I move—

Mr. Speaker, may I say right at the outset to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, on behalf of this side of the House how glad we are to see that he has recovered his former health and vigour and has been able to resume his seat in this hon. House. We wish him well in his recovery and we hope he will continue to prosper and be able to fulfil his duties as he may wish. We congratulate the hon. Minister on his recovery from his recent illness.

A few days ago in this House reference was made to the fast-moving developments on the African Continent. Reference was also made to the future position of the White African in Africa. A statement was made from ministerial benches to the effect, and I quote the exact words “We cannot afford to fritter away the last few precious moments left to us”. And the “us” on this occasion referred to the White Africans of this country. It is therefore with an acute awareness of the great events now taking place on the African Continent of which our country is a part, and the very urgent need to lay down a policy wherein our country can play its proper part in these great events, that I move this motion to-day. In the first instance it will have to be a policy which will obtain the confidence of those peoples and governments in the countries north of our borders. And, secondly, which will allow our country as an African state to play its full role in whatever destiny providence has determined for the African Continent.

For 12 years now the Government has made, from time to time, declarations of their firm intention to co-operate with the other states in Africa. We have had policy statements on various occasions. These policy statements of co-operation in Africa were originally largely directed at the colonial powers who, some ten to 12 years ago, held sway over the majority of the African Continent, or at least that part of the African Continent which is commonly referred to as South of the Sahara. There was a small measure of co-operation. Whilst these national movements which have been the subject of so much comment and the subject of so much discord in the African Continent in the past few years when these new territories were in their infancy, there was this small degree of co-operation between the colonial powers, Southern Rhodesia and ourselves. It was this co-operation that led to the establishment, some ten years ago, of the organization commonly referred to as the C.C.T.A.— the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa. Its foundation members were the colonial powers of Belgium, France, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Rhodesia and ourselves. The character of this Commission has vastly altered. As national movements have gained strength in these territories to the north of our border, and the cold war between the East and West has become intensified in the struggle between the Western democracies and communist ideology, it can be said that all of these national movements were encouraged by Africa’s two greatest enemies, poverty and ignorance.

The communist agitator was not slow to exploit these ills by laying the blame at the door of the White man. And the White man in this instance was represented by the colonial powers. The only answer that the West has adopted to this exploitation of poverty and ignorance by the communist agitators is to encourage these national movements and to encourage the emergence of new African states, with the prime motive of destroying the image being created by the communist agitator in the minds of Black Africa to the effect that it is the White oppressor denying them their rights of freedom. The great tragedy of these developments where these emergent and uncommitted nations were encouraged to come to fulfilment and complete independence—the great tragedy as far as our country is concerned is that with these vast political developments in the African continent, we were neither consulted as a country nor were we encouraged to play our part in these developments in Africa. These events of the past decade, one can say, were taking place over our heads. As a country on the African continent we were, in fact, locked out of these great developments.

I believe it was the Government’s sudden acute awareness of these developments, largely brought about by the establishment of Ghana as one of the first emergent independent African nations, that prompted the policy statement made by the hon. the Minister in March 1957 when he addressed a gathering at the Pretoria University. The hon. the Minister laid down a policy for Africa. Let me say immediately that he expressed in that statement admirable sentiments, sentiments with which we on this side of the House both at that time and in debates that have taken place in the House subsequently, have largely agreed and endorsed. But what did the whole policy ennunciated by the hon. the Minister in that statement hinge on? The Government’s policy at that time and to-day is the same. On what premise did that policy statement of those days hinge? It hinged on the presumption that our country would form a permanent link between the Western nations on the one hand and the populations of Africa south of Sahara on the other hand. I repeat those words, Mr. Speaker, that our country would form a permanent link between the Western nations on the one hand and the populations of Africa south of Sahara on the other hand. Those were the exact words used by the hon. the Minister when he made that statement.

That policy has failed. It has failed, firstly, because the great Western powers, the world outside, does not accept us in South Africa, our Government or our country as the link between the Western nations and Black Africa. It has failed for a second reason: The emergentnations of Africa do not accept our country as an African state, as the “go between” between their independence as African states and the ideologies of the West. It has failed for another, and perhaps more important reason. That policy has failed because we have not acted or assumed, as a country, our full responsibility as an African State.

We have tended to look upon ourselves as part of Europe, as part of the West, instead of as part of Africa. We are a part of Africa which has emerged sooner than other countries in Africa and been enabled to enjoy all the fruits of a highly industrialized Western nation. We are able to impart our know-how of modern development to the other people of this Continent. It is this isolation, this rejection by the rest of the nations of Africa which prompts 75 per cent of the adverse criticism of our country by the world outside. If the other nations of Africa had to accept us on a co-operative basis of equality and were to have confidence in our sincerity of purpose then, undoubtedly, over-night there would be a different picture of our country in the world at large. Our country would appear in a different light. We would be accepted. There would be understanding.

I have sketched this background of policy development in Africa very briefly, because the motion asks for recognition of the fact that we are an African State and that our future is completely tied up with the future of Africa. Let me immediately say that I refer not only to Africa south of Sahara. It rests also on recognition of a further fact, a fact which, if we hope to survive, we must recognize. This fact must be brought to the attention of the emergent nations and the peoples of Africa. And that is that we are White Africans, that we as a people are not Europeans; that we are in fact White Africans and as such have as much right to Africa, to live and die in this Continent as any Black African.

[Inaudible.]

I am attempting to deal with this matter in an objective fashion, but it is extremely difficult against the cackling of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) who knows nothing about these matters whatsoever.

I appeal to hon. members to give the hon member a chance to make his speech.

Mr. Speaker, for us as a people and as White Africans, to ignore these national movements in the African Continent and to describe the present leaders of the uncommitted nations as people not yet one generation removed from the primitive conditions of their forefathers and whose fathers and mothers were primitive and barbaric people is foolish in the extreme. That is certainly not the way to obtain the confidence of these new leaders. And that is the way the hon. the Minister described the other political leaders of Africa, of the 27 Black African States in May 1959. Such statements cannot be considered as the best means of winning confidence of the other leadership in Africa. Neither can it be considered the best means of our attempting to give leadership, as White Africans, to the Black African people of this Continent.

Before proceeding to deal with the latter part of my motion, it is perhaps necessary that I refer to other aspects of Government African policy. The Government views our interest, and any relationships we may have north of the Limpopo as being strictly confined to the area, commonly known as south of the Sahara. The hon. the Minister has always, in this House and, as far as I am aware, outside this House, in any discussion of foreign policy or African policy, been at pains to emphasize that he sees no interest of our country north of the 20th parallel. I submit that this is a short-sighted and out-of-date viewpoint, one that has been thrown overboard by every other State in Africa. That is so for three main reasons. The concept of confined interests in Africa south of the Sahara originated when the headquarters of the World Health Organization, commonly referred to as the W.H.O., a United Nations agency, was set up in Brazzaville some ten years ago. Its activities were restricted to the area south of the 20th parallel. Similarly with the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa, the C.C.T.A., which was established by the colonial powers. These colonial powers, with the possible exception of France, had little interest in North Africa. So that in the beginning when this organization for African cooperation first developed there was no need to go north of the 20th parallel, and its activities were confined on a colonial basis to the colonial territories, with the co-operation of ourselves and the Rhodesias, to give technical and scientific aid in the areas south of the Sahara. With 29 African States now participating in the work of the C.C.T.A., that has become an outdated conception because there are member nations of the C.C.T.A. north of the 20th parallel. The idea of confined interests in Africa was finally thrown overboard with the formation of the Economic Commission for Africa. This has held meetings in places as far apart as Addis Ababa and Tangiers. Membership of the Economic Commission for Africa and other United Nations agencies is by right of being a state in Africa. There is automatic admission and any African state has a right to be a member of that Commission.

There are further sound reasons why this narrow point of view of confining our African policy as a country to the area south of the Sahara is wrong. Let me give two examples. Whilst we as a country are located at the tip of the African Continent, the impact of events in the Mediterranean Basin will have a vital influence on what may happen in the African Continent. We cannot divorce ourselves from these events. Surely if we hold a strategic position at the tip of the African Continent, from a defence point of view, events in the Mediterranean Basin, a key area in Europe and in the N.A.T.O. strategy, must have an effect on us and on the rest of Africa.

There is a second reason. In no other State is there this demarcation of spheres of influence in Africa recognized. We are the only state in Africa which adopts this narrow concept that we must confine our interests to a limited area in Africa. No other state in Africa accepts that outlook, it has been thrown overboard. I want to express the sincere hope to the hon. the Minister that he is not narrowing his point of view any further. I say that because I have noticed that the hon. the Minister has, on previous occasions last year, spoken in terms of White states and regional grouping in the African Continent. He has spoken in terms of a possible regional grouping between Portugal, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. I hope that the hon. the Minister has reconsidered that aspect and thrown such suggestions overboard. The implication of such an outlook is that the countries he has named must stand together as White states against the rest of Black Africa. That is a dangerous concept. That is a dangerous point of view to propagate. I do not want to go further into the matter but I do hope that the hon. the Minister has abandoned such ideas.

If it is accepted that we are an African State with a future inextricably bound up in the future of the African Continent, and not, as was said by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in Portugal last year, that we are a European state firmly cut off by the Limpopo from the rest of Africa; if it is accepted that our interests extend to the North African coast, then the great question before us is how best can we obtain the confidence of the other independent states in Africa and offer proof of our sincerity to co-operate with them for the good of all the peoples of the African Continent? It is my submission that the time has arrived for positive action and a bold and aggressive policy. The time has arrived for the overthrow of many of our out-dated ideas about the rest of Africa. We want a bold and aggressive outlook.

Explain that please?

I will. Let me, for a few minutes, make some reference to these organizations in which we are already concerned. We co-operate, to a limited extent, with these other African states in only two organizations which, in any event, were not born out of Africa itself. They were organizations established from outside Africa by other interests for the benefit of what may develop on the African Continent. Their formation was certainly never motivated by a natural desire of the peoples of Africa to establish their own organizations. I refer to the C.C.T.A. and the E.C.A. They were not of Africa.

I have dealt in passing with the C.C.T.A., born in 1950 by the colonial powers. It was created to establish a means of co-operation on all scientific and technical activities. All the independent states in Africa to-day are members of this Commission, with the exception of Ethiopia, Somalia and the Sudan. Under the aegis of this Commission for Technical Co-operation there are various subsidiary organizations covering a wide field of scientific and technical matters. All of these subsidiary institutions such as I.T.I., I.B.A.H., S.P.I.T.T., B.I.S., and S.P.I., covering such fields as labour, medical health, setse fly control, soils, pedology, have headquarters dotted all over the African continent at places as far afield as Brazzaville, Kenya, Congo, Lagos and so on. The fact of the matter, however, is this, that whilst we have said we will co-operate to the fullest and have attempted to play our part in the C.C.T.A., not one headquarters, not even of a subsidiary body, is located in the Union. Yet we claim that we play a full part. There are headquarters in minor territories, there are headquarters in emergent nations and in the capitals of Europe, but not one of these bodies has located a headquarters in South Africa.

That is a shoolboy argument.

I say so too.

Order! The hon. member can say that later. He is required to give this hon. member an opportunity of having his say now.

Are the North African territories members of the C.C.T.A.?

Yes, they are. There are 29 member states. The hon. member ought to know that, he is an expert on the subject.

Mr. Speaker, in the Commission as a whole there are no means of bringing practical aid to the African states. And when I say that I am speaking in terms of large-scale development. The only body that can finance any agreed measures that may be decided upon at an annual meeting of the C.C.T.A. is the body to which the hon. the Minister so often refers to as F.A.M.A.—The Foundation for Mutual Assistance in Africa. This is, in fact, a subsidiary body of the C.C.T.A. The maximum contribution that our country has ever made to any of the work of this organization, for a period of over ten years, in cash or kind, was £10,000 which appeared on the Estimates last year. That is an infinitesimal amount; less than a half-cent contribution towards the needs of 150,000,000 Africans emerging from poverty and ignorance. And that is our contribution despite all the advantages that we possess in this country.

The second organization in which we participate, the Economic Commission for Africa, is not an African body in that sense; it is an agency of the United Nations with headquarters in Addis Ababa. Let me remind the House that when this organization was first established, we as a country refused to participate in its activities.

I hope the hon. the Minister does not mind what I am now about to say. I am not doing it in a carping spirit, I am making these points merely to stress the need for a new outlook and a new policy.

When this commission was established, the hon. the Minister regarded it as nothing but an attempt on the part of the Americans to muscle in on the interests of Africa. I think those were his words. But we have since had to climb down from that standpoint. We have had to alter our attitude. The Minister was forced to do so. We have had to go back to that organization, and I think we have a representative there at the present time for the conference being held in Tangiers. But the point about these developments is this, that the E.T.A., for instance, cannot give any practical help because any resolutions that it may adopt at its conferences are subject to the Economic and Social Commission of the UNO. Any funds that may become available for any substantive resolution adopted by the E.T.A. have to come from the technical assistance programme of the United Nations. In actual fact the E.C.A. is a talking shop. It has no staff and it has no experience. But, may I again emphasize that both these organizations, the only two existing organizations for African cooperation, originated from without the African Continent, and our participation as a country has been extremely limited.

Why blame South Africa?

I am not blaming South Africa, I am discussing this policy and I am attempting to do so in an objective manner. In my opinion, neither of these two bodies offers sufficient contact and channels of communication between ourselves and the other states in Africa. It does not offer the outlets. Our continued membership of the C.C.T.A. has even been threatened by the hon. the Minister, because when a meeting was held here he issued a warning in September last year. May I express the hope that it is not the Government’s intention that we should get out of this organization, because the warning he is alleged to have issued seems to have that implication, and the impressions created were not of the most favourable. The Minister had to issue a subsequent statement to retrieve the damage done, which was revealed by the unfavourable reception his statement received. Something more is needed, Sir. These bodies serve a useful purpose. They are vital organizations. But something more is needed. What is needed is a forum to discuss our common problems in Africa, and active machinery whereby states can obtain the necessary economic assistance on the basis of co-operative effort, and that is why I propose in this motion that the Government go to the other states in Africa with a positive proposal for the establishment of an Inter-State African Development Association, a substantive proposal to the other states on the African Continent of mutual help and assistance. But most important of all is that we must be prepared to back our proposals and to show our good faith. We can best do that by indicating a clear willingness to make the necessary financial contributions. We have to think big and if necessary be prepared to create credits for Africa. There is not a single uncommitted nation in Africa that is not faced with the major problem of how to raise the living standards of their people. They look everywhere for help. Africa is full of travelling salesmen from the East and the West selling the wares of their nations, from ideologies to ploughshares. We have so much to offer. In the whole of Africa we have only four representatives. In not one of the new states have we a single representative. The time has come when we must lay out the red carpet and create the climate and the facilities for the representatives of these new African states, so that they will be prepared to receive our representatives. If we are prepared to make this approach and propose a co-operative effort and back it with positive contributions and to open our doors to the representatives of the African people, I believe we would set our country on a new road in Africa.

Which state have you in mind?

I want them all to be included, not only one. The Minister may ask what I suggest should be the first step. May I suggest that the Government extend an invitation as a first step to the leaders of all independent states to attend a conference in our own country as a means of holding preliminary discussions and as proof of the sincerity of our motives. I do not want to deal with the proposition of how it can be carried on. That field will be covered by negotiations and submissions made by the Governments of other countries. The ground to be covered could be a matter of mutual agreement. I wish to offer two reasons to show why my proposition is a practical one.

It offers in the first instance unlimited fields for co-operation with our neighbours in Africa. That is not a new idea, this idea of continental co-operation. It is based on the principle of self-help. Similar organizations exist in the Americas. You have the Economic Commission for Latin America, in which the U.S.A. and all the Latin American states participate, just as you have the Economic Commission for Africa where we participate with the other African states. But in spite of similar bodies which exist on the American Continent at present, the need arose for the establishment of an association designed to raise the living standards and ensure buoyant economic conditions in the Americas. These agreements are at present being ratified.

But I have a second and a better reason and I want to call two witnesses. The first witness is no less a person than Sir Roy Welensky, the Prime Minister of the Federation, whom I personally consider to be one of the greatest statesmen in Africa to-day. In June last year he said—

The other witness I want to call in support of my proposition is no less a person than Mr. Eugene Black, President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In an address delivered at Oxford this year he said this—

Sir, it is a practical proposition, because I recognize that the suggestion I make to-day that we go with a substantive proposition to the other African states as a show of our good faith should not be a mere declaration, but that we are prepared to back our willingness to co-operate with them. I am quite aware that that will mean sacrifices by the White Africans of the Union. But if the words I quoted at the beginning of my speech which flowed from ministerial benches on another occasion have any meaning at all, that we cannot afford to fritter away the last few precious moments left to us—if they have any meaning at all then let us be prepared to make sacrifices for our own self-preservation.

I do not wish to travel the ground that has already been travelled on Communism in Africa. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark introduced a motion a few years ago which was widely discussed, and on another occasion, when discussing the Vote of the hon. the Minister, we also had a wide discussion. We know what communist strategy is. We know upon what it is based and how it is designed— race against race, and Black against White. What is more, we know the extent of the infiltration as we see the events developing in Africa. But what are we fighting? We are fighting a psychological war. Every manifestation of lawlessness by Natives to-day is being portrayed as part of the struggle of oppressed Black people to obtain freedom from their White oppressors. In fighting such a war you cannot use strong-arm tactics. You cannot use a gun against psychology which exploits poverty and ignorance. There is only one answer, and that is to raise the living standards of the people and create conditions that give full opportunities to the individual. The greatest danger for our country on this continent is that Africa can become divided into two camps, those committed to the West and those committed to the East, and I think it is better that we should initiate a movement now to organize for a united continent, because that is the best security for our country.

The question can also be asked how would such an association of states affect our Commonwealth membership. It is common knowledge that the events in Africa figure high on the agenda of the Prime Ministers’ Conference to be held next month. Any group of nations in a free association such as the Commonwealth must be concerned with the position on this continent, particularly as there are three independent African states which are members of the Commonwealth, Ghana, Nigeria and ourselves, and quite apart from the fact that Britain has vital problems in Africa. Let me say immediately that there already exists a special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan. Not a plan to supply capital, but a plan to co-ordinate bilateral agreements in the Commonwealth family in respect of developments in Africa. The proposition I suggest to-day offers to the Minister a real opportunity to show positive proof to the other African members of the Commonwealth of our sincerity and our desire to co-operate with them on the African Continent, and an opportunity to place something constructive before them, and not a mere protestation of good faith, and to ask those countries to help us in convening such an all-African conference in our own country in order to initiate an Inter-African Development Association.

May I in conclusion make reference to one aspect? It may be said that Government policy in the Union to-day militates against the probable acceptance of any such suggestion. I recognize all the difficulties. We have discussed them many times. I want to be completely objective. However much we may differ in this House on our internal policies, there is one cardinal principle that we on all sides can never concede, namely that we have a right within our own borders to determine our own internal policies and to disagree at home as much as we like. As much as any other state in Africa can resent our interference in their internal policies, so much must they expect resentment from us if they attempt to dictate to us. That is a principle which is accepted and recognized by the other states in Africa. You have it when the hon. the Minister has a private discussion with Dr. Nkrumah. No country can afford to concede it and still maintain its sovereignty and its pride. If this principle is recognized by the other states in Africa, I do not think there will be any major opposition to a substantive proposal of the nature I am suggesting by the Governments of the other states in Africa. They will then see that we are prepared to participate in a co-operative effort beyond our borders. Let me make this point, too, that once that participation has taken place, and once we are linked with the other nations in a co-operative effort, then the impact of that co-operation will be bound to have its effect on the internal policies of those countries, by the very nature of things, just as the free association in the Commonwealth had its impact through the common exchange of views on the internal policies of the member states. So will it be in such an association on the African Continent.

In conclusion, may I say that it would appear if one looks at Africa that the thought is crystallizing in the minds of African leaders that it is but a matter of time before White Africa will annihilate itself; that our divisions here are so great that they only have to wait for us to annihilate ourselves. That is why I worded this motion in the widest terms possible. I have tried to make a positive suggestion, because I do not think it can be denied that the acceptance of this motion by all sides of the House will show all the states in Africa that we White Africans are part of Africa, that we are here to stay and that we are not divided when it comes to our own self-preservation, and that we as White Africans, representative of all the people in this country, are prepared to offer our hand in friendship to all the peoples of Africa. Sir, we are proud of our history and of our traditions and of our Voortrekker forefathers, but do not let us go back into the laager now in the twentieth century. We have reached the point in the development of our nation where the world has the impression that the White people of this country are laagered up and that we sit in our laager with our wives and children and servants while we are being assaulted by the rest of Africa. That is the point of view of the world and of the rest of Black Africa. Let us, like our forefathers did, take our courage in our hands again and break out of the laager, but instead of going with a rifle, let our wagons become our factories and our workshop; let our wheels be the wheels of industry, and let our “voorlaaiers” be our experts and technicians. Let us as a country, in the fulfilment of our destiny, which I firmly believe is to bring civilization to the African Continent, once more as a people take our courage in our hands, and not go cap in hand or with a rifle, but go with our riches and our know-how to the rest of Africa and say that we want to enjoy with them the common heritage of Africa for the benefit of mankind.

Before calling upon an hon. member to second the motion, I wish to draw attention to the terms of the motion of which notice has already been given by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet). This motion deals specifically with the effect of communistic ideology and activities in Africa, while in Mr. Durrant’s motion reference is also made to the same matter.

Under a strict interpretation of the rule of anticipation, it may be contended that Dr. de Wet’s Notice of Motion anticipates the last part of Mr. Durrani’s motion. I am of the opinion, however, that the subject matter of Dr. de Wet’s motion cannot be adequately debated under Mr. Durrant’s motion and for that reason Dr. de Wet’s Notice of Motion need not be removed from the Order Paper. While it remains on the Order Paper, therefore, I appeal to hon. members when discussing Mr. Durrant’s motion, to avoid as far as possible discussing the specific aspects of Dr. de Wet’s motion.

I formally second the motion.

Mr. Speaker, may I first of all express my appreciation to the hon. member for welcoming me back again after a somewhat serious illness. This is my first appearance in Parliament, but I may tell the House that for the past few weeks I have been very busy in the office catching up on arrear work, and dealing with several difficult and important matters that have arisen, and at the same time preparing for the Commonwealth Conference in London. I thank the hon. member for his remarks.

The hon. member has in his speech ranged very far from the real purpose and object of his motion. His motion as it reads here appears to be a severely practical one, suggesting the establishment of an Inter-State African Development Association. I think he has in mind a development corporation. That is the operative sentence in his motion. He has ranged very far from the subject of his motion and has made use of the opportunity to criticize the Government and to charge me with lack of interest, and neglect to make any attempt to co-operate with the other African states. He even went so far as to suggest by implication that when I delivered an address to the Pretoria University more than a year ago and suggested that South Africa could be a link between the African states and the states of Europe, he suggested that I was not being sincere. Sir, I can assure him I was being very sincere.

I did not say anything of the kind.

But in the same breath, the hon. member stated that neither the Western states nor the African states are prepared to accept South Africa as an African state.

As a link.

I took down his exact words. He contradicts himself. His whole speech is a mass of contradictions. He charges me with a policy of isolation, and that I look down on the African states, and that I had said that they are only just emerging from savagery. That was taken out of context. What I said, at Pretoria and also at UNO, and what many greater people than I have said, was that in certain cases there was a too-hasty granting of independence to these African states, because they were not yet fit for it, and had no experience of administration. I presume the hon. member knows what has been happening in the Congo. The point I made was that many of these states were not yet fit to become independent states. He says I spoke in a derogatory fashion about these people. Nothing of the sort.

The hon. member says that I show no desire to co-operate with those states, and he referred to the conference of C.S.A. held in Cape Town. He also said that for such co-operation as I suggested in the Pretoria speech it would be necessary for the Government to lay down a policy, but at the same time he says that policy would have to be acceptable to the African states. The hon. member knows perfectly well what the differences are between ourselves and the emergent African states. There is only one issue—one question of policy, and that is our policy of racial discrimination. He knows that what the African states demand from South Africa is that there should be equality of voting, that there should be no discrimination on social or other grounds, and that the Bantu should by virtue of their huge majority in numbers be in a position to govern the country. That is what the African states want. They have said it again and again at UN. Is the hon. member prepared to say that he and his party are prepared to satisfy the African states? He says they will have to be satisfied, that there should be full political equality and no social discrimination. That is what they demand, particularly that by virtue of superior numbers power should be in the hands of the Bantu. The hon. member sees what is happening in the Federation. He is not blind to see what is happening there. It is the same thing there. The Bantu say they are in the majority, and for that reason they should have the political power. According to the hon. member the only way in which my suggestion of South Africa being a link between the African states and the Western states, would be if we were prepared to abandon our racial policy.

I never said anything like that.

The hon. member said that my policy had failed. He said: “The Pretoria statement hinges on the presumption that South Africa would be a link between the Western nations and the African States. That policy has failed.” Then he proceeds, in the same breath, to say that “the Western nations do not accept South Africa as an African state, nor are we accepted as an African state by the African states themselves”. He had a further criticism; he said “our policy had failed because we tended to consider ourselves as allied to Europe”, and that our policy has been one of isolation. Sir, he used the word “Europe”. What we on this side of the House have said and what the Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers have said is that South Africa is allied to the Western powers, that with the threat of communist aggression, and in the event of a global war, South Africa would be on the side of the Western powers. I cannot recollect any of my colleagues or the Prime Minister or myself having said at any time that we considered ourselves as allied to Europe.

May I send you a copy of Dr. Diederich’s statement?

The position is that we certainly do stand on the side of the Western nations.

Later the hon. member took the same idea a bit further, and said that he took exception to a statement which I made at some time or other, in which I said that Rhodesia and the Portuguese in South Africa would have to stand together. He takes strong exception to that. Sir, I repeat that statement to-day. The hon. member sees what is happening in the north. He referred to the great changes which are taking place in Africa. He said, inter alia, that the tragedy was that these changes were taking place over our heads, that South Africa was never consulted. He sees what is happening in the other states and in the Congo; he sees what is going to happen in Kenya. He is aware of the serious situation which has developed in the Federation. He ought to know, every right-minded South African ought to know, that the White man is being threatened. It has nothing to do with our racial policy.

The Federation has a partnership policy which is different from ours, and they are also being threatened. In Kenya we find the same thing. For some time already there have been representatives of both the Africans and the Indians in their legislature, but that makes no difference to Mr. Tom Mboya. The White man is being threatened. I said in the past, and I repeat to-day, that the time may yet come when we and the Rhodesias and the Portuguese will have to stand together if we are to maintain White civilization in this country. Does the hon. member disagree with that? I hope not; I hope his party does not disagree with that. I think there are few South Africans who do not admire the stand which Sir Roy Welensky is taking in the Federation in order to maintain White civilization there.

The hon. member has taken the line which he took in the past. Where, in the past, I referred to South Africa’s co-operation with the other African states, and with organizations such as the C.C.T.A., F.A.M.A. and the C.S.A., the hon. member again tried to minimize, to discount, the value of those organizations.

He says that we are not co-operating with other African states. Our delegation has just returned from Lagos, where they have been attending the C.C.T.A. conference, which now consists of all the sub-Saharan states. He tried to minimize the value of the C.C.T.A. because it consisted only of colonial powers. But, Sir, at that time of its establishment there were only two independent African states south of the Sahara. In fact, one of them is not completely south of the Sahara. The only one that is really south of the Sahara is Liberia. It is only a small southern portion of Ethiopia which can geographically be regarded as being south of the Sahara. Sir, that suggestion that C.C.T.A. is a European colonial organization is wrong; the other African states who have all since joined, were present at the Lagos conference, from which our delegation has just returned.

The hon. member has tried to minimize the value of the work that is being done. Excellent work has been done along the lines suggested in his motion, viz.: “To raise the living standards of the masses with a view to ensuring their acceptance of Western standards. …” Sir, in order to raise living standards, the C.C.T.A., in which South Africa has played a most important part (a fact which is admitted also by the African states) by giving technical assistance, particularly through F.A.M.A., has done much to raise standards of living. Why try to minimize the value of that organization?

The hon. member further wanted to know: “Why are the states north of the Sahara not included?” Sir, the hon. member, who evidently makes a study of these matters, must surely know that there is a world of difference between the interests of countries like Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and the others, and those of the essentially Bantu (if I may use that term) states south of the Sahara. Their problems are entirely different; their outlook is entirely different; they are of different races and, from the point of view of religion, they are also entirely different. The states on the Mediterranean littoral are more closely associated with Europe, and always have been so since ancient times; the Mediterranean has been regarded as a European-African sea. There are excellent reasons why those states were not included in the C.C.T.A. Meanwhile, the new emergent states of Africa have become members of the C.C.T.A., and when it was suggested that the states north of the Sahara be included, those same new members declined, and said that the C.C.T.A. must remain as it is. The hon. member tried to give the impression that it was only South Africa that objected; that is not so.

When the hon. member was dealing with the C.C.T.A. he rather contemptuously remarked that there was not a single office of the C.C.T.A. in South Africa. He said that I talk about maintaining good relations and cooperation, and yet there is not a single office of the C.C.T.A. in South Africa. Sir, the trouble with the hon. member is that he comes to this House and deals with matters about which he is not fully informed. The C.C.T.A. has the following offices in the Union: Geological Survey; the Secretariat for Nutrition; the Secretariat for Housing. The special housing scheme devised by the Bureau of Standards has become very popular and on more than one occasion we have sent out experts to African territories to advise them in regard to their housing schemes. The Secretariat, the Secretary-General of Sarcus, which is a committee for the conservation and utilization of soil, is also located in the Union. The hon. member, because the annual conference of the C.C.T.A. has not been held, turns round and says that South Africa is not pulling its weight and that none of the African organizations has offices in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to the hon. member’s resolution. I have allowed myself to be led astray by the way in which he diverged from his own resolution. He wandered very far afield. In his resolution he asks that South Africa should take the initiative and ask the African states to join in his proposed association.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. gentleman is very naïve. He himself has told us that the emergent states do not recognize South Africa as an African state. He has told us that they do not want to co-operate with us because our policy is not acceptable to them. In view of these statements to-day, has he stopped to consider what the response of the African states will be if we were to come to them with a suggestion like that? He knows of the hostile attitude of these states to South Africa because of our policy.

But he wants to change it.

Yes, they require it to be changed. I do not know whether his party agrees. He says they do not want to co-operate with us because our policy is not acceptable to them. Let me tell the hon. member that according to the reports that I received from our delegates to the C.C.T.A. conference, there is very hearty co-operation at the conference itself and that they are most grateful for the part that South Africa has played in the deliberations. Let me give a few examples to show the hostile attitude of the emergent states to South Africa and the unlikelihood of their being prepared to accept our initiative for the establishment of this association which the hon. member proposes. Sir, before the trouble arose in the Congo we accepted the invitation to attend their Independence Celebrations. The Union Government asked Dr. Diederichs, the Minister of Economic Affairs, to represent South Africa at the celebrations. Dr. Diederich’s passage was booked and his bags were packed when we were informed by the new Government of the Congo that a representation from South Africa would not be welcome there. The result was that he had to cancel his trip.

Following upon that, just before the new state was established in the Congo, we were informed that the South African Consulate-General would no longer be welcome there. As a consequence I was obliged to recall both our Consul-General at Leopoldville and our Consul at Elisabethville.

Sir, last year Nigeria decided to become a republic and we received an invitation to be represented at the celebrations there, but even before we could consider whether or not we would be able to send a Minister, the Nigerian Parliament passed a resolution calling upon the Government of Nigeria to cancel its invitation to South Africa.

Last year the Government of Ghana imposed not only a boycott on South African goods but also a boycott on South African visitors, and insisted that any person, even a passenger in transit, while the aircraft stops there for half an hour, must sign a special declaration denouncing South Africa’s racial policy.

Then, Sir. there are these charges made against South Africa before the International Court by Ethiopia and Liberia. A more hostile attitude one cannot imagine. I am not discussing that matter which is now sub judice before the International Court.

Recently, Nyerere, the new leader in Tanganyika, expressed himself very strongly against South Africa, and resolutions have been passed there imposing a boycott on South African goods.

Which shows that your policy has failed.

Sir, all these unfriendly acts were completely unprovoked by South Africa. On the contrary, our whole attitude has been one of friendliness. I myself have taken the lead in a friendly approach. This hostile attitude is due to one fact only, and that is that they do not approve of South Africa’s domestic policy in regard to the relations between White and non-White. In my personal contacts at the United Nations, I have gone out of my way to talk to those people, to invite them to lunch to show my desire to be friendly with them. In London I made the same sort of contact with Dr. Nkrumah, and then afterwards, probably as a result of that contact, I received an invitation from Dr. Nkrumah to visit Ghana. When I was in London last year I asked him, “When shall we fix the date?” He did not reply, but later in the presence of other Prime Ministers he said that he had now withdrawn that invitation. I said, “Why, what has happened?” and his reply was “Because of your racial policy”. And yet the hon. member is so naïve as to believe that if the Government were to come along with an invitation to these states to join in the establishment of a Development Corporation, they would be willing to follow South Africa’s lead.

Mr. Speaker, I return to another aspect of the operative clause of this motion. In view of certain information I will give, I want to ask the hon. member whether there is a need for an organization such as he now suggests. I would have imagined, since he studied the subject, that he would be aware of what the present African organizations are doing. I regret that he has again to-day tried to minimize and to discount the value of their work. Why? Is it because these organizations—the C.C.T.A. and others—were established after the present Government came into power? Is it because it is generally acknowledged that the present Government has played an important part in the work of those organizations …

They were conceived before the Government came into power.

… or does his proposal envisage the possible scrapping of those organizations?

No.

I do not know how much money he proposes to be spent on the establishment of his corporation. You cannot establish a corporation of that kind, which is not purely one for exchanging information and so on, without a very large amount of capital. Is he satisfied that South Africa should be prepared to spend £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 on the establishment of a corporation of that sort? Will the other African states be prepared to do that? The hon. member nods. I venture to differ from him. So far the other African states have always been at the receiving end. They have been receiving capital from different countries. They have been at the receiving end, and like Oliver Twist they are asking for more. Will they be prepared to put in the large sum of money that would be required for the establishment of such a corporation? And if South Africa were to do so, what will we get in return? After all, we have to get something out of it too. Will we get increased exports to those countries? Will they suspend their boycotts? Will we even get a kind word in return? I doubt it very much.

Mr. Speaker, I will pay the hon. member the compliment of dealing with his motion as something which could be carried out. It seems to me that what the hon. member has in mind is something like the Colombo Plan. I think from his description that is what he has in mind—something on the same lines as the Colombo Plan. But what he does not know is that a few years ago a similar plan was discussed, not once but more than once, at conferences of African states and the suggestion was turned down. In 1957 something very similar to the hon. member’s idea, a Colombo Plan for Africa, was again suggested at an African conference. It was decided “that it would have to be a comprehensive plan with administrative machinery” and it was said that “it would not be really necessary to duplicate much of the work which was being done by certain organizations”. It was out of one of those discussions that F.A.M.A. was born based on the idea of mutual assistance— a scheme for bilateral technical assistance. Later the establishment of an African “Colombo Plan” was again discussed at one of these conferences. It was pointed out that this type of multi-lateral assistance was already provided by the United Nations scheme, by a United Nations specialized agency.

Mr. Speaker, at that time considerable capital for the emergent African states was forthcoming from outside—from America, Russia and from others. The countries are all competing for the favours of the new emergent African states. I do not think there is any doubt about the motive behind the furnishing of all this capital. I see that Mr. Mennen Williams in that extraordinary speech that he made at Nairobi the other day, also promised the African states more capital from the United States of America. Do you think for a moment, Sir, that these African states, where they are at the receiving end, are going to be willing to contribute to another scheme, when they are getting all they want, and when United Nations specialized agencies are providing many services? Are they going to pay for it, when they have what I may call these international Fathers Christmas going about, and handing out cash, without strings attached —the only idea in handing out the money being to secure export markets for their goods in those states, to secure valuable raw materials, and, of course, above all to secure political influence in those states?

Would you rather have the Russians there?

But, Sir, it was not only at conferences in Africa—the C.C.T.A. and other conferences—where the Colombo Plan idea was discussed, and turned down. It was discussed last year at the Commonwealth Conference, where I was present. There again there was proposed a sort of Colombo Plan. The matter was referred to an existing committee, the Commonwealth Economic Committee, and this Committee, after deliberating on this matter, came to the conclusion (I quote from their report)—

Mr. Speaker, as the House will appreciate, this idea is not a new one; it has been examined, and the very same states, not only the old colonial territories to whom the hon. member rather contemptuously referred, but also the new African states turned it down.

Sir, it was again discussed this month at Lagos, at the annual meeting of the C.C.T.A. and the conference came to the same conclusion, viz. “There is no necessity for creating a new organization beyond that already provided within the framework of existing organizations.” These decisions, including that of the Lagos conference only two weeks ago, seem to be the complete reply to the suggestion of the hon. member that a new organization should be established.

The hon. member has referred to the E.C.A. and, I regret to say, has not correctly stated our attitude towards that organization. He rather sarcastically referred to the fact that when the first conference was held in 1958, we did not attend, but that afterwards, to use his words, we had to climb down and join. Sir, if he will look up the records, he will see that the statement I made at that time was that we feared that this new organization would overlap, and harm the existing organizations, in which we take a very keen interest. Our attitude was one of “wait and see”. The first conference seemed to be quite harmless. There was a lot of talk but nothing was done. What we feared, vi. that these conferences would be used as a platform to attack South Africa, did not eventuate. The Government then decided that we would now join that organization. Our delegation attended the meeting last year at Tangier, and is at the moment attending the conference at Addis Ababa.

At Tangier last year the E.C.A. also considered the idea of a new organization along the lines of the proposal made by the hon. member. It was discussed and the following decision was taken—

In other words, they were not going to stand for the establishment of any new organization.

Mr. Speaker, we have had these decisions at previous African conferences and at the Commonwealth conference last year, and at the last E.C.A. conference. Those organizations would make short work of any attempt to establish a new organization. If South Africa should take the initiative, it would be sudden death to any such idea.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member now knows what the attitude is of the African nations— not my attitude—and I would suggest that he should rather give his unqualified support to what is being done by the existing organizations and that he should give South Africa some credit for what she has been doing in co-operation with the C.C.T.A. and Fama, particularly technical assistance which has been channelled through Fama. As far as Fama is concerned, we have made available R40,000 for that purpose. But, Mr. Speaker, we provide other assistance which I think is more valuable to those African states than money, which they are getting anyway from America and elsewhere. What we have been doing, particularly through Fama, is to provide valuable assistance in the shape of technicians and instructors who have been sent to other African countries. All that is deducted from our contribution is their travelling expenses. For the rest however long they may stay there, their salaries continue to be paid by the Union Government.

As far as the C.C.T.A. budget is concerned, South Africa’s contribution to the general budget is about 16 per cent, which is well over R100,000.

But, Sir, South Africa also participates in other joint projects. I have referred to some of them. There is the Meteorological Atlas which is being drawn up—South Africa is taking a lead in that. There are studies of absenteeism and labour turnover, and so on. Only on the labour studies, a sum of about R50,000 has been contributed by South Africa up to the present.

Sir, that is not all. There are also the regional organizations of the United Nations in which South Africa participates, and which have their regional offices in Africa. There is, for instance, the World Health Organization in Brazzaville, where they deal with human diseases; the raising of living standards; the improvement of housing and nutrition, etc. We participate in the Agricultural Organization with headquarters in Accra. We also participate in the meetings of the I.L.O. So we are doing our part wherever we can. Apart from these, we have also assisted very materially in red-locust control in Central Africa. Our assistance has been very highly regarded, and a very considerable sum has been devoted to red-locust control; well over £100,000 has been contributed by South Africa. And very recently, in spite of the unfriendly attitude of the Congo authorities towards South Africa, we received a call for assistance from the South Kasai Province; we offered them mealies, but they said they had already received sufficient mealies. Now on the way are 39 tons of powdered milk to that part of the Congo. Mr. Speaker, South Africa has assisted wherever she could. We have shown our eagerness to co-operate. Our trouble is that the eagerness to co-operate comes only from one side. I have given the examples to show the unfriendly reaction we have had from some African states where we have offered to co-operate. Sir, that is still Government policy. The hon. the Minister of Transport recently announced what is being done in the way of building a conference hall, with all that goes with it, instruments for simultaneous translation, committee rooms, and what not. At the moment there is no place where a large international conference could be held. In fact, Sir, when Mr. Hammarskjoeld came to Pretoria for his visit, it was even difficult to find suitable accommodation for him. One of the hotels was obliged to convert one of its flats and to provide the necessary furniture so as to provide a man of his standing with the sort of accommodation he is accustomed to, when paying visits to other countries. It is very easy to talk about holding a big international conference if the necessary facilities are not available. We are working in that direction.

I do not know what more can be said in regard to this motion. Let us leave aside these remarks about our attitude to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. Let us rather now concentrate on what can be done and what we are willing to do, but always provided we are allowed by the African states to give assistance. At the moment there is no reciprocity on the part of most of these African states; they have shown no eagerness to reciprocate. It is no good holding out the hand of friendship continually, and having it brushed away, as has been done during the past year. Friendliness and co-operation is our policy, and will continue to be our policy.

As far as that particular proposal is concerned, we find it impracticable, as it has also been found impracticable by the various African Organizations, by the Commonwealth Conference Committee and also by the E.C.A.

May I add my personal word of welcome to the hon. the Minister on his return to the House. I can say that personally we are all very glad to see him back. That, of course, has no political significance at all. But personally we are very glad to welcome him back, and particularly that he is here in order to take part in this discussion.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), in a very thoughtful speech, put forward certain views and made certain suggestions, and the gist of his argument was, I think, that in all the developments that are taking place in Africa at the present time and in recent years, South Africa has been locked out of these developments, and what he wanted to discuss was ways and means of unlocking the door which has been bolted against us, so that South Africa could take a more active and decisive part in the development of the Continent of which we are a part. I don’t think that the hon. member is particularly wedded to his suggestion of an Inter-State African Development Association, which in itself is a very vague description of what he had in mind. What he did mean, I think, was whether it could not in a more demonstrable fashion be possible for us to appear to be taking a more active and prominent part in the developments on this Continent. I am very sorry that the hon. Minister appeared to take the remarks of the hon. member for Turffontein as a personal attack on himself. I don’t think that that was intended in the least, and I certainly did not read into the hon. member’s remarks anything of the sort. The hon. member for Turffontein certainly did criticize the Government, in a very mild way, I thought, and he criticized the hon. the Minister, also I thought in a very mild way. I think the hon. the Minister read more into what was said than was intended and I do not intend to react to some of the things the hon. the Minister himself said for two reasons: First of all the hon. the Minister has had a long spell of ill-health and I don’t think he is really physically fit yet to indulge in one of the battles which he has enjoyed so much in the past and we have all enjoyed taking part in with him and, in the second place, I think that the more objective we can be about this debate the better.

The hon. the Minister made a speech today which I think one can only regard as irresponsible up to a point, but certainly disappointing and almost defeatist. In reply to the hon. member’s general sketching of the position, the hon. Minister has really replied non possumus. He has in effect conceded that the Picture painted by the hon. member for Turffontein is basically correct, although of course he quite rightly stressed what we are doing through the various existing agencies. But in effect he agrees with the hon. member for Turffontein, but he says that it is due to the fact that the rest of Africa won’t have anything to do with us. He seems to accept that as an inescapable fact and is apparently prepared to leave it at that. Now the hon. member for Turffontein referred to the Minister’s speech in Pretoria some years ago. That speech was regarded by this side of the House as a very serious survey of the position and as a speech which seemed to us to show that the Minister had a good grasp of the problems and in that speech he set out the essence of those problems very well, and what we were hoping to-day was that the Minister would be able to give us a more encouraging picture of what progress had been made by him and his Government in the years since he made that speech in answering the questions, or fulfilling the conditions which the Minister himself laid down in that speech as being necessary, in order to establish the link which he outlined to us we might become between the West and the rest of Africa. Now the Minister has to-day in fact told us that no progress at all has been made and that in effect the link is not possible to be forged. Because he says there is one reason and one reason only for the lack of contact between us and the rest of Africa, the lack of liaison, the lack of diplomatic exchanges and co-operation in this sphere, and that is that the rest of Africa will listen to nothing except “one man one vote”.

Surely that is the true position.

That is what the hon. the Minister has said. I don’t accept that. I don’t believe it is true I think the attitude which has grown up against us in recent years has hardened and has increased as the result of the belligerent attitude adopted by the Minister and his Government in respect of racial policy. I do not believe that nothing short of South Africa’s acceptance of the policy of one man one vote will enable us to resume proper contacts and a large measure of co-operation with the emergent Black states of Africa.

What do the Black leaders say?

They all want Black self-rule.

The hon. member for Brits must remember that here in the Union we are in an entirely different position from the new emergent Black states where, for practical purposes, there is no White population. Here in our country we have had 300 years of living together, White people and non-White people, and during those 300 years both have gained a great deal of experience and understanding of each other, and whatever the legal separation may be, the fact is that 300 years of experience cannot go for nothing. I do not believe that Black nationalism in South Africa need necessarily be symbolized by being anti-White, and I do not believe that we are barred from the rest of the Continent of Africa on the basis that we do not concede the principle of “one man one vote”. Of course there will be politicians who will adopt such an attitude, trying to make political capital to their advantage on the subject. But I believe that if this Government had adopted a less intransigent attitude and had adopted a more vigorous approach and a more vigorous diplomacy vis-à-vis these countries, considerable progress could have been made. I do not blame the hon. Minister of External Affairs alone, it is his whole Government that is responsible, but I believe the hon. the Minister understands the position very well. I think it would have been possible to make considerable progress in implementing the speech made by the hon. Minister in Pretoria a few years ago. The hon. Minister now reads out a list of indignities to which South Africa has been subjected during the last two years by these Governments. Well, Sir, some of those indignities were due, I think, to the inexperience and the greenness of the people who inflicted them. I think that we should not be prepared to simply say that these indignities close the door on any future closer links between ourselves and our fellow-states in Africa. I think again that more vigorous diplomacy and closer contact would have avoided having had those indignities heaped upon us, because invitations of the kind the hon Minister was talking about are not usually issued until they have been informally discussed between the two people concerned and officially accepted. I think that when the hon. Minister says: “What would the attitude of Black Africans be to any such approach by us?” my reply would be that it depends entirely on how that approach takes place. The hon. Minister has quite rightly pointed out that there are a number of agencies now rendering services on a multiracial basis (most of them) to various states in Africa and that the idea of the Colombo Plan has been considered and rejected. But, Sir, it is quite conceivable to me that under proper conditions there might be co-ordination of these various agencies which are working into something more concrete and giving more content to the idea of co-operation between the states of Africa, including us as an African state. I think again that more contact, more vigorous diplomacy could still go far to establish closer relations between us and the various states. The hon. Minister had talks with Dr. Nkrumah. I have not the slightest doubt—T know nothing about their conversations, but I have not the slightest doubt that Dr. Nkrumah told the hon. Minister of External Affairs a good deal of the troubles that he was facing in his own country. And I very much suspect that some of the troubles he is faced with in his own country bear a certain resemblance to the difficulties and problems we are faced with in our own country.

So I think it is very unfortunate and regrettable that the hon. the Minister in reply to a speech which raised a very important issue, an issue which worries all of us, an issue which, as stated by the hon. member for Turffontein, is “How are we going to reopen the door which has been closed to us?” it is very regrettable that the hon. the Minister having reviewed the position and having considered the arguments used by the hon. member for Turffontein can simply say: “I am very sorry, we all agree that there should be this increased co-operation, we all want to do all we can and we have held out the hand of friendship, but as far as my Government is concerned (the Minister says in effect) there is no hope of any improvement in our relations with the rest of Africa as long as we remain the Government of this country.”

May I, on behalf of this side of the House, identify myself with the expressions of welcome to the hon. the Minister on his return to this House after his recent illness. It is quite clear that the hon. Minister is almost himself again. I think he was, perhaps, a little too sensitive to the comments made by the hon. member for Turffontein, who, I think, on this occasion, went out of his way to be objective in his approach. I do not want to deal at length with the hon. Minister’s reply, but I must draw his attention to the comment which he made regarding Sir Roy Welensky, and his statement that the time might come that we in South Africa, the Portuguese territories and Rhodesias will have to get together to protect White civilization. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we should realize that what Sir Roy Welensky is defending is the very opposite of Nationalist Party policy. I think it is most important that we should realize that two weeks ago Sir Roy Welensky endorsed the Southern Rhodesian Constitutional Agreement, an agreement which throws open the Civil Service in Southern Rhodesia to people irrespective of colour, an agreement which makes equality of opportunity something very real in Southern Rhodesia. Sir Roy Welensky agreed to a Bill of Rights which would prevent racial discrimination. He endorsed his attitude that he was prepared to face up to the fact of there eventually being a non-White political majority in Southern Rhodesia. He made it quite clear that he condemns White extremism and White nationalism just as strongly as he condemns Black nationalism or Black extremism. He sees for his part of Africa systematic advance on the basis of non-discrimination on the grounds of colour, but taking into account the very real differences in the standard of civilization which exists between individual members of the community. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we should not be lightly led into thinking that Sir Roy Welensky is defending White domination. He is standing for orderly advance in a multi-racial society on the basis of merit.

He rejects Black domination.

He has accepted that in due course, as the non-White people of his state advance, inevitably the non-Whites will have the majority in the councils of Rhodesia. But what he is not prepared to do is to ignore the differences in the standard of civilization that exists between the people. Therefore he says: As they advance their share in the government must increase, even if it does ultimately lead to the non-Whites having a greater say in the government of Rhodesia. What he is not prepared to accept, and what we in this corner are not prepared to accept, is subservience either to Black domination on the one hand or White domination on the other hand. I raise this because it is probably one of the most important developments on the African Continent, and, as it is taking place in a sister-state in Southern Africa, it will affect us all in due course.

The motion put forward by the hon. member for Turffontein serves a number of purposes in addition to the specific proposal he makes for this new agency to promote the economic well-being of Africa. I think it is as well that we in this House from time to time, and particularly as we enter this decade in history, should look at what is taking place in Africa, and should realize the importance of the developments, not only to the African Continent and to the world, but to us who live at the southern tip of Africa. There can be no doubt that Africa has become a key area in the world, and I think that South Africa has become a key area on the African Continent. What is taking place in Africa is a revolution; a similar revolution has already taken place in previous centuries in the Western world, in Europe, and to an extent in the East. It is a complicated revolution involving constitutional, economic and social changes, and all this has been compressed into the space of a decade or two where, in other parts of the world, it was spread over centuries. Added to this many-sided revolution which is taking place, there is taking place in Africa a war of ideas, a clash of ideologies, both in the religious field and in the field of democracy versus Communism. When one superimposes on these revolutions and clashes which are taking place the problem of race, one gets some idea of the tremendous problems of Africa and of South Africa.

I think we have heard too much in recent months and in recent years of the bad effects of this revolution. We have heard far too much of the chaos and confusion which is found in certain parts of Africa. But I think it is important that we should see these things in their perspective. We should compare the events which are taking place on this Continent in a decade with the events which took place in Europe during the past century where a similar revolution took place. In Europe this revolution was initiated by the French Revolution, one of the bloodiest which the world has ever seen, it involved a series of wars stretching right from the beginning to the end of the last century and it continued into this century with the First World War. While we condemn violence in all its forms, I think we should see the events taking place in Africa in their proper perspective. When we consider the enormous changes which are taking place in Africa, we should be grateful that this revolution is taking place with comparatively a small amount of chaos. In the course of the past three years some 19 to 20 states have become independent. We hear much of the chaos and confusion in the Congo, and I think it is unfortunate and regrettable, but I don’t believe that we take sufficient notice of the orderly transition which has taken place in the other 19 states which have become independent. I would have liked to hear the Minister to-day telling us something of the success of the transfer of power from Great Britain to the Government in Nigeria, one of the greatest feats I think that has taken place anywhere in the world in the past 50 years. Here you had the transfer of power from a colonial power to an indigenous group of people, the 34,000,000 inhabitants of Nigeria. This transfer of power has not only taken place on an orderly basis, but it has left a solid bond of friendship between the former colonial power Great Britain and the new indigenous nation which has arisen in Nigeria. So rather than dwell on the hardships and the unfortunate events which have gone hand in hand with this transfer of power in certain limited areas of Africa, we should be pleased that as some 100,000,000 African people during the past two years have gained independence, only in respect of about 13,000,000 of these people that you have had chaos. I repeat that I think it is important that we should see this whole matter in its right perspective.

Secondly, perhaps it is an occasion once again for us as part of the African Continent, to realize the tremendous importance of these happenings, not only to Africa but to the non-White races throughout the world. People may say regrettably that it has come too fast. Others might say that it has come too slow. Others will say that it is a pity or even a tragedy that these people have been given independence. I think the important thing for us to realize is that this event has taken place. We cannot put the clock back. Whether it is too fast or too slow, whether it is a tragedy or whether it is a pity, we have to face up to the new situation in the world to-day where and to the fact that there are now 30 independent nations on the Continent of Africa. This is most graphically revealed when one looks at the membership of the United Nations. In 1945 when the Charter was signed there were only four African states represented at the United Nations, of which one of them was the Union of South Africa. In the following 15 years virtually no change took place, but from 1956 to 1959, a further six African states were admitted. In 1960 we find that no fewer than 16 additional states representing African powers have been added to the membership of the United Nations. It is not within the purview of what I want to say to comment on whether this is good or bad, but what I do want to say is that I believe we must realize that this has happened and that it is no use either being petulant or sorry or sad. I think we must face up to the new situation which confronts us in Africa, and which confronts all the nations throughout the world. Sir, it should cause us to start thinking and asking whether we should not adjust certain of our somewhat antiquated ideas and some of our outmoded attitudes towards the independence of new nations, of people who happen to have black faces.

First of all, I think we should get away from that somewhat patronizing attitude towards many of these nations. I say this in no carping spirit towards the hon. the Minister of External Affairs who, in difficult circumstances, is doing his best. But, might I say that it was noticeable, even in to-day’s debate, that he was quite happy to refer to Dr. Nkrumah. But when people did not have the title of Dr. or Colonel, he omitted to-day, as he has consistently done, to style those people as Mr. This is also the common attitude of a section of the Press. The hon. the Minister was not prepared to-day to refer to Mboya or Lumumba or Nyerere as Mr. Mr. Speaker, the prefix Mr. is merely an indication of civility of denoting one’s respect for other individuals. I mention this because perhaps the Minister did not intend it …

The English Press does just the same.

I am not supporting the English Press or the Afrikaans Press in this regard. What I am saying is this, that there are 30 new, fully sovereign independent states sharing the responsibilities of the world with us, with the same weight, or perhaps more weight than we have in the councils of the world. I think we should revise our patronizing attitude towards the people. I think it is necessary to draw the attention of South Africans to the fact that heads of independent states or prominent citizens, whether they happen to be Black or White, deserve the same measure of respectful treatment when addressing them.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), that we cannot go on thinking of non-White people, let alone the non-White people within our borders, as being uncivilized people because they happen to have black faces. One realizes that many of these people had not come in contact with civilization in earlier generations, many of them did not previously have the opportunity of becoming educated; but to suggest that these people, because they have but a generation or two of contact with the White man, because they have only become educated in recent years are really barbarians; or to suggest, as has been done by other people recently, that it takes a thousand years to educate a man, is to give a back-handed insult at the heads of 30 independent African states. It is to give a back-handed insult at at least half the new members of the Commonwealth, because these Commonwealth members are all represented by non-White people who only in recent years, or perhaps recent generations, have had the benefit of education which we have enjoyed for many generations. I say this, once again not to criticize individuals, but to suggest that we should change our attitude and be careful of the words in which we express ourselves against the background of the new developments in Africa.

Thirdly, in changing our attitude and our ideas. I think we must realize that communication between us and sister states in Africa is henceforth going to be a direct communication. In the past it has been easy to communicate with the Congo by getting in touch with Belgian authorities. Our association with the other countries under control of the British Government has essentially been communication through the High Commissioner and through London. Our communication with French territories has been through Paris. I think we should realize that these things have changed and that unless we are going to establish direct communication with the African states themselves we are going to become isolated in our contact with these people. Whereas in previous centuries the problems of Africa could have been sorted out in the Cabinet rooms and the conference chambers of the Western European powers, the problems of Africa to-day are going to be solved, or not solved, in Africa itself.

Fourthly I want to suggest that we should develop a truely African mentality, in that we should realize, as the hon. the Minister has said, that we are an African state. But I believe it goes far beyond merely saying we are an African state. I believe we must develop an attitude of belonging to the continent and that that attitude should become manifest because of one’s actions and behaviour. If we are to develop this attitude that we belong to the African continent that we really are an African state, then I think we should identify ourselves more whole-heartedly with what is happening elsewhere in Africa than we have tended to do in the past. There have been a number of new states born in the past few years. I do not believe that any impartial observer, watching our official and unofficial reaction to the development of these new nations would feel that we have been over joyous, that we showed any real pleasure in the fact that these people had gained their independence. I think in general the attitude has been that we have always suggested this either too early or we have been begrudging in our acceptance of their equality as states on the African continent. I think that rather than adopt this attitude we should point out that we led the field. We should proudly say that we were the first independent state of the African Continent and that we want to congratulate other states which have achieved at this stage what we achieved 50 years ago. I think rather than be begrudging or petty about these things we should say that we are proud to be the nation which has set the tone in Africa and which became the first independent State on the African Continent.

We did that with Ghana. We sent a special representative to their celebrations. Ghana was the first to become independent.

I think the hon. the Minister will concede that if one takes the attitude of South Africans as expressed either through the Government or through the spokesmen of opposition parties—and I generalize here—or through the South African Press—there has not been the same sympathy for these new states as there would have been had they been White states which had achieved their independence. So I say we should proudly point out that we were the vanguard of these new developments in Africa; that we were not only the first state to become independent but that we were the first one to have a stable government, to have viable economy and to set up a sound educational system. There has been a tendency to adopt an attitude of superior neutrality in respect of many of the events in Africa. I refer particularly to the events in the Congo; tragic events, shocking events; events which called for sympathy for those many people who suffered. I was disappointed to see that when the United Nations felt that it should go into the Congo and take some action to remedy the position and alleviate their suffering, South Africa chose not to support the United Nations in its action but to stand aloof from the situation which had arisen in the Congo.

I believe that we in South Africa should realize that it is in our interests that there should be no chaos in Africa; it is in our interests that there should be advancement; it is in our interests that there should be stability, whether it is in the Congo or anywhere else. Therefore, if not because of some emotional sympathy with the Congo then only because of our own self-interest in the African Continent we should have done much more than we have done to assist the United Nations where it has been trying to create order and stability in the Congo. So I want to make this strong plea to hon. members of this House and to the hon. the Minister, that we should not only formally accept that we are a member state on the African Continent but that we should behave as though we were proud to be a state on the African Continent. We should try to play a worthy and enthusiastic role in the development of Africa.

The motion introduced by the hon. member for Turffontein seeks to create this agency in order to raise the standard of living of the undeveloped people of Africa. But he does prelude this request with the statement that it is necessary for us to gain the goodwill and respect of the uncommitted nations in Africa. I should like to say a word or two on the use of the word “uncommitted”. Of course, many of these nations are not formally committed by treaties or by alliance to other nations, and in that sense they are uncommitted. But I think we should be extremely pleased that in many ways they tend to be committed away from the communist camp. I think we should be pleased that they do not link themselves with Communism, that they do not want to identify themselves with, or come under the yoke of the new kind of imperialism which is coming from the communist side of the world. I think we should be careful lest we follow the advice of somebody, like Mr. du Plessis, a former South African Ambassador in Washington who said that it was quite impossible for the West to get these states on their side, that it was quite impossible to prevent these states from going towards the communists. I think we should be pleased that these states other than Guinea and perhaps Mali, while they are naturally sensitive to the idea that they have become free and no longer have any formal commitments to the West, that have all tended, on major issues, to vote away from the communist bloc and to throw in their weight with the Western peoples.

If we wish to win the goodwill and the respect of the so-called uncommitted nation in Africa and if we wish to ask them to accept our co-operation in raising the living standards of the masses then I think that quite clearly we must discuss, as the hon. the Minister did, reasons why South Africa at the moment does not enjoy the goodwill of these nations. The hon. the Minister, in saying what he said to-day, is being quite consistent. In April 1959 the Minister said—

The hon. the Minister, having stated that, seems to believe that nothing more can be done about it; that because the South African Government believes in apartheid, therefore we can have no friends on the African Continent. Therefore we should just sit back and remain isolated from them. But this is an attitude of defeatism which we do not even find from the hon. the Prime Minister. I would commend to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs the approach of the hon. the Prime Minister rather than the negative approach which he seems to adopt in these matters. What did the Prime Minister say two years ago in this very House when he realized the evolutionary changes that were taking place in Africa? He was making his “new vision” speech; he was criticizing the old General Hertzog 1936 Settlement. He said that what General Hertzog wanted to do in 1936 was to be fair to the Bantu, he wanted to give them something in return for what was being taken away from a limited number of them in one of the Provinces. He said—

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch, I was dealing with the problem of South Africa gaining the goodwill of the other African nations; the problem which the hon. the Minister of External Affairs said had arisen from our apartheid policy. I had reminded him that the hon. the Prime Minister believed that it was because we applied policies of racial discrimination. For that reason he had rejected the old Hertzog Agreement of 1936, and instead developed his policy of granting full opportunities to the Bantu in their own separate areas. I would not be entitled to debate the Government’s policy in this regard, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think that even this Government could create a more favourable climate towards South Africa if it would show some positive content to the apartheid policy; if it would show that apartheid if it meant separation also meant equality in separation. If it showed not by word but by deed that a man with a black face would, under the apartheid structure, still rise to his full stature and be a full citizen in his own country.

A short time ago I discussed this problem with an African leader in Kenya. He said he was fully aware of what we were doing for our indigenous population and he appreciated what we were doing in the field of social services and education. But his question to me was “If I came to South Africa could I live with dignity as a human being? Or would I be told that merely because I had a black face I was condemned to be a second class citizen of the country?” So I suggest to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs that far from trying to defend racial discrimination he should give a positive content to this policy, as was suggested by the Prime Minister two years ago, and show that even under the apartheid system it is possible for a man of colour to be a full citizen and live with dignity. In those circumstances I suggest that even with the present Government it would be impossible to create a more favourable climate towards South Africa. But once again the hon. the Minister of External Affairs has suggested that we must stand to defend racial discrimination. What is more, he has suggested that the Portuguese and the Rhodesians should support us in doing this. I want to return to this theme because I think that we in this House should realize that Portugal has over and over again said that it does not support racial discrimination and it believes in a policy of assimilating those people of colour who have risen to certain levels of education and ability in the society. Likewise, Sir Roy Welensky has made it clear time and time again that he does not support a policy of racial discrimination but believes in absorbing into the Rhodesian society those men of colour who are qualified to be absorbed. But let us ask, when we talk of defending White civilization, which armies are we going to use? The armies of the Portuguese territories and the armies of Rhodesia; are they White armies or are they Black armies? When we answer this question I think we will realize that we are completely isolated in our policy here in the southern tip of Africa and not even the neighbouring states, the Central African Federation and the Portuguese Territories adjoining South Africa have common ground with us. I suggest that this Government, instead of trying to defend discrimination should show that its policy does lead to equality, even if that equality is in separation.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has suggested that in order to assist in the raising of the standards of the masses we should initiate the setting up of a new agency. Naturally it is in our interests to see the economic level of the rest of Africa raised, because as long as the economic standards are rising the points of racial friction will be minimized. And as long as there is ignorance and poverty so long will there be the risk of chaos. While we support the general plea for our assistance in the raising of the standard of living of all the peoples of this Continent, we in this corner do not believe that the most effective means of doing this is by setting up another agency. Indeed, we run the risk in Africa of being plagued by agencies. We have agencies of various kinds already; there is the C.S.A., the C.C.T.A., the E.C.A. and, indeed, the Commonwealth itself. I would suggest that we should canalize and concentrate our efforts in the E.C.A. and in the Commonwealth. The E.C.A. is a body representing the United Nations, and world organization which, I believe, in spite of the difficulties under which it works, has a major role to play in promoting stability and orderly progress in Africa. We could also play a far greater role through the Commonwealth. It was the Commonwealth that initiated the Colombo plan for Asia. I believe that those members of the Commonwealth who have their homelands in Africa should co-operate and combine to see what they can do in the interests of the independent states which have arisen out of the old British Empire and which are part of the Commonwealth. I suggest that we should play a major role in the economic reconstruction of Africa, but not through a separate or new organization but rather through the two major organizations, the E.C.A. and the Commonwealth which already exists.

Because that is our view in this corner of the House I wish to move an amendment to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Turffontein, and that is as follows—

1. (a) increase and improve its diplomatic representation throughout Africa;
2. (b) extend South Africa’s participation in the economic development of Africa; and
3. (c) assist in developing educational facilities in Africa, in particular by encouraging students from other African states to attend South African universities”.

I think that one of the lamentable lacks which there are in South Africa is the lack of real contact with the people on the rest of the African Continent. I wonder how many hon. members of this House can claim personal friendship or an intimate association with any other politician outside of South Africa representing any state on the African Continent? There are very few. I think the time has come for us to realize that good diplomacy and good national relationship depend very largely on good personal relationship. So I believe that this Government, now that the lines through Europe are being severed and our connections with Africa have to become more direct, should make strenuous efforts to ensure greater contact on official, unofficial and personal levels, with leading personalities throughout Africa. I believe that there is a grave shortage of diplomatic contact with the rest of Africa. I do not want to recite the long list of states in which we have no direct representation. But I would like to mention a state like Nigeria with 34,000,000 people. Nigeria is one of the most stable, most orderly and most important states on the African Continent. I believe that we should have high level contacts direct with a country such as Nigeria. I think of Madagascar, the new republic on our Eastern seaboard. I believe that whatever representation we have there is extremely tenuous, and that should be improved now that we do not have the direct contact through Paris. I should like to see an acceleration in the number of invitations which are extended to interstate organizations within Africa, to hold their conferences in South Africa so that these people could come and see what we are doing and see why we are proud of many of the achievements of our people in South Africa.

I would ask this Government to consider using non-White South Africans to a far greater extent than they have in putting the case and the attitude of South Africa in many fields. This Government claims that it has the support of non-White South Africans. I believe it behoves this Government to include in deputations and delegations those non-White South Africans, be they educationists or experts in other fields, in the deputations and delegations which attend multi-racial conferences and interracial conferences elsewhere in Africa. I believe that to be the true test of the support there is for Government policy from these non-White people.

Secondly, we believe that South Africa should, as the introducer of the motion as indicated, play a far greater role in the economic development of Africa. In Africa we are going through a period of industrial revolution. Although we might not have all the capital requirements for our own needs, I believe that it should not be impossible for us to attract capital from abroad and we should decant some of this capital to the other territories, so that we would have an investment and they would have a common economic interest with us. I believe that two-way flow of trade between us and the African states is the best means of preventing political boycotts taking place of our products. We alone on this Continent have applied industrial procedure and techniques in the African climate and under the African sun. I think that we should make a greater effort to put some of our know-how in the various fields at the disposal of the people of Africa, so that they can realize that we are living up to our claim to be the leading industrial state in Africa.

Finally, in the field of education—the one thing for which the whole of Africa is crying out. Education not only for the masses at the lower levels but also for the potential leaders. I believe that we with our experience of African conditions and the involved administration of a multi-racial country have much to give to the other countries of Africa and they have much to learn from us. I suggest that we should make determined efforts to make our contribution to the development of educational facilities elsewhere in Africa, and I can think of no better way than by encouraging an exchange of students and inviting potential leaders to study in our universities. I realize that I would not be allowed to dwell on the problems, Sir, which arise because of the policy of the Government not to have open universities. Nevertheless, the Government claims that the other universities established for the non-Whites are worthy universities. I suggest that it would be an excellent thing for the Government to show its bona fides and its faith in its own universities by embarking on a bursary scheme or an exchange scheme whereby students from other states could come to South Africa and benefit from our educational facilities.

We in this corner do not under-estimate the difficulties that lie ahead for South Africa in the field of relationships with other African states. We realize that Africa is in a state of emotional tension and that perhaps we are the whipping boy and the focal point of the racial controversy which is raging throughout the world. But I want to appeal to the Minister and to hon. members opposite; if we are going to live as an African state we must face up to the consequences of what has been happening in Africa. Even if there are obstacles, let us make a courageous attempt to adapt our attitude towards the other states in such a way that it will be possible for us to play a leading role on this Continent.

I second the amendment. I would like to begin by commending the realism shown by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs in attending this debate in person, despite the fact that he is obviously not as fit as he might be. The Minister has obviously come here at considerable effort on his part, and he has done so because he realizes the tremendous importance of the subject we are debating here. When I say that, I do not wish to imply that the actual form of the motion that was moved here today was in itself an important proposition. Our amendment does not support the suggestion of creating this new agency. However, I am quite sure that the mover of the motion merely put this forward as an idea with a basically sound motive, namely, that he, like us, is deeply concerned about our worsening relations on the African Continent and he wishes to put forward a constructive suggestion to improve those conditions. I am sure that every member in this House to-day, irrespective of party affiliations, is deeply concerned to improve South Africa’s standing and its position on the continent. We are all deeply concerned by the fact that none of us can live unto himself. Though we happen to be situated at the southern tip of the continent, nevertheless any idea of isolationism must be dismissed in this modem world where events affect different parts of the world as intimately as they do. So we are concerned about our position on the continent and wish to improve it.

Now I want to do what I think my colleague who moved the amendment has done. I want to put everything I am saying on a constructive basis and make constructive suggestions in order to improve our position. However, before doing so, I must make one or two comments. The first thing is that I was impressed by the fact that the Minister said quite bluntly that the major obstacle to better relations in Africa was the Government’s domestic policy in regard to race relations. The Minister admitted that fact quite frankly. He did not suggest that there might be any modifications of that policy. I am not going to discuss the Government’s policy in regard to race relations, but it is of course the major factor that affects our whole position on the continent. I must say that I find it difficult to see any substantial progress likely to be made in our relations unless we have a change of heart here, but that is not the point I want to discuss now. Accepting that the Government has a certain policy, I agree with my colleague that even within the framework of that policy much can be done to emphasize the constructive aspects of that policy, and of course there are constructive aspects in theory. I think if those constructive aspects are put more forcibly, it can lead to better understanding.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the insistent demand for one man, one vote, and to some extent the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) corroborated that there was this demand. But I submit that that is not the whole story and that is not in essence why the African states to the north of us object to our policy. It is not the demand so much for one man, one vote, but the demand for a share in political rights and for a just inter-racial policy. One man, one vote will not necessarily be either fair or just. There are other policies and I submit that we in this corner stand for such a policy which would be quite acceptable to the other states in Africa, because it is a just policy based on just moral foundations. Merely to say that it is the demand for one man, one vote clouds the issue and puts it on a false basis. I repeat that what the other states are urging is a policy which gives a fair share of rights and privileges.

To pass on to the more positive points which I think might make our relations better in Africa, the hon. member for Pinelands spoke about education. I cannot too strongly underline what he said in that regard. There is no doubt that the greatest need throughout Africa to-day is the need for education, particularly in the emergent states. Most of these states are desperately short of experts and trained personnel. A most interesting set of figures was given the other day in a speech by the Principal of the Natal University, who revealed—the latest figures he had were only up to 1958, but I do not think the position has changed much since then—that up to 1958 there had only been 3,814 Africans trained in universities in Africa, all universities. The universities in the Union up to 1958 had trained 2,080. All the other universities together, Ghana, Nigeria, the Sudan and Uganda, East Africa and Rhodesia and Nyasaland, had trained only I,734, which made a total of 3,814 African graduates from universities in Africa. The need for people trained in all the different professions is tremendous. It has grown enormously in the last five years since so many of these nations have come to manhood.

There is no doubt about it that any assistance we can give here to help train people of that kind would be of tremendous benefit. May I just mention that one of the most outstanding non-Whites in the world was a postgraduate student of the University of Cape Town, Dr. Ralph Bunche. The contribution we were able to make in the past was valuable, and I endorse wholeheartedly what the hon. member for Pinelands said, when he urged that we should offer our training facilities wherever possible to the states to the north of us. I still cannot agree with the policy which closed our universities to non-Whites, but the hon. member for Pinelands made the constructive suggestion that we might make special efforts, which we might even help to finance, to open our other universities to non-Whites from the north. This is something which could definitely be pursued by the Government in a constructive spirit and it would do much to bring about a better understanding.

Of course the question of education does not stop there. You do not only educate at the universities. Here in the Union, with our technological progress and the enormous advances we have made in commerce and industry and other walks of life, we have facilities for a great deal of training not given only at the universities. I do not think it is beyond the wit of the Government to discover directions in which we may offer training of that kind in spheres outside the universities. I know, of course, that some of our policies might make that difficult, but I do not believe it is impossible or that relaxation of some of our local conventions and laws cannot be made in respect of visitors from other countries.

That leads to the very next question, the holding of conferences in our own country. It is vitally necessary to hold as many Pan-African gatherings as possible in the Union so that these people can see what our conditions are. I would like to suggest that perhaps the Government is a little over-sensitive in regard to the dangers of introducing people from other territories to the Union. Even in the Government’s own policy there are constructive aspects, as I said before, and these people could see them. I do not think the Government need fear that if they bring people here to look at our conditions they will go away being antagonistic towards us. If the Government has faith in its policy it should bring more people to see how its policy is working out in practice. I believe the Minister himself has been deeply concerned about this question of making available venues here for inter-state conferences, but I wonder whether he has pushed that matter as far as it can be pushed. The Minister gave us one instance to-day of the difficulty he has, i.e. of getting suitable hotel and other accommodation. I do not think that is an insuperable difficulty. There are special conference hotels and others are being planned at present.

I referred to the other facilities like simultaneous translation and conference rooms. I encourage these things.

I am glad to hear it and I am sure that with any influence the Minister can bring to bear, particularly on the hotel trade, we can get special conference hotels. I know of one such hotel in Johannesburg which is specially designed for conferences and to provide the facilities the Minister has in mind. There is no reason why institutions of that kind cannot be used for such gatherings. There, too, I feel that the public at large, if a sufficient lead were given by the Government, would be extremely hospitable to visitors from other states. I think the Government is over-sensitive to the possible dangers of bringing distinguished visitors to our country. I am sure the public would co-operate and would welcome a development where we could freely hold such conferences here. I think also that it rests not only with the Government to bring about such conferences. Private enterprise should be encouraged to do a great deal. The Government would have to give the lead, because it is Government policy which is a stumbling-block. There are important bodies like the Chambers of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries, the Institute of Race Relations, Sabra, etc., who, given the right kind of lead from the Government, I am sure could sponsor Pan-African conferences in the Union. So once the Government takes the matter seriously and gives the right kind of lead, I think private enterprise and the public will certainly respond and develop a Pan-African outlook. I know a body which would be only too happy to have conferences of kindred bodies throughout Africa if it only were allowed to do so in the Union, and if the racial bar which exists now could somewhow be removed. I suggest that conferences of that kind would do a great deal to lead to better understanding on the continent.

Then I think there should also be a great deal more inter-State travel. More people should be encouraged to travel, especially non-Whites, who should be encouraged to come and travel in the Union. I do not think it would even be necessary to subsidize such travel; it is more a matter of treatment. We must be realistic because we are dealing mostly with non-Whites in the other States, and many of them are very anxious to come and travel in our country but they are afraid to do so because of the fear that they might meet with unpleasant circumstances. Let us make it clear to such people that that will not happen and that the Government will do its best to facilitate the right kind of hospitality being given to such people, then I think we will get more of those people. I want to issue this plea to the Minister in regard to the Press, and I want to do so in all sincerity.

I think the hon. the Minister is too inclined whenever he is in difficulties to blame the Press. It is “wicked Press publicity”, misrepresentation, etc., which are bedevilling the situation. It is an old story and I do not want to go over it. There is something in it, of course. There are irresponsible and misleading and even malicious articles in the Press, but by and large this constant harping on the “wickedness of the Press” is doing damage in two directions. First of all, it throws a very grave doubt on the Government’s outlook generally on the Press. The effect it has on other countries is that they feel there is a clamping down on and a curtailment of free expression, and that is something against which democratic states react. But that is not the whole story. Responsible elements of the Press portray South Africa as fairly as anyone could be expected to do.

I never mentioned the Press to-day.

No, but the Minister’s persistent attacks on the Press have a harmful effect, and my request is that he should think twice before he does so.

Order! The hon. member is going very far now.

Then I will not pursue the matter. Another direction which we have to face up to is sport. This is a very tricky situation, and I do not want to say much about it, but there is no doubt that in the realm of sport, goodwill can be built up through the organization of various forms of inter-State sport. We have great difficulties in that regard in the Union and I am not going to bedevil the situation by going into them, but I urge the Government to give consideration to the matter and to realize that it is an important question upon which we must have a rational outlook.

Now, I think I have said all I have to say. Just to sum up, I think we should be grateful to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) for having introduced this motion. We in this corner and the Minister himself doubt the practicability of the proposition he put up, but that is not the important point. The important thing is the hon. member’s plea that something positive should be done to bring about better inter-State relations. I am not one who believes that you can bring about better relations purely by economic means, nor do I believe that you can remedy some of these vexed problems by simply taking economic action. You have to do more than that. The political field and the field of human relations are even more important. So merely to take refuge in the idea that you can improve race relations by economic aid will not succeed. Then there is just one other remark which hinges on something which the hon. the Minister said. I do not think we will get anywhere by trying to export policies from one State to another. Some years ago there was a trend rather to export some of our policies to the other States. There was a school of thought which considered that it might be a good thing to export the policy of apartheid to other States.

Where does that come into the motion?

I am glad to say that the Minister in his conduct of affairs in recent years has set his face against this trend. Well, that is all I wish to say in seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also want to associate ourselves with the welcome expressed by hon. members opposite to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs on his return to the House to-day after his illness. We are glad that he took the trouble to attend this important debate, and seeing that he is on the point of accompanying the hon. the Prime Minister to the Prime Ministers’ Conference we wish him every success. We are glad that he has recovered to such an extent as to be able to fulfil his important role there also.

To come back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), I want to say immediately that after this amendment was moved we had a little more clarity on the motion of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). The amendment envisages three things, diplomatic representation between us and the uncommitted States of Africa, participation in the economic development, and participation in the educational sphere. In other words, in brief, hon. members think that we should have closer contact with the emergent Black States in Africa, and closer contact in the diplomatic, economic and educational spheres. In recent years we have been boasting of the fact that South Africa tried to maintain this contact in various ways. One possible method was through the C.C.T.A., which has already been mentioned by the hon. the Minister and on which I do not want to expand, where we felt that we were able, because we also talk the language of Africa, and because we are the only White sovereign State in Africa, to make available to these young emergent States the technical knowledge we have acquired throughout the ages in South Africa. We felt that by doing that we would have closer contact, apart from the fact that by doing so we would also be disseminating the technical knowledge we have acquired. I must say that it was a great disappointment to me to hear from the hon. the Minister that Guinea and Ghana had decided to leave the C.C.T.A. We regret that this should have happened. We realize that the emergent States in Africa also have their domestic, their internal problems, matters on which we prefer to express no opinion, but we always hoped that by co-operating in such a great internationally recognized organization like the C.C.T.A. we would be able to make a very important contribution, chiefly aimed at raising the standard of living of the individual in those States, as the result of giving them the benefit of the knowledge which we acquired over the years. We are bitterly disappointed to hear at this stage that Guinea and Ghana have resigned from the C.C.T.A. It is very easy for hon. members to theorize here over the possible forms of co-operation we can engage in, but in the light of the facts I have mentioned here it will be seen how very difficult it is to achieve that cooperation. It is not that there is any lack of willingness on our side to co-operate; nor is it a question of a lack of willingness on the part of the metropolitan nations, but the fact is that the emergent Black States evidently do not always realize that the hand of friendship is being extended to them.

The second aspect I wish to deal with in connection with this amendment is the question of diplomatic representation. This is a very delicate matter. We have repeatedly in the past debated this matter. May I just point out that the hon. the Minister, in a speech he made to Sabra in Durban about a year ago, drew attention to the fact that we were going through the process of getting to know each other—we in South Africa on the one hand and the emergent States of Africa on the other hand—and that this is essentially a period of getting to know each other, exchanging ideas, closer co-operation in other spheres, which will be the preliminary steps leading to the exchange of diplomatic representation. It is significant to me that the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands regards this extension as an immediate step which should be taken, which in my view will amount to taking a step which should not be taken at this present stage yet, because it is too early, in the sense that by doing so we would perhaps be doing more harm than good. I believe that we should extend this period of getting to know each other to various other spheres. In regard to the educational sphere, which was emphasized particularly by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope), and the question of participation in economic activities, I just want to express this thought: I do not believe that we are unwilling, in regard to education, to do our share; in fact, I know of quite a number of educationists, Whites also, who are voluntarily playing an active rôle in the education system of Ghana, for example. I am thinking of one person who is at the moment connected with the University there—a White person. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. The point I want to make is that we in South Africa are still faced with the huge problem of the implementation of our own policy of letting every section of the population develop along its own traditional lines, and that this plan still has to be implemented, something which will practically require our full attention. The important point is that we have obligations in the first instance towards our own Bantu in South Africa, and I believe that if we are given the opportunity, and an hysterical word Press does not make it exceptionally difficult for us to develop this pattern, we can make a big contribution not only in regard to the question of sound racial co-operation, but also in regard to raising the standards of living of the non-Whites in all the uncommitted African States. That is our first duty, and when that pattern has been developed it can serve as a splendid example of what we can do to raise the standards of living of the other non-White States also. The hon. member for Pinelands expressed constructive thoughts here, but in order to get the best effects there must also be a measure of reciprocity, and we must be able to expect it to be appreciated by the other non-White States in Africa. Mr. Speaker, in the light of what has happened with Guinea and Ghana and the C.C.T.A. it will be a long process to get them to be prepared fully to accept our co-operation.

Before leaving the amendment of the hon. member, I just want to make one remark in regard to what was said by the hon. member for Parktown when he said: “The Minister is too inclined to blame the Press.” In other words, he practically alleges that the Minister was putting the freedom of the Press at stake. I have already said that we are dealing with an hysterical world Press, nor does the hon. the Minister of External Affairs react to reports in the world Press on every possible occasion. If that were the case, he would be kept busy from morning till night doing only that, but it is only when important allegations are made that the Minister of External Affairs, like any other Minister of External Affairs, is compelled to react to the world Press. Hon. members would blame him if he did not do so. Therefore it cannot create the impression that he is thereby interfering with the freedom of the Press when all he is doing is, in the execution of his duty, to correct wrong statements published in the inimical world Press. I felt it incumbent upon me to make this remark in regard to the allegation of the hon. member.

The hon. the Minister replied very fully this morning to the motion of the hon. member. I cannot add much to it. I rise, however, to remove one impression created during the course of the debate which followed the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), viz. that it was due to the non-co-operative actions of the Minister that we do not enjoy the goodwill of the other states in Africa—the actions not only of the Minister but also of the Government. In fact, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) also said: “The attitude against us has hardened as a result of the belligerent attitude of the Government and the Minister.” But, Sir, the hon. the Minister has, since our Africa policy was formulated so clearly by the late Adv. Strijdom soon after he became Prime Minister in 1954, continually emphasized that we are prepared to co-operate in respect of our common problems in Africa, but without abandoning any of our principles, and when the hon. the Minister of External Affairs on various occasions states the standpoint of the Government very clearly in respect of our principles and has to take a firm stand, then he is justified in doing so because he does not necessarily adopt an inimical attitude against world opinion, but simply does his duty by stating our standpoint and our policy clearly. On various occasions the hon. the Minister went out of his way to listen to what the emergent states of Africa had to say. We did not always receive the same degree of courtesy from them. I find it most unpleasant to refer to these instances again, but there was the invitation extended to the hon. the Minister by Ghana, which was thereafter withdrawn in the presence of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. There was also the invitation received by the Government to attend the independence celebrations in Nigeria and which was also later withdrawn by their Parliament. There was the affair in the Congo, about which we again heard here to-day. I could continue to mention numbers of instances. Last year still we had an incident here. After the hon. the Minister had made a statement in the House to the effect that we would support Ghana’s application to become a republic and to stay in the Commonwealth, the next day a responsible person in Ghana issued a statement saying that they did not need South Africa’s support. So I can mention one incident after another. I know and concede that these young, emergent African states—and I am not patronizing them in this instance—in many respects have to cope with a tremendous number of problems and that perhaps they have not a deep enough insight in this sphere. But the fact remains that in spite of these experiences which we have had, we still continually showed how willing we were to co-operate with them in these various spheres.

In so far as the motion of the hon. member for Turffontein is concerned, I find it significant that the hon. members for Constantia and Pinelands got away from the idea that there should be an Inter-State Development Association. It is really a pity that the hon. member for Turffontein did not formulate his motion more clearly. If it was his intention that by means of this motion we should be given the opportunity of getting the views of the various sides of the House which would reveal greater unanimity in respect of Africa, I think he should have framed his motion in those terms, but by putting the accent so strongly on the Inter-State Development Association he really, as I understood him, distracted attention from his main object and concentrated on this minor one. That gave other hon. members who spoke the opportunity to make a hat-rack of his motion on which each of them could hang his own party-political views. Even the hon. member for Constantia had to explain the motion by saying “What he did mean was so-and-so.” The hon. member for Turffontein was not at all clear on that point. As I say, it is a pity that he was not. The hon. the Minister has replied sufficiently on the particular point of the establishment of an Inter-State Development Association. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize this point. The idea should not take root in this House or outside that the reply given by the hon. the Minister is to be taken as meaning that we reject the idea of cooperation with the emergent African states. The hon. the Minister gave a very clear reply on this particular point, viz. the idea of an Inter-State Development Association, and he showed clearly that this idea had already been discussed on various other occasions and that it had been rejected by the African states, and that therefore it was not practicable, and that such an association would to a large extent overlap the active rôle we play in other international organizations. Therefore I do not want the inference to be drawn from the speech of the hon. the Minister that we are not willing to co-operate with the emergent African states in various spheres. That would be quite wrong. The Minister said that this particular idea was impracticable, and he gave specific and clear reasons for it. Mr. Speaker, to come back to the motion of the hon. member for Turffontein, it contained a few words which make me feel even more unhappy. He says that the House “recognizing that the future security and welfare of our country as an African state is in large measure dependent upon obtaining the respect and goodwill of the uncommitted emergent nations of Africa.. I do not believe that the hon. member intended it that way, but it may very easily be interpreted as meaning that we sit here in perpetual fear that if we do not enjoy the respect and goodwill of those uncommitted emergent states in Africa, then our fate is doomed. I say it is a pity he chose those words, because it can give people overseas a totally wrong impression and because it is a wrong interpretation of our actual position here. We know that everybody in South Africa is prepared and willing to co-operate in playing our helpful rôle in regard to these emergent African states to the best of our ability, in so far as we are allowed to do so within the framework of its practical application. We want to do so, but to create the impression that our existence is really dependent on the goodwill of those African states is a completely wrong interpretation of our actual position, as a sovereign, independent state which can maintain its own standards of living and seek its own salvation for the future.

Then just a second aspect in regard to the motion of the hon. member. He talks so easily of Africa as a whole. In fact, he said in his speech that he meant the whole of Africa. The territories in Africa where we can play an important rôle, apart from any rôle we can play in the international organizations of which we are a member, are those territories with which we have ties because of our membership of the Commonwealth. Further, we should realize one thing very clearly, namely that in so far as the French territories in Africa are concerned, “the former French territories which have now been included in the French Commonwealth, those territories which find themselves in that specific sphere of influence, enjoy not only the benefits of the C.C.T.A. and the C.S.A. and the E.C.A and all the other benefits, but in addition they still enjoy the assistance they receive and will in future receive to an even greater extent from the European Economic Community. Sec. 131 of the Treaty of Rome, as you know, makes special provision for the overseas territories of the European Economic Community. I do not want to take this argument further; I have already, on a former occasion, quoted the figures here, but those five member countries of the European Economic Community make available an enormous sum of money for the development of those overseas territories, and those particular West African States will to a large extent receive the benefit of it. In this connection I may just say in passing that it is significant that whereas Italy and Germany formerly had colonies in Africa, they are now again playing their rôle in developing these territories in Africa. Those territories are populated by Negroes, while many present British territories are populated by Bantu. I say it is a pity that the hon. member did not state more specifically in his motion which territories he had in mind. In my opinion, his motion is a little vague in that respect, and perhaps intentionally so, as well as in respect of the assistance to be rendered by such an Inter-State Development Association.

In so far as the economy of Africa is concerned, we are all aware of the fact that it is in no way an economy which showed great development in the past, but as against that we should not forget that Africa is a continent with a tremendous potential, and that this is certainly an additional reason for the interest shown in Africa by both the Eastern and the Western nations. It is not very long ago that gold was discovered in South Africa. The uranium development is a new one, and all the developmentes in the Sahara, the mineral and oil developments there, are of very recent origin. The fact remains, however, that to the degree that the political development in Africa will increasingly be pushed into the background, attention will increasingly be devoted to the economic development of Africa, and when once the enormous problem of transport has been solved in Africa, I believe that there will be a tremendous rise in the standards of living of the whole of the African population. The hon. member for Pinelands made a very important statement here. He said that what was taking place in Africa was a revolution. I quite agree with him. It is not evolution; it is a revolution, but it is a revolution quite different from all the revolutions we have had in history. It may have been less bloody than those other revolutions, but we should remember that the leaders of the national movement in Africa are usually persons who had their training in the metropolitan countries and who thereafter came back to Africa, formed a political party, and through that party in the first instance exerted great influence on the non-Whites in the urban areas, and through trade unions, and who thereafter aspired to obtaining political independence. In other words, the position was not as we knew it in the past, viz. a State with a single people who aspired to becoming independent. Here it is a political party which strives to gain control over that State, however heterogeneous its population might be, and then tries to gain independence for that State, but what in fact happens is that this political party comes into power. It is not merely a question of shifting the power from the Whites to the non-Whites, but in essence it is in many instances a shifting of power from the one non-White to the other non-White, because the new national leaders who come into power are not the traditional chiefs of that particular tribe; they are people who were able by devious ways to gain control of that political party, which enabled them to gain control over and then to eliminate and practically completely over-shadow the old traditional tribal chiefs. This process went on, but one cannot say that it really made a contribution to the freedom of the individual or to the raising of his standards of living. If we follow this pattern a little further, we soon see that it tends to develop into a dictatorship, and it deviates completely in many respects from the important rôle formerly played by the old traditional tribal chiefs in that territory, in which the individuals to a large extent exercised their democratic rights within that tribal system. The point I want to make, however, is this: In this process of development all that counts is the achievement of the political ideals of the various leaders: “First conquer the political kingdom and all the rest will be given to you”, and “it is better to live for one day as a poor but free man than to live in riches as a slave ”. All those philosophies were concentrated only on the political aspect, and the economic or educational aspects lagged behind. Mr. Speaker, this process which is going on in Africa is one which will come to an end. We cannot say what the choice of the uncommitted States will be, whether they will go towards the West or towards the East, but as this political process continues, as these political kingdoms are being conquered, to that extent we will perhaps see more attention devoted to the economic sphere, and then one can expect more appreciation from their side for the attempts we want to make here to make a contribution towards increasing the living standards of the people in those non-White States.

The hon. member who has just sat down has given us objective criticism, and at the same time has referred to the hon. member’s motion as being not sufficiently clear. I think the hon. member for Turffontein made it perfectly clear in his opening remarks that the whole object of the motion was to provide a basis for discussion, and we have had varying points of view, everybody striving as far as possible to be objective. We had the Minister giving us his views this morning. I think, if I may say so at this stage, it was unfortunate that the Minister came in this morning. I think it might have been better if he had waited a little to have heard the rest of the discussion and if he had perhaps come in first thing this afternoon when he had given more than one speaker an opportunity of putting their point of view, because quite frankly I found the Minister’s speech disappointing having regard to the importance of his speech on this occasion. The hon. Minister has returned from a long illness, and the Minister’s first speech, and probably his only major speech before he goes overseas, I do not think will hit the headlines, except for the rest of the world to say that it was an apology for the failure of this Government to win friends and influence people, and the interjection from his Chief Whip suggesting that the rest of the world would not be satisfied with less than “one man one vote ”, was also a very unfortunate interjection at this stage. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to blame the Press, as the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) has done, it is very easy for people to be touchy about the Press, but many people forget that in many cases the Press is a commercial venture and the Press depends upon circulation and circulation depends upon controversy. I have even heard some unscrupulous editors suggest that if there is not any controversy, they would very soon make one. Mr. Speaker, on the whole we are furtunate in having a responsible Press in this country, but I don’t lose sight of the fact that in many cases the Press depends upon circulation and for circulation it depends upon the sensationalism of its news, and South Africa at the moment is world news. For that reason I think it is all the more important that in a debate of this kind when being objective, we should bring something tangible to the debate, and while it is all very well to talk about a new attitude, as the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) did, a new attitude and a new approach, I think we should as far as possible aim at those matters, and emphasize those matters on which we have agreement. Now I think we all agree, as the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) said just now, that the one basic problem in Africa on which all parties of this House are in agreement is that we should raise the general standard of living. I think that if we can raise the general standard of living, we then deal with a subject on which all the people in Africa are in agreement, and I think that we can take a lesson from what is being done by the United States of America which has taken the lead in South America and which has launched the Inter-American Development Bank. I suggest that we might very seriously consider the introduction of an Inter-African Trade Development Corporation, to be assisted by an Inter-African Development Bank. Here we can use not only the contacts at Government level, but also the contacts at business level. Quite frequently the Minister may have failed, not through any fault of his own, but because of the political prejudices, whereas an indirect approach, the trade approach, might be the better way of dealing with the problem, and to form an Inter-African Trade Development Corporation with funds from our own resources here, and from business, and an encouragement to other African territories to join in such a venture, and that would probably stimulate trade, stimulate the exchange of goods, and we with our technical know-how, being able to process the primary products of other countries in Africa, would be able to play a prominent part and would be able to export our knowledge to other parts of Africa and so raise the general standard of living.

But they are boycotting our goods. How can we sell to them?

Surely the hon. Minister has sufficient intelligence to realize that if you had an Inter-African Trade Development Corporation, with other governments represented in that, you would have the opportunity for encouraging trade between various organizations. They are not boycotting South African steel. Or is the hon. Minister going to admit that they are boycotting South African steel? They may be boycotting some of the products made in some of our factories which are fabricated from steel, but the Minister would be the first to admit that they are not boycotting our steel. Let us find points of contact. I know the hon. Minister will look for any opportunity to offer carping criticism, but if that is the Minister’s approach he will never get agreement so long as he is Minister of External Affairs.

Ghana has proclaimed a general boycott against us. We can sell our steel anywhere.

If that is the Minister’s attitude that Ghana is carrying out a complete boycott of our goods, is the Minister’s approach then that we can do nothing in the rest of Africa? Does the Minister abandon the Continent of Africa? Does the hon. Minister throw in his hand and has he told his Cabinet colleagues that Africa is lost to us? Because if that is the attitude, then the hon. Minister failed in his duty this morning in not telling us that. His colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, has told us that the boycott is ineffective. Who is right, the Minister of Economic Affairs or the Minister of External Affairs? Possibly they are both wrong to some extent. If that is the approach of the Minister of External Affairs that there is a complete boycott from Ghana then the inference from his speech this morning is that other boycotts will follow, and in that case it is no use talking about an African Development Corporation, it is no use talking about co-operation with other states in Africa, and there is no point in talking about any trade development on the African Continent. If that is the Minister’s view, then in fairness to the country he should have told us that this morning. But I do not accept that that is his point of view. I take it that the hon. the Minister just made an interjection.

You are always rubbing people up the wrong way.

If the hon. Minister is thinking of winning friends and influencing people on the Continent, I hope he is not going to use the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that there are far more points of contact than the Minister credits at the moment.

Mention one.

I am satisfied that the quality of South African steel and the production of South African steel is such that the rest of Africa handled the right way could be encouraged to process that steel in other parts of Africa.

Why do you stick to steel? They have to buy our steel. They need it.

The hon. member for Brits asked me to name one.

And do they take our fish and fruit?

Will the Minister deny that whilst some markets for canned fish are closed to us, other markets are still taking our canned fish?

In Africa?

Yes, in Africa. It is clear that the hon. Minister should have spoken later in this debate, because the Minister is confirming the view that we are entitled to draw that there is no hope for any further development on the African Continent. If that is the Minister’s view, does the Minister believe that Africa will gradually boycott us so that there will be no further opportunity for our South African exports? Is that the Minister’s point of view? The Minister is silent now. Unfortunately a responsible Minister in a debate of this kind has given the impression that there is a boycott and that there are no prospects in Africa, but he completely contradicts the information given to us by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who told us that the boycott was having no effect. Who is right?

It could have had an effect.

I think the hon. Minister’s interjections are most unfortunate. I don’t believe that the people of Africa, the millions to the north, will refuse to take any South African boots and shoes, any South African clothing, any South African woollen goods, and South African canned fruit, any South African sugar, any South African maize products.

The boycott may be petering out as it has petered out in England and as it is petering out in Sweden.

I am glad to have the concession of the hon. the Minister that the boycott is petering out and will peter out.

I have always said so.

Now we are making some progress, because when the boycott peters out, we can develop our markets, and the time to develop those markets is now, or how long does the Minister propose to wait? I am most obliged to the hon. Minister for his interjections this afternoon, because if ever there was a defeatist attitude it was shown by the hon. Minister this morning and by some of his interjections. I am perfectly convinced that that Minister is not backed up in those views by the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs and he is not backed up in those views by industry in this country, because if he were backed up in those views, then the recently appointed Director of Exports has failed in his job, and if he has failed in his job, then the Minister’s admission is that he has failed because of the boycotts against South Africa, and the boycotts against South Africa on the Minister’s own admission are due to the policies of this Government. I think if that is the Minister’s attitude, we are not going to make much progress on the African Continent as far as the development of our trade and exports are concerned. Surely there is one thing the African people have in common, right throughout the Continent of Africa, and that is that all want to have better clothes, more clothes, they all want to wear boots and shoes, they all want to eat processed foods, they all want to raise their standard of living. And if that is the aim of the emerging people on the African Continent, if that is the ambition of the hundreds of thousands of people in the big towns throughout Africa, surely then there is a common line of approach where we can develop in Africa the desire for these products of our South African industries, and if we are going to mobilize that, we can mobilize that effort by having a trade development corporation so that we can get better distribution and encourage the peoples in Africa to utilize not only the products of our South African industries, but we in turn can also provide the technical knowledge to develop industries in other parts of Africa.

Ultimately they will want Africa as a whole.

It is very interesting to hear the hon. member say that ultimately they will plough you under. What a defeatist attitude! This is the attitude taken by America as to South America—

If one uses the arguments of the hon. members opposite, the United States of America should refuse to invest at all in South America because South America might develop so fast that they would put the United States out of business. That is the same stupid argument as a person suggesting that nothing should be done to the north at all, because eventually, if we show them how to operate, they will run their own businesses and will have nothing to do with South Africa. It is the same mentality which refuses to educate the non-Europeans, refuses to educate the Coloured people, refuses to educate the Indian people, insists upon job reservation and upon putting up every possible defence against any developments of anybody else other than yourselves because they might take your bread out of your mouth. It is a doctrine of fear, and if that is the approach of hon. members opposite for the development of African trade, no wonder we are in the sorry state we are in to-day. No wonder the hon. the Minister has to make a speech of despair such as he offered us this morning.

This debate which started off as an attempt to try and seek points of agreement has shown very clearly to us that, so far as this Government is concerned, they have accepted defeat already in Africa. They have accepted the position that the boycotts are there. They have accepted that the boycotts are going to get worse. They accept that one day they will have to start afresh, although they do not say how. They accept the position that they are not prepared to teach people to the north by providing them with technical know-how because they might use their skills against us. They have failed to recognize that we in South Africa are possibly the most advanced on the whole of the African Continent, industrially.

Not probably, we are the most advanced.

Yes, we are the most advanced industrial country on the Continent of Africa. We are far ahead of the rest. We have the raw materials, we have the technical knowledge. We have the organizing ability and yet, with all that, there is this sub-stratum of fear. If that is their approach to the development of the new Africa and we are to be tied down by fear, then there will be no development so far as this country is concerned. We can never expect to take the lead in Africa if we are bedevilled by fear.

Fear of what?

The hon. the Minister has obviously not been listening this afternoon. Possibly he is not concentrating too well because the very interjections of his own side, and his interjections have indicated quite clearly that the Minister expects no future in the north of Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. Chief Whip and his colleague next to him, by their interjections, have made it perfectly clear that they are frightened of any development in the north. If any additional know-how goes to the north they are perfectly certain that that technical know-how will be used against South Africa. If that had been the attitude of the nations of the Western world there would have been no discovery of new lands, no development of the great Continent of America, no development of that vast portion of the earth which is known to be supporting the way of Western life and, indeed, we would not be here.

The only way in which we can develop, the only way in which we can progress is to face the future with courage and to recognize that on the African Continent we can win friends and influence people if we will recognize points on which there are agreement; if we will invite the people of Africa to this country, invite the business men who are buying our products, invite the potential industrialists who want to start in this country. How has Rhodesia developed? Largely as a result of South African enterprise. The big industrial revolution which has taken place in Rhodesia, particularly over the last 20 years, has been a result of the enterprise of South African industrialists. The development in Swaziland is, in the main, due to South African enterprise. And quite a bit of it has been achieved by business men in the Nationalist Party. The development in South West Africa has largely been due to South African enterprise. And the development of Kenya has largely been due to the enterprise of South African citizens.

But they are coming back.

There may be one or two coming back from Kenya, but they have not evacuated Kenya because one or two people are coming back.

You know very little.

The hon. member says I know very little. I wonder when last he was in Kenya. If the hon. member knew anything about Nairobi or the big cities up there, he would know that there has been far more development and far more investment in fixed property over the last two or three years than there was in the previous 20 years.

Quite true, but now they have a second Congo.

There you have it again, the defeatist talk, accepting the position that the White man has to get out of Africa.

Not defeatism, realism.

They call it realism. The White man has come here to stay in Africa, and particularly in South Africa. The White man is going to stay in this country and he is going to stay by acting realistically and not acting through fear. If we would only recognize that if we accept that the African people, of all races and colours, want to raise their standards of living, want to have the benefits of the modern industrial revolution, then we will seek every possible measure to encourage the development of Africa, to find out what their economic wants are, to find out what their industrial wants are and, in that way, we will get the people of Africa joining hands with us because of the tremendous advance which we have over them, because of the knowledge we have and the technical know-how. Those things will convince them that only as a result of co-operation with us can they avail themselves of these and raise their standards of living. I think it is a tragedy that when we are dealing with an important matter such as this we should have a responsible Minister prepared to concede, just prior to going overseas, that the position has deteriorated, that the possibility of progress is limited and that we are back to the days of the laager and that the possibilities of the north are lost to us; that the only hope is to send our people overseas outside Africa in the hope of winning markets there.

[At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned until 17 March.]

The House proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day.

I move—

In moving this motion, I take pleasure in pointing out that since being granted its autonomy in 1949 the university has shown very steady progress. This is reflected not only in the number of its students, which to-day has passed the 2,000 mark, but also in the higher standard of academic training and research at the university. I take pleasure in quoting what the Rector of the University said recently at the opening of the university, according to a report in the Volksblad—

Because that is so, the University of the Free State has to-day acquired a particular place in our national life and it is making a valuable contribution to the development of our country.

This amending Bill is a direct result of the expansion of the university and that is why these amendments are being requested to-day. Inter alia this Bill will authorize the Council to establish faculties and departments from time to time with the approval of the Minister and subject to the statutes. This amendment will authorize the establishment of the agricultural faculty at the university. I can mention here that the Council is already considering the establishment of other faculties, and there is every likelihood that certain faculties will be established in the near future. For understandable reasons I do not want to mention at this stage what faculties are envisaged.

Before going further, I want to point out that the proposed amendments can be divided into two categories. In the first place there are the amendments which are merely of administrative interest to the institution and regarding which there should not be any difference of opinion in this House. In this regard I want to refer particularly to Clause 3 which provides for the establishment of additional faculties or departments such as the agricultural faculty to which I have already referred and which has already been started. In Clause 2 provision is made for improved representation on the Senate for the teaching staff, other than professors. The object of Clause 5 is to give the Senate a greater say in recommending the conferring of honorary degrees, and in terms of Clause 4 the Council will be able to deal with the appointment of staff in consultation with an existing committee of the Senate in order to expedite such appointments.

It was felt that as the Act was being amended, a further amendment should also be introduced, an amendment upon which the Council decided unanimously and one which was not introduced in 1949 for understandable reasons. This brings me to the second category of amendments which are perhaps of a contentious nature. Before dealing with these amendments in general, I should like to point out that the organized opposition to this Bill which has emanated in recent days from certain population groups will definitely not result in this Bill being less contentious. When I refer to the contentious provisions, I am referring particularly to the proposed repeal of Section 31 and in addition the insertion of Section 3bis and 3ter after Section 3 of the Principal Act. I should just like to read these provisions to the House—

It is important that I should point out that when this private Bill was introduced in 1949, Clause 31 was originally omitted. It was later specifically inserted in order to expedite the passage of the Bill at that time because at that stage there was still uncertainty as to what attitude this House would adopt in this respect. Since that time circumstances have changed, however, and this House has decided that the conscience clause is no longer necessary.

In this regard I should just like to make the following point. During 1950 when the Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education Private Bill was under discussion, this House fully debated the omission of the conscience clause. A free vote then took place, that is to say, members did not vote along party lines. And at that time the House with only 21 dissentients decided against the retention of the conscience clause.

It is important to note who voted in favour of the deletion of the conscience clause on that occasion. To-day I should like to refer with appreciation to the names of leading members of the United Party who voted at that time for the deletion of the conscience clause from that legislation. I refer to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), Gen. Smuts, Mr. V. G. F. Solomon, Mr. A. E. Trollip, Mr. van Coller, E. A. Benson, Mr. Christie and Mr. W. H. Stuart. When this House took that decision—so we interpreted the position—a principle was created. Here I should like to mention the name of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Jonker) who, as hon. members will remember, expressed himself very strongly at that time against the deletion of the conscience clause. But later he accepted the position because he felt that a principle had been created—what had been given to the one could not be withheld from others. I should now like to read to the House what he has said on this point (Hansard Vol. 100, Col. 3347)—

Mr. Speaker, in the second place we find that the report of the Commission of the Separate University Education Bill contains the following recommendation (page 20, para. 89). The commission recommended that Section 14 should be deleted for the following reasons—

1. (1) In 1950 Parliament by free vote by an overwhelming majority replaced the traditional conscience clause in the case of the University of Potchefstroom with a positive norm. This introduced a new principle and the Universities Act of 1955 was purely a recognition of the existing position that every university applies its own norm. Our nation’s attitude towards life is the surest guarantee that religious freedom will be upheld in South Africa. In addition to the large number of European churches, there are 79 church denominations recognized by the State and nearly 2,000 separatist churches working among the non-Europeans. There are few countries in the world where religious freedom enjoys as much recognition as in South Africa.

That was the principle which was adopted as a basis in the report of the commission on the Separate University Education Bill. This principle was also upheld in the legislation. In this regard the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science has very clearly stated his standpoint in respect of the conscience clause in the Other Place. I read from the Senate Hansard, Vol. 11, Col. 3449—

Seeing that this is the principle which the great majority of the members of this House uphold, the Council of the University of the Free State feels free to ask that Section 31 should be repealed and that Sections 3bis and 3ter should be inserted.

Why is this request being made? For all practical purposes the University of the Orange Free State is a provincial institution and it is largely dependent on the people of the Free State for its support and development. The people of the Free State are mainly Protestant Christians and approximately 95 per cent of the students are Protestant Christians. Mr. Speaker, this may be due to the fact that over the years that university has followed a specific direction in providing education. As a matter of fact the policy followed by the university is also laid down in its statutes. Para. 3 of Chapter 1 of its statutes reads as follows—

I see nothing wrong in that. I think that this flows from the academic freedom which the university practises. I think that my standpoint in this regard is also substantiated by what Prof. Price of the University of Cape Town said during a lecture to the University of Cape Town Summer School. The heading is: “University is not an organ of the State.” He then said—

And then he used these significant words—

That is exactly what the University of the Free State is in the Free State. That is exactly the rôle which it plays.

Mr. Speaker, all we are asking in this amending legislation to-day is that legal confirmation should be given to the basis on which the University of the Free State has already rested for years past. I think that the Council is merely exercising its autonomous right to determine in which direction this institution will continue to move in providing education. I do not think there can be any difference of opinion on that point in this House.

But before going further I should just like to say in this regard, with reference to the protest movement which has developed over the past few days, that it is strange that it has made its appearance over the last few days. With reference to this protest movement which has been launched at this late stage, by a certain population group in our country, I should like to point out that for the sake of the good relations between the various population groups, we dare not allow the one population group to prescribe to the other what particular religious direction may be followed under certain circumstances and by certain institutions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have sufficient confidence in this House to express the wish and the hope that this House will consider this amending Bill objectively this afternoon. Then I do not think that one member of this House will begrudge the University of the Free State something which this House has already accepted in principle. Then I want to express the hope—and here I should like to quote the words used by the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) in this House: That there will not be one member in this House who will begrudge the University of the Free State the full freedom within the framework of our national character which is its right as a university the full freedom, to enjoy academic autonomy, the right to live and to develop through its own spiritual strength. I move.

Mr. Speaker, as a former student of the University of the Free State in the days when it was still the University College of the Orange Free State, I regard it as a privilege and an honour to second this motion. This University of the Free State has made a great contribution to our national life, has created its own traditions and has produced eminent men to serve our nation. Inter alia the highest office in our public life is held to-day by a former student of this institution, namely Adv. C. R. Swart, our Governor-General. I also hope and trust that, when the Republic of South Africa is established, he will be the first President of our republic.

Order! The hon member must not mention that matter here.

The hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) has introduced this amending measure so capably that he has greatly eased my task as seconder. I want to say this afternoon that since acquiring autonomy in 1949, the University of the Free State has developed tremendously. Undoubtedly it was a wise decision of this House to grant university status to this institution in 1949. I trust that on this occasion the House will again be guided by the same wisdom in complying with the requests of this institution as embodied in this amending legislation. This development of the University of the Orange Free State is mainly due to the enthusiasm and initiative revealed by those who have devoted themselves to the interests of the university. We think of the chairman of the council and of the council of the university. We think of the rector with his staff and of the registrar with his administrative staff. The registrar is Mr. G. P. du Toit who has already held this post for 14 years. Mr. Speaker, you will, however, allow me to mention the names of the late Mr. Jan Enslin, who for ten years was chairman of the university council and the late Prof. H. van der Merwe Scholtz who for 12 years was rector of this institution. For many years they stood at the head of this institution. During a period of great development for this institution they played the leading rôles. They both died at the end of last year, but their work in the interests of the university will always be gratefully remembered. To-day their great work is being capably carried on by Mr. A. S. Jacobs as chairman of the council and Prof. P. Groenewoud as rector. We know that in their capable hands, together with those of the men and women who assist them, this institution has a great future.

The task of council and the staff would, however, have been impossible if the University of the Free State had not also gained the confidence and the enthusiastic support of the public. From its very earliest days the Free State Republic took an active interest in this institution. As long ago as 1909 the Parliament of the Orange River Colony established a fund, the interest of which was mainly to be devoted to helping the students of this institution. This fund was known as the Local Loan Fund and it amounted to £110,000. In 1910 it was handed over to the Union Government. The objects of the fund were inter alia: Firstly, the interest on an amount of £60,000 was to be used for providing bursaries to Free State students who were undergoing agricultural training at this institution. Secondly: The interest on the remaining amount of £50,000 was to be used to pay annuities to wounded oudstryders of the Anglo-Boer War and their widows; and when these funds were no longer required for that purpose, the money was also to be used to provide bursaries for study at the university. To-day oudstryder pensions are paid out of funds voted annually by this Parliament. The position is that £1,200 is paid annually to the university from this Local Loan Fund. However, I think the time has come for the Union Government to hand this Local Loan Fund over to the Free State University.

I say that as a result of the enthusiasm of the staff and the council of the University, together with the good support of the public, this institution has developed apace since gaining its autonomy. Hon. members will permit me to mention certain numbers and figures to illustrate this growth. The number of students has increased from 1,180 in 1949, the year when autonomy was granted, to 2,035 this year. This is nearly twice the number of 12 years ago. The teaching staff has increased during this same period from 102 to 164. The development fund of the university has increased from R130,000 in 1949 to R344,000 in 1960. When we examine the annual income, we find that in 1948 it totalled R178,000. Last year it rose to the excellent figure of R914,000. This income can of course be considerably improved, and the institution certainly requires additional funds, just as any institution requires funds during a period of development, should the Minister of Education and the Government decide to hand this Local Loan Fund over to the University.

In terms of this Bill the faculties are now being extended and provision is being made inter alia for the establishment of departments. In this regard we think particularly of the agricultural faculty. A number of years ago when the Government had to be approached for assistance in establishing an agricultural faculty at this institution, the institution still fell under my constituency. At that time I worked towards this end, and together with other interested persons and the Free State public, I was thankful when the Government in 1955 decided that an agricultural faculty should be established at the university. This was a great step forward, and as the hon. member for Welkom has already shown, this legislation will inter alia round off the work which has been carried out in respect of the agricultural faculty. To-day the agricultural faculty meets a great need in the Free State and the adjoining districts of the other provinces. I understand that after a period of three years the agricultural faculty is already in operation and that there are already more than 100 students in that faculty. The Free State is an agricultural province and I therefore say that this faculty meets a very great need in that province. Perhaps we do not always realize that while the Free State represents 10.5 per cent of the Union’s total area, and while 13 per cent of the Union’s total White farming land is located in the Free State, no less than 40 per cent of the Union’s crop producing lands are to be found in the Free State. This province also contains 45 per cent of the Union’s wheat producing areas and 48 per cent of its mealie producing areas. The Free State’s cattle population is equally impressive. Approximately one-fifth of the White-owned cattle of the Union and approximately one-quarter of its sheep are found in the Free State. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that without the Free State the Union could not be fed and could not exist. I must say that it will surely be difficult …

The hon. member is now wandering too far from the Bill.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this Bill inter alia provides for an agricultural faculty. This meets a very pressing need and I just want to say that you will surely agree with me that if the Free State should decide to take up a “Free State stand” the Union would be in difficulties. Seeing that that is the position, hon. members can also appreciate why an agricultural faculty meets such a pressing need in this province.

The amount which has been spent on the buildings of the agricultural faculty totals more than R1,000,000. The value of the buildings of the institution was estimated to be approximately R2,000,000 when the university gained its autonomy. In addition to the agricultural buildings, the library and the chemistry and physics buildings have since been extended at a cost of well over R200,000. The total value of the institution’s buildings is estimated to be R3,500,000 to-day as against R2,000,000 in 1949.

As regards the deletion of the conscience clause I do not have much to say. The hon. member for Welkom has already dealt with this matter in a very clear and positive way. I just want to emphasize that this development and growth which has taken place in the case of the Free State University has taken place on a Protestant Christian basis. It has always been the policy of the Council and the Senate of the University to encourage and to stabilize the upholding of Protestant Christian principles. The closest links have always been maintained with the Free State N.G. Kerk. This development has taken place in the closest co-operation with the Free State church. Thus the Free State N.G. Kerk has been given representatives on the Council since the university became autonomous. I think that the Universities of the Free State, Pretoria and Potchefstroom are the only universities in this country on the councils of which specific representation is granted to the churches. All we are now requesting, as the hon. member for Welkom has indicated, is the legal authority of this House for a policy which has always been followed at the Free State University. I therefore give this provision my wholehearted support.

I want to conclude and to repeat that the Free State public are interested in their university and that over the years the public has made great financial contributions so that with the assistance of the authorities the institution could be built up to what it is to-day. The progress which it has made is represented by this Bill. Seeing that this institution has made such outstanding progress, it is a pleasure for me to give this measure my wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who has introduced this Bill on the calm and objective way in which he has introduced this measure and approached the whole matter. However, I did not quite understand why he was so uncertain of his case that he got a second hon. member to introduce it with him! Because as far as I know it is not necessary to have a seconder when proposing a Bill. However, I still congratulate him on getting away with it.

I am not going to discuss the administrative aspect of this Bill. There is no objection to those provisions and there is nothing on which we need remark. We trust that the Free State will achieve great success with those provisions. But this Bill particularly affects a very delicate matter which touches the religion and the religious beliefs of the individual whether of a section of our population, or of our whole population, or of the various population and language groups in our population. And when one deals with religion or its application, when these matters are at issue, one has to be careful that one does not offend anyone and that one does not insult anyone. We know that people are very touchy as far as their religious convictions are concerned. I concede that the hon. member who introduced the Bill as well as his seconder realized this and that they did not make this a party political or a religious matter, but approached it purely from an objective point of view. I also intend putting the standpoint of this side of the House in the few remarks I want to make, as cautiously and objectively yet as frankly as possible. I have given my serious consideration to this important matter because I was also educated and brought up in the Protestant Christian faith. It was therefore not an easy task for me to reach a decision in this matter, but with all due respect I want to tell Dr. Barnard, the Scriba of the N.G. Kerk of the Free State, that as far as I am concerned I am not a “foreigner” (volksvreemde) because in his unfortunate letter which was published in this morning’s Burger he describes those who are opposed to this Bill as being foreign (volksvreemde) elements. I reject and deplore this statement and I shall leave it at that.

As explained by my hon. friend, this Bill in my opinion contains three main requests by the University of the Orange Free State. The first is the university’s request to be able to testify to the world that the university is based on Protestant Christian principles. Of course no one can have any objection to this because the university only wants to testify to the world that as an autonomous body it has the right to declare itself to be such, but it simply remains a statement and there is not the slightest possibility of its hurting anyone or offending anyone or of its conflicting with the university’s statutes. In the second place, the Council asks that regard should be had to these principles, namely the Protestant Christian principles, when members of its staff are appointed. This second request is one which can have very far-reaching consequences and flows from and is closely bound up with the Council’s drastic third request, as embodied in the Bill before us, to delete the conscience clause, that is to say Section 31 of the original 1939 Act which reads as follows—

The university is therefore asking us to permit it to appoint members of its staff, if it should so desire, on the ground of their religious convictions. By making this request, the university further indicates that it feels that Section 31 restricts it in appointing staff, and that it would like to be freed of it. If that is not so, why then is the university asking this House to delete the conscience clause? Its Council will then, once the conscience clause has been deleted and as an autonomous body, be entitled, if it should so wish, to discriminate against the applicants on the grounds of their religion. It can even, if it feels so inclined—to take an extreme case— tell the world that it will never appoint a Greek or a Mohammedan or a Buddhist or a free thinker as a lecturer. Please understand me quite clearly, I do not say that the university ever intends doing so, but as a fully independent institution, as an autonomous body, it will have the right to do so if the conscience clause is deleted. I repeat that I have no objection to this. If a full-fledged university and if an autonomous body wishes to take such action, it is its own affair, but the university will then, if we comply with its request, also be quite free of the restriction imposed on it by its statutes in Section 31, and that at its own request. In 1949 it requested that this restriction should be imposed. I think that it was Dr. van Rhijn who made this request at that time. Furthermore, if we should agree to this request, the State will be a party to religious convictions playing a rôle in appointments. The reason the university gives in its preamble is that it wishes to tell the world that the institution is based on Protestant Christian principles. If it had let this suffice, no one would have raised any objection, and then the university could have achieved everything about which it in good faith wishes to tell the world. The world would then have known that here was a university which was based on Protestant Christian principles. However, the Council has now gone further and in addition to making this quite understandable request to this House, has asked this House which upholds the principle of religious freedom, to cooperate, to be a party to the deletion of the conscience clause, so that in future the university will have the right to take the religious convictions of an applicant into consideration or to let them play a rôle in staff appointments. In other words, the university is asking this House to give it the right, if it should feel so inclined, to discriminate against an applicant on the grounds of his religious conviction. Mr. Speaker, hon. members on this side of the House who feel as I do cannot agree to this because although we grant the university full autonomy under its own constitution, we as Members of Parliament cannot possibly be a party to a step which will enable the university to discriminate on the ground of religious convictions when making appointments, and I therefore move as amendment—

In seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), I want to say at the outset that to me the most important part of this Bill is the threat to religious freedom in this country. Sir, I make no bones about it. I want to be quite open and tell you that to me as a non-Protestant there is in my view a distinct danger to religious freedom in this country, and by freedom I do not wish to mean only that a person shall have the right to worship in his own manner; it goes further than that. Religious freedom should give every person in this country the right to serve his country as he would like to do. Here is a Bill which in one of its clauses states that it wants the right to carry on its affairs as it wishes, and by the exclusion of another clause to prevent certain people who are not of a certain definite religious denomination to stand the chance of being excluded from the appointments made at that university. Well, I am against that. I do think it is necessary for our universities to have such a clause in its statutes. The conscience clause reads as follows—

This clause became enshrined in our university history many years ago. It first appeared in 1916 in the statutes of the University of South Africa, and in the same year it was adopted by the Universities of Stellenbosch and Cape Town, and in 1917 it was incorporated in the Higher Education Act, and when this Act was repealed in 1955 by the University Act, the conscience clause was preserved in every statute in which it had previously appeared. In 1921, as the years went on, it appeared in the statutes of the University of the Witwatersrand and then in the statutes of the University of Pretoria. In 1948 it appeared in the University of Natal Act, and in 1949 in the statutes of Rhodes University. It has thus become the established practice for the conscience clause to appear in all Acts of Parliament relating to the incorporation of universities. In 1949 the University of the Orange Free State omitted it in its Bill. This was the first time we saw an attempt to have the clause admitted. What happened then is well known to the members of this House. Dr. van Rhijn, who was in charge of the Bill, in moving the insertion of the conscience clause, stated that the College Council had been under the impression that the college was subject to the conscience clause contained in the Higher Education Act. But he satisfied hon. members on both sides of the House, who held strong views on the matter, that the Council was prepared to insert the conscience clause in the Bill, and accordingly the clause was incorporated in Section 31 of the Act, the section which it is now proposed to delete from the statutes of this university. In 1949 we passed on to another phase: the University of Potchefstroom, and here we dealt with a specific case which was different from all other cases. In this case we had a specific university catering for people who were going to study theology. We were warned then that even in this specific case it may be held up as a precedent for the future. Now what has happened? The “precedent for the future” has again raised its head, and because of what has happened in the past in relation to the omission of this conscience clause in this specific case we find that the University of the Orange Free State now wants to eliminate Section 31 from its statutes. Why? What reason is there? We have heard from the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) and Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) what wonderful strides the University of the Free State has made since its inception; how the number of students has grown; how the staff has grown, and what wonderful strides it has made academically. Has the conscience clause hindered this growth? Has any one appointment on the staff which was made by which a non-Protestant was appointed hindered the development of this university? Can any proof be furnished that its growth was stunted by the presence of the conscience clause? Sir, this conscience clause we have on the statutes of our universities to-day is a symbol of liberty, something that we hold on to very dearly, and I ask, in fact I demand, that that symbol remain as part of our South African life and a guarantee of freedom. I am afraid that what was a precedent in the case of the University of Potchefstroom and which may become a fact to-day in the case of the University of the Free State may set a pattern throughout South Africa, and I must fight against that. What is precedent to-day and what is an exception to-day will be the custom to-morrow. One university after the other will omit the conscience clause. Must we stand by and see this done without voicing our protest? As one who does not belong to the Protestant faith I object to it. As a Jew who knows what these things can lead to, I object most strongly, and I ask my fellow South Africans to stand with me for the preservation of these rights which up to now have been held so dearly by all of us. I do not want to be given examples of what happens in other countries; I want South Africa to be an example to other countries. What happens in other universities makes no difference, because they do not fit in with our way of life. We as South Africans who have been told that we will become one nation in the republic say to you: Do not divide us; do not start taking religious groups and putting them into kraals, because that is what will happen, and I will tell you why. If there is no conscience clause, what does it mean? It means that if two people apply for a vacancy on the university staff, both of equal standing, and one is a Protestant and another not, the Rector of the University has told us that the Protestant will get the appointment.

How does the non-Protestant feel then when applying? Does he say: I will take my chance and see what happens, or does he say: It is no good my applying because I do not stand a chance as I am not a Protestant? The University of the Orange Free State is a great university, and let it remain great, and let us make it even greater than it is, and let the best brains always come to that university, and the best brains can only be sought and judged if the competition is equal and if the judgment takes place on the value of the applicants for any post. Let us make sure that the best people apply for the posts and are not excluded by the threat of this clause which will be eliminated from the statutes. I know how I would feel if I were going to have to compete in an application for an appointment to the staff. I would feel that before I was even judged, my chances of appointment would be very small. What may the result be? It is not going to do the university any good. It will make them insular. It will have the privilege of having only one group of people at the university, and is that what a university is there for, for one specific group of people? No, a university should admit all and they should be taught by those who are able to teach, irrespective of their religion. But what is even worse, the interpretation put on this by outside people will be unfavourable to us. For our own sake, I will leave the subject and not go any further with it, but I ask you to think about it.

Tell us.

If anything happens you can always blame the English-speaking Press. When the Rector of the University gave evidence before the Select Committee, I may say that he made it clear to me and to the other members that they would only exercise their prerogative in the matter of appointments in exceptional cases, but what does that mean? What are the exceptional cases? We may get an answer to that question if we read this: “… and this is a matter which I personally brought very strongly to the notice of the Council, as it might render my position in the university untenable if the Council were continually to have recourse to that ”—

Why do they want to get rid of the conscience clause if it is going to be interpreted that way? Surely this university is autonomous. Has it not the right now to pick the best people? What prevents the university at the moment from picking the best, and what will prevent it from doing so in future? Only one thing will prevent it from picking the best, by not having the best from which to pick, and they will not get the best because of this serious omission which will take place in the statutes of the university. If no discrimination is going to take place and everyone is going to be treated on an equal footing, it is not necessary to take out this clause. But it is obvious from what was said by the Rector that they want to discriminate and they want to reserve certain appointments for certain people. They may have good reasons for it; the infiltration of people of non-Protestant faith into this university may be considered to be a bad thing. But why do they want to do it by omitting the conscience clause? What reason is there for it. But its omission may give the next university a more powerful weapon. As I said, what is a rare thing to-day will be the custom to-morrow and it will be the beginning of the destruction of university life. There will be only one or two universities left, from what I can see, which will open their doors to all people in respect of both staff and students. We have been told that the students of all denominations will be allowed in and there will be no religious test for students entering the university. I asked the Rector the question what happens if a graduate of this university qualifies and applies for a job on the staff, and he is a non-Protestant, and a Protestant from another university also applies, and they are of equal standing—who will get the job, the non-Protestant of the Free State or the Protestant from outside? He was quite open in what he said: “Probably the man from outside who is a Protestant.” Does that make things easier for those people who apply for appointments at universities? And what happens to the boy at the university who wins a scholarship because of his brilliance and there is a vacancy in the faculty to which he belongs? Will he have the right to take up that scholarship if he is a non-Protestant and if a Protestant from an outside university of equal standing applies? Will he get it? What happens to these people? There are exceptional circumstances in all cases, I agree, but I say it is distasteful to people like me to be faced with this sort of legislation, because we feel that we are going to be discriminated against. As I said, religious freedom does not end with being allowed to go and worship your God. It goes further than that. I say that in a university of all places we should be given the right to meet people of all kinds who want to go and learn, and those who are capable of teaching should be given the right to teach at those universities. Sir, there is a point that is most important and it affects the University of the Free State as it affects all our universities. The University of the Orange Free State does not only cater for the Free State; it caters for the whole of South Africa. Its doors are open to students throughout South Africa, and perhaps from all parts of the world, and South Africans support it. It is our South African money that goes into that university. This Government supports that university and I do not think the Government has the right to exclude people from a university that is supported by all sections of the community. Have we that right? Whether we achieve our aims in the face of difficulties is another matter. What barriers the Council of the university may put up, and what favouritism it may show, is one thing, but to say blatantly that “because you are a non-Protestant you cannot get a job here” is a different story. I must protest in the strongest possible manner against that sort of discrimination. Sir, you heard the late Dr. D. F. Malan’s views about the exclusion of the conscience clause; the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has already gone into that. We have heard what our Prime Minister had to say about religious freedom, and if I interpret his words correctly when he spoke about religious freedom at Ladysmith, I am sure he was not referring only to allowing people to go to whatever church they wish. I am certain that he wanted all of us to enjoy what we had in South Africa— all of it—whether it be our scenery or our sunshine or our educational facilities, and if he did not want us to share in that, then he had no right to talk about religious or any other freedom. But I take him at his word, and what he says means that we shall all enjoy the fruits of South Africa. I must appeal —in fact I demand—that the people of the University of the Orange Free State think twice about the exclusion of Section 31. I ask them to retain it. It is something that is good, something that is enshrined in our lives, in our educational existence here. Let us not be biased, let us not be prejudiced, and let us not discriminate against one section of our population.

I should like to congratulate the previous speakers on the attitude they have adopted because educational institutions and particularly this institution, which is my alma mater, always arouse sentimental feelings in my mind and I am always pleased to see matters affecting them being approached with care, calmness and objectivity, as the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has said. I also want to thank the hon. member for his attitude. Unfortunately I cannot congratulate the previous speaker, the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). There were one or two weak points in his argument but I just want to mention one of them at this stage, namely: Where does he come by his statement that the University of Potchefstroom, a university for Christian higher education, and the theological school at Potchefstroom are the same institution? When he ventured in this sphere, I could see that his arguments were deteriorating and from that stage on his arguments were poor. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to state the facts; I shall go into the matter later. At this stage I wish to move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 3 March