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

This time last year, all the woes of the old Department of Information had been freshly thrust upon the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, and against the background of widespread distrust he and his department had to try to build up confidence in South Africa’s new Information Service. In my opinion, they succeeded in doing so more rapidly than had been expected, and to quite a remarkable extent, so much so that last week’s disclosure of the evidence given before the Erasmus Commission really does not affect anyone any more, other than the small number of principal characters, who are fortunately now all far removed from this Parliament. The hon. the Minister and his department deserve praise for this.

I do not intend to devote my attention to the defunct Department of Information here this afternoon. [Interjections.] It is time this thing were buried as soon as possible. [Interjections.] In any case, I have not had the time to work through the 23 volumes of evidence to my own satisfaction. However, I just want to make two brief and pertinent remarks about the matter.

In the first place, we must all recognize that secret government is always fraught with danger and that corruption is possible under the best of Governments if Parliament, and especially the parliamentary Opposition, is hampered in its role as watchdog and if the executive takes powers upon itself which are not properly controlled.

Secondly: The Press has afforded those of us who have not yet read the evidence an opportunity to form an impression of the unenviable task which the Erasmus Commission had of ferreting out the truth with regard to the abuses which took place around the old Department of Information.

Now I must say that the Erasmus Commission certainly did itself a great disservice by coming to early conclusions in its first report which it was unable to uphold after a more careful evaluation of the evidence. At least the Commission was courageous enough to correct itself. It was undoubtedly a mistake to bind a commission of this kind to a hurried time-table, and I think this should be borne in mind with regard to future commissions. This is the one aspect of the matter.

The other aspect is that when one compares the evidence of the small group of principal figures, as the Press has done for us with difficulty, one can only shake one’s head and be grateful that none of them is in a position of responsibility any more. Voltaire once wrote about a similar situation—

The best that we on both sides of this House and the voters outside can do is to ensure that not a single one of the figures concerned every again manages to play a role of any importance in the political life of South Africa.

Before I leave the general subject of information, I want to point out that the hon. the Minister knows the circumstances of this debate and he knows that there simply is not time to go into the activities and the publications of the new Information Service, which now falls under him. All of us who have experience of this know how international opinion has been poisoned against South Africa over the years and will also realize that the Information Service is faced with a task at the moment which is much too great for the best Information Service and all the money in the world alone. Therefore we shall all have to help, and the Government most of all with its policy. Large parts of the world are prepared today to believe anything, absolutely anything, about South Africa, no matter how improbable it actually is. This situation is creating major problems for us.

Let us take, for example, the latest report of the UN’s Council for Namibia, which is only a few months old. Thirty-one countries serve on it, including Western countries. When we look at the first volume of that report, we find the following on page 3—

Just imagine the effect it would have on business life if the police were suddenly to arrest 5 000 people in Windhoek—

This is in South West Africa—

The total number arrested over a period of three months, according to the report, was 15 000. Then, quite significantly, they get to the point they would like the world to believe. It is the following—

Then the council urges the UN countries—

The fact that there is an endless stream of foreigners visiting South West, including the UN’s own top officials, people like Mr. Martti Ahtisaari and Gen. Prem Chand, who have made a close inspection of the territory, as well as many others, and that not one of them has encountered anything of this nature, does not matter. Total war requires a total lie.

What I have quoted is but a modest sample of what the UN broadcasts to the whole world day after day. As I have said, the best information service in the world cannot counteract or even neutralize all this poison. Consequently I believe that our Information Service, with the limited means available to it—and it will always have less than it needs to do its work—will have to concentrate on selected targets and eliminate everything which does not serve the main purpose. The message it must convey must be that our country finds itself in a period of transition at the moment and that we are moving towards a new model of government in which all sectors of the population will be given a say. I do not think the Information Service should hesitate to spread this message of renewal. There are people in our country who persist in selling the status quo and dying ideas, and at the other extreme there are those who want to pretend that no significant renewal is taking place. Both extremes are doing a great injustice to the country and ultimately to themselves.

A large amount than ever before has been set aside for our Information Service this year. We are satisfied with that. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to inform us, as far as he can, about the role that he himself envisages for the Information Service.

†The greatest concern we have is, of course, about the question of South West Africa. In many respects we are all victims of past mistakes, but it would not bring us any nearer to solutions if we wasted time pointing fingers and looking for scapegoats. The question is: What is to be done? It almost sounds as if there is an easy solution or simple answer, which I know there is not. As I see it, however, the Government has committed itself to the implementation of certain principles from which there is no change now and from which I know that the Government would not seek to escape.

The first is, that South West Africa is entitled to full and final sovereignty as soon as possible and that the act of leading South West Africa to independence must, of necessity, be a joint effort between South Africa and the Security Council of the UN. Not South Africa or the Security Council acting unilaterally and independently of each other, but the two acting together. I leave aside the General Assembly of the UN. Half of its members, if not more, have never seen a free or fair election and would not know what it meant. They have opted for Swapo, and I am afraid that we are not going to manage to change them now. Nothing we do or can do can change that. As far as I know the Security Council has not, as a body, subscribed to or committed itself to the doctrine that Swapo is the only authentic representative of the people of Namibia. That, of course, is important.

The second big principle to which the Government stands committed is that, in taking independence, the territory would be recognized as a constitutional whole and that all its adult inhabitants would be entitled to participate in a free and fair election to determine their own future. So, for good or for ill, that is where we stand as a country in respect of the international question of South West Africa. If this is so, it seems to me that the remaining problems between South Africa and the Security Council are all of a mechanical or technical nature. They are all questions of implementation. That is why the hon. the Minister’s latest letter to Dr. Waldheim was generally interpreted as confirmation of the fact that the door is open for all parties to come to finality now. The hon. the Minister is quite right in his view that the Security Council and the Secretariat of the UN cannot support the principle of genuine self-determination for the peoples of South West Africa, and at the same not be prepared to guarantee that all political formations in and of South West Africa be treated on an equal basis.

Last year in May already this side of the House made it clear in a public statement that, and I read from it—

By this we stand. We therefore have no fault to find with any effort on the part of the Government to seek assurances on this point.

There is one matter, however, which is worrying us more than anything else, and I want to say a few words about that. But before I come to that, I should first like to say that in no two countries are conditions the same. It does therefore not help the situation for people to prophesy too much as to what party has the best chance of winning an election in South West Africa. There are no certainties about it. If Swapo, for instance, is so sure of a massive win, I find it strange that they do not come en masse and without further delay to fight the election in terms of the Western proposal, which South Africa has accepted and still supports in full. Naturally, I should not like to see Swapo win, but the question in South West Africa will never be settled if the different sides are to base their attitudes and actions on what party they would want or not want to see in power. That is why the General Assembly of the UN is so wrong and has delayed a solution to the question of South West Africa more than any other contributing factor. In the long run nobody will be able to prevent an independent South West Africa from electing the party and the government of its choice, and we shall all have to accept that fact and live with it.

The matter which, as far as I can see, has not yet been fully canvassed is the following. I cannot recall a single case where a territory was made independent without some kind of agreed constitution with which to start off and on which to elect a government. Almost in every case I can recall, either a constitution had grown up and matured internally and was then finally adapted to the requirements of independence, or a new constitution was agreed upon between the departing power and the political parties in the territory before its departure. It is, of course, different in the case where independence is or was seized by force. The usual result then was chaos or dictatorship, or both, as happened in the case of Mozambique. That is also what would happen in South West Africa if Swapo were to be allowed to seize power, as it wishes to do.

I venture to say that this is also what would have happened in the case of Zimbabwe had there not been a Lancaster House Agreement and had the elections not taken place under a previously agreed constitution. I am sorry to say that I foresee the possibility of grave difficulties in South West Africa if there is not a clear understanding among all parties as to what course things are to follow in respect of the proposed elections.

Referring to the proposed elections for South West Africa, paragraph 7 of Security Council resolution 385 of 30 January 1976 says the following—

There is no mention made of any constitutional framework on which to base the proposed elections. The Western proposal of 10 April 1978 deals with the matter in a somewhat clearer fashion, and I want to read from paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof. Western proposal 5 says—

Proposal 6 says—

As I understand it, this implies an election merely to determine who is the majority; then, the drawing up of a constitution under the leadership of this majority; and thereafter the formation of a Government, something which might even require a second election, unless—and this is the danger I foresee—the majority in the Constituent Assembly abuses its power and ignores the wishes of the minorities, fail to protect the rights of the minorities, and proceeds to a one-party system of Government. I am wondering who will stop them in order to prevent such a possibility. What happens if there is no agreement in the Constituent Assembly and the majority party simply takes power? What is there to stop them from doing that? Some people live under the illusion that all will be solved by having an election. However, that is not so. The whole future and development of South West Africa as an independent State depends on what kind of constitution it is going to get and what safeguards there are going to be for minorities.

The principles laid down in the Western proposal are sound enough, and we support them, but the question does arise, in view of recent events in Southern Africa, whether the problems of a demilitarized zone, the monitoring of bases and the practicalities of supervision would not largely disappear or be overcome if, by some agreement, if that were possible, all the major political parties of South West Africa could be brought together to draw up an agreed constitution before proceeding to the final election to establish an independent Government. That would be so much better, and the process towards independence would be so much more orderly, if an agreed constitution could precede the proposed independence election. My question therefore is—and I put it in a helpful way—whether the matter could not be taken up, first informally with the five Western powers and, through them, with the Security Council. I know it would be difficult to find an acceptable chairman with the leverage of a Lord Carrington, but it should not be beyond the means of South Africa and the Security Council acting together. It is not a matter of simply copying Lancaster House, but the all-party conference at Lancaster House did have the approval of the Western leaders and of the “front-line States”, in principle and in fact. It also tends to prove that such peace as exists at present in Zimbabwe would probably not have been possible if agreement between the contending parties had not been reached beforehand with regard to a constitution for the country in terms of which the freedom election was held. In fact, in the case of Zimbabwe there was no other way but this one to arriving at a settlement.

Meanwhile I merely want to add that we fully support the efforts of the Government to create the necessary political infrastructure in South West Africa and to train South West Africans as fast as possible to take responsibility for their own internal administration, including their own Civil Service and security forces, until international independence can finally be accomplished. One would in my view be neglecting the immediate interests of the territory and its people by not doing so.

I want to conclude by saying that it pleases me that there is a great deal of understanding between the Government and the Opposition on the difficult question of South West Africa, and I do hope that that will continue to be the case.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that South West Africa is probably one of the crucial problems which the Government has to deal with at present in the sphere of foreign affairs. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this regard, but I believe that whatever the inhabitants of South West Africa or the Government do, it will not meet with the approval of the Security Council of the UN, or the UN as such. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, the UN have already stated that Swapo is the only legitimate ruler of South West Africa, and as long as we refuse to admit this as well, no proposals which we make will make any impression on the UN.

However, in the short time at my disposal, I want to discuss another subject. During February this year, a report appeared in Oggendblad under the headline: “‘Maak van Suid-Afrika ’n vriend,’ sê die Britte.” The report quoted what the British Foreign Affairs Research Institute had said—

The institute also made other positive statements. I think all of us appreciate such a positive approach from that quarter. When I read the report, however, I found that it did not make the same impression on me as would have been the case earlier, when one would have welcomed hearing something positive about South Africa. Actually, the report left me rather cold, because the hope and expectations which one had cherished for so many years of hearing a good word from the West no longer meets with the response one would have thought they would meet with, now that we are hearing it.

I wondered why this should be the case, and I arrived at the conclusion that there are other and better priorities to which South Africa should preferably turn its attention. One of those is that we should slowly disengage ourselves from the West, and we should concentrate instead on our immediate environment, in particular on Southern Africa. I believe Parliament should seriously ponder the question of whether our continued ties with the Western world are essential and whether the cultivation of a good image overseas is really so important and advantageous to us. Are there not other and more important priorities? A year ago all of us would probably have replied in the affirmative to such a question, but those of us who went on the tour to the UN and Germany last year, came across certain people who knew South Africa well and who visited this country frequently. Nevertheless they did not have a good word to say about South Africa. In Washington we came across people such as Senators Paul Tsongas and Solarz, and we also listened to a speech made by Mr. Millar Arnold. They are people who know South Africa and who indicated that they wished to pay South Africa another visit. In fact, Paul Tsongas paid another visit to South Africa at the beginning of the year, and upon his return he told the people that the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister were merely cosmetic. It is simply no use talking to such people. There is no opportunity for us to state our case positively and in a good light. They keep harping on the theme of human rights. I think the cry of human rights has become a farce in the world. What country gives more recognition to human rights and complies to a greater extent with the requirements of human rights than South Africa does? But we receive no recognition for it. Colour is in fact the issue which dominates world opinion today. I think the only reason why the massacres in Northern Ireland are never discussed in the UN is because both the Catholics and Protestants who are engaged in the struggle are Whites. If some of them had been non-Whites it would perhaps have been an entirely different story. Colour has become predominant, and South Africa has become a victim of circumstances. If there were to be worse laws than the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act, and if this House were to consist of Black people, those laws would read like passages from a Sunday school trait. That is why we must seek our salvation in Africa, among our immediate neighbours. We must approach them in the spirit in which we know one another.

South Africa has the ability to help its neighbours. In an article which appeared in the Africa Bulletin, I read that South Africa had progressed from the 19th to the 12th place on the “Business Environment Risk Index”. This index reflects the risk element for investments in every country in the world. Africa needs help. Black and White Africa need one another, and there is much help we can give Black Africa.

If one examines the speech which Mr. McNamara made recently in Tanzania one sees that he reviewed the economic position of the developing countries for the year 1980 onwards. The position appears to be very depressing. The growth in the low-income countries will be 1,5% per capita, and for the medium income countries 2,3% per capita. If one considers the reasons for this, one sees that the oil costs play an extremely important part. This article suggests that the oil costs are still in future going to give these people a final blow. What should they do now, to improve their position? All they can do is to produce and to develop to an ever-increasing extent. But where must they obtain the funds from to be able to do this? Mr. McNamara said that the USA was not in a position to provide such funds. In the Seiler Report it is proposed that $20 million is necessary for the development in Zimbabwe, and of that, however, perhaps only $2 million is going to be made available. To what extent can South Africa help in this connection? To what extent can South Africa help these countries to preserve their self-respect in the eye’s of the world? We must withdraw our attention from the West and concentrate more on Southern Africa, in particular on our immediate neighbours, and try to strengthen their economies. Recently the OAU held a conference in Lagos at which they discussed the economic crisis in Africa. They arrived at the conclusion that economically Africa was going under. Black Africa must be saved from insolvency. If this is not done, the wrong people will snap up their insolvent estates on an auction. South Africa is in the best and strongest position to help save Africa from insolvency.

We all know about the recent visit by the Pope to six African countries. Upon his return journey to Italy a question was put to him in an interview, and he was asked to give his opinion on Africa. To this question he replied as follows—

I agree. Economic factors are stronger than political factors. South Africa is in the strongest position to render assistance to the economies of African countries. We all know of the stout efforts which the hon. the Prime Minister is making to bring about a constellation of States in Southern Africa. We must encourage these as much as possible. In the end this will be to the good and in the best interests not only of the countries around us and the former homelands, but also of the RSA itself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the second half hour.

I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Potgietersrus has had to say, particularly when he referred to the fact that in his opinion, and I think that is generally agreed to by most members in the House, South Africa’s future in Southern Africa lies in its good relations with its neighbouring States. I am pleased to see that the hon. member has taken this line, because I am quite sure that those hon. members who have been in this House since before 1977, will recall that, as far back as four, five or six years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, Sir De Villiers Graaff, put forward the concept of a Capricorn Africa and stated to just what extent South Africa could go in expanding the concept of a united Southern Africa in the best interests of all the nations concerned.

If the hon. member cares to look at my Hansard of June 1978, column 8470, he will see that this party proposed five objectives which we felt should be accepted in an effort to try to expand our interests in Southern Africa. I do not intend going into them in any detail, but I give them to the hon. member to consider because I think they fit in very well with what he is now saying. However, what we have to look at is the fact that today South Africa is being subjected to pressure not only from our friends, but definitely also pressure from Russian imperialism. I am quite sure hon. members will agree with that when they consider what is happening in the Middle East, where the whole of the Western group of nations is now under threat. The point that I want to put to the hon. member in this connection is that Russian imperialism wins wars without fighting them. And how does it achieve this? It achieves this by identifying themselves with the grievances which the masses of people, have against the abuses of the people who are ruling their countries at any particular time. If we want to protect our position in Southern Africa, in Africa, I believe we have to identify the grievances which our Black people have and remove these and thereby cause them to identify themselves with us. The only way we can achieve this is by overcoming the legitimate grievances which they have against us.

I hope to spend most of my speech this afternoon dealing with these grievances as they were put to those of us who toured overseas last year as guests of the hon. the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. Before I do this however, I should just like to put a thought to the hon. member. If we say that we want to identify with Africa, what about our traditional ties with Western nations? What about our friends in the West? I should also like to ask: If we are unable to build up a sound relationship with Western nations, nations with the same basic history as we have, with the same basic culture as we have, how are we ever going to build up a sound relationship with African nations which have a culture totally different from our own?

Which one do you suggest we start with?

This is the thought I want to leave with hon. members.

I personally found the tour overseas extremely informative and invaluable and I should like to thank the members of the department, the Director-General and also our Ambassadors for the way we were received overseas. I think it was a very well organized tour and I appreciated it greatly. I should like the hon. the Minister to know this. I believe the purpose of this tour was primarily to inform and to educate ourselves. That is the way I looked upon it, although I will agree that there are certain members in this House whom it is impossible to educate.

On which side of the House?

I believe that we also went there to find out what sort of criticism is being levelled against South Africa and the reasons for it. There is no doubt about it that the delegation that went abroad was exposed to intense criticism from people such as members of the Black caucus in the USA Congress. We were exposed to a very wide range of criticism of South Africa and her policies. However, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that there is much merit in making an in-depth study of the forces which motivate our critics in the West. I say this because all our critics are not motivated in their criticism in the same way. In analysing the people we have met, I have come to the conclusion that they can be divided into four broad groups.

There are those on the extreme radical left who are, let us face it, just anti-South African. Their sole objective is to destroy South Africa as we know it today. Then there is a second group, whom I want to call the opportunists, the masters of expedience, who smile at one and who appear to be friends, but who, when it suits them, just turn their backs on South Africa. There is a third group whom I should like to call the true friends of South Africa. These are people who have a deep understanding of our problems, who have a great sympathy for us and who want to see us succeed. This is the one group of people whom I believe we have to encourage. There is yet a fourth group whom most South Africans might look upon as our real friends when they meet them for the first time because they really seem to support South Africa and the South African Government’s policies. However, on this tour I have found that many of these people represent extreme right-wing groups in overseas countries and are as such doing South Africa more harm by showing their support for us than they would if they just kept quiet, because in their own countries they are looked upon as extreme racists. I believe that we have to be careful not to cultivate these people because it could do us more harm than good.

I believe therefore that we must distinguish between those who are basically anti-White South Africa, who are against the economic system we have in South Africa and who persist in propagating sanctions and disinvestment, and those critics, severe critics, of South Africa who are motivated by what could be called humanitarianism, by Christian and liberal ethics and by their love for freedom and democracy. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Simonstown criticizes these people. This means that he does not believe in these particular attributes. However, these are the people whom I believe are the ones we should be careful not to turn into potential enemies. I believe it is only by distinguishing between these two groups of critics and also by clearly identifying our own motivations—and this is where I want to suggest to the hon. member for Simonstown to search his own heart and to determine his own motivation in this regard —that we will be able clearly to classify our critics and differentiate between our friends and our enemies. I believe such an exercise is absolutely essential, because failure to do this could lead to many people who have a great potential of becoming strong friends of South Africa being branded as enemies of South Africa.

During this tour, especially in the USA, I felt—and I am sure other hon. members also felt this—that there is just as much misunderstanding and lack of appreciation on our part of our critics’ experiences and perceptions of the South African scene as the misunderstanding we accuse them of having of our experience and perception of things. I believe these misunderstandings have often led to a dog-in-the-manger attitude which in my view does not do anybody any good at all. From my own point of view this tour served a very good purpose in that it placed us in a position to try to distinguish the difference between these groups.

Having said this, let me say that I am more than ever convinced that the root cause of most of our problems in our foreign relations—and I know hon. members on that side are not going to like this—is racism. It is certainly not our pluralistic thinking in regard to the political and social structure of South Africa that causes these problems, because I found overseas that pluralism is saleable. I say this because in Germany we found people from Bavaria who said they could understand our concept of a constellation or confederation, because they themselves, in their own country, have a federal or confederal type of Government. Neither is the cause of our problems apartheid in the sense that the “verligte” Nationalists perceive it. I believe that that is really a policy of pluralism, and it is not this that is causing our trouble. The actual cause is apartheid as the “verkrampte” Nationalist would like to see it propagated in South Africa, and as reflected in such an individual’s attitudes and comments when he is overseas and, most especially, as reflected in the legislation we have in this country at the present time. This image that is projected by this particular group is one of a policy of White privilege and White protectionism, and as was said repeatedly to us, this is plain and blatant racism. This is the distinction I believe we must clearly draw and identify in our domestic attitudes and politics, and we must have this reflected in our foreign policy if we wish to improve our relations with nations in the West, in particular. I say this because this equivocation, this vacillation, on the matter of racism, as it is being practised at times in South Africa, is doing this country considerable harm today, in fact to the extent that I am prepared to say that if this Government does not commit itself unequivocally to the eradication of racism, the Government itself can stand accused, I believe, of being a risk to the future security of the White man in South Africa.

Where do you find racism in this country?

I would go so far as to say that the Government at the present time is becoming a security risk in this regard. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister just to tell us …

You are now making a racist speech.

… how much damage to our international image is due for example to a piece of legislation such as the Mixed Marriages Act. It is very difficult to try to justify this when one is travelling overseas.

It is impossible.

It is impossible, as the hon. member says. I agree with him, because when one tries to justify it, one finds that one is trying to justify a basic racist concept.

There is another point that is causing us many problems. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to my question in this regard. Just how much of a detrimental effect is the hon. the Prime Minister’s refusal to get on with the job of his promised reforms having on our foreign relations at the present time? The facts clearly indicate that the Government is stalling, at the present time, on these issues. To put it bluntly, I do not believe that the Government has the guts to get on and do the things the hon. the Prime Minister so boldly said he was going to do a few months ago, things which raised the expectations of our people and of our true friends overseas.

These are the things that were widely acclaimed by our friends overseas, and I say this because we ran into these people on our tour. Disillusionment is, however, setting in, and I want the hon. the Minister to know this. Does he appreciate the air of disillusionment that is creeping in, even in the Diplomatic Corps in South Africa at the present time? I say this because members of the Diplomatic Corps are finding it very difficult to go back to their principals and justify the claim that there is a change coming in South Africa. What about the embarrassment this causes to our friends overseas, our real friends—and we met them—who until recently were saying: “You see, South Africa is coming right; just give South Africa a little more time; the country has a new Prime Minister who is going to change things.”

There is something else I should like to put to the hon. the Minister, as well as to my colleagues who were on that tour. What about the embarrassment caused to hon. members of this House who stood up there in front of some of the harshest critics in the USA, Germany and Britain, and spoke up for South Africa and the mood of change that we perceived six months or a year ago? Was what they said just a lot of hot air? What about these things? One thing was loud and clear in every country we visited, and that is that the embarrassment this Government is causing our friends by its actions is doing South Africa a lot of damage. If it is not Soweto, it is a Biko episode. If it is not an Arrie Paulus, it is a student protest march. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that South Africa cannot afford to slap our friends in the face continuously. We cannot afford the luxury of kowtowing the verkramptes in our midst, because to do so, as I have said, puts the entire future of the Whites of South Africa at stake, and the nettle has got to be grasped.

In this connection I should like to refer to South West Africa in order to prove my point. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister and every hon. member opposite what options the Whites in South West Africa still have open to them today. What options do they have open? This must surely be a method of judging the performances of the NP. I believe there are very, very few options left open to us. Perhaps there is only one option still left, and that is solidarity amongst all the races and all the people within Namabia in the face of the attacks by Swapo and by the Marxists. That is the only option left—unity among all the races in South West Africa. The question, however, is whether this solidarity can be achieved as long as the racist groups within the NP, as well as the HNP, in South West Africa are placated by stalling, stalling, stalling. [Interjections.] A former member of the NP in South West Africa, Mr. Dirk Mudge, saw the writing on the wall already three or four years ago when he broke away from the NP because he saw the whole of the Turnhalle concept in jeopardy at that time. I ask what is left today of the Turnhalle concept in South West Africa. The option has been lost, largely because of the South African Government’s inability to come to terms with the reality of the situation soon enough because of its fear of its right wing.

The hon. the leader of the NRP will be dealing in depth with the question of South West Africa. Therefore I do not intend to go into it in any detail. I in any event do not have the time. What I am trying to stress, however, is that on a recent tour in which many hon. members of this House took part there appeared to be a great need to define clearly our true motivations within and without South Africa. We have to identify our objectives in connection with what we want for South Africa. In furthering our relationships with Southern Africa, as the hon. member for Potgietersrus pointed out, if that is our objective, we should clearly identify what we want, but then we will also have to assess the options which are open to us, the options which can enable us to achieve those objectives. Having identified the options we should take the option which will lead to our objective in the shortest possible time. One cannot vacillate on these things. We do not have the time available to us.

The Turnhalle concept, let us face that, was a wonderful concept, but it has been totally and completely fluffed in South West Africa. South Africa’s foreign relations will, I believe, continue to be bedevilled as a consequence. We are now faced with the concept of a constellation of States in terms of a proposal put forward by the hon. the Prime Minister, a concept of a new era in Southern Africa, something which extends a lot of hope and which also has a great potential. It has been widely acclaimed overseas and within South Africa itself, even by some of our Black leaders. It has given a lot of our friends in the international scene a lot of hope for our future. As I have said, however, disillusionment is now creeping into it. The question I should like to put to hon. members today is whether the NP is going to fluff this one too. Will we find, in three or four or five years from now, that this option is no longer available to us?

I believe we really have to identify these things I have mentioned, because if we fail to do so, there is a big Russian bear not too distant from us, a bear which is just waiting for us to end up where we will have no option at all but to enter into a situation in which those people whom we now consider to be our enemies will suddenly become the people who will be holding the reins of power in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has made a political speech during the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Vote, but in my opinion, he could much rather and more fruitfully have made the speech during the Third Reading debate, the Second Reading debate, the discussion on the Prime Minister’s Vote or during the No-confidence debate. I believe his choice of subject was a poor one for the Foreign Affairs Vote.

The hon. member began by drawing attention to his experience arising from an overseas trip which certain members of this House undertook during the recess as guests of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I should like to associate myself with what he said and to convey my personal thanks to the hon. the Minister for the privilege of being able to undertake such a trip as a guest of his department.

The hon. member said that he had found that events such as those at Soweto and the biko case had repeatedly caused a deterioration in the attitudes towards South Africa. I want to concede to him that this is so. However, is this not an indication of what exactly is taking place in America, for example, where anything will be seized upon and used in an attempt to denigrate South Africa? Terrible riots are taking place at the moment in Miami, Florida. More than a dozen people have died today alone and hundreds were taken to hospital, while the fire brigade is refusing to respond to reports of fire and the police are not reacting either. If such a thing had happened in South Africa, what would the international Press have done to South Africa? I want to ask the hon. member what the causes of such riots in America are and in what respects they differ from what the position would be in South Africa. I think there is a political game involved which bears no relation to the circumstances in South Africa.

Arising from the overseas trip last year, I also want to give my overriding impression. I do so on the basis of a single note I made after we had visited Washington and New York. I made the following note—

This was my overriding impression after we had visited various interest groups in Washington and UN missions in New York, and that is the way I noted it down at the time.

Since our return we have had the hostage drama in Iran, Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan and the coup d’état with the subsequent murder of President Tolbert in Liberia. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be able to tell us whether these important international events have contributed in any way to relieving the pressure brought to bear on us by America and the UN. Our people outside must not be so foolish as to underestimate the violence of this pressure which a powerful country like America and a powerful organization like the UN can bring to bear upon us when it is unleashed on us in all its fury. Therefore I want to thank South Africa’s men and women abroad, brave men and women, who are working ceaselessly and with dedication to prevent it from being unleashed on South Africa, because I have experienced what those people abroad experience.

With reference to the remark made by the hon. member for Potgietersrus, i.e. that we should extend our sphere of influence to our neighbouring States, I also want to draw attention to a recent event closer to our borders. Successive Prime Ministers of South Africa, members of the Cabinet and politicians have constantly extended the hand of friendship to Africa in the past. Offers of aid in the spheres of technology and science, agriculture and health, commerce and industry and transport and communications were continually being made, while peaceful coexistence and good neighbourship were advocated. It has never been the desire of South Africa to take imperialistic action against any nation, and South Africa has never desired a single square metre of any other country’s territory. In fact, in our consolidation proposals, which are presently being investigated, provision is being made for the possibility of large areas of White land being made available to national States. Where South Africa has been willing to help neighbouring States and other States in Africa and to co-operate with them in the economic sphere, this has been done in the knowledge that no nation can flourish in a region where poverty and backwardness are predominant.

Of course, the economic development of this sub-continent, with its enormous potential in various fields, will be able to bring about a dramatic change in the attitude towards South Africa, not into a position of subservience to South Africa on the part of African States, but into a position of full partnership, for whether Africa wants to admit it or not, the existing hostility is in large part due to elements such as resentment and avarice in certain circles, in view of the humiliating contrast between the wealth of South Africa and the backwardness elsewhere, which no one can ignore any longer.

As other countries become more prosperous themselves, this hostility towards South Africa may diminish, for no country which is consciously trying to improve its own circumstances of life, to create infrastructures and to make development possible can afford to take part in disruptic undertakings such as military onslaughts and subversion against a country such as South Africa. For this reason, the underlying motive of South Africa’s approach and overtures to Africa is the creation of peace and stability through progress, which may certainly give rise to the byproducts of trade interests and economic growth for South Africa, but these will become the primary products for Africa, because trade interests and economic activities are the very things that Africa is so greatly in need of at the moment. South Africa is prepared to help them in this.

Against this background, I want to say something about the seven-point agreement entered into by nine Black States at Lusaka on 1 April 1980 in an attempt to make themselves economically less dependent on South Africa. We shall not disparage this attempt. We shall not ridicule it, even though 1 April is the day on which April Fool is played. Through this attempt, however, the nine countries are engaged in the very undertaking in which South Africa wanted to assist them in the past; i.e. in uplifting themselves. Therefore we shall certainly not adopt a negative attitude in continuing trade and economic ties with them.

All things considered, I think that South Africa may congratulate these countries on their attempt to uplift themselves. We may also express the wish that it may not take them decades to realize this ideal. They may even find that South Africa is prepared to help them in word and deed, as we are in fact doing. We shall continue to do so as long as these countries want to make use of our services.

Whether or not these nine countries like it, and whether or not they would prefer matters to be otherwise, the practical situation and the requirements of the regional economy of this sub-continent are simply such that the trade interests and economic activities between the Republic of South Africa and other components of this subcontinent have to be strengthened rather than weakened as every country proceeds along the road of its own development. United in a strong economic power bloc, if the nine countries can in fact realize this ideal, they will naturally become economically less dependent of South Africa, but they will never be able to escape the ever-present demands of greater trade with South Africa, least of all as they are proceeding along the road of their own development. In fact, these demands will then become even greater.

Therefore we do not regard the attempt of the nine countries as a threat to ourselves, so we shall not snub them or belittle their attempt, but the hand of friendship we have extended and the offers of aid to which I referred at the beginning of my speech will remain as long as these countries care to make use of them.

Having said all this, I want to point out that President Kaunda has set himself a test and a challenge, for if this attempt on his part does not succeed, history will show President Kaunda to have been a braggart and a yes-man who is running after a handful of flies. I should like to express the wish that President Kaunda may be spared such a humiliation, and I should like to express the hope that South Africa and its immediate neighbours, as well as other Black States further afield, may live together in good neighbourship and peaceful co-existence, as it is South Africa’s sincere desire that we may.

Mr. Chairman, because I regard information as very important, I want to say a few words in this extremely important debate about information and our information effort. The enemies of South Africa rejoiced because they thought they had completely destroyed our information effort. There is a surprise in store for them. Our Information people have not given up, but have fought back in silence, and solid new foundations have already been laid for effective information in this country.

The temporary paralysis which resulted from the unpleasant events in the old Department of Information has already been overcome by the new Information Service of South Africa, and our information machine is going at full steam again. In the officials’ benches several of the people are sitting who have contributed to these attempts. I should like to congratulate them on having handled so well the storm that burst over their heads and for being hard at work again.

However, one matter remains which must receive attention. We shall have to intensify our information effort considerably. The need for this is becoming ever more urgent because the onslaughts on South Africa are becoming ever fiercer—from many sources and on many fronts. This onslaught can only be averted by a comprehensive strategy, and in such a strategy, Information is one of the most important branches, because Information will have to help us win the psychological war against us.

Internally, it is the task of Information to strengthen the spiritual preparedness of our people, and abroad, they have to work fearlessly to influence decision-makers and opinion-formers in a positive way. This is why we shall have to intensify our information efforts. For this, however, we need more money, more experts and the best aids.

The money appropriated for Information is inadequate. The budget for Information is a meagre R19½ million. This represents 0,2% of the country’s total budget and is more or less equal to what two fighter aircraft would cost. South Africans are not even paying R1 a head to inform our own people and to propagate South Africa’s image abroad. A major soap manufacturer in South Africa spends R17 million every year on advertising to sell its product. This is almost as much as we spend in South Africa on selling South Africa abroad. The Steyn Commission indicated in their important report that the struggle is fierce, merciless, all-embracing and continuous. We shall have to be prepared to allocate more money to Information if we want to win this very important struggle.

Because of the events in the old Department of Information, we lost ground in the propaganda war and our enemies gained ground, especially abroad. A great information backlog has developed inside this country because the old Department of Information concentrated increasingly on foreign countries. The Government can no longer leave this country to the media. It will have to inform the people of this country in a purposeful, co-ordinated and planned manner. Not all our newspapers are full allies in this task any longer, because their evaluation and interpretation of the Government’s development plans are often directly in conflict with those of the Government. “Keep the people informed and the country is safe,” are wise words which were once uttered by a great American President, Abraham Lincoln.

Democracy cannot work in the absence of sustained, clear communication between the Government and the people of the country. The Steyn Commission says in its important report—

So hon. members can see how extremely important it is that enough meaningful information should be imparted to all population groups, so that there may be understanding for the serious conflict situation in which the Republic finds itself. Ignorance, incorrect information, malice and prejudice create the negative climate, feed the dissatisfaction and intensify the suspicion between peoples and population groups, which eventually leads to conflict. This kind of enemy cannot be neutralized with a conventional army, with aircraft and soldiers. It is the work of the Information Service of South Africa to break down these walls of prejudice.

Our hon. Prime Minister and his Government are engaged in great and important initiatives—a new constitutional dispensation for our country, the vision of a constellation of States, etc. However, these things will only succeed if all the people affected by them are kept properly informed about the objectives and the advantages they hold for all. The value of information as an effective instrument for achieving our national objectives should not be underestimated. If we desire the support of all the population groups in this country in achieving our national objectives, information will have to occupy a more central position in our national strategy.

It is gratifying to observe clear signs in several Western countries of a more moderate attitude towards South Africa. I was fortunate enough to be a member of that important foreign tour last year. Everywhere we were impressed by the fact that there is definitely a new way of thinking in respect of South Africa. The initiatives of our hon. Prime Minister have greatly contributed to creating a better climate for South Africa abroad. I want to ask the people of the Information Service of South Africa to build on that. We must make full use of these favourable circumstances.

During a visit to the UN, this group of parliamentarians from South Africa was very impressed with the good work that our men and women are doing there. Our Information attaché at the UN has established good contact with about 250 journalists working there. These journalists send reports from there to every corner of the world. Information documents made available to them by our attaché every day are snapped up by these people, which proves to us that they are interested in what we say and think.

That position at the UN is so strategic and so important that I want to ask the hon. the Minister today whether the staff there cannot be reinforced so that we may expand our work there. It is important work, especially if one takes note of the fact that the UN is still the centre of the international activities against South Africa. The churches abroad are playing an enormous role as pressure groups. Very often there are church deputations asking for penal sanctions against South Africa. Bankers have told us that churches are making things difficult for them because they invest in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot concentrate our information effort more strongly on church leaders abroad. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not consider appointing a knowledgeable and competent theologian as a travelling representative to work among church leaders. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North has stressed the importance of the Information Service and we on this side of the House agree that the Information Service is a very valuable adjunct to any Government, to any department, which is trying to get the South African message understood overseas. The Information debacle of recent times also showed that no amount of money, no number of “bright boys” and no amount of clever tricks was going to sell the unsaleable to the outside world. The reality of the situation is that the race policies being applied inside South Africa and the work of detractors of South Africa outside of our country have combined to give to the South African Government a caricature of racism. That is what the hon. gentlemen found when they went overseas. Rightly or wrongly, that is what they found. Whilst one must have an Information Service which is going to tell the truth and to stress the positive, at the same time that work will be of no real fundamental value unless within our country we are going to make the kind of changes adumbrated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs before the Security Council at the United Nations in November 1974, when he pledged to move this country away from racial discrimination. It is a combination of on the one hand moving away from discrimination and on the second hand seeing that there is effective communication from South Africa to the rest of the world via our own Information Service.

In the short time at my disposal I want to deal with the situation which has arisen and relationships which may flow from the newly-found independence of the State of Zimbabwe immediately to the north of us. There is no doubt that the events in Zimbabwe have been dramatic as far as Southern Africa is concerned. Perhaps 24 April 1974, when the Caerano régime was toppled and Angola and Mozambique stopped being part of a colonial empire, is the only other watershed that can be compared with the independence of Zimbabwe under Prime Minister Robert Mugabe as far as Southern Africa is concerned. These were two watershed events of which we have to take note. They were dramatic.

Perhaps they have shown how subjective we have occasionally been in our assessment of the extent to which specific Black leaders enjoy popular support. Perhaps the events have shown how over-simplistic we are at times when we put the label of Marxist around the neck of a Black leader who at a particular time relied on communist aid in what he saw as his liberation struggle. These are things that I think we must bear in mind when we make assessments for the future. No doubt, the independence of Zimbabwe is going to have a profound impact upon all of us living in Southern Africa. I would hope that independence for Zimbabwe* on 18 April, under a Mugabe led, Zanu dominated Government, must have caused the Government to undertake a fundamental reappraisal, a re-look at its policies and plans for Southern Africa, certainly those explained to us in the months preceding the election in Zimbabwe in February this year. The fact is that after South Africa, Zimbabwe is the most populous and the most powerful country in the sub-continent of Africa.

Independence for Zimbabwe changes certain basic factors in the Southern African equation. In the first place it changes the strategic map of Southern Africa, for no longer do we have a Western-orientated ally on our northern border, but a nation forming part of the so-called non-aligned Third World group of nations. Furthermore it is led by a man who might well have more influence in international councils and with Governments around the world than any African leader for the past two decades because of the circumstances in which the powers of leadership have come to him. Certainly it also extends the ideological dichotomy which exists in Southern Africa, for here we have what we would claim a Western-orientated South Africa, a free-enterprise orientated South Africa, while the Zanu PF election manifesto and Mugabe’s post election remarks point to a Zimbabwean Government which is committed to a pragmatic form of economic socialism at least. One might say even more, but at this stage that is what it is committed to. Thirdly, it introduces a new important element into the overall economic situation of the Southern African region. I do not believe that we should underestimate the importance of the role which Zimbabwe can play in the future economic development of South and South-Central Africa. That country has tremendous problems to overcome, but nevertheless its rail, road and air facilities provide vital communication links for the countries to the north of us.

It was a well-run country when he took it over.

These are factors which are there. While it has not the economic strength of South Africa, nor the same resources, it has at the moment considerable expertise as well as mining, manufacturing and agricultural potential to complement the deficiencies in the surrounding countries. This is the situation at the moment.

Because of the emotionalism surrounding its liberation, as it is called in that country, it could prove to be a rallying point for those countries who want to move away from links with the powerful economy of, what they call, apartheid South Africa. I am not arguing for or against this, but these are the circumstances which have arisen as a result of the independence of that country under a Zanu PF Government. It is important for South Africa, because Zimbabwe is going to be important for all of us in Southern Africa, to come to terms with the new situation which the independence of Zimbabwe has brought, especially because we cannot be sure that the Government’s plans for a UN-supervised election in South West Africa will necessarily produce a result which is dissimilar to that in Zimbabwe. [Interjections.] I think we have to take that into account in designing our overall strategy, because that is one of the possibilities. In spite of the problems and ideological differences that exist between South Africa and Zimbabwe, I hope that the Government will take a positive attitude towards this new State. We should start by not seeing that country as necessarily a rival or as an enemy, but rather as a neighbour with which, although we might differ with it on a number of fundamental issues, we like to work in developing the economy of the Southern Africa region.

Who said Zimbabwe was our enemy?

Co-operation cannot develop unilaterally. Therefore it is not just South Africa which must adopt a positive attitude. One expects a positive and understanding attitude to be shown towards South Africa also by the Government of Zimbabwe. To an extent the utterances of the Prime Minister and the new Government have been encouraging in that regard, for example the assurance that no territorial facilities will be provided as a basis for terrorist incursions against South Africa, the repayment of loans which were incurred by previous Governments and the desire to co-exist, although there are differences of ideology. There is therefore a prospect which at least should be explored, a prospect of some kind of relationship with that country, although one might not agree with the ideology of that Government.

I want to put certain specific questions in relation to this to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Firstly, in relation to South Africa-Zimbabwe relationships, are there discussions taking place on trade and matters of mutual economic interest? I realize that South Africa has recently sold Zimbabwe maize and coal. Secondly, has the South African Government made any specific offers to assist Zimbabwe in overcoming the problems resulting from sanctions and the bush war? Thirdly, what is the nature of our diplomatic relationship to be? Is the present status of an accredited representative to continue, or are there to be discussions either to raise or to lower this status? Just before independence there were top-level discussions between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and leaders of the then Muzorewa Government. So, fourthly, I want to know whether the Government is exploring an early meeting between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, or at least perhaps a formal meeting at Foreign Ministerial level.

Finally, how does the new Zimbabwe situation relate to the Government’s concept of a constellation of States? I do not have the time to give all the quotations from last year’s debate, but the hon. the Minister of foreign Affairs will remember how he described a situation of 40 million people living below the line of the Kunene, Okavango and Zambezi Rivers and how he said that these people should be brought together for consultation, first on economic matters and then on security matters regarding the defence of this territory, and that the possibility of creating some form of informal political relationship could also be discussed. Likewise, if one takes the statements by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House earlier this year regarding the constellation of States … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, because of the sensitive nature of South African-Zimbabweian relations, I do not wish to follow the topic referred to by the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member seemed to indicate that South Africa was out of step with African and world norms. I want to show that South Africa is in fact in step with African and world realities and imperatives. The prophets of doom, including many academic American observers over the past 30 years, have consistently predicted the eclipse of South Africa and have constantly misread not only the intention of the South African peoples, but also the capacity of the South African nation to adjust successfully, on an on-going evolutionary basis, to the great challenges and demands of the time. What appeared to be local problems caused by South Africa’s so-called intransigence, are increasingly shown to be world problems that manifest themselves regionally. The West is increasingly finding itself weighed in the same time-scale as what South Africa is being weighed in. If the balance should tip against us, it will equally tip against Western interests, and that is politically, strategically, militarily and economically.

Since the war we have seen greater and greater fragmentation of the world and the emergence of micro-States. In Africa there are 47 independent countries and five offshore countries. If we look at the world’s micro-States, we see that in Asia there are 15, in South America, 13 and in Africa 28 countries each with a population of under five million. These countries are often unable to sustain growth and to maintain stability, while, because of recession and other factors, the industrialized world cannot or will not give aid on the scale it has given previously. There is reluctance amongst the poor of the First World to give foreign aid and to make sacrifices to help the élite and the rich of the Third World. As we have recently seen in the case of Canada, it is even becoming unfashionable to give foreign aid. These factors of fragmentation and reduced assistance have caused a great imperative for regionalism. I am convinced that regionalism will become the dynamic dimension of the ’eighties. We already see this tendency with the West African Economic Union, which is 2,5 times the size of Western Europe. We also see it in the Pacific, in South East Asia, in the Carribean and, of course, in Europe itself. These groupings are often brought about by defence imperatives. The world is spending something like $400 billion a year on defence. It is interesting that half the world’s scientists today are employed in the armaments field. In fact, in Africa more money has been spent on the purchase of armaments over the past ten years than has been spent on agricultural production, on a continent on which the populations are growing exponentially and agricultural production is dwindling.

The second dynamic dimension of the eighties will in my view be self-reliance. Recently this was demonstrated very strongly by the Third World summit meeting in Lagos where speaker after speaker underlined this fact.

The third dimension of the ’eighties is that countries in a specific region that fall back on self-reliance will increasingly seek bargaining power, security, stability and peace by replacing adversary philosophies with interdependence philosophies.

I should like very briefly to quote some statistics in respect of Africa to illustrate the adversary philosophy which exists and the instability which is counter-productive to growth.

Since 1963 there have been 17 territorial disputes in the OAU countries, some of which are still active. Since 1964 there have been 17 positional boundary disputes, many of which have led to loss of life and fighting. Since 1963 there have been 22 cases of functional boundary disputes, where States have closed their frontiers to their neighbours to gain some political advantages. Half the land-locked States on earth are in Africa. There have been seven ethnically-based wars in Africa over the past 15 years, some of which still flame up from time to time. Of the over 50 countries in Africa, 16 have an annual per capita income of $200 or less, and a further 22 have an annual per capita income of between $200 and $499. Of the 14 signatories to the Lusaka Convention in 1969, 11 were overthrown by a coup d’état. We live on a subcontinent in which the imperative need for regionalism, self-reliance and interdependence to ensure stability is very strong indeed.

It is on account of these three factors that we have seen the response of South Africa, viz. a constellation of States. Our survival is important to this region. We in fact share borders of 6 928 km with our neighbouring States. That excludes the national States and the homelands of South Africa. Southern Africa will have to seek security and growth in interdependence and co-operation, as we are the dominant regional power. In this regard we have already taken the lead, and the constellation of States already exists in many important respects in which the States stand in a fixed relationship towards each other.

What we need now is imaginative and enlightened leadership. I believe that leadership exists. The 70s were years of consultation. The 80s will have to be years of effective action. The hon. member for Potgietersrus quoted the Pope. I should also like to quote something which the Pope said as quoted in Die Burger of 14 May 1980—

It is difficult to put it better than that. In the whole of this emergence of a constellation of States in Southern Africa, and the foreign policy imperatives that will go with it, it has to be stated that one has great respect for the hon. the Minister and for the capacity and the vision of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As was mentioned earlier, we were the guests of the department and we came back with the overpowering view that this department was well led, was well staffed, and that the staff was devoted and extremely efficient. We did, of course, also gain the impression that the department was in some respects understaffed and that the workload and the challenge the staff had to meet exceeded their capacity. I therefore hope the department will be able to expand rapidly in the near future, also with regard to its operations in Southern Africa.

In conclusion I should like to point out that South Africa has already demonstrated that we have the moral and other necessary equipment to remain not only a force of good in Africa, but to remain also within the acceptable norms of the family of nations.

Mr. Chairman, I heartily congratulate the hon. the Minister on the brilliant way in which he is handling the interests of South Africa at home and abroad. He ought to know, in any event, that in both fields he has been speaking my language for many years.

By way of introduction I wish to quote today the words of Mr. Richard M. Moose to the American Congress on 30 April this year—

†And I should like to underline the following words—

Are we missing out on something which others, like Mr. Moose, observe and exploit? I believe so!

Secondly, I wish to refer to what my colleague and friend John Chettle of the S.A. Foundation said in Washington the other day. He said—

He went on to quote figures indicating that some 50 000 supporters, in 35 States, backed by some $100 billion, organized in some 2 000 groups, joined forces to oppose investment in South Africa. Mr. Chettle is right, but, thank Goodness, he is only partly right. This is only one side of the story.

From the viewpoint of investments South Africa recently jumped from the 19th to the 12th position according to the risk factor rating for international investments, well ahead of Sweden, Denmark, Britain, France, Greece and other important countries.

Last year the Johannesburg Stock Exchange had the best performance of all the world’s leading stock exchanges. There are now some 1 200 United Kingdom, 350 West German and 335 United States companies with major interests in South Africa, as well as many from various other countries. Even these figures are virtually out of date in the space of a day or so. The American number is now quoted as 375.

For decades now we have shown the highest on some of the highest returns for foreign investors.

Some 40 large foreign corporations are actively involved in exploration work in this country.

So, I do not worry too much about the withdrawal syndrome, but there is one fact that we must not ignore. Countries of the Western World, especially the USA, also believe that they can retain all the advantages that South Africa offers, e.g. our minerals and our trade, as well as the popularity, the trade and even the admiration of the Third World countries, even recover some of their irrecoverable debts, provided they can help put into power a Black majority Government with a “one man, one vote” unitary State kind of set-up. So we might as well accept the fact that they would not move a finger to save us under any circumstances. It is therefore only South Africans, all races standing together, who can form a viable deterrent to a Marxist take-over in this part of the world.

There are, however, silver linings. There are several silver linings on the horizon. Time is running out for the Marxists, and in this regard I am referring to factors such as food, oil, the fact that African countries are dying on their hands, that they have bitten off more than they can chew, that they have ethnic and religious restlessness amongst their people and that they are only about two to three years ahead in military preparedness. On top of that they have a weak rouble. Secondly, change is taking place in our environment; and nobody can quarrel with the fact that since the last general election in November 1977 more positive initiatives were taken and announced in this country than during any comparable period in our history covering a period of 328 years. This is a very great plus factor. Another aspect is the fact that there is a swing towards conservatism in Europe, America and elsewhere. Fourthly, the many efforts of our friends in this country, and more particularly of those around the world, devoting their time, energy and money to telling the true story about South Africa, are beginning to have an effect. So I think a tribute is due, in this House, to all these people who work for us “namelessly” but continuously. Fifthly, South Africa seems to be specially endowed with certain built-in safety-valves in the disaster pressure build-up around the world in areas such as the arms race, with its war implications, the energy crisis, the food crisis, the mineral crisis and the looming financial crisis. It would be stupid of us, however, to sit back and relax. Now, as never before, we should go on the attack, on both the external front and the internal front, and we should realize that these two fronts are inextricably bound up with one another.

We should also stop playing party politics and openly acknowledge our best marketing tool, and that is that change and adaptation are, in fact, taking place in this country. Our people do not distinguish between change on the one hand and evolvement or unfoldment on the other hand. For them change is change and we should not play it down for party political reasons.

But, to tell them the facts of life, we need money, people and comparative up-to-date literature, and that is what I am pleading for. I am pleading for a huge allocation for this department. In line with some of my colleagues I want to say that this department must be equipped to relate to all other departments. The department’s name should be changed to accommodate the word “communication”. It should be called an information and communication bureau or agency, because information and communication are the vital factors.

Lastly, I want to say that we should communicate with our own people more often and in a more direct manner, for instance with our community leaders also in the rural areas—this is with reference to Mr. Moose—with the chairmen of farmers organizations, chairladies of the female organizations, school principals of all races, ministers of all races and religious denominations and the mayors and councillors of all our municipalities because they are the people who could help pull us through by helping to adapt and to promote change, and they would also be our best propagandists to relate to the rest of the world in a thousand and one ways.

To sum up, I want to plead for a new more multi-dimensional approach for both the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Information Services. I plead for an enhanced status and prestige position for the latter organization and I plead for more money and for greater accent to be placed on the local situation.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Pinetown that in the end it is South Africa which must help itself. I intend to return to that theme later in my speech.

It is ironic that we are voting R265 million here today for a department whose task is frustrated and dominated by issues entirely beyond its own control, particularly at a time when the international scene is ideally pitched for South Africa. The situation is tailor-made for diplomacy with—I do not have time to deal with them all at length— Iran, Afghanistan, the oil crisis, the importance of the Cape sea-route, the vacuum in the Mediterranean and the Russian naval movements there. In Europe itself there is the Nato-Warsaw pact imbalance and the problems with regard to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty where Russia is cocking a snook at the rest of the world. These are added to by the Marxist red belt across capricorn Africa, all things which, as I have mentioned, give South Africa tremendous bargaining power. Let us look at our assets. There is Simonstown and the other harbours in South Africa, our airfields, our sophisticated repair facilities and strategic minerals. The list is never ending, but perhaps above all the potential stabilizing factor of our military power in South Africa is the most important. The West knows this and it is important to them. I want to appeal to those who are still our friends, and also to our potential friends, to remember that these are real assets and they should keep the door open. Unfortunately, as we all know, this is neutralized by international politics. I welcome the fact that our political ambassadors and diplomats are no longer trying to sell apartheid. This is a major change from the old days when we were trying to sell a policy which was unsaleable.

In passing I want to pay a tribute to the quality of our professional diplomats. Wherever I travel, and it has been my privilege to travel quite a lot, I have been deeply impressed by the quality of those who represent South Africa abroad and the dedication and loyalty with which they serve the State and its Government. Nevertheless, all our diplomats are restricted to what has become a defensive holding action. Our strategy is based on the appeal that we should be “given a chance and time because change is coming.” I also had the privilege of being overseas during the last parliamentary recess and I want to warn that our warmest friends, the people who feel closest to South Africa, without exception tell us when discussing our relationship with the West that we have bought ourselves time and have created expectations. But they all say that if those expectations are not realized it will lead to a total disaster for South Africa, because once expectations are built up and then destroyed, the implications are far worse than if the expectations have never been created at all. I believe that this is a very important aspect which we have to bear in mind in our strategy.

Apart from that—and I am not going to repeat the obvious or what has already been said—everyone knows that the South West African situation is dominating most thinking. I am on record as having said—and I want to say it again—that we support and accept South Africa’s responsibility for the safety of the peoples of South West Africa. We accepted an agreed settlement and we cannot now just abandon those people to their fate or take the risks that are involved if we do not get proper guarantees on the DMZ. On the other hand, we must be careful that we do not wait too long. If we wait too long, the danger is that people will no longer want to be saved from a fate worse than death but will start to seek peace at any price, as happened in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, even at the price of the slavery of Marxist dictatorship in S.W.A.

I want to stick my neck out and say bluntly that I believe one of the major stumbling blocks is the lack of White solidarity in South West Africa—and that has become a security risk in itself—whatever the reasons, the motives or the background. One must lay it at the door of the NP-HNP-right wing alliance, represented by Aktur, that it is holding back the progress which is vital there. I welcome the announced transfer of powers, the new executive structure, because one cannot continue with the Administrator-General, the DTA and the Constituent Assembly moving in one direction and the Legislative Assembly and its administration pulling in another direction. South West Africa has chosen its course and it must see it through. It was its choice and it must see it through and implement it. This is, however, one of the stumbling blocks on the road to a settlement there.

To apply this to the general strategy, I want to warn that just buying time is not enough, it is not a real answer. It only has value if that time is used immediately for clearly defined objectives, specific objectives which can be seen and identified as real and not just as an attempt to extend the status quo.

I sometimes wonder whether our priorities are correct, with South West Africa at the top of the list. Solving the problem of South West Africa will not be the end of the story, because the ultimate target is South Africa. I should like to see us switch the spotlight to South Africa, a South Africa on the move forward with 20 million people moving shoulder to shoulder—and there I agree with the hon. member for Pinetown—walking together and telling the world: “Push off! Get off our backs. Leave us to sort ourselves out.” That will disarm our enemies as nothing could, including their own radicals in South Africa. It would largely neutralize their influence, but more important, it would arm our friends with the weapons they need to help us. Imagine the effect of this on this hon. the Minister’s department, on South Africa itself, on our relationships with the world and with Africa and on the world’s strategic balance.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this does not have to be just a dream, but that it is within South Africa’s grasp if we have the courage to use the time and the opportunity we now have. I believe it can be done. The NRP has offered to help, and it offers its help again, provided the end objective is right and the intentions are sincere. This hon. Minister himself has pointed the direction, but then he looked over his shoulder and found in his own party that there are colleagues of his who are further from his views than mine probably are from the hon. the Ministers. This is the unreality of South African politics, that the hon. the Minister and I are closer together than he and the hon. Minister of Tourism. This is one of the tragedies of politics, the unreality. If the hon. the hon. the Minister and I are closer together than he and the hon. Minister of Tourism. This is one of the tragedies of politics, the unreality. If the hon. the Minister loses his nomination in the Transvaal—hon. members can read this in the Sunday Times—he can join us. He need not look for another job with the Natal National Party as has been suggested. But seriously, that hon. Minister has pointed the road and I say to him that inside and outside his party there are enough South Africans to give hope for the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity that so far in the course of this debate the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has sown the only discordant note and has not followed the example of his leader, the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to spend a bit of time on the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and his accusations of racism on this side of the House. If I have a bit more time later in the debate I should like to deal with the hon. member very fully. In the past I have had occasion to call him a jingo in this House, and today he made what I call a real jingo speech as far as South Africa’s interests are concerned. He did South Africa no service, and we know the hon. member often plays to the English-speaking gallery that sits upstairs in this House.

The important point in a debate on Foreign Affairs is to know what is at stake in the struggle between the great World Powers for the balance of power in the world, because our situation as an African power and the foreign policy objectives which we have to follow have to accord with the reality of the world situation. The fact that the Third World, the African continent, is the middle-man in the struggle between the great powers, has given our country, as part of the African continent, added importance. There are certain basic reasons for this importance. The first is that we have exploited our mineral wealth, more than any other African country, a wealth on which to a large measure the Free World has become dependent for its defence needs. The second factor is that we have the greatest African industrial workshop. Thirdly, we are the foundation of Southern Africa’s transport system. Fourthly, and perhaps the most vital point, we are the only African nuclear power. Fifthly, in many fields we have developed the technological know-how as advanced as that of any other Western country. It is the recognition of these facts that makes the foreign Press give such wide publicity to the vision of the hon. the Prime Minister of the formation of a constellation of Southern African States. In foreign policy, in international dealings, one talks only from strength and not from weakness. The concept of a constellation of Southern African States is now part of our foreign policy objectives as a country of Africa. In other words, we have shown our intent to the Western world to share these great assets which I have enumerated with other African nations. But the pronounced concept of a constellation of Southern African States also shows a clear intent on our part to make something of Southern Africa, an important part of the Third World, a force to be reckoned with in the world power struggle. This, in itself, can have a decisive influence on other countries, particularly the countries of Western Europe.

I do not think that there is any responsible European political leader who does not realize today the importance of Southern Africa to Europe’s defence needs. This fact seems to have, at long last, got through to the USA Administration too, because testifying before the USA Congress on 30 April the Assistant Secretary of States for African Affairs, Richard Moose, stated—

He referred, of course, to their desire for changes in Africa—

I think this is the first time one has seen a clear-cut direction by an important official such as this before the USA Congress indicating new lines of thinking on the part of the USA Government.

It is very simple to realize why. The USA has as part of its foreign policy the task to defend Europe. This is basic to its own defence in the world struggle. The USA now recognizes that the defence of Western Europe is also dependent on South Africa especially in view of the key role that South Africa as part of the African continent, as part of the Third World of Africa can play in the struggle between the great world powers.

Our foreign policy has therefore to take into account that we are part of the Third World of Africa, but at the same time part of the West. We share the background of Africa and the struggles of Africa’s peoples for a better life. This is part of our own history as White Africans. At the same time, however, we are part of the West. We share the background of Africa in its struggles, with the ideals of the West for free and peaceful co-existence in the world. We seek this peaceful co-existence with all our neighbours in Africa, and we seek it with the West in the struggle against Russian world domination.

If we can negotiate from strength and in no way cringe to any other Western politician, but follow our traditional role of non-interference in any country’s internal affairs, then the second important aspect of the formation of a constellation of Southern African States will become accepted. I now refer to the attitude which we adopt in the field of human rights. In this regard it is accepted in the world that we internally, as a country, are on the road of change. I think that the Opposition has admitted and accepted this today, and even the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. We are committed as a people and as a Government to change in our own country. On this road to change we are not, however—this is the most important part—prepared to be dictated to by any foreign power or any other source outside. What we have to do, we shall do in our own way and according to the dictates of our own national conscience. The political moralists abroad and in the Western countries, I believe, have accepted that we are moving on the road of recognizing basic human rights and change in our own country.

Under the concept of basic human rights, however, we do not understand the old concept of the moralists overseas of “one man, one vote”. The reality of poverty in large portions of Africa, which contains some 18 of the world’s 29 poorest countries, has even made them take another look at what the concept of basic human rights means as we shall conceive it in the development of a constellation of Southern African States amongst countries which have economic development as one of the objectives of such a constellation.

There are basic human rights, such as the right to be decently clothed, the right to have decent housing, the right to have proper medical care, the right to full employment, the right to education, the right to training in an industrial society and the right to equality before the law. These are basic human rights that are propagated by our country in Southern Africa. In other words, the formation of the constellation of States shows a declared intent on the part of South Africa to achieve these ideals for the Third World. The successful formation of a constellation of States will give additional weight to the Free World, in the West in particular, to ensure that Russian aggression is held back in this Free World so that the interests of a free, peaceful Western world can be protected.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to devote the time allocated to me, to Programme 4, viz. the “Information” section of the hon. the Minister’s vote. Looking at it, we see that the amount voted this year is R17,621 million as against the R13,71 million voted last year from public funds. This amount voted for Information is therefore less than 1% of the amount budgeted for Defence from public funds this year. It is internationally recognized that at least 2% of a budget must be utilized for improving the image of a country in order to promote favourable attitudes and create programmes whereby to achieve these objectives.

It seems to me as if the hon. the Minister has an almost impossible task. To be Minister of Foreign Affairs and of Information— information abroad and in the interior— seems to me to be irreconcilable. It is an enormous task. Something is going to suffer —foreign affairs, information in the interior or information abroad. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister should in future investigate the management of these matters, not that they are suffering at the moment, but the more bitter the struggle, the greater the task will be. Internal and foreign information differs with regard to strategy, techniques, etc. Therefore information is an enormously important facet of the whole budget, specifically in view of the task that has to be performed in this way.

With a view to the onslaught against South Africa I wish to say that nowadays information is one of the most important tasks. At this time, when a war is being conducted against the soul of the people, information is in my opinion more important than defence itself because one now has to fight in the front line. It is only later that the other things come into the picture. Therefore we must not underestimate information by thinking that it is not such a major task.

Since the Information Service of South Africa will submit its last annual report this year I think we should convey our sincere gratitude to the employees over the past years because the Information Service is going to be included in the Foreign Affairs Vote. Our Information Service has two facets. There is domestic as well as foreign information. With regard to the foreign information I just wish to speak about the officials of the Information Service of South Africa. I had the privilege of visiting the USA and England in two consecutive years. I do not wish to compare those officials with other officials, but I just want to say that we can pay tribute to those officials of the Information Service of South Africa, because they do not come any better. One official alone has to do publicity work for South Africa among a number of Americans equal to the entire South African population.

However I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that the officials do not remain abroad for longer than three to four years before they return. They lose touch with their mother country. I also want to ask that more people be appointed at the UN. There is only one man there, who has to issue a newsletter every day, and one man cannot do that because it is a tremendous task. For 1980-’81 alone the UN voted R65 million. 10% of that is utilized solely for propaganda against South Africa. They have 59 information offices throughout the world manned by a staff of 682, whereas we have the services of one man only. I take my hat off to that man, but I do think that reinforcements should be brought up.

I had the privilege of speaking to one of the UN’s propagandists there. He said that our public relations were wrong and that we should do a great deal more. When I asked him what we should do, he said “You must spend much more money.” I then asked what more we should do, and he replied: “You do not fire the editor; you buy the newspaper.” That shows what the big money in the UN and the outside world does.

As far as the domestic scene is concerned, I think we should place far more emphasis on internal information. The hon. the Minister must twist the arm of the hon. the Minister of Finance because we must spend more money on internal information. There must be far more propaganda among the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the various Black groups, not in a negative sense, but in the sense that information must be conveyed to them and South Africa’s unblemished image must be presented to them. We must spell out our targets and objectives to them very clearly in a spirit of goodwill. It is amazing how ignorant people are. The more the Information Service does, the more we shall succeed in our effort to create a climate in which it will not be necessary for people to boycott schools. Nor will agitators succeed in besmirching South Africa’s name. The Information Service must obtain the necessary financial assistance and have the technical manpower and information apparatus available to enable it to penetrate to the opinion-formers and decision-makers among all these population groups. In this effort it must make use of television, radio and personal liaison with these people.

I also wish to say that the Information Service should perhaps make greater use of advertisements in South Africa. I propose that they only place advertisements in those newspapers which publish the truth. We must penalize newspapers that keep trying to score political points off us and simply do not wish to publish the truth about South Africa’s policy, by placing no advertisements in them, even if that means that we only advertise in English if Afrikaans newspapers, for example, do not wish to publish the truth, or only in Afrikaans if the English newspapers do not wish to do so.

There are 491 approved staff posts on the establishment of the Information Service but there are no fewer than 60 vacancies. This Information Service cannot function properly if its staff is not at full strength. I think the Public Service Commission must be asked to look into this matter because the Information Service needs these people. I do not believe there is anything else as important.

I want to say that we should not be afraid of presenting our policy and targets to the various population groups purposefully and without hesitation. We must instil in our people the will to survive. Where there is a will there is a way. No nation is destroyed from the outside; it can only destroy itself. The nation with a will to survive shows the world this will and takes its own people along with it, it does not go under, and that is why it is so important that the hon. the Minister and the Information Service should promote South Africa’s image with all the means at their disposal.

I also wish to convey my sincere thanks for the privilege I had last year of accompanying the parliamentary tour. I have been in America for two consecutive years and I have observed that the ordinary man in America is well disposed towards South Africa. However, who is against us? It is the news media, the State Department and Pres. Carter, with the group that surrounds him, and Black Power, that are against us. They are trying to curry favour with Africa. The slogan of Africa is: “Africa for the African.” They are trying to get the Black man on their side and in the process they are frustrating the objectives of the Whites and South Africa. This is the great struggle that is being waged. The ordinary man in America is well disposed towards South Africa. As a result of these things, or so they told me, Mr. Reagan would be the following president. Because the world overseas looks the way it does, this prediction may come true.

I conclude by conveying my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department for the attitude displayed in the publication of propaganda is published. May they continue to do so. I wish them all of the best for the year that lies ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself partially with what the hon. member for Sunnyside had to say about the Information Service. I shall come back to a few specific matters. Before doing so, however, I wish to refer to certain matters that have been broached in the course of the debate.

To begin with I wish to refer to the statements by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. Without specifically accenting where the lines of division run, I do wish to support his categorization of the groups of people one encounters in Europe. That is indeed true, particularly as far as his fourth category is concerned, namely our so-called friends. Into that category fall people whom I do indeed regard as friends but whom the hon. member does not perhaps regard as friends. It is certainly true that a certain group of these people are an embarrassment to us in South Africa, because when one encounters them their attitude is: That is right; give the Blacks a hard time; do not give way an inch; we are with you. Honestly, they are an embarrassment to us. In the course of its activities our Information Service must try to concentrate on these people. I am somewhat disappointed that the hon. member, in making a case about it, almost put himself in the dock by supporting South Africa’s cause overseas. He was embarrassed because what he said there did not materialize. When one says something abroad which one does not really believe in, but does so in the hope that it will materialize, one has to accept the consequences. The hon. member should bear that in mind.

The last idea touched on by the hon. member was the issue of the constellation of States. He said that he hoped that we should not put this forward as a solution for our political problems. However, the hon. member should go and read what the hon. the Prime Minister said about it. The idea of a constellation of States was never intended as a solution for constitutional problems. I shall come back to that, too, later.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus said that we should forget the West because they would never listen to us. The hon. member for Sunnyside also referred to that in passing. In a certain sense I would agree with that. As far as the target of our efforts is concerned, the West must be the very last on our list, but not simply because they will not or do not wish to listen. In any foreign policy effort, self-interest is a very strong factor for the State formulating the policy.

That is so.

It is also true as far as South Africa is concerned. We must recognize that a foreign policy is merely an extension of a domestic policy. We must direct our efforts accordingly. It is true that colour has come to dominate everything. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Potgietersrus that we should turn to Africa.

This brings me to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Basically he touched on two areas. He devoted the second part of his speech to South West Africa. With all respect for a very good speech, he adopted a somewhat simplistic approach towards South West Africa. The first part of his speech, which dealt with the Information Service, was a brilliant résumé of a twofold campaign which the department is in any case engaged in. He said that we should begin by seeking a limited target for our information effort. In my opinion no truer statement could be made. In the second place, in glaring contrast with the hon. member for Sea Point, he said that the department could convey a message of renewal: That there was hope in this country for a better dispensation for everyone in this country. I sincerely thank the hon. member for having stated this so positively.

He belongs to two parties.

I think that as far as our domestic policy is concerned we are now reaching a stage when we can define our targets more and more clearly. There have been a number of statements and also direct actions with regard to investigations in this direction. However, we cannot simply express our ideal in our foreign information actions without also demonstrating them domestically. However, at this stage we are able to indicate that we are indeed not just talking but also doing a great deal. I do not wish to refer to the many facets which I could indeed advance as evidence in this regard. The initiatives taken thus far have, however, elicited a great deal of positive comment, even in the West. Moreover, this positive comment comes from the West, for the most part from behind closed doors. It is only whispered, which is to be understood in the light of the self-interest of the policy-making State. I believe that if the West, which basically represents homogeneous communities, can understand our problems and policies, it would be so much easier to promote these things in Africa.

Africa has the same problems of conflicting nationalisms as we are faced with. I therefore believe that we should direct our foreign policy campaigns in particular towards Africa. However, we cannot deal with Africa as a whole. That would be physically impossible, in the first place because we do not have access to Africa as a whole, and in the second place because we do not have the funds to really launch a total campaign. In the third place it is not possible for us because the common interest centres around Southern Africa, which should accordingly be the limited target area to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred.

I believe that our campaign, in turn, can stand on three legs. The first leg consists of our launching selective economic assistance efforts. In this regard we could consider the surrounding States. However, our involvement must not be in the form of gifts, but should in fact consist of positive assistance to the people to help themselves. Important in this regard are Mozambique, Zimbabwe and other surrounding States. The second leg is that of conveying information, information concerning the status quo in South Africa and concerning our aims for the future. I believe that we could cultivate understanding for our circumstances. Indeed, this ought not to be difficult.

This brings me to the third leg to which I want to refer. This is our demonstration with regard to our domestic policy and the progress towards the objectives we have set ourselves, while accommodating the group nationalisms and taking into account the striving of all individuals to achieve full citizenship rights in the system as we in fact foresee it. I do not wish to make out that this is an easy task. It is not easy to bring about this development in such a way. Nor do I wish to create the impression that it is particularly easy to convey it in this way.

This brings me, then, to the idea of the constellation of States. I do not think the impression was ever given that it should be a constitutional model for a solution. Nor was it ever envisaged that it should take the form of a satellite relationship with South Africa as the centre, but rather that we should stand as equal States in relation to one another within the fixed, given constellation.

The conference in Lusaka on 31 March this year, when the front-line States proposed their own constellation of States as a counter to the South African initiative, is regarded by many people as a setback for us. I do not think it is necessary to see it in this light. When we analyse it, we must note the many positive aspects it contains. The first of these is that a constellation is at least being brought into being, which we could not in our wildest dreams have imagined establishing in so short a time. The problem is indeed to gain access to it. If one analyses the main decisions taken at the conference in Lusaka, then we in South Africa can endorse everything said there except the limitation of the concept “Black” as far as the components of co-operation within the constellation are concerned. However, we agree that meetings should be held annually with a view to co-ordination and development. We agree that the welfare of the peoples of Southern Africa and the development of national economies requires a co-ordinated approach. We also agree about the drafting of a declaration of intent concerning integrated regional development with regard to transport and communication, the manufacture of vaccines against foot-and-mouth disease, the promotion of industrial programmes and many other things. I think we could launch many more efforts, for example to make South Africa the centre for a transport commission, rather than Maputo, or to rope in Onderstepoort, for example, for the manufacture of vaccines. The establishment of a Southern African Development Fund is something which we, too, can subscribe to. Having said all this, it is evident that South Africa’s possible success is at two levels. The first level is that we can satisfy our Black population. The second level is the degree to which we are able to project our policy and initiatives, for example through Zimbabwe. The key that will open the doors for South Africa’s re-entry into the comity of nations may be in the hands of Mr. Robert Mugabe. I think we should definitely exploit this possibility. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Randburg that, as usual, he made a well thought-out speech today. However, I do not agree with the last part of his speech.

†If one is to make any contribution to a debate on foreign affairs, then I believe that if one is a member of a Foreign Affairs group, if one often travels overseas and if one has opinions that are not necessarily the opinions of the Government, and the Minister concerned or the department one should voice them. I think that when discussing a Vote such as this one should express oneself and say how one sees the situation affecting us here in South Africa.

I am one of those who believes that what has happened in Rhodesia has been a disaster for all those people who would like to see civilized standards maintained in Southern Africa. If I were to make a prediction I would say, with regret, that I think that Rhodesia will go the same way as Zambia. I believe that it is a wonderful country which is in danger of being destroyed. I also believe that the White people of Rhodesia who have built up that country into the wonderful country that it is will become “bywoners” in their own country. I already see signs of what is known in Africa as Africanization, first of all of the Army, then the police and eventually the Civil Service, with promotions made on the basis of colour and not on the basis of merit.

It has never happened before.

I do not believe that solemn agreements, entered into by people who fought a terrorist war for years, will ever be observed by those people when they take over the country by force of arms. That is why I do not think for one moment that the 20 seats that were allocated to Whites in Rhodesia will remain 20 White seats for long.

These are my fears, and I get no joy out of expressing them. I think that it is constructive, however, for those of us who feel like this to say it, in the House, to the hon. the Minister. On the day on which the election results were announced, I said that I thought that they were a triumph for terrorism and for murderers and revolutionaries. I said that there had been no such thing as free and fair elections. I am still of that opinion. I do not believe that those elections were in any way free and fair when one of the contesting parties could say that unless it won it would continue to take up the gun and shoot every person that has voted against that party. I said at the time that I regarded that election result as being a warning for us in South Africa. At the time I called it a Dunkirk for those who want to preserve civilized standards in Southern Africa.

Now, our own defensive position has been immeasurably weakened by what has happened in Rhodesia. I have always maintained in this House that our line of defence should have been the Kunene River and the Zambezi River. That is where I believe we should have taken a stand. That is where we should ultimately fight for our survival, because fight we are going to have to. Instead, today, the line is the Kunene River on the one side and the Limpopo River on the other. If Rhodesia has one message for me, it is that we in South Africa should prepare for the inevitable onslaught that is going to come from terrorists across our borders. Those terrorists are already on the borders of the Northern Transvaal. If it holds another lesson for me, it is that we must make the sort of internal rearrangements in our political situation here that we have for such a long time—and I think in more recent years with a certain amount of unanimity—thought best for all the people who live in this country. I would say—and again I am expressing my personal opinion— that for the last six or seven years the policies we have followed towards Rhodesia have been mistaken. I think our advisers were “conned” by Kissinger in the first place and finished up hoping and indeed confidently forecasting, to me amongst others, that there was no question but that Bishop Muzorewa would win the election in exactly the same way as he had won the internal election. If those advisers, who have been with the department for a long time, believe that by having been “helpful”, as it is said, in achieving a solution in Rhodesia we will get anything worthwhile in exchange from the people whom we have helped and whose irons we have pulled out of the fire. I would suggest that their views and mine are different and that they, I think, are living in a fool’s paradise. Apart from that, they apparently do not understand such a thing as a domino theory here in Southern Africa. The Western countries, from whom they hope for some favour by having been helpful, also will not face up to the fact that the domino theory is just as applicable here in Southern Africa as it is anywhere else in the world because Soviet imperialism seeks to take over the world by world revolution.

The West means nothing to us in Southern Africa in terms of practical assistance. After 25 years of immersion in liberal, social and humanist thought, the West has, I think, lost its ability to differentiate between good and evil and, worse still, has lost the courage to oppose evil even when it has been uncovered.

I would say that today’s battle fields are Afghanistan, El Salvador and Rhodesia. The battle for Rhodesia has actually already been lost. Tomorrow, the battle will be for Saudi Arabia and South Africa. As you will remember, Sir, Lenin once said that the country which controls the Cape of Good Hope controls the route to Paris, or words to that effect. After that it will be Western Europe, and after that it will be the United States of America.

Cheerful bloke!

My friend says “cheerful bloke”. There have been other people, in other countries, who have also tried to warn their compatriots and their people of the dangers they see lying ahead, and some of those people have in the end been found to be right.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for giving me the opportunity to go on that visit to the United Nations and America. I think that my message to the people of South Africa as a result of that visit is the message I have been trying to convey within the spheres in which I move by addressing meetings wherever I possibly can to give people the true picture of what South Africa is facing from the United Nations. It is all very well for us to talk about a total onslaught and a fight for survival, but I would respectfully say to the hon. the Minister that what must be spelt out by the Government is what we are likely to face in the future from the United Nations. My impression is that there are committees, commissions and working groups whose sole, whole and primary objective is the world-wide prosecution of an anti-South African campaign.

I think the United Nations has three or four objectives. The first is an international propaganda campaign, organizing conferences all over the world. Hardly a week goes by, as I understand it, without a conference being held somewhere in the world with, anti-South African propaganda as its main theme. There are special years, decades and weeks organized. There are special studies of South Africa’s policy, South Africa’s economy and South Africa’s relationships with other countries, for example with Israel and Taiwan. They aim to bring about a situation whereby all contact between South Africa and the West will be brought to an end in the military, economic, sport and agricultural fields, ultimately leading to sanctions against us. Later today I propose saying something about sanctions, because I am one of those who are of the opinion that sanctions will come sooner rather than later. I believe they will come this year. The United Nations is giving assistance, greater assistance year by year, to so-called liberation groups recognized by the OAU, for example, the ANC and the PAC in the Republic, the Patriotic Front, and Swapo in South West Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to start replying now to some of the questions put by hon. members and to elaborate on subjects on which they desire greater clarity. To be able to do this, I think I should first sketch the background of world turbulence against which South Africa’s position should be assessed.

People frequently speak of a total onslaught on South Africa and of a total strategy which must be developed. From the Government side we frequently issue warnings to our people to wake up and become aware of the problems which are really threatening the country and to devote less time, energy and attention to matters which, in the struggle for survival with which the country is faced, are most certainly of lesser importance. I agree with hon. members who have already expressed the idea that, in spite of a widely distributed Press and media network in our country and in spite of the fact that members of this House are also doing their best, our public has not yet come to a full realization of the magnitude and intensity of the threat to South Africa from abroad, to say nothing of our internal dilemma and problems. If one has to deal with the UN all day, with this one organization alone which is opposed to us, one cannot understand how it is still possible in 1980 for there to be a grumbling and grousing among members of the South African public on aspects such as salaries, pensions, costs and a whole lot of other matters connected with material welfare and comfort.

Dr. Henry Kissinger, in an interview which was published on 11 April in the Washington Post, stated the following point of view—

This is a harsh assessment of the American position in the world by a former Foreign Secretary of that country. Those who know Dr. Kissinger, know that he chooses his words with care, and he chose these words with care too, and since that is his conception of the position at present occupied by the strongest Western power, we must take cognizance of it, for however we may differ with the USA—and we do differ frequently and vehemently with the USA—it still remains the leader of the West and, whether we like it or not, only America stands between the continued freedom of mankind and slavery. Consequently we should not rejoice when America suffers harm and is hurt; we should be concerned, and we should therefore, when this happens to this leader of the West, which is the only one which in my opinion has the arsenal with which to halt Russian imperialism, keep on hoping, calmly and patiently, that it will succeed in its world role of the preserver of peace and freedom. There is no other. Sometimes one has misgivings when one sees how superficially official American institutions condemn us, and not only us, but other situations in the world as well, and then one hesitates to think that so much might has been allotted to one such power, for one sometimes gets the impression from their deeds and actions that they act in a half-baked and unplanned way and then one has misgivings over the might which such a power has at its command. But if one asks to which other power on earth one would entrust the role of preserver of world peace, it is rather difficult for me to exercise a choice when I look for a substitute for the USA in the line-up of Western countries. This is another way of saying how weak the leadership of the West has in fact become.

Let us consider for a moment the present situation as regards Russian successes on the globe. Russia has for a considerable time now been creating the impression without hindrance that it goes along with the policy of détente and that this policy meets with its approval. It has been negotiating with the USA for a long time on arms limitation agreements, the so-called Salt negotiations and agreements, it has for a long time been seated at the table of amity and negotiation of the West, negotiating on commendable aims, because it is a commendable aim to try to limit the quantity of arms with which the globe may be destroyed because, although I must add that individually both Russia and America each have sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy seven planets the size of the earth, but when it comes to the psychological value of super powers conferring with one another instead of moving along a collision course of disastrous confrontation with the only alternative that of a nuclear war, it is, seen in this light, probably commendable. What has been happening, however, is that the Russians have in essence made use of détente and détente politics to seize the opportunity to undermine the Free World to such an extent that it will have to capitulate without even fighting a war. This is what has been happening. After the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, a world-wide tremor ran through the Western countries. Actually it is astounding that they only woke up then. It is inexplicable that it should have been the Russian invasion of Afghanistan which ultimately brought the long series of Russian aggressive acts, conquests and successes so acutely to the attention of the West, for if it could have been halted earlier, the remedy, the action, which would sooner or later have had to be taken against Russia, would perhaps not have been of such a magnitude and as destructive as I now think it inevitably must be in order to succeed in halting Russia. If we look at the world, we see that Cuban and East German troops and technicians are present in Angola, Ethiopia and in South Yemen. They did not arrive there unnoticed. All of us know when they arrived there and what happened when South Africa wished to offer resistance to the Cubans in a certain territory in Southern Africa. All of us know how the American Senate backtracked with regard to funds which were essential for President Ford and Dr. Kissinger to continue the struggle against Russian aggression in Angola. It was indeed aggression. There is no other word for it. We cannot today, for the sake of political goodwill, use words which do not reflect the truth. South Africa, was who wanted to halt the intruders, regarded as the aggressor. However, what Cuba did in Angola is no different from what Russia has now done in Afghanistan. Precisely the same pattern is being followed there. There is no real difference. There are Soviet bases in South Yemen, in Ethiopia and in Libya. If one calls the world map to mind, and visualizes a few important straits, a pattern becomes even clearer. We need only visualize the Straits of Gibraltar.

A Soviet inspired conflict with Soviet weapons is in progress there against Morocco. If Morocco were to fall, we know what the results would be in regard to the security of the Straits of Gibraltar, which is the Western gateway to the Mediterranean. We can also consider the Gulf of Aden, where Russian surrogate forces are present on either side of the Gulf, in South Yemen as well as in Ethiopia, to bar access to the Red Sea area, to control and exploit that area, and to use it as a means of extortion to satisfy further expressions of the Russian lust for power and world hegemony. If we look at the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, the strait between Oman and Iran, we see once again that there is a threat, both on the part of South Yemen as well as a creeping threat on the part of Afghanistan in the direction of that strait. If we consider the Vietnamese inroads into and aggressive actions against Cambodia, we note a threat to the Straits of Molucca between Malaya and Indonesia. This Russian strategy has been deploying for a considerable time now. No less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister has, as hon. members know, warned against it repeatedly in this House. However, he was then told that he saw a communist behind every bush, and that we were suffering from a communism syndrome. Everything we did we supposedly did out of our fear of communism. Everything which went wrong we allegedly blamed on communism to conceal in that way our own misdeeds, shortcomings and malpractices as a result of our policy which borders on race discrimination and oppression. It was said that we use communism as a cloak to conceal our own faults, our own shortcomings and our policy of oppression. One wonders, simply on the basis of the few examples which I have now furnished, whether these are indeed fortuitous actions. Are these actions which Russia is taking purely for limited objectives, or is it part of a deliberate world pattern, of a planned in advance programme of action with a view to world domination which is being carried out? There are even more strategic points which are being threatened by Russia. There is the Cape of Good Hope. Once it has been accepted that Russia is deliberately taking over strategic points in the world, directly by means of Russian troops, or by means of surrogate forces, or by sedition and subversion to oust an existing order and structure, if this is true in regard to Gibraltar, the Red Sea, Hormuz, the Straits of Molucca, Afghanistan and Central America, why should it not also be true in respect of the Cape of Good Hope? Why should race discrimination, the so-called cruel oppression by a NP Government at the southernmost point of Africa be the only, the unique reason why the Russians are interested in the sea-route around the Cape and wish to liberate the “oppressed” massas in this country? This is just a demonstration of the lack of realism on the part of official organizations in the United States when they subject us to scrutiny and condemn us.

When President Carter recently stated that he had, in a week’s time, learnt more about Russian aims in the world than during the whole preceding period of his presidency, I think he was gaining an insight into the matter. One can only hope that a clearer and more balanced appreciation of the facts about South Africa will also develop among the Americans. There are indications that this is perhaps happening in the USA, but it is still too early to rely in any way at this stage on this process continuing. I am saying this on the basis of evidence given, inter alia, by Mr. Moose, Assistant Secretary to the American State Department, during the hearings in the sub-committee on Africa of the House of Representatives in Washington. These hearings are still in progress, and do not augur well for us.

During the past two years two Russian-inspired invasions of Zaire have taken place. Hon. members are aware of them. The situation which has arisen in Turkey, which arose, inter alia, as a result of pressure on the part of Russia, is alarming. In Yugoslavia President Tito is no longer there, and I wish to predict that it will not be long before Yugoslavia will also begin to feel the effects of sedition, subversion and blackmail by the Red Bear.

What else do we find significant when we look at Africa? What we find significant, is that Russia has achieved success in this sense that it has, with the military aid of surrogates, for example the East Germans and the Cubans, won support and is helping to maintain certain Governments, but that they are rendering little if any discernible development aid in Africa. It is true that Russia is succeeding, in a calculated way, in equipping countries, nations, individuals and terrorist groups with arms with which to kill people, undermine Governments and commit acts of subversion, but if Russia has now where on earth achieved any appreciable success with attempts to produce food for people, to provide people with better medical health services, to maintain railways, help to cause harbours to function properly or in general to raise the standards of living of lesser developed people. That is certainly not Russia’s strong point.

If one gives further consideration to the Russian threat in Africa, one begins to feel that as Russia increasingly comes to be regarded as the champion—and in Afghanistan it has come to be regarded as a champion in a certain sense, because no finger is being lifted against it on the basis of what it did—and as it gets away with all its other aggressive acts, one cannot really blame the Third World, the developing world, if it begins to think that Russia is the winner and that one should preferably range oneself alongside Russia in good time so as to be on the side of the eventual winner. Perhaps one will not be able to blame the Third World if it begins to think this way. In Third World countries which are too weak to take charge of their own defence, what are the alternatives for a head of state when he or his Government is threatened and the only alternative is to be shot dead or strung up from the nearest lamppost? As a person caught in a moment of weakness or humiliation, what must he do then? What does the West offer the leaders of lesser developed countries, countries which are poor and too weak to take charge of their own defence? What security are they being offered? What measure of understanding and friendship is being offered to other countries which perhaps do not comply completely with the American recipe of democracy, human rights and the fundamental rights of the individual? To my mind the tragedy of the matter is strikingly summarized in a recent statement by Dr. Kissinger in an interview with the Wall Street Journal of 21 January 1980. He said the following of the American Government—

He said that they were too dangerous to apply to Russia. Russia was too big and powerful and would bite them. He went on to say—

Russia is the malicious giant which tramples underfoot the fundamental rights of people wherever it goes. In fact its State policy is based on the negation of any form of individual or fundamental human right. That policy, Kissinger says, the USA is not prepared to oppose, because to do so is too thorny and difficult for it. However, in those countries which the USA feels it can get at and can bully in a spiteful way, for example South Africa, the human rights concept, precisely as the USA advocates it, must be applied, otherwise the friendship of these countries with the USA is jeopardized and a prospect is held out of a sombre future of sanctions and threats of sanctions. It is said that the USA will have no choice if it has to choose between the liberation of the Black people and the potential stability which White people are able to maintain in South Africa. It must choose the liberation of the Black people according to its recipe, although it will not accept responsibility for that, at least not for the way in which the so-called liberation may occur.

Before I leave this question of the Russian threat and of how the Russian invasion of Afghanistan affects us, it would be fitting if we remember what a person like Solzhenitsyn wrote about Russian imperialism. I want to recommend his book Warning to the West to everyone in this country, not only to hon. members in this House. I recommend that our Black, Asiatic and Coloured friends should also read this book, because it is not only the Whites in this country who have to get their priorities straight. All of us should do so. It is not only the Whites who have to overcome certain prejudices. All of us will have to set our prejudices aside if we wish to form a bulwark and bastion against the Russian threat to Southern Africa. In the USA magazine Time of 18 February 1980 a short summary of Solzhenitsyn’s book appeared. It is fitting just to see with which ideas of his Time was impressed. I shall quote a few extracts—

Try asking a malignant tumour what makes it grow. It simply cannot behave otherwise. The same is true of communism. Driven by a malevolent and irrational instinct for world domination, it cannot help seizing ever more land. Communism is something new, unprecedented in world history; it is fruitless to seek analogies.

Communism can implement its “deals” only by destroying the core and foundation of a nation’s life. Communism is unregenerate; it will always present a mortal danger to mankind. It is like an infection in the world’s organism: It may lie dormant, but it will inevitably attack with a crippling disease. There is no help to be found in the illusion that certain countries possess an immunity to communism. Any country that is free today can be reduced to prostration and complete submission.

Communism stops only when it encounters a wall, even if it is only a wall of resolve.

These are Solzhenitsyn’s viewpoints and opinions in regard to this infection, the tumour of Russian imperialism.

After Dr. Kissinger had stated his point of view on the seriousness of this threat, after he had indicated how dangerous the turbulent was which had been caused by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, he was asked: “How should the United States respond?” In the Wall Street Journal of 21 January 1980 he replied to this question. I should like to emphasize, and state candidly on my part today, that this reply from Dr. Kissinger on what America should do to stop Russia also applies to South Africa in what it should do to set its internal affairs in order, and not only to stop communism here, but also to establish a viable dispensation in which everyone in this country will be able to co-exist with mutual respect and dignity. This is Kissinger’s reply—

There is no instant solution. That is what he is saying. The creeping menace cannot be argued away. The impact of the threat cannot be solved at symposiums and seminars. There is no hasty law which can be made or easy step which can be taken. There is no magic formula. Least of all is there is an easy ideological magic word which will bring salvation. An academic approach will not help either. Kissinger said—

What is the greatest single failing—as we see it—on the part of America and the West in halting the Russian advance? I believe that a debate of foreign affairs is the appropriate opportunity to debate this matter and to argue about it. If Russia is not stopped, it is going to dominate the world, it is going to hijack this planet, as one would hijack an aircraft, and is going to gain possession of it, and the dark middle ages will seem like a joke. Russia today has the technological knowledge to enslave the entire world once it has subjugated the world by force. Then it is relatively easy, with the technology available today, to prevent another uprising against it ever occurring. There will be no bushes, caves, palaces or cloisters in which it will ever again be possible to hatch conspiracies. The time for that will be past. Consequently it is a rather serious entanglement in which the world finds itself, and because the world finds itself in such a situation, we in this country cannot escape from it. We cannot tell ourselves here at the southernmost point of Africa that because the sun is shining, the Lions have come to play rugby and there is enough petrol for our motorcars, everything is right with the world. It is not as simple as that. The people must be told: “The situation is grave.” That is what must happen, it is the task of all of us. However, it is also the task of all of us to apply a sifting process of our own ideas, concepts and perceptions of what is going to be required to halt the onslaught, but also to move onwards and continue to exist. The greatest deficiency on the part of America is a lack of a global strategy. The USA has no global perception of what the world should look like if it wishes to halt Russia in its tracks, and it cannot evolve such a global perception or strategy unless it takes one important, painful decision in advance. That decision is an exercise of will-power, viz. that the Russian locomotive can only be halted by derailing it by force. There is no other way. It is the shark of the oceans. It must keep moving and devouring to live.

I tell hon. members today that there is no other way. It must be decided that it is well worth risking a way, even a nuclear way, to halt the Russian giant. Otherwise it is going to plunge the entire world into slavery. After a study and my own experience of international trends over a period of decades, I am convinced of that. I have no doubt about it. That is what Solzhenitsyn pointed out. Russia must be firmly told that there are limits, and that if it exceeds those limits it must know that the world would rather be plunged into a war than be seized, as by an octopus, and slowly strangled and sucked dry. Until this painful decision is taken by the Western Alliance, Russia will continue its aggression—that I wish to predict here today—in more parts of the world than even the Americans would like to know about today. It will not deviate from the course it has taken.

One can see its pattern clearly spelled out in Afghanistan. It chose and perhaps even created for itself the ideal time there. It did not do what it did suddenly. It planned long before the time, for Russian troups were airlifted to Afghanistan from far away bases in Russia. It knew there was going to be trouble over the hostages. I am saying this to hon. members today. It knew there was going to be trouble in Teheran. Nor would I be surprised if it manipulated and planned the situation in such a way, so that the attention of the entire West, including America would be kept occupied with a relatively lesser important—I am not saying “unimportant”—world problem. The former President Amin of Afghanistan was 99% pro-Russian, but Russia wanted a man who was a 100% pro-Russian. It also decided to demonstrate that when it had taken a decision, it carried out that decision. It decided further that the new upsurgence of nationalism in Islam should be quelled, because there are 50 million adherents of the Islamic faith in Russia and it wanted to demonstrate to them how it acted towards people who might be walking around with revolutionary ideas in their heads. It was aware of the psychological value of demonstrating to friend and foe alike that the Soviet Union is resolved to assert its interests by force. It also decided it was time it came closer to a warm water harbour. It decided that it was in its interests to encircle Red China and the oil-producing countries even further. It decided that America would not take action, and it was right. It knew that America did not have the conventional weapons and troups and bases to take action, and it was right. It decided that the West would not risk taking military action against it, and in that regard, too, it was right. We are now being told that the “arc of crisis” has been completed from Afghanistan right through South Yemen and the Horn of Africa. It seems to me that this are is tending to move further south towards South Africa. It is not only this are which is being completed, it is the entire planet which is being encircled by Russian aggression.

America and the West must develop a global strategy as quickly as possible. They must not speak to the Russians singly, as they are now doing. It is of no avail for the new Foreign Secretary of the USA, Mr. Muskie, to speak to Mr. Gromyko, followed by Mr. Genscher of West Germany speaking to Mr. Gromyko, followed by Mr. Poncet of France speaking to Mr. Gromyko and after that Lord Carrington speaking to Mr. Gromyko. It is no use them trying to soften up the Bear singly, because Russia will soon begin to blackmail Europe. Russia will soon begin to offer Europe more favourable conditions in many spheres, for example as far as arms limitations are concerned, or hold out the prospect of other so-called injections of security for Europe, in order to drive a wedge between Europe and the USA. It is already doing this. What has to be decided by the Western Alliance is that they will first have to work out a global strategy together, and will have to confront Russia with that strategy. Unless this happens, I foresee no improvement.

After the Russian invasion of Afghanistan the General Assembly of the UN adopted a resolution against Russia. Actually Russia was not mentioned, yet the resolution on Afghanistan was basically aimed at Russia in this sense that 104 countries in the General Assembly voted in favour of what they termed the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, which were of course only Russian troops, for there were no other foreign troops in Afghanistan. Now one finds that our people have the idea that it is a good thing that Russia is being so severely taken to task by the UN and that the USA wishes to take steps such as the boycott of the Olympic Games against Russia, and possibly, too, steps in the economic sphere and in other spheres this side by the use of force as well.

I want to make my opinion on this matter very clear. South Africa does not gain much from this, because those 104 votes in the General Assembly include a large number of countries hostile to South Africa and there is a price that has to be paid for their support. The USA will require five years to reach arms parity with Russia. The Russians know that America needs those five years and America knows it as well, and for that reason America will be disinclined to affront the Third World and the OAU countries. She will be less inclined to be sympathetic disposed to South Africa. She will not wish to lose the Third World support which she received in respect of Afghanistan and which she needs in respect of the problem of the hostages in Iran. Consequently I must warn that our country cannot really derive any benefit from the events at the UN or the present international actions against Russia. I am not saying the actions taken are wrong. I am simply saying that seen from a South African point of view, the result is not a comforting one, but one of further potential extortion and danger which is being created for South Africa in this way.

As far as Zimbabwe and South West Africa is concerned, I should like to say a few words and at the same time reply to questions put and aspects raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Sea Point.

†As far as South West Africa is concerned I want to make one thing clear, because there are still persons, political factions and groups in South West Africa and in South Africa today who claim that the South African Government has sold South West Africa down the river. The allegation is often made that the Government has betrayed the Whites of the territory. I want to deal with that allegation briefly before proceeding to the points raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The South West Africa issue was internationalized in a political sense at the peace conference of Versailles in 1919. If one does not understand this, it is almost impossible to reason or to argue with him. The Allied Powers at the time intended to incorporate the conquered territories of the former German Reich into their own countries. President Wilson of the USA opposed that move, and the mandate system was in effect a compromise arrangement in terms of which mandates were given to powers to govern the conquered territories, and in all cases, including the so-called C-mandates of which South West Africa was one, the administering power had to submit a report annually to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the old League of Nations. Representatives of the administering powers had to travel to Geneva regularly to report to the permanent Mandates Commission on the administration of their mandated territories. This is the plain, simple truth and the factual position. The first Prime Minister who had an opportunity to change this was perhaps General Hertzog in the 1930s.

A difference of opinion arose in the 1930s about where the sovereignty of the territory of South West Africa resided, and eventually General Hertzog, who was then Prime Minister, admitted in writing on the strength of legal opinion to the League of Nations that the then Union Government did not possess sovereignty over South West Africa. General Smuts had the next opportunity to do something about it. We have information which indicates that when General Smuts wanted to incorporate South West Africa during the war years, Prime Minister Churchill indicated to him that he should not do so at that stage, but should rather be patient and wait until the end of the war, when he could do so legally and properly through the new world organization they knew they were going to create after the war. General Smuts arranged for a referendum, a plebiscite, on a sort of consultation basis to take place in the territory after World War Two. An overwhelming majority of the people voted in favour of incorporation with the Union of South Africa, but the General Assembly of UN turned it down. General Smuts could therefore not proceed with his plan and said he would not place South West Africa under the new trusteeship system of UN, but would rather continue to govern the territory in the spirit of the former mandate which he, like us, actually considered to have lapsed. A controversy arose as to the status of the territory. I do not want to discuss that aspect today, but I do want to make the point that even at a time when the South African Government, headed by General Smuts, was in the most favourable position internationally, in a most advantageous period, to obtain international sanction or blessing for incorporating South West Africa into the Union of South Africa, it could not succeed despite the fact that General Smuts had strong support in the United Nations at the time. Apart from the Indian question and other aspects of racial discrimination that were raised at the United Nations against the then Government under General Smuts, the Western powers enjoyed a majority in the UN during those years. Despite that fact, despite his status, despite the fact that he was an ally of the Allies and despite the fact that he was so highly thought of in various countries in Europe and in America, Gen. Smuts could not de-internationalize the South West Africa situation.

Then followed the World Court opinion of 1950, two further opinions in the ’fifties and the Arden Clarke Committee which visited South West Africa and which, actually without our having suggested it, thought that the idea of partitioning the territory into two halves, a northern half and a southern half, could be an idea that the General Assembly of the United Nations could consider. But they simply never discussed it. They were not interested; so they just turned that suggestion down. Then there was the rather dismaying, if not sordid, experience we encountered as a result of the visit of Carpio and De Alva to this country and South West Africa. At no stage has any South African Prime Minister, either Gen. Smuts, Dr. Malan, Mr. Strijdom, Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Vorster or Mr. P. W. Botha, ever indicated that South West Africa was a part of South Africa. That is the reason why we at the United Nations never used article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter—the article proscribing or excluding intervention by the United Nations in the internal affairs of member States—to prevent the United Nations from discussing the South West Africa issue. In the light of what I have stated here, it must be obvious to hon. members that one cannot sell something which does not belong to one. The roots of the concept of the Government’s approach to South West Africa, that the people must decide their own future, go back to the Versailles conference, when President Wilson put a stop to the incorporation of conquered enemy territory. This was confirmed by Gen. Hertzog and by each and every Prime Minister of this country since then. In other words, the people of the territory of South West Africa will decide their own future and they will have a free choice to decide upon any policy, even if it clashes with ours, even if we do not like it. It is merely a restatement, a position that has always existed. I hope that I have made that position abundantly clear.

I now wish to return to the latest developments. South West Africa has been a problem for us for many years. There is no question about that. I can think of no other international problem that has demanded so much painstaking negotiation on our part and so many efforts to resolve the problem in such a way that war and conflict be avoided. Unfortunately, as I have indicated, it has over the years become internationalized to such a degree that we do not have the same negotiating basis and atmosphere that Lord Carrington enjoyed during the Lancaster House talks in London. Hon. members heard a moment ago that the hon. member for Simonstown is not impressed by those negotiations at all, and neither does he welcome the end result. I have not yet expressed myself on his remarks, but I shall endeavour to do so later. However, what is of importance at this stage is that the South African Government, on the basis of consultation with the political leaders inside the territory—we call them anti-Swapo leaders or the democratic leaders, just to identify them and to make it clear that we are not talking of Swapo when we refer to the leaders of the territory—agreed to the early independence of the territory. We agreed to the early independence of the territory on the basis of a “one man, one vote” election. We agreed that all discrimination based on colour would be removed. Substantial progress has already been made in this respect. The pass laws have been repealed and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act has been withdrawn. The Immorality Act has been repealed. The salaries in the public sector have been equalized. In many instances public amenities have been opened for members of all groups. In that respect discrimination is being removed also. It has not been completed yet, because we are dealing with the sensitivities of people. It is not all that elementary merely to say that it is the NP of South West Africa or Aktur that is being stubborn or intransigent or foolhardy. It is not that simple. Some of the leaders of the NP of South West Africa in fact initiated the Turnhalle concept. This is a fact. It was the NP of South West Africa which played a prominent role in bringing that about.

Why did they then leave the NP?

I am now talking about the NP of South West Africa. That party is not connected any longer with the NP of this country. They decided to sever ties because it would have been better, both from our point of view and from theirs. There is no connection any more between the NP of South Africa and the NP of South West Africa. Yet I cannot allow disparaging remarks to be made about them when I know that some of the Party’s leaders have taken blows, have suffered and have worked hard to obtain support for what they wanted to do in the interests of the whole of Southern Africa. That was not easy. We are dealing with sociological affinities which are present in most people, not only in White people, but also in Black people. If one rides rough-shod over these affinities, one is looking for trouble. We are dealing with potentially explosive situations whenever we are dealing with colour differences. It is a delicate situation, and both Black and White leaders must tread carefully and not rush into provocation.

It is perhaps apposite at this point to say that I watched on the television last Saturday a soccer match which nearly exploded. The Witwatersrand University played against the Moroka Swallows, and certainly no one can tell me that the referee was a supporter of the HNP or the NP. But that does not matter. He certainly was not the cause of what took place. He was not responsible for it. I was sorry that the incident took place. I was very glad that not a single incident took place during the Coetzee-Tate fight, despite the fact that some 400 journalists came from abroad, some of whom had been instructed to look out for or create an unsavoury incident with a racial connotation to denigrate this country, to run us down and to ensure that the worst possible publicity against South Africa would be sent out. Nothing happened, despite the fact that there were approximately 80 000 spectators: Black, White, Coloured and Asian. I am not aware of a single incident that took place, despite the fact that the South African hero lost, on top of it all, and there probably was a natural emotional psychological inclination in circumstances like that to be a little short-tempered. Despite that, no incident took place. However, deliberate discipline is required of all of us to avoid incidents. That is why I say that we are dealing here too with sociological affinities, with sensitive situations which are not so easy to handle and for which there is no general prescription that can apply and be valid under all circumstances all the time. This applies then also to South West Africa. I think the Whites of South West Africa have had to adapt to very painful changes. Certainly it has not been easy for farmers who had built up their farms into successful cattle ranches, suddenly to be confronted with the fact that there would be Black majority rule in that country. Whether it is popular to say this or not, the human element of identifying with one’s own kind is a fact. When that is disturbed people feel insecure. They want to be governed by their kind. They want to be governed in terms of systems and values that they know, understand and trust. They want to be governed by democratic systems. They want to have the right to change Governments in elections that must be held regularly. They want to have a free Press. They want to be able to criticize the Government. They want to have an independent judiciary so that they can take the Government to court if it takes their land and does not compensate them properly after expropriation. Whether these are foolish values, is a different matter, but they happen to be ours.

We are proud of them and we want to maintain them, but then we must be frank and honest with one another. If they are not maintained anywhere else in Africa, who is to be blamed for that? I do not say this to humiliate Africa; far from it. But the fact is that in this country we have not started to tell one another the truth about one another in an unemotional way. We are treating this whole matter of values and systems in a very superficial, artificial and often very shallow manner. This Government has and is creating the forums where for the first time in history White, Black, Brown and Asian will be able to talk with one another to see whether they can come to an agreement. This is what is going to happen. But what assistance do we get in doing this? What reports are being sent to the outside world as far as the motivation, the purposes and objectives of this Government are concerned? I shall come to that later.

I must rather start replying to the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout otherwise he will feel that I do not want to reply to his questions. In the first place I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for a very constructive and responsible speech in the field of foreign relations today. There is no doubt about it that it was a very constructive speech. Very much the same applies to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point, and I also want to thank him.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised a very interesting aspect in regard to South West Africa. He asked whether we should not consider persuading the parties to draw up a constitution before an election, if I understood him correctly. He compared it with the Lancaster House situation. In a way this is a valid comparison. The problem is that when these negotiations started, that option was not a practical possibility. At that stage the object was to see whether the basic South African point of view, as to the way South West Africa was to proceed to independence could be reconciled with the approach of the five Western powers who were then members of the Security Council. That was how it started. The phases of the negotiations telescoped into one another as we moved along, and throughout there was such a degree of incompatibility between the basic philosophy of Swapo on the one hand and the democratic parties on the other hand that it has been, at least up to now, almost unthinkable for the major parties to get together with Swapo to see whether they could draw up a constitution which could serve as the basis for an election. Because of the severe degree of incompatibility between the points of departure of Swapo, which is ideologically Marxist-orientated in its claims and in its constitution, and that of the democratic parties in the rest of the territory, there was the real danger—and I think that danger will persist—that we would get nowhere, that we would talk for months and that our efforts would be futile and useless. But of course one never knows. The Government would not wish to appear as if it is torpedoing the present settlement plan. That plan still exists. As far as we are concerned, it is still capable of implementation. It is going to be difficult, because Swapo deviated from it and because Swapo’s deviations have been condoned all along by my friend Dr. Waldheim. He always does it, because he fears the General Assembly more than he fears me. [Interjections.] Because Swapo refused to have its bases monitored wherever they might be, we have landed in the present threatening impasse and stalemate. That is the basic reason for it. On 25 April 1978 the Government accepted the settlement plan. Ever since that date we have urged the Western powers to get a move on with the implementation of that plan. I battled hard to get the South West Africa problem out of the way long before the Lancaster House talks on Zimbabwe got under way.

There was a time when I believed that the Rhodesian problem was a harder, more intractable and difficult one to resolve peaceably than that of South West Africa. At first the prospects appeared favourable for an early settlement and implementation of the agreement. I urged Mr. Ahtisaari and Dr. Waldheim on various occasions to proceed with Implementation. I flew to New York on several occasions. I attended the so-called proximity and other talks. I met with the five Foreign Ministers on several occasions in New York and in South Africa. At times when we were on the verge of reaching a breaking point in our negotiations, we somehow saved the situation because all parties concerned realized the immense consequences of a failure. On this Government’s part there have never been any illusions as to the very, very serious, if not cataclysmic proportions of a failure to reach an internationally acceptable solution for SWA. I indicated at the start and I have taken time to-day to indicate clearly that the SWA issue has become so internationalized that no Government in this country can really think that it is realistic to have a peaceful, long-term and internationally acceptable solution without the UN involvement. That is a fact. Unpalatable as that might be, as it often is to me, it is a fact that must be accepted.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s suggestion is interesting and constructive, but the decision is not in my hands. It would be extremely difficult for the South African Government, at this stage, to come up with any new supplement to the existing plan without creating the impression that we are dragging our feet and are insincere in wishing to implement the proposals. That suspicion is already there. It is reprehensible and contemptible that there should be such a suspicion, especially in view of our record, which indicates one thing, and that is that the Government has made up its mind that the people must decide their own future and that it has one commitment only, namely that the people must decide that future in an atmosphere of peace and freedom and without intimidation from whatever quarter and in whatever form. We cannot and will not rid ourselves of that commitment because instability in South West Africa could affect the fibre of stability throughout Southern Africa, and neither Black, Coloured, Asian nor White leaders can afford instability conflict and confrontation. That is important to keep in mind. Representatives of the five foreign powers are in South Africa and as they will probably learn what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout suggested, let me put it this way: I will not stand in their way should they wish to report that suggestion and then talk with us and with the leaders in the territory. I say this because there must be equal treatment of the parties, also in the process of negotiation leading up to independence, otherwise we are being continuously accused by all and sundry in the territory that South Africa has not yet rid itself of its paternalistic and colonialistic outlook in that we still want to prescribe to them. We are not demanding anything unreasonable, but we are certainly telling Dr. Waldheim and the UN that if they want to achieve a successful solution, a bloodless solution, if they want to stop the escalation of conflict and if we all want to have an internationally acceptable solution, then the parties must be equally treated. I thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for having put that point of view, the necessity to treat all parties equally, so well and strongly on behalf of his party today.

As far as the drawing up of a constitution before an election is concerned, this Government has nothing against it in principle. It is just that we have a settlement plan and that efforts must still run their course in an attempt to get that settlement plan implemented. We must try our best. I have asked what I consider to be reasonable questions of Dr. Waldheim as to certain practical problems that we still experience regarding the implementation of the demilitarized zone proposal. We also have certain very strong views regarding the preferential treatment that is being given to Swapo throughout by the General Assembly. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is quite right when he says the Security Council has not determined that Swapo is the sole and authentic representative of the people of the territory. The General Assembly did that, and General Assembly decisions are not binding. They do not have the force or effectiveness which Security Council decisions have. That means that we have asked Dr. Waldheim nothing which cannot fairly and reasonably be responded to in order to continue with the process of implementation. We hope that South Africa’s recent reply sent to Dr. Waldheim will appeal to reasonable people so that we can continue discussing certain outstanding issues, because, as far as the South African Government is concerned, we want to achieve an internationally acceptable solution, but not at all costs.

This brings me to what the hon. member for Simonstown said. What does it mean when I say “not at all costs”? It means “not at the price of freedom”. That will certainly not be the case. International recognition is not worth that. Here I should like to revert to what I said earlier in connection with the will to frustrate Russia’s intentions, Russian aggression and Russia’s designs about the world at large. We too must make certain decisions. All of us have to make certain decisions. I hope to come to that later, if time permits. The Whites, the Blacks, the Asians and the Coloureds, of South Africa and of South West Africa and of the countries of Southern Africa, will also have to decide sooner or later what the most important facet of their national life is, what the values are for which they are prepared to fight and what the terms are which they would be prepared to offer one another in order to achieve a settled solution or a solution through negotiation. That awaits all of us. I predict that in the near future the Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Asians of this country will have to decide what the maximum is that can be given and the minimum that can be accepted. We are not going to escape this arduous task. It is a fact. When the claimants on all sides cannot be brought to a point of agreement, we know there will be only one alternative left. A gruesome one. But if that is the only way, it is the only way. As far as South West Africa is concerned, that is my answer. Allow me to admit here today that it was difficult for the South African Government to enter into these negotiations and to conduct negotiations which led, as I have already indicated, to a decision of a “one man, one vote” election and to the removing of discrimination. We agreed to a United Nations presence, to United Nations troups to the number of 7 500 in the territory of South West Africa. We agreed to the reciprocal release of so-called political detainees some of whom had been sentenced by a court of law for committing murder. It was painful to agree to this. After we had agreed to all that, are we expected to become a party to installing a Marxist régime in South West Africa without allowing the people of that territory to have a free and fair election? This is what is worrying the people of South West Africa most after the Rhodesian elections. They are terrified at such a prospect. Whether the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe likes this or not, is for him to say, but the truth must come out. We have accepted the situation in Zimbabwe but we are not going to become a party to forcing the people of South West Africa, through unmitigated intimidation, to accept a régime simply because they are war-weary and exhausted to such a degree that they capitulate by attrition and because that regime offers them a respite from the torture and intimidation for which it is itself responsible. Freedom cannot survive that way. We can forget it. Whatever Britain did with her commitments in Rhodesia—and I am not criticizing at all—we also have commitments in South West Africa, and I have spelled them out.

This Government remains willing to achieve an internationally acceptable solution. Our door is wide open for further discussions to see whether ways and means can be found to implement the settlement proposal. We are even open to suggestions of the kind raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, on condition that the parties in the territory support these suggestions, and on condition that the five Western powers and the other negotiating parties in the UN support the concept. This Government is not, however, prepared to be a party to the installation, through an unfair process, of a dictatorial, tyrannical Marxist regime in South West Africa.

The hon. member for Sea Point asked a number of questions about Rhodesia, or Zimbabwe as we should now call it. I think they are fair questions. If I remember correctly, the first was whether discussions were taking place on our trade relations. Trade between South Africa and other countries, as the hon. member would know, is largely conducted by the private sector. As far as our knowledge goes, sections of the private sector are certainly continuing trade with Zimbabwe as before. In some instances they have even come forward with new economic projects and enterprises for which export credit assurance would be acquired from the committee which handles these matters. In the present circumstances the South African Government is not opposed to the granting of export credit facilities, on economic merit, to Zimbabwe at all.

The hon. member also asked whether we had made offers to assist Zimbabwe. I am not sure whether I understand what the hon. member had in mind with that question. We have made no special offers—or offers of a special nature—of assistance to Zimbabwe, simply because there are in existence quite a number of elements that could be considered as being assistance. Our communications system is at their disposal, our railways and harbours are at their disposal, and in many other matters their neighbour to the south is acting in such a way as not to make life more difficult for them. We have not acted in such a way as to make it more difficult for them to achieve stability in Zimbabwe.

It would be a lie, it would be deceit for me to claim today that I enjoyed the result of the last election in Zimbabwe. I did not at all. I would have preferred Bishop Muzorewa to have won. Let me be very frank about that. He lost, however, and Mr. Mugabe won. We have accepted the ensuing situation. We were, however, in contact with the leaders of all the important political parties of Zimbabwe before the election. We had talks with the representatives of Mr. Nkomo, Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole and others. My representatives had talks also with Mr. Mugabe’s representatives. Although we hoped that the Bishop would win, we did not plan on that basis. In co-operation and in consensus with all the South African departments involved, the Government in its planning took into account various possibilities concerning the result of the election in Zimbabwe. One of those possibilities was that Mr. Mugabe could win. I want to make this very clear today. I do not know what officials of my department might have told the hon. member for Simonstown, but I am prepared to show him documentary proof of the fact that I intimidated to the British ambassador, and through him his Government, in 1979 that Bishop Muzorewa did not, at that stage, have more than 30% Black support and that for every week that the Lancaster House talks lasted he would lose a further 5%.

The British ambassador—and I hope I am not embarrassing him—would agree that I put that point of view also to the British Government. Naturally, we have certain preferences as regards political parties in other countries in Africa. We also have them in regard to Germany and the United States. There is in each country a particular candidate I prefer to another one. The same applied to Britain before the last election and the same is going to apply to France. There is nothing unnatural in these preferences. We must, however, guard against basing our planning on a particular party winning. Similarly we must not adopt the attitude that a move towards conservatism in the world is necessarily going to assist South Africa. It is simply not true. Even if conservative parties in the European context and perception come to power, they are sometimes more critical of us than socialist parties in those countries. It is, quite frankly, naive to bargain or rely on so-called conservative wins or swings in the outside world. Conservatism in America and in most of Europe means a firmer attitude vis-à-vis Russia. In their stronger stand against the Soviet Union they often need Third World support, and Third World support can be obtained by condemning South Africa or trading South Africa off as a pawn. These are the facts of life in regard to South Africa. So we did not bargain on a Muzorewa win.

My department is not the only department dealing with delicate and serious matters of this nature. The Government works in a co-ordinated way. Not only has the hon. the Prime Minister streamlined the Public Service as no one has ever done since 1910, he has also done the same with the Cabinet. No single Minister can, even in his own particular field of jurisdiction, simply lay down the law for the Government or for the party. We therefore act jointly in matters. We have experts in the various government disciplines, and we come together and put it through the works, as we say, through the channels and structures of co-ordination that have been created. The end result is, consequently, a considered opinion on which we then base our planning. This was done in the case of Zimbabwe. That is why we were ready for any exigencies, contingencies or events after the election in Zimbabwe. I can say that today. We are still ready in that regard.

Our attitude basically is that Mr. Mugabe should be given a chance. It is true that in his public statements the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe has indicated that he would accept financial commitments and debts of the former Governments of Zimbabwe. That is a constructive, positive step which we have welcomed. In conversations with representatives of Mr. Mugabe before the elections and in conversations with Mr. Mugabe after the elections, he made it clear that he would not allow Zimbabwe to be used as a springboard for terrorist movements against South Africa. On the basis of these two important points of departure, which are of importance to South Africa, the Government stands ready to continue with practical, constructive, positive relations with Zimbabwe. However, as to what the future will hold, as to the degree of stability, I can make no predictions. That will depend on the Government in Salisbury, on Mr. Mugabe.

The hon. member for Sea Point wants to know what the nature of our diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe is going to be. I do not know at this stage. I do not know, for the reason that we have not yet completed our discussions on this matter with Zimbabwe. There has not yet been time for that. I think the hon. member will realize that Zimbabwe has been independent now for just over four weeks. That is not a very long period. Let me, however, say in advance that there is no reason why we in Africa should at all times insist on the usual formal Western European type of diplomacy.

If we can maintain proper relations and conduct negotiations through channels that we create in Africa in our own way, and it works and is practical, we will accept them. In other words, I am not insisting on an embassy in Salisbury. I am not insisting that our representative must be called an ambassador and that that country’s representative in South Africa must be called an ambassador. If it was good enough thus far to have had an accredited diplomatic representative of the former Government, then as far as I am concerned, it suits me to continue on that basis or on any other mutually agreed basis which will be practical and to our mutual advantage. As far as an early meeting between the Prime Ministers of South Africa and Zimbabwe is concerned, this is something about which I shall have to consult our Prime Minister. From a foreign affairs point of view, I support the idea that Prime Ministers of our region, even if they differ ideologically, should come together from time to time, even if the only object is to get to know each other personally, to get acquainted with each other’s style, apart from useful programmes and from items that can be discussed at such meetings. As far as I am aware, an early meeting is not under consideration at present. In any event, I do not think we should push the idea. Should it be possible to arrange such a meeting, and the idea grows mutually and in a natural way, I shall certainly not stand in the way of such an idea.

The hon. member also asked how we were going to modify or implement the Government’s concept of a constellation of Southern African States now that Zimbabwe has chosen the Government it has. The hon. member gave me some clue of what he had in mind by saying I had remarked some time ago on the 40 million people who live south of a line marked by the Zambezi River and that it was our original intention to include that number of people in our constellation or confederation of States, which naturally would include Zimbabwe; otherwise the figure of 40 million cannot be reached. I take it the hon. member now wants to know how the election in Zimbabwe fits in with certain equations and the situation that we foresaw previously.

*I am pleased that the hon. member asked that question, because it enables me to say something more about the confederation or constellation of States.

Confederation sounds better.

It seems the hon. member does not like the constellation idea very much. South Africa and the countries of Southern Africa have been co-operating with one another for a long time now in various spheres of life. No one can deny that. I think that if a survey were to be made, we would be astonished to see in how many spheres there is co-operation between the States in Southern Africa in the private sector and public sector, of which we are not even generally aware. In the first place there are the three so-called BLS countries, i.e. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. Then there are the three countries which have already become independent in our midst, and in addition there is Zimbabwe and South West Africa which falls south of the horizontal line of the Zambezi river. If one adds together the populations of these countries, and possibly includes Malawi as well, which is situated not far from Zimbabwe, it gives one a total of approximately 40 million people. If one takes these 40 million people who are living in these nine independent States and adds the people living in the States which still ought to become independent, and which we hope will still do so, it is virtually a natural idea which then emerges as to how one can institutionalize forms of co-operation in order to save labour and costs and to promote our mutual security and mutual interests. But the confederation concept is not based on a circumscribed geographical entity. It is based on the voluntary exercise of will by the countries of the region.

The idea of confederation, constellation or co-operation consequently emerges naturally, as it were, from an already existing natural situation. Who is better aware of this than my department and I, that have to undertake the co-ordination of the foreign aid and the technical co-operation which we extend and of a great many other aspects of the assistance which we render to independent countries around us and further to the north in Africa?

I shall refer again to the sphere of health. I cannot think of a sphere which lends itself more to practical, successful, positive and constructive co-operation than health services, both as regards curative services after a person has fallen ill and preventative services before a person falls ill. In this way one can expand the field to telecommunication services for example. It is a fact—and it is not merely I who am saying so—that many of the African countries do not as yet have the technical know-how and ability— and frequently do not have the capital—to afford the more modern telecommunication systems, or if they are in fact able to afford it, to operate them, or if they are in fact able to afford and operate them, to install and maintain them on an effective cost basis. These are facts; it has nothing to do with Black or White.

The same applies to agriculture and to food production. This too, is a sphere of life in which fruitful co-operation can take place through proper and joint planning of food and agricultural production in South Africa, and everything which goes with it.

Just consider the supply of water for a moment. If one looks at Southern Africa and listens to what the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs has to say about many of his schemes and projects, what does one discover? Quietly inserted between the lines and figures of the Water Affairs Vote one will see projects and dams for which provision is being made and which are being or are to be built in other countries or along commonly-shared rivers so that the whole of Southern Africa may benefit from them. This is a fact. Large parts of our country are arid. Parts of the country inhabited by the White people are arid and parts of the country inhabited by the Black people are arid, and together we must plan to get the water from the water-rich areas to the arid areas so that we can establish factories, create work opportunities and create prosperity for us all.

The same applies to forestry. This country has developed a silvicultural technology. Today we are able to plant trees from sea level to 8 000 feet above sea level. For every level we have the right variety of tree. We are proud of this, and can share this knowledge with our neighbours and others if they are interested.

Let us consider transportation. What is a more important element of any infrastructure than transportation: Railway, road and air transportation? There must be harbours which function properly, not harbours in which things lie rusting and accumulating for months. These must not be harbours where goods are never loaded or off-loaded and where fruit and meat lie rotting. A country needs harbours which function properly. These must be harbours with proper modern containerized systems. A country needs harbours and railways which are reliable and are properly maintained. A factory in Europe is not happy if the chrome which it has ordered will arrive there somewhere between 1 June and Christmas. It has workers whom it has to pay and it has a production programme to which it must adhere. And then many people probably wonder why countries well endowed with minerals do not make progress. Here is the simple answer. Their transport systems leave too much to be desired. Their infrastructures are inadequate. I do not wish to refer specifically to Africa, but Africa must really begin to hold its own now and remove the chips of inferiority from its shoulder. If it wants to play in the top league of development, it must begin to realize that it has an inability to maintain its harbours and railways properly, to repair its roads and to take good care of the sluices of its dams. We understand the reasons for the economic problems of our continent. We have all been exploited by colonial powers. But we must guard against exploiting the past to conceal our own shortcomings and failings. We must face up to reality and the truth. It is high time grown men told one another candidly where the faults lie, and why Africa attracts so few investments from the private sectors of the industrial countries. I think it is time that was done. Africa finds itself in a critical position, inter alia, because some of its leaders themselves contribute to the being-cosseted syndrome which accords an inferior position to the Black man. We do not begrudge the Black man the opportunity of proving that he can achieve whatever the people of the industrialized countries are able to achieve but then their leaders must also do something about this from their side. From their side prejudices must also be overcome, and then the African leaders who rant and rave at South Africa with so much vehemence, must put a stop to this. Then they must not buy all the food for their Lusaka conferences in this country. They must buy it in other countries. I am saying this candidly this afternoon. One is slowly becoming tired of leaders who think they can feed their people by stirring up hatred and fomenting revolution against South Africa.

That is where all our rock lobster went!

We must leave the rock lobster for the time being.

I want to reiterate what I mean, particularly in regard to the area south of the Limpopo which represents our immediate sphere of interest. One can visit a neighbouring country and its leader will tell you that he does not see his way clear to abolishing the communal system of land tenure. He says: “If I change that, I will have a revolution on my hands.” The debate up to now has been without controversy, and I really do not wish to drag an internal political argument into it now, but I wish to speak my mind. No matter what liberal ideas one has on colour or any other subject, the fact of the matter is that there are almost insurmountable economic problems in the Black systems. There are the constrictions of a Third World economy against a First World economy, and that is where the crux of the dilemma of those countries lies. I concede that it is associated with colour which further aggravates our dilemma, and which is going to make great demands on us and is going to require magnanimity and patience. Basically, however, no party in this country, however liberal it may be, can come to me and say that I should say to a Black leader: “Well, get rid of your communal system and make the best of your revolution.” We cannot do that. It does not apply only to this country; it also applies to Tanzania and the whole of Africa.

I have stated that the economic situation in Africa gives cause for concern. I want to say a few words about the First Economic Summit Meeting of the OAU which took place in Lagos on 28 and 29 April this year. It was a conference of the OAU, at which they discussed Africa’s economic problems. I think it is encouraging that they discussed matters candidly with one another at this conference. What was said by Mr. Edem Kodjo of Togo, the Secretary-General of the OAU at the conference, as reported in a French newspaper are particularly significant. The translated report on his speech reads as follows—

I did not use the words “misery”, “horror”, “despair”, “catastrophe”, “disaster”. This was how the Secretary-General of the OAU sketched the present situation in Africa. Those were the strokes of his brush on his own canvas. He said—

In his words—

These three tiny, geographically small States produce as much as the 50 OAU States in Africa. I quote further—

The burden of debt of African countries is increasing tremendously, to such an extent that the repayment of interest on debt alone in many cases requires between 20% and 45% of the countries’ exports. Imagine that! Africa comprises 22% of the total surface area of the globe and accommodates 10% of the total world population. Africa is rich in minerals, has good climatic regions and is well-endowed with water and fertile agricultural land. Africa has received $13 585 million in development aid from the West and Japan, $2 750 million from the Opec countries, $375 million from China and $375 million from Russia. The West has given $13,585 milliard, yet Russia with its meagre amount of $375 million, which is really peanuts, still derives the best strategic advantage from Africa.

Fifty per cent of the world’s refugees are living in Africa, an estimated 3,5 million people. The literacy of only ten African States, expressed as a percentage of the population, is in excess of 30%. South Africa is at the top of the scale with 89%. There is an unequal distribution of wealth in Africa. In Upper Volta the per capita income is R80 per annum and in Lybia it is, owing to the oil in this country, R4 500 per annum. Thirty African States have a per capita income of less than R173 per annum. In Europe there is one doctor for every 580 people and in Kenya, which is well-provided for, there is one doctor per 8 840 people. One American citizen consumes as much energy as 679 people in Rwanda. These are a few of the facts. I can carry on in this vein for a long time. But what is important here? What is important for us in Southern Africa in the spheres of agriculture, water provision, power and energy provision, telecommunications, transportation in its various facets, mineral production and the stabilization of mineral production prices, etc.? In all these spheres we see that it is in the interests of Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asiatics that we should establish structures which can be agreed upon multilaterally, by way of treaties between States, and with which we can co-ordinate and implement development factors on the sub-continent, to the benefit of everyone. As regards these disciplines to which I have just referred, there are already several forms of co-operation in practice which actually need only to be properly structured and institutionalized by way of treaties between those countries which are interested in doing so. There is great interest in this connection. It is for this reason that we conferred recently in Port St. Johns with the Republics of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. The declaration which we issued there, read, inter alia, as follows—

Here we already have a declaration of intent in general terms by these four Governments. Consequently the framework has already been created for the idea of a confederation or constellation of States in which the independent States of Southern Africa can co-operate with one another in respect of practical disciplines and by way of multilateral treaties. One can imagine, for example, that the following organizations can be established in Southern Africa, i.e. a transport commission, a telecommunications union, a food and agricultural organization, a water supply organization and forestry organization. One could conceive of all these constructive structives coming into existence. Moreover, if we wish to make progress, we shall of course need a development bank and a development corporation. These are important matters which were also broached and initiated at the Prime Minister’s conference on 22 November 1979, to which there was a wonderful, positive and construction reaction from our private sector, from Mr. Oppenheimer through to Anton Rupert. There were people from all population groups present at that conference. A new spirit prevailed there, a spirit of taking one another by the hand without wishing to oust one another, and in this way creating a future for Southern Africa. That is what confederation means to us. It is the natural growing together of countries towards cooperation in respect of practical disciplines, and of ultimately ascertaining whether they can also reach multilateral agreements in the political sphere to arrange matters such as citizenship and passport facilities. I do not know what form this is going to take, when it is going to be done and how it is going to be done. All I am convinced of is that if everyone would cultivate a little more mutual trust, tolerance and understanding and maintain an equilibrium between the interests of Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asiatics in this country, there is nothing standing in the way of the creation of a Southern African confederation of States. Such a confederation would be able to regulate its external interests in respect of foreign relations, trade, defence and security mutually by way of treaty and so, too, ultimately the rights of individuals internally, can be properly regulated by way of international treaties, so that Blacks, Coloureds, Asiatics and Whites can continue to exist safely and peacefully in this wonderful country. We have the raw materials, chrome, platinum, manganese, diamonds, copper, gold and water, and we have the technology. We are blessed with a great deal. What is lacking is a slightly greater measure of faith and a slightly greater measure of self-assurance.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister covered such a wide field and did so so clearly and comprehensively that not much remains in this debate on which one can comment or conduct a meaningful further discussion. In the first place I want to convey my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister for his clear explanation of matters.

Bearing in mind to some extent an overseas visit I made last year, where perhaps for the first time I fully realized the intensity of the struggle against us, the hon. the Minister’s clear explanation earlier this evening once again brought home to me the realization that we are engaged here in a struggle the seriousness of which is not fully realized by the peoples of Southern Africa. Despite the clear and forceful explanation by the hon. the Minister, we still do not know whether the people of South Africa clearly realize how all-embracing is the struggle in which we are engaged. While I was listening to the hon. the Minister, a number of questions occurred to me. Among other things I wondered, if the Russians have a winning recipe as against the negative recipe of defeat of the West, how this would affect South Africa’s position. A question which often comes to mind is what the nature of the position is between South Africa and Angola since we have withdrawn our auxiliary troops from that country, since we have stopped coming to the aid of Savimbi. What is the nature of the situation in Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe, in that country where we earlier gave our support to Bishop Muzorewa? As the hon. the Minister stated, unequivocally and clearly—

Now one can only wonder what negative factor we shall have to accept next. Can we accept something like this again without us in South Africa also becoming notorious in the rest of Africa for our recipe of defeat. Another question which came to mind while the hon. the Minister was talking, was this; what was actually the difference between the USA and the West on the one hand and the winning recipe of the Russians on the other? I could not but recall something which I read recently in Volkshandel, the newsletter of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. In it someone wrote that the difference between the West and the East lies in the fact that the USA is a successful “super-salesman” in the sale of its material goods, whereas the Russians on the other hand have the successful “grand strategy” to sell their political goods successfully.

Accordingly, one cannot help wondering what we in South Africa should do in these circumstances. South Africa is important to us because it is all that is left to us. Must we therefore also try to follow the recipe of the USA, the recipe of a “super-salesman”, by selling our material goods, or should we rather try to follow the Russians’ winning recipe, the recipe of a “grand strategy” in which political goods are sold?

The hon. the Minister said that despite the fact that one did not feel good or happy about the Americans, they still remained the only bastion between us and slavery. I find the USA’s classical political convictions and political expressions quite acceptable. I have no fault to find with them. The USA’s practical political situation is however, unacceptable to me. I have in mind, for example, what President Carter said last year in Nigeria—

Then he continues with his acclamation and says—

I want to emphasize those words of President Carter in particular. I believe that they indicate to us what we are actually dealing with. We must use this as a recipe, as a winning recipe. We must also adjust the circumstances in which we find ourselves to the demands of our own situation. This is where we really ought to make a start. We can proceed from there. As against the rest …

Please speak a little louder. We cannot hear you. (Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if the hon. member for Durban Point cannot hear me. If he would only listen with more concentration he could learn quite a lot.

He must just close his mouth and open his ears.

I want to state unequivocally that we have a winning recipe. We do indeed have a winning recipe. Our winning recipe stands in contrast to the rest of Africa’s recipe of “One man, one vote”. South Africa’s recipe can be summarized in one word, and that word is “prosperity”, and ultimately it must win because “prosperity”, in contrast to “one man, one vote” is a positive factor. I believe that we must try to convey that concept to the rest of Africa.

But I thought of a few other ideas while the hon. the Minister was speaking.

Then the hon. member for Durban Point is not even listening.

He never listens when good speeches are being made. In this rapidly changing world situation, the global power struggle between the East and the West and the North and the South, we are a mere pawn of little value, except for one important and determining factor, and that is that we are the catalyst unifying a divided world. We and only we unify the world such as it has never been unified before in history, from 5 000 years ago up to the present. We are the only common denominator or lightning conductor in the world. Throughout history, even during the First and Second World Wars, which we have already discussed, there has always been polarization and balances of power. But there has also always been division. There was even a difference of opinion about Nazism. Only South Africa’s so-called racism on the basis of colour is an aspect about which the whole world has been able to agree. But what are we doing in South Africa? I hope the hon. member for Durban Point is listening. Secure in the leadership of a National Party, Government South Africa has become blasé about an outside world which does not concern it. Self-assured about the importance of the sea route around the Cape and the indispensable value of our minerals, we have become caught up in the belief that it is our birth right to continue to exist here. We lay claim to defence against double standards which are being applied to us. America’s view on anarchism in the rest of the world, for example South America, Cuba, etc., does not tally with its ideas on South Africa. Unfortunately, logical arguments do not solve the problem, and the facts are staring us in the face although we do not want to see them. That is why I convey my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for affording us the privilege last year of being able to experience the intensity of the onslaught in the outside world. That onslaught, which is conducted against us every day, does not, however, penetrate the borders of South Africa, owing to the success of our Government, particularly the Department of Foreign Affairs. In order to combat that onslaught, we shall have to concentrate on our domestic policy and seek peace in our own country, because I do not believe that we have real friends anywhere in the world. Nowhere can we really depend on the outside world. Nowhere can we expect aid from other countries. Consequently the last trenches will be dug within the borders of South Africa. Our success will ultimately depend on our own ability or inability. Accordingly we shall have to try to bring about peace and prosperity within our borders, prosperity for Africa, but first prosperity within our borders. Everyone must enjoy equal rights in the eyes of the law and everyone must have equal opportunities. I believe these are the fundamental elements. If we can sell them within our borders, as well as within Africa, I believe we shall achieve success. We do not have the financial means to sell this over a wider area. So let us first sell them here, and then sell them over a wider area.

Mr. Chairman, I have no comment to make on the hon. member for Vasco’s speech, other than to express my general approval of what he has said.

To deal with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his rather long speech in the ten minutes allowed to me is an impossible task, but I shall try to touch on a few of the points he made as I go along. I think I must begin by agreeing with him that nobody can deny the prior importance of Southern Africa and Southern African affairs in establishing an area of stability and a springboard of constructive action for our foreign policy. We will go nowhere in the outside world without having a secure springboard in South Africa. Conversely, in our relations with countries abroad, we shall not succeed unless we can establish a base here which carries credibility. This is our dilemma and it is a difficult one. There is no point in attributing blame for this. It is a fact that in the present circumstances we cannot underestimate the difficulties that face us in establishing a base for action in order to extend our foreign policy initiatives. We cannot move abroad effectively unless we satisfy the local condition, nor can we easily satisfy the local condition without the cooperation and confidence of the First World or our Western allies abroad. This is the problem I briefly wish to address this evening.

We have created a new approach to the problem or a new term to deal with the problem, namely a constellation of States. I have no particular difficulty with the concept. It is imaginative, if perhaps somewhat pretentious to my ear. I think that perhaps it sounds larger than it really is in geographical terms. Perhaps we should seek a wider geographical area than is actually envisaged and perhaps we should set our operational objectives a little bit lower. I hope the hon. the Minister will not accuse me of malice if I say that the idea of a constellation of States has never been very clear to me. This evening, after listening to his speech before dinner, I came to the temporary conclusion—and I hope it will be only temporary—that a constellation of States can be described as a heavier-than-air balloon which flies best when it is inflated for an hour and three-quarters by a ministerial voice. As I say, we prefer a modest description of the relations we are attempting to establish in Southern Africa. I believe that we might have to go wider than the immediate intent of the hon. the Prime Minister and others who have dealt with the concept of a constellation of States. I believe that our security depends on a wider area than the area up to the Limpopo or even the Zambesi. I think that the area extends wider, as do the opportunities.

The problem is how to extend our influence, how to create the springboard or the area of action, without creating reactions of an unfavourable nature. We are all very well aware of the sensitivities that exist and the problems that could arise if we should appear to be imperialistic or paternalistic in our attitude in exercising the economic power and strength we enjoy in the southern part of this area. I think we should beware of paternalism as the devil fears holy water. Recently, about six months ago, Dr. Loubser, the General Manager of the S.A. Railways, in a speech described his ideas of a kind of Southern African co-operative area, based very largely on the transport concept. I think he hit the nail on the head when he said that one has to conduct this on the basis purely of business principles: One’s customers pay for what they get, but one does not overcharge them. It is conducted on a basis not of paternalism, of hand-outs or of expecting special political returns for what one is doing, but purely on the basis of creating a relationship of confidence and trust through one’s activities in an area of common interest.

The trouble, as I see it, is that in thus dealing with our area, which I think we will all, including the hon. the Minister, agree is essential to the growth of our foreign policy, we are still in a position where we are forced by our antagonists into a defensive position.

I think it is fair to say that the hon. the Minister and his department have not been content with a defensive position and have launched initiatives of their own, to which the hon. the Minister referred earlier this afternoon. For many years one has been conscious of efforts which have been made to break out of this defensive area, but the fact is that if people are hostile and aggressive, then it is very difficult to break out of a situation where one is passive or peaceful in intent.

Let us briefly look at the prospects of taking the initiative and let us for the purpose of making the argument briefer leave aside the obvious pre-condition of creating a situation of racial equality and a society of equal opportunity to South Africa. Let us assume for this purpose that we are all agreed on both sides of the House that this is a necessary pre-condition. South Africa’s economic strength is obviously her most potent weapon particularly when one takes into account the weakness of the economy in other parts of Southern Africa. The hon. the Minister referred to Mr. Kodjo, the Secretary-General of the OAU, who said that Africa was dying economically. There is a sort of slow death taking place in certain parts of Africa. I think the hon. the Minister deserves credit for his approach to this matter. The slow death of Africa is not a matter for rejoicing to South Africa. It is, in fact, a kind of slow death that has its adverse effects on us, and if we can do something to remedy this to our own advantage, it will also be to the advantage of our neighbours. I often speak, as I am sure other hon. members also do, to visitors from abroad. There are those of the European Economic Community who have certain interests or obligations in so far as Southern and Central Africa is concerned. These people are at their wit’s end as to how to remedy this kind of economic paralysis which has set in. They have asked hon. members on this side of the House, as I am sure they have also asked hon. members on the other side of the House, whether there is anything we can suggest or any way in which we can co-operate or do something about the transport situation for example, which has had a few false starts and is not going ahead. They asked whether we could not take the initiative. They also asked about the Lomé Convention. This convention is not working. They say they know that we are not a welcome party to it, but can we not provide the initiative, through them, so that they can conduct a sort of indirect diplomacy which would involve South Africa in the actions that are needed to revitalize the economy of this part of the world which is so vital to the survival of the West? What I have just said may seem extremely difficult, but the alternative is that if we do not find the people in the OECD and elsewhere who are seeking a kind of strong economic base in Southern Africa through which they can launch their own initiatives, if we do not provide the initiatives, the thinking and the ideas and perhaps guide them towards Africa in the direction that we think is the most constructive, we would be failing in our duty towards Africa and in our duty to assist those who wish to assist Africa. There are many examples of what can be done. There are, for example, obviously a great many businessmen in South Africa and in Europe who are using South Africa as a base, as a workshop, from which to develop trade and commerce with the rest of the African countries. I want to refer very briefly to people who have been leaders in various fields in South Africa, such as hydroelectricity. There is Prof. Olivier, for instance, who has sketched a magnificent programme for the utilization of the water resources of the rivers between South Africa and our neighbours to the north. There has also been Dr. Strasheim … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal in the speech by the hon. member for Constantia with which I can agree, particularly when he said that our relations with Black Africa ought to be on a purely commercial basis. However, I want to tell him, that the extent to which Black Africa can expect to benefit from the initiatives emanating from us, will of course depend on Black Africa’s willingness to co-operate with us and on whether they will place pragmatism before ideology. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, like the hon. member for Constantia, referred to the depressing speech made by the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity in which he said that Africa was dying. Unfortunately I have to agree with that hon. gentleman. This Dark Continent is sinking away in a quagmire of administrative incompetence, technological helplessness, nepotistic élites, corrupt bureaucracies and socialistic experiments which were doomed to failure from the start. Yes, Africa is collapsing in spite of billions of dollars, pounds, francs, marks, yuan dollars, yen and roubles which in the form of development aid have been poured into its Treasury in the past two decades or so. Today Black Africa owes the rest of the world more than R300 milliard. This is an astronomic debt which they will never pay off or be able to pay off and with every year that goes by this amount escalates further in an ever-rising graph, bringing Africa nearer to the total abyss of hopeless bankruptcy.

[Inaudible.]

If that hon. member would only be patient, he would see what I am driving at. Tanzania is a typical example. When that country gained its independence President Nyerere said that his country would develop more rapidly within 10 years than in the preceding 40 years under colonial rule. Subsequently he adopted a course of African socialism, nationalized industries and commercial institutions and herded the peasants into collective villages etc. At that stage Tanzania was a net food exporter. Today she is only saved from famine by large-scale food aid from America and West Germany. Most of her factories work at 50% of their capacity and up to 80% of the regional budgets go into the salaries of bureaucrats and public servants. Tanzania has indeed developed more rapidly in the past decade, unfortunately not progressively but retrogressively. Nevertheless President Nyerere, who has banned all opposition and who according to Amnesty International is keeping 1 500 people in detention without trial for indefinite periods and who must personally bear the responsibility for the misery of his people, is regarded as a modern-day hero in the East and in the West. His statements on human rights in South Africa and elsewhere are being regarded as the be-all and end-all of everything and he is also recognized as the leader of the so-called frontline States, although his country does not in any way adjoin South West Africa or Zimbabwe. In spite of the West’s obligingness, in spite of the fact that the West is pumping five times as much development aid into Africa as the Soviet bloc and in spite of the fact that to this day 50% of Tanzania’s budget still depends on Western development aid, the West has derived very little benefit from it. In every African conflict situation thus far Nyerere has constantly sided with the East against the West, for example in Angola, Ethiopia and Rhodesia. In Africa the show of force on the part of the Soviets is simply more impressive than the generosity of the West. And Tanzania is but one of about 50 similar examples. Even countries like Kenya and Malawi for which there was greater hope initially because they adopted a pro-Western capitalist course, have recently shown signs of a decline. During the recent budget debate in Malawi President Banda fired virtually all the senior officials of his State and semi-State corporations because of corruption and inefficiency and indicated that his country was in a serious crisis.

†Like the West, we have also given development aid to Africa. We helped to build Lilongwe; we started a tourist development project at Nossi Bé; we financed a hotel project in the Central African Empire and we embarked on cattle-raising schemes in tropical West Africa, etc. In several cases these projects were rendered useless, because hostile régimes came to power as a result of coups d’état. I contend that in almost every case development aid fulfils little or no useful purpose. Since the billions the West has pumped into Africa have brought neither stability, nor reliable friendships, nor prosperity, nor have halted Soviet expansionism on the continent, I contend that the drop in the ocean that we can contribute cannot do so either. Therefore I say that we should abandon Africa, as far as aid is concerned, to those in the East who use African puppet régimes to further their propaganda and terrorist wars against us and to those in the West who heed this propaganda to our detriment. Since they use Africa and are used by Africa, let them save it.

Charity begins at home. We, too, have States that have received their independence from us, and others that are bound to do so. They also need rapid development and the creation of thousands of jobs. They need to be consolidated better than they are. Because of their close association with us and because we have prepared them better over longer periods for independence than the former colonial powers prepared their ex-dependencies, I believe that they will be far better able to use our aid viably than States more distant from us. It is to them, therefore, that we should channel every cent of aid and investment finance we have to spare. That is how we should begin building the constellation of States we envisage and for which the foundations have already been laid.

Having said that, I do not wish to give the impression that I am against normal trade and traffic with Black Africa. Our relations with Mozambique are a case in point. We use Cabora Bassa power to our advantage. We make use of the port of Maputo, and we still have more than 40 000 Mozambican mineworkers in South Africa. In turn, Mozambique earns valuable foreign exchange, imports South African food and receives assistance for its railway and harbour systems. It is a two-way business arrangement, beneficial to both countries and entailing no loss of sovereignty for either of them. If, on the other hand, this traffic were suddenly to cease, Mozambique would have to find a substantial sum of money from other sources, probably from the Soviet Union. Since it cannot sell power, mine labour or transport services to the Russians, it would have to give something else in return. I contend that Mozambique would have very little to offer, except subservience, obedience and loss of sovereignty. In fact, it would become a true Soviet satellite and become recolonized. Therefore, by maintaining and expanding our trade links with countries, such as Mozambique, we achieve several things much better than development aid can do. The more they trade with us, the less they will regard it to be in their interests to commit acts of aggression against us. At the same time we offer them and their citizens the opportunity of seeing for themselves that all our people—White, Black and Brown—are better off in our free enterprise system than theirs are under their socialist autocracies. In short, we help them to keep the option open between free association with us and the retention of their independence, or loss of sovereignty and Soviet enslavement. President Machel’s recent partial return to capitalism is a case in point. The same arguments apply, of course, to selling maize, mining equipment and other commodities to Zimbabwe, Zambia and Zaire and exporting their minerals through our ports. As a result, these countries could in time conceivably see their best interests in becoming members of out constellation of States. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it striking that up to now the Opposition have been so quiet in this Foreign Affairs Vote. I sat and listened this afternoon and hoped that I would hear one word about which we could level some criticism at them, but they have been dead quiet. Consequently I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his officials on their activities this year, for not one single word of criticism has yet come from the Opposition. They are defeated. I shall leave it at that and hope that the fighters among them have entered this House in the meantime.

At the Carlton Hotel conference of 22 November 1979, the hon. the Prime Minister said that South Africa’s geographic situation was a given and immutable factor. In the same vein, Mr. Robert Mugabe said at a Press conference after becoming Prime Minister that Zimbabwe’s approach to South Africa was totally realistic, that South Africa was a geographic and historical reality and that they could not escape the fact that Zimbabwe was situated next to South Africa, even if they wanted to. As the hon. the Prime Minister put it, Black States are South Africa’s neighbours and as Mr. Robert Mugabe put it, South Africa is the Black States’ neighbour. These are hard facts, which no-one can do anything about. If these facts have penetrated to us and to our neighbours, we must simply, as befits good neighbours, accept and bear with one another’s weaknesses.

It is true that South Africa is often placed in an embarrassing position by the statements and conduct of the leaders of some of our Black neighbouring States. One need only call to mind what Mr. Jonathan of Lesotho and Samora Machel of Mozambique have said and done in the past. However, it is clear to us that they are often simply adding their voices to the choir of the OAU, for in reality South Africa is indispensable to the Black States in Southern Africa.

South Africa is in the fortunate position that in the military, agricultural, economic, academic and technological spheres it is regarded as a colossus in Southern Africa. In almost every sphere South Africa is far ahead of all other countries in Africa. The fact is that the Republic of South Africa is prepared to make this expertise available to its neighbouring States if they ask for it. The Black States in Southern Africa are fortunate in having South Africa as a neighbour, for they know that South Africa is one of the few countries in the world which still respects agreements and whose word is still its bond.

For years now it has been a well-known fact that the Republic of South Africa has extensive trade and other relations with the rest of Africa. This trade is increasing. It is not in South Africa’s interest to publicize these trade relations too much. The fact is, however, that the Republic of South Africa’s trade and other relations with the rest of Africa, with Southern Africa in particular, are being extended. However, it is important to make it clear that these relations are not based on handing out charity or buying goodwill. Charity helps no one in the long term and goodwill cannot be bought. For the most part, economic relations with Africa entail normal business transactions from which all parties benefit.

Commercial contracts with other countries in Africa are therefore being negotiated on a normal business foundation with the aid of credit and bank guarantees. A good example of this is the comprehensive role the S.A. Railways and Harbours is playing in the field of transport in Southern Africa. Assistance is only being given if it is asked for and the role of benefactor is thus being avoided. Co-operation takes place on a business footing and is offered at cost. Assistance is granted in such a way as to stimulate development in the country involved and so that it does not affect the country’s sense of independence, but helps the country to help itself.

It is clear that the RSA, with its reasonably developed economy, has the opportunity, in Southern Africa in particular, of helping other countries, to the benefit not only of the other countries, but also of the RSA, for example through the development of our export trade. In recent months, thousands of tons of maize have been exported to Zambia. This is very advantageous to the RSA, which is saddled with a maize surplus. At the same time, large amounts of Zambian copper are being exported from East London. This benefits the RSA too, for while Zambia has its copper exported, we increase the utilization of our railway facilities and the East London harbour.

South Africa also provides employment opportunities to the workers of its neighbouring States. It is estimated that during 1979, more than 2 000 people from our neighbouring States worked on South African mines. Of these approximately half came from Lesotho alone. The money which these people earn in the RSA and take back to their respective countries, makes an important contribution to the gross domestic product of their respective countries.

Incidentally, it is interesting to note that according to figures released by the Chamber of Mines on 16 May, it appears that workers from Angola and even from Zambia are still working in South African mines.

South Africa’s infrastructure is also available to our neighbouring States. I have in mind, for example, our railways, harbours and roads.

If we take all this into account, we could say that the Black States in Southern Africa are fortunate in having a neighbouring country such as South Africa. South Africa is prepared to co-exist peacefully with its neighbouring States. We are also prepared to assist our neighbours in their development. We ask only one thing of them: They must not become a springboard for people who want to overthrow the existing order in South Africa. If they are prepared to make their countries available as springboards and places of refuge for people with other convictions, they must know that South Africa will not hesitate to hit them hard. In that way they would lose a good neighbour.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winburg was a little unfair towards the hon. the Minister when he said at the start that he was surprised that no hon. member of the Opposition could find anything to criticize. He said that as though he knew more about the hon. the Minister than we do. I hardly think that is fair towards the hon. the Minister. When there is something to criticize, we shall criticize the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] The way the hon. the Minister ended his speech, with a blazing endorsement of the confederal approach which this party has held for so many years cannot be criticized by us. We pat him on the back and say “Good show; let us go ahead”. I say that very seriously. What the hon. the Minister said at the end of his speech is a very, very serious lesson for the whole of Southern Africa. I agree with the hon. member for Windburg that not only for the RSA, but for the entire context of Southern Africa the words of the hon. the Minister are of utmost importance. If I have a chance I shall return to that.

During the course of his speech the hon. the Minister touched upon a matter which is probably the most important aspect in foreign relations throughout the world. He did that when he referred to the level of commitment of the Western World to the defence of freedom, and the commitments of Russian imperialism to world domination. These two factors in interplay are the factors we must sum up and weigh up, and decide where South Africa fits in. From the point of view of Russian domination we have no chance. It is no use suggesting that we might be on Russia’s side; we would only be eliminated. We are entitled to discuss the Western commitment to freedom to find out how deep it goes. I, for one, do not believe the Western world is totally committed to freedom if it does not have in mind its own freedom. We face the situation where the entire Third World is sliding towards the sort of chaos the hon. member for Benoni mentioned. To Russia that means nothing. To Russia chaos in Africa is part of the plan they are implementing in order to dominate the world. A settled Third World where normal economic processes take place, is a world of trade. That is the world which helps Europe. That is why, by distributing only arms to the Third World, by creating and fomenting disturbance in those areas, Russia is only furthering its own aims. The hon. the Minister was quite right. Anybody who looks at the situation will know that Russia’s purpose in the Third World is never one of economic aid. Russia has never invested money in any kind of a productive economic activity in any Third World country. All Russia has done is aimed at fomenting trouble and revolution and all sorts of disturbances. That is, of course, being done for a very simple reason. By doing so Russia is preventing the West from gathering the strength that is derived from normal economic activities and from developing people in the Third World who should be the allies of the West. I believe we have to realize this. This is part and parcel of Russia’s total strategy, a strategy in terms of which the Third World is to be kept in a constant state of confusion.

As the hon. the Minister pointed out, quite correctly, Russia creates a state of confusion, a state of famine, in most African countries. Africa is indeed dying. Every country in which stability falls away serves as another step to our very threshold. I believe we realize that. With the resources at our command, however, I do wonder sometimes whether we are able to meet the challenge which is facing us. Of course, we have the initial massive disadvantage of having on our borders people who are ostensibly Marxist. I think we would make a mistake, as the hon. member for Benoni would make a mistake, if we underestimated the commitment to Marxism of those who govern the countries adjacent to our borders. The stories we hear about the people of Mozambique who are looking again at the system of free enterprise are stories we have heard before. In the history of communist nations it has happened before, even right inside Soviet Russia, that new economic plans were put into operation. It was done in Russia after the death of Lenin. The system, however, did not work. It was merely a step backwards in the direction of the collectivization, of mass deportation of populations. It led to the absolute misery which was visited upon Soviet Russia. The turn towards the system of free enterprise is therefore just something that has to be done in order to keep the wheels of the State turning. We should therefore never underestimate the commitment to a Marxist system of those countries who are merely part of the plan to bring South Africa under the heel of Marxism.

We in ourselves are not important to Soviet Russia. We are important to Soviet Russia because their goal is Europe; Europe even more than America. Without Europe America has no chance in the world, no possible way of holding out. The goal is Europe, and everything for which we stand in South Africa is merely one step towards fulfilling Russia’s goal of taking over Europe.

One of the problems we face is of course that the Reds export revolution. If we were really planning a counterstrategy we would export counterrevolution. The Western world, if they were serious about combating Soviet Russia, would export counterrevolution. One of our problems, one of the problems of the entire Western World, is that the media that should be the agents of their Governments in carrying out that sort of strategy, are in the hands of people who are left-orientated. How one counters that situation, I do not know. I do not think that we in South Africa have an answer to that question. The only answer we have is success.

We have the same sort of thing here.

I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown. We have the same sort of thing right here in South Africa. I believe that. What we have to put in the way of the constant march of the Red Soviet advance is a success in our own country.

That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Chairman, for once I am in agreement with the hon. member for Benoni.

It will only be once.

Yes, it may only be once, but the situation nevertheless calls for my recognition of that fact. Those of us who went on the tour—and I must thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of those of us who went—sat in the State Department in the United States and heard Hodding Carter talk to us about Rhodesia. After we had sat there for virtually the whole afternoon, I asked him a question. I said: Is the United States going to lift a finger to prevent Rhodesia from falling under the yoke of the Marxists? The answer was “No”. He said flatly there was nothing they could do. He said they could not and would not get involved because public opinion was not such that they would move a finger to prevent what has now, in fact, happened in Rhodesia. This is so because the whole climate of opinion there is built up by people who have a particular point of view that is wholly committed against us. We must have made a mistake somewhere. I am not, however, debating that point here tonight, but somewhere along the line the message that this people has, has gone wrong. I state in absolute terms that what we have to sell to the world is probably the most important message that any nation of the world has got. We can lead the world back to sanity, to a conservative approach, to decency, morals, discipline and all those things that we have going for us in South Africa. We may differ about how they should be achieved. The hon. the Minister of Tourism and I may differ about what we should do in our own country, but we have a basic attitude of mind as our background, and we have to oppose the Red attitude of mind which involves domination of thought and the extinction of man as an individual.

The hon. the Minister painted a very chilling picture of what the world might become when he said that the Soviet Union has the means, through electronic surveillance and so on, to so dominate the thinking of the world that it would be impossible, in monastries, in the hills, in caves under the ground, etc., to mount a counter-offensive against the establishment in the Red Communist headquarters. It is a frightening thought that we should be getting to that stage. There are, however, communists dedicated to that, and until we have an answer from people who are equally dedicated, we shall not be able to withstand them. There is one thing I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This country has a message that we have to find a way of selling. We have to get through to people. Opinions may change. The hon. the Minister said it did not really matter if conservative Governments came into power here and there. He said it did not really matter because their interests are not our interests. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River made a sensible speech, a speech with which I agree for the most part. I agree with what he said about the communist strategy in Africa, and in the course of my speech I shall turn to certain aspects he raised.

I think there could be little doubt that the Southern African scene will in the near future be largely dominated by two main themes. On the one hand there is South Africa’s effort to form a constellation of States in conjunction with its neighbouring States, and on the other there is the effort of Soviet imperialism to extend its sphere of influence and establish it further in Southern Africa.

Experts throughout the world agree that South Africa and its neighbouring States together have the potential to be one of the most prosperous areas. The possibility of eliminating all stumbling blocks, so that this potential may be utilized to the full— something which could change Southern Africa into a bastion of peace and prosperity—is probably the greatest challenge confronting the leaders of all these States today.

South Africa is being threatened today by the reality of a Russian Marxist penetration right up to its borders. On the other hand, political leaders throughout most of the Western democratic world are obsessed with ideals which are impractical but attract votes. Leftist idealists who sincerely believe in “one man, one vote” in Africa apparently do not realize that freedom fighters do not establish democratic governments, but usually Marxist one-party dictatorships, resulting in revolution instead of evolution. It is thus an indisputable fact that South Africa can expect no help from the West with its semi-leftist Labour Governments.

Against this background it was of course necessary for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to declare that South Africa would follow a policy of neutrality in future and that the hon. the Prime Minister would say that South Africa’s attitude in international politics would be determined by its own interests and the interests of Southern Africa. Therefore, in its policy of orientation towards Africa, South Africa will emphasize giving priority to this region with which, for the most part, it associates positively. After all, South Africa is a State in and of Africa and it is quite clear that its salvation lies in identifying itself as a country in and of Africa.

Furthermore, it is surely true that however lavishly aid may be handed out, no other country can give Africa what South Africa can offer it, viz. African know-how in its best form. That is why we can and must try to involve the States in our immediate field of experience as partners in Southern Africa. In the interests of all we must assist in developing them along the path of peace and democracy.

The establishment of a constellation of States in Southern Africa can therefore mean the coming into being of a large, prosperous market built by South Africa expertise, capital and entrepreneurship, a market which could result in peace, prosperity, stability and development.

In addition, it will also be the most effective counter to the Russian Marxist onslaught on Southern Africa with its slogan of capitalist exploitation, that seeks to overthrow the existing order which will in turn result in chaos and famine.

But a constellation of Southern African States will also improve South Africa’s relations with the large democracies of the Western World, democracies which we should like to regard as friends. After all, it is still true to say that the road to the great cities of the West runs through Africa.

The situation today is that as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, many positive developments have already taken place in the process of establishing such a constellation of States. South Africa has already negotiated various relations of a multilateral nature with its neighbouring States. For all practical purposes one could say that an economic association of States has already really been established.

However, it would be a total denial of reality to deny the obstacles which still have to be surmounted before such a constellation can be fully formed.

We shall have to accept that this ideal can only be realized provided the States in question agree to it themselves. It is simply not on the cards that we could dictate participation in a constellation.

We shall have to accept the fact that the attitude of our neighbouring States, as interpreted by the OAU, is against such a step.

The West’s indecisiveness and lack of drive creates confusion; Moscow’s powerful aggression inspires fear.

Furthermore, we shall also have to accept that our internal political situation is at present creating a problem for our neighbouring States in respect of participation in such a constellation. The Lusaka declaration of 1969 and the Dar es Salaam Declaration of 1975 recognized South Africa’s sovereignty as an African State, but our internal set-up was categorically rejected. From these declarations it would seem that the minimum changes which would be accepted by potential allies in Africa, are the elimination of discrimination as well as a satisfactory accommodation of the urban Blacks, Coloureds and Asians. I do not believe that these obstacles are insurmountable. The legislation which is to be introduced during the course of this week is an indication of the Government’s serious desire to create structures for discussion which could also eliminate the obstacles to the establishment of a constellation of States.

However, since self-interest is essentially the foundation stone of international relations, we can accept that the reality of economic needs and wealth will continue to be the motivation for continued grouping in Southern Africa. However, it is in South Africa’s best interest to facilitate matters for its potential partners and not to make it more difficult to extend the hand of cooperation to them.

The policy of a constellation of States was spelled out in broad outline by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I believe that this policy will have to be marketed successfully and that a programme of action seems to be a necessity. That is why the appointment of an expert inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary to Foreign Affairs is an important step, because the successful marketing of this ideal is indispensable in stabilizing Africa’s future. Success in respect of this ideal could usher in a golden era for all the peoples of Southern Africa.

That is why now, more than ever before, emphasis must be placed on the factors that could bring together the people of Southern Africa. As against that the leaders of Southern Africa will also have to realize that the only alternative to such a constellation of States is poverty, hunger and disease.

Call it by its name. It is confederation.

A constellation of Southern African States sets us the task of fighting for our survival, with the civilized weapons of open-handed prosperity, partnership in development, no discrimination and equal opportunities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very attentively to the hon. member for Geduld who, in his customary calm, collected and philosophical way referred to the possibilities of a constellation of States in Southern Africa.

However, I have two faults to find with the hon. member for Mooi River. The first is that the hon. member for Mooi River did not ensure that the hon. member for Pinelands was in this House while he was making his speech, for in that case the hon. member for Pinelands could have learned something from that speech. The second lies in the fact that I cannot agree with the statement of the hon. member for Mooi River that Russia is not interested in South Africa. However I fundamentally agree with what the hon. member meant, i.e. that Russia’s top priority may be to obtain a foothold in Europe first, but I think the hon. member cannot escape the fact that South Africa is strategically very important. It does not matter whether it is the sea route around the Cape, or our strategic minerals, such as coal. We are the powerhouse in Southern Africa and therefore one cannot over-simplify the situation. These are the only faults I have to find with the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River.

However, I have another problem with the debate as such. In my opinion there is a morbidity in this debate. Something which is very important is that whereas we must consider the seriousness of the situation, we must also look at the positive side. I believe the hon. the Minister is still going to address us on this point during the debate. That is why I do not want to dwell on the Russian bear, nor dwell on the African context which has by now been discussed reasonably thoroughly.

I want to spend some time examining something else, viz. South Africa’s diplomatic relations as well as its trade relations with the Far East and the Near East. On examination, one finds that one can basically divide these relations into three categories, viz. de facto trade relations, formal trade relations and full-fledged diplomatic relations.

I want to start with the middle one, and begin at the Far East, viz. Japan. It is true that South Africa has formal trade relations with Japan, and I think we have a very stable and balanced relationship with Japan. To tell the truth, Japan is our fourth largest trade partner today. I have just examined the latest figures and I think hon. members will be interested in them. In 1979 South Africa sold goods to Japan to the value of R949 769 000, almost R1 billion. In the same year South Africa bought goods to the value of R800 million from Japan. Let us now examine tourism between South Africa and Japan. 5 154 people from Japan visited South Africa, and 443 people from South Africa visited Japan. We thus have a surplus on our trade balance as well as on our tourist traffic with Japan, but we do not have full-fledged diplomatic relations in the sense that we have an exchange of ambassadors.

Are they still honorary Whites?

I shall come to the hon. member. He made his appearance a little late.

You will not come to me.

Next I come to Hong Kong. Those of us who have already visited the East, know that Hong Kong is well known because it is a so-called free harbour, however free it may be. This is not quite true, but let us say for the sake of argument that it is a free harbour. There is one thing, however, we cannot escape and that is that Hong Kong is the West’s gateway to the East and also the East’s gateway to the West. Those of us who have had the opportunity of being there a few times and talking to the people know that this is true. That is why I think it is of cardinal importance that we should use those relations we have with Hong Kong, viz. our consulate there.

I have had the opportunity of visiting the Eastern countries on three occasions and I want to tell the hon. the Minister as well as the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs this evening that one cannot but be impressed by the quality of the South African representatives we have in the East. Having listened to Chinese, Cantonese or Japanese for two or three weeks, one becomes quite out of one’s depth. If one then enters a mission’s office and meets the South African representative, one notices that he speaks fluent Cantonese or Japanese to the businessmen and politicians. Hearing that, one feels proud of these people, who in fact sometimes live totally isolated lives. One feels that one really appreciates these South African representatives.

I do not want to go into detail about all the other small countries as in Africa. In Africa, too, just as in the East, there are countries who are prepared to trade with South Africa, but who will never have anything good to say about one politically. I can mention three. It cannot do any harm. There is South Korea, for example. There are South Africans who are buried in South Korea. Then there are Sri Lanka and Singapore. South Africa and its Government have never interfered with the internal affairs of these countries. Surely we, too, are fully entitled to ask that if these countries buy strategic minerals and other commercial articles from us they should also grant us the right to work out our internal salvation ourselves.

I should just like to dwell briefly on the only country with which we have full-fledged diplomatic relations, viz. Taiwan, or the Republic of Nationalist China. Hon. members will recall that this House decided four years ago that we would raise the status of our mission in Taiwan from that of a consulate to that of an embassy. In the four years since then, the relations between South Africa and Taiwan have to an increasing extent strengthened and become closer. I do not want to refer again to trade figures at this point, but we have a very favourable trade balance with Taiwan. I just wish to furnish one figure. In 1979 South Africa sold goods amounting to R1 250 million to Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong, as against approximately R900 million for goods we imported from them. The relationship between South Africa and Taiwan has been strengthened as a result of reciprocal visits of Cabinet Ministers and senior officials, and earlier this year, this culminated in the visit of Taiwan’s Prime Minister. This will probably result in our own hon. Prime Minister visiting the Republic of Nationalist China as well.

That is why one feels that where one does not have very many friends oneself, one appreciates a country which, while in a very difficult, dangerous and hostile situation, nevertheless has the courage to declare that it is a friend of South Africa’s. There are not many such countries. Consequently I believe that it is essential that we do everything in our power to strengthen these bonds of friendship and trade relations. I have respect for a person who is prepared to stand by me, even at risk to himself.

There is, however, something I should like the hon. the Minister to consider. At present we have no trade consulate in Taipeh. Our commercial counsellor flies from Hong Kong to Taipeh to deal with trade relations there too. I believe that in view of the expansion of the trade relations between South Africa and Taiwan, it is perhaps time for the hon. the Minister, together with his colleague, to consider the establishment of a full-time commercial counsellor there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Pretoria East, I should like to be a little more positive than some of the previous speakers tonight, and I should like not to devote my full time to the threat of communism. The hon. members for Potgietersrus and Parys both suggested that we should review our links and contacts with the West and should rather concentrate on Africa. I should just like to quote from the speech of the hon. member for Potgietersrus to make sure that we are on the same wavelength. He said—

He then proceeded to talk about the cost involved. I must agree that while we should improve our relations with Africa, we must, however, bear in mind that our relationship with the West is important for a number of reasons. The first reason relates to foreign trade. We must remember that we now rate amongst the 10 or 12 top trading nations in the world and that most of our world trade is done with the developed West and Japan.

The second reason is that in order to implement its new political policies South Africa, whether it implements them or not, is going to require massive economic development and therefore needs the markets and also those States that can invest on a very large scale in South Africa. At this stage these investors are not—and will probably not be for a long time—people from Africa, but from Europe, the United States of America and Japan. I think that although the hon. the Minister did not in fact reply to the hon. member’s suggestion specifically, in referring to the technological developments in Africa and the lack of production capacity at this stage, he did more or less indicate to the hon. member that we should perhaps continue concentrating on areas we have been concentrating on for so many years.

I cannot allow the point made by the hon. member for Mooi River to pass without comment. He made the point that communism was a threat to South Africa and that there was virtually very little that South Africa could do about it, particularly—and this is the point I find difficult to understand—as we do not control the media, which I think he has said tends to be leftist and liberal. I must make the point that unless we in South Africa are going to attempt to remove the very breeding ground of communism, we stand no chance, but if we do that, we do stand a very good chance of moving into a new era in which communism will find it extremely difficult to take root in this country of ours. I think I have now said enough about that.

Was that the case in Afghanistan as well?

I cannot talk about Afghanistan, but I can talk about South Africa, because this is the area which we know well, in which we live and in which we can do something about the situation. Internal policies and events have a most profound effect on the relationship between countries. South Africa, having been in the limelight for so many years, is perhaps the example of a State where changes in policy and political direction have an immediate response in those countries with whom we have dealings and who wish us well. This is why there has, in the recent past, been positive interest in States such as West Germany, France and the United Kingdom and in the United States in the new initiatives announced by the hon. the Prime Minister. Hardly had the present South African Government, under a new leader, announced its intention of moving away from the old policy, as it was understood internationally, when doors which had been closed to us, were opened. I too had the good fortune of being part of a Foreign Affairs group which visited a number of countries. It is strange to find how so many people on the same tour seem to have viewed the results of our discussions so very differently, and let me therefore tell hon. members what my impression was.

While many of those whom we met, and with whom we had talks, were highly critical of the Government’s policy, a great number were most impressed by the changes which they understood would be implemented by South Africa. I found that in spite of our isolation—and perhaps one should say increasing isolation—in many spheres, one detected a strong desire to see South Africa back in the international community. Obviously two-way trade and financial matters must do much to bring about such an attitude. I am sure that the dedication and perseverance over many years by our professional diplomats must have contributed greatly in this regard. I should like to make use of this opportunity of thanking these gentlemen for the way in which, over many, many years, they have continued, and still continue, with what must have been, and still is, a thankless task. In the long run the success of our foreign policy is going to be a reflection of our domestic situation. This brings me to my next point.

*It is often said that South Africa is part of Africa and therefore Western social and political norms and orders simply cannot be transplanted into the RSA. There is no doubt that we shall have to create and apply new political structures here and that our fellow citizens will have to be afforded the opportunity to co-operate with us and in that way to assume joint responsibility for the new dispensation. If we take note of what political ommentators are writing, and listen to what the public says, one gains the impression that most South Africans are ready for dramatic adjustments.

Although this debate is not concerned with the nature of constitutional development, I still wish to bring it to the attention of hon. members that the way—and this is important—in which we divulge the internal constitutional programme abroad is of the utmost importance. It is in this respect that some hon. members on that side of the House fail in their duty towards South Africa, and have been doing so for a long time. [Interjections.] Those hon. members, instead of welcoming the initiatives and reacting positively to them, drag their feet, and in so doing they give our enemies abroad communication which they will be able to use against South Africa. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

You do much better in the agricultural debates.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg will excuse me if I do not react to his speech, because I should like to come back to the situation in Africa, as well as to the idea which has already been used several times by previous speakers in this debate, viz. the constellation idea, upon which I should like to enlarge a little.

Since the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the ideal of a constellation of Southern African States for the first time, it has been welcomed everywhere in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information referred to the Carlton conference and the fact that the constellation idea was welcomed by various Black States. In general, one can say that this idea has met with widespread approval. However, it is also true that various bodies have attached their own interpretation to the idea of a constellation of Southern African States. On the part of the Opposition in particular, both the official Opposition and the NRP, there have been repeated attempts to adapt the idea of a constellation of States to a presumptuous political institutionalized structural pattern. In the course of this debate today we were also given various indications by the Opposition that they see a political alliance in the concept of a constellation of States.

I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister for stating clearly in his first reply that this matter will develop of its own accord. In the nature of things, when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about a constellation of States in this House—it was during the no-confidence debate, in February this year—he said very emphatically (Hansard, 1980, col. 248)—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister gave a number of examples. However, he went on to say—

Therefore, if the Opposition and other bodies in South Africa are of the opinion that a constellation of States is equivalent to what the NRP calls a confederation, or what the PFP calls a convention, an attempt is being made to confuse a constellation of States with a political concept, which may perhaps develop in time, but as the hon. the Minister very clearly alleged, will develop naturally through economic co-operation, agricultural co-operation, technical cooperation, etc. Now I think that there are two things which play a major role in this process of the development of a constellation of interests—if not of States—in Southern Africa. I feel that the hon. member for Winburg dealt with the first one very well. This is the expanding trade that we have with other States in Southern Africa. The second one which we should perhaps investigate in greater detail, is the question of development aid which we can give our own emancipated Black States. Now I am talking specifically about the Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana. This is also aid which we may be able to give those countries to a greater extent.

These three States, in contrast to our self-governing territories in South Africa, have a very close historical and geographic ties with South Africa. These are States that have received their independence from us, all three of which are not recognized by the world as independent States, and which are therefore totally dependent on us for their development aid. In addition, we must also realize that these three States are only at the beginning of their economic and social development programme at the moment, and that we as the mother country—if I may put it like this—have a special duty with regard to the development of these States. Against that background, one should perhaps mention a few figures now, just to illustrate the extent to which these States are still dependent on us. Between 1972 and 1975 they were in a position to provide employment to only 23,7% of the people who entered the labour market there. The rest had to commute across the border, or migratory labourers. In the meantime the population growth rate remains high, which has most probably been confirmed by the recent census. Therefore, the need for employment opportunities is always increasing, and of course, the unemployment figure increases accordingly. In 1976, these three countries comprised 15% of the population of South Africa, and it may be important for the official Opposition to take note of that 15% because we often hear about 13% that has to accommodate 80% of the country’s population. Although these three countries comprised 15% of the population of South Africa in 1976, their gross domestic product was a mere 1,8% of the total. Their total joint area was 7,5% of the area of South Africa as against, as I have already said, the contribution of 1,86% to the gross domestic product. In addition these three countries’ agricultural production is still far below their true potential. All three countries are still net importers of food products. Industrial establishment in these three countries, with the exception of Bophuthatswana, is still fairly poor. Bophuthatswana in particular, with its accommodation problems, still has to provide accommodation for at least 250 000 people.

The important point, to which I referred earlier, is that a fairly small component of the total income of these three States consists of development aid from South Africa. Of the R250 million of Bophuthatswana’s income this year, only R16 million consists of development aid from South Africa. This means a percentage of 6,4%. Of this R250 million which Bophuthatswana receives in revenue, its share of the Customs Union pool amounts to R114,9 million. The Government’s statutory amount which is contributed, is R22 million whilst its revenue from the rand monetary area amounts to R2 million. However, our direct development aid is a mere R16,4 million. Since such a small component of this State’s revenue comes from development aid from South Africa, it is to be understood that these States which were born out of our midst may really be more poorly off than our own self-governing States, as the Quail Commission discovered with regard to the Ciskei. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything my bench fellow, the hon. member for Umlazi, said. Nobody could have said it more effectively.

I should like to address the Americans by saying “Hello, Dolly”, and they would understand what I mean.

†Mr. George Ball, a former American Under-Secretary of State, said in an article in the Houston Chronicle of 27/3/80, on his return from Europe, that America is viewed from Europe and the Middle East, and I quote—

He then goes on to say that a thoughtful French friend had asked him—

Sir, who am I to differ with this view of America, except that I would add that when I look at United States foreign policy post-1945 I cannot help but ask myself whether it would not have been better for the rest of the world if Columbus had rather left America undiscovered. I say this not with malice, but rather in sorrow. One cannot help but feel sorry for the millions of decent citizens of the United States who find themselves in the predicament in which they are today. Internally, inflation in America is escalating, the dollar has fallen disastrously, and the United States is wasting several times more energy than other industrialized nations. Externally, the two-headed foreign policy of the United States has left not one nation on the face of the earth that still has faith in the United States as a meaningful ally.

I submit that there are two reasons for this sad state of affairs. The one is that the State Department and the Carter White House shape their policy as though the earth revolves around Washington. The second reason is the outdated system of the Constitution of the United States, their constitutional system of checks and balances, which is more suited to the age of Newtonian physics than it is to the era of nuclear fission. It is a system, furthermore, which lends itself to such abuse that it could make national heroes out of two Press men for exposing internal party-political gamesmanship in the Watergate Affair and blowing it up to such an extent that it brought the whole American nation to a standstill. The fact that this affair paralyzed the United States as leader of the West and gave a fillip to Russian aggression in the Middle East and Africa was totally disregarded. Western interests, as well as the balance of power between the West and the Communist bloc, were all forgotten as long as some Americans could boast that the system still worked. Instead of condemning a system under which conditions were entrenched that created a Watergate, the system was hailed as containing a miracle cure. The sickness was treated; the cause was ignored.

I do not have the time at my disposal to list all the blunders committed by American foreign policy over the last 30 years, except to say that if the past is a prologue to the future, we all have much to fear from America over the next 20 years. Thirty years ago the United States was drunk with power and know-how. She dictated to the world, formed alliances, made treaties, manipulated countries and tried to buy the favour of others with dollars, arms and food. America alone knew how the destiny of each nation should be shaped, shaped of course to suit American self-interest. By now America must have discovered and know that the world is not homogeneous; that there is ignorance, laziness, economic stagnation, overpopulation and famine; that there are peoples fearing, hating and resenting other peoples because of differences in race, colour, habits, religion, ideology and political and economic systems, peoples, in fact, of different cultures; that not all peoples want to be Americans or live like Americans; that America is not God, nor can she play God to the world; that she will go bust and perish herself long before she can dish out enough fishes and bread to all the world. Today America finds that her own society is not so just, humane and perfect as she would have liked to believe. America has enough unemployment, poverty, slums, ghettos, racialism of the worse kind—as we have seen again today in the newspapers—drop-outs and perverts to fill South Africa for the next 100 years.

[Inaudible.]

There is a candidate for one of them. America has Cuba sticking a finger into her eye. Russia has usurped her military leadership of the world.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to refer to an hon. member of the Opposition as a potential pervert?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that remark. The hon. member has a guilty conscience.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally. America has abandoned her allies left and right. She has manoeuvred herself into a corner and allowed the Arabs to take over her own manipulating role in the UN to such an extent that her own interests may become subservient to those of the Arabs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I spoke this afternoon I was referring to the various actions being taken by bodies in the UN against us here in the Republic. I referred to the fact that the so-called liberation groups, the ANC, the PAC, the Patriotic Front and Swapo, have received enormous assistance from the UN in recent years. The aim, objectives and main goal of these activities in the UN in unquestionably the destruction of the present regime in South Africa and the establishment of a Black Government here which is acceptable to the OAU and the UN.

I do not have the time to deal with the various organs of the UN that are so active against us, but there are two bodies that I would like to refer to. The first is a body under the auspices of the General Assembly of the UN, namely the Special Committee on Apartheid. It was set up in 1962 and has a budget of R3,26 million. It has special sub-committees and propaganda sections. It is the body that overall co-ordinates the UN General Assembly activities against us and it is by far the most important organ in the whole anti-South African campaign. It liaises closely with the ANC and the PAC, all anti-apartheid organizations and all communist front organizations such as the World Peace Council and the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization. It also organizes conferences against us in different parts of the world and it takes the initiative in launching and co-ordinating such major anti-South African campaigns as the International Year Against Apartheid and the International Mobilization Against Apartheid. It has sub-committees which act as effective watch-dogs over military, sport, cultural and economic activities between other countries and ourselves.

The second body to which I wish to refer is the Anti-apartheid Centre which is subsidized by, and falls under, the Secretariat. It makes detailed studies of the Hansards of this House, it has translators and computers, it studies documents emanating from Parliament and, more particularly, with a staff of 52 and a budget of $6,5 million, it is in a position to circulate, among members of the international community, its reports and summaries of the situation in South Africa, and also relations between, for example, Taiwan, Israel and ourselves. There is a tendency, I think, within the Republic, for people to disregard the activities of the United Nations. I take them very much more seriously than that. It has already achieved the imposition of a mandatory arms embargo without any real effort on its part, and it is now pressing for further sanctions against South Africa. It exercises increasing pressure on the West to reduce and terminate all its ties with South Africa. It also stands at the centre of a well co-ordinated propaganda and activist campaign against the Republic. Having said that, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived for the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole to give serious consideration to our continued membership of that organization. I should like the hon. the Minister to try to make out a case in this House as to why we should continue membership of that body. Perhaps before we withdraw from the United Nations, he might give some consideration to a report that appears in The Argus tonight about the race riot in Miami, where 19 Blacks have been killed. I would commend to the hon. the Minister that he immediately urges the convening of a special meeting of the Security Council to discuss the international Black-White affairs of the United States on the strength of this report. After all, I think it is a shocking thing that Black people should be mown down by police in a city such as Miami, and I think that this is certainly cause for him to take the initiative in calling the Security Council together.

This afternoon reference was made from time to time to our visit overseas, and I want to deal with a particular aspect of that visit. I refer to the visit we made to the State Department one afternoon. That is an afternoon I shall not easily forget. We were addressed by Mr. Keely who was recently out here and who is no friend of ours at all. He is an Assistant Secretary. We were also addressed by a gentleman named Helman on South West Africa and by another one, whose name I think was Lake, on Rhodesia. The gentleman who spoke to us about South West Africa has, for a start never seen the territory, but he was introduced as an authority. The gentleman who spoke to us about Rhodesia said, after I asked him about it at tea, that he had been there once. However, Keely was the chief spokesman and he referred to powerful disinvestment voices against the Republic in America. He further referred to the fact that a code of conduct (the Sullivan code) has been generally accepted among American businessmen here in South African factories. He also referred to credit guarantee restrictions which have now been accepted. Then referred to the selective arms embargo of 1960 and the mandatory arms embargo of 1979. He expressed his great concern at South Africa’s not signing the non-proliferation treaty. Then he made a special statement to us about the fact that we should allow all visitors from America, both anti and pro South African, to come into the Republic and to use our radio and TV services to put across their viewpoints. It fell to my lot to thank the State Department for giving us that interview that afternoon and I, as is the normal courtesy, would have liked to have said something pleasant about the State Department, but all that I could find to thank them for was the cup of tea that they gave us!

I have with me my notes, and I said to them, having thanked them for the tea, that it was absolutely evident to me that the US policy was detrimental to the interests of South Africa. I did not blame them for that, because it was obviously not in the selfinterest of the USA to support us. I said that South Africa also had self-interests and that Americans must understand that our selfinterest dictates that we should take steps to right the racial situation in this country as we think fit. I also said that we had self-respect in South Africa. It also seemed to me that South Africa was expendable to the United States and almost an embarrassment. Some people thought that it should be dispensed with, while others thought that South Africa should be a friend and ally and should be encouraged. Having said that, I referred to the other problems facing US—South African relations and then concluded my remarks.

Immediately after I had sat down, the hon. member for Wynberg, who is a new hon. member of this House and who was only invited to go on this tour when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was unable to go, sprang up and, after I had put a case as I thought a South African in those circumstances should do, said that—

[Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg tonight that perhaps he does not know any better. Perhaps he does not know that when South Africans go overseas as a team, all true South Africans try to stand up for their country and all true South Africans try to find common ground in the face of enemies. [Interjections.] Perhaps the company the hon. gentleman keeps in the party to which he belongs, leads him to believe that it is right to welcome outside interference in our affairs, or perhaps he was just being himself. After all, a man of his age who has belonged to four political parties and who has had four separate sets of principles in the last few years can hardly be said to have a highly developed sense of loyalty. What is more, the hon. member for Wynberg was expelled from the United Party to which he at one time belonged for gross disloyalty to its leaders and to the party. [Interjections.] If he had any criticism against me for what I said in the presence of foreigners, this was the place where he should have raised it. If he disagreed with what I had said, he should have come back and criticized me here. If he wished to criticze me privately, that would have been fine.

Tell the full story.

This is where the criticism should be levelled. I want to say to this hon. member, who is a young and arrogant hon. member of this House and also an insignificant backbencher, that if he cannot be loyal to any party, then the least he can do is to show loyalty to his country outside South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it would appear from what the hon. member for Simonstown has indicated that the US has found its Soweto in Miami. For such racial violence to break out in Miami, it would appear that there is widespread, seething unrest simmering under the surface of the social structure in the USA. However, it is not my intention tonight to elaborate on the USA or its policy towards South Africa. I have done so on numerous occasions in public, and my attitude towards their attitude towards South Africa is well known.

I wish to deal with the situation in which we as White South Africans find ourselves in the southern sub-continent of Africa. The hon. member for Wynberg criticized the hon. the Minister for his attitude that South Africa, in relation to the West, should adopt an attitude of neutrality and that South Africa should turn its attention to its relations with its immediate neighbouring territories. If we look at the situation calmly and collectedly, all we can say is that South Africa would not wish to turn its back on the West. However, for how long must we continue to endure the double standards and the double, possibly dubious, morality the West has so far exhibited in its attitude towards Southern Africa and for how much longer must we turn our cheek that the West continues to smite? I think the time has come that we must tell the West that it should stop taking South Africa and the stability we have brought to this subcontinent for granted, because for too long has the West taken us and all the facilities, the strategic minerals and the services South Africa can contribute towards stability in international politics absolutely for granted.

Let us look for a moment at what steps are being taken by the West to safeguard international stability and security. At a recent conference the West decided to ask West decided to ask West Germany to spend up to DM 1 000 million to assist Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to maintain stability in and to keep Turkey from falling into absolute chaos for the simple reason that if Turkey were to fall into chaos, Europe would be the sufferer, and if Europe were to be the sufferer, the USA would be the ultimate loser. Especially after the chaos that has developed in Iran in recent months, it has been described as vital to the stability of international security that Turkey should be propped up to the extent of DM 1 000 million by one country in the West alone. I am not referring to contributions made by other countries.

What I should like to suggest is that we should determine to what extent a stable and a secure Southern Africa south of the equator is of value to world security. In view of the happenings in Southern Africa in recent months and in recent years, I am convinced of one thing and that is that stability and peace in Southern Africa are of just as much value to a sustained international security than stability and peace in either Iran or Turkey, and that the West should have as much interest in ensuring stability in Southern Africa as in ensuring stability elsewhere. If we look at the events in Zimbabwe, Angola and Mozambique, our immediate neighbours, in Zambia and in States further to the north, we see that those countries have to a large extent opted for a system opposed to the normally accepted Western democratic system, primarily because in Africa there exists no tradition of democratic stability. Africa has a tradition of power, of one-party power structures. The fact that in Zimbabwe there is at the moment someone in power who has adopted a Marxist system, is in my view possibly due to the fact that the idea of the one-party State, the authoritarian structure, is inherent and endemic to all African societies.

We experience it within the society of Southern Africa, even within South Africa. The tendency amongst all the former States of South Africa, e.g. the Transkei and Bophuthatswana, and even in the elections in the other self-governing States is towards a monolithic structure. At present we have a system in Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe which is basically Marxist, not because they are communists, but because they seek their salvation in a system which is akin to what they have become accustomed to. However, if the West and the industrial nations of the world were prepared to invest in the human infrastructure of those African countries so as to improve the quality of life there, I am convinced they could make a contribution towards a greater acceptance of Western standards and way of life which could lead to a greater inclination towards the West. The problem is that all countries of Africa are likely to be influenced by countries that are prepared to prove that they will stand by their undertakings. Some years ago Zambia was quite prepared to give the West a chance, to align itself with the West, until the USA proved in Angola that their word could not be trusted. Zambia then had no choice but to accept the support of, and give its support to, the communist alignment in the international power struggle. Africa is impressed by people who carry out what they intend to do. Russia has demonstrated throughout that when they set their sights on something they carry it out. They have done so in Afghanistan, and the boycott of the Olympic Games will not get Russia out of Afghanistan. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I follow up the speech of the hon. member for Klip River, I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department for the opportunity that we were afforded of seeing how our people work abroad. I particularly want to express my gratitude towards the two officials that accompanied us. The calibre of people working for the department, can be compared to the best in the world. Each one of us who went abroad, is very grateful for it.

It is true what the hon. member for Klip River said. South Africa cannot seek its salvation by trying to convince the West of our mineral riches. We are aware of the fact that these people have at their disposal all the facts about what is available in South Africa. We shall rather have to convince the West that we are following a political path which will bring about salvation and stability in a healthy economy for all the people of the RSA and that that it will ultimately be in the interests of the entire Western World.

To come back to what we experienced abroad, I should like to refer to a report in The Star of 4 February 1980. This was a fairly long time after the tour had taken place. The report began by saying that the hon. the Minister sent a few members of Parliament abroad because they were supposedly the “verkramptes” who were to take a look at what the world really looks like. Now the report was correct in one respect. When one travels abroad with hon. members of the PFP, it looks as if there are only “verkramptes” in South Africa. I was amazed that hon. members of the PFP are able to see matters in such perspective when they travel abroad. One would never think they are the same people that we see addressing this House. [Interjections.] Of course, this was in our official conversations. Naturally, I do not know what happened outside.

The report goes on to say that we as verkramptes were a little lax in stating our new policy. The report goes on—

It is strange that the lady concerned who addressed us there, had apparently not yet been to South Africa at that stage. However, she told us that there was a policeman on every street corner in South Africa. She probably does not realize how many street corners there are in South Africa, or otherwise she does not know how many policemen we have. However, Bonn is the first city that I have seen in my life in which the police travel in pantzer cars in peace-time. Bonn is the first city in which I saw Government buildings fenced with barbed wire, in peacetime. However, these are the people who tell us how many policemen we have on our street corners. These are the people who try to prescribe to us how we should rule our country. The report goes on—

Now the hon. the Minister must realize what a poor investment the money the Department spent on us proved to be—

I think it was the hon. member for Yeoville. In fact, he was born somewhere in that region, and he also speaks German. Therefore I was unable to understand what he said. I am sorry about that—

One thing struck me. I should like to tell the whole of South Africa what it was. Nowhere abroad did I come across a community that was more integrated and that lived together so peacefully as the community in South Africa. Nor have I ever come across such flagrant racism anywhere as I saw in the countries overseas. The Americans are so keen to tell us “all Americans are Americans” whether they are Black or White. When the American embassy was occupied in Teheran, the Black Americans in Iran were told that they could go home. Those people did not say that they were Americans and therefore they would stay with their friends. They immediately returned to America, and in addition, a big reception awaited them there. It was in America that I established that they have a Black caucus in the Congress. I wanted to know why this was so. Their answer was that they also have an Irish caucus and other caucuses, and that these were simply people who represent their groups. My reply was that surely those people do not represent a group, that they do not represent South African Blacks or Nigerian Blacks, but American Blacks. I cannot understand it.

However, another thing that struck me, particularly when we arrived in New York, was what a tremendously vast country America is and what immensely large cities there are in that country. It was there that I told someone that it was the first time I realized how small Fochville actually is. [Interjections.]

Over here we so easily talk about America this and America that. However, I think there are few people in this country who realize what a vast country America is, and how few people we have to represent us in that country and put our standpoint there. We were told that one Senator is elected by more voters than a total Government in Europe and that one university in America has a larger budget than the Republic of South Africa. I think we have only four or five embassies in America. In South Africa, where we can fly from Johannesburg to Cape Town in two hours, however, there are offices of the American Embassy in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town and Durban. This is the type of representation they have here for the number of people that they can reach here, whilst we have to reach such a vast number of people in America with our small number of representatives. I think we must really have the greatest respect for the way in which our people work there, and I am also referring to our embassy at the UN. They are working under tremendous pressure there. Strangely enough, South Africa is not condemned by the vast majority of people in America. The culprits are the few groups of people who shout loudest, particularly at the universities. There are the people who want to persuade American companies to disinvest. However, they are not in the majority. They are the minority groups. How are we to reach these people if we have so few offices in such a vast country?

We were also accompanied to shops in groups by non-diplomatic officials and in the afternoon we were taken to watch the Tate fight. These young ladies … [Interjections.] … are doing very good work. Yes, they are attractive too, and we had already been away from home for two weeks. [Interjections.]

Big Brother is watching you.

I think they are doing very good work. The cost of living is very high in that country. I do not think it would have been right to ask, but I do not know whether these people receive any extra grant or remuneration for what they do in this respect, and I think it must have cost them a great deal to entertain us at the boxing match that afternoon. They are really doing good work. They are doing good public relations work. I think better use can be made of their services, since we do not have enough people there. They can build up much more personal contact, because personal contact is what counts. We have seen that the financial institutions are not opposed to South Africa and that they are willing to invest here. However, the Governments are influenced to oppose such investment. I think that our embassies, particularly those in Bonn and Washington, have done a great deal of work that we are not normally aware of, possibly in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, to convince people to continue investing in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Losberg has, I think, presented a balanced speech to this House. There are aspects of his speech that I fully support, in particular the plea he makes for greater representation, in the USA, by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps the proof of the pudding lies in the fact that if particular States pass laws that are anti-South African in their nature, it is almost impossible for our people to keep track of them because of the small staff that is available and the vast areas that have to be covered. I have one problem, however, with the hon. member for Losberg. There must be something wrong with one of us, because when I spoke to a German Minister in English, he thought I was speaking German. So he must have some problem or other.

Whereas I commend the hon. member for Losberg for a balanced approach to this problem, I regret that I cannot say the same for the hon. member for Simonstown. While my intention is not to dwell too long on as unimportant a subject as that hon. member, I think that for the record it is necessary to put the correct facts as to what happened at the State department. Firstly, the hon. member for Simonstown purported to speak for, and held himself out as speaking for the Opposition, and the hon. member for Wynberg quite correctly could not allow that false statement to go unchallenged. I want to make it quite clear that on no occasion will I or any member in these benches allow the hon. member for Simonstown to speak for the Opposition, because he does not belong to it. The second point is that today in the House the hon. member has quoted himself neither fully nor accurately. He normally does that to other people, but today he did it to himself. What the hon. member for Wynberg said, and said very clearly, is that, firstly, the hon. member for Simonstown cannot speak for the Opposition and, secondly, that all the hon. member had said he could obviously not agree with. I want to leave the hon. member with one last remark, and that is that on that very trip the most right-wing Nationalists found themselves embarrassed by some of the remarks that hon. member made. That puts him in the correct perspective.

I want to speak tonight to the hon. the Minister about the Department of Information. For a very short moment I want to speak of it in its present form and then I want to speak about the past. As regards the present, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that the staff are trying their very best. I believe that the Service is understaffed and that there is insufficient money in the budget for the information activities of the Government overseas. I believe that in the circumstances these men are trying to repair a situation for which they were not responsible and are trying to do their very best. I commend them for it. To the extent that one can help them in that job, one tries to do so. I wish them well.

However, we also have to deal with the history of this. I want to say immediately to the hon. the Minister that in the few minutes one has available, neither he or anybody else could deal with the 23 volumes that have been presented to us as being the evidence of the Erasmus Commission. It is obvious that we should get a full debate on this. However, with the time we do have available, let us put a case as best we can.

Firstly, the Information scandal is unfortunately a ghost which is going to haunt South African politics for many, many years to come. We cannot lay that ghost. It is impossible to lay it until one actually establishes the truth. The tragedy is that, if one were wont to lay this ghost, if one were wont to bury it and one had to erect a tombstone and write an epitaph on it, one would start off, as is customary in epitaphs, with the words “Here lies …”. Then one would just carry on with “Here lies … Here lies … Here lies …”. That is the story and the epitaph of that department.

I want to put a couple of questions to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, having read the evidence, as I assume he has, is he satisfied that in fact this commission was the proper mechanism for establishing the truth and for clearing or condemning individuals? I think that anyone who has read the evidence will admit that this clearly is not the case. If one reads this, it is clearly established that in many cases there was no hostile cross-examination. There certainly was no cross-examination of adverse witnesses by the people affected. In many cases people did not know what other people were saying. In some cases it was put to them, but not in all. The evidence which some people were told was going to be secret and would not be disclosed in fact eventually was disclosed, as a result of which we now find an impossible situation with libel actions threatening, with people calling each other liars and worse, and with a situation developing where people are at each other like a bunch of Kerry cats. That is due to the nature of the inquiry that has taken place.

There is one particular question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. Is it not owed to a person who was the Prime Minister of this country and who was also the State President of this country that he should be given an opportunity of clearing his name if he is able to do so? I ask that in all seriousness, because however much one may condemn the individual for what he has done, the traditions of this country are of such a nature that a man, whoever he may be and whether he be humble or whether he be great, should be given an opportunity of clearing himself. I do not believe that in the present circumstances, by the presentation of the evidence in this particular form, that opportunity has been given to the former Prime Minister and former State President of South Africa. I may say that on the basis of the first report he should have been held politically responsible, but I equally say that I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how the two reports of the commission can be reconciled. In the same way that I would stand up here for the humblest of South Africans and say “Give him an opportunity of clearing his name,” it is my duty also to stand here and say it for a man who has held the highest office in South Africa. I believe that the only way in which this matter can be dealt with is if the Government appoints a panel of three Appeal Court judges, who should be allowed to evaluate the evidence …

You are now getting ridiculous.

… and study the reports. People who wish to present evidence to challenge where they did not have the opportunity previously should be allowed to do so and, if necessary, cross-examination should be allowed. I do not depart for one moment from what I believe is the responsibility which the Prime Minister of a NP Government had to bear for what has taken place. I do not depart from that for one moment …

You called him a crook the other day.

… because I make the submission that the political responsibility for the Information debacle lies four-square on the shoulders of the NP and the Government. It is no good pretending that it was a different Government, that different people were involved. It was the NP which was responsible in the circumstances. That is where the political responsibility lies, and they cannot escape from that political responsibility.

Japie said they had all gone.

That is the reality of the situation. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he cannot allow this situation to continue as it is doing at present. We have reached a position where people are said to be suing each other for libel. If what Dr. Rhoodie is reported to have said in the Sunday Tribune of last Sunday, is correct, that in my view constitutes not only a civil libel, but also a criminal libel, and yet nobody is doing anything about it. Is this situation going to be allowed to continue? If the allegations he has made about the hon. the Minister of Finance are correct, then that is libel in respect of which action has to be taken. Surely we are not going to allow this kind of situation to be perpetuated in South Africa. That is why I make a plea for this panel of judges to be appointed so that we can bring an end to this situation for once and for all and so that it can never be said that people did not have an adequate opportunity.

I also want to deal with Dr. Connie Mulder. I want to say without any hesitation that if Dr. Mulder does not produce that piece of paper which he alleges the former Prime Minister of South Africa sent to him, he has no place in South African politics whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville was not present in the Chamber for most of the day. He came in late, and has now abused the opportunity of his 10 minutes in this debate …

That is rubbish.

… firstly, to launch a personal attack on the hon. member for Simonstown. I hold no brief whatsoever for the hon. member for Simonstown, but I am prepared to accept, whether I agree with what the hon. member for Simonstown said or not, that he was motivated by loyalty to South Africa. [Interjections.] Secondly, the hon. member for Yeoville has seen fit at this late stage of the debate to drag into it the matter of the old Information scandal. [Interjections.] He started off by complimenting the present officials of the department on the excellent job that they are doing, but was not prepared to leave it on that positive note. No, he had to try to score a few petty points from the unfortunate events in and around the old Department of Information.

*What has the hon. member for Yeoville actually said in this connection? In the first place he spoke of a spectre that would not go away until all the facts had been brought to light. This hon. member was a member of the Select Committee that was appointed to peruse the evidence adduced before the Erasmus Commission and to determine which parts of that evidence should be made public and which not. So the hon. member had access to the unrevised version of the evidence. I am challenging him tonight to stand up here and now and to say that the revised version of this evidence does not reflect the substantial evidence adduced before the Erasmus Commission in every material respect.

I am not allowed to refer to that part of the evidence.

The hon. member is trying to create the impression that all the facts have not yet been brought to light and is saying ever so piously that we should now bring this matter to an end. The hon. member is forgetting, however, that he was one of the people who was forever arguing that until such time as the public had had access to all the evidence submitted to the commission, this spectre would not go away. Now all the evidence is known …

It is not.

… but now he is saying that the spectre will not go away. The criticism he is expressing of the way in which the Erasmus Commission performed its task, should be viewed against the background of the fact that the hon. members of the official Opposition are for ever insisting on the appointment of a judicial commission. They are not satisfied with any commission unless it is a judicial commission. Now here we have had a judicial commission, a commission with a high status, but now the hon. member arrogates to himself the right to allege that this commission did not perform its task properly either.

It was not a court.

I was not suggesting that it was a court. The hon. member should just listen to what I am saying. The hon. member for Yeoville comes here with the ridiculous idea that a panel of three Judges of Appeal should now be appointed to sit in judgment, as it were, on the work of the Erasmus Commission. How ridiculous! Then the hon. member argues ever so piously that the spectre should go away. What could be more calculated to keep the spectre walking than to appoint a panel of three judges to evaluate the work of the Erasmus Commission at this stage? That would be the very best way imaginable of conjuring up spectres with regard to this matter. After that the hon. member would undoubtedly arrogate to himself once again the right to criticize the work of the panel of judges, and then we would have the whole unpleasant affair all over again. That is what the hon. member wants. He is merely disappointed with the scanty political benefit he and his party have derived from this whole unfortunate episode. Instead of wanting to lay the spectre, as he pretends, he is now in fact seeking to conjure up further spectres.

Surely the hon. member should not think we are so naive as to accept that his professed concern for justice to be done to the former Prime Minister and State President, is his real motive for his plea that the former Prime Minister and State President should be afforded an opportunity of stating his case. [Interjections.] The hon. member never missed a single opportunity—and he knows that I know that it is true, because we served together in one Select Committee after another—of getting at the former Prime Minister and State President, but now he is pleading very piously that he should be afforded an opportunity of stating his case. I wish to tell the hon. member that his skin is much too thin, and that we can see right through him. [Interjections.] He is not going to pull the wool over our eyes that way. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon. member—if he has not found this out himself—that the public of South Africa, of all parties, are sick and tired of this whole story about the former Department of Information. If the hon. member is of the opinion that there is still any political advantage to be derived from the information affair, I wish to tell him that the only advantage still to be derived from it, could be derived only by keeping quiet about it. The sooner he and his party realize that, the sooner they will start deriving benefit from those events, but the more they ride this story to death, the more the electorate of South Africa will reject them, because they see right through their transparent political games and they realize that they do not really have the interests of South Africa at heart, but that they are merely out to make petty political capital out of these unfortunate events.

With regard to the remark by the hon. member that the whole matter was “the responsibility of the NP Government”, I wish to point out that in the course of the debates on the Information affair, this aspect of the matter was repeatedly and very effectively dealt with. On one specific occasion the hon. the Minister of Justice made a speech on the matter in which he dealt in detail with the whole question of Cabinet responsibility and in which he stated quite clearly that the Cabinet was only responsible to the extent to which it had been informed and had condoned the actions in question. The hon. member knows that. As a lawyer, he should not make such flippant remarks as “the NP Government is responsible” because he knows that statements have no juridical substance whatsoever. [Interjections.] Surely he is not speaking here as a layman, but as one who professes to be a lawyer. If he is a lawyer as he professes to be, one has to accept that when he talks of “NP Government responsibility”, he means this in a juridical sense. I wish to state categorically that there is absolutely no substance to the hon. member’s allegation.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.