Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I shall move tomorrow—

Order! I regret to inform the hon. member that, for the reasons set out in my rulings of 1 February and 22 April this year, I am unable, in accordance with the sub judice rule, to accept the Notice of Motion which the hon. member has just read out.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point? [Interjections.]

Order! No. I have given my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to make just one point.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to address me on this matter. I have given my ruling. The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, may I just ask whether you have considered this Notice of Motion in the context of its being Select Committee proceedings, which can be treated as confidential?

Yes, I have.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Are you not prepared to hear any argument on whether this can be distinguished from your previous rulings?

I have given my ruling and I have based it on previous rulings given by me in connection with the same issue. Nothing has changed since that gives me any reason to deviate from my previous rulings.

Mr. Speaker, surely, on the basis of the audi alteram partem rule, you should at least hear what we have to say. You should surely give us the opportunity of trying to persuade you.

You listen to petty gossip. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, are you going to give me an opportunity of being heard?

Order!

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Posts and Telecommunications.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House, I wish to point out that during the coming week the House will continue to deal with the Votes. The Environment Affairs Vote will be discussed on Monday, 10 May, the Community Development Vote on Tuesday, 11 May and Wednesday, 12 May. Standing Committees will deal in the Senate Chamber with the Mineral and Energy Affairs Vote on Monday, 10 May, and with the Justice Vote on Tuesday, 11 May and Wednesday, 12 May.

For the rest, this House will deal with legislation, as it appears on the Order Paper, during the intervals between the discussion of the various Votes.

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

When I consider the tremendous scope of foreign affairs, its impact on South Africa and the speed with which issues are changing, I wonder whether this House devotes sufficient time to it, and whether in fact one day should by arrangement between the parties not be devoted, early in the session, to a debate on foreign affairs so that at least early in the session there can be a concentrated examination of South Africa’s situation in the international scene.

We on this side of the House would like to raise a wide range of matters. I will only mention some of them now because there will not be enough time to discuss them all. In this regard I refer to the whole question of South Africa’s relationship with key regions of the world, such as Europe, the USA, South America, the Middle East, Africa, Africa to the north of us, the BLS States and the TBVC States. There is also the whole question of alliances and treaties of understanding, the question of economic co-operation, the threat of Soviet imperialism, our aid to under-developed countries, financial assistance to the poor TBVC countries, destabilization in Africa, the Namibian issue, the meeting of the hon. the Prime Minister with President Kaunda and the South Atlantic war. I can go on and mention issues relating to the staff at our embassies, such as their recruiting, their conditions of service and their safety. These are all matters which could be raised.

Then of course there is for us the continuous concern at the balance between the military the foreign affairs components of our Government when it comes to decisions on matters affecting our foreign relations. Had it not been for Mr. Speaker’s ruling in respect of the Seychelles affairs, this would have been an occasion on which the official Opposition would have raised, in respect of the issue, such things as the Government’s handling of the matter, the international reaction, the appointment of a United Nations commission to investigate aspects of it, and the consequences for South Africa. In normal circumstances we would have made this a very important feature of a debate on foreign affairs. Nevertheless, we accept, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of your ruling earlier on that such a debate is not possible. We will therefore have to concentrate on certain other matters.

Before I raise these other matters, I should like to deal with an interesting and not insignificant matter for South Africa. On behalf of the PFP I like to welcome Mr. Van Dalsen as the new Director-General of Foreign Affairs. We congratulate him on his appointment and we wish him well. He will realize that it will not be easy to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor. Yet we know sufficient of him to believe that he has the qualities of character and the intellect and integrity to make a success in the important post which he now occupies in the service of South Africa. So we wish the new Director-General everything of the best in his important assignment.

I wish to refer very briefly to the fact that a group of members of Parliament, at the invitation of the hon. the Minister, visited Taiwan last year. In the course of our journey most of us stayed over in Hong Kong. We should like to say thank you to the Minister for the fact that this visit was made possible. We believe that it should be seen not as a parliamentary junket but as a fact-finding mission to enable us to make a more constructive contribution to the debate on foreign affairs. I want to thank the officials who were involved. I also want to thank the representatives of the Government of the Republic of China and the province of Taiwan. While it might seem strange coming from me, I should also like to thank the hon. member for Parys for the way in which he led the group. I find that outside the House he is certainly far less abrasive than he is inside the House. We want to thank him for his contribution to the success of that tour.

While this tour gave us a certain superficial insight into the circumstances of that part of the world, there are two things that came through loud and clear. Firstly, if one takes Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, with their booming economies and with the prospect of a lift-off, to an extent, in mainland China, then one finds in that region one of the fastest-growing economic regions of this world. This will have a profound impact on both underdeveloped and developed countries elsewhere in the world. Secondly, both Taiwan and Hong Kong, which have entirely different political systems, have the same basic economic system. It is a free enterprise, capitalist system, they both show that where one has the Government assisting the development of the economy by providing the infrastructure required for a take-off and not a Government that imposes artificial restraints on the development of people and the upward mobility of people, one has a recipe for economic success not only in that part of the world but also in many parts of the underdeveloped regions of this globe.

I now want to pass on to what is perhaps one of the most significant events that have taken place in and around South Africa in recent times, and that is the summit meeting that took place between the hon. the Prime Minister and President Kaunda on the Botswana-South African border on Friday, 30 April 1982. Let me make it clear, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done, that we in the PFP welcome the fact that such a meeting was held. We believe that President Kaunda is to be congratulated on having taken the initiative in suggesting such a meeting, knowing full well that he ran the risk of disapproval from some or many of his colleagues amongst the African or front-line States. Likewise we believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should be commended for having responded in such a positive way to the initiative of Dr. Kaunda. So let us say congratulations all round for having got it off the ground. I was not invited not even as a fly on the wall, to be a spectator at that conference. Nevertheless I understand that the staff members of the hon. the Minister’s department and other departments must be congratulated on the physical and logistic arrangements which apparently were absolutely excellent and superb. Through that they contributed towards the success of that conference.

As the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will know, and hon. members should know, my colleagues and I in the PFP have constantly argued in favour of dialogue between South Africans and people from other States in Africa. From our own personal experience we know that in spite of a hostile rhetoric and in spite of the understandable abhorrence of apartheid, many people in Africa display a very real and even understanding interest in South Africa. They would desperately like to see circumstances change inside South Africa so that the people of Africa could benefit from South Africa’s inclusion in a wider community of African nations. The hon. the Minister last year stated what the obstacles were, and one was that the circumstances in South Africa would have to change. We believe that personal contact, personal dialogue, is a plus factor, especially on a continent with so many fierce animosities and so many sharp perceived differences. We believe that at whatever level is takes place it is important and in this respect our tribute to the businessmen of South Africa who are in the forefront of making contacts around Africa. But quite clearly, when a contact is made at Prime Ministerial or head of State level, it occupies a position of very special significance. The hon. the Minister will concede that the statements following the summit meeting have been bland, to say the least. They do not shed any light on the subjects discussed, or on the understanding reached, or on the decisions taken. I accept, however, that there must be good tactical reasons for this, and we do not complain about it. I hope that the broad smiles that were evident after that meeting, indicate that the meeting was at least friendly and constructive and that it augured well for the future.

What do we in the official Opposition hope will develop from that important top-level meeting that took place last Friday? Firstly, we hope that it will assist in speeding up the process of a resolution of the Namibia independence issue. I intend returning to the Namibia issue once I have dealt with the summit meeting. I believe that the Namibia issue is one of the most important problems with which we have to grapple here in the southern part of Africa. Secondly, we hope that it will lead to an expansion of the process of direct dialogue between African and South African leaders. We hope that meetings like this will reduce some of what I call the pressure-cooker temperature that is building up in the Southern African region, and will pave the way towards co-operation, development and peace in this part of the world.

Thirdly we hope that by improving international relationships in the Southern African region, it will also create a climate inside South Africa in which it will be easier and more conducive for us to make those reforms which are so necessary to move our own society away from discrimination based on race or colour.

The meeting with President Kaunda has to be seen against the deterioration in the relationship between South Africa and certain of its neighbours in Soutern Africa. It also has to be şeen against the background of the process of destabilization that appears to be taking place in the region. That is the background against which this important meeting took place.

Hardly a day goes by without some evidence in the media—the Press or the radio—of this process of destabilization. Refugees, terrorism, counter-insurgency action, coups, espionage charges, bomb blasts, kidnapping, spying and shooting—these are becoming household words throughout Southern Africa. There may be many reasons for this apparent destabilization. It may be the result of competing and even warring political factions. It may be because of deteriorating economic conditions. It may be due to international intrigue and manipulation. It is, however, an unhappy fact that in many of the countries affected by this process, South Africa is invariably blamed, and the hon. the Minister will get reports of this. These allegations against South Africa may be tactical moves in some countries to deflect attention from their own shortcomings. They may be based on a genuine belief that South Africa, either directly or indirectly, is in some way involved in this destabilization process. However they are starting to reflect a paranoia where putting the blame on South Africa is now becoming part of the standard political rhetoric in these countries.

Whether or not these allegations have any basis in fact, the fact that they are being made is very real and is very damaging to the relationships between South Africa and other African States. The South African Government cannot stop or prevent these allegations being made. But it can go out of its way to ensure that there is no legitimate cause for them to be made. It can, for instance, have a scrupulous respect for the territorial integrity of other States in Africa. It can adhere rigidly to the principle of the avoidance of any interference in the political process in other States. It can do this by withholding any support to organizations or movements that may be undermining stability in other countries. These are things that South Africa can do.

I believe that stability is important because, irrespective of a political ideology or political views of the other Governments in Southern Africa, stability is a prerequisite for peace. Stability is a prerequisite for peace, and should stability go, we will degenerate into chaos, where the losers will be ourselves and the Soviets and their surrogates the only winners.

One thing is therefore certain. There is not going to be international co-operation as long as there is a climate of suspicion and mistrust.

I raised this question of destabilization across the floor of the House with the hon. the Minister last year, and I raise it again today. I do so because I do not believe that this question of destabilization and the related charges and counter-charges can be swept under the carpet because they are sensitive issues. I believe that we have to face up to the fact that there is a process of destabilization and that there are accusations that are damaging to our relationships with the rest of Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated South Africa’s willingness to enter into non-aggression pacts and mutual defence treaties with states in Africa. We on this side of the House say that that in itself is good, but I believe that the circumstances demand something more from the Government. In the prevailing circumstances I believe that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should make a formal declaration, on behalf of his Government, on his Government’s attitude towards destabilization practices or exercises. In the prevailing circumstances the hon. the Minister must make a statement committing the Government. Firstly I want him to say quite unambiguously that just as the Government expects others to respect its sovereignty and territiorial integrity, so this Government will always respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other States. I believe that that should be said unambiguously. Secondly I believe that the hon. the Minister should, on behalf of the Government, say that the Government condemns any attempt at destabilization, whether launched from within or supported by another State. This is what the hon. the Minister should say. Thirdly, I believe that the hon. the Minister must give the country an assurance that the Government itself will not, using its own personnel or surrogates, ever embark on an exercise of destabilization in another State. I believe he should make that quite clear. Fourthly, I believe that the hon. the Minister should make it quite clear, on behalf of the Government, that the Government will act against any individual or group within South Africa that tries to use South Africa as a springboard for such exercises against other States. I believe that those four points should be made unambiguously by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of this Government.

I now want to put something to the hon. the Minister personally, because he is not just a member of the Cabinet. He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs and is therefore, in a sense, the custodian of South Africa’s honour and integrity in the dealings that South Africa has beyond its borders. He should therefore make his own position quite clear. I believe that in the course of this debate the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should leave no doubt about the fact that if he were to become aware that any Cabinet Minister, or any department acting on the authority of a Cabinet Minister, had in any way acted contrary to those four principles, the hon. the Minister would take the initiative in demanding the dismissal of his colleague or, failing that, would himself resign. [Interjections.] I believe that this is a matter of principle as far as this whole process of destabilization is concerned. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the South West/Namibia independence issue. We have had many debates on this, but for the last year or so we on this side of the House have been sensitive about raising the issue because we have been aware that the Government has been moving in the direction of independence. Certainly the Government has, in recent months, given the impression that it is trying as hard as it can to resolve the independence issue. In the circumstances we have not raised it as an issue of debate across the floor of the House. There is no need for us to underline the importance of independence for the people of South-West Africa, the people of South Africa, the people of the Southern African region and the countries of the West. As far as the countries of the West are concerned, I can only refer to a statement made by Dr. Chester Crocker, Assistant-Secretary of State for African Affairs, when he testified before a Senate sub-committee this year. In dealing with Soviet objectives he said—

So I think there should be agreement amongst us that moving towards internationally recognized independence for South West Africa is of tremendous importance to the whole of this region.

I should like to make one or two comments on this subject. Unfortunately the situation and the mood changes very rapidly. Only on Saturday Die Transvaler with regard to independence for South West Africa carried the huge headline: “Suidwes nader aan ’n oplossing.” Yesterday we saw a headline in another newspaper that Swapo had rejected the Western proposals. These are indications that a very rapid movement is taking place in connection with the Namibia independence issue.

There are, however, certain aspects which are encouraging. In the course of the last year the West resumed the initiative which had died some time ago. Under Dr. Crocker’s guidance, the exercise has to a very considerable degree got back on the rails. It was announced in the State President’s address at the opening of Parliament that South Africa supports phase one of the three-phase proposals and is ready to move on to phase two. We support the Government in their acceptance of phase one. We believe that that acceptance was a bold move, especially when one considers the constitutional proposals on which phase one is based. These constitutional proposals are very far removed from the ideological concepts of the South African Government or the ideological concepts which were formerly applied to Namibia. The constitutional proposals which are a part of phase one involve a “eenheidstaat”, a universal franchise, a bill of rights, and independent judiciary and a rigid constitution. Given the heterogeneous ethnic community of South West Africa, the Government has by its acceptance indicated that it believes that that type of constitution, backed, perhaps, by the West and by others, will provide the basis for future peace in that territory. I am hoping that during the course of this debate we are going to hear from our friends in the CP whether they back the Government on the acceptance of those constitutional proposals.

There are, however, also other aspects which are terribly disturbing. I can only mention them briefly in the few minutes at my disposal. There is the increasing fragmentation of and lack of cohesion between the internal parties in Namibia. At one stage there was a fair amount of consolidation, but there has been a massive fragmentation of political parties and political leadership into 46 different groups at present. This must make the whole process of negotiation and decision-making extra difficult for the Government and others.

Secondly, there is the increasingly negative role being played by right-wing parties in South West Africa. I think of the “importees” from South Africa and I think of the mass rally held by the HNP under Mr. Jaap Marais. I noticed that one of the speakers on that platform was the former leader of the NCP, Dr. Connie Mulder. We find that the Afrikaner-Weerstandsbeweging was also there. I believe they were all talking negative racist stuff which does no good in the efforts to achieve a settlement. Even the NP of South West Africa in its “groot saamtrek” adopted a negative attitude towards racial conciliation. I do not believe there should be formal bannings of people in that area. I think that that is a wrong approach. I believe we can do without carpet-bagging politicians who go from South Africa to Namibia and make racist speeches in order to make party-political capital back in South Africa instead of trying to help the conciliation and the settlement process within Namibia.

Thirdly, there is certainly an increasing degree of tension developing between the internal parties and the South African Government as represented by the Administrator-General. A file as thick as my hand has been compiled over the last few months of allegations of racism by the police, allegations of interference by Government officials and allegations that the Government through the Administrator-General is continuing to allow apartheid to be applied at the second tier of government. For a long time there has been a clamour for AG 8 to be changed and second-tier government put under the control of the Ministers’ Council. I understand that this is about to take place but I believe that this Government has failed by not getting rid of that area of apartheid far sooner, that area of apartheid has undermined the DTA and other parties and has made the whole process of moving towards a settlement much more difficult. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister can be commended at all for the slow heel-dragging way in which that particular issue is being handled.

Why do you use the word “apartheid”?

That is the word used in South West Africa as well.

Another aspect is, of course, the disturbing escalation in the cost of lives and resources as a result of the protracted war on the northern boundaries of Namibia. This is a factor which we cannot ignore. It is a factor which the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned when he went to Windhoek last month. According to Time, the hon. the Prime Minister said that we were in a hurry to get out because staying there was costing us too much. These are the factors inside South West Africa that are disturbing. Outside, of course, there is the continuing partisanship of the UN and certain office bearers within the UN.

In the last few minutes available to me I want to refer in particular to the situation in regard to Swapo and the announcement last night from Dar es Salaam that Swapo has rejected the process via the Western Contact Group plan and is now calling for international conference in order to try to remove the remaining obstacles. I think that was more or less the wording that was used. This announcement is very, very distressing indeed because it is a rejection of the Western proposals or the route which they want to take in regard to Resolution 435. However, what is so disturbing is that it is not simply Swapo on its own; it is Swapo backed by all the so-called front-line States including Zambia and Kenya. This is what is so disturbing. Against the background of this rejection and of the urgent need to settle we can only say to ourselves: What do we do now? Where do we go from here? Why has Swapo rejected this? Has it rejected it because it is a captive of the Soviet Union? Has it rejected it because is is afraid of losing an election? Or has it rejected it because it is so confident that in due course it is going to win what it calls the liberation struggle? Who knows? We should consider the following: Is the Western route to Resolution 435 in fact dead? If it is not dead, do we press on with it regardless? Is Swapo by its announcement trying to slam the door or are Zambia and other countries trying to find an alternative route to the implementation of Resolution 435? Even if coming from Swapo, I think we must ask whether the international conference that they are proposing is worth considering. Is there still an alternative course to negotiation if in due course it appears that the Western route has failed? Has Swapo perhaps decided that it is going for all or nothing, that it is going for broke in South West Africa? I put these questions not because I suggest that they are easy to answer or that the answers to them are obvious. Nevertheless, I do believe that at this particular time they deserve very serious consideration.

Clearly internationally recognized independence for Namibia in terms of Resolution 435 must remain South Africa’s overall objective. Nobody should allow himself to be held to ransom by extremists or terrorists, nevertheless, history has shown that internal settlements that do not end the wars are exercizes in self-delusion and futility. This is what we have to bear in mind.

I conclude by saying that perhaps the way out of the impasse, perhaps the key to this problem is to be found in the personal contact between the hon. the Prime Minister and President Kaunda which was established last Friday. The interesting thing is that on Friday President Kaunda was discussing this matter and other matters with the hon. the Prime Minister while on Tuesday his representatives were discussing them with Swapo and the frontliners in Dar es Salaam. Therefore, this man was represented in both of these places with all the strength at our command. We urge the Government, having established this new channel of communication to use it in order to see whether it cannot open new doors to the resolution of these problems with the other African States. The overall picture as far as a settlement in South West Africa is concerned is very bleak and very sombre at the moment. But perhaps the linkage that has now been created between South Africa and Zambia will mean that in spite of seeming far away, we are closer to a settlement than we may possibly believe.

Mr. Chairman, with the exception of the South West Africa matter to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred, I shall in the course of my speech touch on virtually all the matters he dealt with in his speech. In the first place I want to join the hon. member in congratulating Mr. Van Dalsen, the new Director-General. I should like to wish him everything of the best. I want to assure Mr. Van Dalsen that the NP members will give him their co-operation. I also want to express the hope that Mr. Van Dalsen will leave as deep an imprint as his predecessor did. We are convinced that he will perform a great service for South Africa in the capacity in which he now finds himself. Congratulations, Mr. Van Dalsen.

The hon. member for Sea Point addressed a friendly remark to me with reference to our visit to Taiwan. I want to thank him for this. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department most sincerely for the opportunity they gave us—a group of 13 members of Parliament representing all four the parties in this House—to visit Taiwan, the Republic of China, and I want to state that we were received in the greatest spirit of goodwill, courteousness and sincerity in the Republic of China. As leader of the group I should like to place my sincere thanks and appreciation for the unique way in which we were received there on record. I can assure hon. members that it was something out of the ordinary. In my capacity as leader of the group I should also like to thank those hon. members who accompanied me most sincerely for the way in which they made my task not only easy but also pleasant. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that the other 12 members of the touring party were really a worthy delegation from the Republic of South Africa to Taiwan.

Particularly Heyns of South Africa!

Yes, quite correct. I should also like to compliment the hon. the Prime Minister on the way he reacted to the request from President Kaunda for a meeting with him. Of course, hon. members will realize that I do not know what was discussed. What I do know I learnt from Press reports and conjecture. However, I should like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that South Africa appreciates what he did. I am convinced that not only South Africa and Zambia, but also the rest of Africa, will reap the benefits of acts of goodwill of this kind.

It is South Africa’s declared policy to extend the hand of friendship to Africa, to try to have dialogue wherever we can, and to give scientific, technological and economic aid wherever possible. The hon. the Prime Minister, and some of his predecessors, have emphasized this repeatedly. Hon. members of this House, myself included, have voiced our own sentiments in this regard on more than one occasion. As a matter of fact I have emphasized that we are an inseparable part of Africa, and that our salvation should not be sought in the West but that we should seek it in Africa, where we have our roots, and where we have created our own African language. These words appear in Hansard under my name. However, it goes even further than this. I have already said in the past that the way to the forming of links with Africa, to our acceptance by Africa, is through the hearts and minds of our own Black people, and that for this reason we must readjust the goodwill and the race relations in Africa so that we can gain access to Africa through our own Black people.

If I therefore sound a few non-positive notes on Africa today, it is not with the intention of being derogatory towards Africa, but of placing emphasis on the necessity for opposing with might and main any communist infiltration in this great continent, in view of the destabilization which it causes, since South Africa has a real interest in this continent and has an important role to play, if only it is allowed to do so. In fact, we must have regard to the effects of South Africa’s situation within Africa, to what the realities of South Africa are. One of those realities is Russia’s involvement in Southern Africa, and the aloofness of the West in this connection.

Communist infiltration via the ANC and Swapo has intensified over the past 10 years or so. As a matter of fact, this is a reality that was confirmed—only a month ago—by former ANC and Swapo members. We need therefore have no doubts about this. The hon. member for Sea Point spoke about the deteriorating relations between us and our neighbouring States. Surely the hon. member is aware that this communist infiltration, this communist involvement is part of the process of causing the relations between us and our neighbouring States to deteriorate. It is therefore an important approach, and in this light I wish to make a few remarks on the contribution South Africa can make with regard to the communist and also on South Africa’s position in Africa.

In Die Vaderland of 22 April under the heading “VSA moet om wapens gevra word, sê LV’s” I read the following—

From the viewpoint of foreign affairs I not only want to support this appeal but I also want to link it to another appeal, namely that there should be a completely new approach to South Africa on the part of the West and America. The West should see the truth about South Africa and it should see Africa for what it is. It is a great continent. That is why the good and the positive things in Africa should be recognized, and developed. As I have already mentioned, we shall help with this if we are allowed to do so. However, the negative aspects and the faults in Africa should not be blatantly ignored.

The fact that President Reagan signed a record defence budget of over $2 000 milliard for the USA proves that he is moving away from the policy of his predecessor, Mr. Carter, viz. that America will not become directly involved in any situation which ostensibly does not directly affect America’s interests. The question which arises is when are America’s interests not directly affected? This question is a rather arbitrary one to which different people give different answers. The question should rather be: When are the interests of the USA not affected by communist action throughout the world? The reply to this is that it is affected by every move the Kremlin makes which is calculated to bring any part of the world, no matter how far it may be from America, within the sphere of communist influence.

President Reagan’s actions reflect the desire of the Americans not only to oppose losing further ground to Russia in the military sphere, but also to oppose communist expansionism anywhere in the world, the spheres of diplomacy and foreign affairs as well. This is a policy in which the entire Free World should rejoice, but it should also give America real support. Division on this matter, as displayed by the Euromark countries in regard to America’s measures against Russia over the Poland issue, can only benefit the Kremlin and speed the downfall of the West. One thing I can say with absolute conviction is that America will find South Africa is a staunch ally against communist expansionism in Southern Africa, but then there must be tangible liaison in which the Departments of Foreign Affairs of the two countries will play an important part out in the open. I want to emphasize “out in the open”.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to allow the hon. member the opportunity of continuing with his speech.

Sir, I thank the hon. member.

The question is: How serious does the West consider communist infiltration anywhere in the world to be as a threat which in the long run can have a destructive effect on non-communistic groups and communities and their interests? If the threat is considered to be of material concern, America must make certain decisions now and live with them, even though it may be painful for a time. South Africa’s contribution to the continued existence and security of the West is to protect this country’s strategic mineral resources and the sea route round the Cape and to keep it accessible to the West. This in itself is an enormous task and a contribution for which we receive no recognition. In order to identify itself with anti-communist actions in Africa, America must openly associate itself with our struggle against communist infiltration in South Africa. For this reason American warships must no longer avoid our strategic harbours and it must cease to withhold from us essential war materials needed to ward off the onslaught on South Africa. America must join us in planning how to secure the sea route around the Cape. This is important for the survival of the West.

I want to repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech, namely that I do not want to drive a wedge between us and Africa in this speech, nor is it our desire to dissociate ourselves from Africa. The TBVC countries and the national States are part of Africa in any case, and why would I want to drive a wedge between us and them? As a matter of fact they are our only open friends in Africa.

If Africa serves as a pressure group against the West’s relations with South Africa, there are specific facts in connection with South Africa which the West must bear in mind. However, if the West joins the Kremlin in isolating and boycotting South Africa, the West is in fact driving a wedge between us and the rest of Africa. The West must free itself from the Africa syndrome that 400 million Black people can necessarily exert a greater influence on the world’s ideological, commercial and military situation than the 4 million Whites of South Africa, and that Africa must therefore be accommodated at the expense of South Africa and even at the expense of the independent and national States. America, as the leader of the world, must co-operate and recognize our independent States. While the Transkei has held its first free elections after five years of independence, Ghana has experienced its fifth coup since independence. One is astounded that in spite of all the available facts and comparable statistics in connection with our national and independent States and the rest of Africa—a fact which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development also underlined in his Vote—our national States, who are indeed friends of the West, are not recognized by the West, although they are outspokenly anti-communist.

Africa should also be seen in the light of its problems. After all, sufficient time has passed since 1957, when Ghana became the first Black State to receive its independence from a European colonial power, to have left final impressions in respect of development, orderliness and stability. Since 1957, however, there has been deterioration and decline in Africa with regard to agricultural production, medical services, the general economic position, infrastructure, for example purified drinking water, transport, etc. Last year during the discussion of his Vote the hon. the Minister dealt with these problems of Africa. Ghana has become the symbol of “uhuru” in Africa, yet it has just experienced its fifth coup. More than 100 coups have taken place on this continent since the ’sixties and more than a third of them succeeded. Surely the rest of the world must take cognizance of this, particularly where attitudes towards and relations with South Africa on the part of the West and America are concerned. It must be realized that Africa does not consider itself committed to the same standards and norms as we do. In this connection one can refer to democratic processes, international respectability with regard to monetary responsibility and administration of justice. Over the past 10 years not a single appeal court case has been tried in Africa.

Other norms and standards are free elections, a free Press and freedom of speech. Even the Archbishop of the Anglican Church, the Rev. Russell, feels free to violate the principle of sovereignty in his own circles and to involve the church directly in politics without any word of reproach being directed at him. After all there are comparable standards between us and Africa, because I have just mentioned them here. Why should the expertise, technology and science of White South Africa be destroyed, ignored and denigrated for the sake of the 400 million Black people of Africa? It is unnecessary. We feel that we are part of Africa. All we ask is: See us as an African nation, a part of Africa, and realize that we can make a real contribution to the development, the prosperity and the welfare of Africa. After all a nation need not have great numbers of people in order to be really great. Greatness is measured by the ability to be resourceful, to be able to create and to build. In contrast with Africa’s “uhuru” which went hand-in-hand with civil war and coups and plunged Africa into abject poverty, South Africa today stands out on this continent as the bastion of civilization where technology, expertise and science are being used to create prosperity and progress for all its people, and also for its neighbours. In the same way we could also be of benefit to Africa and its people, if we are allowed to play our role in Africa.

The installed capacity of South Africa’s power stations already exceeds 18 000 MW. The consumption per capita of the population amounts to approximately 3 200 KWH per annum, a figure which is only exceeded by the larger countries of the world. In 1978 South Africa’s electricity consumption per capita of the population exceeded that of Italy, Ireland, Spain and Bulgaria for example. That year Algeria was the second largest consumer of electricity on the continent of Africa after South Africa with only 150 KWH per capita per year as against South Africa’s 3 200 KWH per capita per year.

We are one of seven net food exporting countries in the world. We are the eleventh most popular country in respect of overseas investments, measured against standards such as stability, nationalization, military responsibility, balance of payments position, profits, economic growth, labour costs and productivity. America must take the lead and recognize the truth regarding South Africa and acknowledge it openly. This is how communist infiltration can be successfully opposed in this important part of the globe. Only then will South Africa be able to fulfil its role in Africa in the interests of Africa’s development and stability and to the benefit of the Free World.

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

On behalf of my party I should like to express our thanks to Mr. Brand Fourie and his wife, Daphne, for the years they served South Africa in this particular field. Mr. Brand Fourie served under all South African Prime Ministers, with the exception of Gen. Louis Botha, and I think this says a lot for his diplomacy. On behalf of my party I should also like to congratulate Mr. Hans van Dalsen on his appointment as Director-General, and to wish him and his wife a happy and prosperous term of office. For our part, we shall try not to make his task difficult.

†As the CP of South Africa was formed barely six weeks ago, this is our first real opportunity to participate in a discussion of foreign affairs in this House. The appearance of a new party in a nation’s firmament draws particular interest. My observations are that this has also been the case with our party and that this interest was not limited to South Africa. Comments on the prospects of our party ranged from “It is doomed to oblivion” on the one hand to “It stands a good chance to become the official Opposition in a short time” and “Its beginning is the beginning of the end of the NP” on the other hand. Be that as it may, I believe it is always difficult for a foreign observer to define clearly the differences in political nuances between the locals. I should like to offer a bit of assistance if I may. When my party takes over I believe the difference between the NP and the CP will be similar to the difference between the Reagan Administration and a Carter Administration. As far as our stand on foreign affairs is concerned, I should like to say that South Africa is a free, independent, sovereign State, and both her sovereignty and territorial integrity must at all times be upheld and defended with vigour. As such, South Africa’s domestic affairs fall completely within our own jurisdiction, and article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations applies to us as much as it applies to any other State. We believe that South Africa, although a nation relatively small in numbers, has a very important role to play, particularly in Southern Africa, but also in Africa and, furthermore, in the Western community of nations and even in the world at large.

In general I would say that I have difficulty in determining what this hon. Minister’s foreign policy really is. So I should like to learn from him whether he has a specific foreign policy and, if so, what it is. [Interjections.]

You sit there sleeping all day!

As I see it—and so do many observers—his approach is a reactive one. He reacts to what the Secretary-General of the United Nations says or does. He reacts to what his French, British or West German colleague says or does, and then usually in a fairly aggressive tone. I think it is high time for an initiating approach in foreign policy as far as Southern Africa and Africa is concerned, but also in regard to the world in general.

In this regard we welcome last week’s talks between the hon. the Prime Minister and the President of Zambia, and we support such efforts. It appears to us, however, that Dr. Kaunda drew up the agenda for the talks. All we know about the agenda for the talks is that South Africa and South West Africa—Namibia, as it was called—featured on it, and so far as South Africa is concerned apparently the release of Mandela. To this approach we in the CP cannot agree. We believe that if South Africa as such had to feature on the agenda, Zambia as such could just as well have done so too.

What do you know about the agenda?

I know about the agenda what I have read in the newspapers and what Kaunda has had to say. [Interjections.]

As far as Zimbabwe is concerned, I want to note our strongest objection to the utterings of that country’s Prime Minister. He is reported to have said that it is convenient for his country and in its interest to trade with South Africa and that he will continue to do so as long as it suits him. His ultimate aim, however, is the destruction of South Africa. At a conference in Salisbury he spoke in a very derogatory manner about South Africa’s withdrawal of railway locomotives, and he is said to have told his audience that he had repossessed those engines.

The Prime Minister of Zimbabwe must be made to understand, not necessarily by shouting at him, but in a firm and soft manner, that this arrogant and aggressive way of talking will not be tolerated by South Africa, and might seriously jeopardize the preferential trade agreement his country has with South Africa.

We share the concern about the turmoil in the South Atlantic, and we will support any effort, also from South Africa’s side to bring about a peaceful settlement. I wonder if this serious situation would ever have arisen if Southern Atlantic Treaty Organization which South Africa advocated many years ago, had been formed. Both the parties now involved would most likely have been members of such an organization, and it is just possible that everything now going on could then have been prevented. This war has a possibility of escalating, and I do not believe that either of the parties involved would wish for this to happen or could afford to have it happen. We believe that every effort should be made to restore peace as soon as possible and to settle the matter around a conference table. The hon. the Minister knows whether he or South Africa can contribute to such an effort, and I therefore appeal to him to leave no stone unturned in his efforts in this connection.

We are aware of the delicate nature of the South West African situation. We do, however, wish to record our concern about the rights of the various smaller groups in South West Africa, especially those of the Whites. The Whites of South African origin—Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking—who settled in South West Africa, were encouraged by the then South African Government to do so at the request of the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations. Those people and there descendants received certain guarantees from one South African Government from another. We therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to keep those people’s interests, and the guarantees given to them, in mind at all times.

This brings me to foreign relations in general. The Western democracies are used to changes of Government from time to time, sometimes at shorter intervals and other times at longer intervals. It is a fact that the Government of the day do not necessarily see eye to eye ideologically. This should not, however, hamper the normal inter-State relations between the various States or nations. We think that the time has come for greater emphasis to be placed on article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations. Thereby a lot of tension in the world could, I believe, be relieved. We want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should stress this point when speaking to his counterparts and that he should do so whenever the opportunity arises.

In conclusion I want to refer to our relations with more distant parts of Africa. In the Vorster era those relations flourished. We recall the split vote in the ranks of the OAU in Addis Abeba, a vote of 22 to 22, with two abstentions. It appears to me that those relationships have cooled down or perhaps even disappeared. If this is so, it is a great pity, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to make every effort to revive such relations as far as possible. It would be in the interests of all of Africa if he were to succeed.

Mr. Chairman, this debate began on a very positive note today, as it ought to when it comes to such an important discussion as that of the Foreign Affairs Vote. It is just a pity that the hon. member for Waterkloof struck a bit of a discordant note in dealing with the future of the CP. Unfortunately we cannot share his optimism on the future of that party. I just want to tell the hon. the member for Waterkloof…

They should make you an ambassador.

… that the establishment of the CP definitely did not meet with a positive reception in overseas countries.

But a very positive one in the Free State!

We hope they will bear this in mind in future. [Interjections.]

In discussing the important subject of foreign affairs today, we have nothing to be ashamed of. We have every reason to be proud of what has been achieved. In spite of the mounting threat against South Africa, the sustained attempts to force our country to its knees, we have nevertheless succeeded in improving South Africa’s image in the world context. Thanks to the courageous effort by this Government, including the efforts of the hon. the Minister and our diplomats, we were able to ply safely through hostile waters and in general we are not all that badly off today. I do not want to be over-optimistic, but one does get the impression that our opponents are fulminating against South Africa less frequently now. At any rate, no one is hurling imprecations at South Africa at the moment. That is already a great deal to be thankful for. During the past year there were several rays of hope in regard to South Africa’s foreign relations. A year has passed since the last proposals for sanctions against us were discussed at the UN. They shouted for sanctions, but nothing got off the ground. This does not mean that these people have stopped thinking about sanctions—we believe that our opponents are still planning sanctions against us—but it gives South Africa a welcome breathing space. It also gives us an opportunity to make a move and to introduce essential reforms, which we have been making a concerted effort to do during the past year.

If we consider the South West Africa question, we can say without exaggeration that during the past five years we have never had such an advantage as we have at the moment. It is a fact we have to accept that the overseas climate in respect of South Africa varies, depending on the progress made with the South West African issue. When it seems as if progress is being made in connection with South West Africa the climate is more reasonable. Since we accepted the principles of phase 1 and indicated that we want to cooperate and get round to holding an election, we would not be accused of being obstinate with regard to the South West African issue. This definitely created a more reasonable climate for us in the outside world. This brought about greater understanding among people who already understand the complexity of our problems, for example the Reagan administration of America and other friendly countries. A good example is the sympathetic attitude of the new British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Francis Pym. Just listen to what he had to say about us—

There is therefore a much better understanding for our situation and the situation in South West Africa.

We appreciate the attitude of the Americans, the British and others to be less acremonious and more positive in their criticism and even to refrain from being critical in certain cases. This does not mean that they necessarily agree with us on everything. Nor do we expect this from them. But in this spirit and with this attitude we are able to make progress. Against this background it is also a great pleasure for me to bid the new American Ambassador, Mr. Nickel, and the new British ambassador, Mr. Ferguson, a hearty welcome to the Republic. If these ambassadors are going to retain this attitude and are going to work in South Africa with this attitude, their sojourn and work in this country will be the most fruitful any ambassador has ever experienced in South Africa.

Success was not lacking on the African scene either. One does not want to become too excited about the important conference the hon. the Prime Minister has just held with Dr. Kaunda of Zambia, but it would not be far-fetched to say that it paved the way for further contact and possibly for a new climate of realism on the continent of Africa. For this reason we should also like to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for the trouble he went to in this connection.

However, I now want to come closer to home. The attempts by the UN to disparage our independent States is not as successful as they think. Our independent States continue to hold their own and prove themselves. What we do not always realize is that these States are already paying dividends for South Africa. The independent States are beginning to make a return. Bophuthatswana, for example, has already become a Mecca for sport and entertainment. It attracts the world’s best sportsmen, and also brings tourists here. This is also to the advantage of South Africa. I also want to suggest that the international climate is now more favourable for obtaining capital from the right sources abroad for the development of these independent States. The time is definitely ripe to go and raise capital for this purpose abroad. At this stage this could also be just what is needed to stimulate development in these States. We should also like to thank the hon. the Minister for the Parliamentary tour we undertook at the end of last year to the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. Our impression was that those independent States have now been firmly established on the path of rapid development. However, development capital is needed for that purpose. That is why we hope that South African and foreign financiers will step in and give these States the necessary boost.

It is a fact that the NP’s policy of independent national States is succeeding. The time has now arrived for us to make this clear, in very plain language, to overseas countries, the countries who still persist in ignoring those States. The success already achieved by those States, and their potential for sound investment, must be brought more forcefully to the attention of overseas countries. For the Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda—and now of course the Ciskei as well—independence was definitely a tremendous step forward. As a result of the growth and development those countries have undergone a complete transformation. I want to say that we were tremendously impressed by what we saw there in the sphere of agricultural development, and so on. [Time expired.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Groote Schuur for the opportunity to complete my speech.

Independence has given these countries a growing national pride, as well as self-respect and confidence in their own abilities and in their future. One can see it in the faces of the people there. Their faces radiate national pride.

Our opponents’ weapons have been blunted. Their weapons have been blunted by South Africa’s policy of open doors and closed mouths, by South Africa’s policy of no boycotts, but sound relations, particularly with its neighbours, by South Africa’s policy of becoming ever more self-sufficient, and of being able to stand on its own, and particularly by the significant progress the Government has made in the field of reforms and adjustments on the home front. This has blunted our opponents’ weapons.

I shall motivate this statement. We weathered the storm of the oil crisis alone and proved to countries like Nigeria that we could make the grade. We also triumphed over isolation in sport by not giving up, but by fighting back, and today we have good sporting ties with many countries. Overseas sports teams visit us and our sportsmen go abroad. World title fights are staged in South Africa, and even though our boxers do not always win, this nevertheless makes South Africa the focal point of sporting interest. After 12 years we have made a breakthrough on the cricket field with the recent visit of the British cricketers. In addition South Africa has remained a popular country to invest in, particularly for European capital, in spite of the orchestrated and organized boycott attempts against the Republic. In spite of the pressure from various quarters aimed at discouraging investments in South Africa, many overseas investors have announced that they in fact want to invest their money here at this particular time. Overseas industrialists come here to invest money virtually every week, and they do so because they like our country’s economic and political stability and for no other reason. They also do so because it is more profitable for them.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to present hon. members with certain very enlightening figures. Total foreign investment in South Africa rose from R10 000 million in 1973 to R16 500 million in 1975 and to R22 900 million in 1979. This represents an increase of more than R12 000 million in six years. This is the total foreign investment in South Africa in 1979, and the latest figure must be a great deal higher. As a matter of fact the Reserve Bank is now sending out questionnaires to conduct a survey and the result of this ought to be very enlightening. The point is that people would not invest so much money in South Africa if they did not have confidence in this country. This confidence was further strengthened by the fact that in 1979 and 1980 South Africa was able to pay back millions of rands in foreign loans. This increased South Africa’s credit standing and prestige abroad, and this will facilitate our task of raising loans abroad in future.

Mr. Chairman, I have referred to these things to show hon. members that the picture is not as black as some people suggest, but that there are rays of hope for South Africa and that we are making progress on the world stage. We do not want to boast, but we are extremely grateful that we were able to weather the storm in this way. We are grateful for these rays of hope in our foreign relations. We are grateful for the quiet success we have been able to achieve. We want to express our thanks for this to the men and women in the diplomatic service and in our Information Service, who are prepared to give everything they have for South Africa. They are behind many of these successes. In particular we want to thank Mr. Brand Fourie who is now retiring—although his services will not be lost to us, because he is going to Washington—for the lead he took and the inspiration he was for these men and women to achieve these successes for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, we too would like to associate ourselves with his words of thanks for the good work that was done by Dr. Brand Fourie over the years. We would also like to congratulate Mr. Van Dalsen on his appointment as Director-General of Foreign Affairs and Information. We welcome him here and we wish him and his family well for the years that lie ahead.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North made a number of interesting points. I think his was a good presentation. Inter alia he said that Mr. Francis Pym recently made reference to the fact that he felt that South Africa deserves the help of the West. I intend to deal with South Africa’s relationship with the West in my speech and I hope he finds the points that I will make as interesting as I found those he made.

A short while before the debate on this Vote last year Mr. Edward Heath visited South Africa. He gave us the dubious benefits of his opinions of our country. I see the hon. the Minister smiles, and I agree it is worth a smile because this party made no bones of what we thought of those opinions. I followed up what we had to say by saying that I believe that our path back to the international community was through Africa. I said that if we could go back to Africa with proof of real internal reform, with improved prospects for an independent and democratic South West Africa and with further improved prospects for the general development and the progress of the entire Southern African region, I believed that great things could be achieved in this subcontinent. I still firmly believe this.

At that time I reminded the House of Mr. Kaunda’s meeting with Mr. Vorster on the bridge and I called on the Government to launch what I then described as another Vorster-type initiative into Africa. Today, even more than ever, I believe that South Africa needs Africa, but more than ever Africa needs South Africa.

Like the hon. member for Sea Point I welcome the meeting that took place between our Prime Minister and the Zambian President on the border with Botswana. I too do not believe that Mr. Kaunda had much to gain in terms of prestige from that meeting. As a matter of fact, it is well-known throughout that he has subsequently been vilified in certain quarters for as much as daring to speak to the Prime Minister of what is popularly known, in certain quarters, as the racist regime in South Africa. How could he dare to talk to such a man!

I believe firmly that one of the reasons for the meeting is that Mr. Kaunda has a deep concern for the stability of the entire region. I believe that another reason is the fact that he probably faces many internal problems of his own which could possibly be eased were he able to maintain more cordial relationships with South Africa.

We in this party are very pleased that the initiative and the meeting took place, and we sincerely hope that this meeting will be the forerunner of many similar meetings with top echelons of Governments in other States on the African continent. Since we are totally committed to the promotion of peace and co-operation in Southern Africa, we want to see economic and technical co-operation with African States in respect of such matters as security, communications, economic development, health and so on. We want to see this become a reality.

We are realistic enough to believe, to know and to realize that South Africa will only be able to demonstrate its right to full acceptance and respect as a partner in the community of free nations by creating a stable system of peaceful co-existence in this country in which the common loyalty of our peoples will be evident. We in the NRP look forward to entering a period of dynamic reform in order to achieve this. We are confident that if with a little boldness, with a little vision and, if I may use the vernacular, with a lot of guts, we are prepared to say that we are committed to full citizenship rights for all our peoples, we can confidently expect a renewed interest in our country from those quarters from whence we would most like to see new attitudes, but it is up to us.

I regretfully say that it is against these most hopeful prospects that we view with the deepest concern details of the evidence that has been led at the Pietermaritzburg trial over the last few days. There I leave the matter. I can only say, however, that we hope it will not undo any of the good that might have been achieved due to recent initiatives. Flowing from that, I want to say that we want to reaffirm that as strongly as we reject foreign interference in the domestic affairs of our country so strongly are we committed to non-interference in the affairs of other countries.

I want to turn very briefly to South West Africa. I do not think there is any doubt that South Africa is providing an effective military shield on the border between South West Africa and Angola. Behind that military shield all efforts should be and in fact are being made towards achieving an acceptable and lasting settlement. Such a settlement has to be based on freedom and democracy because it would be a disaster if South West Africa were to be subjected to a tyranny. It is our opinion that the military exercise—which is costing us dearly both economically and in that most precious of all commodities the lives of some of our young men—would be a worthless exercise unless positive reforms could take place which would result in Swapo being roundly and soundly defeated at the polls. I believe that we, the South African Government, the department, the hon. the Minister and everybody concerned have played their role well in their negotiations with the Five. I believe we have done our duty in seeking and in working towards the ideal solution, but I believe we are going to be judged on our efforts and ultimately these efforts are going to become an important factor in determining our country’s relationship with the West.

Last year I expressed the wish that we should do nothing to bedevil improving relations with the USA, and again today I express that wish. I express this wish with the greatest sense of urgency because I am convinced that our acceptability to the West has improved considerably as a result of the split in the NP. I am firmly convinced of this. I believe that our acceptability has improved considerably because of the resulting “new look” Government that happily sits on that side of the House and talks about power-sharing and furthermore means what it says.

I believe the different approach of the USA Administration has much to do with the fact that there is a far better assessment on the part of that Administration of the political factors existing in South Africa which have seriously affected prospects for reform up to now. I think too that it stems from a renewed realization of South Africa’s strategic role in East/West relations. I believe the United States is seeing the strategic role of South Africa in East/West relations more clearly. I want to make so bold as to say that much of the credit for this different approach must go to Dr. Chester Crocker who, I believe, has at all times adopted an open-minded attitude and has appeared to have been scrupulously honest and fair in his dealings with our country.

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

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

I thank the hon. Whip for his courtesy. It is my understanding that the split in the governing party came as no great surprise to Dr. Crocker. I think he has a fair idea of what is happening in our country. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information on a previous occasion pointed out that in his opinion the United States Government would only do that which suited the United States. The hon. the Minister was correct because it is natural for any country to see first to serve its own interests. It is as natural as the night follows day. That is surely the reasoning and rationale behind our declared policy of neutrality. However, I think the United States must also recognize the fact that its interests are ultimately also tied to the interests of the free world, particularly in the face of obvious Russian expansionary objectives. In the end, when it comes to the crunch, the United States will always stand up on the side of democratic morality against tyranny. We know that that the USA is a slow starter. It has always been a rather slow starter. Both World Wars are proof of this. In the past few days the USA has taken what must have been a most painful decision for them, an agonizing decision, in that she has now openly given her backing to Great Britain in the Falkland Islands dispute. Not only the USA but also many other European countries have already done so. Most of the Commonwealth nations have done so. I understand that Japan has now come out and openly declared its support for the British cause and interests. It is also my understanding that Russia has come out on the other side, she is certainly making noises in that direction. I do not for one minute believe that anybody in the West has taken any pleasure in the crisis that has developed in the South Atlantic, but there is a very serious principle involved in this dispute. It is a principle that strikes at the very roots of democratic values and at international law and order. The principle involved is the use of force to challenge a nation’s sovereignty and to impose a regime against the will of the inhabitants of that country. Is this a right or is it a wrong? In my opinion that is the law of the jungle and it runs contrary to all civilized values. The implications of this matter are far-reaching not only for Great Britain, particularly with her other possessions such as Gibraltar which is very strategically located, but also for the West in general and for South Africa as well. Who would have ventured to forecast a few months ago that the spectre of war would now be looming in the South Atlantic? We need only consider how easy it would be for hostile powers to close both the Suez and the Panama Canals to realize our strategic importance in relation to the South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. It is a very sobering thought when one thinks that Russian submarines and other war vessels have passed and could at this very minute be passing within miles of where we are sitting here this afternoon. They could be just off our coastline. These are vessels that belong to a Super Power that is taking a deep interest in the crisis in the South Atlantic. We cannot run from this reality. We know that the Russians have got the largest and the fastest growing fleet in the world today. We know that the Russians have port facilities on the east coast of Africa, in Maputo and Beira to mention just two of them. It has port facilities on the west coast, Luanda being the closest.

I venture with some temerity to suggest that the Russians would love to get their sticky little hands on Walvis Bay. I believe that it is essential for our security that we must once again become part of the Western Defence Grid. Exchanges have taken place in the South Atlantic. Ships have been lost with the attendant loss of life. Within the Falkland crisis lies the potential for global conflict. That is a prospect that is so awesome that one can only shudder at the thought of it. One after another the free countries of the world have decided to take a stand on principle and it is a principle that has a direct bearing on us as well. I believe that the time has come when we are going to have to face this issue squarely. We must ask ourselves: Are we going to remain silent in the pursuit of our declared policy of neutrality or are we going to realize that it is becoming increasingly difficult to hide away in a shrinking world?

In the few minutes left to me I should like to quote from a speech that was made by the leader of the NRP in 1980. This was before the change of government in the USA, before President Reagan came into power but subsequent upon Mrs. Thatcher coming into power. During the discussion on the Defence Vote on 30 April 1980 he said (Hansard, col. 5195)—

Those were wise words, Sir. In closing I can only say that I believe that we must give serious attention to our attitude. I believe that we must give serious attention to our direction and I also believe that we, all of us, must address ourselves in our thinking to the permutations of what could occur as a result of the present conflict in the South Atlantic.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to say at the outset that I am a happy man today because we have had such a responsible approach by all the parties in this House to such a sensitive matter as foreign policy. That is how it should be in a democratic country which is governed in a responsible way.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that I feel it is about time he rid himself of his misconception that the Red Bear’s moves in Africa revolve solely around the axis of apartheid. What is really at issue is the continued existence of a Christian order of a civilization here at the southern point of Africa. Sir, if we could eliminate that discordant note, we would have such unanimity that we might be able to govern South Africa successfully.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Parys in regard to the Government’s repeated assurances that it sees South Africa as an inseparable and integral part of Africa, and that this country’s welfare, salvation and future destiny must be worked out in conjunction with the other nations of Southern Africa. The question which arises now is: What is this Africa like, that we have to come to terms with? To ensure objectivity I shall call upon the opinions of foreigners. I have here a publication that is funded from America and which reflects the opinions of a wide spectrum of experts on Africa, and I shall quote only a few of these opinions. It begins with these dramatic words—

Another witness I want to call is the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity—

Here is another very dramatic statement—

It goes on to say that there are already 72 million undernourished people in Africa and—

It is also alleged that the problems of Africa are unique. This is something these people have suddenly discovered, although we have been aware of this fact for a long time now.

I want to call other witnesses—and they are not South African witnesses either—who expressed opinions on the situation in Southern Africa and on the part South Africa plays in Southern Africa. These are two American academics who made a very intensive study of the African and Southern African scene. They probably know our history better than some of the hon. members here in this House do. They say—

This is most significant. However, they go on to say, still with reference to the NP Government—

They go even further to say—

Coming from an American observer, these words are particularly significant. I would not have objected if they had changed the term to “South Africans”, but I still feel extremely proud that the Afrikaner was specifically mentioned. This makes it quite clear, and in fact puts it beyond any doubt, that the country which is best equipped to tackle the problems of Africa, and to solve them with the help of its other inhabitants, is South Africa. In spite of the sombre picture presented by this publication, which reflects the opinions of experts, the standard of living of coloured people in South Africa is the highest in Africa. However, we need not only compare their living standards with those of Africa, for very interesting comparisons are drawn in this book written by these two Americans. A comparison is drawn between how long a Black machine operator has to work in South Africa to be able to buy a kilogram of apples and how long a machine operator in Moscow has to work to be able to do so. The operator in Moscow has to work five and a quarter hours to be able to do so, whereas the Black operator in South Africa need only work for half an hour. Surely this makes it quite clear that South Africa seems to know the secret of leading Africa to prosperity. After all, we have the necessary infrastructure—the hon. the Minister mentioned this quite specifically last year—as well as the necessary expertise. Our transport network is in fact the main artery for the development of the whole of Southern Africa. However, we have a more definite factor and that is our common interest when it comes to development in Africa, for surely it is quite clear from what I have already mentioned that development is the most important requirement or need of Africa. And our destiny is intertwined with that of Africa. A prosperous Africa is of the utmost importance to us. If one wants to strive for the common goal of development in Africa, one must ensure that one’s priorities are right. The hon. member for Sea Point also mentioned that order and stability, co-operation and a good flow of trade is essential in this respect. We are cautiously optimistic that the voice of reason which we hear from time to time in Africa, is also the underlying motive for the recent overtures of friendship at high diplomatic level, that these also spring from the realization that Southern Africa can only make the grade and overcome its problems as a united whole. As far as I am concerned, there is one matter which is quite certain. The facts I have already mentioned indicate that development in Africa is not merely a matter of urgency but is in fact a matter of the greatest urgency.

I want to give an analysis of the reasons why the necessary stability and co-operation do not exist. It is as clear as daylight that the root cause is ideological or political differences, and the circumstances are specifically aggravated by the interference of Russia, or its misuse of the given situation in Africa to achieve its own ends. After all, we have a common goal here. A very senior African statesman spoke a few years ago about the marauding tiger and her cubs in Africa. Surely they also fear communism. The late Gen. Smuts once referred to communism as the gospel of the devil, which in fact it is, because the serpent of communism is ensnaring nation after nation in its deadly coils, subjecting them and destroying them. When one fights a snake one must use cunning. That is the only way to succeed.

I also had the privilege to visit Taiwan in the company of the previous Speaker. There was one specific matter which deeply impressed me and that was the way in which those people actively set about motivating their people and indoctrinating them on the dangers and the methods of communism and how to fight it. They have a full-fledged department for political warfare. They have a political school, a military college, the aim of which is to make these people spiritually able to oppose communism. We could probably learn a great deal from them for they struck me as being the best motivated nation in respect of their struggle for survival I have ever encountered. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I listened with fascination, but also amazement, to the contributions of the hon. members for Parys and Sasolburg. I can only say that in Afrikaans one would describe their speeches as “domastrant”. How they can really think that they can understand Africa with their mentality and their insights that Africa is prepared to tolerate the institutionalized, legalized racialism we have in this country is to me incredible. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parys is chairman of the Government’s foreign affairs group. He is possibly going to become an Ambassador at any moment.

No!

That hon. member has come to the House and shown an incredible lack of insight into the feelings of Africa with regard to racialism as practised by our country.

That brings me to the main subject of my speech. What is actually going on in relation to Swaziland—and also Lesotho for that matter? We have heard reports of conquered territories adjoining Lesotho which may be dealt with in the same way. As regards Swaziland, there have been reports coming through in the Press for the last two years that there was some deal being struck between the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Swaziland Government. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development of course had to be involved because in this country Black people are not citizens and are dealt with by a separate Government department. The hon. member for Parys should understand that that is precisely why Black Africa will have nothing to do with us. [Interjections.]

That hon. Minister has come with a lot of reports on negotiations with Swaziland. There were questions by the hon. member for Sea Point. There was the resignation of the Commissioner-General who, I understand, has now joined the party on my left. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said he resigned for personal reasons, but he himself said he was resigning because he was not going to have Kang-wane given to Swaziland.

Stay away from our area.

There was also the postponement of the scheduled session of the Kangwane Legislative Assembly. Now we have the hon. member for Barberton getting upset about it too. We also had the interesting phenomenon that on Monday the Chief Minister of KwaZulu was summoned to Cape Town, called away from his Legislative Assembly meeting, to meet the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Co-operation and Development to discuss this issue.

I believe the House should deal with two matters arising from this. First of all, what is the deal that is being offered? As regards Natal, we understand that it concerns the corridor from Swaziland to Kosi Bay. Apparently Swaziland has the same urge the old South African Republic had to have a port of its own. Apparently this land is to be handed to Swaziland and thus Swaziland will be given the Ndumo Game Reserve in exchange for which—this is apparently what Chief Buthelezi said in the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly yesterday—he would be given the Umfolozi Game Reserve, the Hluhluwe Game Reserve and 300 000 ha of land. I think we are entitled to know who is consulted when South Africa is sliced up willy-nilly in this way. Are the people of Natal consulted? I believe that this Government is in fact pursuing a radical and revolutionary path in political ideology.

That leads me to the second question we have to ask ourselves: What is the purpose of this proposed excision of vast areas of South Africa so that that land may be given to the Kingdom of Swaziland?

What area is that?

It is the one which Mr. Mbuza, who is the Chief Minister of the Kangwane Legislative Assembly has given. It is an attempt, a subterfuge, to get these 750 000 Black people denationalized, to get rid of them by putting them into Swaziland. [Interjections.] Of course, the hon. the Minister would tell us that it is because they are all Swazi and all the Swazi should be together. [Interjections.] This, of course, exposes the cynicism and the deceit of the Government because the Tonga people of Maputaland have no connections with the Swazi or the Zulu and if they are so keen on bringing the same ethnic groups together, what then about Transkei and Ciskei, where the people speak the same language? [Interjections.]

I believe the hon. member for Sasolburg and the hon. member for Parys should bear in mind that our foreign friends are not so stupid as not to see through this political manoeuvre, which is actually an attempt to move millions of South African Blacks into a country which has OAU and UN recognition. [Interjections.] It is a matter of great concern to us in Natal.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

I should like to deal now with a second matter which also actually affects Natal, Yesterday we saw, announced on the front page of our Natal newspaper, that the Escom tariffs in Natal were going to be increased by 7,5%. Mr. Chairman, you might ask what this has to do with foreign affairs. It has a great deal to do with foreign affairs because Escom, which is hardly a political body by any standards, announced that the main reason for this was that power supplies from Cabora Bassa had been curtailed in 1980 and that, since the beginning of 1981, South Africa had in effect received no power from Mozambique. What was the effect of this on Natal? It caused, what is known in Natal, as power-shedding. Our industries, our towns, in some instances…

Power-sharing?

Power-shedding; not power-sharing. [Interjections.] West Street, in Durban, was on occasion without light at night. That happened during winter last year. This was a direct result of a loss of electricity from Cabora Bassa.

That was unhealthy power-shedding! [Interjections.]

We are told that the main reason for this is that the Mozambique Government cannot protect the power lines that are being attacked by an organization called the Mozambique Resistance movement, the same organization which allegedly shot and killed Mr. Reuben Cele, a South African driver of a South African vehicle moving South African goods to Malawi. We know that South Africa and the subcontinent are interrelated in trade terms. The question arises therefore: Who actually supplies the Mozambique Resistance movement? By a simple process of elimination it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that that organization is being supplied with or without the knowledge of the South African Government by sources in South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are absolutely irresponsible!

You are a disgrace to your own people!

Mr. Chairman, there is a very short-sighted and blinkered view on South African foreign affairs … [Interjections.]

You and Hulley are equally irresponsible!

… that appears to be set by a kind of Chips, Magnum, “Man van Staal” mentality, an attitude that our subcontinent is the place where a discreet form of cowboys and Indians with a mythical strongman image is the right approach to relations with our neighbours. [Interjections.]

Not cowboys and Indians, but Hulley and McIntosh!

It is this mentality which prevents us from making a cool, rational assessment of Zimbabwe and other countries in Southern Africa.

You are a traitor!

Mr. Chairman, these people ….

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Maitland had the impertinence to call the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North a traitor.

Order! Did the hon. member for Maitland say that?

Mr. K. D. S. DURR. I did, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member for Maitland must withdraw the word “traitor”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it very reluctantly. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Maitland must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the phenomenon of guerrilla warfare is a great factor in our foreign relations. There are, however, also other factors in our foreign relations, factors which can be more effective in containing a threat of guerrilla warfare than the mere use of similar tactics. Those people who see all Southern Africa’s problems in military terms must not be allowed undue influence. If they do have that influence, the tail may well end up wagging the dog.

You had better be careful or your tail might end up wagging you!

Mr. Chairman … [Time expired.] [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, this House has had obnoxious hon. members in its time, and will probably have such members in future too. I think I can pay the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North this compliment. At present, he, together with the hon. member for Constantia, is the most “aanstootlike” (obnoxious) hon. member in this House.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “aanstootlik” (obnoxious).

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “aanstootlik” (obnoxious), but I do not know of another word which I can use to describe that hon. member.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word unconditionally.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it unconditionally, but I repeat that I do not know how else to describe that hon. member. Today the hon. member dragged in a piece of gutter politics between the NRP and the PFP, with Natal as the battlefield. The hon. member has always wanted to be a king, but the largest audience he could get, was a little group he managed to assemble on his lawn. I thought they were Zulus, but now I hear they were Swazis. The hon. member made a very irresponsible statement, viz. that the Mozambique resistance movement is being supplied with weapons from the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member will have to furnish us with better proof of that statement. I think his allegation is reprehensible. I think the hon. member for Yeoville will have to get to work with the cane again. I shall be returning to the hon. member.

Meanwhile, I wish to concentrate for a moment on internal information, precisely because I believe that one cannot present a positive image to the outside world if one’s internal image is not satisfactory. One gained the impression after the debacle in the former Department of Information under the former Minister, Dr. Connie Mulder—at present a member of the CP and soon, in all likelihood, the chief leader of the Kappiekommando or the Kappie Party—that the people of the Information Service have become a little reticent. One has discerned a lack of initiative, and one could even infer this from the turnover of staff, even in the top echelons. That is why it is just as well that rationalization has brought about some good in this case, viz. a double-legged system where the one leg is aimed at the distribution of information overseas, and the other at the distribution of information in Africa. It is always better to stand on two legs than on one. There is only one condition: One should never stand with one leg in one party and the other leg in another party.

Since the one leg is aimed at internal information, it is of the utmost importance to us that this division of the Information Service should make use, on a large scale, of all the talent available. We in South Africa are made up of Black people from various nations, as well as Coloureds, Asians and Whites. Even the Whites speak different languages and that is why I believe that the department should make more extensive use of Coloureds, Blacks and Asians to convey the message of South Africa to their own people. This message should convey a moderate and well-balanced image, and it should also mention the onslaught that is being directed against South Africa. While I am making this request, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister not to forget that there are also a number of Chinese people in South Africa and that we could also make use of the talents of these very accomplished people—people who in most cases can speak up to three languages—particularly since we have sound relations with the Republic of China, as well as improved social intercourse between the inhabitants of these two Republics.

When I recently made inquiries at the department as to what their priorities are at the moment, what major information projects they were working on, I was referred inter alia to video programme lasting plus-minus 40 mintues, which deals with the psychological onslaught on South Africa. The question which immediately occurred to use was this: What about the other components of the total onslaught on South Africa? What about a component such as the economic onslaught? What about a component such as the political onslaught? The English-language Press and the PFP are instrumental in the political onslaught. A moment ago the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North was venting his spleen for foreigh consumption, for the overseas Press. What about the onslaught in the sphere of security, in which the hon. member for Jeppe does not believe?

You are lying!

The hon. member for Jeppe expressly stated …

You are lying!

Sir, I really do not care. The hon. member may say that if he wishes, because I do not wish to waste my time. In the debate on the Defence Vote the hon. member said …

Order! Did the hon. member for Jeppe say that the hon. member for Roodeplaat was lying?

I did say so, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw those words immediately.

I withdraw them, Sir.

In reply to a question whether the total onslaught was being exaggerated, the hon. member for Jeppe said explicitly: “Yes, by certain politicians.”

I stand by what I said.

By which politicians? By NP politicians. Now he is saying that he stands by what he said. What that hon. member is not aware of is that those words of his that the total onslaught is being exaggerated, appear in Hansard and are used against us abroad. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterkloof is laughing now, but surely he also preached about the total onslaught; did he not? Does he disagree now?

I said it in your constituency.

One day, that hon. member will have to tell the voters outside and his fellow-travellers why the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force are saying that we in South Africa are asleep, that we should wake up because we have no conception of the total onslaught. However, that hon. member is now saying that we are exaggerating it.

Yes.

I am pleased that the hon. member is confirming this, for somewhere, some day it is going to be cast in his teeth.

I told that to 100 people in your constituency and there were only 14 Nationalists at your meeting.

The hon. member is welcome to come again. [Interjections.] I have had enough of the hon. member for Jeppe; he is not worth bothering about.

Can the hon. the Minister imagine what this country could be spared if the English-language Press in South Africa would report positively and patriotically for only one year? I am not referring to the Opposition now, but to the English-language Press. The English-language Press ought to be positive and patriotic for at least one year and place the image of South Africa in its correct perspective abroad. However, what do we find? Most of the time of the Information division of the department is taken up by breaking down the prejudices that have been built up by the English-language Press. They have to do this before anything positive can be done.

I wish to deal with something positive. [Interjections.] The target area in the interior has to be determined by the department. We have excellent material to transmit to all our people, but we lack the time and the experienced people. That is why it is essential that we get our internal priorities right. I think the department also appreciates that one should identify certain opinion-shapers in the community leaders of South Africa. Those leaders in the Chambers of Commerce, Farmers’ Associations and Chambers of Industries should be identified. The same applies to the cultural sphere, viz. the Rapportryers and the Round Tablers, but above all, the Youth of South Africa should be selected as a target group. We should concentrate on the youth of South Africa, through their organizations such as the Voortrekkers, the Boy Scouts and the student councils of the various schools. I also think we should have regional newspapers as is already the case in Bloemfontein. The Coloureds and other Black groups should also be involved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. What progress is the State Trust Board making with its activities? Have any prosecutions or judicial steps been instituted against any person or company as a result of the State Trust Board’s investigation? If any prosecutions or legal steps have in fact been instituted against a person or company by the State Trust Board, what was the outcome?

Then I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that we have opened a consulate in Madeira. [Interjections.] We have a large Portuguese population in South Africa, and the hon. member for Jeppe, who does not have a turn to speak, and I, have been furnishing these people with information for a very long time, and we have also assisted them in other ways. Consequently we are greatly indebted to the hon. the Minister for the establishment of the consulate in Madeira. [Interjections.] There are at least 750 000 Portuguese in South Africa. They are fine, hardworking citizens who do a great deal for our country. These people often travel overseas and they like to proclaim South Africanism to the outside world.

I also wish to ask the hon. the Minister what his policy on the Information Service is. I am concerned about that service, because it seems to me that it is an appendage of Foreign Affairs.

Order! This Vote is far too important for hon. members to take it so lightly. I request hon. members please to converse more quietly if they have to converse, or to go and do so in the Lobby. The hon. member may proceed with his speech.

I do not want the department to be crippled by the problems which it has experienced over the past few years. The staff of the Information Service should not feel that they are working in a department which is not recognized as being first-rate. I think it would be a good thing if the hon. the Minister were to spell out his policy in respect of this service. We are aware that the staff of the Information Service and the staff of Foreign Affairs are trained together, but I feel that the Information Service should be recognized in its own right. More promotion opportunities should also be created for the staff in this department.

I wish to convey a special word of congratulations to Mr. Van Dalsen. He is well acquainted with foreign affairs and he has achieved success in Europe in particular and he has meant a great deal to South Africa. We wish to congratulate him on his appointment to this post. Now I should like to refer to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I dissociate myself completely from everything he said today. One does sometimes become agitated in this House, but one should always place South Africa’s interests first. We cannot allow our personal political convictions and feelings to run away with us and harm South Africa in the process.

What aspect of my speech are you referring to now?

I do not think I shall refer to any aspect of the speech the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made. In fact, I do not wish to reply to him at all.

I now wish to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Roodeplaat, since I think that he wrongly accused the hon. member for Jeppe today. Treachery is spoken of too lightly here. It is just as important for hon. members on the Government side as for any other members to keep the total onslaught out of politics and it is very important that the words “total onslaught” are not trifled with.

That is my intention.

This is very dangerous, and a situation which we should not lightly create, and I do not think that a person should deal with it on a political platform. This House is the place to warn against it and to discuss it with one another, but I think that we should avoid those words on a political platform. From here we should allow it to be dealt with through the departments. We are all aware of our duty. I do not think we should debate this kind of thing across the floor of this House. I wish to repeat the words of the hon. member for Jeppe, since I was present at that debate. The hon. member for Jeppe said that he believed that there was a total onslaught.

He did not say that.

I am telling you now.

Hon. members can go and look it up in Hansard, and furthermore they will see that he said that politicians should not use it…

“Abuse”.

… abuse. He quoted an example and said that certain politicians in the Waterberg constituency had used the total onslaught as a slogan on a political platform to canvass votes against someone else.

In which Hansard does this appear?

This is what he was opposed to. But let us leave it at that and have a look at the real problem.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat says that the NP policy stands on two legs. The NP is also standing on two legs now and it also has a two-legged policy. There is a neo-Prog policy that is being advocated in the cities, and an old verkrampte policy that is being advocated in the rural areas. When they are in the country, they are so verkramp that one just cannot believe it.

That is what you did.

One just cannot believe it, but when they are in the cities, they are neo-Progs—absolutely. There has been a complete change in the party which I have known and which I have served over all the years. The hon. member says that the NP has a two-legged policy, one for the outside world and one for Africa. But is Africa no longer part of the outside world? The hon. member was confused when he spoke of Africa as being the interior.

I said one policy for overseas and one policy for Africa.

I want to tell him that he should be very careful that he does not refer to Africa as being the interior of South Africa when he is speaking in the rural areas, for he will then have problems. I know that he and his party, in which I also served, are no longer trusted as a result of certain foreign …

The hon. member must return to the subject under discussion.

Sir, I am coming to that now. As a result of certain things which are happening abroad, the NP are no longer trusted, and for that reason we have to have clarity on their two-legged policy. That policy has short legs. In the city they walk around and make certain declarations, and in the country they advocate something completely different. This afternoon the hon. member dealt with the Information Service in detail and he requested that the English-language newspapers should be patriotic for a change. It is not true that the English-language newspapers are so terribly unpatriotic. [Interjections.] One should read the reports that have appeared over the years. Here I have a book The Press as Opposition. Hon. members should read this book, because then they will see that the English-language Press in South Africa has done just as well. However, I found Beeld more widely quoted at the UN than The Sunday Times or … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agreed with you wholeheartedly when you pointed out to the hon. member for Langlaagte that he should come back to this Vote. In the short time that that party has existed, that hon. member has turned out to be one of the greatest naggers in this House.

The hon. member makes all kinds of remarks and then he builds his whole political speech around the reactions he evokes.

In the short time at my disposal, I wish to make a few remarks with regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. Firstly, I wish to look at certain problems and afterwards I shall address certain requests to the hon. the Minister. In the first instance, if one considers the history of this department, it is fantastic to note that in 1948 we only had 25 missions abroad. This included the former colonial areas. At this stage, we already have 108 missions abroad. This is a fine achievement seen against the background of the total campaign being waged against South Africa, the onslaught being made on us by the UNO, the OAU and the Soviet Union and its satellites. Despite all this, there has been a steady growth, and today we are represented by 108 missions in 45 different countries. This is a tremendous achievement for this department, for the hon. the Minister and his officials who assist him both here and abroad. I include our representation in respect of the UNO, the International Monetary Fund and the International Atomic Energy Board. I recall very well, and I wish to make a forceful point of this this afternoon, how I had to decide a few years ago whether I should attend a certain international conference in the USA. I then went to my head at the time and asked him whether I should go, as I had been told that the people there would shout me clean off the platform. Then my head said the following words to me: “Jan, you must go. Dr. Verwoerd said: ‘Retain any platform you have, and try to obtain one you do not already have.’” Today my plea is that it should be understood, not only in this House, but also outside, that every platform we have abroad, is an extremely valuable platform. The most important aspect is not that we may be shouted off a platform while stating our case, but that we have the opportunity of stating our case abroad. Our case rests on such firm grounds that we do not have to shy away from any platform in the whole world in respect of the message we want to convey. That is why I briefly want to pay tribute today to our people in the 108 missions in the 45 countries for what they are doing, day and night. There are many of them who work outside normal hours. I also wish to refer to our people here in South Africa, and I begin by mentioning the hon. the Minister and, thereafter, the Director-General and the other officials. While we are enjoying our weekends, the officials of this department are drafting resolutions or replies for people who are working normal hours in other parts of the world at that time. None of the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs throughout the world have weekends and fixed hours, and I think the hon. the Minister and all his officials ought to know that there is great appreciation and respect for what they are doing.

If one looks at the background and the figures, it is very interesting to note that the four Prime Ministers we have had after General Hertzog since this department was established, have all run the Department of Foreign Affairs themselves. They did this because they realized that this affects an extremely important facet of the country’s existence. What is even more remarkable, is that over a period of 27 years there have been four Prime Ministers who have run the department. Only in 1955 was foreign affairs allocated to a particular ministry and Advocate Eric Louw was the first Minister to be entrusted with this portfolio. After him came Dr. Hilgard Muller and then our present Minister. Over a period of 28 years, we have therefore had only three Ministers of Foreign Affairs in South Africa. Is this not a sign of the stability which exists in this department, Sir? This is something which does not occur anywhere else in the world, and we in South Africa, the party to which I belong in particular, and I, also believe that the loyal patriots in the other parties in this House are just as proud as I am of this achievement.

There is something which is even more remarkable. Since the establishment of this department up to the present, in other words, over a period of 55 years, we have only had four Secretaries of Foreign Affairs. Is that not fantastic? Dr. Bodenstein held this post for 14 years; Mr. Forsyth, for 17 years; Dr. Jooste for 10 years and Dr. Brand Fourie, who has now retired, for 16 years. Four secretaries in 55 years! In fact, one cannot think of a better testimonial for this department.

A fine image has been built up over the years, and it is a great pity that this fine record was marred by the escapades of the Rhoodies and the Mulders and that South Africa experienced one of the most traumatic periods in its entire political existence. A question has been put with regard to the State Trust Board. If it were not for that man and his modus operandi, it would not have been necessary to have a State Trust Board. Hon. members should not forget that there is an excuse for everything. That excuse is now haunting us. He is now serving on the head committee of the CP. If I were them, I would go and do some homework to see whom I am inviting into my inner circles. [Interjections ] I am warning the CP: The slow poison is doing its work. However, out of this trauma a department has come into being through a great deal of dedication, love and sacrifice and it has emerged from the struggle with honour. The former Department of Information has now been completely integrated with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

These two departments are not Siamese twins, but are one department with staff dealing with the Information Service and staff who are employed in the diplomatic service. However, what is more important, is that it has now become possible for the various members of staff with the necessary training to be moved around in that department. I wish I had the time to refer to the structure of this department. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get involved with the ghosts wandering among those parties. I shall leave their problems to them. [Interjections.]

†I regret that I have to come back to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. He should be called the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg West, because west is the way he is going. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, I cannot view that speech in isolation, because the official spokesman on foreign affairs for that party prepared the mud-pit in which that hon. member then wallowed. [Interjections.] He talked about the destabilization of Southern Africa and sowed suspicion about that destabilization having its sources in South Africa. So, as I have said, he prepared the mud-pit, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North then climbed in and wallowed in it, making his unjust and unworthy insinuations about South Africa’s assistance to revolutionary organizations in other countries. He also had the nerve to speak as if he were speaking on behalf of Natal. He is, however, unworthy of representing Natal or of speaking on behalf of Natal. [Interjections.] I dissociate this party from that sort of politics. He is competing with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens by making insinuations that can be exploited and used against our country. Let him attack the Government—as I do …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is that hon. member entitled to cast aspersions on an individual member of this House by saying he is unworthy of representing an area?

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point may proceed.

Mr. Chairman …

Tackle him Vause. Do not hesitate!

Whatever one may feel, one does not make that kind of insinuation unless one has the facts on which to base it, and I challenge that hon. member to produce any facts. It is this sort of suspicion-mongering that I think any South African, with any South African sense of pride, would condemn and in fact treat with contempt.

I want to deal with the other subject he spoke about, but I hope I can do so in a very different spirit. I am referring to the announcement yesterday, by the Chief Minister of KwaZulu, that he had been offered certain land in exchange for the incorporation of South African land into Swaziland. I believe that the territorial integrity of a sovereign State like South Africa is a matter of the utmost importance to every South African, and I believe that before one starts horse-trading South African soil, this Parliament should deal with the matter, because it is this Parliament which represents the people of South Africa and in which the sovereignty of this country rests. We hear now, however, of some offer made secretively, in dark corners, offering 300 000 ha of land to KwaZulu in compensation for Ingwavuma and a passage to the sea. I know that this border dispute with Swaziland is a very longstanding one, and nobody would be happier than I would if it could be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. There are, however, two things I believe this Government has no right to do; one is to horse-trade the South African citizenship of its people with another country, unless it is the wish and desire of those people, of their own free will, to do it themselves. A week or so ago the hon. the Prime Minister himself, in reply to an interjection by me, gave the assurance in respect of Kangwane that nothing would be done except of the free will and according to the wish of the people of Kangwane. That, I think, is absolutely paramount. The people concerned should express clearly and unequivocally their view on any change of citizenship and on any transfer of territory.

The other thing is that the very constitution under which this Parliament functions and which binds the Government states that one cannot change the boundaries of a province except by application to and in agreement with the province itself, as happened when East Griqualand was transferred to Natal. But without any reference to the Administration of Natal, to the Administrator and the Executive Committee, let alone to the provincial council, deals are being made without their knowledge. The Administration of Natal is the second element that has a right to know and to express its views on this sort of deal where the Pongola Dam area, the Makatini Flats, two of the prime game reserves of South Africa, and a strip down to Kosi Bay, including Kosi Bay, are suddenly, out of the blue, offered to KwaZulu—not even announced in this House but in the Legislative Assembly of KwaZulu.

You are talking like a Hertzogite now.

It is the correct thing for the Chief Minister of KwaZulu to do to take it to his parliament, but I believe that the correct thing for the hon. Minister to have done was to bring it to this Parliament so that we, as a parliament, could consider our attitude to this in the same way that KwaZulu could consider its attitude in its Legislative Assembly. It is on those grounds that I believe this issue has been badly handled.

I hope a solution can be found, but I do not believe that we are going to arrive at solutions in this way because then one will create a backlash and resentment amongst the people who are going to lose their land. Even though most of the land concerned is State land, there will have to be private land involved as well. Suddenly to cut off 300 000 hectares from Natal is not just peanuts. It is being done without any consultation. Not even the hon. member for Klip River and his committee on consolidation have been consulted, because this is over and above consolidation quotas. Obviously the Cabinet has also not even agreed on this because a member of the Cabinet is in July officially going to hand over the “Corridor” to the Natal Parks Board. That has been given by the Government to the Natal Parks Board and it is due to be handed over officially in July. Yet we heard yesterday that that very piece of land, which has not yet been officially given to the Natal Parks Board is now going to be given to KwaZulu so that land belonging to KwaZulu can be given to Swaziland.

They are selling the same cow three times.

That is about the size of it.

You have gone too far, Vause.

But it is true. The corridor has not yet been handed over and that is part of the land which now is supposed to be exchanged.

You have caught us out.

Yes, I have caught the hon. the Minister out. A member of his own Cabinet does not even know about it and is making arrangements to hand over the land to the Natal Parks Board. He is going to have to change that and arrange to hand it over to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi.

So I think this has been handled wrongly. I think it has harmed the possibility of agreement being reached and I am sorry that it has been done in this way. Where we have discussed such matters, as I did with the hon. the Minister in regard to Kangwane, we have not attacked but simply asked that the rights of those concerned be taken into account, but while we were discussing Kangwane not a word was mentioned of KwaZulu and of this happening in Natal. It was only Kangwane we talked about. If we are going to follow this sort of diplomacy we will get this sort of reaction. If the first we are going to hear about something is in the Parliament of KwaZulu instead of hearing from our own Government, I believe it is my duty to raise the matter here, and I believe I do speak for Natal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Durban Point with regard to his opening remarks about the hon. member for Pietermaritzburt North. I agree with him wholeheartedly that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North behaved here in a way which was totally unworthy of this House. I cannot censure his behaviour strongly enough.

I do not want to express an opinion on the other matter raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. I am not aware of the statement made by the Chief Minister of KwaZulu in his Legislative Assembly. I have not yet read the newspapers in which mention was apparently made of this, and do not therefore want to express an opinion on the matter at this stage.

It is sad indeed if one has to learn about these things from the newspapers.

The Chief Minister of KwaZulu did not send me a copy of his statement. [Interjections.]

In this debate on the foreign policy of South Africa I should like to discuss the matter of South Africa’s relations with its neighbouring States. After all, I believe that this is one of the more important aspects, namely that foreign relations can be of tremendous value to South Africa in the implementation of our relations policy in respect of our neighbouring States; and not only those States that originally formed part of South Africa, but also those States that are elsewhere considered our neighbouring States. These includes Zambia. I believe that the positive discussions which took place between the hon. the Prime Minister and the President of Zambia, attest to South Africa’s willingness to build up positive relations. I contend that this building up of positive relations is in line with the declared policy of the NP since the earliest days; as early as 1912, when Gen. Hertzog found reason to disagree with the then Prime Minister, Gen. Louis Botha. It was then that Gen. Hertzog spelt out the crux of the NP’s policy, namely “South Africa first”. Implicit in this credo of “South Africa first” was the rejection of colonialism and imperialism. I consider colonialism as the attempt to exercise control over the territory of another nation with the aim of using that nation’s natural resources to the advantage of the economy and strategic interests of the controlling country. I would define imperialism as the political concept in terms of which one State strives to expand the Lebensraum or political sphere of influence of its nation by gaining political say in and control over the territory of another nation.

Implicit in the NP’s policy of “South Africa first” is, therefore, the rejection of colonialism and imperialism. Also implicit in its policy is the view that bridges of understanding must be built here in Southern Africa. “South Africa first” means that the interests of the people and the nations of South Africa are of primary importance to us. Dr. Malan added to this policy. He said: Join together those who through inner conviction belong together. When this country became a Union in 1910 an artificial unity was created in Southern Africa. However, we have seen what the results of artificial unity are. We saw what the results were in Nigeria, where there was civil war. We know what happened in Somalia and Sudan, where ethnic differences led to misunderstandings, civil war and loss of life. The British Government tried to establish the Federation of Central Africa by uniting Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in a federation. This federation broke up and each of these three countries now has full independence and sovereignty and are known as Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi. Those countries now have every right to decide independently to come together as a unit again in so far as it is in their interests to do so. But it would be the interests and needs of each individually which would now be the determining factor, and not the imperial interests of a previous century or a previous era. In South Africa, too, the foundation is being laid in terms of which independent nations may negotiate voluntarily, and as international political equals, on the ties of co-operation. They are economic ties of co-operation, political ties of co-operation and ties of co-operation in many other fields. We envisage the concept of a constellation of states, a confederation of states within which sovereign independent states can co-operate more closely. What is of importance, however, is that it is the view of this Government that the respective Black States are to be treated and approached in a spirit of goodwill. We reject the idea of exploiting people or territories for our own benefit. We reject the approach of paternalistic hypocrisy shown by those parties that want to exploit the Blacks to promote the political policy of destabilizing the existing order.

I am now referring to our relations with States like Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. Our approach is that real development must take place in those areas. There must be development of human material, industries, commerce and the professions, and those States must develop into full-fledged international States. Service to the community is of primary importance and the South African development aid is summarized in the report on the promotion of industrial development in Southern Africa. According to that report the aid provided by South Africa for the development of those States that originally were an artificial part of South Africa due to different circumstances in the colonial era, is based on the policy that those States must actually develop into sovereign independent states in every field. What we are now doing in the economic field is to put forward initiatives in terms of which those countries, on their own initiative and with the aid of the private sector and our goodwill and support, can develop at their own rate and in accordance with their own needs. In this connection their Governments are given the initiative to decide on the rate at which they want to proceed. The benefits offered are, for example, a rail rebate of 50%, 95% of their total wage packet paid by way of subsidy to a maximum of between R105 and R110 per worker per month, subsidies on interest, housing subsidies, resettlement allowances and price preferences with regard to tenders. What tremendous encouragement do all these concessions not offer for the development of these countries? This is not done in a paternalistic way; it represents real and positive development aid to those countries by means of private initiative in South Africa and abroad. What economic reassurance with regard to stability does this not afford industrialists who have the courage to invest here? Because South Africa offers this assistance, the investor is guaranteed stability. I feel that South Africa’s policy towards these countries is one of positive development aid, which will prove to the outside world that we do not have a policy of oppression. We do not have a policy in terms of which we are merely racist. We have a policy of positive development aid for nations that were artificially joined together by a colonial government. The NP policy of “South Africa first” and “join together those who through inner conviction belong together”, is a positive aid to development for all the nations of Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Klip River, who in my opinion touched on very important matters in a most responsible way. I think he delivered a well-considered speech.

I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Brits, who spoke about the department’s overseas information effort. While listening to this debate this afternoon, on the one hand I was impressed by the responsible speeches made, but on the other hand, because I have studied the subject I wish to discuss, I also felt sorry for the men and women who have made it their life’s work to promote South Africa’s image abroad as far as possible.

I am afraid that this afternoon certain hon. members made statements which most definitely will not facilitate the task of those South Africans. The hon. member for Sea Point started off by saying that one must be wary of statements made by right-wing groups. That is how he qualified it. I agree with him, because it is of course true.

Does that only apply to South West Africa?

I assume that it probably applies everywhere. Although I agree with the hon. member for Sea Point in this regard, I must point out to him that he should take this matter further, because we are also worried about certain statements by left-wing groups. I need go no further than the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I see the hon. member is smiling broadly because he knows what I am going to say.

I am dreadfully left-wing of course!

I am not in the mood to joke with the hon. member; I consider this a very serious matter. I refuse to believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or many other members of that party are happy about the blatant way in which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made statements that most definitely were not in South Africa’s interests. [Interjections.] We can therefore apply this to left-wing and right-wing groups. I merely want to suggest that we choose our words carefully when we discuss delicate local or overseas matters which could be detrimental to what we all expect and aim for in the interests of the country we live in.

While doing some research into the task of our officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, more specifically with regard to our foreign information service, I was impressed by the tremendous sacrifices these people make, and also the tremendous problems they have to face in their endeavour to achieve the important goal of promoting and projecting South Africa’s image as far as possible.

It goes without saying that owing to the nature of our population composition their primary task of projecting our image abroad is by no means an easy one. In addition, it is not very easy to explain the non-acceptability in South Africa of the Westminster system of a unitary state model to nations abroad. It is difficult to explain to overseas nations that we cannot apply that system in the Republic of South Africa, although we are all agreed that this is so.

In addition, the task of those officials is made more difficult by every word or incident which hints of discrimination in the Republic of South Africa. It is in this regard in particular that left-wing speakers sometimes err because they unjustly state that certain matters are discriminatory, and thus play into the hands of our enemies. They make matters very difficult for our information effort abroad. I also want to say that they experience difficulties in their efforts to break down the stereotyped image of South Africa as a country of oppressors. We know that this image is very prevalent overseas, and it is very difficult for them to break down that image while certain discordant notes still emanate from the Republic of South Africa. It is indeed true that they are trying to break down that image.

I was also impressed by the efficiency and expertise developed by this specific division of the department to achieve what we want to achieve. I want to mention briefly a few of these techniques, the most important of which is probably the personal contact of our people with opinion-formers and decision-making abroad. Then, too, there is contact with businessmen, industrialists, academics, religious leaders, journalists and so forth. I also found it interesting that some events fall into the laps of these people when they are in fact trying to explain this image at the personal level. Here I have in mind Operation Protea, for example, which in fact received a great deal of publicity in the foreign press, but as a result of that publicity it gave our people the opportunity to gain access to the foreign media. Therefore, while this matter was being discussed by the foreign Press, our staff very skilfully took advantage of this situation to put across what we frequently have difficulty in putting across because we are not given the opportunity. We are very glad that our officials have the expertise to take advantage of the opportunities at their disposal to promote our interests. In order to do this our officials must be kept abreast of affairs through the newspapers, background information, thorough news coverage by telex, etc. The staff therefore receives instruction every day in an effort to obtain as much recent news as possible so that they can put it across expertly.

There is another technique that is used, viz. official South African visits abroad. I am most grateful that we have South Africans with specialized knowledge who are prepard to go overseas—provision is made in the budget for this expenditure—to improve our image there, sometimes under very difficult circumstances.

A third technique used is overseas guests who visit our country. I think this is one of the most successful methods the department uses to market our image abroad. These visitors witness the positive developments that are taking place in our country. Of course they, too, are opinion-moulders in their own right, and when they return to their respective countries they can tell of their personal experiences in South Africa, even in a hostile world. It gives me pleasure to mention that during the past year under review we entertained guests from nine countries, and I shall only mention a few of them. There were, inter alia, five women from the National Federation of Republican Women of the USA, and the son of the President of the Republic of China. In the period 1 January 1981 to 31 January 1982 we entertained a total of 100 guests and in the corresponding period we entertained 149 guests after they had arrived here. These are people who paid their own way to and from South Africa, but whom we entertained and treated as guests here.

We also helped to arrange appointments locally for approximately 600 foreigners who visited South Africa in their private capacity, and we are grateful that these people came to South Africa at their own expense and that we could assist them here, in the knowledge that they would also promote our image abroad.

Another very important aspect is the question of follow-up conferences. After all, if people from abroad come to South Africa and see the positive development, they cannot keep pace with all the developments if they were last here four or five years ago, because developments take place so quickly. That is why it is extremely important—and I am grateful that the department gives attention to this—that these follow-up conferences are held to keep these people up to date on the changes taking place in the Republic of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I in the first instance associate myself with the congratulations which were directed to the new Director-General of the department. I too wish him well in his new post. With his experience I am sure he will acquit himself particularly well. I also wish to thank other members of the department not only for the job they are doing generally, but also for the courtesy which they show not just to me but to all members of this House in dealings we have with them. I should also like to mention particularly the perhaps forgotten ladies who accompany some of those visitors the hon. member for Virginia spoke about. The courtesy and application of these ladies need appreciation by all of us.

The hon. member for Virginia came onto the subject of the harm that is done by reports which come from South Africa and sought to attach blame to members who sit in the Opposition benches for remarks which are alleged to have been made by them.

Some of them.

I would like to have an impartial test made somewhere as to what does more harm to South Africa: The remarks of members of the Opposition or the actions and words of member of the Government. If we weigh those two up I have little doubt that we will find that in the final analysis the real things that do harm to South Africa are some of the things that are done wittingly and unwittingly and some of the things that are said wittingly and unwittingly by members of the Government and the policies of the Government. Those are the matters that we have to deal with. All foreign policy is domestic policy. That has been said often, but in South Africa domestic policy is relevant to foreign policy in two respects: Firstly, quite obviously, our domestic policy is directed at achieving the domestic welfare of the country and is influenced by domestic considerations, as it is in virtually every country of the world, and, secondly, our domestic policy is the major foreign policy issue that we have to deal with. That is the reality of life. If we do not accept that as a reality of life, we are ignoring what really is the problem of foreign policy.

I want to take as my theme the question of friendly relations with other States. Obviously, it is trite to say that it is in South Africa’s interest to have friendly relations with as many countries as possible. It is also clear that we need to concentrate on two fields, the first of which is the field of Africa, the countries in immediate proximity to us. The second is the United States of America and the European Economic Community. One of the matters to which we need to draw attention is that our foreign policy, as I have tried to say so often, in respect of these countries, the United States and the countries which belong to the European Economic Community, particularly Britian and Germany, must be directed towards not only the continuance of friendly relations with those States, but in terms of two factors: Firstly, the absolute essential of doing everything in our power to make sure that there are no sanctions or boycotts against South Africa, in other words, that there will always be somebody in the Security Council of the United Nations who will exercise a veto, and, secondly, to protect the vital markets that South Africa needs, bearing in mind that close on 60% of our gross national product is related to imports and exports.

It is quite obvious that the pure diplomatic effort which is made can in many cases be insufficient, becauee there is no doubt that in many countries the politicians and decision-makers have their actions influenced by the lobbyists and other opinion-makers, perhaps even agitators if one can use the word in its broad sense, who seek to influence policy. When it comes to the question of our representation abroad and when it comes to the question of our ability to deal with that situation, I regard the provisions of this budget, because this is what we are discussing, as inadequate. I regard our representation abroad as inadequate, not in regard to the competence or the ability of the personnel who are there but in regard to their numbers and in regard to the number of missions that exist abroad. If, for example, one looks at the budget, on the face of it it shows a very big increase for this department but not in regard to the programme to which I am referring which is the actual diplomatic services abroad. When one looks at that, one sees that the amount of R32,6 million that was voted last year has been increased to only R36,5 million this year. One of the items that is included which makes the budget for this particular programme seem higher is a matter which has been transferred from the Department of Community Development. Therefore I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is getting the necessary money from the Exchequer in order to give the kind of service that we actually need abroad. Something must be done in regard to this matter. Let us take the USA as an example. As one who has looked at where our representation is in the USA and taking into consideration the vastness of that country, I venture to suggest that our representation there is inadequate geographically speaking. I think people are trying to do a tremendously good job there but there are not the number of people that we require. On this kind of money I do not see how the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information can possibly do the job. I think people are trying to do that job in very difficult circumstances and the department is being kept short. I should therefore like to make an appeal not only that the hon. the Minister press harder, and I am sure he does with the hon. the Minister of Finance, but also that the Cabinet as a whole reassess its attitude in regard to the money to be provided for diplomatic representation abroad.

Let me deal with another situation, namely the European Economic Community. I believe that one of the places where we should have permanent representation is in Strasbourg at the seat of the European Parliament. I believe that the hon. the Minister has in more recent times taken a view in respect of our representation in Brussels in regard to the European Economic Community, but I actually think Strasbourg is the key. Strasbourg is the place where the politicians are, it is the place where the people from all over Europe are and it is the place from where the people go back to their constituencies and countries. I should like to see South Africa having permanent representation in that particular place in order to have that contact with the European Parliament. I believe that the European Parliament will become more powerful and influential and that is why I should like to see that there is increased representation there.

We have had public relations activity overseas, particularly in Germany and also in other countries, and I believe that that public relations activity could also be stepped up in some respects. Very often it is easier for people who are not diplomats, people who are not bound to champion Government causes, to put the case not for the Government but for South Africa.

There are four particular objectives which I think can be put and can be put by anybody and I think that those four objectives are vital to the survival of South Africa. Firstly, change in South Africa must be peaceful and not violent. Secondly, trade must be continued. Thirdly, investment must be continued, and fourthly, sanctions must be opposed at every turn. Those four things can be put, I choose to believe, far more effectively by people who are not members of the Government, by people who are independent, by people who can speak for the country as a whole. I therefore want to suggest that some of the public relations activity which, for instance, has been carried on in Germany and which has been carried on at the European Parliament and other places in Europe should be accelerated. It should also in the main be shown to be independent of the Government’s particular political philosophy and it should also be directed to the cause of the country as a whole, irrespective of the political affiliations of the particular people who put that case. I want to make that appeal because I believe that in the case that has to be put for South Africa one uses the best material in order to put that case. That is why whereas on the one hand I plead for a strengthening of the diplomatic side of the hon. the Minister’s department, where I plead that he should get more money in order to have more diplomats, that he should have more people to put his case officially, have more consulates and more places where there is representation for us, on the other hand I also plead that there should be far greater effort to put South Africa’s case unconnected to the official case in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as far as the appeal of the hon. member for Yeoville concerning permanent representation at Strasbourg is concerned, I can only agree with him, because not only does the European Parliament have its headquarters there, but so does the Council of Europe. If we have permanent representation there, we shall also have more direct contact with the 21 member countries of that council.

I was privileged to accompany the tour of the TBV countries in December last year, and if there was one predominant impression which this tour left on me, it was that these countries have tremendous potential, and that a great deal of progress has already been made. It is said that there is tremendous agricultural potential in these countries, that virtually 24% of the agricultural production of Southern Africa could come from these countries and that 100 ha of agricultural land there have on average the same potential as 147 ha in the White area. However, it has not merely remained potential. During the tour it became quite clear that this potential is being developed. We visited various projects where Black farmers were being taught under supervision to cultivate their own land productively, and they have already achieved tremendous success. In the Ditsobotla district in Bophuthatswana there are 1 150 farmers who in 1981 produced maize valued at R8,2 million.

Some of the projects which greatly impressed us were the Taung irrigation scheme and the Ncora project in the Transkei, where a private company is responsible for the administration of the project. We saw agricultural corporations and self-help societies. In 1977 there were more than 800 self-help societies in the national States, and at present there are approximately 150 agricultural corporations. We visited agricultural colleges where prospective farmers are trained. We also visited young universities that are fighting for their identity and wish to serve their people. For example, we visited a new university that probably has better facilities for its students than any other university in South Africa. As far as buildings are concerned, this university probably has the highest expenditure per student of all universities in South Africa. It could be argued that it is extremely inappropriate to have such a luxurious university in an undeveloped country in Southern Africa, and that the luxuriousness of the buildings is out of place, but it must be conceded that this institution is far more than a university. It is a monument, a symbol of the aspirations of the Transkeian nation to offer its people the best training and opportunities.

On this tour we saw dams, roads and plantations established by means of project aid. In addition, we also saw new and impressive parliaments. The Chamber of the Parliament of Venda is probably one of the most beautiful buildings of its kind in existence. Whereas Parliaments are out of fashion in the rest of Africa, Parliaments are being built in Southern Africa, and this can only indicate one thing, and that is that democracy is flourishing in Southern Africa!

In the course of this tour we saw industrial development, and we are also convinced that there is tremendous mining potential in some of the countries we visited. What is very important, however, is the fact that we met inspired leaders. We met leaders who have confidence in the potential of their people, who are motivated to develop their country and realize the potential of those countries to the utmost. We made the acquaintance of our own representatives in those countries, people who are doing excellent work. We also met seconded officials in those countries. I feel those officials deserve special mention. Many of them do this work with a great deal of personal sacrifice, but they do it because they know that the work is important, and because they want to help the people in those countries. To a great extent the more than 1 000 seconded officials in those countries are responsible for the progress being made there. Their contribution must never be underestimated. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the opportunity to go there. As far as I am concerned, it is of more importance to build up good relations in those countries and to see what is going on there than to visit countries further afield. Our first obligation lies here. These relations must be built up. I must needs ask why the official Opposition did not accompany us on that tour. They make a tremendous fuss about the fact that we must talk to everyone, that there must be consensus and that there must be good relations, but when they have the opportunity to speak to those Black leaders to see what is going on there, they do not make use of it. [Interjections.] Suddenly their courage fails them. One can only arrive at one conclusion, namely that they do not want to see what is going on, that they do not want to talk to those leaders. [Interjections.] I hope the Black leaders in South Africa will take cognizance of the fact that the Progs do not want to go to the national States, that they do not want to speak to those leaders, that they did not use the opportunity when they had it. [Interjections.]

We spoke to those people long before you did. [Interjections.]

A country’s potential cannot be measured solely by its natural resources, its human resources or the motivation of its people. The international infrastructure of development which is available to those countries is also tremendously important. It is also of importance to consider the development aid at the disposal of these countries, and the assistance, in the form of know-how and co-operation, at their disposal. It is frequently held against those countries that they accepted independence, that they isolated themselves from the outside world because as a result they cannot get aid from international bodies. However, when one considers the realities, one sees that the opposite is true. Whereas in 1976 the independent national States received an average of R73 per capita in development aid—and this has increased tremendously in the interim—Lesotho, with all its international aid, only received R21 per capita, and Swaziland only received R36 per capita. Foreign development aid, as a percentage of the GDP of South Africa, has also risen considerably, and here I am only speaking of aid to the independent States, and not to other national States which are not independent. In 1979-’80 it was 0,4% of the GDP, whereas in 1982-’83 it totals 0,87%. When it is taken into account that the leading Western countries, through the Organization for Economic Co-operation, only spent 0,44% of their GDP on development aid, whereas we spent almost twice as much, one can see how important this aspect is.

However, it is particularly in the field of development infrastructure that the peoples of South Africa are making history. Proof of this lies in the regional development strategy in terms of which those States can make an input and can co-operate, the Small Business Development Corporation and the planned Development Bank. Already 20 multilateral committees and working groups have been established to bring about co-operation in every possible sphere on a confederal basis. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the speech by the hon. member Mr. Schutte and as usual he made a very constructive contribution. It is always a pleasure to speak after him, and particularly in a debate on foreign affairs it is as well that debating takes place at the level at which the hon. member made his contribution. Because the debate on foreign affairs is a sensitive debate, one asks oneself whether it is necessary for us to have the sort of debating we have had from certain hon. members today. If we analyse the debate thus far there are a few things stemming from this which give cause for concern.

For example, the hon. member for Sea Point made a good contribution in part, but then he made certain insinuations regarding the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and insinuated that if certain things were to happen the hon. the Minister would have to resign. Surely the hon. the Minister and other members of the Cabinet are honourable people. Is it necessary in this debate, which is of special interest to foreign ambassadors and the entire outside world, to make this sort of negative innuendo?

The hon. member for Waterkloof referred to remarks made by Mr. Mugabe about trade. Surely the hon. member is aware that trade with Africa is flourishing at the moment and that it is to our advantage. He is aware that trade with Africa has earned R1 000 million for us during the past year. After all, we have very advantageous trade with Africa. In this connection I should like to refer to the remark made by Lenin just after the Red Revolution, when he said: The West does not want diplomatic relations with us, but just wait until they start trading with us; after that they will have to recognize us and will have to have further finks with us. For this reason I have no fault to find with our trade with Africa, particularly as it is to our advantage. Accordingly one does not want this sort of remark in this debate.

Today I should like to begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the tour to Taiwan in the company of other hon. members. It was informative and interesting. I also want to make special mention of our officials overseas—and of course their families—who work long hours and late into the night. I should like it placed on record that we express our thanks and appreciation to them and that we are proud of them.

In the few minutes at my disposal today I should like to talk about Africa, an Africa which includes South Africa, an Africa of which we form part and are proud to form part. It is frequently said that we justify our existence in Africa on the basis of our belief that we were put here by a Higher Power with the aim of establishing the fight of çivilization and Christian religion in Africa and carrying it into Africa. However, one sometimes asks oneself whether this is still our aim and our endeavour. Have we not sometimes found ourselves side-tracked by the fact that we have carried out a good and enjoyable life for ourselves here and want to protect this at all costs, even at the expense of the right of existence of other people? That is why I want to ask whether the time has not come for us to state anew that we reject racism and that we will look reality in the face? If we consider the prosperity in South Africa and the deterioration in Africa, we see, inter alia, that according to the Survey of Economic and Social Conditions in Africa, 1978-79, published by the UN, about 40% of the people in Africa, or approximately 147 million people, have an annual income of approximately 130 American dollars. 30% of the total population, or approximately 110 million people, have a per capita income of 255 American dollars.

South Africa compares very favourably with this. The income given for South Africa for 1979 is as follows: Whites, 9 800 American dollars, Asians 4 160 American dollars, Coloureds 3 140 American dollars and Blacks 2 305 American dollars. One can go on to refer, for example, to reports published in the USA in which it is pointed out inter alia that few trade links exist between African States. 89% of Africa’s export trade is marketed in the West, but not in African countries. Trade between African States dropped from 4,1% in 1970 to 2,5% in 1976. The question now arises as to whether our success has not become part of the agitation against us. Has the success of capitalism not caused Africa to degenerate into greed? This became fairly clear when the Zimbabwean Prime Minister, Mr. Mugabe, said recently that capitalism is in actual fact greed. Therefore the question arises as to whether we must not reconsider the realities, particularly in the light of the fact that our future is not so rosy. It was pointed out here today by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North that there is a fair amount of change in the world’s attitude towards South Africa. There is a clear change in attitude on the part of the USA, and also on the part of several African States. There is also a change in the attitude of several Western countries. However, there is one thing we must not forget. This year Gadaffi of Libya is to be chairman of the Organization of African Unity, which could quite easily lead to a completely different attitude in Africa. Then, too, there is the present conflict in the Falkland Islands, which could change the entire set-up among the South American states. It could even completely transform Russian expansionism in that part of the world.

Nor must we forget the USA. Due to his advanced age, it is possible that in the next presidential election President Reagan will not be re-elected President of the USA. This could lead to the entire scenario in that part of the world also changing totally within the foreseeable future. The question therefore arises as to whether the entire world situation should not be studied in detail and whether we should not make a renewed effort to explain the benefits of capitalism, and the responsibility linked to capitalism, to our neighbours.

I have always believed that when the plague breaks out in one’s neighbours house, it is pointless barring one’s own door. What one must do is help one’s neighbour, so that one can help oneself. In this regard I should like to refer to a report published in the Citizen on 27 April this year. In this report Prof. Veeneman said that the reform under way in South Africa at the moment was causing problems for the Russians. Recently we heard the announcement of the policy of decentralization and of regional development. I believe this could bring about phenomenal changes in our country.

That is why I want to ask that in developing this totally new initiative we must take every opportunity to make a success of it. If we are successful, there is real hope for South Africa. However, if we fail I believe we shall be in trouble.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vasco on his very interesting speech. He referred to the increasing trade between South Africa and the rest of Africa, and he also expressed himself in favour of the expansion of this trade. We in the CP associate ourselves with the ideas expressed by the hon. member in this connection.

It is quite true, of course, that capitalism leads to a measure of greed. I believe that anything which is exaggerated is undesirable. However, I believe it is correct that we should convey these ideas which the hon. member raised to Africa. I shall also express a few thoughts later on about the hon. member’s remarks concerning our visit to Taiwan.

†I should like to associate myself and the CP with the complimentary remarks made by hon. members concerning our visit to the Republic of China in November 1981. It is interesting, however, to note how various hon. members seem to make different observations as to what we experienced in the Republic of China. I shall return to this point presently. It was a most illuminating and educational experience for which the hon. the Minister and his department who initiated the exercise deserve the gratitude of all parties in the Committee.

Pik’s islands are friendlier than Magnus’s.

I reiterate our appreciation to our various hosts in the Republic of China for the generous hospitality that was literally heaped upon us during our visit in Taiwan.

Our observations centered around two aspects which clearly manifested themselves during our stay. The one was that right from the Prime Minister of the Republic of China to all the Ministers, the administrators and the officials, all consistently and correctly refused to discuss or to comment in any way on our domestic affairs. It was a magnificent example to spokesmen on foreign affairs throughout the world and especially at UNO.

In the second instance I want to comment on their concerted dedication to their struggle against communism. In one’s search for the motivating force which inspires all the people of the Republic of China in this struggle, one realizes that it is easier to motivate a homogeneous society than a heterogeneous one. It also emphasizes the onus that rests upon us to ensure a similar concerted effort in the Republic of South Africa.

It is very difficult to understand how it is possible for them to achieve such magnificent results while they are accentuating a negative factor, viz. anti-communism, without an apparent concomitant positive ideology. No doubt this may be related to the belief of the people in the three principles postulated by Sun Yat-sen, viz. nationalism—nationalism in the broad sense—democracy and livelihood.

*Their economic activities, to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred, are also impressive. When one considers that the whole of the Republic of China is only a little bigger than the Kruger National Park, that only a third of the land is arable, that the average size of a farm is one hectare and that they nevertheless export agricultural products, one must agree that this is a phenomenal achievement. In any event, it is a wonderful experience to observe such dedication.

I also want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Parys for his competent and dignified leadership during the tour. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vasco said about Ambassador Louis Vorster and his staff and their wives. I think they are a great credit to us in the East. [Interjections.]

Finally, there are a few matters which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. Firstly I think, as a conservative person, that we greatly appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has been keeping a lower profile lately as far as foreign affairs are concerned. This may be an old-fashioned approach, but in our opinion, it is the most effective. I think the unsophisticated way in which foreign affairs are conducted all over the world contributes to the tremendous discord which can be observed throughout the world today.

Secondly, there is a matter which is closely bound up with this—I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would comment on it and would motivate it further—and that is that the integration of the Department of Information into the Department of Foreign Affairs is something of an anomaly. I think that Information is basically a propaganda department. Foreign Affairs is a refined, sophisticated organization—a skilled and delicate game of chess. Foreign Affairs and Information are poles apart. We may still be too close to the Information tragedy, with the result that we cannot view the matter objectively. I believe we should give more attention to this matter. [Interjections.] I think the fact that Information has been added to the responsibilities of the hon. the Minister is making his difficult task even more demanding.

Thirdly, I request the hon. the Minister to consider bringing our diplomats home to South Africa from abroad more frequently. I do not know whether there is any provision for compulsory home leave at the moment. Upon the expiry of their terms of service, our diplomats should first come back to the fire to experience and observe the atmosphere in South Africa. We have great appreciation for the work done by our representatives abroad. However, when they get their information in the way they do at the moment, it can never be as effective as when they come back to South Africa to observe the political and general situation for themselves. They should come and observe it for themselves before departing on their next mission. I think it is important that the hon. the Minister should give attention to this matter. We have brought it to the hon. the Minister’s attention on other occasions as well.

I believe the hon. the Minister could also give attention to the possibility of making South African education available in those areas abroad where we have strong representation. In this way we could teach our own people according to the curricula which apply in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express a few ideas of my own before reacting to the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan.

There is a general impression among most Westerners that a racial conflict in South Africa is inevitable. Some people believe that the things which the Government is doing are merely cosmetic and that they are so negligible that before certain minimum things are done, they are not interested in monitoring the development of these matters. The premise of these people is such that they will not be satisfied with any process which does not cause a Black majority government to come into power in South Africa. There is a further condition, and that is that the right Black majority government must come into power. It must not be just any Black majority government, but a particular one, based on Marxist principles.

As against this, there are people from various walks of life, such as academics and public servants, who scrutinize every move and who are fully informed about what is happening in South Africa. These are the people who matter and these are the people on whom a premium is placed in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, particularly in the liaison services of the department, to ensure that the development policies of the Republic of South Africa is reported to them as correctly as possible so as to enable them to act as champions for South Africa abroad and to justify and defend their standpoints and views with regard to South Africa. These are the people whom we urge to support us when we plead for investment in this country and these are the people with whom we plead for assistance in our endeavour to maintain a growth rate of 5% in order to ensure full employment in this country.

The task of the liaison services is to demonstrate the economic potential of South Africa. It is also their task to indicate that we have a very complicated political agenda on which we are working, that we do not intend to evade this political agenda and that we are actually trying to realize two things. On the one hand, we openly wish to accommodate the aspirations of Black and Coloured population groups in this country, as long as this is not done at the expense of the sense of security and the rights of other minority groups. When one looks at this extremely challenging and comprehensive task, one is forced to recognize that the budget of this department, especially with regard to liaison services, is hopelessly inadequate. It is inadequate with regard to staff, and it is inadequate with regard to finance. The increase is such that in the light of the inflation rate, one expects that they may accomplish less than in previous years. Therefore we must do everything we can to assist these people. We must also look at the supporting role played in this respect by other parties, such as the voluntary assistance given by academics. Here I am referring specifically to the role played in this connection by the public relations firms. There are people in these firms who promote the interests of South Africa on a continuous basis; people who have permanent ties with the inhabitants of the State in which they operate.

Furthermore, our people in South Africa—every businessman, every school-child and every tourist—must realize that in a certain sense he is a diplomat for South Africa. Therefore he must learn to communicate in the idiom of the demands that are being made on us today. We must realize that all of us in this House are dissatisfied with the status quo, and we have no desire to find ourselves in a position of stalemate.

When I enter into a debate with my colleagues of the CP, I do so with a feeling of disappointment. I think we have all tried to keep the department and our foreign relations out of the political arena. I want to congratulate my colleagues of the CP because as far as their tone of voice was concerned, they stated their case calmly and skilfully. Nevertheless, I am perturbed, because I noticed an innuendo in the speeches of all three hon. members of the CP who spoke, and I shall point it out to them. When we split up, it was over a very emotional political issue. On the basis of the speeches they have made here, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that this department and the activities of the hon. the Minister in the sphere of foreign affairs will not remain outside the arena of South Africa’s internal party politics.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfair and wrong to suggest that the Government and the hon. the Minister have failed in their task of not allowing foreign interference in the domestic affairs of South Africa and of ensuring that this sphere was not encroached on.

Now you are struggling.

Yes, I am struggling, because I am trying to approach a serious matter calmly, but if the hon. member wants to help me with interjections, I shall have to change my approach. It is not correct of the hon. member for Waterkloof to suggest here that the Government is following a reactionary foreign policy.

Reactive.

Reactive. It is an integral part of our foreign policy to bring about a confederation in this country. This is an element of our foreign policy, and by means of such a confederation, we are also trying to convince and persuade those friends who are watching us with interest from abroad. When hon. members adroitly ask what our standpoint is with regard to a separate department for our Information Service, they find themselves in good company, because the Steyn Commission expressed a similar idea. But on the other hand, they also lack good company, the company of the Government and of those people who have adopted the standpoint that one cannot separate the activities of this department, but that it is essential that these services be integrated into one department.

Finally, I just want to ask, before we drag foreign policy and foreign politics into our domestic affairs and before we start scoring political points off one another in this field, that hon. members should reflect before doing so. We should find out how we can serve South Africa.

We belong to different parties.

I concede that to the hon. member, but nevertheless I want to make this plea: In the field of foreign policy we must try to discuss not only those things on which we differ, but also the matters on which we agree, so that a spirit of unanimity and of solidarity may emanate from this House.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak after the positive and constructive contributions which the hon. member for Krugersdorp makes in this House. Also, I should like to associate myself with the thanks that have already been conveyed to the hon. the Minister and his department and I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity I had of being a member of a parliamentary team which toured the TBV countries last year.

†I want to raise the issue with the hon. member for Sea Point this afternoon—it has already been touched upon by the hon. member Mr. Schutte—in that he said this afternoon that it was important for South Africa’s relations with the various regions of the world to make contact with and to have debates about those regions. The hon. member for Sea Point then also mentioned the TBV countries. He also referred to Taiwan. He himself was a member of that contingent of members of Parliament who went to Taiwan. I find it absolutely amazing that those hon. members say that we must make contact and that we must have a debate about the TBV countries while, when the opportunity was created for members of Parliament to visit the TBV countries last year during November, the PFP did not participate in that tour.

Do you know what the reason for that was? Do you know that it was due to a personal reason, concerning my health?

I do not care what the reasons were. If people are prepared to travel overseas at the expense of the Department of Foreign Affairs, I think they should be ashamed of themselves. We were confronted by the leaders of the TBV countries when we visited them and they asked us why the PFP were not represented on that particular visit. I find this very, very bad.

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

No, Sir. It is therefore a great pleasure for me to say thank you on behalf of this side of the House to the hon. member for Mooi River for his positive and constructive contribution on the tour. Although he did not agree with many of the issues, I am sure, he found the tour as interesting as we did.

*Although there is room for great improvement in many spheres in the TBV countries, especially with regard to the infrastructure, electrification, the building of railway lines, and the benefits in respect of the establishment of industries, there were three aspects which I remembered after our visit to those States. The first aspect is the pride in the political freedom which those countries have obtained from South Africa. Let us admit today that those people will not give up their political freedom and rights under any circumstances. In fact, they are making every possible attempt to solve the socio-economic and political problems with which they are faced.

A second aspect which stuck in my memory was the aggressive attempt on the part of the Government to assist these countries and to advise them on how to achieve their objectives.

In the third place, it was very striking that there was great goodwill between the authorities concerned and the Republic of South Africa. When one has been on such a tour, it gives one hope for the future. It creates an optimistic impression of the future, because I believe that the foundation has been laid for a confederation of States.

Many successes have also been achieved in those countries, especially with regard to the constitutional and political evolution which one observes there, but also in the socioeconomic, educational, industrial and agricultural spheres. We were able to visit quite a number of projects, such as the Taung irrigation scheme near Vryburg in Bophuthatswana, to which the hon. member Mr. Schutte referred. During the celebration of the second anniversary of Bophutatswana’s independence, we attended a military parade, and we also visited the University of Bophuthatswana.

In Transkei, we visited their hydro-electric schemes, their university, and in particular a fish farm project where fish are bred and then returned to the rivers of Transkei to provide a source of food for the Transkeian people. In addition we visited the Ncora irrigation scheme in the Cofimvaba district, where hundreds of Black farmers are being trained and involved in the agricultural development of that country.

In Venda, we visited the tea plantation at Tshivhase and the Tate Vondo nursery, where one got the impression that a tree was a sacred object to those Black people. We also visited the Rembander and Barotta training farms and some coffee projects. There are so many positive aspects that one is saddened when one keeps hearing and reading about the negative aspects of these areas. However, these TBV countries are second to none in the rest of Africa.

Transkei, with its more developed economy and administration, is better off, as far as its standard of living and education is concerned, than 85% of the rest of Africa.

In Bophuthatswana there is wonderful potential, especially in the agricultural sphere, and we know, after all, that the farmers there produced more maize last year than they were able to consume locally.

The small country of Venda has a higher per capita income than 28 African countries and a higher economic growth than 45 African countries. One must also give that nation credit for the fact that 68% of its citizens are already resident within the borders of Venda.

When one looks at Africa, as against these TBV countries, the picture is alarming. “Uhuru” created so many expectations in Africa, and today, 25 years after decolonization, 39 Black States south of the Sahara are facing an unprecedented economic crisis. It is said that 20 of the 30 poorest countries in the world are situated in Africa. The life expectancy in Africa is the lowest in the world, while the child mortality rate is the highest in the world. The population growth in Africa is twice the growth in the food production. It makes one feel alarmed when one looks at the 437 million people, who constitute 10% of the world’s population, but who are responsible for only 0,6% of the world’s industrial production. It is also said that six out of every ten Black people in Africa go to bed hungry. This makes one feel deeply concerned. The people who know say that to make Africa self-sufficient would cost the world R27,3 billion from the year 1975 to the year 1990.

How do the TBVC countries compare with other countries in Africa? When one looks only at the GNP per capita, one sees that the four independent national States in Southern Africa compare splendidly with the three former British protectorates, namely Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho. When one looks at the countries where freedom was obtained in a different manner, such as Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, one finds that the GNP per capita of those people is much lower, in some cases, than that of our own national States. Therefore these small, relatively new independent countries in South Africa hold great promise for the future. Therefore one may wish the hon. the Minister responsible for those areas, as well as the hon. the Prime Minister, every success for the future, firstly in establishing a confederation of States, and also in working on the constellation of States.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Turffontein must pardon me if I do not react directly to the speech he has just made. I want to link up, however, with part of what the hon. member for Krugersdorp said.

†I also want to link up with what the hon. member for Yeoville said. In the short time available to me I would like to say to the hon. the Minister, in the first instance, that I agree fully with hon. members—including the hon. member for Yeoville—who said that the financial provisions in this budget vote are totally inadequate for the size of the job that has to be done, both internally and externally, with specific emphasis on the external aspect.

Hear, hear!

At the same time, however, let me say that there is also good news in this budget, because at least it was not cut to less than what it was in previous years. I understand that at one stage there was a very definite fear that the hon. the Minister’s budget would actually be cut. At least we must be grateful for small mercies, but I really cannot over-emphasize the very specific need for our foreign service, in the interests of South Africa at this very moment in time, because wherever one removes a mission, other missions from countries move in to fill the vacuum and occupy the space that one’s own mission occupied in the sphere of attention of the other countries’ elite and leadership echelons. So if it is ever necessary for us to pull out of another country, we can be sure that some country or other will occupy the space. I do not, however, want to talk about the diplomatic corps as such.

I should rather like to focus attention on our information services, and here there are two aspects involved. There is the question of internal information and that of external information. Let me firstly ask the hon. the Minister on what basis the department assesses and reassesses the value of its internal information service. I say this in the light of the fact that every organization, if it is to remain relevant, if it is to become effective or increase its effectiveness, must review its activities from time to time. I am thinking here, in particular, of the publication SA Digest. Although it is informative and interesting, what sort of circulation figures does it have in South Africa, and here I am thinking in particular of the English and Afrikaans editions? What sort of feedback does the hon. the Minister’s department get on this issue, and is it doing the job it is supposed to do? Like the Press statements issued by the hon. the Minister’s department from time to time which emanate from various Ministers and Deputy Ministers, one finds that when the envelope arrives on one’s desk, the information it contains is probably two to three weeks out of date and one has read it in the Press already. What is more, one gets 10 copies of what a Deputy Minister said at Pofadder about the waterworks there. I believe that those statements are very important indeed, but it must be seen in context. I believe there is a definite need for a review of our internal information service. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what he considers to be the key documents and the key publications internally, what their circulation is and how his department assesses and reassesses the position from time to time.

I should also like to focus attention on our external service. To start with, I should like to give the hon. the Minister the good news that I believe that the service of Radio RSA beamed to Europe is very, very good indeed. The technical aspect is excellent, the reception in Europe is very good, the programme content is very relevant and it apparently has a very large audience. I was recently privileged to listen to that broadcast from the receiving end and I must say that I was very impressed indeed; so much so, that I think that the format of Radio RSA’s programmes could to a large extent be transferred to local stations to make them more interesting.

Let me also say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that there is a new initiative in Europe which we are going to have to counter in terms of information. There is a new agreement being developed between EEC countries and African countries. The hon. member for Yeoville suggested we should have increased representation in Strasbourg and I think that one of the hon. members on the Government side supported that idea. I believe that that is extremely important in the light of the relatively new developments in the EEC countries. The EEC countries are very shortly going to attempt to form a new power bloc, based on economic power, between the USSR and the USA, in other words between the West and the East. What the EEC countries want to do is to attract the African countries in particular to their economic and foreign-aid systems and to an integrated economic exchange and an exchange of technological developments. Unquestionably, the EEC countries are going to make finance available to ease and facilitate imports and exports between those countries. We are of Africa and our voice must also be heard in the forums where this policy is being formulated at the moment.

I also believe that there is a very definite need for special interest groups to be sent by the department of the hon. the Minister on a greater scale than previously to the different parts of the world where favourable and unfavourable attitudes are expressed towards South Africa. By special groups I mean economic groups and in the current context particularly political groups who can go and explain face to face to the leadership echelons overseas what is happening in South Africa. I do not think we need be ashamed of this. There is no cloak-and-dagger stuff required. Let us do it openly. Let us make provision in our budget for sending 30 or 40 of these groups overseas annually for interface interaction with leadership groups abroad. The low profile aspect will lie in limited publicity and Press releases, because the genuine leaders who have genuine interests in interaction with South Africa and in an exchange of information are not interested in high profile Press releases: They are interested in obtaining genuine information from these groups. Let me say that these groups, as the hon. member for Yeoville also said, must represent diverse opinions and not just one-sided opinions. The credibility of the groups will be directly proportional to the variety and spectrum of opinions expressed within them. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister seriously to consider allocating some of the money provided in his budget for overseas liaison services to these special interest groups. Literature can only fulfil two functions. The one is the dissemination of information of general interest, which does not influence opinion but merely augments it or supplements it. Its real role, however, is as a follow-up to interface negotiations and discussions between groups at leadership level.

Would Hulley be included?

We can even include a man like the hon. member for Constantia. It will be a very sobering experience for him to find out how his attitudes are rejected overseas as well. Members like that, with their radical views, think they have an audience outside the House and it is very sobering for them to discover that they have a very limited audience indeed and that there is very little support for their ideas.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, in the very short while still available to me I should like to pay tribute to our diplomats, their administrative staff as well as their counsellors and information officers for the very sterling work performed by them. During the past 10 years they have had an extremely difficult job to do. It was a period during which every Western nation was intent on publicizing South Africa as the pariah nation, and during which Third World countries went out of their way to try to bring about punitive measures against South Africa through the United Nations. I particularly want to pay tribute to the very sterling work these people have done under very difficult circumstances.

When I proposed to the hon. the Minister, before business was suspended, the complementary service of sending special interest groups overseas to have interface negotiations with leaders there, I actually meant that it should only be seen as a complementary service, and that it should not in any way detract from the sterling work done by our diplomats overseas.

Furthermore I should also like to support what the hon. member for Krugersdorp said earlier, namely that when it comes to the organization of things of this nature, one could never do better than to use the local professional services available to our country in various instances in order to undertake the actual organization.

I believe that in the next year South Africa will once again be in the spotlight and will enjoy the attention of many nations in a manner unprecendented in recent times, for the very simple reason that the word is out internationally that South Africa is in the process of constitutional change. I do not believe that we can rely only on the mass media—the bulk of which is considerably hostile towards South Africa—to publicize and inform not only the leaders overseas, but also the general public, of what the new constitutional dispensation is going to be about. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to state right at the outset that I support the opinions expressed here today on the whole matter of Strasbourg. I believe Strasbourg is going to become more and more important, and the more we can do there the better, I believe.

We live in a world threatened by war, by hunger and by a lack of development. Various hon. members have referred to this. We also live in a world which is increasingly threatened by psychological warfare, a world in which terror is indeed becoming more and more prevalent. In our subcontinent these three factors are completely interrelated. We see terrorism and the extension of diplomacy being employed as a part of the psychological war being waged against South Africa. Terrorists who are unable to make military progress murder defenceless people in isolated places, merely to hit the headlines or to have their actions coincide with a particular meeting at some international forum. We are indeed beginning to see the diplomacy of terror evolve.

We live in a world threatened by war. In Africa the OAU States already have some 2,8 million troops and something like 885 000 reservists with an impressive array of tanks, warships, arms and military vehicles. Spending more on military hardware than on the production of food has indeed become the norm, the order of the day. The question therefore arises whether this has brought about stability. Has it brought about continental stability? Has it brought about regional stability? The answer is indeed no.

In Africa north of the Limpopo River we find that military preparedness, instead of being a stabilizing force, has in fact become a destabilizing force. Instead of individual countries that are armed feeling more free, they become less free, and instead of becoming more independent they become less so. On the whole continent of Africa South Africa and Egypt are the only self-sufficient countries as far as the production of arms is concerned. All other African countries have to rely entirely on foreign powers for military advice, technology and arms. This, of course, causes their political options to narrow instead of to widen.

We also live in a world threatened by starvation and lack of development. The recent UN report, A 36/513, sketches the desperate situation as follows and summarizes it extremely well—

I have said that the world is menaced by psychological war and terror. We all recall the cases of Hans Martin Schleur, Premier Aldo Moro, Lord Louis Mountbatten, President Reagan and the attempt upon the life of the Pope more latterly and the Red Brigade’s kidnapping of Gen. Dozier; world-wide one gets the feeling that it is safe nowhere.

In South Africa and in Africa the same manifestation manifests in its own inimitable African way. Instability has become endemic, terrorism has become the major cause of misery and the harbinger of repression and misery. There can be no peaceful human development in the subcontinent given the imperative which exists for regionalism, interdependence and so on, without stability, order, peaceful co-existence and co-operation.

Every act of terror which takes place reverses the potential for purposeful achievement in the subcontinent. The extraordinary thing is that the countries which harbour terrorists themselves are the ones that suffer most, they are the countries that can least afford it. Of course we have had the situation—it still exists—that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, but there is every sign that free Governments are increasingly recognizing that Moscow is the aggressor, the expansionist power Today, and is more often than not, that the insurgents that challenge the status quo wherever it may be, in fact, are encouraged and armed by the Soviet Union. Even more encouraging is the realization that terrorism is largely directed against permissive, democratic societies. It is directed against autocratic traditional societies that have a great potential for change or societies that are in fact already in transition. There are no countries behind the Iron Curtain of which I am aware that suffer the plague of terrorism.

Curiously, therefore, South Africa finds itself in the same boat as Great Britain, Italy, Germany and other free countries in this regard. What is further encouraging is that the “do-not-let-us-be-so-beastly-to-the-terror-ists-but-tackle-the-roots-of-the evil” school is in retreat as the realization dawns on civilized men that the most terrorist movements are inspired and orchestrated by the KGB. The KGB has been the undercover patron and the beneficiary of most of the terrorist movements. This realization dawns as new evidence continues to be piled up almost each week as another book is published that there is a link between the Red Brigade, the ETA, the IRA, the PLO, the German June 2 movement and the ANC. All of these organizations that were formerly regarded as independent, we now see are being revealed as training together in countries such as Cuba, Libya and South Yemen.

The recent Senate subcommittee hearings under the chairmanship of Senator Denton in the USA disclosed what we have said for years that the ANC is in fact a communist front organization in the employ of Russian self-interest.

What can we do about it? The Council of Europe adopted a resolution in 1976 which led to the Convention of the Suppression of Terrorism. This was an effort to deal comprehensively with terrorism under international law. It addressed the broad spectrum of terrorism, terror acts, letter bombs, automatic weapons, the taking of hostages, and so on. The convention sought to depoliticize acts of terror and sought to facilitate the extradition of terrorists within the European Community. I believe perhaps the time is right for us to begin to think along similar lines by asking ourselves whether we should not attempt to seek a regional convention along similar lines. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that perhaps Dr. Kaunda could involve himself in this regard. He would be making the biggest contribution to regional development and order in his long and fairly distinguished career if he were to take the initiative in respect of such a convention. We cannot allow a handful of terrorists, serving foreign ideologies, to halt the growth and the vast potential for human advancement in this subcontinent. Africa has won its battle against colonialism, and it now has a new battle. The postcolonial period has settled and we are entering a new phase. We cannot allow ourselves to become now an extension and a convenient battleground for communist Governments and their surrogates seeking their own interests. The undeclared war has bled the developing world white. Every bomb that goes off in Lusaka or Johannesburg harms the whole region. It is time we sent people across each other’s frontiers to fight pestilence, disease and hunger. We need tractors, not tanks.

I want to end with a quote from Dr. Andrei Sakharov where he said—

I hope we will also do that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland has been making a study of international terrorism, and I think that was clearly reflected in his contribution tonight. I think it is high time the close connection between international terrorism and the Soviet Union was effectively pointed out again. The proposal made by the hon. member, that terrorism should be combated on a regional basis, merits consideration.

Everyone who puts a high premium on order and stability in Southern Africa was glad to learn of the recent conference between the Prime Minister of South Africa and the President of Zambia. Unfortunately, there were also some discordant notes in the comment on this conference. I want to single out one of these discordant notes because it has a direct bearing on South Africa’s relations with Africa, but more particularly on South Africa’s relation with other countries in Southern Africa.

This specific discordant note to which I am referring is the comment of the Herald, the Government mouthpiece in Zimbabwe. This newspaper takes it amiss of Dr. Kaunda that he took part in the conference at all and maintains that his participation in the conference was in contravention of the Lusaka Manifesto. Nothing is further from the truth than this accusation. Without going into detail, I think it is correct to say that two principles are upheld in the Lusaka Manifesto. Firstly there is the right to human dignity, and secondly there is the right to political self-determination. Neither human dignity nor political self-determination was involved in this conference. In fact, ties of friendship with South Africa could lead to respect for human dignity in Southern African countries, something which is not prevalent at the moment.

Ironically enough, the winds of freedom which blew over Africa were not really conducive to human dignity as such. Political freedom and human dignity are sometimes wrongly mentioned in the same breath. One does not have human dignity only when one is able to vote. One also has human dignity when one has a roof over one’s head, clothes to wear and food to eat.

I think the process of decolonization was very definitely not conducive to human dignity in the full sense of the word. With few exceptions, political independence was accompanied by economic deterioration and decay, with catastrophic consequences for human dignity in such areas. So serious has the situation become that Mr. Edem Kodjo, Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, sounded the following warning at the first economic summit meeting of this organization at Lagos in April 1980—

I think South Africa is one of the few countries which could breathe life into a dying Africa, and I think it is prepared to do so, without being guilty of neo-colonialism in the process.

It is a well-known fact that very few countries in Southern Africa could survive economically if it were not for the accommodation and goodwill of South Africa. Eighty per cent of the foreign earnings of Mozambique comes from South Africa. Zambia imports 60% of the goods it needs through East London harbour. Two-third of the copper production of Zaire is exported through South Africa. South Africa is still Zimbabwe’s most important trading partner.

If these countries in Southern Africa want to act in accordance with the Lusaka Manifesto and if they seriously wish to ensure a decent life for their people, it seems to me that it is essential that they maintain friendly relations with South Africa. And yet just the opposite is happening. Instead of keeping up friendly relations, these countries unite, among other things, in passing an OAU resolution that general sanctions be imposed against South Africa.

Perhaps the time has come to indicate to these countries that although South Africa’s attitude towards them is one of goodwill, they cannot go on biting in public the hand that feeds them, under the pretext of being forced to adopt this negative attitude for the sake of internal political credibility. I think South Africa also ran the risk of losing internal political support when it extended the hand of friendship to Africa, and I think it is perhaps not too much to ask that some of these countries which are literally eating out of South Africa’s hand should also, for the sake of argument, rise in the OAU and declare themselves to be opposed to negative plans against the Republic. Perhaps the time has come to bring it to the attention of these countries, whose economies are directly or indirectly supported by South Africa, that this support cannot continue indefinitely if they act as hosts to terrorism.

The second principle which is upheld in the Lusaka Manifesto, that of the right to self-determination of peoples, is also upheld by South Africa. In fact, South Africa is one of the few countries where nations have become independent in the way favoured by the Lusaka Manifesto. The Lusaka Manifesto says quite clearly—

In South Africa, nations have become independent without a single shot being fired. I think that if African leaders are really serious about the political independence of nations, they must talk to South Africa and negotiate with South Africa, in the interest of nations that have just attained political independence. After all, it is common cause that no nations can really reap the benefits of independence without foreign recognition. I think the way to foreign recognition for countries which used to form part of the Republic of South Africa is definitely through Africa. In this connection, a newspaper which is distributed in Nigeria, the African Interpreter, adopted a commendable attitude, although one does not agree with the motive of the newspaper. It appealed to the OAU to recognize the independence of Transkei. I think this is an appeal to which the OAU should give attention sooner or later. Perhaps it is a matter which could be raised again in future negotiations with African leaders.

Finally, I just want to say that there are Governments in Southern Africa which came into power with the aid of the Soviet Union and which are still looking to Russia for continued aid instead of extending the hand of friendship to South Africa. I think a warning in this respect would not be inappropriate. It was pointed out earlier this afternoon that Russia was not interested in Africa for the sake of Africa, but for its own sake. Its ideological father, Lenin, pointed out that imperialism and colonialism were the highest manifestations of capitalism. When imperialism collapses, capitalism is bound to collapse as well, and in this way, the way is prepared for socialism and eventually for communism. Russia has only one objective in supporting the so-called liberation movements in South Africa, therefore, and that is to establish a communist Government in this country under the tutelage of the Soviet Union. But a Government which has come into power with the aid of the Soviet Union will soon find that it is not as free as it believed itself to be. South Africa, on the other hand, has no other motive in extending its hand of friendship to other nations than its own involvement in the destiny of Africa. Therefore I believe that negotiations with South Africa are to the benefit of all the parties involved.

Mr. Chairman, the debate has reflected an interesting change in emphasis from a number of Government members. One senses a real desire, a kind of inner concern, to become involved with Africa and to try to understand Africa. This is a change in emphasis. Let us, for example, take the hon. member for Randfontein. He has obviously looked at the Lusaka Manifesto of 1969 and he is sympathetic towards it. But somehow or other he reads into the Lusaka Manifesto a justification for apartheid and separate development. [Interjections.] That is what he was saying. He says that the Lusaka Manifesto deals with the self-determination of people. That is not the thrust of the Lusaka Manifesto. The Lusaka Manifesto is about the universality of people. Its underlying philosophy is that we must get rid of race as a criterion. I do not want to argue that race is not a criterion, but in wanting to associate himself with the Lusaka Manifesto, the hon. member tries to rewrite it in terms of Dr. Verwoerd. This is not going to work. It is not that kind of manifesto. There may be problems on both sides, but do not let us try to rewrite the philosophy of Africa in terms of NP philosophy.

I should now like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Turffontein. I do not want to denigrate what is happening in the four independent States around us. I think it is a pity that no member of the official Opposition took part in the tour. I accept that. But the hon. member must also accept that the hon. member who was due to go, the hon. member for Groote Schuur, took ill.

There are 26 other members on your side.

The hon. member knows full well that at the last minute one cannot appoint somebody else. It is a pity we were not represented there, but hon. members opposite must accept the fact that the person who was designated to go took ill.

It was unforgiveable that there was nobody from the PFP.

Unforgiveable, coming from the CP, is actually a compliment. They are so verkramp they must go back and join the Afrikaner-Weerstandbeweging and a few other things. However, I want to come back to the hon. member for Turffontein. He says he witnessed some economic progress in these States. I do not want to argue that there is no economic progress. But the hon. member then tried to draw comparisons with the rest of Africa. I do not want to try to gild the African lily. It is very difficult to do so. The hon. member then went on to talk about the GNP. The GNP is what is earned by those people inside and outside those States. The hon. member must know that if one compares that with the GDP, i.e. what is earned inside those States, then it is only some 20% to 30% of what is earned outside. Therefore, what he is trying to do is to compare other African States with the satellite economic States of South Africa. I am saying that in the economic sense they are satellite States, but he takes the total income of the mineworkers, the migrants and all the people working in Johannesburg and he adds that to the income of the people who are in Ciskei and he says that proves how wealthy the Ciskei is.

It is the same for Lesotho and Swaziland.

Forget Lesotho and Swaziland, and look at Gabon.

That is what I compared. [Interjections.]

I do not want to denigrate what is taking place in the other States, but one must compare what is earned inside one State with that earned inside another State. Then one will find that the GDP of Mozambique is higher than the GDP of Ciskei. [Interjections.] In his anxiety to show how well things are going the hon. member should not overstate the case in favour of what is happening in those territories. Things are happening there and I do not think that we should run them down, but one should not try to compare what is earned in the whole of South Africa by Transkeians with what is earned in the whole of another State which does not have the gold mines of South Africa as far as GDP is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to compare Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana with the independent States of Africa?

I am prepared to compare any facts. All I am saying, however, is that we should not distort the facts in order to make a political argument. [Interjections.] If the hon. member tells me that Lesotho is poorer than Ciskei, I shall accept it, but do not say that Ciskei, Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana are among the top four in Africa, because that is not so.

I did not say that.

Well, the hon. member came pretty close to saying it. [Interjections.]

I think the hon. member for Parys was very sincere in his plea. He said: “ … Afrika moet aanvaar dat ons deel van Afrika is.” I think he was emotional about the fact that he actually has a feeling for Africa. He wants to be an African. He talks of being of Africa and of having an African language.

We do not want to be, we are! [Interjections.]

I do not know whether that applies to everyone in this House, Sir. Nevertheless I am trying to react to a serious mood piece by the hon. member. We should look at this matter in its historical perspective. If one were an African north of the Limpopo when, Africa was moving towards independence or “uhuru” or whatever one wants to call it, would one have said that the White Africans of South Africa were identifying with the decolonialization process? Were we, in fact identifying during the 1950s and 1960s?

We were the pioneers of it.

Take, for example, the rhetoric of the NP and the supporting Press during the 1950s and 1960s when it was asked: “Why are the British getting out? Why are the Portuguese getting out? Why are the Belgians getting out? Why are the French getting out?” I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of it. [Interjections.]

The image that White South Africans in the Government created in the 1950s and 1960s was that they were not supporters of the process of decolonialization. In fact, they supported the Empires, they supported the colonial powers. We were raising money for the Portuguese troops in Angola and Mozambique right up to the stage when Caetano fell and the Portuguese had to get out. That is the reality. [Interjections.] Did people to the north, looking at us, identify White South Africans as part of the liberation process in Africa, or did they see us as an extention of White colonialism? [Interjections.] I am not arguing, Sir; I am merely asking how hon. members would have seen the position had they been on the other side.

In that period when discrimination was the wrong thing, did we look like a society that was getting rid of discrimination or did we look like a society that was entrenching it? Take all the laws that we are reviewing now. Most of them were passed during the 1950s and 1960s. I am not trying to score points. I am trying to get hon. members to understand that, when viewed from the other side, it would appear that we were on the side of the colonial powers right through until the last colonial bastion fell, and our laws at that time, whatever our intention was, gave the impression that they were giving legal form to the old fashioned race discrimination which was part of Africa. That was the reality. Hon. members on the other side ask why the rest of Africa refuses to accept us as part of Africa. They first have to change their policy—perhaps they are in the process of changing it—and they have to get rid of an image that was created in the 1950s and 1960s before South Africa will be accepted as part of Africa. Once one is tagged as being a racist or whatever, it is extremely difficult to shake it off. [Interjections.] I do not want to argue.

You never want to argue.

That is the reality of the history of South Africa. [Interjections.] Even at the present time, the Blacks sitting up north say they understand the whole question about “nasies” and “volke” and all the rest of it. They say they understand that there is a White nation which now includes the Coloureds and Indians for the purposes of power-sharing. They may well understand that there are Ciskei “volke”, Venda “volke” and so on, but what they perhaps cannot understand is why, in our country, we treat people from the German or Portuguese “volk” who come to South Africa differently to the way in which we deal with people from the various Black “volke”. [Interjections.] This is the sort of thing they ask. I am sure there is an explanation, but one must see the other side of the picture. They can understand the “volkere” argument, but within that argument they wonder why Black “volkere” are different from White “volkere”.

Of course!

That hon. member says “of course”. That is the very point I am stressing. I think the hon. the Minister will understand what I am saying, and I certainly think his officials, who have been around Africa, will understand it. There is, in fact, a concept of South Africa’s problem, but what they say is that if one wants to be of Africa, one must behave as if one were of Africa by accepting Africans, whether they be Black or White, on the same basis as one accepts oneself. Their contention is that one must not accept White Europeans from Europe on a basis which is superior to that on which one accepts Africans from Africa.

We do not discriminate against Europeans!

There we have it, from the arch-discriminator from Langlaagte! I have tried to get this message across. [Interjections.] There is also the simplistic tendency to actually equate the problems of Africa—even the problems that beset us today, the wars and other things that have taken place in Africa—with the manipulations of the communists or the Soviet Union. That is the simplistic equation.

Order! I am sorry, the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising merely to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for that gesture. [Interjections.] It is of course a popular gesture. Obviously communists are there to exploit situations, but Africa is basically not a communist-orientated continent. There are more communist countries in Asia or in White Europe or in Latin America. Africans are not basically communists. They may, of course, be exploited by communists, but one will actually find that to the extent that societies have moved in the direction of being the captives of communism, that has basically taken place where the war against colonialism has lasted the longest. There are, it is true, some captives of communism, but their are only two Marxist-orientated States, and they are Angola and Mozambique, but that is because the war lasted as long as it did. So who did they turn to? The Department of Defence’s White Paper, in a very simplistic way, says that the Marxist States are Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Angola, but I do not accept that.

What about Libya?

Does the hon. the Minister believe that a decent, Christian gentleman like President Kaunda, who met the hon. the Prime Minister only a few days ago, is basically a Marxist or a stooge of the Marxists? [Interjections.]

Who said so?

I am saying that the White Paper on Defence states that Zambia is, in fact, now a part of the Marxist group. That is, however, a nonsense exercise. I think that we must distinguish between the results of the colonial struggle and the actual acceptance of Marxism in South Africa. I am not saying that Marxism or Soviet imperialism is not a danger, but do not let us oversimplify the issue. Let me suggest that all hon. members read the statement by Andreas Shipanga who is the head of Swapo-D. He is a man who was put in jail by Sam Nufoma. He is no friend of Sam Nujoma. Hon. members should read what he had to say before Denton’s Senate Committee. He said that Swapo did accept arms from Russia, but he asked: “To whom else must we turn? Are you saying that because we accept that, we do not believe in freedom?” I am not saying that I like what he said. I do not like what he said, but hon. members should read that evidence in order to understand that African nationalism has, for a long time, fought against colonialism. In fact, if the West, or White people, are not going to support it in its liberation struggle, it will inevitably turn to the communists and may become the captive of the communists.

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

That hon. member is too stupid to ask a question. [Interjections.]

No, I do not have the time. I am raising these points in order to elicit what I believe is a healthy debate, because I sense, from the other side of the House, a desire to come to terms with the issue.

I now want to deal with a totally different subject, a subject touched upon by the hon. member for Umhlanga. I want to deal very briefly with another area of conflict, viz. the South Atlantic. Oddly enough, in the last debate last year the hon. the Minister was suggesting—I do not know whether it was visionary or not—some kind of relationship between Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa. Whether it was a concept or anything else, it has now fallen apart. I want to refer specifically to the Falkland Islands issue because I believe that it holds for us in South Africa grave dangers as far as war is concerned and also as far as Soviet imperialism is concerned. The attitude of the official Opposition was expressed by our spokesman on defence. It was that, as far as the military aspects were concerned, the South African Government was correct in its attitude that South Africa should remain uninvolved. We accept that from the purely military points of view South Africa should remain uninvolved. On the other hand, we of the official Opposition express our surprise, both on the grounds of the facts and South Africa’s own interests, that the Government adopted so neutral a stance on the political issue of Argentina’s armed take-over of the Falkland Islands and the Dependency of South Georgia. One can argue about the historical imperative of Argentina’s claim. One can point to the inconclusive negotiations in which Great Britain has been involved. Historians will point to errors of judgment on both sides. That is all part of the past. Nothing can, however, hide the fact that on 2 April Argentina’s armed forces, on the instructions of Argentina’s ruling junta, invaded the islands in order to wrest from Great Britain her territorial sovereignty over that territory which enjoyed the overwhelming support of the international community and of the inhabitants. It was an armed invasion to wrest from another country its territorial sovereignty over that territory.

There were three principles at issue. The first was the use of armed forces to resolve an international dispute which was a subject of negotiation; the second was the violation of territorial sovereignty; and the third was the denial of the rights of the inhabitants to a say in their own political destiny. All three those principles were involved in Argentina’s invasion of those islands.

I would have thought that these three principles were principles about which the South Africa Government felt strongly. I am surprised that apparently they did not. What is more, if those three principles have a special reference to the Falklands, they equally have a special reference to the territories and countries of Southern Africa, and if they have a special reference in general to Southern Africa, they certainly have a special reference to the territory of Walvis Bay which in fact became a South African possession, if one wants to call it that, or part of our sovereignty as a result of letters patent signed by Queen Victoria in 1878. It was annexed to the Cape Province by the Governor in 1884 and ever since then it has been ruled as an integral part of the sovereign territory of South Africa. Those are the facts. If that principle of territorial sovereignty therefore applies to other territories, it applies equally to Walvis Bay. I would have thought that the Government would have stood on this principle very firmly indeed. The South African Government said it hoped this matter would be resolved because of friendly relations. It then went on to say that it therefore trusted that the efforts, including those of the USA, to bring about a peaceful solution would succeed.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister: Having said he trusted that the efforts would succeed, did the South African Government do anything about it? Did the South African Government do anything about the Falkland Island’s crisis in the South Atlantic when the hon. the Minister said there should be a special relationship between the four big powers in this area? The attitude of the USA was based on Security Council Resolution no. 502 which was that Argentina’s military junta should withdraw its invading forces so that negotiations could take place. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he did about it. Did the South African Government sit back or did it express to the Government of Argentina its concern about the armed invasion? It did not do anything. Did it use its good offices with the Junta in order to reinforce the efforts on the part of countries like the USA who were trying to persuade Argentina to withdraw from the Falkland Islands, or did it do nothing? I hope the hon. the Minister will say the Government did something. Did the South African Government at any stage express its concern at the growing involvement of the Soviet Union in the Southern Atlantic battle? Did it express its concern or not?

What worries me, is that a few days before the hon. the Minister’s statement of 9 April the chargé d’affaires of Argentine in Cape Town stated that his Government had not heard anything official from the South African Government yet, but it was heartened by the response so far. Four days after the invasion the chargé d’affaires says his Government is heartened by the South African response so far. Heartened by the South African response? I want to know whether he said that or not. Even at this stage I want to know whether there has been an official reaction. Was the Argentinian chargé d’affaires justified in believing that the South African response was heartening to the Argentine in its invasion of the Falkland Islands?

So much for the past. I believe and hope that the hon. the Minister will say that the Government did something, that it did not simply sit back, that it tried to reinforce the efforts of those people who were trying to get the Junta to withdraw.

So much for the past. The fact is that a totally unnecessary war has started. Young lives are being lost. Both Britons and Argentinians are being caught up in a dangerous war psychosis. This is what is happening. International tempers are frayed and the world is becoming more divided and more dangerous. There is even still the risk of a greater escalation of hostilities occurring. The only people who are gaining through their support of the Junta are the Soviets, who are able to extend their military tentacles into the Southern Atlantic region, and also the Cubans, who are using and exploiting the situation to their own political advantage.

We put it to the Government that whatever its act of omission was in the past, the situation is desperately serious for the Southern Atlantic region. We ask the Government to take positive action, to speak to both Britain and Argentina, to use its good offices in order to see to it that this conflict is brought to a halt in the interests of all the people living in the Southern Atlantic region.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear to me that the hon. member for Sea Point has no understanding of the delicacy of the matter surrounding the Falklands. That is why he is asking the hon. the Minister these silly and irresponsible questions. It is equally clear to me that he has no understanding of communism. That is why he accuses the hon. member for Randfontein of misinterpreting the Lusaka Manifesto. The hon. member for Sea Point should rather not argue with the hon. member for Randfontein about communism. I can guarantee to him that he can only lose. [Interjections.]

Rubbing shoulders with a new-born independent State which until very recently formed part of the territory of one’s own country strongly highlights a variety of problems arising from the new neighbourship. Among other things, it will mean that negotiations between the independent neighbouring States will henceforth have to be conducted at a more diplomatic and formal level. The hon. the Minister has said on occasion that relations with the independent States surrounding the Republic of South Africa cannot be promoted only along the formal channels, but that attention must also be given to unofficial forms of co-operation between the political and community leaders of such States. In Rustenburg, with its long border with the independent Bophuthatswana, we have utilized this opportunity. It was very clear to me from the outset that political and community leaders were enthusiastic about creating a discussion forum of this nature. The local town clerk and his officials did the liaising, and on two occasions we have called a meeting of these relations committees. I am very grateful for the fact that this has been possible. From the Bophuthatswana side, there were representatives of two of the nearby chiefs, three MPs of the governing party in Bophuthatswana and of the Opposition, representatives of the Police and the Traffic Department, as well as the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Bophuthatswana, Mr. Baraji. On our side, there were the MPC and representatives of the city council, the Police, commerce, agriculture and, at his own request, His Excellency the Ambassador of the RSA to Bophuthatswana, Dr. Vosloo, who attended that meeting as an observer. We were able to spell out the purpose of our talks on the first occasion: They were intended, in the first place, to create a climate and an opportunity for neighbours to discuss matters of common interest in an atmosphere of friendship and mutual respect; and, secondly, to identify problem areas and to try to resolve the problems of neighbourship. After all, the NP decided long ago that we had a better chance of finding an acceptable solution to our many problems if we respected the other man’s opinion as well. In the third place, neighbours who understand and trust each other will not only extend the hand of friendship, but will also be prepared to assist each other when this is necessary. If we are to be successful, however, the condition will always be that we must act in a positive spirit in order to achieve our purpose.

I should like to quote what the Bophuthatswana Secretary for Foreign Affairs said on the first occasion. He said, among other things—

This and other evidence as sufficient reason for me to come to the conclusion that there were indeed people who wanted to talk to one another and to understand one another. We request the department to work out a very clear framework within which these committees can function effectively, for although these are informal talks, binding decisions may also have to be taken at that level from time to time and important matters may have to be discussed there.

In the building which accommodates the Department of Pathology at the University of Pretoria, the former head of the department, the world-renowned Prof. Pyper, had slogans painted on the walls. One of these slogans is: “Life is short, knowledge is infinite, opportunity passes quickly.” Nothing is truer than this and more applicable to the comprehensive task of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. The task is great and time is short. On Prof. Pyper’s door was written: “The typewriter is more powerful than the machine gun.” I want to add something to that. I want to say: “A handshake is more powerful than pulling a trigger.” Having said this, I believe that the building of bridges between peoples and nations is not the work and the duty only of statesmen or Ministers, of ambassadors or senior officials; it is the shared responsibility of each of us in this House and of every responsible citizen outside. The task is too great to be performed by individuals. This new channel which we want to create and to keep open for unofficial talks and deliberations between communities, between community and political leaders of our country and the independent neighbouring States, is not a new idea. Since the earliest times, people have been able to testify to good neighbourliness between White and Black because they wanted to understand one another and because they trusted one another. The NP therefore believes that attitudes are the biggest single key to a peaceful future for South Africa.

There are those who believe that because of our precarious position at the southern tip of Africa, with more enemies than we would have liked to have, we should rather paint ourselves into a corner of isolation so that we may fight our last battle and die like heroes. The NP does not subscribe to this standpoint, because the NP does not want to and will not allow itself to be painted into isolation. We shall go on building bridges, because we do not want to die like heroes; we want to live like heroes.

The building of bridges between peoples and nations is a laborious process. These bridges must mean something to all parties and must contribute towards finding a real solution to problems and also to the rendering of assistance. What is more, we must also recognize that the friendly co-existence of people will ensure the survival of those people. If one day we have to depart from the road of peace, I believe that the channels of communication which have been opened and the bridges which have been built will make it easier for those who want to be together, for the sake of order, peace and progress, to find one another.

Mr. Chairman, since East London has two independent States as neighbours, I should like to associate myself with the idea that co-operation between these States is very important, as the hon. member for Rustenburg said.

Since I am going to devote my speech to our relations with the independent national States, I shall be reacting in the course of my speech to some other aspects raised by the hon. member. Firstly, I want to express my thanks—as other hon. members have also done—for the privilege of being a member of the group which toured the TBV countries. Other hon. members have already referred to the things we saw and experienced, but what probably made the greatest impression on us all was the clear evidence of national unity and pride among these people. It was clearly manifested in everything they did, and in conversations with us they all agreed that independence had been the right thing for them as a people.

In the light of the unique process of co-operation which led to the independence of those countries, in the light of their political ties with us and in the light of the economic interdependence between the national States and the Republic, there is a close and special relationship between the Republic and these States. For this reason I believe that the peaceful development of the whole of Southern Africa will be determined by the development of and in the national States, and by our relations with these States. Since we liaise with these States on a daily basis in virtually every sphere of life, it is important, I believe, that we should always bear in mind some fundamental facts which should regulate these relations.

The first fact is actually self-evident, but it is one which some of us so easily forget, namely that these States are sovereign and independent, and like any other member of the international community, they are entitled to conduct their domestic affairs without the interference of any other country, including South Africa. Each of these States has its own national character and way of life to which it is entitled and according to which these States govern and conduct themselves. This is the character of which their leaders must be guided and to which they must give expression. Therefore it is only natural that their opinions will sometimes conflict with ours. They have every right to adhere to these standpoints.

The third extremely important aspect which I believe we must always bear in mind is that these States support us in opposing the forces of revolution that wish to subject Southern Africa by means of armed force. Since these forces, like every radical movement, regard the people with whom they are associated by virtue of descent, culture and language as their primary targets for conversion to the cause of revolution, and since they then concentrate specifically on this part of the population, and, in South Africa, specifically on the various Black peoples which they regard as their natural recruiting ground, the TBVC countries and their leaders are in the vanguard of the struggle against this onslaught. Every success achieved by these States—there are many—is a blow to the forces of revolution. That is why these leaders and these countries are constantly exposed to these people and are a constant target for these forces. The strong stand taken by the leaders of these States against the ANC and their strong action against the ANC, their ability to win the support of their people in this struggle and their success in combating subversion in their States, deserve the appreciation and support of all of us who seek a peaceful solution in Soutern Africa. Rather than voicing the idle criticism which some of us are so quick to express against the activities of these States, we should do everything in our power to help them to prove that the road of co-operation which they followed is demonstrably better than that of confrontation, and also to help them to prove to their own people and to the world that the advantages of co-operation are visibly greater than the alternative. If we do not succeed in doing this, then not only these States, but the whole of Southern Africa will experience the tragedy of the communist alternative. When seen this in perspective, the Government’s regional development strategy can be estimated at its true value. The constitutional development of the peoples of Southern Africa is certainly of the greatest importance, but without a healthy economic substructure in terms of which concrete substance can be given to the aspirations of each of the inhabitants, such a dispensation cannot be developed in a meaningful way.

The only way in which this essential economic foundation can be provided is by the even distribution of development across State borders so as to place the welfare which this fruitful region offers us all within the reach of everyone who is prepared to contribute his share. This, I believe, is the true purpose of the Government’s regional development plan, and it is also, I believe, the only way in which this purpose can be achieved. The incentives and concessions are of such a nature that they cancel out the short-term disadvantages of establishing industries in the undeveloped areas, and in the long term, they enable industries established in this way to compete with those in other areas. In this way we shall ensure that development is distributed evenly and that everyone is afforded the opportunity of co-operating as a full partner and of sharing in the benefits. Regional development, as provided for by this development strategy, will form the basis of the peaceful development of Southern Africa. Everyone who desires this, whatever his political convictions, can associate himself with it and help to develop it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City who has just sat down spoke about the economic development of what are called the TBVC countries. I want to say right here and now that while we in this party did not agree with and, in fact, during the past session, opposed the Bill which granted Ciskei independence, we nevertheless fully realize that simply as human beings we must help these countries to develop economically as much as we can. Over a number of years, I certainly have spoken in this House, for instance, about job opportunities for the people who live in Mdantsane which is now part of Ciskei. So from the point of view of helping these people economically we can only out of humanity agree that their economic development must be helped as much as possible.

It is my duty as information spokesman for this party to speak on information in the debate. I want to start by quoting what the hon. the Minister himself said in the debate last year where, in talking about me, he said (Hansard, col. 4205)—

I must say that I agree with the hon. the Minister because I believe very strongly that the Information Service, particularly with regard to the internal dissemination of information in South Africa, should not be part of the hon. the Minister’s portfolio or, in fact, have anything to do with foreign affairs. Let us just talk for a moment about the external dissemination of information—putting South Africa’s case to the outside world. I believe that this can rightfully be a part of the department. The logical place for departmental information attachés is with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Their job should be to try to sell South Africa to the outside world. There is nothing wrong with that. I would suggest that in terms of accurate and correct information being disseminated the recent crisis in the Falklands is an indication of what a country can do in developing the right sort of climate for the belief of the information it in fact disseminates. The claims that have been made by Argentina, throughout the world, have not been believed whereas the British claims have been predominantly believed. This is because of the image that it has always projected of coming up with courageous and factual information. Timely information is also of the greatest importance. Only last year when there was an extensive exercize in Angola by South African forces there was something like a two-day delay before there was any reaction from the Government. I think the hon. the Minister should bear that in mind because it does not do us any good at all to have that sort of delay in reacting to events. When overseas radio and television were full of stories that were spread by Angola and the enemies of South Africa, there was silence from our Government. This, I believe, is where external information is important. We have some very good stories to tell in this country. We have stories of economic development, we have stories of doctors per capita, we have stories that we can tell to many people which would create a positive image of South Africa. However, I also want to say that when we venture more on to the political terrain, we do hit troubled waters because, no matter how hard we try—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with this—we cannot sell the basics of ethnic discrimination to the outside world. They simply do not understand it and they do not go along with it. We can talk until we are blue in the face about our ethnic differences and the reasons why we must have self-determination, but I am afraid that the difficulty in selling those stories is really insuperable. Therefore let us rather concentrate on the stories that we can tell positively about South Africa and let us forget about trying to sell political stories because, again, I do not think that this actually fits in particularly well in regard to Information Service to the outside world. I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically, and I should like him to react to this, whether he is happy with the current situation where he also has to be responsible for disseminating information through his department internally within South Africa. I ask this question because I can see that this can definitely create a situation for him where the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information can lose credibility in the outside world because of the actions it has to take internally and because of the spreading of internal information within South Africa.

Last year I referred to several documents that had been published in which without doubt there were political aspects. Utilizing taxpayers’ money, these documents for instance denigrated the official Opposition in South Africa. I do not believe therefore that this sort of thing should be handled by the department, and I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s viewpoint on it. If the hon. the Minister agrees that the Information Service for the dissemination of information internally should not function under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, I believe that some action should be taken in that regard.

If we are going to have action, I think we must be very careful not to have the sort of action that has been recommended by the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media. On behalf of hon. members on these benches I want to state categorically that we could not disagree more strongly with the viewpoints expressed and the recommendations of the Steyn Commission in regard to the Information Service. I want to read paragraph b. on page 963 of that report which states—

Sir, I submit that in this recommendation the commission is simply asking for a repeat of the whole ghastly affair that caused so much harm to the good name of South Africa, and which, in fact, was such a disaster for a number of individuals and, I believe, for South Africa as a whole. [Interjections.] We do not believe, therefore, that any attention whatever should be paid to that recommendation.

In the short time still at my disposal, I should like to react to the fifth report of the State Trust Board in which it came to some conclusions in relation to a number of people who were implicated. This, in fact, has borne out the stand that I took last year, a stand of concern at what appeared to be two completely conflicting directions taken in the supplementary report of the Erasmus Commission and the State Trust Board itself. If one looks at the findings of the Erasmus Commission on page 37 of the supplementary report, one finds the following—

On page 17 of the report of the State Trust Board dated 7 December 1981, we find the following paragraph—

The one report states that basically there was dirty work at the crossroads while the other report states that Mr. Alberts had been paid out additional money. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I react directly to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg Central, I trust that you will permit me to remark on the fact that during the five years that I have sat in this House with the hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Brakpan, I have not previously noticed them showing any particular proclivity for using any language other than Afrikaans. [Interjections.] I am simply reflecting what has happened, and I want to congratulate them on the very erudite English they used this afternoon in attempting to make their first embryo foreign policy statements on behalf of their party in an international language. Regrettably I did not notice at the time any foreign correspondents in the House who could have benefited from the attempt, which was perhaps a pity from their point of view!

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central started by quoting the hon. the Minister as saying that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had wasted his time the previous year. I am afraid that he has done exactly the same thing again tonight by referring to the recommendations of the Steyn Commission about the Department of Information, because that aspect was dealt with finally by the hon. the Prime Minister on 2 February this year when, in the no-confidence debate, he said that for reasons of rationalization, and other reasons that he gave, the situation was going to stay as it is. Therefore I cannot see why the issue had to be raised again tonight, except to waste the hon. the Minister’s time.

I am, of course, in full agreement with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and other hon. members who made positive contributions on the role of our Information Service overseas and on the positive role it can play in the dissemination of factual information about this country. I think it is appropriate, in this context, to pay great tribute to our officials abroad who are entrusted with this task, because if one takes into account the amount of money that is put at their disposal, the equipment that they have, the manpower that is at their disposal and the vast amounts of publications, films and other materials that they put out, tours and lectures that they arrange and the conference venues and facilities that they have to furnish—for example those at the recent summit meeting between our Prime Minister and Mr. Kaunda—one sees that this is one of the most cost-effective operations that any public relations outfit could muster. I therefore think that they ought to be congratulated on that. Their efforts are often criticized, and the criticism often comes from a number of sources, for example the hon. Opposition, visitors to this country and even the Steyn Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media which stated, in Vol. 3 of its report (p. 960)—

In view of the volume and virulence, it may be inadequate, but I want to suggest that even the best possible campaign would be inadequate as long as there is a concerted campaign of disinformation about this country and as long as that campaign of disinformation about this country is aided and abetted by sources within the country.

I regret that the hon. member for Yeoville is not here this evening. I do not want to criticize him. I just want to recall a shared experience. We were both in Germany some two or three years ago, on the eve of the departure of Mr. Genscher, the German Foreign Minister, for South Africa for the first meeting, in Pretoria, of the Big Five. On that particular day Mr. Genscher made a whole series of statements about South West Africa and the South African attitude to South West Africa, statements which, from our point of view were, to say the least, inaccurate. One of the statements he made was that South Africa was not prepared to condone a fair election in that territory under any circumstances. On that day we were in Frankfurt and we paid a visit to the ZDF which is the most conservative and has the reputation of being the most non-partisan television station in Germany. The hon. member for Yeoville then, pointing out to our hosts that certain statements had been made by Mr. Genscher and that, although he himself did not particularly want to appear on television, he could speak German and I could also speak German, asked whether they would not care to arrange an interview to hear the South African point of view since their Minister was departing that evening. Well, Sir, the excuses were mind-boggling: The head of news was in Peking; the deputy head of news was in Mannheim and could not be contacted on the telephone; and in any event they could not take a decision and there was no one there who could take the decision to allow South Africans to appear on their broadcasting station. I then pointed out that I had worked in a radio and television station for almost 20 years and that we had never let a good story go simply because there was not someone to take a decision.

There is bias and bias. The SABC is often accused of bias, but what it certainly does is interview every visiting Parliamentarian, every visiting American Congressman and every visiting Senator regardless of whether they are going to say horrible things or nice things about this country. We even interview people like Harold Wolpe and Tsongas, knowing full well in advance that they are uninformed, misinformed and disseminators of disinformation. However, overseas one cannot make a break-through. Our own people disseminate the information, but they cannot get it published because of this kind of situation.

I want to quote from a programme that was broadcast in America, the programme “CBS 50 minutes”. It starts off with the interviewer, Ed. Bradley, saying—

Whatever “knuckling under” may mean—

Louis knows what that means.

The statement I have quoted is a vicious, virulent and totally untrue statement. Nobody in this country is locked up or detained for refusing to “knuckle under”.

What are they detained for then?

Sir, where do they get this kind of sentiment from? I shared a platform with the hon. member for Houghton at Wits some time ago and there that hon. member got up and said that people who disagree with the Government run the risk of being locked up in this country.

Quite right.

Quite true.

Then I pointed out to the audience that she was talking absolute nonsense because, if that were true, then the hon. member for Houghton would have been locked up long ago, whereupon she turned to me and said: “You would not dare!” Well, if the hon. member for Houghton did start advocating violence or the overthrow of the Government by violence like David Kitson—he admitted at the time of his trial that he was a communist and that he had joined Nelson Mandela whose aim was to overthrow the Government by violence…

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member take a question?

No, Sir. There is no time for questions.

What about the hundreds detained without trial? [Interjections.]

Why do you not qualify your remark? [Interjections.]

In that case she would of course be locked up. However, to suggest that merely because one has a dissenting political view one can be locked up in this country is an infamous untruth and I think that hon. members on that side of the House must guard against becoming part of this kind of dissemination of untruths about this country or becoming victims or instruments of the concerted campaign of disinformation there is against this country. I can cite other examples. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the good image of South Africa must be projected to the entire outside world and in these circumstances we are very grateful for the work done by the hon. the Minister, the hon. R. F. Botha, and by Dr. Muller, Mr. Grobler and Mr. De Villiers of the Department of Information.

For our foreign liaison services a budget of R14 million is not too much to spend. By placing an advertisement in Time magazine, which is read by the decision-makers and opinion-formers of the USA’s east coast, an opportunity is created to get to know something about our wonderful country. We must bear in mind that a simple full page advertisement in black and white in Time magazine costs R20 000, per advertisement, while advertisements for seven quarter pages in the New York Times costs R100 000, as against the R400 000 for an advertisement on 13 half pages in the Wall Street Journal. We simply do not have the money to be able to afford all those advertisements. Moreover, the internal liaison services have to get by on the meagre amount of R3 million. Before I forget I want to point out that another R5 million is available for publications.

How can the psychological onslaught on South Africa be averted if the impossible has to be achieved with the aid of limited capital and few, but enthusiastic staff? Nevertheless, 33 periodicals with a circulation of more than a million regularly appear. The message of South Africa is brought to at least 12 countries in 17 languages. We are very pleased to have the outstanding journal Panorama today, and its eight editions every year with a circulation of 453 000 are a wonderful shop window for South Africa. Then, too, there is the news journal S.A. Digest, which has a circulation of 219 000 in altogether four editions. 30 000 copies of this periodical go to 25 African countries. Every year an average of 13 000 enquiries, which have to be answered, come from those 25 African countries. Many of the enquiries received relate to South Africa’s products and commercial wares.

Then, too there are supplements to publications which we must also bear in mind. I have one before me. Specific aspects of policy are dealt with in this document and more than 3 million copies concerning 22 subjects are distributed every year. The title of this one I have before me here is “Information newsletter”, and the subheading is “South Africa replies to United Nations’ resolutions.”

I also wish to refer to the series of publications entitled Vooruitgang of which 41 000 copies are distributed in seven Black languages. For example, 60 000 copies of this series are printed in North Sotho, 59 000 in South Sotho, 10 000 in Tswana and 72 000 in Zulu. 28 000 copies are sent to Venda and 66 000 copies are printed in Xhosa and 46 000 in Tshonga. One can imagine what this means for South Africa.

Then, too, I have another South African publication entitled “Dit is Suid Afrika”. In it everything in South Africa is stated in a nutshell. 500 000 copies of this publication are distributed in Afrikaans, English, German, Hebrew, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch. Then there is the other outstanding booklet that I also have here. It is entitled Dinamiese Verandering in Suid-Afrika, and 115 000 copies of this have been printed. One of the latest publications I have received is entitled Die Presidentsraad van Suid-Afrika. It has just appeared. Then, too, there is The Story of South Africa, South Africa, Land of Challenge, South Africa, Target or Opportunity, Why South Africa will Survive and many more Authoritative works are sent to 340 prominent libraries in 20 countries.

An increase of R23 million to R24 million per annum is insufficient to develop an effective liaison service domestically and abroad. Misrepresentations cannot be rectified in this way, nor can a positive image be projected. These things are not possible if sufficient capital is not available. Accordingly we wish to make an earnest appeal to the Government to make money available for these projects.

I believe that hon. members of the Opposition, too—and the hon. members of the NRP sit closest to us here—could perhaps also forfeit part of their salary increases so that more money could be available for the information service. [Interjections.] In this way hon. members of the Opposition could show their loyalty to the Republic of South Africa. In any event it would be a very fine gesture if we all contributed something in order to give South Africa more publicity. This is why this matter is of such importance to us.

We also wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the wonderful work he is doing. Then, too, there are the hon. the Minister’s officials, and we wish to pay tribute to them as well. Only three members of the editorial staff do all the work involved in the publication S.A Oorsig. S.A. Panorama is handled by only six members of the editorial staff. Accordingly we have every reason to praise and congratulate this department, and particularly the Information Service.

Nevertheless, it is an unfortunate fact that the money available for publicizing South Africa abroad is hopelessly inadequate. I therefore hope that the time will come when the Cabinet, the Government and ultimately, of course, the hon. the Minister of Finance, will really make sufficient money available to finance this important task properly. Costs increase by about 15% every year. Publications, too, are becoming steadily more expensive and it is therefore necessary that serious attention be given to this matter. After all, the aim is to convey South Africa’s message to all corners of the world.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Rosettenville will forgive me if I do not follow up his argument. I have no quarrel with him regarding the dissemination of information. I should, however, like to take this opportunity to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Benoni who spoke just before him. The hon. member for Benoni reminded his hon. colleagues here about the visit to West Germany and the commitments made there in talking to the SDP and other parties. I should also like to remind the hon. member for Benoni about a visit to West Germany in which I and the hon. member for Randburg participated. We were in Bonn and we also spoke to members of the SDP and other parties. The topic of conversation at the time was the announcement that had been made by the then Prime Minister that we were going to have a good look at and possibly review the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. On that occasion that hon. member told all the West Germans of all the different parties as well as the representatives of the various chambers of commerce that that policy was irreversible. Is that correct? I want to know whether that hon. member still stands by the fact that this policy which we discussed in Germany at the time is irreversible.

What policy are you talking about?

I am talking about a review of the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Benoni said at the time that these Acts would be reviewed and that that policy was irreversible. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Benoni must therefore be very careful before he attacks hon. members on this side of the House in the light of what he himself had to say in West Germany on that occasion.

You are guilty of disinformation.

Mr. Chairman, I am entering the debate at this stage not to discuss the question of foreign affairs or of information. I am entering the debate at this stage to discuss the SABC and TV. I must say that I am rather sorry that the hon. the Minister has up to this stage not seen fit to dispose of the debate that has already taken place in this House in respect of foreign affairs and information which means that he will now have to reply in respect of the SABC as well as in respect of the other two topics. The SABC has over the years been the responsibility of various Ministers, among others the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, the hon. the Minister of National Education and now the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in fact he feels happy that the SABC and all its activities should now be the responsibility of his department. Does it rightly fall under his department? In my opinion this debate has proved the opposite because after having discussed important issues dealing with foreign affairs and information with reference to the Seychelles, the Falkland Islands and the Argentine as well as South West Africa and other important matters, we are now to debate the question of the activities of the SABC.

At the outset I want to say that I have one appeal to make in regard to the question of SABC-TV. We are very impressed with the annual report that has been submitted by the SABC. It is glossy, it is well illustrated and it refers to a great number of the activities of the SABC and the television service. In fact, mention is even made of Spanish broadcasts to the Argentine at 1 o’clock in the morning for two hours each morning. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether these broadcasts are continuing and what the nature of these programmes is, particularly in view of the problems that are being experienced in relation to that country at the present time.

While this report refers to a vast number of different aspects and to people of all language groups, there is one group of people to which it makes no reference whatsoever and it is that group of people upon which I wish to focus the attention of the hon. the Minister. I am referring here to a group of people in South Africa which, according to the S.A. National Council of the Deaf, numbers approximately 2,5 million. I say this because, according to that body, the number of people who are deaf or hard of hearing in this country forms about 10% of our total population. I want in all seriousness to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to the question of these deaf people in South Africa as far as SABC-TV is concerned. Obviously, the radio is no good for deaf people. There is nothing they can do about radio listening and it is not a means of communication for them at all. As far as media such as newspapers are concerned, not many of them are very good at reading. They therefore have to have some form of communication. One form of communication to which I want to refer is TV.

How much good is TV to the deaf in South Africa? Firstly, there are those who might be able to lip-read. Those who can lip-read a broadcast can follow it, but they do experience tremendous problems especially with programmes such as a news broadcast. The moment the person speaking turns his head slightly, they cannot see his lips move. The moment the announcer switches over to the actual telecast of news events they again become confused. The moment the newscaster switches from English to Afrikaans or from Afrikaans to English the viewer again becomes confused because he loses the thread of the actual newscast entirely.

Deaf people also require spiritual comfort, for example, the preaching of the Gospel and church services, and one would hope that TV could provide that for them. There are only two places in South Africa where they can attend church, namely in Pretoria and Cape Town. In the rest of the country there are no church services specifically for the deaf, and so they cannot get any religious inspiration at all. One could, however, do it by way of TV.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to, firstly, the question of subtitles. In this regard teletex has come into operation. This is a system of video text whereby the signals of subtitles are carried within an unused part of the normal TV signals. It is not visible on the screen until a teletex decoder is used, and only the person using the decoder is able to see the subtitle. Other viewers are therefore not disturbed in any way or put off at all. This system is called “closed”. It is used widely in the USA and I want to commend the hon. the Minister to give attention to this aspect, because it is only visible if activated by the TV viewer. It can in fact be done in eight different languages, on eight different channels for eight different groups of people.

The other option open to the hon. the Minister is the question of sign language, the deaf-and-dumb language. However, this can only be of any use if the deaf-and-dumb language is used simultaneously while the broadcaster giving the newscast or with the telecast itself. One would need only one-sixth of the lower part of the right-hand side of the screen for the language signal to be shown simultaneously with the telecast. This has already been done in America and particularly during the time of the presidential election when they tried to get messages across to deaf people so that they could participate in the politicking which were going on in the United States at that time. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to try this system in regard to the 18h00 news service. I think it would be ideal to use the 18h00 news service where one or both systems which I have suggested could be followed. I feel that if this is done, we will be doing a wonderful thing for these people, and it will not put off other viewers. Although the 18h00 newscast is live and is done without rehearsal I honestly and sincerely believe this could be done and the newscast monitored. The subtitles need not be extensive. They could be abbreviated. Imagine the benefit to the education of the 4 000 deaf children who attend something like 23 schools for the deaf. Reaching these people by way of the medium of television could be a fantastic thing for them.

Lastly, in regard to television licences—the fee goes up to R42 from 1 October—I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reduce the fee to deaf licence-holders and possibly to blind licence-holders as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned a very deserving cause with regard to the deaf and I should like to associate myself with what he said. I did not prepare myself on that subject, but I do think that it is a very deserving cause. In that respect, as he correctly indicated, the deaf are even worse off than the blind as regards the provision of news or media coverage by means of radio or TV. I therefore take pleasure in associating myself with what he said in that regard.

I have a few remarks to make about the opening remarks of the hon. member for Hillbrow concerning the function and responsibility of the hon. the Minister with regard to the SABC as such and also the discussion of this subject during the debate on the Vote. To begin with, I wish to attempt to draw a distinction relating to the hon. the Minister’s true function, in terms of the Act, as regards the SABC. This is a subject which crops up repeatedly and which has been debated in this House in the past: What say does the Government have with regard to the SABC via the responsible Minister.

I think it is necessary that we draw a clear distinction in this regard. In the first place it is true that the hon. the Minister is the responsible person with regard to the administration. He is the person responsible for the governmental supervision, if I may put it that way, of this statutory organization, the SABC. Indeed, this is provided by implication in legislation. It is to him that a report must be submitted in terms of section 27.

In that regard I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Hillbrow and say that the report submitted to this House by the Director-General is a very neat one.

On the other hand, the corporation is an autonomous statutory body. It was established by legislation and it exists and carries out its task in terms of legislation. It is responsible for the content of its own programmes. It is responsible, via its board and the management body that is subordinate to the board, for determining the content of programmes, news coverage and everything that that involves.

Why is it so one-sided, then?

It is not the function of the hon. the Minister to pass judgment on or have a say in specific programmes. It is not the task of the hon. the Minister even to accept responsibility for them. In my opinion this is a very important point, because when one looks at the complaints that are made from time to time, consideration must be given to the say or lack of say and the power the hon. the Minister supposedly has. It is important that we should point out that on the one hand the hon. the Minister has an administrative responsibility with regard to this organization, but he certainly does not have a responsibility as far as the content of programmes is concerned. It is true, however—and it is right that this should be so—that since it is a statutory body, the activities of that organization must be accounted for. Accordingly, this has been provided for in legislation.

Looking at Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act we note that what I am saying now has in fact been expressly provided for in the Act. Section 11 of the Act reads, in the first place, as follows—

1. (a) to carry on a broadcasting service in the Republic;

No mention is made here of the hon. the Minister’s responsibility with regard to carrying on that service.

Secondly, section 11 of the Act reads as follows—

1. (b) at the request of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine, to broadcast programmes for reception in a country or territory outside the Republic;

Only in regard to that part of the task and function of the SABC does the hon. the Minister’s other responsibility come into the picture.

I therefore wish to stress that as far as domestic broadcasts are concerned, the hon. the Minister’s only function is an administrative responsibility on behalf of this House and the State. It is necessary that he should have that function. This is a statutory body and accordingly he has to bear that responsibility, too, on behalf of the public of the country.

In regard to this point I should like to put an idea before the Committee with regard to the hon. the Minister’s present administrative power. It seems to me as if the hon. the Minister bears the responsibility in his personal capacity but not via his department. Now the situation necessarily arises—or so it seems to me—that as matters stand, the hon. the Minister lacks the organizational structure in his Ministry, in his organizational structure, to assist him in attending to this responsibility. I often ask myself where a Minister like the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, with his full and busy programme, gets the time to attend to this responsibility as well. I think it would be as well if we were perhaps to raise the question whether it is not necessary to establish a directorate in the ministry or to appoint a person or persons that could assist the hon. the Minister and serve as a liaison mechanism.

You are creating a job for Barend. [Interjections.]

I think there are far better jobs for the hon. member for Florida than that. I think it is necessary to provide a liaison mechanism which can assist the hon. the Minister in this responsibility of his, particularly since in the nature of things, he also has to act on his own accord, or in cases where he has to take the initiative in obtaining reports on administrative matters.

You are ambitious.

No, I am only considering the matter from the point of view of the country’s interests. I think it is necessary for us to ascertain whether we could not assist the hon. the Minister with regard to such a liaison mechanism so as to facilitate his task. It could work both ways. It could also make matters easier for the board of the SABC to have a specific division of the office of the hon. the Minister to promote this two-way contact. This could therefore be of benefit to both sides.

Then, too, there is another matter I should like to touch on relating to the SABC. It concerns the complaint which is constantly made relating to the allocation of time on radio and television to the various political parties. I want to touch on this matter although neither Opposition Party has thus far raised the point.

Because it is such a disgrace.

The hon. member for Bryanston is interjecting again. Because this is something that that side of the House harps on every year, I should just like to make a few points here with regard to the sound approach to the allocation of time. In the first place, we must bear in mind that the SABC serves South Africa. It serves all population groups in this country and not only the parties represented in this House. The SABC is responsible for serving all those communities, but also for the promotion of good relations in this country. From this point of view, I think it performs its task. If one only takes cognizance of the fact that at present the SABC is broadcasting in 11 languages in 16 different radio services, and that it serves the population of South Africa in seven languages in two separate television services, it is clear that the SABC is carrying out its responsibility in this regard. Therefore, from the point of view of the total population, it is carrying out its responsibility. As far as party-political reporting is concerned, it is, firstly, the task of the SABC to issue broadcasts in the interests of the country as well. However, it is also definitely the case that it must take group politics and party politics into account. Therefore I think we have a fair division with regard to various political parties, and that specifically includes the situation as regards the Whites.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear anything the hon. member for Bryanston is saying. If he is giving his running commentary, then he must just give me a chance as well. As far as the allocation of broadcasting time for party-political purposes is concerned it is important to note,—and this is an objective fact—that in this regard the Government is to be distinguished from the political party. Here it is not merely an issue concerning the PFP, the CP or any other political party; the Government is involved, and to that extent the Government is in fact distinguishable in principle from the NP as such. Moreover, because the Government governs in the interests of all people in this country, it is necessarily true that more time is set aside for the statements by the Government in accordance with the interests it serves in the community as a whole.

Why does poor Pik not get more time on the box? [Interjections.]

If we take into account the position that the Government does indeed serve the interests of the general public, that its activities influence the weal and woe of the people of South Africa, it is necessary that the Government must be given more time. More time must be set aside for its statements. I do not even want to say that this happens. In my opinion, far from sufficient time is set aside for the Government to state its standpoint. I believe that if we want to be fair we must take into account the numerical strength of the various parties in Parliament when we decide on the amount of time which political parties ought to be given in radio and television programmes. In my opinion that would be fair.

What about the value of the message?

Mercifully, they are spared that, because that is not the dispensation at the moment and accordingly the Opposition parties get far more time than they deserve. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg West expressed his concern about the possibility that due to the extent of his activities as Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. the Minister would not be able to attend to the activities of the division which now falls under his department. However, only the hon. the Minister will be able to react to this statement and I should like to hear his reply in that regard.

On behalf of the CP I wish to convey my appreciation for the neatly compiled annual report of the SABC for 1981. This report gives a very clear exposition of the activities of that institution, which has become such an integral part of our society that one can barely imagine a day without radio or television.

Radio and television are material creations of man, one of the phenomenal developments of human technology which are often beyond the capacity of the man in the street to understand. In view of the task and function of the SABC in Soutern Africa I profoundly appreciate the handling of the technical side of radio and television programmes and I want to pay tribute to the technicians who have to convey the news and other programmes to the public of South Africa, often under extremely difficult circumstances.

Radio and television are institutions that reflect the everyday life of the tremendous ethnic diversity in Southern Africa. This is undoubtedly no easy task, and accordingly I wish to express my great appreciation of the high standard and the quality of our radio and television programmes. It is certainly not easy to satisfy everyone’s quirks and fancies in a multi-national country like South Africa, and we who are in public life fully understand that.

Through its radio and television services the SABC serves all peoples in South Africa, and this evening I wish to discuss a few matters in this regard. The SABC is not the property of the Government but belongs to the public in general. Nor is it only the individual or the institutions in our community that have an opinion and the right to an opinion; there are also the various political parties represented in this House, and of course—this is important—the Opposition parties as well. As far as the Government and the Minister are concerned I believe it is only right and just that they be accorded an opportunity to state their standpoints by way of radio and television. I believe, too, that the public ought to be acquainted with what the Government is doing by way of these media, where and how they act and what their standpoints are. In my opinion Opposition parties can derive benefit from such broadcasts and programmes because this is one of the ways in which they can become aware of what the Government intends to do. During the recess in particular, this is in my opinion a good way in which Opposition parties can obtain information about the Government’s activities, Moreover, it is only fair that a Government and the hon. the Minister should have an opportunity to say to the public what they are engaged in doing. I think that any party that has to form a government must in the nature of the matter be able to make use of that opportunity and privilege. I think this is also a right which the public has, something that the public can demand of the governing party. In terms of section 27 there must be political commentary, too, and as far as this is concerned I think it is only fair to Opposition parties and particularly the spokesmen of those parties who comment on the various portfolios, that they, too, be accorded a reasonable opportunity to state their standpoints. [Interjections.] The standpoint is, therefore, that the Government has the right and privilege to state its case but that the Opposition, too, has a right and must be given the opportunity to state its standpoint on television and radio.

Since I have found myself in this particular situation, the television service has perhaps, from our point of view, focused the camera too much on certain events with the result that an image of the party which is not, perhaps, entirely correct has been projected. However, I think it was the hon. the Minister of Law and Order who said on one occasion: “Cowboys don’t cry”, and I think this is something one simply has to accept if one is in the Opposition.

Then, too, there are some things which I should like to know from the hon. the Minister with regard to the composition of the board. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister’s policy is when he appoints people to this particular board. In the nature of the matter we appreciate the work done by those people but I think it is only fair that the country should know what the Government’s norms are with regard to the appointment of those board members.

From the vantage point of my philosophy of life I am somewhat concerned about the direction in which television presentations on Sundays could be moving. We realize that the people responsible for television programmes have a very difficult task because there is a diversity of people in our community…

When did you find that out?

And, of course, a variety of standpoints and opinions as to what is permissible on a Sunday. However, I think I have every right to put my side of the matter. My opinion as regards the feeling of my section of society about Sunday is that it is a special day. On that day one would want political activities and the practice of sport to take a low profile. This is in line with ideas that I have discussed in the past with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, because pressure is being exerted on South Africa to be more permissive. In the light of the philosophy of life that we share I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give special consideration to the quality and type of advertisement that appears on television, and to certain programmes introduced into our community from abroad. In this regard I want to single out the programme “Suikerkaskenades”. If there is one thing which the Afrikaner community is not very happy about it is the whole handling of this “Suikerkaskenades” programme. [Interjections.] There are hon. members on this side of the House who will perhaps go rigid with dismay because I have certain objections in this regard, but the SABC and the television service are a reflection of our community and there are certain social events and institutions which must be respected. Otherwise unnecessary conflict and tension could arise. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to some of the points raised by the hon. member for Rissik, but before I get to that I first want to raise what is for me a local matter. I want to thank the SABC for the special assistance and coverage they provided for the Roodepoort Eisteddfod, an international eisteddfod which took place last year. This was a special occasion not only for that city, but indeed for South Africa as well. 500 participants from various countries took part on that occasion, including a large group of people from Rumania. The SABC brought this matter to the attention of the public by way of news coverage and actuality programmes, and the people of Roodepoort and everyone involved are very grateful for that. In addition, Radio RSA, the foreign service of the SABC, also gave considerable coverage to this matter, and as a result there have been inquiries from abroad with a view to the possibility of participation in the next eisteddfod in 1983. Thirdly, on 16 December last year the SABC presented a 45-minute programme on the eisteddfod, and not only did that programme elicit very favourable comment among South African viewers, but even tourists touring in South Africa at the time commented very favourably on this international eisteddfod. We should like to thank the SABC for this, and I also want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for their moral support and for the assistance provided by the department in various countries to facilitate access to South Africa for participants. This was indeed a sound investment and the reaction it elicited was very positive.

I should now like to react to some of the points made by the hon. member for Rissik. I think that the sympathetic way in which he dealt with the problem which the SABC has with its Sunday broadcasts deserves the appreciation of this side of the House, because this is indeed a problem, particularly since we still have only one channel for Whites in South Africa and we have people of differing religious convictions and differing viewpoints, and the whole spectrum has in fact to be covered by one channel. I think this creates special problems. Even in our own minds we are concerned about certain matters. I was personally upset to see sports results long before there was any question of sports broadcasts on Sundays, because I think it spoils one’s Sunday evening mood, particularly if one is spending the evening with one’s family after a quiet day.

Then, too, there is another aspect which causes us all problems. Much that is of current interest takes place in the world, and one does have a need to be kept informed of affairs. In my opinion, today’s current news profanes the Sabbath even more than a sports broadcast, which is relatively innocent. All I mean by this is that we ourselves are concerned about this matter. I think one should give earnest consideration to these matters and try to understand the SABC’s problems as well. Perhaps a solution can be sought in a way that would satisfy more people in South Africa.

Just turn your television off.

It is a solution to switch off the television, but I do not believe it is fair to leave the people who do so without a medium which can have a special significance for them, on Sunday as well.

We, too, are all of us concerned about the permissiveness in advertisements. I have had a few experiences with the SABC people concerned, and I can give hon. members the assurance this evening that these people have an extremely difficult task as far as the selection of advertisements is concerned. In that regard, too, I believe that there ought to be appreciation for the sympathetic way in which the hon. member raised this matter. It is difficult to control certain trends relating to permissiveness, including the clothing and attitudes of people, etc., in advertisements. However, one thing is certain. Present-day advertisements are extremely well designed and have a very definite influence on peoples’ attitudes. Therefore one has to be very careful, and it is necessary to ensure that they do not include anything that is unacceptable.

As far as the programme Suikerkaskenades is concerned, I wish to state categorically—I believe that by commenting in this way I speak on behalf of the majority of hon. members on this side of the House—that it was probably one of the less successful programmes presented by the SABC television service. In the first place, I think it was wrongly scheduled. I think it was a programme for children, who derived great pleasure from it and killed themselves laughing every time someone fell in the water. However, we must also understand the SABC’s difficulties in this regard, particularly with the benefit of hindsight which we have gained in the process, in view of the fact that a separate Suikerkaskenades programme is now being presented on the Black television service. We must bear in mind that Suikerkaskenades was not an organized sports meeting presented by a central organization. It was simply a programme presented to the public by the Sugar Board on the one hand and certain sports bodies on the other. Sports teams were invited to participate in the games presented in the programme. The aim was probably to promote sugar and also, of course, to introduce sport heroes and sportsmen and women to the public in a relaxed atmosphere in which they took part in games. Then a few unfortunate incidents occurred in regard to this matter. I do not believe that anyone was particularly impressed by them. However, the fact of the matter is that we must view the matter in its full perspective.

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

Surely we cannot also expect the television service …

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

Surely we cannot also expect the television service to reflect a South Africa which …

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

…which is either absolutely White or absolutely Black. That is simply impossible. There is increasing contact in South Africa among all the population groups in all the various fields of activity, from the political sphere right down to the sportsfield. This contact…

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

After all, this contact must, in one way or another, also…

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Waterkloof must contain themselves!

They are just playing games, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Florida a question?

No. I do not feel like answering questions now. In any event, my time is very limited.

Sit down Horace, there is no such question! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to point out that in this regard, too, we must have sympathy for the SABC. The SABC covered, edited and broadcast this specific event as it would any other event. In its version of reality in the world around us, the SABC cannot possibly give the Whites in South-Africa a pure White image on television. This is simply impossible, because there is increasing daily contact among the various population groups at every level.

I mentioned a moment ago that TV2 and TV3 have their own Suikerkaskenades as well. However, the recent Suikerkaskenades television programme was filmed long before TV2 and TV3 came into operation. Therefore I believe it is correct that, as an SABC spokesman put it recently, they certainly do not wish to repeat Suikerkaskenades again soon.

Then, too, I want to refer to another programme which has also been criticized outside this House. It is a programme presented last Saturday night in which a young Black boy and a young White boy slept together in one bed. Of course, we are now speaking about small children. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, political capital is being made out of this matter at present in certain far-off places. In this particular case I would say that this was perhaps healthy bed-sharing. [Interjections.] I am saying this merely to place these things on record because a very ugly political game is being played involving a simple matter such as this.

The television programme in question presents the story of a small Black boy who runs away from his home because his parents fight too much. Then there is a White woman who loses her little boy. It is a terribly sentimental story. The White woman takes pity on the little Black boy. She looks after both of the children who both, as it happens, sleep in the same bed. The moral of the story is on the one hand, of course, that of the good Samaritan and the other, the eventual return of the Black boy to his own parents and his choice not to stay with his stepfather. I believe that that specific series is open to a great deal of criticism. However, I wish to state that it is unfair to try and make political capital in the Bushveld out of such an insignificant little story at this stage. That could not serve any purpose at all.

Mr. Chairman, I shall now reply with pleasure to the question of the hon. member for Bryanston.

Mr. Chairman, did the hon. member for Florida mean that problems arose with regard to White identity when a Black sportsman and a White sportsman fell in the same water? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe such a totally ridiculous question is worth any effort at reply. [Time expired. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I can hardly believe that this is 5 May 1982. I can scarcely believe that we are living in the year 1982 and that for 20 minutes now we have been listening in this Parliament to a discussion of “Suikerkaskenades” and “twee outjies in ’n bed”. [Interjections.] If we are going to have this level of debate in talking about organizations such as the SABC and its television service then I want to warn hon. members in this House to be very careful because I would be tempted to start talking about the Artes Awards about which I could become very ugly indeed. If we really want to discuss trash, then I will talk about the Artes Awards.

I want to say that the hon. the Minister has my sympathy. I do sympathize with the hon. gentleman because I feel that people should really have sympathy for any Minister who has charge of this portfolio. Over the years since the early 1930s the SABC has developed what I believe is a first class service in respect of its radio services. I want to say to the hon. the Minister at the outset that I am not going to have a go at him tonight. I am not going to have a go at him about how much time political parties should or should not have. I want to discuss a few positive matters with the hon. the Minister in regard to the SABC.

I can remember well the early years and the excitement of radio when we used to string aerials up across the backyard with earths going into the ground and when, at the first sign of a electrical storm, we had to throw a switch in order to ensure that the entire set was not blown off the table in the lounge. I think that the Director-General of the SABC and myself are probably two people who can talk about a 6L6 valve and discuss with one another the merits of such a valve and its versatility. What do we have today? We have the age of the transistor and we have a radio which is an integral part of every home. It is an integral part of our lives. We turn it on and we turn it off. It plays when we want it to and it gives very little trouble. We take it for granted and we expect it to be there when and if we want it. The radio service of the SABC has expanded and developed and I think that we must acknowledge today that is a fine achievement. Radio is within the reach of every population group in this country because it can truly be afforded by all. It is no longer a case of the radio being a status symbol. The small transistor radio is something that can be afforded by each and every member of our population. There is no licence fee in this respect any longer and this is to be welcomed. It is something that everybody can easily own. There is also a good selection of programmes.

Unfortunately, all too often we forget about the radio service because we wish to talk about television. Television is, after all, today’s medium. It is the medium; I believe it is the most powerful medium the world has ever known and certainly has ever seen. Television in South Africa started with a limited service in respect of broadcasting time and it is still a limited service. It is limited in the sense that the SABC very carefully adhered to and still adheres to the principle of 50% of time devoted to TV1 in English and 50% in Afrikaans. This is commendable but I believe it is a situation that may well have to change. I believe that circumstances will always alter cases whatever the circumstances and whatever the cases. The present circumstances are simply this. According to this report, a good one, 91% of Whites, 87% of Asians and 83% of Coloureds are in the TV1 reception areas. This is a fact of life. I would venture to suggest that nearly 100% of White owners and certainly more than 50% of Asian and Coloured owners have television sets today, and I think those numbers are increasing as each month goes by. TV2 and TV3 are new services and Black ownership is in its early stages. However, indications are that this number is also growing rapidly. I sincerely believe the time is now upon us to dramatically extend our television services. We must start with TV1. I believe this would be welcomed by all sections of the population and not just by the Whites. The Blacks would also welcome it. Viewing times are, to say the least, skimpy in comparison with those in other countries.

In this regard I want to take as an example Hong Kong which, thanks to the hon. the Minister, I visited recently. Hong Kong and the new territories consist of a total population of 4 million to 4,5 million people, and possibly going on to 5 million. It is difficult to assess correctly the population in those environs, but it is certainly not more than 5 million. However, they are people of different language groups. Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese are spoken. They are not the same language in any sense of the word. In addition English is also spoken. There are no fewer than four television services in operation. I know it can be argued that the television services are also beamed into Communist China but Communist China does not pay for these services. They are paid for out of revenue. What services does one find there? There is an English service which starts at 16h00 and closes down at approximately 23h 15. There is also a second English service which starts at 14h00 and closes down the following morning at 03h45. There are also two Chinese services, the one starting at 07h00 and finishing the following morning at 01h45, and the other starting at 06h30 and closing the following morning at 05h10. This represents practically a 24-hour service. This is the tendency of television throughout the world. It is becoming a 24-hour business. I do not suggest that we should have that in South Africa but I do suggest that our present service is extremely skimpy. I also suggest that I know what the problems are. The Government wants to adhere to the system of 50% English and 50% Afrikaans viewing time, and dubbing is also costly. I do, however, believe that we should start rethinking. We may have to start thinking about the sub-titling of television outside of prime time. I am not suggesting that any television service during prime time should not be on a strictly 50-50 basis. During prime time we must maintain the 50% English and 50% Afrikaans viewing time, because this is only right. However, outside of prime time the South African public would rather have television in English than no television at all—in America they have what is called “The Late, Late Show”—and I believe this has been proved, it is nothing new. It has been going on in cinemas in South Africa ever since A1 Jolson made the “Jazz Singer” in the late ’twenties. I remember seeing the “Jazz Singer” at the old “Vandette” in East London in the early thirties. In all our cinemas throughout South Africa the majority of movies that are shown are, as we all know, in the English medium. We accept this as part and parcel of our South African way of life. Why we cannot therefore do something about buying more programmes and expanding our service and viewing time? We do not necessarily have to go to the expense of dubbing everything, and we do not have to have this fixation of having TV only if it can be on a 50-50 basis. I think we must accept that English is pretty much a lingua franca and we must rather go for a better service.

The extension of times will be more than adequately compensated for, I believe, by the increased revenue from advertising because we can still adhere to the formula of 6,5% of viewing time being allocated to advertising. I think the annual report clearly indicates that every second of advertising time can be sold and can be sold profitably. I do not think SABC-TV will have any difficulty in that regard whatsoever. Because cheaper rates will apply, naturally the income from these advertisements will not be as high as the current income, but it will be more than adequate to cover what would be required to extend such service.

Finally, in the minute remaining to me, I want to make one little complaint. I find that the message “Please be patient, we have a problem” is appearing all too often on our television screens. I do not know whether it is my imagination or not but I have discussed it with my colleagues, and everybody has the same feeling. It would appear that we are running into problem areas in this regard. All too often our TV service is interrupted with the little plea “Please be patient”. I think this is something that should be looked at and something that should be gone into very, very carefully, because we cannot afford to have too many breakdowns. We cannot afford our service having the reputation—something which it is already acquiring—where people will say: “It is because it is so many years old that they do not care any longer; they are no longer worried about breakdowns.” It is something that needs the attention of all concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga started his speech by saying that these two chaps in a bed had confused him somewhat. In this regard I want to associate myself with him; I am just as confused. Two chaps in a bed? Two chaps?

The hon. member for Florida said so.

It is still confused. Whatever the case may be, the hon. member for Umhlanga, who made the plea here that we should have only English television rather than no television, reminds me of the Free State farmers who always used to speak about “silent talkies”. How does that hon. member want some of the Free Staters to understand him if only English is spoken on TV? [Interjections.] I am now referring specifically to the Free Staters who only vote for the CP. [Interjections.]

I want to congratulate Dr. Brand Fourie and Mr. Van Dalsen on their new appointments and I also wish to thank them for everything they have done for South Africa over the years and are still willing to do in the future. Most of us fail to realize what great sacrifices these two gentlemen and others, too, in the service of our Department of Foreign Affairs are so willing to make for their country, South Africa. Then, too, there are so many of us, both within and outside this House, who by what they say and do make the virtually impossible task these men must perform, even more difficult. Nowadays they are all sitting on that side of the House, and I am now referring to the people who make it virtually impossible for our representatives abroad to defend the image of South Africa.

Your policy is indefensible.

I am now referring to the PFP as well as the CP.

I want to congratulate the radio and television services of the SABC on their rapid growth and outstanding service to all South Africans. From a small start in 1936 the radio service has grown into a mighty organization. Sixteen radio services and two television services in 18 languages are broadcast for 2 237 hours per week.

†The programmes of the SABC are being beamed out by 451 FM transmitters that reach 98% of our total population. News is broadcast in 21 languages in more than 262 bulletins. We seem to get through to just about everybody in this country, except to some of the Progs of course!

The external service of Radio RSA broadcasts a daily bulletin for businessmen in Africa. The Black businessman in South Africa is also well served in this respect by Radio Bantu. Every man in every walk of life in South Africa has access, by means of the radio, to whatever programme or subject he is interested in.

Television, in respect of years just a baby, is already a giant in size and quality. South Africa has already become the largest TV country on the continent of Africa. We have had our teething troubles and we still have a few, but overall we have learnt quickly and we are providing a service of a very high quality to the citizens of this country.

On our TV we vary Afrikaans and English programmes on the same channel, and I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlanga, who spoke before me, that the practice has been a great factor in promoting bilingualism.

What about the Freestaters!

I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that, in future, we must never discard this practice and change over to separate Afrikaans and English channels. This variation of the two languages on the same channel has been of inestimable value in promoting bilingualism and in forging a united nation.

As the saying goes: “soveel tale ek kan, soveel maal is ek man”. I think this applies to all of us, including some of the jingos in this House.

Another matter to which I want to refer is TV2. The sincerity of the Government is again borne out by the establishment of TV2. It grants to every nation, culture and language group its own and full slice of the South African cake to which it is entitled. Here I want to say as an Afrikaner that we as Afrikaners in this country must realize that we cannot always have the whole cake for ourselves and, still less, that we cannot have it baked to our own special, specific recipe. We must accept this, and I also recommend it to the hon. member for Rissik, although I am quite sure he will not be able to digest this.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Information strives in this country towards parity for all. In this department, as in other Government departments, we are outstripping the rest of the world who preach but do not practise this. Enormous expense has been incurred in providing a TV service. May we always retain our present high quality by not bowing to the power of money and having our news presentation interrupted by advertisements, as is the case in some countries. In other words, I am asking the hon. the Minister to keep the number of advertisements down to digestible dosages, in the same way that you, Mr. Chairman, must contain the interruptions of the hon. member for Bryanston to digestible dosages.

The hon. the Minister has welded all the services in his department under his care together into a happy and very effective organization.

South Africa thank him for that. He is a Minister of whom we are justifiably proud.

*The only fly in the ointment is the poor TV broadcasts of horse races. Years ago, when I was still at Stellenbosch, there was a weak joke about a worm that wanted to marry. After a few months his best friend told him: “But, old friend, your girl friend is a piece of string; it is not a girl at all.” Every time there are horse races on television I tell my wife: “I think that fellow is in love with the tote board, because all he shows is the tote board.” What hon. members must understand is that if one is not at the racecourse in person and does not have the race card or numbers at one’s disposal, and if one is sitting in the Karoo, the North-East, the North-West or wherever, far away from the racecourse, that tote board and those numbers are absolutely meaningless. It is like the worm who married the piece of string. It is meaningless. I should prefer them to show the horses and the jockeys’ clothes. One wants to watch the races. Then one can see the blue, the pink and the yellow and one knows which horse is which. Show us the horses, but in Heaven’s name, do not show the tote board. It means nothing to us. One could learn a lot from watching how well the English Derby, for example, was broadcast last year. If we could do the same, we should be doing everyone in South Africa a favour. The horsebreeding industry in this country has never been able to afford importing an English Derby winner, but it has always been the ideal of every horse-breeder in South Africa just to get hold of the foal of a Derby winner, and not necessarily a Derby winner as such. However, about a year ago a South African stallion was responsible for a Derby Winner in England, but we did not even see anything of that on a television programme. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London North must forgive me if I am not the horse for his course, and I doubt very much whether I shall be able to follow him at all as regarding the last few moments of his speech. [Interjections.]

It was very gratifying to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Rissik. I have stood opposite him for the past eight or nine years during the SABC debates, and I would now like to welcome that hon. member to the ranks of the Opposition, particularly in regard to the affairs of the SABC. It is really a most pleasant surprise to find an hon. member of the stature and of as long standing in this House and the Government as the hon. member for Rissik arguing the rights of an Opposition to a hearing on the SABC. Every time that we argued this issue over the years, it was that hon. member who put forward the argument that one had to be newsworthy. [Interjections.] I am so glad that at last the hon. member has become convinced and has said publicly in this House that even members of the Opposition are entitled to a right of reply on the SABC. I want to tell him that we will support him in that plea in the days that lie ahead. [Interjections.]

I was also somewhat surprised to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Florida. He really made a most benign speech this evening, and I want to compliment him on it. Perhaps it was because I had not spoken at that stage. He did, however, make a statement with which I agree entirely, and that is that the television service of South Africa cannot reflect a South Africa that is either purely White or purely Black; in other words, South Africa is—as the hon. member put it to us—a country in which more and more contact is taking place between people of different racial communities. I remember the early days of television when only Whites appeared in the advertisements, and I think it is a very welcome step that even on TV 1 we today see advertisements in which the entire community is represented. I believe that the SABC is doing the right thing in recognizing the multi-racial make up of our community, and I hope that the vision of the SABC continues to expand in this regard.

I should also like to support the plea of the hon. member for East London North when he spoke about not changing the single channel for English and Afrikaans programmes. I agree with him that it has done a great deal for bilingualism in South Africa. We can see the effect this has had on our children. Whatever developments take place, in whatever way television expands and whatever future channels are introduced, I hope that we will retain this English-Afrikaans content.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.