enable our members of Parliament and private leading figures in our country to visit overseas countries on a larger scale than before, not for the purpose of benefitting a specific political party, but of telling the outside world about the beautiful, noble, positive and constructive achievements of South Africa and all her people and of debating with them the distorted representations of our country and its people.

The fifth aspect I wish to raise, is that we should like to have a mouthpiece for Southern Africa—this possibly ties up with what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout proposed—in which, it is hoped, as many of our neighbouring States as possible would have a share. We are planning to include this as part of the Southern African strategy to promote the image of a Southern African community of co-operating nations. Consequently we do not envisage a sectional newspaper operated by us with secret funds, but rather the type of publication we hope all Governments of Southern African would participate in, so that a publication could come into existence which could report to us and to the world from week to week on the most important events in Umtata, Salisbury, Windhoek, Mmabatho, Mbabane, Mabopane, Pretoria or wherever it may be in the Southern African context. Perhaps the private sector should undertake this. This newspaper would, inter alia, provide topical news about leading figures, politicians, the most important economists and the most important activities and doings of this great workshop of Southern Africa, the most powerful on the African continent. We hope to be able to obtain support from the Governments of our neighbouring States for this publication, or from our private sector.

I should also like to mention, in the sixth place, that an effort will be made to extend the Information Service in South America and to have representatives of ours accredited in other countries besides Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chili and Bolivia.

The seventh aspect I want to mention is that since it is becoming more difficult to have the case for South Africa stated in the media in other countries, the advertising techniques and liaison programmes will have to be extended considerably. More funds are going to be required for this than were initially estimated, and I hope hon. members are not going to punish my Information Service for the way its predecessors misused money, but are going to support us in the particularly valuable new techniques we are envisaging.

In the eighth place I should also like to mention that the Information Service of South Africa will exert itself to liaise more satisfactorily with other Government departments and State institutions and to plan on a joint basis. Co-ordination and joint planning should be our watchword, while duplication and activities which provoke unnecessary professional jealousy must be eliminated. At present, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Information Service of South Africa are working very closely together. Not only are they in full agreement, but they complement each other in an excellent way. The men have joined forces and are co-operating with new courage and inspiration for the sake of South Africa. An effort will also be made to make an end to one-man offices abroad as soon as it is expedient. It is simply impossible to operate one-man offices, for when such an officer goes on leave his important work comes to a standstill for the period of his leave.

A ninth aspect I wish to mention is that pursuant to our policy of closer Southern African ties, Information offices ought, wherever possible, to be established in newly independent Black States. That also applies to countries such as Zimbabwe Rhodesia and South West Africa where we hope we shall soon obtain an Information presence in such a way and of such magnitude that it will do justice to our whole approach with regard to Southern Africa.

In the tenth place I must point out that a greater utilization of female staff is desirable. In certain countries, however, the appointment of women for these particular tasks is unfortunately not desirable.

In the eleventh place the Information Service will to an increasing extent, have to make use of the word, in both its spoken and written form, in the RSA and overseas. The prestige publication Panorama, which appears at present in six languages, will be published in eight or more languages. Plans to publish the SA. Digest in separate German and French issues as well, with special centre-spread articles, are in an advanced stage. At home, SA. Oorsig, is being expanded as regards both contents and circulation. There are plans to extend the donation of purchased publications in terms of the international library project to approximately 200 important Western libraries. The production of documentary films and brief newsworthy items on films and video cassettes, will be stepped up to counteract anti-South African smear films and television programmes to an increasing extent.

The twelfth matter I wish to mention is that constant attention will be given to scientific training over the entire spectrum of Information Service activities. In this way a growing corps of trained officials will be made available.

I should now like to deal with the secret projects. Most of the secret projects of the former department have been transferred to the new Information Service of South Africa. These are those secret projects which were not summarily terminated after the Pretorius Committee had submitted its reports and recommendations and after the National Security Council had reached a decision on them. At this stage, there is no fixed organizational structure for these projects in the Information Service. The take-over or salvaging of the projects is placing a heavy burden on the Information Service and its officials. This was, inter alia, one of the reasons why we introduced the Bill on the institution of a State Trust Council in good time. I am not going to deal with that now; the Bill has been introduced and I trust that I shall have the support of hon. members for it, seen against the background of the dilemmas in which we have found ourselves.

Up to the end of 1978, the Director-General had to devote the major part of his day to work of the Pretorius Committee, of which he was a member. With effect from 1 January, the Director-General took over accounting responsibility for all current projects. Consequently he also had to report to the Select Committee on Public Accounts on the irregularities which the Auditor-General exposed.

Fortunately, the post of Director of Administrative Services has been filled and as an ad hoc arrangement—this is not a permanent arrangement and forms part of my problems—we are being allowed to create an Information Research Institute to operate secret projects under the guidance of a director and to assist with the clearing up and salvation exercise. The Public Service Commission is still engaged in an inspection with a view to bringing the organization and staff establishment of the Information Service in line with the need once again. However, we cannot carry on an ad hoc basis much longer and I trust that we shall shortly be able, with the co-operation of the Public Service Commission, to come to a permanent arrangement.

As regards the existing secret projects, they can be divided, according to their nature into: Collaborators, collaborating organizations and institutions, guest programmes, publication projects, institutes and foundations, advertising programmes, films, news and photographic services, conferences, liaison services, channels of payment, etc. Every project taken over from the former department is re-evaluated, and if it is not terminated, it is proceeded with, extended, or scaled down. The services of eight collaborators were accordingly dispensed with recently, two organizations were disbanded, four publications were discontinued, three institutes and institutions are now openly receiving financial aid, certain liaison services have been discontinued, and specific channels of payment have been cancelled. However, with a view to the responsibility towards the collaborators, details are not being disclosed at this stage, nor do I foresee that they will be disclosed in future, unless Dr. Rhoodie blows up the whole issue again in some hostile newspaper or other, as he has done with most of these projects. I also understand that hon. members on the opposite side are not interested in the details but want to be reassured about control measures and wish to be certain that we shall not promote the party-political interests of one party in South Africa with secret funds.

It has to be emphasized that when I accepted responsibility for the Information Service on 1 September 1978 there were no secret projects any more that were being operated by the then Bureau for National and International Communication. After 1 July 1978, all projects were brought under the control of the Van den Bergh Committee, which had to undertake the necessary evaluation of the projects and at the same time was also responsible for the allocation of secret funds to certain of the projects. General Van den Bergh was then succeeded by the Kemp Committee, and this committee was in turn succeeded by the Pretorius Committee. After the Pretorius Committee had submitted its support to the National Security Council, the Security Council decided that from approximately the end of December 1978, the secret projects should be returned to the Information Service and continued and re-evaluated from time to time by the Information Service. On 1 January 1979—and I am emphasizing this— the Director-General of the Information Service became the new accounting officer of the secret projects, and he established a special unit, the Information Research Institute, as indicated.

I gave the institute instructions that all projects that were being proceeded with, should once again be thoroughly investigated and re-evaluated so as to ascertain beyond all doubt whether the projects met the requirement that they were in the interests of South Africa and that we were receiving value for our money. That is an ongoing instruction, which has to be complied with throughout. As a result of investigations undertaken by the institute, various irregularities were brought to the notice of the Commission of Inquiry into Irregularities in the former Department of Information, and officials of the institute gave evidence in that regard. The Director of the Institute personally asked Mr. Justice Erasmus whether his commission wanted to investigate the projects of the institute, but Mr. Justice Erasmus told him that his Commission was only investigating those projects within which the irregularities had taken place.

Hon. members are aware of the statement I issued on 30 March this year. All that remains for me to do is to state that the steps that are now being taken in connection with the financial control over the secret projects, are in my opinion more than adequate to ensure that there will be no repetition of what has happened in the past.

I should just like to deal briefly with these steps. After the effectiveness or usefulness of a secret project has been evaluated and it is decided to initiate it or to continue it, the following financial control measures come into effect: In the first place, a submission is made to the Minister, who decides whether the project should be initiated or continued. It cannot be initiated or continued without such approval in principle. In the second place, as soon as approval in principle has been obtained, the secret funds are requested through the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance, who decide whether the project is in the national interests and whether the funds applied for are justified.

In the third place, as soon as financial authorization has been given to proceed with the project or o initiate it, the following internal control measures become effective: Firstly, where possible, a contract is drawn up between the institute and the project person, body, or organization. The contract is submitted to the State Attorney so that he can verify its validity in law and make sure that the interests of the State will be protected and served. There are therefore no verbal undertakings, verbal misunderstandings or contradictory and unrecorded telephone calls whereby millions of rands can be wasted. As far as possible, the work is done by means of written contracts.

In the second place, the payment of funds takes place in accordance with a prescribed disbursement form on which the particulars in connection with the relevant payment is entered, and which must be supported by the necessary vouchers pertaining to the matter. Where this is applicable, a contract disbursement is requested through the project programmer, who has to certify that the disbursement requested takes place in terms of the conditions of the contract. After this the disbursement form goes to the accountant who has to satisfy himself whether adjustments have to be made with regard to the disbursements and whether the vouchers for disbursement are acceptable. He also has to indicate the balance of the funds for the project. After that, the disbursement form and vouchers are submitted to the director charged with secret projects, and he has to satisfy himself that the particulars are correct and he also has to recommend all disbursements.

Finally, the disbursement form is submitted to the Director-General for final approval that the disbursement may take place. Apart from these control measures, all payment problems which may be encountered, have to be submitted to the Treasury for guidance and approval. A full-time auditor from the Auditor-General’s office performs the necessary audit in connection with the projects, and where adjustment problems may arise, the Auditor-General is asked for advice. The Public Service Commission is consulted in matters in which the commission has an interest. The S.A. Reserve Bank is fully consulted in connection with disbursements that have to take place abroad.

With this, I have given the House an indication of the control measures that are at present in operation in the new Information Service of South Africa. I trust that at the same time this answers the questions the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put to me.

I should like to conclude by saying that South Africa has now had a backlog for long enough and that our enemies have now had an advantage over us for long enough. Let us now get the events of the past behind us. Give our men in our Information Service abroad and at home the chance to serve South Africa, and show them some gratitude for having continued to perform their duties so meticulously and with so much success under these very difficult circumstances.

Furthermore, I invite all hon. members please to assist us with this great task. We intend to approach the private sector to obtain advice from our academics and experts. The intention is not to bribe people, to launch ill-considered secret projects or to send people overseas in a clandestine or underhand way. We have sufficient brainpower and skill in South Africa to set in motion a powerful orientation programme, a truth dissemination programme on South Africa, a persuasion programme, a psychological counteraction programme. I am certain that all South Africans who desire peace, progress and prosperity, will participate eagerly in this new pioneering movement overseas to make the truth about our country known to the world.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. the Minister is dealing with the budget of the Information Service for the first time, I want to congratulate him on behalf of this side of the House on his appointment to his post and wish him everything of the best for the year ahead. This is definitely a very important and responsible service. I think it is of greater importance than we in South Africa perhaps realize. For that reason I wish the hon. the Minister everything of the best. On behalf of all of us here I should like to congratulate the director, Mr. Engelbrecht, on his appointment and wish him and his top management everything of the best. We realize how difficult their task is and that is why we have all the more appreciation for the work they are doing.

We are all aware that there have been problems with the old Department of Information over the past year. However, we must remember that the department had two facets: The secret funds on the one hand and the public funds on the other. The major problem lies with the secret funds, and I shall leave it at that, because it is still being dealt with.

I want to discuss the public funds and how they were utilized. The hon. the Minister has already referred to the work done with these funds by officials inside South Africa and abroad. In October last year I had the privilege of visiting America and London. The inspiration and zeal with which the department’s people were doing their work overseas, is really admirable. We, on our part, should like to thank them most sincerely for the excellent service they have rendered in all respects. In this regard I also want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister. They worked under difficult conditions, but they did their task so well that it could never be said of any of them that they did not do their duty.

If we examine the budget, we see that, although there are 22 foreign offices, as the hon. file Minister said, only a mere R8 million is being appropriated. Now hon. members must realize that this money is earmarked for the whole of America, including South America, and Europe. In addition we have the situation that these officials are working for an organization that has been down-graded. Since the hon. the Prime Minister announced this year that the number of Government departments will be reduced and streamlined, I want to ask the Cabinet, when discussing these matters, to consider upgrading this service in this programme of consolidation. There are few organizations that are playing such an important part in South Africa today as our Information Service is in fact doing.

A psychological war is being waged against South Africa and the hon. the Minister and his officials have to counteract it with a very small and meagre little budget. The total budget to counteract this onslaught on South Africa, to collect information and also to convey the information to all the population groups in South Africa, amounts to a mere R15,l million. For that reason we all hope that in future, although there is little money and not enough money for everything, an attempt will be made to do something to assist this service. The service has a major task overseas, particularly in view of this psychological onslaught on South Africa. We know that they are trying to reach certain people, especially opinion-formers, policymakers as well as the man in the street. If one letter is written to every American, between R20 million and R24 million will have been used. What can be achieved by one letter per year to every person in that country? This demonstrates the tremendous shortage of cash that exists.

I think we should spend some time examining what the service has done and how it has spent its money. I want to be positive this evening and I am pleased that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was not negative. I think it is in the interests of everyone in South Africa that credit should be given where it is due, and we must point out the fine and good things as well as the wonderful work being done by the service and its officials. We must forget the things that have happened. We cannot stand at the graveside for ever. We must move on and we must give publicity to South Africa’s name. We are alive today, we want to continue to live tomorrow and in future, and our children want to live too. That is why we must develop and propagate these matters in future. I hope that all three Opposition parties will also assist with this task in future.

Furthermore I want to mention the annual report of the Information Service of South Africa which we received. It is a brief, concise and pithy report that contains a wealth of information. It is also very easily readable and I want to thank the South African Information Service for this fine piece of work and all the other scores of good publications. I would have liked to have said more about this, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so. I am also thinking of the films that were made, the radio and TV programmes and everything done by the people of the South African Information Service as far as photography, exhibitions, the “lobbyists” and conferences are concerned. Last year there were, inter alia, two conferences in America, one in Los Angeles, and one in Washington that was addressed by Prof. P. J. Cillié of Stellenbosch. We received reports that the conferences were very successful. We must do more of this type of thing.

I want to express great appreciation for the hon. the Minister’s announcement that he would possibly make use of MPs to pay visits abroad. I consider this a very good idea which will yield dividends and in this way South Africa’s money will be well spent. Our experience has been that personal contact is, after all, the best method. In this regard I could mention that I had the privilege of attending the ICC Congress in Orlando, in Florida. At this congress more than 2 000 businessmen were brought together from all over the world. At this congress I wondered to what extent the American people were opposed to South Africa. I made contact with approximately 40 businessmen from various parts of the United States. I found that none of these businessmen had anything negative to say about South Africa. In fact, some of them issued invitations to me and I had dinner with them later in Washington. Some of them also visited South Africa. They have a positive attitude to South Africa and the hon. the Minister will be able to use such personal contacts to good effect. There are bodies such as the news media, the Department of Foreign Affairs in America and their associates that are opposed to South Africa. The dozens of congress members whom I met had a positive approach and were in favour of South Africa.

I should like to put a few questions to hon. members of the Opposition this evening. The hon. the Minister asked what information they had at their disposal on the former Department of Information. I now want to turn specifically to the hon. members for Yeoville and Parktown. These two hon. members, who are serving on the Select Committee on Public Accounts, were the principal speakers last year on the report on matters concerning the former Department of Information. We know that the secret report of 42 pages written by the previous Auditor-General, Mr. Barrie, found its way into the hands of the Sunday Express. Now I specifically want to ask the hon. members for Yeoville and Parktown whether, at any stage, they saw the secret report which found its way into the hands of the Sunday Express?

No.

Consequently the hon. member neither saw it nor received it?

No, not at all. [Interjections.]

What are you suggesting?

I want to clear up certain matters. I am asking those hon. members directly whether they saw it or received it I am asking a direct question; I do not insinuate things as the hon. member for Groote Schuur does. I ask a person something directly and when a person asks me something, I reply to him directly too.

We replied to it.

Those two hon. members said “no” in reply to the question I put to them and I accept it and to the hon. member for Groote Schuur I now say: So what? What must I say further? [Interjections.]

Did you see it?

No, I did not see it. I wonder how long the Sunday Express had it in their possession and why they did not approach the hon. the Minister. What was the Sunday Express’s duty to South Africa? Is it a newspaper which gives top priority to the survival and good intentions of South Africa, yes or no? Eighty per cent of the negative reports on South Africa that have been sent out of South Africa over the years since 1950 originated from the English-language Press. Not long ago another survey was carried out which indicated that approximately the same percentage of negative reports are still originating from those newspapers. I want to ask these newspapers to be positive about South Africa in future and to refrain from sending out negative reports. This is the task of all of us. They can criticize if they have to, but they should remember that, if South Africa goes down, they will all go down with us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal too much with what the hon. member for Sunnyside has said, except to say that I agree with him that South Africa has many friends overseas. I believe all of us who have met businessmen, politicians and friends from overseas have found that to be the case. I agree that we have many friends overseas. Later in my speech I shall come back to that point.

I should like to address my remarks to the hon. the Minister.

I am tired now.

I should like to thank him on behalf of my party for being so frank with us tonight about the state of the former Department of Information he took over. I think it takes courage for him to be so frank and to explain to this Committee just how bad things were. What I think is even more serious and what I think has caused a lot of problems for South Africa, is the fact that the permanent staff of the former Department of Information should have been neglected in the way they have been neglected. I can imagine the frustrations the staff must have experienced through this very difficult period. We agree with the hon. the Minister that the staff of the former Department of Information have been loyal servants of South Africa. I should like to assure the hon. the Minister and also the Director-General and the staff of the new Information Service that we in these benches will support them all the way. We will give them a chance. I want the hon. the Minister to appreciate that we are not going to continue to harp on what has happened in the past. What has happened in the past, is now over. Be that as it may, it was the responsibility of the Government and the Cabinet Ministers. The fact that we in the Opposition and the Press went to such lengths to try to expose it, demonstrates, I believe, the processes of democratic government. It is our duty as politicians in the Opposition and the duty of the Press to ensure that there is good, clean government. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister and also hon. members on that side of the House will appreciate the fact that, when we in the Opposition take such a stand, we are doing it in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the Civil Service.

Having said that, let me say that I was also pleased to see that the hon. the Minister clearly laid out his objectives and the checks and controls, etc. which he is going to introduce in the new service. We are not particularly concerned about the nitty-gritty or the details of the secret projects. We trust that hon. the Minister, as we have in the past trusted that the Ministers of State would do their duty in the good traditions of democratic government. The ball in this regard is entirely in that hon. the Minister’s court. This is his responsibility. We trust him, and, knowing the hon. the Minister, I am sure that he will do an excellent job in that regard.

I was interested in his statement as to what the two major objectives of his department are, namely, firstly, to improve the image of South Africa and, secondly, to defend South Africa against the enemies of South Africa. These, I believe, are two important roles this Service has to play. The Information Service of South Africa has an extremely important role to play in the interests of South Africa. They have to sell South Africa to the overseas countries. They have to sell the policies of this country, they have to build up a sense of national pride so as to encourage people to come to South Africa, to visit us as tourists, but, most of all, to come and invest here so that our economy can benefit from it. In this particular regard we agree with the hon. the Minister that South Africa has a large number of enemies whom we can never placate. He said earlier on in the Foreign Affairs debate that we can never satisfy the radical elements of this world. We accept that. Those enemies are out to destroy South Africa. At the same time, having said that, we in these benches believe that we do have these friends overseas to whom the hon. the member for Sunnyside has referred. We believe that it is the duty of the members of Parliament, as South Africans, and of the officials of the Information Service of South Africa to ensure that we retain these friends overseas. I think this is extremely important. They are our allies in this regard and this is the duty of the Information Service of South Africa. Having read the report, I believe that to retain these friends, we also have to make sure that what we do within South Africa does not embarrass our friends overseas. I hope that all hon. members on that side of the House have read this report on the Information Service. I have read it from cover to cover. It is stated here that (p. 3.)—

This is in the report, and if the hon. the Minister cares to read it, the report goes further under the subheading of “Paris” on page 14—and I do not have the time to read it—that, because the conditions within South Africa have been quiet recently, there was not a negative response from the Press in Paris and in France. I think this bears out the point I tried to make during the Foreign Affairs debate, namely that we and especially the hon. Ministers and members of the Government side have got to make sure that we do not react in the way which is going to cause our friends overseas to be embarrassed.

In this regard I should like to go back a little. During the debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote many hon. members on that side of the House attacked me and directed accusations at me. I felt that the hon. member for Pretoria West went a bit far when he said that my statements damaged South Africa. I do not believe that this is true. I believe that any person overseas who reads my Hansard will say that there is hope for South Africa, that “there is a man, there is an Opposition parliamentarian, who is defending the true and the high ideals of democratic government”. [Interjections.] I truly believe this. The role of the Opposition is to do this. I would rather say that it is the Government that embarrasses South Africa.

Last year I spent two weeks in England where I attended the Conservative Party congress for five days and also spent a week in London where I visited South Africa House and met a lot of British MPs. Amongst them were British MPs who have visited this country and whom I have met here. They told me that when they went back to England they told their colleagues that changes were taking place in South Africa. Then, when they thought they had convinced their colleagues, one of them would say: “But look what a Minister has said in South Africa: There is going to be no change in the policy of apartheid in South Africa.” And so it went on.

These men said: “Do you know, we just can’t win.” This is absolutely true. Two to three weeks ago groups of parliamentarians from this Parliament met some very prominent American businessmen here in the city. That was at the time when the report of the Wiehahn Commission was issued. Hon. members on that side of the House accuse the Opposition of being unpatriotic, but we told these men: “Look, here is a major breakthrough.” Our Senator, Mrs. Anna Scheepers, said: “My union has been fighting for 30 years for this; this is a major break-through.” We sold to these people the very favourable changes that this report indicated would take place in the field of labour relations. There was enthusiasm from hon. members of the Opposition. But what has happened since then? Before coming to that, let me say that we also had appearing on our TV screens Black people who said: “This is a major break-through; we welcome it.” But what has happened since? It is as if the whole thing has been a lot of double-talk. What are the people overseas, those Americans, going to say now when those same Black leaders are saying: “Wait a minute; the Government has run away from the intentions of the Commission’s report.” The hon. the Minister is shaking his head, but I want to ask him to read the Bill and to read the report of the Commission to see whether they tie up. This is the double-talk that I have been referring to, and this is where the South African Government loses credibility.

You do not understand it.

There is another report that I would like to show the hon. the Minister. It appears in The Daily News of Friday, 1 June, on page 14. The article appears under the heading “Would-be friends puzzled by gag Bill—South African banker.” This is a very interesting report and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has seen it. Let me quote what the S.A. Banker had to say about his visits to England—

He adds—

Right at the end, quoting a British stockbroker, the report says …

What paper is that now?

It is The Daily News, and the report is from London. It says—

Which Botha is that?

The hon. the Prime Minister.

No, he would not.

The point that I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that while we will back him and his department all the way—we believe that the people who are doing the greatest damage to our image are those who are engaging in this double-talk and who are applying such double standards as this gag Bill. [Time expired.]

I do not agree with you. That is your perception.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to South Africa in world perspective and locally and the functions of our Information Services, it would be irresponsible and simply stupid to continue everlastingly with the pursuit of and the campaign of vindictiveness and small-time petty party-political exploitation. I think we have had enough of that.

Sure.

We should move on to a new front that of a positive approach. I cannot help but to salute the brilliant manner in which the hon. the Minister and his staff— Mr. Andries Engelbrecht, Mr. Gerbie Grobler, Mr. Paul Coetzee, Mr. Vlok Delport and all the other gentlemen—have developed a new “battle plan” to promote our country.

South Africa is fighting against the Russians, the Cubans and the terrorists on their pay-roll, but especially also against a whole host of hypocrites and, perhaps even more important, a massive number of uninformed misinformed and unenlightened people, many of whom are well-meaning and decent people.

In the African context old-time colonialism is today being replaced by a new kind of colonialism, i.e. Russian imperialism. This is what we are fighting!

In my humble opinion it started with that vital bit of history involving Sir Anthony Eden and the Suez Canal in 1956. The British and French captured the Suez Canal in order to protect the passage of oil through it. The Eisenhower Administration decried this action and, apparently unable to see the logical tie of Middle East oil to power and economic growth, forced the Europeans to back off. That was a vital point in world destiny.

Since then the United States, as the strongest Western country and the recognized leader of the Western world, the Free World, has not shown any firmness or steadfastness in contesting or thwarting Russian in-roads into an increasing number of strategically vital, essential and sensitive areas of the world. Its high-prestige role continued for a while only, until Vietnam. Today, practically all around the world, America is taking a beating. It is standing by helplessly, fearful of more Vietnams. I would describe it as a pitiful, helpless giant. Free-World interests are, in fact, crumbling in the Middle East and a number of other important areas. It seems doubtful whether America will soon, or soon enough, or perhaps ever, recover from what could be called terminal timidity. It seems to me that increasingly the nations of the Western world, including Japan, are at least beginning to be concerned, and some are convinced that the United States is no longer able, or willing or inclined to contest the inroads of the Russians into regions vital to the Free World.

This is where I think we should pose a question. Is there, in fact, a dramatic shift in world power alignments, slowly but surely beginning to emerge? I believe so. Furthermore, I believe that South Africa could benefit greatly, especially provided we can timeously structure and restructure our own situation in Southern Africa in such a manner as to convince our friends and potential friends that they would be doing the right thing to stand by us because our intentions towards them are honourable. We should let them know that we want to promote their interests, that we want to do good for them and that we want to assure them that we are offering them a better alternative than they can get from the Russians and their helpers. The “keys” for us in this approach are undoubtly internal harmony and the South African nation and all its political parties moving forward, as a united front against our enemies; especially, as the hon. the Minister has explained on many occasions, with the inclusion of the countries in the African and Southern African context in our strategy.

In this new evolving world order it seems to me likely that Germany and France, and perhaps also Great Britain, will continue to play leading roles, a community of European nations ultimately embracing perhaps some 250 million people who are more conservative and more knowledgeable about Africa and South Africa, who are very dependent on us and who are less hypocritical because they acknowledge the fact that they do need us. I believe that there are a host of opportunities in the offing for us. In fact, I believe they are around the comer. However, much remains to be done by us on many fronts, for example among the masses of the people in other countries, among the leaders of other countries and among our own people in this country. The point I really want to make here is that our information services are vital because this is where they actually come in.

In this House, and on many other occasions, I have appealed for a three-pronged approach. I have appealed for the compilation and distribution of a publication, on a massive scale, a publication containing comparative, factual information about South Africa—the good and the bad. I have appealed for a campaign of increased communication among the various racial and population groups in South Africa, and with reference to the outside world, making use in the process of the comparative, factual information to which I have already referred.

Thirdly, I have appealed for a campaign for a free but truthful and balanced viewpoint Press in this country and internationally, with reference to South Africa. By that I do not mean that there should not be political bias in editorial comments. However, the news itself should certainly be given factually and fully, and without a design on any particular kind of biased objective. I want to repeat that I believe that exposure to the general public, also of mistakes and distortions in the media world, is much more preferable than any approach of more or excessive legislation.

The day after I appealed in this House for this type of information I had lunch at the Landdrost Hotel, in Johannesburg, with an old Rotarian colleague and friend of mine. He handed me a cheque for R10 000 with a request to start such a publication as I appealed for. He said he had 25 000 people on his mailing list and that we need it. To cut a long story short, but to still illustrate my point, I want to state that more than 100 000 copies of that publication—South Africa: International Bone of Contention—have so far been distributed. A service club is now planning to distribute 18 000 copies to their sister clubs around the world. Leading corporations are ordering increasing numbers for distribution among their contacts and friends around the world. I am referring to corporations like Volkskas, Siemens, Mobil and others of that calibre.

Black Africa seems to be very interested. Several orders have emanated from Africa. One Black country has placed a standing order for 150 copies per week until further notice. A Black Reverend in America ordered 25 copies for distribution among his friends. However, locally it is as essential, even more so, that our people be equipped with facts. Do we in South Africa realize how miserable a good South African can feel, and look, when he tries to promote his country and is “slammed” down in the first round by a well trained, well equipped enemy; or even by a well meaning, but critical and well informed friend? That is really a “miserable” and embarrassing situation. Nobody can have all the facts on his or her finger tips. It is not necessary either. However, everybody in South Africa should at least … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, no one will quarrel with the hon. member for Pinetown when he makes the submission that one should be equipped with facts in order to deal with a situation. However, I believe the one fact he has to bear in mind so that when comparisons are made in respect of the situation in South Africa, comparisons are not made between Black people in South Africa and Black people elsewhere. Comparisons in the outside world are made between the Black people in South Africa and the White people in South Africa. I believe it is that aspect that needs to receive attention in the approach he is adopting.

If I may, I want to approach the subject in the spirit in which the hon. the Minister asks us to approach the subject. For that reason I am a little sorry that the hon. member for Sunnyside struck a discordant note in this debate. The approach I should like to make to this debate this evening is this. Whereas I have perhaps been amongst those who have been the toughest in their criticism of the former Department of Information and everything that was wrong there, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister this evening that I will be equally tough in supporting the rebuilding of the department, which is based upon sound foundations. I believe it is necessary to have a sound department, and I believe the hon. the Minister is entitled to ask for support in that regard. Right at the outset—and perhaps I should illustrate this by saying that perhaps the hon. member for Sunnyside can support me in this as well—I want to compare the manner in which evidence was given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts by the former head of the Department of Information, Dr. Rhoodie, with the manner in which the new director gave his evidence. I can tell you, Sir, that the way in which the new director gave his evidence gave me confidence. He was straightforward and answered the questions. When there was something wrong, he was prepared to come out with it and there was no beating about the bush. I must say that he made a very sound impression on me personally as, I think, he did on my colleague and, I hope, on my colleagues in the other party.

On me too.

That augurs well for the Service and I therefore think it should be given a chance.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that his major problem is to actually shake off the Information scandal. He has to present himself to the public in a completely different fashion to that in which the former Department of Information was presented to the public. I believe that, with the approach he has to information matters, he should in fact separate everything of the past from that which is new and with which he has to carry on in the new information situation. When we refer to the Information scandal, I think we should not actually be referring to this Service at all. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to actually even shake off the name “Information” if we are to succeed in that. When people talk about the Information scandal, the people who are presently doing the work should be able to say: “That has got nothing to do with us; we belong to something different.”

I think that this is very important and I should like to raise two things with the hon. the Minister in this regard. Firstly, I believe that this particular activity was changed from a department to a bureau in order to achieve a particular purpose, and I believe it should have the status of a proper department once again. Secondly, I believe that, once it gets rid of the name “Information”, it could perhaps be called the Department of Communication. This would make it clear that it is something entirely new, that it is clean, that it is something the hon. the Minister is dealing with and that none of the people involved in it and who are prepared to do a job of work, have to answer for the things that had gone wrong in the past.

What about the “Schwarz Bureau”?

Really, Sir! I appeal to the hon. the Minister that, when it comes to that kind of interjection, he should …

Keep his backbenchers in order.

Sir, I am trying to make a serious point which I believe is in the interests of this Service. I was suggesting that it be called the Department of Communication, and then one gets an inane interjection of that kind.

It is a good name.

The other thing I should like to say to the hon. the Minister is that I think the other important factor is that what has to be done in South Africa is that to which he himself has pointed, viz. that one has to establish credibility for the people who are now doing this work. The hon. member for Pinetown said one must present facts. It is important, however, that when one presents a fact, one should be believed. For that reason one has to shake off the aura of disbelief which surrounded the Rhoodie era in regard to this particular activity. That credibility issue is, to my mind, one of the most important things that has to be done for the Service.

I again want to take up the point the hon. the Minister made about inviting the public, the Opposition and everybody else to participate in this. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that what we should actually do is to mobilize a people-to-people campaign. Do we not in South Africa have thousands of people with overseas connections, people whose origins are in different countries of the world and who can be a most tremendous bridge if they are mobilized to sell not a political concept but the country and its right to exist and its right to determine its own affairs? This concept of a people-to-people campaign, the concept of asking everybody to help, as the hon. the Minister has done, is one which I believe can in fact produce tremendous results. I want to say that I think the hon. the Minister will find that the people sitting in these benches—and I think I can also speak for the members of the NRP, although I am not authorized to do so—will be more than helpful when it comes to trying to assist in this job. I wonder whether we should not ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come for us to have a form of advisory committee on communication through which we can play some meaningful role. Here I want to say, so that there can be no misunderstanding about it, that I appreciate what the hon. the Minister has done in regard to advising people on what is going on and in regard to the communication he himself has had with members of the Opposition. If we have that kind of advisory committee, then I think we can in a meaningful fashion help to contribute towards this effort.

The other point that I think should be made is that when one really tries to deal with an information situation and, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, one has to counter the most skilled efforts of our opponents overseas, is there not a case to be made out for those people in the private sector who are the most skilled in this type of psychological and public relations activity, to be brought in order also to assist in this particular effort? If one looks at the most recent publications of the Public Relations Institute, one will see that they have taken up the concept of making a contribution in this regard. The hon. the Minister might recollect what has been said by those very people in this regard.

The hon. the Minister talked this evening about a publication to cater for the whole of Southern Africa. I want to ask him not to try to revive old things with tarnished names and backgrounds to do nice, neat, clean jobs. He must start with new things, he must start afresh. The hon. the Minister knows that if, for example, he is considering using To The Point, he will get very little support from this side of the House. If, however, he comes with new and fresh ideas, with things that are done openly, he will find a completely different approach.

One other point which I think needs to be made is that there is a tremendous dilemma confronting the hon. the Minister. I appreciate the difficulty he finds himself in. It is the difficulty anybody in the department has in trying to sell South Africa. One has a political situation in South Africa that, while one is trying to sell overseas the concept—and many politicians are trying to sell it—that there has actually been change in South Africa, at the same time the same politicians are telling their voters that they are in fact not changing at all. One cannot do that. One will have to make a choice. One will have to decide that, if one is going to say to the outside world that we are changing and moving towards what is called normalization or a new society, or whatever one wants to call it, one will also have to say it to the voters of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, tonight I feel like Shakespeare when he said: “We are advertised by our loving friends.” It seems to me we are all on a friendly footing this evening. First of all I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the elucidation he gave. He said that he had a central organization in mind, that coordination would have to come, that a mouthpiece would have to be created for Southern Africa, that new advertising techniques would have to be developed and extended, that there would have to be better communication with other Government departments, that one-man offices would be eliminated and that women staff would be appointed at strategic points in future.

I was startled when the hon. the Minister said that there were 686 organizations in the USA that were bent on harming South Africa. This demonstrates once again the severity of the onslaught on us.

I want to wish Mr. A. J. Engelbrecht, the Director-General of the Information Service of South Africa, as well as other members of the staff of whom mention has been made, everything of the best. I should like to add to this list the names of Mr. J. M. Koekemoer, the director of administrative services and Mr. J. H. O. Adendorff, the director of technical services. I want to add to that that I hope that the Information Service will again become a full-fledged department, under whatever name it may be known, and that it will once again be a department with status. I hope, too, that adequate funds will be made available and that the effective control which was mentioned by the hon. the Minister, will be continued.

There is an old saying, unknown, unloved, but today lack of appreciation causes us to be hated. If we look at all the psychological influences which exist and at all the conflict defusing operations which are frequently initiated to prevent conflict, we know that the department has a major task. In these communication plans cost effectiveness has to be taken into account. We are pleased that new prospects were announced for this department this evening.

We hope too that the internal media take note of this, for every time they are imprudent and publish erroneous reports and photographs, such as the photograph of a Black man chained to a bed, it costs our Information Service thousands of rands to rectify the matter again. We hope the news media will take note of this. We must once again make a co-ordinated effort to ensure that this erroneous reporting does not occur again. We also hope that the Opposition, in the months ahead, will be just as responsible as they have been here today, and that nothing further will be said that will prejudice South Africa abroad. I hope they will assist us by word and deed to develop this Information Service effectively.

We are now faced with the problem that co-ordination has to be effected. In this regard I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister sincerely on the standpoint which he stated here. In the first place I want to refer to the field of public relations. Public relations work can be done by a specific organization. The media and individuals can be mobilized in a subtle way to convey the message of South Africa. In addition to public relations work promotion work can be done. However, public relations work is very expensive. Lobbying is not an easy task that awaits us. Public relations work covers a wide field. The hon. the Minister and other hon. members also dealt with the question of internal information very effectively.

However, there is another question on which I want to dwell, and that is the question of advertising companies that can advertise in a competent way. We need not necessarily make use of advertising companies in the outside world, because we can make use of South African advertising companies that are conversant with the circumstances in South Africa, and who also have contracts in the outside world. These companies understand the problems of the people of South Africa and are also conversant with what is happening in the outside world. Such a company must have a clear concept of its task. That concept must be packaged into words, in such a way that it can be sold in another country. For that reason I welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister said that great skill was required. I feel too that it is necessary for the Information Service, public relations officers and advertising companies to combine so that they can make a concerted effort in this way.

However, what is the situation at present? Let us be very clear about this. I am pleased that an end has been put to the jealousy that used to prevail between the offices of the Information Service and the offices of the Department of Foreign Affairs and that a united effort is now being made. In addition there is the South African Tourist Corporation that, by means of its offices abroad, proceeds in its own way to sell South Africa’s attractions. In this regard I can also refer to other organizations, such as the S.A. Airways, the S.A. Foundation and the SATV that give indirect publicity to South Africa.

Various unco-ordinated efforts have been made in South Africa as well. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he wanted to coordinate certain departments. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. In South Africa we have the Economic Advisory Board with 56 experts, various decentralization boards and planning boards, etc. Of course I do not want to advocate the establishing of many boards, because the fact that so many agricultural boards, etc. exist is already being scoffed at.

However, I want to say that the time has arrived for the establishing of an advisory communications board, which will consist of experts that can co-ordinate the Government, the private sector, the S.A. Tourist Corporation, the S.A. Airways and other bodies, so that a united effort can be made to designate areas. By means of that coordination greater effectiveness can be brought about at a lower cost. Only then will we be able to make a co-ordinated effort, will the Information Service really be in a position to be propagandistic, to disseminate factual information and will public relations companies be able to undertake lobbying. I know this is an expensive process. Before co-ordination can take place, one must first ask oneself what one wants to say, to whom one wants to say it and how one wants to say it. For that reason I advocate the institution of a coordinated board, with a permanent official, who can ultimately co-ordinate all these matters so that we can wage a war of words in order to counteract those 686 organizations.

Our planning must be continuous and it must be aggressive and it must be purposeful. Then priorities can be determined in a thorough way. Then we can build a purposeful framework for information. One cannot do everything at once. That was the problem with the former Department of Information, viz. that it wanted to do everything at once, and wanted to initiate all those ambitious overseas schemes. One demarcates ones specific area, and then one sells. I have been informed that such a service could cost R3 million to R5 million per annum to start with, and I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance can provide those funds. We do not have the labour force to be able to do all these things alone. Nor do we have the capital, but we can do great work in this regard in a co-ordinated way.

The documentary films being made by the Information Service, are wonderful. The film intended to counteract the “White Tribe of Africa”, viz. “The White Roots in Africa”, is a brilliant film and I really want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department, because this film shows how Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans took root in South Africa and together built a modem Western civilization and a distinctive lifestyle and culture. I think it is the task of television to show this film as soon as possible so that our own South Africans can see it, because it is this film which has to be rebuttal of “The White Tribe of Africa”, in which the Afrikaner in particular is singled out as the culprit for our problem and our situation. In this way we can tell our own South African story in a very thorough way.

That is why, in conclusion, I just want to thank the Information Service of South Africa most sincerely for its fine magazine Panorama, which has already achieved a circulation of ¼ million. I also want to thank them for This is South Africa, which appeared recently, and for Progress in Inter-group and Race Relations, which ought to be on every aircraft, and on the Blue Train as well. It should also be in every possible Information office, locally as well. I feel this is a major task which awaits us, and I consequently want to congratulate the hon. the Minister once again on the very brilliant project he announced here this evening. As far as his officials are concerned, we are full of confidence. We know we are going to tackle the Information issue with a will and that it is going to become a very great cause. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville will pardon me if I do not follow on what he said. I have no intention of running through a long thank-you list. Following on the note that I struck during the Foreign Affairs debate I want to quote to the hon. the Minister from the report of his own department, on page 9, in relation to foreign information. That report says—

This is precisely what I meant when I said during the discussion on the last Vote that the hon. the Minister was trying to sell unsaleable policies and that the Information Service of South Africa is the bureau which in fact has to try to sell those policies. The hon. the Minister came back at me and he mentioned a number of plus factors. Without a doubt I am prepared to sell those plus factors where I can in the outside world. I am prepared to sell the fact that I truthfully believe that the average Black man in South Africa is far better off in South Africa than the Black man anywhere else in Africa. I believe that very deeply and I am prepared to sell it, but that does not mean that everything in this country is right. While the hon. the Minister quoted a number of things to me which he said I could support, let me quote back to him a number of things which I wonder if he can support. First of all, in relation to the Wiehahn report there are three areas in which the commission’s recommendations are not being adhered to.

Why did you not raise this during the appropriate debate?

That debate is still to come.

We are dealing now with the marketing of positive parts of South Africa.

I am telling the hon. the Minister why in my view he has got to change his policies so that he will have a more marketable policy.

You have a negative mind.

The hon. the Minister must have a more marketable policy and I believe that the best contribution we can make is to try to persuade that hon. Minister to persuade his own Cabinet and his own party members to move in the right direction, the direction that I know he believes in. As I have just said, those three things are the section 10 rights as far as the trade unions are concerned. Only those with section 10 rights can come in …

I do not agree with your perception.

But this is the new legislation and it does not agree with the report of the commission.

That is a matter of perception and perspective.

Another matter that I want to refer to is the fact that there will be no fixed trade-unions …

That is not correct…

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has had something like three hours this afternoon to state his case, and I should therefore like him to allow me to complete my 10-minute speech in some sort of peace. [Interjections.] I want to ask whether he can sell the Immorality Act overseas. Can he sell the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Can he sell the fact that CBD’s are barred to Black and Coloured entrepreneurs? Or can he sell the fact overseas that industrial areas are barred to these people?

That is not true.

Why should this be the case? Look, for example, at our theatre and opera houses which operates on a permit system. Look at our separate universities.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am only talking about the things … [Interjections.] … that those hon. members are doing. Which is worse, to talk about them or to do them? It is the doing that causes the trouble and has people in opposition, like myself, getting up and talking about them. Then we are accused of harming the country because we talk about them. That is absolute rubbish, because they are the people that are doing the damage, but then they try to blame us. [Interjections.] Let us leave that point, however, for the moment.

The Information Service of South Africa undoubtedly has tremendously important functions to perform. We do not want to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, but at the same time we must have the right to spread information about our own country. In this regard I do not really believe that the buying, in secret, of other countries’ news medias is something that we can look back upon with any degree of pride or enjoyment, because what a hue and cry would there not be if some other country tried to buy Die Burger and put its policies over through the medium of Die Burger?

That is an idea.

We would have every right to cry “stinking fish” if they were to do something of this nature. We need to keep the Information Service of South Africa visibly clean, because it is too important to our international efforts to sully the name of the Information Service by allowing it to take part in projects which could result in its credibility being lost.

About the former Department of Information there is no question. With the active support of Cabinet Ministers, it operated in such a way that its credibility was totally destroyed, both externally and internally. As a first point let me put the following to the hon. the Minister. I wonder whether it is wise to continue with secret projects through the Information Service of South Africa. I am not saying that we should discontinue these secret projects, but I do not believe that the Information Service of South Africa is the right body to carry out these particular projects, and I further do not believe that the hon. the Minister’s Department of Foreign Affairs should have anything to do with such secret projects either because these areas, as I have said, must be kept totally clean.

Secondly, I want to refer to what I would term the internal machinations of the Information Service of South Africa. I believe we now come to a far more important point. We in these benches believe that the Information Service of South Africa should indeed play a tremendous role in the defence of South Africa and in the putting over of information to the outside world, but the minute the Information Service starts disseminating information internally, the possibility, in fact the likelihood, exists that the people of South Africa will say that the Information Service is spreading internal propaganda, NP propaganda, at the expense of the taxpayer. I do not believe that this sort of situation should continue.

I think the Information Service of South Africa should restrict itself totally to operations in the outside world and not to operations internally in South Africa. We have the report of the Information Service in front of us. If one looks at this report, one sees the scope of the activities of the Information Service internally in South Africa. As far as Coloured liaison is concerned the report states that: “About 300 000 bilingual brochures containing and explaining proposals for a new constitution”—the NP constitution—“have been distributed during contact trips, film shows and discussions, through reliable contacts and through the post”. Is this not spreading NP propaganda with the taxpayers’ money? It goes on to say: “A schematic, full-colour representation of the proposals, in bill-form, has been prepared … 4 000 copies were printed and distributed.” But of those 4 000 copies, only 500 were sent overseas. The rest were distributed internally. I quote further: “Internally, bills were available at numerous post offices, magistracies and other strategic points … Important initiatives were taken to motivate Coloured youth by means of youth camps.” Surely this is the job of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. Should he not be trying to motivate the Coloured youth by means of youth camps? Why is he leaving it to the S.A. Information Service. [Interjections.]

He could not motivate a dead horse.

There are many departments. There is, in fact, a plurality of departments in South Africa that could easily do their own spreading of information regarding the activities of their own departments in South Africa. Who is, after all, going to know the information relating to his own department better than he does himself? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs whether anybody from the Information Service of South Africa is likely to know more about the situation of the Indian people, and what his department is trying to do for them, than he does himself.

They get all the information they want from my department.

So why should the job be given to them? The job is, in fact, given to them because the facts are clearly stated in this particular publication.

I again want to stress that while the Information Service of South Africa continues to act internally, as a means of spreading propaganda for the Government, it must have a question mark over its name. I therefore want to plead with the hon. the Minister to restrict the activities of this Department to Foreign Affairs, where it can do the most good.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall come back to what the hon. member for East London North said. At this stage, however, he kicked up such a gale that it will be difficult to get the windmill going again. I should first like to wish the hon. the Minister and his department everything of the best under the circumstances. As a result of past events, we realize only too well that they will have a difficult task. However, we are very confident because we know that they will do their work well.

In my speech this evening I should like to refer to the image of South Africa that we want to sell. However, before I do so, I want to ask why South Africa has to sell its image. What must South Africa defend itself against? We all know—we discussed this for a long time in this House—that we have to defend ourselves against an onslaught from abroad, an onslaught which is being made on South Africa and is principally being led and inspired by international communist imperialism. [Interjections.] I do not believe there can be any doubt on that score. We all know it.

They do this in various ways. They use the best possible methods, which our hon. Minister discussed this evening. I think these people are specialists in the field of denunciating and destroying countries. If we know this, we must ask ourselves the question: Why do these people want to denunciate us? They do not merely want to do so because we are a country in Southern Africa which is economically sound and which has resources. This is not the only reason. This is but one of the reasons. They do not merely want to do so because we are enjoying economic prosperity or because we have been part of Western civilization up to now.

They want to denunciate us in particular because we represent nationalism. They want to denunciate us because we have been a nation of White people at the southern point of Africa for 327 years now, and because in all this time we have never allowed a conglomeration of peoples to be established in South Africa. They want to denunciate us because we have never allowed the peoples of South Africa to degenerate into a hybrid nation, but have instead maintained a proud nationalism. Precisely because we are the builders of nations, because we are the people who assist in developing other peoples to full independence, we must be destroyed. It is a generally known fact that the enemy of communism is in fact nationalism. Imperialistic communism will never come to South Africa with the exclusive purpose of destroying the White man. Their purpose is to destroy all forms of nationalism in South Africa. That is why I believe it is essential for us to dwell for a few moments tonight on the image of South Africa, to reflect upon who and what we are. When the world outside criticizes us, destroys and denounces us, should we then pull our hat over our eyes or should we look the world straight in the eye and say straight out that we know what we believe in, that we know where we are going, that we are proud to be South Africans and that we are prepared to defend our South African nationhood?

The first important aspect I want to point out, is the very fact that we as a nation have remained in existence up to now. Secondly, there is our economic growth and viability, our pliability, our spirit of enterprise. Given the opportunity in this world, given the chance of looking after ourselves in the economic sphere, I have no doubt that this nation is capable of doing so in a workmanlike manner. Let us consider for a moment the standard of education in South Africa. We do not now have the time to elaborate on this. However, we know what its qualities are in comparison with the rest of Africa and even with the rest of the world. Let us consider what South Africa has achieved in the field of education and training, in the field of health; as well as the achievements of our medical practitioners and our health services. These are fields in which South Africa has already won renown. Let us take cognizance of our infrastructure in South Africa, of our transport, the role investment plays in all areas of activity in South Africa. When we consider all these things, we can only be proud. We may be compared with the rest of the world in all respects. Let us consider what South Africa has achieved in the field of agriculture. It is a well-known and accepted fact that South Africa is recognized to be the leader in Africa in the field of agriculture and that South Africa may also be compared with the best in the world in the field of technical services, production and marketing in agriculture.

It is a fact that agriculture in South Africa has built bridges where others have failed. It is also a well-known fact that South Africa is capable—and has been capable of this in the past—of feeding many people in South Africa and of earning a great deal of money for South Africa on the export market.

We could also consider another aspect, an aspect which is of tremendous importance in the assessment of every nation. This is the aspect of law and order. South Africans live in an orderly country. Here in South Africa law and order is really maintained. We have a legal system in South Africa of which we may be truly proud. In South Africa we have labour peace and industrial peace as well. South Africa is not a country which allows itself to be taken in tow by a labour force and its trade unions. The relationship between the authorities and the workers in South Africa is of such a nature that mutual trust exists and that problems can be solved between them. Even bearing in mind the fact that South Africa’s society consists of a combination of many peoples, that we are experiencing colour problems—and these do exist— South Africa remains a country in which people are living together in peace, a country which is developing very rapidly.

When we take cognizance of our strategic situation, the defence of South Africa, we find that the rest of the world regards us as one of the most advanced countries in the military sphere as well, that we are capable of protecting our own, that which belongs to us, against the onslaughts of the rest of the world, that we are self-sufficient to a large extent and that there is discipline and order in all the branches of our Defence Force.

In view of all these things to which I have referred, it is an obvious necessity to me that, with its infrastructure and its inherent strength in every sector of society, it is South Africa’s task to inform all other peoples in Southern Africa of these things and to establish a constellation of peoples together with all these peoples in Southern Africa which will, in the economic and strategic fields become a force in the world which cannot be ignored. I should like to say more about this, but my time is running out I want to content myself with one further statement.

Over the past 31 years since the NP took over the reins of government, freedom and human rights have often been discussed in this House. Whenever these subjects came up for discussion, cynical remarks and scornful laughter were heard from hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] With profound humility, but with absolute confidence, I want to tell hon. members opposite that I challenge any one of them to point out to me where, during the 300 years prior to the NP regime, so many people have been emancipated, such careful attention has been given to human rights in South Africa, as during the past 31 years. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, this is an absolute and inescapable truth. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the Opposition cannot deny—in fact, they realize only too well—that the NP has committed itself to a course of emancipating peoples and to carrying it through to the end, in spite of all possible resistance from the Opposition. [Interjections.] To those outside, people who cause rumours to do the rounds that the NP is bartering away the future of the White man in South Africa, I also want to say that, during the past 31 years, more has been done in a systematic and purposeful way, in a Christian way, to stabilize and strengthen the future of the White man in South Africa than was ever done before. I am saying this, too, without fear of contradiction. For that reason the image that we have to sell in South Africa, is to my mind a splendid image. It is an image of a country which grants all peoples the right of self-determination. It is the image of a country on a course of justice and civilization. That is why I believe that we can hold our heads high and look the world straight in the eyes.

Mr. Chairman, in my remarks earlier this evening I tried to reply as far as possible to the questions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I should just like to add that I share his view with regard to the vital need for a greater effort in Africa, and particularly in Southern Africa, by our Information Service. I indicated that among other things, we should also like to launch a newspaper which would be aimed at Southern Africa, or that we at least want to propagate the idea of such a journal.

Now the hon. member for Yeoville has at once—so it seems to me—warned me by implication that it must just not be To The Point.

Not by implication; I said it very clearly.

Oh, very clearly? [Interjections.] I wonder what the hon. member really has against the internal edition of To The Point which is printed here in South Africa?

It is tainted.

Does the hon. member therefore assume that To The Point clearly took sides in the internal politics of South Africa?

Yes, it has.

Has it furthered the interests of certain political parties internally and opposed others?

Of course.

To The Point is an illegitimate child.

Why does the hon. member say that? [Interjections.]

You are a lot of old peevish gossips. [Interjections.]

I must make one principle very clear here this evening. The Government has the right—objectively speaking, for argument’s sake, let us divorce our minds now from specific projects—the Government has the right in terms of existing legislation of this Parliament to decide on secret projects, in the interests of the country.

We accept that. We have no quarrel with that.

In the interests of the country …

We do not argue with that, but we do not need a local magazine for that.

No, but one of the requirements put forward by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this evening was that of proper control, and secondly, of no interference in the internal political matters of the country. If one wants to take it further, I would also add that it should not be to the detriment of some political parties and to the advantage of others.

Quite correct.

That is all I am saying. Frankly there might be other reasons why it might be an undesirable publication, but I was not aware of an objectionable partisan approach on the part of To The Point. My impression from the issues I looked at was that this publication endeavoured as far as possible to report objectively on world news and on affairs in South Africa. [Interjections.] We can, if the hon. member wants to, argue about other issues in connection with it, e.g. whether it should be funded by the State. It was not apparently funded by the State in the normal sense of the word. The publication is produced by a certain company and the Government bought a large number of copies over the years and contributed over R14 million towards the purchase of copies of To The Point (International) and, of course, far less as regards the internal edition of To The Point. Nevertheless, at this stage it is not envisaged that To The Point will be the publication I mentioned earlier this evening.

That is good news.

I would prefer not to discuss the magazine further this evening. Certain aspects concerning this magazine are still being investigated by us. It was one of the subjects investigated by the Erasmus Commission; so perhaps we could leave it until we discuss the commission’s report.

It should have been done openly, not clandestinely. [Interjections.]

I have already stated what the position was as far as we could determine it. The present position is that we are no longer paying a single cent from secret funds towards purchasing copies of To The Point. We are not purchasing any longer copies of To The Point out of secret funds. Whether, as is the case with numerous other publications like The Daily Mail, The Cape Times, the Sunday Times and others, the Information Service buys a number of copies of this publication from the open account for distribution in limited numbers to our missions abroad for background information, is a different matter.

Nevertheless, as far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, on balance I want to thank him for his positive approach towards the difficult situation of the new Information Service. Giving an institution like this an appropriate name is a rather difficult matter, particularly when one cannot use the word “department”. It is amazing how difficult it is to find a name that will suitably and effectively express the functions and purposes of such a service.

Why can it not become a department?

It is not a department at present.

Then make it one.

I cannot make it into a department myself. These matters fall under the Public Service Commission. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated that it was his overall purpose to reduce the number of Government departments and to streamline the Public Service. I am not saying that because of that the Information Service does not have the right to exist on its own as a fully fledged department. We will go into this in good time and we shall have to ask the Public Service Commission to evaluate the functions and importance of this service in relation to other State services.

I appreciate the complimentary remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville apropos the Director-General of the Information Service. He referred to the way he had given evidence before the Select Committee on Public Accounts and pointed out the difference in this respect between this gentleman and the head of the former Department of Information. I think the hon. member made a number of useful and constructive suggestions, this evening. He expressed the opinion that the Information scandal should be shaken off. He also appealed, as I have said, for a new name. That can of course only arise if departmental status is restored.

The hon. member also stated that, to regain and maintain credibility, facts should be placed before the public. He said that restoring credibility was one of the main tasks of the Information Service. In that he is quite right. That is one of our most challenging tasks. However, slowly, but surely, we are now moving out the clouds of suspicion. The latest reports from our Information officers abroad tend to indicate that they are functioning with increasing credibility.

The hon. member further suggested a people-to-people campaign to sell the country. I think that is a very good idea. It is, however, difficult to put such an idea into practice, to implement it. However, it is certainly not beyond our capabilities, and we shall therefore give attention to it. We have certain ideas on the matter ourselves, and any further ideas the hon. member would wish to submit to us in this respect would be most welcome. He further posed the question whether the time had not come to establish an advisory committee on communications to help in this campaign and in other matters relating to marketing South Africa and Southern Africa abroad. In this regard I may mention that I recently received a visit from a gentleman in private business who often goes abroad. I very much appreciated his visit. He discussed with me the suggestion of establishing in our main cities and industrial areas, some form of organization through which visitors travelling abroad from the private sector— and many of our people do go abroad—can become involved on behalf of our country. The idea is that they be briefed before visits abroad by government departments on issues of importance to South Africa so that in their contacts they will be equipped to discuss and debate in an informed way issues and developments in the various spheres of life inside this country. It is an interesting idea. It is an idea deserving of careful consideration by us, and we will therefore pursue it. It does in a way supplement some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He suggested that skilled people in the private sector be brought in to assist the Information Service in combating the anti-South African campaign. I am aware of the fact that we have highly qualified and well-equipped public relations firms and institutions in South Africa, and we will certainly, within the financial means at our disposal, give attention to this idea. By and large I want to thank the hon. member for his constructive suggestions and the positive note on which he addressed the House this evening.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Sunnyside sincerely for a particularly positive contribution. I appreciate his presentation and motivation for more funds. His appreciative words with regard to the annual report of the Information Service are equally highly appreciated. I, too, must agree that the follow-up conference with regard to former guests was very successful. As regards the whole question of more funds and means, I do not think that we may underestimate the necessity for them. I have already referred in the course of the day to the number of officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs in the USA, officers who have to try to reach and influence the Government and representatives of 215 million people in the political field. The same applies more or less to the Information officers in the USA. There are approximately the same number of information officers in the USA as there are officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. No other country is as threatened as South Africa at present. This is, in fact, the point I want to make to justify increased availability of funds. Israel, for example, spends a great deal more per capita on its information service than does South Africa. South Africa has nowhere near as much bargaining power as the USA has in the world, and yet the USA spends 66% per capita more on its information effort than we do. At present South Africa does not even spend the cost of one newspaper—12c—per person per month on our psychological preventative effort. Even if this expenditure is doubled, we should not feel it. The potential benefit of a better understanding of South Africa in a new Southern African community, the prevention of sanctions and the prevention of conflicts are objectives which, to my mind, are definitely worth 20c per person per month.

At present we have 17 Information officers in a country like the USA with 215 million people who have to be reached. I think that is asking too much. We cannot really carry out the task effectively with the manpower and the means at present at our disposal. We shall have to decide, again in order of priority, what is most important to us. On the other hand there are the results achieved—the hon. member for Sunnyside referred to them and I am grateful to him for doing so—which ought surely to justify our taking another look at the whole question of financing.

I want to thank the hon. member for Pinetown sincerely for the excellent exposition he gave here. It was a speech that provided a lot of food for thought. He really touched on the main points, not only with regard to the problem situation, but also with regard to positive efforts that could be undertaken, especially by way of the campaign publications he mentioned. He himself has made a valuable contribution with his publication South Africa: International Bone of Contention, a publication that I think is being distributed with the greatest success throughout the world. This is the type of participation we appreciate from hon. members of all parties in this House, contributions that are without sectional political considerations and content. In his publication the hon. member for Pinetown summarized the main points and key facts about South Africa in an illuminating way. This is in glaring contrast with the reactions of certain other hon. members here today. I thank the hon. member for Pinetown sincerely for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti did better in this debate than in the debate on Foreign Affairs. I want to thank him for the progress he made. Towards the end of his speech, however, he lost direction. He referred to “double talk”. The point he evidently wanted to raise with this reference escaped me. Does he want me to sell his party’s “balls” machine abroad?

Yes.

Do those hon. members really believe that we can sell it?

Yes.

Do they think so? What would they like us to do? Must we reproduce the funny looking machine or must we make photographs available of it? Mind you it may succeed in confusing our enemies completely.

Will you give us equal time on television?

The more time they receive on television to present their policy, the more votes they are going to lose. I am quite convinced of that. Nobody in the country understands what they want and what they aim at [Interjections.] I want to make one thing absolutely clear. Must we quibble across the floor of this House about internal differences while we all know what the radical world demands of all of us and what their aims are against all of us? We are engaged in a debate on communicating with a hostile world, on how to portray South Africa in the best possible light and on how to convey the positive side of South Africa to the outside world. Hon. members on the opposite side are not here to concentrate only on negative aspects, aspects on which they have in any case never formulated their alternatives. They do not bear the responsibility. When it comes to the question of representing South Africa abroad, we ought to develop a team spirit. If we cannot even do that, what hope have we got to resist our common enemies one day if more critical times come?

I must therefore appeal even more strongly to the hon. member for East London North. I do not know at all what went wrong with him this evening. I do not know whether he realized what Vote he was discussing. He adopted a most negative attitude and asked me whether we could sell this measure or another. He asked me what about this and what about that as if he wished to go out of his way to draw the world’s attention to it. Of course, there are imperfections in this country! There is no perfection on this side of the grave. But I pose the question: Where in Africa does one enjoy the liberty, the rights, the freedom of speech and the peace that one enjoys in the southern part of Africa? I do not accept the premise that we must be judged purely by Western standards. Why? We are an African country; we are on the African continent and we are surrounded by fellow Africans. Their premise is a racialistic attitude. We must be judged by the standards prevalent in our environment, consisting as it does of various peoples with various values and norms.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, there is too little time left. In any case, that hon. member has adopted such a negative attitude this evening that I must now punish him by not answering his questions. [Interjections.] I now appeal to hon. members to try to think globally and to try to retain perspective. I am saying to hon. members this evening that, although it is not Utopia and although it is not the end of the road, all people in this country enjoy basic fundamental freedoms. There is security of person, equality of treatment before the law in our courts and basically this is about the only country on this continent with Press freedom. Black people in this country enjoy higher standards of living than elsewhere on the continent. They are better trained, better schooled and enjoy better hospital and medical facilities, and I appeal to hon. members, when we are dealing with the outside world and communicating with the outside world, to point out the positive side of South Africa and then it is their prerogative to come to this House and debate under the proper Votes the matters on which we differ politically or in other respects.

*I should like to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville sincerely for the fine sentiments he expressed with regard to the Information Service. His fresh ideas about the use of South African orientated advertising companies and the co-ordination of organizations that can all build up South Africa’s image to a greater or lesser degree, are ideas to which we have already given consideration, and we shall consider them again. His kind words about the film to which he referred are especially appreciated. We have negotiated with the Railways and the SAA about the distribution of publications in aeroplanes and on the Blue Train. I thank the hon. member for his positive approach and for the new ideas he put forward.

With that I think I have answered most of the questions, except those of the hon. member for Heilbron. To the hon. member for Heilbron, too, I want to convey my gratitude for his straight talking and the lucid way in which he singled out the key points of the onslaught against us and of the requirements for our survival. I thank all hon. members for their contributions, including those with whom I had to differ somewhat at this late hour of the evening. Seen as a whole, this has been a constructive and useful debate and I hope that we can now leave the whole Information affair behind us. I hope that we are going to support the officials of the Information Service in their task, that we are going to work together and that we shall be able to call in the aid of the private sector as well as that of hon. members. We shall continue to discuss matters with hon. members. They can be assured of that. In this way we shall again be able to give South Africa an effective Information Service. This is vitally necessary if we are to wipe out the lead our enemies have over us as a result of the events surrounding the former Department of Information, to catch up with and overtake them and to tell the world the truth and the facts about South Africa in an effective way.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 41.—“Improvement of conditions of service”, agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.