I move—

1. (a) their danger to South Africa;
2. (b) the importance of emphasizing South Africa’s strong anti-communistic policy; and
3. (c) the need for intensifying the realization among the anti-communistic countries that South Africa is an indispensable stronghold against Communism.

I want to commence by drawing a sombre picture and I am obliged to do so because Communism is a monstrous danger which has set itself the object of liquidating the Western as well as the Eastern civilizations. Communism is the direct autithesis of freedom as we know it. It means the total destruction of everything we value in the Christian, moral and political spheres. To achieve this aim, the communist is relentlessly working to:

1. (i) Conquer and dominate the world and the universe;
2. (ii) remake mankind in his thinking, way of life and standards of values, in other words, as far as we in South Africa are concerned, to liquidate Christianity.

To be able.to appreciate this cruel reality fully, we need to know what a communist is, the Marxian man as he is also called. In this regard the hon. the present Minister of Economic Affairs, Dr. Diederichs, has said the following in a book which he has written on this subject—

The communist does not believe that he has a soul, the communist does not believe that he has a Maker, and he does not believe that there is a life hereafter. As a matter of fact the motto of Carl Marx, the father of Communism, was “In one word, I hate all gods”. The communist’s philosophy of life is that he will succeed in controlling not only mankind but the cosmic world as well. He will become the ruler and the god of earth, and then will follow control of the whole universe. One of the works on this matter puts it as follows—

This is the direct opposite of what the civilized and religious man believes. The communist is in his very being an atheist. He is a barbarian, and his watchword is “revolution” in order to achieve all these aims. As a matter of fact the House and the world know that the so-called purges which take place in the communistic countries mean three things: Murder, banishment and forced labour. I almost feel inclined to say that murder is a necessity for the communists.

Furthermore, morality is completely absent from the communist. Honesty as we know it is foreign to him. For that reason he does not act like a normal being and his reactions are quite unpredictable, as we have so often seen in recent times.

The communist’s whole being dictates to him that he must use agreements and discussions as means towards the achievement of his ultimate aim, definitely not, as we believe, that they represent attempts to achieve peaceful coexistence. We regard the keeping of a contract as a question of honour, but the communist regards the breaking of an agreement as a victory. One of the well-known authorities in this field has said the following in this regard—

Because of this basic fact I believe that UNO will fail. Furthermore I want to add that as far as the West is concerned, the dissolution of UNO has become essential. In this regard I must also say that, since the U.S.A. is the leading country in the world, we feel concerned about the way in which President Kennedy proposes to deal with the Russians. In his first speech he said the following—

Fine words, but they are of no value in dealing with the communist and only offer him an opportunity to break his word once again.

We are living in the space age, a factor which makes the communist an even greater danger, a factor which must give him cause for optimism and which will inspire him to yet greater dedication to his struggle to control the world and the whole cosmic universe. Taking this into account, one sometimes wonders (when one considers the whole essence of the communist, his outlook, his beliefs, if one can call them that) whether in this space age the West will ever make up the backlog as compared with the Russians, and whether we may not find that before the backlog is made up, the communists will have destroyed everyone and everything.

In the second place I want to discuss the objects of international Communism and I shall deal with them very briefly. In 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels drew up the programme of the international communist, viz.: (1) The overthrow of capitalism; (2) the ending of private ownership; (3) the elimination of the family as a social unit; (4) the ending of class and racial divisions; (5) the overthrow of all governments and (6) the establishment of a communistic order with communal property rights, and a classless, stateless world. How these objects are to be realized, we find set out in the resolutions of the 1928 Communist International. They said the following—

That is the communist and his objects. It would be fatal for us to believe that the 1961 communist is anything different and that he has become any tamer. There has definitely been no change in either the communist or his objects. The communists are still striving to establish a world dictatorship by means of revolution. This is put quite clearly in the instructions to the present-day communist—

Further conclusive proof that Communism has not changed at all, is to be found in the speech made on 17 January by Mr. Khrushchev. In it he said—

On war his main point was (this is a Sapa report) that it was to Communism’s advantage to prevent a full-scale thermo-nuclear conflict, but he threw the full support of the world communist movement behind wars of national liberation.

He then referred to the revolution in Cuba and the conflict in Algeria as examples and of them he said—

There can therefore be no doubt that Communism to-day has definitely not changed for the better. In that regard I want to quote another very reliable authority, namely Field-Marshal Montgomery, who has said the following about the Russians—

He said that recently. Mr. Speaker, as regards the communist and his objects, I just want to add that the communist is an amoral monster, and that world Communism is monstrous and cruel and its activities throughout the whole world are colossal in scope.

I now just want to say a few words about the methods used by the communists, before I deal with their activities in Africa. The first method is to create confusion and chaos; the second to create dissatisfaction; the third to undermine loyalty and authority; the fourth to bring about revolution; and the fifth is to sympathize with and to offer assistance to all the so-called oppressed peoples and by so doing to pose as their best friend. I have already referred to the sixth method, namely, murder, banishment and forced labour and the so-called purges which have already claimed the lives of thousands, while others are in Siberia and elsewhere where they have to perform forced labour.

I now turn to their behaviour and their activities in Africa. We know that communist interest in Africa dates from the earliest years of this century. But I do not want to discuss that aspect to-day. I want to confine myself to the present phase in communist activity in Africa, which in my opinion was given the green light by the nationalization of the Suez Canal. The activities of the communists in Africa in my opinion have five objects: (1) To achieve access to the African continent; (2) to establish the concept of Black Pan-Africanism and to link with it the Afro-Asian concept; (3) to gain the favour of the Black states; (4) to indoctrinate the present and future Black leaders with Marxism; and (5) to make the emergent Black states dependent on Russia. I used the words “emergent” but I wonder whether one should not say the “declining” Black states when one sees the developments taking place in areas which have recently gained their freedom.

As regards the first point, namely access to the African continent, the Russians have daily contact with all the African states as a result of the development of air communications. But as far as territorial access to Africa is concerned, we know that the communists have a considerable foothold in Asia Minor and that through President Nasser in particular they have also brought Syria under their influence. I think that Israel is one of the few countries in the Middle East which is still strongly anti-communistic. I have referred to the United Arab Republic, and I contend that they are very good friends of Russia, although I have not been able to find proof that they are communists. As a result of the nationalization of the Suez Canal Russia has gained access to Africa and also to the Indian Ocean through the Persian Gulf. The bridgehead through Egypt is therefore a fait accompli. As a matter of fact, in very recent times they have found it very convenient to provide weapons to the supporters of Lumumba via the Sudan. In the Congo the Orientale province which borders on the Sudan is under the control of a communist dictator named Saluma who received his training in Moscow and it has been reported that large quantities of weapons are being supplied to him from Czechoslovakia. Russia also has access to Africa from the sea. There have been reports that a Russian submarine base has been opened in Guinea, and I am inclined to believe it because not only does their Prime Minister, Sekou Touré, visit Moscow, but many influential and responsible persons in Ghana told me personally that Touré was a communist. I think there is considerable truth in the report that a submarine base has been established there.

I come to the next point, namely the attempt to encourage Black Pan-Africanism and to link with it the Afro-Asian concept. We know that with a view to their domestic politics and their own positions, the question of Pan-Africanism is of very great importance to the Black leaders of Africa and that is why Russia is taking the lead in trying to bring the Black leaders of Africa together. Last year the “All African Trade Union Congress” was held in Lagos, and no less a person than Mr. Khrushchey sent a personal message in which he said inter alia—

We are also aware of conferences of African states at which the communists have played a leading role. One of the most important of these has been the recent conference at Casablanca. There is not the slightest doubt that the Russian advisers played a particularly prominent role at this conference and it was regarded in all quarters as a triumph for President Nasser. According to later reports, the position may since have changed slightly, but this meeting at Casablanca decided to establish a joint African command with the specific object of providing support wherever action had to be taken against the so-called colonialists.

And simultaneously with the attempt to establish a united Black Africa, Russia is propagating the Afro-Asian concept. The reason for this is obviously the fact that three-quarters of Russia lies in Asia. To tell the truth, the Afro-Asian concept is Russia’s brain child. In 1956 a conference of Afro-Asian states was held in Bandung, and it was followed in 1957 by the Afro-Asian Solidarity Congress in Cairo which is commonly referred to as the second Bandung Congress. At that congress in Cairo the following resolution was inter alia adopted—

Another method which the Russians are using in respect of Africa is to train students and leaders from Africa and Asia together and simultaneously in the same institutions in Moscow, Peking, Prague or Eastern Germany. This Afro-Asian concept is so important to Russia that the Committee for the Solidarity of Asian Countries, which the communists control, was recently re-named the Committee for the Solidarity of Afro-Asian Countries. In other words, they have even changed the name to suit the policy they are following. The point I want to make is that the union of Africa and Asia is undoubtedly the present policy of Soviet Russia.

The next point which I have mentioned in discussing communist activities in Africa is their attempt to gain the favour of the Black African states and to indoctrinate them with the communist ideology. The method being used is obvious and I do not want to discuss it. The communists are posing as the friends of the Black man. They are promising him support and assistance and are then overjoyed when Black states gain their independence. On the other hand the White man and colonialism are condemned. I can say that they make their affection for the Black states unashamedly obvious and that the undermining of the White man’s authority is their overriding aim. This to me is the deadly danger facing South Africa and it could bring about the eventual elimination of the influence of the Western nations throughout Africa.

I just want to give two examples of the communist attempts to gain the favour of the Black states. The non-White who at the moment is taking the place of Kenyatta who is still in prison, visited Russia and China not very long ago. He then returned with the message which all such visitors bring back, namely that the Black states can rely on the wholehearted support of Russia in their struggle against imperialism and colonialism. Recently a book by a Negro author, a certain Louis Lomax, appeared under the title “The Reluctant Africa”. He travelled through all the African states and he then wrote the following, which indicates the methods the communists are using in Africa—

As far as South Africa is concerned, he says—

He then asks—

Another point which I want to mention in discussing these activities is the reciprocal visits between Russia and the African states which are accompanied by luxurious receptions. Normally the Black man returns to Africa with a gift. I need only mention the example of Emperor Haille Selassie of Ethiopia. He returned with a jet aircraft as a personal gift to himself. We also know that last year the communists gave several aircraft to the Congolese.

I now want to say a few. words about the activities of the communists in Eastern Africa, Uganda, Tanganyika, Kenya, and Zanzibar. Here the Chinese communists are particularly active, and some reports claim that at least 5,000 of them are already active in these areas. All we know is that the Prague conference was linked with these activities and that the Chinese communists played an important role at that conference.

Then there is a final point: For years past already non-Whites have been studying in Moscow and other communistic countries, but last year Mr. Khrushchey went a step further by opening the “People’s Friendship University” in Moscow where 500 Blacks are being trained in Marxism. The communists claim that 43,000 young Black men and Asiatics have applied to follow the five-year course. The communists also play a tremendous role in the trade-union movement in Africa. I have here a report from the Cape Argus of 11 February of this year dealing with this matter—

As far as literature is concerned, it is unnecessary for me to say that communistic literature is being disseminated on a vast scale in Africa, all of which is being done with the object of indoctrinating the people of Africa. The communists are also active through the medium of diplomatic missions, the size of which is quite disproportionate to the importance of the states or the trade being carried on with those states. A little while ago it was reported that in Tunisia, for example, the Russian embassy had a staff of 300. Hon. members can realize what a tremendous influence they can exercise on such a country. A further method which they are using is the radio, and broadcasts are emanating particularly from Cairo, Moscow and Peking I have here a report by the British Broadcasting Corporation in this regard which gives the following information—

In the Burger of 15 February of this year we find this example—

Another example: “Kill the White dogs in Africa.” These words have recently been broadcast daily in more than 12 Native dialects by Egyptian radio stations.

Then there is another sphere in which the communists are very active, namely the technical, scientific and the economic assistance which is being provided. This is an extremely important sphere, but I do not want to discuss it; the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) who will second this motion, will go into that aspect more fully. I just want to draw one or two conclusions from their activities in Africa. The first is that the struggle against Communism in Africa will be of decisive importance in the over-all struggle against Communism. The presence of the White man in Africa is the greatest stumbling-block facing Communism, and that is why they want to eliminate the White man. But we must understand quite clearly and our friends of the West must understand quite clearly that the influence of the West will disappear and will be doomed for ever if the White man is eliminated from Africa. In this regard South Africa in particular is the last bastion of civilization on the continent of Africa.

The second conclusion which I want to draw in connection with the activities of the communists in Africa is that they have undoubtedly made progress, and they have achieved three things in particular. The first is the nationalization of the Suez Canal which has given them access to Africa and the Indian Ocean; the second is that the Western world to-day accepts them as people with whom they can consult in the council chambers of the world; and I think their third achievement is that the doctrine of the equality of all men, which they advocate, and which forms the basis of Communism and of Russian ideology to-day, is in fact being most energetically propagated by the Western powers. Mr. Speaker, England, the U.S.A., the World Council of Churches, etc., all ignore completely the diversity of Africa’s peoples. This I regard as one of the greatest achievements of Communism in this century. It is once and for all the position that a sickly liberalism holds sway to-day, a liberalism which condemns any White man who dares simply to say that there are natural differences, customs and philosophies of life, that each people has its own identity and that these things should be preserved. I find it disturbing that so many of South Africa’s friends completely ignore the established interests of the White man here on the southern tip of Africa and, by the same token, those of Western civilization as well. Those who are the greatest enemies of Communism have become the propagandists of a policy which createst the fertile soil Communism needs and the eventual domination by the anti-Christ. The bitter fruit is already being picked in Africa, because where confusion and chaos prevail, Communism flourishes.

In referring to this matter, I think it is necessary that I should quote the highest authority in our country, and I should like to read from a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 15 December 1958, when he said the following—

We are already picking the bitter fruits of this state of affairs. Just think of the consequences of the actions of the Belgians in the Congo. Just think of the consequences of the speech Mr. Macmillan made here in Cape Town last year. Just think of the consequences which will flow from the unusual statements —I say unusual statements, but I feel inclined to say shocking statements—which Mr. Soapy Williams has been making during his travels in Africa. I just want to say that the explanations which he and the U.S.A. have given still remain very “soapy”. I leave it at that. I do not think this is the occasion on which to discuss that matter.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to the folly of all nations, including the communists, in their behaviour towards the Black man in Africa—the folly of that behaviour, the stupidity of that behaviour. I just want to give one or two examples. The late Lumumba travelled to New York—one does not know who paid for his journey. He arrived there and the red carpet was put down for him. But who was he? He was a leader—not one of stature—of Black people in the Congo, but he was a post office clerk who had already been convicted of fraud. He went to America, the greatest nation in the world; the red carpet was put down for him. He stayed in the same flat as the Queen of England occupied while she was there. Everyone fell over themselves to entertain this man as no monarch had ever been entertained before.

They arrived there with £8 in their pockets.

I am not disparaging the Black man in Africa in any way. I think that would be wrong and we dare not do so. Nor do we want to do so. I am pointing out the folly of the behaviour of all nations in this regard. In Ghana the late Lumumba is now a saint. There is a church which has the special name of “Saint Lumumba’s Church”. He is held up as a saint. In Russia, Mr. Khrushchey himself has announced that a training institution—I think a university—will be named after Lumumba. Mr. Speaker, I think that is all I need say in this regard.

I just want to say that the activities of the communists in Africa are being further aggravated by the fact that, to a large extent, one is still dealing with barbarians. In this regard I should just like to quote something which Dr. Diederichs said in the book he has written on Communism. He said the following—

If that is true, and it is true, then I say that the problem is still greater when one is dealing with an overwhelming majority of barbarians, which is the position in Africa.

But in this dark picture I honestly see one or two rays of light. These are that the signs still are that Russia’s chances of success in Africa are dubious. In the first place, our good friends in Mozambique stand unequivocally opposed to Communism. According to our information, Mr. Nyerere of Tanganyika is certainly not communistically inclined; and the same applies to Nigeria and other African states. Together with this, I see one or two other rays of light as well. In the first place there is the fact that the Russians are also regarded as Whites by the Black men of Africa, and their anti-White propaganda is still going to be a boomerang. The second is that I believe, and this has been my observation, that, with the exception of certain Black leaders in Africa, the Black peoples are inherently not communistically inclined, and in this regard I also have the greatest faith in the Bantu and the Brown man in South Africa. Inherently they are not communistically inclined. The third ray of light I see is that the Russian, with his propaganda against the White man, is making the Black man so acutely aware of exploitation, or is arousing such strong feelings against exploitation, that the Black man will not tolerate the communist either. When one reads what the Black leaders in Africa have written, it is quite clear that they realize this. The Black man also realizes what Russia’s object is. He realizes that Russia wants to use the Black man to break the West and then to rule Africa herself. I have here just one quotation from the book by George Patmore, the former adviser of Dr. Nkrumah, in which he had the following to say on this subject—

He goes back a little into history—

And he then referred to the assistance which the Turks used in 1920, but they definitely did not become communists thereafter. He concludes with this sentence—

He goes on to say—and this is why I say that I regard this as a ray of light because it is an indication of what the Black leaders are saying—

Mr. Speaker, I, therefore, definitely see rays of light in respect of this matter as well. But I ask: Does the danger nevertheless not remain that, although the communists may eventually not succeed in Africa themselves, the White man will in any case be destroyed during this process?

I want to leave Africa now, and I turn to the second section of the motion which deals specifically with South Africa. I just want to say a few very brief words about the history of the communists in South Africa. I think one should start in 1915 with the establishment of the International Socialist League (the I.S.L.). It was originally established because its members were opposed to the world war, and they immediately commenced publishing a journal under the title International, which concentrated particularly on advocating the abolition on all forms of restrictions on the Natives. It is perhaps interesting to know that in 1915 they even put up two candidates, viz. in Langlaagte and Georgetown, but they only polled 82 and 58 votes respectively. This was the I.S.L., which was the predecessor of the Communist Party. On 29 July 1921, the Communist Party was established in Cape Town, and the I.S.L. immediately became affiliated to it. Let us realize quite clearly that the former Communist Party of South Africa was, until it was banned, affiliated to the Communist Party in Russia and to Communism in Russia itself. They concentrated particularly on advocating that the pass laws should be abolished and that there should be free education for all. They went so far as to establish a night school in Ferreiradorp with communist teachers in 1925. It was from 1926 onwards that the Communist Party devoted its attention particularly to the African National Congress, and did so to such an extent and so effectively that the Communist Party and the A.N.C. in Johannesburg had the same head office. The Communist Party grew to such an extent that by 1928 it was the strongest non-White organization in South Africa. When the May Day celebrations were held in 1928 thousands of Natives, carrying communist banners, held a procession in Johannesburg. The policy which they advocated at that time was the following. They advocated particularly that the British and Boer imperialism which were oppressing the Native masses of South Africa, should be destroyed as soon as possible and they pointed out that the only way to achieve this aim was by means of revolution.

After 1928 the Communist Party lost ground to a certain extent and as a result of certain developments—which I do not want to discuss now—they suffered a setback. But their greatest opportunity came when Russia entered the last world war. Then the communists in South Africa became good fighters against everything which was despicable and bad. Now they appeared in public and they were even accepted to such an extent by the then South African Government—not only by the Government, but also by certain people in South Africa—that an organization with the name “The Friends of Soviet Russia” was established. As we know, the statesmen of that time blessed Russian weapons. They even went so far as to make the broadcasting service available to the communists on May Day, 1942, on which occasion they encouraged the communists and their supporters to further the war effort. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in that year the Communist Party of South Africa became an honoured guest which could operate in the open. May I say that nor did they let the opportunity pass to propose equality between Black and White in very eloquent terms, and they even asked that the Blacks should be armed. At that time, they were operating in public to such an extent and they were such good people that at the 1943 election the Communist Party put up nine candidates. I must say that not one was elected. The same happened in 1948. Once again they put up several candidates, but fortunately not one was elected. As a result of the war years the position deteriorated to such an extent that the hon. the Minister of Transport, at that time Minister of Labour, stated in this House in 1949 that the Government knew that the communists were playing an important role in one-third of the 215 registered trade unions, and that this was particularly true of the mixed and Native trade unions.

And in the meantime a Russian embassy and a consular agency were established in Johannesburg and Pretoria which immediately became the centre of the communist campaign in South Africa. After this development, communist activities increased rapidly to such an extent that the Department of Justice appointed a special departmental committee to investigate the position, and that committee revealed that the position had become very critical. For the moment I want to leave the history of Communism in South Africa at that.

I now turn specifically to the methods being used by the communists in South Africa. The first aspect which I want to mention is that ever since the establishment of the Communist Party, they have mainly sought to align themselves with the Bantu. They are doing so by undermining the authority of the White man. Dr. Piet Meyer, at present of the Broadcasting Corporation, says in his book, “The Hand of Moscow in South Africa”—

Allow me to tell my hon. friends opposite, and the Liberal Party as well, that this propaganda is not only aimed at the National Party Government. This propaganda is aimed at all White men in South Africa, even at those who offer so-called co-operation. Moreover, the communists say so in one of their pamphlets. This is one of the things they are spreading amongst their people—

There is only one inference one can make, namely that their propaganda as a whole is aimed at all White men. In addition, they are undermining the authority of the chiefs and tribal authorities in the country, as we have clearly heard in this House. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this is not only the position in the Union of South Africa. We have seen this recently in Angola. I have here the Cape Argus of 25 February and in it we read the following—

These are not developments which are confined to the Union of South Africa. This is the pattern throughout Africa. In their activities in South Africa the communists are also making extensive use of the history of this country. By distortions and lies they are presenting our history in a light which will encourage dissatisfaction amongst the Blacks. In this so-called history which they have written and which they are distributing, they refer nowhere to the barbarism and illiteracy of the Black man in the past. They deliberately talk as though all Black men have been civilized and developed ever since 1652 when the White man came to this country. In this so-called history of theirs they have this to say about the Voortrekkers—

Even Union does not escape their condemnation. They have the following to say about Union—

And then in their history they use the same words as we have heard during this Session—

Another method which they are using very assiduously is to try to break down the barriers between the various races in South Africa. In one of their pamphlets they tell the Natives the following—

To my sorrow I must say that in all this propaganda White communists in South Africa are unfortunately the brains behind this agitation and the disturbances which have broken out sporadically. I have to say this to my regret, but it is true. Their numbers may not be large, but they are the brains behind these developments.

Then a third method which the communists are using is, as we know, the use of international front organizations. I do not want to discuss them but I only want to mention one of the most important which was established in 1941, namely the World Peace Council. Here in South Africa we also have front organizations which are affiliated to the international front organizations and which in turn are directly affiliated to the Communist Party. I just want to give a list of those in South Africa of which we know: The African National Congress, South African Indian Congress, Congress of Democrats, Pan-Africanist Congress, South African Peace Council, Transvaal Peace Council, South African Coloured Peoples Organization, the Society for the Peace and Friendship of the Soviet Union, National Liberatory Movement in South Africa, Federation of South African Women, International Union of Students and the South African Congress of Trade Unions. Apart from this, they are also trying to gain influence in various other organizations. Hon. members and particularly members of my own profession will know that they recently tried to gain control over the funds and management of no less an organization than the Cancer Fund of South Africa. They got their supporters to enrol as members just before the general meeting. Fortunately this plan was discovered and they did not succeed. A definite attempt was made, and I say it is generally known, to gain control of the Cancer Fund in Johannesburg. By these means they are still pursuing their underground activities. It is very difficult to combat the literature which comes into South Africa from abroad. But here in South Africa they, once again, have started to publish a journal under the name the Spark which propagates their objects and which is aimed particularly at underming the authority of the White man. I think that there is ample evidence that the communists are trying and are trying actively to undermine the authority of the White man in South Africa at present.

Having said that, I want to conclude with this thought: If this is the position and if Communism is the barbarous monster we believe it to be. what is the task which awaits South Africa in the years ahead? I believe that in the first place we must expose the communists and Communism in all their nakedness to all the peoples in our country and the world. I feel that making our people realize what the communist is. should form part of the syllabus at our universities, our high schools, our technical colleges and also of our adult education organizations. I feel that we should indoctrinate the Whites as well as the non-Whites in South Africa against Communism. I know the word “indoctrinate” is a suspect word because it is linked to Communism. I have taken the trouble to look up the meaning of the word, and I want to repeat that we should definitely indoctrinate them against Communism because all indoctrinate means, according to the dictionary, is “to imbue with learning”. I believe that we should imbue our people with the knowledge of what the communist and Communism are. I believe that the heads of educational institutions should voluntarily start with this work at once; it should, also be started immediately in the Bantu, Coloured, and Asian schools and colleges. And our churches—all churches— should do far more to expose Communism. It would perhaps be a very good thing, and what is more the right thing, if the World Council of Churches would devote more of its time to combating this devilish ideology.

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member is proposing a tremendous indoctrination programme against Communism—a completely negative proposal. Does he not think that it would be far better to undertake a positive campaign on the basis of one’s principles and that which is one’s own?

I want to say in all kindness to the hon. member, because I have great respect for him, that some of us think negatively and others positively. I am thinking specifically along positive lines in telling our people what a monstrous thing Communism and the communist are, and what a monstrous thing their ideology is. If he knows that—and I am coming to that—he will realize that there is only one way to govern South Africa and that is the way in which it is governed to-day. I feel that the public service, the police and the Defence Force should not lag behind either. Even our great employers’ organizations should even make use of the lunch break to expose Communism because until we know what the communist is and what his objects are, we shall accept him as the world does to-day. I feel that even our politicians should expose the communist to a far greater extent at meetings and those opportunities which present themselves, even in this House. We may differ as to how these aims should be achieved. But even in this House, and I say this with confidence and without reservation—I believe that the overwhelming majority of members in this House are anti-communist. Even though we may differ as to the method, we must speak with one voice and we must stand together as one man against the monstrous threat of Communism.

The Press should also do far more in this regard. Why cannot every newspaper—not all of them at once—set aside one week every year as an anti-communist week? The hon. member has referred to taking negative steps. The communists also make propaganda. They also propagate their objects, but it is for us to reveal the communists for what we consider them to be, because they present Communism in the flattering light in which they see it. In other words, both are positive.

Mr. Speaker, I should be failing in my duty if I did not point out in discussing this aspect that South Africa and the whole world should be thankful for what this Government at least has done to combat Communism. Because what has this Government done? In the first place it first reduced the size of the staff of the Russian Consulate in Pretoria and eventually closed the Consulate in 1956. Then there is Suppression of Communism Act which was piloted through this House. The Communist Party has been banned and to-day communists are listed and can therefore be controlled and branded as communists. We have expelled communists from this House and the provincial councils. I also say without any reservations that our Police Force in particular is making it its task to uncover and to combat communist activities. I think that the mere fact that several communists have fled from South Africa, particularly in recent times, is proof that they are not finding things too pleasant here.

But while we are doing all this, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I just ask if we should not take much stricter action against Communism because, bearing in mind the philosophy of the communist, it seems to me to be futile to deal with him under the ordinary rule of law. He has no respect for democratic institutions. Should he then not be treated in a way which he himself will understand? In these critical times in which we live, has it not become time for us to speak to the communists in our ranks in the language which they at least will understand—their own language? In this regard I just want to point out that the number of listed communists at this moment is less than the number of the members the Communist Party had when it was banned. I want to leave it at that. I am merely asking whether we should not speak to the communist in his own language.

That is all I want to say as far as South Africa is concerned. As far as our future international task is concerned, I feel that our primary task is to make the world understand —and we have not yet succeeded in this—that South Africa is the indispensable bulwark against Communism in Africa. We must make the world realize that if the South African White democracy is not preserved, Western influence in Africa will to a large extent disappear. In this regard we must point out specifically what contributions we are making to Western thought and strategy. Just think of our geographic position on the southern tip of Africa. We are the half-way house between the East and the West. I think the Suez crisis proved that more conclusively than anything else. Think of the raw materials which we have and which are of the utmost importance to the West in time of war and in time of peace. In the scientific sphere we are rendering services of incalculable service to the West. I do not want to discuss this aspect in detail, but I just want to say that the West must also realize that in solving the problems of Africa, South Africa is the one country which can set the right example and which can be of the greatest assistance and which is assisting at the moment through the medium of the C.C.T.A. and other organizations.

I think the second task facing us in the international sphere is to make the West realize that we are the natural link with the African states. We are an African power, but we are a Western democracy, and we are an indispensable asset to the anti-communist countries. Allow me to say clearly that as far as we are concerned we want to co-operate with all the Black states in Africa in matters of common interest, and if there is one matter which is of common interest to us all, it is this question of Communism. For that reason we want to cooperate wholeheartedly with all the Black states of Africa which are anti-communist. I also think that at the Prime Ministers’ Conference which is about to take place, it should be realized quite clearly that South Africa is one of the bastions against Communism in Africa, and that it should be noted particularly that while South Africa is a bastion in this struggle, there are members of the Commonwealth whose anti-communist feelings are very feeble indeed. I have here the autobiography of President Nkrumah of Ghana and he said the following about himself—

I say it is of the utmost importance that the Prime Ministers’ Conference should realize that we are an anti-communist bulwark, the strongest in all Africa.

In this regard I just want to submit one or two facts to show how South Africa is playing her part as an anti-communist power. I have mentioned the fact that we have banned Communism. We did our duty in fighting the communists in Korea when a large number of countries stood aloof. In the forum of UNO the Union through its support of the anti-communist countries has unequivocally given its support to the standpoint of the West. A very important point is that as regards defence South Africa is prepared to co-operate with America especially in establishing certain defence installations Several of which have already been erected in the Union. The West has no better friend in Africa than the Union, and I say that once again on the highest authority. I want to quote again from what the hon. the Prime Minister said on 14 December 1958—

I say that these words should find a very clear echo at the deliberations in London.

In the international sphere I also believe that we have a third task, and this is so because Communism does not only threaten the Christian but the Jew, the Roman Catholic and the Mohammedan as well. For that reason we must combine these faiths into one mighty force against Communism. South Africa can perhaps take the lead in this respect.

And then the last and perhaps the most important point, and this may answer the question which the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) has put to me. I believe that we cannot combat an ideology such as Communism without another ideology. I want to read it to the House—

South Africa is serving the cause of democracy on the Continent of Africa. It will stand as long as the White man remains here, and we must make the Western warld realize this.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude where I began. The communist is an amoral monster. The communist is monstrous and cruel. The activities of the communist throughout the world are colossal in their scope. In this world struggle and in. Africa South Africa has an important role to play. In my heart, which is not the heart of a communist but that of a Christian, I believe that the reason why we are here is to oppose Communism and that is why Christian White civilization will not be destroyed on the southern tip of Africa. I move.

I second. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), on taking the initiative in moving this motion and on directing the attention of the Western world, of this House and of the country to this danger which threatens the whole Western world and more specifically our continent. I also congratulate him on the way in which he has succeeded in describing the tactics used by Communism in this continent as well as in South Africa, and also on the positive submissions he has made in reply to the question which the hon. member opposite has put to him. I congratulate the mover of the motion and I regard it as a privilege to second his motion. I just want to remark that it was noticeable while the hon. member was discussing Communism and its methods, how uncomfortable the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) was. I do not think the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark was referring to him, but it was clear that the hon. member for Musgrave had no faith in the future of South Africa.

The threat of Communism has become the dominating issue of our time for us in South Africa, a problem which will determine the steps by which we must implement our policy because it is a practical and real threat. It has also become a problem which makes it essential that we should hasten in the implementation of our policy of separate development for the various races in South Africa, each along their own lines. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has said.

When Russia changed her form of government 44 years ago, this stronghold of Communism was still backward and weak and very soon she had to begin organizing five-year plans so that, in addition to the propagation of her ideology, she could also acquire a different type of power, a power which would give her the only method of conquering the world in the twentieth century, namely the power of science, of technology and of economics. That is why these five-year plans were introduced with the aim of making Russia a powerful country so that she could move against the other countries which she wished to threaten. Communism over the past 15 years has achieved shocking successes and has become a new threat through the financial and technical as well as the scientific aid and advice which she is giving to the backward countries of Africa, Asia and Central America. By way of scientific advice and economic and technological assistance, the communist powers, Russia and China, are offering assistance to the backward countries of Africa to-day. The methods the communists are using to conquer this continent consist of their old programme of capturing the minds of the Black leaders and of inciting the masses in Africa against the Whites so that they can move ahead in accordance with their own plans. Russia has also emerged as a powerful force in the economic sphere. The communist tactics in Africa are in the first place following Molotov’s old plan which in 1953 he described as follows—

This assault on our continent is in the first place taking the form not only of the old tactics of working to conquer the minds of the Bantu leaders and of inciting the masses, but is being furthered by financial aid and advice on a massive scale. I submit that Communism has also won the struggle for the sympathy of the masses on this continent and is now taking over the continent physically through its offers of assistance in various forms. In my further remarks I should like to confine myself to the economic assault of Communism on the African continent and I want to try to substantiate the submissions I have just made. I want to commence by saying that by its actions in this continent, through the assistance which it is providing to the African countries, as well as the way in which it is leaving the continent, the West is in fact offering Communism the opportunity for which it was waiting, and that the West is in fact helping Communism and offering it an opportunity which may make its task easier. In the first place I want to add further emphasis to this point by submitting that the Western powers are leaving with their technical knowledge and capital. By so doing, they are creating a vacuum which the communists are filling. The creation of such a vacuum is something for which the communists have in fact planned, and they are being assisted by the co-operation which they are receiving from their liberal friends in Western circles, whether at UNO or in the State Department of the U.S.A. As the Western powers leave Africa and by so doing create a vacuum, the communists immediately fill that vacuum with the right people together with the right advice and assistance, as though ordered in advance. In propagating the cry of freedom the communists do not remind the non-White states in Africa of the real possibility that Western aid may not be forthcoming. They are not told that they cannot live on freedom alone. When the Black states then have to stand on their own feet and they find that they cannot continue without financial and technical aid, Russia is soon on the scene with just the right assistance at the right time and in the right place. This happened in countries like Guinea when the French walked out and left the country without any technical and financial aid. The same happened in the Congo, and this is the state of affairs which gives the communists the opportunity to act.

But I go further and say that there is a second way in which the Western powers are preparing the way for the communists to take over when they themselves leave, that is to say, the Western powers are leaving Africa so rapidly that the masses of peaceful Natives who form by far the majority, are being left to the mercies of power-drunk agitators, while the law of the jungle once again prevails. I want to substantiate the submission I have just made by reading what Kenneth de Curcy says in the January issue of Intelligence Digest—

He substantiates my submission that the Western powers are leaving so rapidly that the masses are being left to the mercies of power-drunk agitators.

But I want to refer to a third way in which the Western powers are helping the communists, and I am referring to the way in which they provide financial assistance. The Western powers are providing large sums of money in the form of gifts or loans without exercising any control over the spending of that money. On the other hand Russia does not give one rouble away without exercising the strictest control over the spending of that money, so much so that every gift or loan brings the recipients ever more firmly into the tentacles of the communists. I want to give the example of Guinea which received 5,000 tons of rice as a gift from America, but President Tourè immediately sold it at half the price to China and used the money himself. America gave the rice but did not retain any control over it, and the Natives continued to suffer hunger while China got the rice and Tourè wasted the money. But I want to give a further example, namely the conference of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa which was held in Tangiers during February 1960. On this commission the Western powers were represented together with six or eight independent African states, together with Nigeria, Somaliland, the Congo, India and Russia, and using their majority, they passed an important resolution, namely that all assistance which the West provides to Africa will be used by the African states on the basis that there will be no bilateral agreements, but only multi-lateral agreements. This means that if America gives Guinea £50,000,000, it must be deposited in a joint pool and the African states will decide how to spend that money without America or England being able to do anything about it. They are using Western money to trade with Iron Curtain countries. This year England will provide £50,000,000 to an International Development Association which is to be established. This money need no longer be spent in England, nor in the West. England will therefore provide the funds which these countries will or can use to trade with countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Can you give us any justification for our wool trade with Russia?

That is not relevant at the moment. The hon. member can speak himself presently.

But I want to go further and give example. But it seems to me that the hon. member who has asked the question is dissatisfied because I am discussing these agreements in this way.

I only wanted to know.

I want to go further and give examples, i.e. in the fourth place the Western powers, by leaving Africa, are allowing communistically inclined officials to act for them in Africa, and in many cases the communists have planted those officials there to help them to get the West out of Africa. That being so, no opposition is being offered to Communism in Africa. I want to give one or two examples. I want to read from the New York Mirror of 9 February of this year. This report deals with an official who is acting in the Congo. He is a man with the name of Duran, and this is what the New York Mirror has to say about him—

I want to give a further example to substantiate my submission. I am reading from the American News of September 1960—

I want to give a third example, namely that of Joseph Thuo, the former secretary of the Mau Mau, who is now the Press officer for the UNO information service in Kenya. I have just shown that the West is using the service of such people which only makes the task of the communists easier. I agree with the statement of the mover of the motion that the communists will not change their beliefs.

The pattern followed in providing this economic assistance to the African states is that these states are made dependent on the communist countries and that the communist countries take over the key industries and the military bases of such states through their technical aid. I want to illustrate this process with further examples, and I think that we can summarize the position by reading how the Review of Africa described the position in July, under the heading “Soviet Assistance to African Territories Totals £600,000,000“. The journal stated—

I also want to confine myself to this aspect in my further remarks. The tactics which the communists are using are the following: In the first place, under the guise of providing technical services, they are inundating the under-developed African countries with trained communist agents. Here I should just like to give a few examples to substantiate this point. Under an agreement between the two countries, China has sent 5,000 technicians to Guinea to teach the people of Guinea how to cultivate rice. They have trained 5,000 people who arrived there with maps, trained people who were fully acquainted with the geography and the typography of the country. Some of them also knew the language; some had previously been connected with universities where they had been prepared in advance for their task and they were all selected communist agents who were not only going to cultivate rice, but who would also help to take over the whole country. Then I give a second example, namely that of the agreement between Russia and Guinea. In December an agreement was entered into whereby Russia was to send 40 engineers to improve and to control the railways in Guinea. These 40 engineers have practically taken over the whole railway system of Guinea and now Guinea is in the hands of Russians who are only providing the local population with as much knowledge as they want to provide and Guinea cannot do anything about it. As far as her railways are concerned, Guinea has in fact been taken over by these 40 engineers. Furthermore, Russia is now also to develop the Fei river valley. The Fei river valley project is one of the few projects in that country which can be developed. All the resources required to make it the country’s main development project are found here. 7,000 morgen are now to be put under rice. The technicians have arrived with their own machinery which they alone can operate and they do not teach the local Natives how to operate that machinery. These technicians undertake the planning and they also take over complete control of the area.

Then I want to give a third example, namely the assistance which Guinea has received from Yugoslavia. An agreement has been entered into whereby Yugoslavia will provide technical and scientific assistance in prospecting the country and planning industries and towns. The right to prospect in that country gives Yugoslavia the opportunity to map the entire country and to obtain all the information required if the communists want to take over the country. But in addition Yugoslavia is being given the opportunity to gain full control over the country’s industrial development and the planning of towns.

I want to give a fourth example, namely, that of Egypt, where 70 per cent of the total national income is derived from cotton. By a clever trick it was so arranged that the particular government body which determines the cotton price, and which is packed with communists, suddenly decided that the price should be 30 per cent higher than the world price with the result that Britain refused to buy the cotton. Overnight the Sudan found herself in a crisis and she did not know how to solve this problem. Allow me to read to the House what no less a paper than the London Times has had to say about this type of behaviour. The London Times described these tactics as follows—

In other words a concession was made so that they could enter into the agreement in terms of their currency—

And provision was made that they would rise to as much as 70 per cent. I read further—

I now make a further submission. The communists are tying the African countries to them by entering into many favourable trade agreements which are not economic for the communists but which give them a hold over the countries concerned. I also want to give as an example Egypt, to which I have just referred. I now give a further example: Last year Russia lent 400,000,000 dollars to Ethiopia. In granting this loan it was agreed that Russian officials and agents could land in Ethiopia without passports and could move freely throughout the country in order to investigate whatever they wished. In the meantime Russia built an embassy in Ethiopia on 50 morgen of land behind a barbed wire fence in Addis Ababa. The Russians very soon equipped this 50 morgen of land with a powerful radio transmitter. Hundreds of thousands of people are sometimes gathered together simultaneously on this 50 morgen of land, but because they can travel throughout the country and because they can map it as and when they like, within a few months they also established the various routes by which the whole of Africa can be supplied with weapons via Ethiopia.

I am mentioning this as an example of how trade agreements are being used to open the way for the communists’ attempts to make this continent an easy prey. I give a further example of how communist countries are entering into agreements which do not really benefit them financially but which they are entering into with ulterior motives. I give the example of China and Guinea. Guinea has been granted a £9,500,000 interest-free loan under an economic and technical co-operation agreement in terms of which China will send technicians to develop Guinea’s economy. Then I give a further example of an interest-free loan which Russia too has given Guinea. It suits Russia to lose a little interest. The loan has been granted for the industrial development of the Konkoure River, but the terms of the agreement are such that it will give Russia full control over the carrying out of the programme. In other words, it suits the communists to grant an interest-free loan if, in the process, they can gain control over the main development area of the country concerned.

I go further and I contend that the communistically inclined countries of Africa are making the position of the West as difficult as they can in order to break the West’s hold on Africa, particularly in the military sphere. Mr. Speaker, the temerity and effrontery of the communistically inclined countries in this attempt know no bounds, and the West is revealing a shocking naïvéte in this specific respect.

Stupid.

Allow me to give the House one or two examples of what is happening. Libya has entered into an agreement with the U.S.A. in terms of which a large air base is made available to America in Libya. It cost the U.S.A. 100,000,000 dollars to construct this large airfield and when it was completed this miserable little country, Libya, told the mighty United States: “I shall decide in which wars you may use the air base.” Libya went further and told America: “I shall still allow you to use this air base, Wheelus Field, which you have built, but in the meantime I am increasing the rental by 4,000 per cent.” She made the position practically impossible for America and what happened? America accepted the position without protest, she is paying the 4,000 per cent increased rental. This Wheelus Field is one of the airfields in Northern Africa which America is using to protect the West because it is from that base that she must cover the Mediterranean area and Southern Europe with her aircraft. This Wheelus Field has practically been taken over by this small country Libya. But there are even worse examples. I give the example of Morocco which is much worse. In this case the U.S.A. has spent 500,000,000 dollars on erecting six of the world’s largest air bases in Morocco which, together with that in Libya, give the U.S.A. air control over Northern African and Southern Europe. As soon as the air bases were completed Morocco demanded that America should leave and hand over the air bases. Instead of America making a stand, as one would expect of a great country, President Eisenhower took steps to satisfy this small, poor, miserable Morocco. In December 1959 he expressed his satisfaction with the excellent relations existing between America and Morocco and he entered into an agreement under which the airfields would be handed over in three years’ time. The first has already been handed over to Morocco and the last will be handed over in 1963. But Morocco then had six large modern airfields for which she did not have the necessary technicians, and she immediately entered into agreements with Russia and China whereby they will provide the required technicians. America has now spent 500,000,000 dollars on building airfields; she then gave them as a present to Morocco who, in the meantime, is manning those airfields with communists. I say that the behaviour of the West in many of these cases is absolutely shocking. I now want to tell the hon. members opposite that I hope we are in agreement when I say that this is a shocking state of affairs.

I want to give a third example to show how difficult the position is being made for the West—the example of Guinea. Overnight, after independence had been granted, Guinea notified France that the four large French banks on which the whole economy of Guinea was dependent, had to leave the country and they did so. Then no banking services were available and they immediately approached Russia and Russia sent economic advisers to provide the necessary services. But these new services which were then provided were not simply banking services; they were immediately also advised to have all import and exports controlled through the medium of the banks. That is what happened.

Mr. Speaker, the difficulties which result from the balance of payments problems are facilitating the economic take-over of this continent. The demand for imports of the young African countries is rising more rapidly than the local production. Sir, my time is running out and I must hasten. Communist countries are supplying machinery and equipment together with their own technicians. Here I want to give the example of an agreement with Egypt for the building of a submarine base in the Mediterranean Sea. in terms of which; Russian technicians are also to be supplied so that they can control the entire base. I also want to refer just briefly to the provision of Russian technicians for manning air bases in Northern Africa. I go further and say that communist countries are buying from African countries and are providing loans or offering technical assistance and they are paying with services which give them control over such industries. In addition to these developments there is also a pattern, namely to take over key industries. Thus Russia lent Ethiopia £56,000,000 in 1960 but with the intention of developing key industries over which Russia would once again have control through her technicians. In other words, these countries are also being taken over as a result of the industries on which they are dependent being manned by communists. Then I just want to give this example in respect of Ghana because she is a member of the Commonwealth. We have all read of the great Volta scheme in Ghana. In the meantime Russia has entered into an agreement with Ghana whereby she will undertake a smaller scheme herself with Russian finance and assistance. But Ghana is now calling for tenders and loans for the much-discussed great Volta scheme. However, she has already entered into an agreement with Russia to the effect that the planning and execution of the scheme will be undertaken with the assistance of Russian technicians. Then I just want to mention in passing a ninth method which the communists are using within the framework of this pattern to achieve their aims, i.e. she is extending her control over Africa through the training of students outside Africa. I refer once again to the figure which the mover of the motion mentioned when he said that 43,000 students were on the list of applicants to disappear behind the Iron Curtain. Further information is that 12,500 students from Africa have been trained behind the Iron Curtain by this method during the past three years.

From the preceding it must therefore be clear that Communism has succeeded in gaining a controlling position in Africa which gives her a great advantage over the countries of the West. The communist countries have succeeded in achieving the following aims: Strategic control of northern Africa by means of air communications and air bases; gaining control of key points on the northern side of this continent via Egypt, on the eastern side of this continent via Ethiopia and on the western side of this continent via Guinea. They have created a triangle which they are now linking up by means of air bases so as to cut the northern part of the continent off completely from the West in time of trouble. This is a fact which we must accept. Furthermore the communists with their technical aid agreements have succeeded during the past three years in mapping and exploring the important countries of this continent by using their own technicians. They know more about these countries than the West because they have initiated large-scale research projects. They know exactly what is available to them from a military point of view; they are familiar with the topography of Africa and they also know more than the West about the mineral resources of this continent which they have mapped in detail through their technicians. This is the progress they have made.

As far as the Congo is concerned, they have now entered the central portion of this continent in order to gain a hold over the masses. And there the communists are trying—and they will probably succeed—to gain control over one of the world’s richest sources of copper and to gain control over the world’s greatest potential hydro-electric project. When one also takes into account the great labour resources of the African countries, if the communists should succeed in the Congo, they will divide this continent into two and they will also be within striking distance of South Africa and the Federation with their aircraft. In other words, from a strategic point of view, they are therefore in a position to threaten South Africa.

Furthermore, as regards the development programmes of the various under-developed African countries they have already entered into agreements or they are in the process of doing so, which will give them a say in all the key industries as far as the production potential is concerned. In other words, as far as the economic development of the continent is concerned, they have entrenched themselves and they now have the power in their hands. Mr. Speaker, what is significant in this regard is that, while the West left Guinea two years ago, Guinea will be in a position by next year that a quarter of her total export trade will be with countries behind the Iron Curtain and if the communists continue to take over the African countries at this rate, then our fear that here is a greater danger that they will take over the whole continent will be justified. [Time limit.]

It is clear from the speech of the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) that he has made a very thorough study of communistic conditions in Africa. He has given us certain facts, many of which were not known to us and which we on this side of the House certainly found interesting. What struck me, however, was the complete and unfortunate absence of some positive contribution to counteract the things which are taking place in Africa, however small and however trivial our efforts may be. My opinion of the motion of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is much the same. I welcome the opportunity that we are being given here to discuss the great problem of Communism, and in that respect I feel that the motion does serve a good purpose.

Every South African who loves his country realizes the great danger that Communism, as an aggressive and revolutionary force, is to South Africa. The continent of Africa, of which we form an inseparable part geographically. politically, economically and from the point of view of defence, has become the focal point of this communistic struggle within a very short space of time. The struggle is not only one for wealth; it is not only a struggle over forms of government; we must realize that this is also a struggle for the minds of people. In this struggle it is our duty to be armed, not only materially but also morally. The victory of the strongest weapon, the most powerful nuclear bomb, is only temporary. Throughout history it has always been the idea which has been victorious.

In Africa Guinea was the first country to succumb to Russian influence; shortly afterwards there were clear signs that Ghana was beginning to make friendly overtures to Russia, while the events of the Congo are fresh in our memories and as yet none of us knows where it is all going to end. It is agains this background that I regard the policy of the present Government as a sad story of powerlessness, of neglect and of weakness. Where we would have made friends, we created enemies. By taking steps which frequently could have been avoided we have become a burden instead of an asset to the most powerful countries which to-day form the bulwark against Communism.

Who are those powerful countries?

… and very often by inexplicable actions and statements we have estranged ourselves from the greatest churches of the world which constitute bulwarks against Communism. Let me emphasize that the party to which I belong, the United Party, the future government of South Africa, does not take second place to anybody in its disapproval of revolutionary Communism, and that it can and will prove this not only by word but also by deed. Part of the official policy of the United Party reads as follows—

Mr. Sneaker, I have said that the motion of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark gives us the opportunity to discuss this important matter. For the rest, however, I regard the motion as vague, ambiguous and pointless. I do not know if I am correct in assuming that perhaps the hon. member wanted to draft a more srongly worded motion but that it had to be submitted to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs or somebody else, and that as a result of that the motion was watered down somewhat.

I submitted it to the Prime Minister and he accepted it without changing a single word.

If the hon. the Prime Minister accepted the motion without changing a single word, then I must also accuse the Prime Minister of having approved of an ambiguous, vague motion, a motion which does not indicate any firm policy. What is asked for in the motion is that this House should discuss the question of Communism; with that I have no quarrel.

On a point of order, we on this side listened in absolute silence while two members on the other side addressed the House. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is trying to make a serious speech and the other side is making so much noise that he is unable to do so.

Order, order!

The motion of the hon. member asks that we should emphasize our own country’s anti-communistic attitude. With that I have no quarrel either. What strikes me, however, are the words used by the hon. member in the motion in which he emphasizes that there is a need to “intensify the realization among anti-communistic countries that South Africa is a stronghold against Communism”. Why is there such a need; why should the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark have to come here and admit that there is such a need? Is that not an indication that there is something lacking in the Government’s policy? What is the reason for this need? Who is it who failed to make use of the usual channels, the diplomatic service and our Information Service, not only to explain our attitude but to explain it convincingly to the other countries of the Western world which are opposed to Communism? As the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has correctly said, the situation is serious. As far as I could gather from his speech he said that the hon. the Minister of Justice had even appointed a departmental committee to go into this urgent problem. Is that correct? I think he was referring to the present Minister of Justice.

No, it was in 1949.

The question that we involuntarily ask ourselves is this: Was the praiseworthy effort that was made by our Government, by this country, in participating in the fight against Communism in Korea entirely'in vain; were the lives that were lost there sacrificed in vain; was the blood that was shed there shed entirely in vain? Was that not sufficient to convince our friends of our anti-communistic attitude? Where does the fault lie? What has gone wrong? Who is the guilty party? In order to make our attitude clear I want to move the following amendment at this stage to the hon. member’s motion—

I think it will be clear to hon. members that what I ask for in my amendment is for positive action to show that democracy in which we profess to believe is actually superior, on moral and material grounds, to Communism which has so much influence and is such a danger to South Africa. I agree with the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that unless we have a full realization of what we are fighting against and of what Communism itself implies, it will be impossible for us to combat Communism in Africa in the most effective way. I want to associate myself with his statement therefore that we must have a correct understanding of Communism as such. My contention is that when we talk about Communism in Africa we make very great theoretical mistakes in our thinking. I can think of at least five wrong interpretations that we place upon Communism, particularly in respect of its influence here in Africa, and I should like to mention them here. The first is that we should make it clear, when we fight Communism, that we are not opposing other ideologies which are perhaps related to Communism. I am thinking of socialism in particular.

The henchmen.

Mr. Speaker, all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists.

What did you say in your pamphlet?

I do not know to which pamphlet the hon. member refers. We must remember that in opposing certain principles of socialism which are perhaps in consonance with those of Communism, we are also giving the great democratic socialistic parties of Western Europe a slap in the face. We are perhaps unnecessarily making enemies of socialistic governments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Holland, and of the big socialistic oppositions, not only in Britain but also in Western Germany. The focal point in the fight against Communism, Berlin is controlled by a democratic socialistic government under a democratic socialistic mayor. This only goes to show that when we condemnthings such as state ownership of means of production or dialectic materialism or theories which are associated with Marx and Engels we must be careful that we do not make enemies of other countries whose assistance we need in Africa. I am not a socialist but I do realize that the right kind of democratic socialism may perhaps have advantages in developing many of the under-developed countries in Africa. Do not let us confuse that with Communism.

Von Moltke is a National-Socialist.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Not now, please. The second theoretical mistake we must not make is to describe as Communism those things which, in actual fact, are not Communism, or which only form a sub-division of Communism, particularly in dealing with the Black States in Africa. I am thinking, for example, of the statement which is frequently made on political platforms that the policy of giving increased rights to the non-Whites is nothing but Communism, or the statement that is frequently made that equal treatment for White and Black is Communism, and the fact that the condemnation of colonialism is regarded as an exclusively communistic characteristic. Sir, colonialism is being condemned to-day in much wider circles in the world than in communistic countries only. And we are also making a mistake when, to use the words of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, we associate “sickly liberalism” with Communism. Let us be quite sure what we are opposing, and let us define it precisely. I do not want to make enemies of the rest of the free world which is, perhaps, against colonialism and perhaps in favour of increased rights for the non-Whites and equality of treatment for Whites and non-Whites.

The third theoretical mistake that we make in our approach is to think that, in taking steps to forbid communistic ideas—inter alia, the steps mentioned by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark—we shall succeed in smothering communistic activities. We cannot kill an idea, whether it is good or a bad idea, by simply trying to suppress it, by censorship, by banning books, by wiping out newspapers, by putting members out of the House, or by naming persons under the Act. Those methods are not going to succeed in killing Communism as such. As far as I can recall, there was even a time when people in South Africa were not allowed to read Karl Marx’s book, “Das Kapital ”. I do not think there can be any stronger argument against Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” than to make it available for reading. I cannot think of a more uninteresting book. I have never been able to get further than the first 50 pages of it. In spite of that, however, we see reports in the newspapers to the effect that communistic propaganda is still finding its way into South Africa, and that it is not possible entirely to ban that Russian-inspired propaganda. Here I have a report, from the Cape Argus which reads—

It is perfectly clear that there are still opportunities for the spreading of such propaganda in South Africa. I am thinking of the danger of trying to use methods of that kind; just think how one could be attacked, perhaps justifiably, by other countries on the ground that one wants to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Mr. Speaker, as soon as one resorts to a method of that kind one immediately admits that one’s case is weak, that one is afraid to allow the other side to state its case. May I quote the famous words of John Milton from his “Areopagitica ”, in which he says—

Did he say that about Communism?

No, he said it about truth. He said that if one allowed truth and untruth, falsehood, to clash openly, with as few restrictions as possible, he believed that the truth would triumph. I believe it, and I think the hon. member should also believe it.

We make a fourth mistake when we think that we can continue with our present approach to our country’s problems and that we can simply trust that, in the event of war, the Western countries will rush to our aid in the struggle against Communism. We place too much reliance on that supposition. In such a struggle there may be developments which may have incalculable consequences for us. A country like America may be forced in this struggle against Communism to choose between India on the one hand and South Africa on the other. Can the Government give any guarantee that, in the event of any struggle in Africa, America would side with South Africa and not with India?

The fifth mistake that we must not make in our theoretical approach to this problem is not to blame Communism for what is very often our own shortcomings. We must not shelter behind Communism to excuse the shortcomings for which we ourselves are very often to blame. If there is really communistic agitation taking place in South Africa on a large scale, let us call it by its name; let us be told about it, and if there are guilty persons, bring them before the courts of this country in accordance with the usual procedure. We have heard stories about communistic influence in the eastern part of the Cape. If there were in fact Russian submarines there, we should be told about it. If communist agents were landed in Pondoland, let us be given the facts and let those persons be brought before the courts. If, as we are told happened in Europe in World War I, there were in fact Russian soldiers in Pondoland with snow on their boots, let us be told about it. But it is the wrong approach to this whole problem to shield behind Communism when, quite possibly, the fault lies with us.

I agree with the hon. member that our problem is to make other countries realize that we are anti-communistic. There are recognized channels through which we can reach other countries. There is our Information Service, for example, and our ordinary diplomatic channels. We also have our trade commissioners as a further channel. I feel that the Government is not fully alive to the possible value that we can derive from our Information Service, as well as from our diplomatic channels. We are spending thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds on our Information Service, thousands on advertisements in oversea newspapers, tens of thousands on a magazine like Panorama, and we must admit that hitherto our attempts in Africa to make those countries realize that we are their friends, have produced deplorably little success. As a matter of fact, the results have been insignificant. I realize that we have a problem. A weekly like Time, for example, in one edition out of 52 every year can distribute four times as many copies as we can over a whole year through Panorama. But that is not the point. My point in connection with the Information Service is that everything of a constructive nature that they do here in Africa, at UNO or anywhere else in opposing Communism, all their fine efforts, are broken down and rendered nugatory by the irresponsible actions and irresponsible words of this Government itself.

What has that to do with this motion?

One foolish word may cost us tens of thousands of friends when we are looking for allies against Communism. One statement, such as that made by an hon. member when he asked why more people had not been shot at Sharpeville, may cause us to lose millions of pounds in the rest of the world and millions of friends.

You know perfectly well that I did not say that.

I have not even mentioned the name of the hon. member yet. Why does the hon. member think that I was referring to him? Even one of the prominent newspapermen supporting the other side of the House found it necessary to write that he knew of certain acts which had cost our country £5,000,000, and of one act which had cost our country as much as £1,000,000,000.

On a point of order, may I ask what this reference to “Dawie ”, the column writer, and his allegation about £5,000,000 has to do with this motion on Communism?

When business was suspended I was dealing with the difficulties that we are experiencing in South Africa in persuading other countries, particularly the West, of our value as an anti-communistic bulwark. I indicated that however good our Information Service was, it did not always produce much in the way of results. The other channel through which we can comply with the request of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is the Diplomatic Service. There too I feel that we can do much more than is being done at the present time. The position is that we have diplomats who make the Diplomatic Service their career, but they are very frequently let down by the utterances of professional politicians in the diplomatic sphere. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark made an attack upon UNO in the course of his speech and stated that the time had come when we might as well consider the question of the dissolution of the United Nations. I think his words were, “UNO has failed and may as well be dissolved as far as the West is concerned But does the hon. member not realize that UNO, in which the anti-communistic countries are still in the majority to-day, is one of the strongest bulwarks against Communism, one of the few places where, in the international field, Russia often suffers defeat? On the contrary, I would say that if we are interested in what is happening in Africa, we must realize what a wonderful opportunity we have at UNO to explain our attitude to the rest of the world— if only we would state that attitude correctly!

There is something in connection with the United Nations and our attitude there which seriously perturbs me and that is a statement made there by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs there of a new attitude in connection with our policy. According to a report in the Burger of 27 January, Mr. Louw, the hon. the Minister of External Affairs said this—

In other words, the Minister of External Affairs says that we must stop adhering to principles, that we must abandon the policy of honesty. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fatal proposition. I can imagine how bitter many of our own diplomats who will have to explain the statement must feel about it; how bitter our friends who side with us against the communists would feel if they considered perhaps that they should vote for South Africa and if they were then asked by communist countries whether they have made some agreement or other with South Africa on a basis of dishonesty or lack of consistency. We are adults and we know what goes on in diplomatic circles. We know that often it is a matter of give and take, but to come along and to say that you have to discard your policy of honesty and of adherence to principles is tantamount to nothing but a political international cheapjack policy.

But he never said that.

We on this side of the House have asked what positive steps can be taken to combat Communism in Africa in a positive way. Let me say in the first place that we must realize that we cannot make Africa anti-communistic. We are a small country at the southern tip of Africa. This country is of strategic value to the rest of the world but by no means of fantastic strategic value. We must realize, however, that with our insignificant White population of 3,000,000, which is smaller than the population of many single large cities in the rest of the world, cannot achieve a very great deal. We can, however, avoid using words such as those used by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark in connection with another small country in Africa when he referred to Liberia as a “miserable little country ”. I beg your pardon, Sir, it was the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha). Even though Liberia is a small country we will never make her a friend of South Africa if we refer to her as a small miserable little country, particularly since Liberia, as we know, is one of the favourities of the United States of America. It is no sin to be a small country. Some of the greatest achievements in Western science and philosophy have come from very small countries. Just think what came out of Greece, out of Athens, a small city with only 50,000, inhabitants. Two of the world’s greatest religions come from a small country, Israel. I am not suggesting for a moment that we will ever be able to play such a great role in the world as those two countries, but we can do much more than we are doing at present.

Let us see what we can do in connection with this problem of Communism in Africa. In the first place I should say that we should strengthen our ties and our bonds of friendship with the anti-communists or pro-democratic countries throughout the world. We have no hope of joining the Pan-American Union or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the Treaty Alliance of South-East Asia. On our own we can achieve nothing, but as a member of some league of states we can make our voices heard. And it is in that respect that we ought to have the fullest realization of the tremendous importance of our membership of the Commonwealth. There we do not stand alone; we are a member of one of the strongest anti-communistic international organizations in the world, although there may be one or two countries in Africa which show communistic tendencies. Nevertheless the Commonwealth, in my opinion, remains one of the greatest bulwarks against Communism. It is also wrong to do what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark did here, namely to attack the President of the mighty U.S.A. about his attitude in connection with Africa—not on merit but in connection with certain things which he is alleged to have said. If the Americans and their leaders do not think in all matters as we do in South Africa, let us realize that they are the greatest bulwark against Communism in the world.

I admitted that.

In the third place let us also be careful in our theoretical approach to this problem; let us distinguish between deeds and theory; do not let us think that we can prohibit ideas by trying to kill them; or think that come what may we will receive assistance, and do not let us shield behind Communism to excuse our own weaknesses. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says that he would like anti-Communism and the doctrine of anticommunism to form part of the curricula of our universities. I can say this to him that our universities in South Africa in the struggle for freedom will be in a much stronger position if the Government will see to it that they remain free autonomous bodies. Surely when the hon. member comes along and uses the ugly word “indoctrination” and in fact recommends that our young people and our students should be indoctrinated against Communism, then we are resorting to the same methods as those used by the communists themselves. After all, it is tantamount to brainwashing.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

The hon. member is incapable of putting a question. I want to ask the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark why he used the word “indoctrination ”, a word which has now acquired an unpleasant meaning?

May I put a question?

Not now. I am sorry I said that the hon. member was incapable of putting a question; I did not mean it in a bad sense and I apologize.

Mr. Speaker, there is one important thing against which we must be on our guard and against which the Government fails to guard, particularly since our problem is how to combat Communism in Africa. We must remember that some of the greatest opponents of Communism in the whole world to-day are non-White nations. Take a great country like India. If India were to become communistic the world would be doomed. Then there is Pakistan. Some of the greatest opponents of Communism in the world to-day are non-White countries, countries like India and Pakistan. That is why it is wrong always to talk about a struggle between the White and the Black nations. In fighting against Communism we are not fighting for White civilization; we are not fighting for a White skin, we are fighting for a certain outlook and a certain idealism. Let us emphasize that and do not let us make potential enemies of non-White countries, such as India and Pakistan and other nations. There are countries like Malaya, Japan, Thailand, Formosa, which are not White nations, and their combined population is greater than that of the whole of Western Europe.

As a further practical step, however difficult and uphill it may be and however much we may be opposed, let us try to promote diplomatic co-operation as well as political economic and scientific co-operation with the other countries in Africa, to an even greater extent than we have done already. I concede that fine efforts have been made but I feel that even more can be done. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has correctly stated that we want to co-operate with the states in Africa. But I think perhaps he went a little too far— perhaps he was a little too ambitious—when he stated that South Africa should be the link between the West and Africa. I think that was what he meant. I do not think that we are qualified, particularly under the present set-up, to fulfil a role of that kind.

Furthermore, let us also try to the best of our ability to build up our Defence Force, which is going to play an important role, for its primary object, namely the defence of our country and not as a branch of the police. Moreover, let us make South Africa a place where, however difficult it may be, conferences of all the states of Africa can be held more often. I admit that it creates many problems but we can certainly try. I understand that steps are being taken in that direction. We are told that year after year Russia invites thousands of students to Moscow, to Leningrad, and that students even go to China. Why is it so impossible and difficult then for Native students from other countries in Africa to come to our own universities in South Africa, not only to Turfloop or Fort Hare but also to the universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town? Would it not have been a wonderful bulwark against Communism if we could have shown them the value of democracy in that way—not by indoctrination but by facts.

Let us take a further positive step by making our own country an example in Africa, in the economic sphere as well, by making her strong in capital and strong in manpower by following a dynamic immigration policy. Above all, Mr. Speaker, let us not scorn the intellectual leaders, the free thinkers amongst our people, when they warn us that we are following the wrong policies, when they adopt an intellectual approach to Communism, when they adopt a moral approach to Communism. Do not let us despise them, do not let us reject them, do not let us always call them liberals or unrealistic dreamers.

And lastly, Mr. Speaker—and I think this is the most important—let us show that negative steps are by no means the only steps that we want to take. Let us be positive in our own policy so as to show the rest of Africa what can in fact be done in an anti-communist state.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken an hour yet, and I think I still have a few minutes left.

As the first speaker on this side the hon. member may proceed.

I am approaching the end of my speech and I shall not be much longer, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has referred in his speech to the negative steps that we have taken—the closing of the Russian Consulate, the Suppression of Communism Act, the banning of the Communist Party, the expulsion of Members of Parliament and members of the Provincial Council and the establishment of a special branch of the police to combat Communism. We know that certain newspapers have also been closed down. These are all steps which are essentially negative. What positive steps have been taken? Is there no other message that we can give the world, materially and morally?

In the communistic state a citizen can be locked up without trial and his possessions confiscated without his having contravened any law. Let us in South Africa be constantly on our guard to uphold our law which says that nobody may suffer harm to his body or damage to his property except for a specific contravention of the law.

In the communistic state the highest Soviet, the Parliament is a one-party body and a one-party state. Let us uphold our parliamentary democracy, as the protector also of the rights of the weaker section in this country.

In the communistic state the Commissar, the constable, the communist group leader, has greater rights and powers than the ordinary citizen. Let us in this country reject such a system by word and deed, so that every official from the highest Commissioner-General in a Bantu area to the youngest constable will know that they have to act within the law and never in contravention of the law.

May I ask the hon. member a trap question?

No. In a communistic state the court of the country is an instrument of compulsion, without any protection for the accused, without any guarantee of impartiality on the part of the Judge who tries the case and who imposes the sentence behind closed doors. Let us do away in this country with the system of having administrative courts which decide behind closed doors what a person’s race is and where certain people have to live.

In the communistic state banning without trial is a political weapon of coercion and it has become a political weapon of force. Let us guard against following that road and creating a gang of resentful exiles in a Siberia of our own. In the communistic state free criticism is punishable with a sentence of imprisonment and even worse and the Press is the lackey of the heads of state. Let us in South Africa, even more conscientiously than other countries, guard the freedom of the Press and freedom of thought.

In the communistic state, the state is everything and the individual nothing. Let us remember both in our official and our personal relationships with even the most humble person on the lowest level of civilization that he is an individual and a creation of God, an individual who has his own dignity and deserves respect. In communistic countries one hears the footsteps of policemen at night, the knocking on doors, the rattling of handcuffs on prisoners on their way to a cold police cell. Do we realize how far we have progressed along that road in South Africa, bearing in mind the effect of some of our laws, particularly our pass laws?

Let us make a start, however small, to get a different spirit here so as to show the world that in this country anti-Communism has a strong moral basis. Sometimes the most insignificant step produces the most far-reaching consequences, and the most softly spoken word the loudest echo. And then perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the prayer contained in the old Free State anthem may be answered—

I second the amendment. On this subject of the danger of Communism to South Africa the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) and Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) were, of course, talking to the converted on this side of the House. But our amendment indicates that they have mishandled, and mishandled terribly badly this whole danger. I will proceed to show how they have mishandled this matter.

I agree entirely with the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark when he says that our people are not really seeking Communism. But my Very real fear is that they might clutch at it in desperation. And that is the big difference. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark dealt very briefly with the third leg of his motion this morning—

Obviously we have to prove this fact, but I am sorry to say that the hon. member gave no assistance in regard to the proving of the point. If we do not prove this realization this danger will come against us more rapidly. My difficulty is that the practical side of this question involves, firstly, that there are far more troops available from 200,000,000 Blacks north of us in any struggle between East and West and, secondly, our whole policy of defence to-day is directed—and must be directed —to our internal defence, to defence against internal troubles. We will keep our ports open, obviously. If we try to close them we would be stopped. Unfortunately, as I say, the hon. member has brought this question up and says that we must all fight, but he has given me no assistance to help me to show, when I speak to people outside, that we are such a stronghold. And it is very difficult to prove this to minds that are inquiring and, in all probability, to-day, inimical. We must try, of course, all of us, in regard to this third leg, in the interests of our own land.

Then the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark quoted Mr. Kennedy’s words, “sincerity is subject to proof ”. And that proof is what the rest of the world wants from this Government in regard to proving all these items in the motion now under discussion. This motion seeks to establish that the Government, in all its actions, is strongly motivated by its hatred of Communism and, therefore, is entitled to the sympathetic support of the Western world that we all so earnestly desire. If only we had sympathy in place of the hatred and the pressures brought to bear on us now, things would be very different. This is a very praiseworthy object, but I do want to point out that the Western world is not without knowledge that this country is anti-communistic. We have to be in the interests of our own selves. But I am afraid the Western world are going to require a great deal of convincing that this Government’s policies and actions are occasioned by their anti-communistic ideals and not by their policy of baasskap apartheid. These Government speakers have pointed with pride to the laws relating to the suppression of Communism in this country, and they have utilized the existence of those laws as an earnest of the sincerity of their anti-communistic feeling and actions. But, unfortunately—and this was touched on by the mover of our amendment and I would like to take it a little further— unfortunately this particular bit of legislation is, without doubt, one of the main causes of the hostility of the Western world from which we are now suffering. It is common cause amongst all of us that Communism exists in this country. And it is common cause too, that it must be eliminated, it must be eradicated, it must be removed root and branch in the interests of everybody in this country, in the interests of every citizen of whatever colour or race he may be.

A few years ago I came by some information showing how Communism had spread throughout this country. I learnt, through a man now dead, how, in practically every non-White organization the communists had infiltrated into the most powerful positions. To say that I was shocked at these disclosures is not to say too much. These disclosures were confidential to me. At that time the chairman, the secretaries and treasurers in their scores, not only in non-White organizations but in White too, were communists. This information was given to me and I know it is correct because I saw it myself. And all of this was known to the police at that time. It is not too much to say that workers’ organizations throughout the country were riddled with communists, and I assume that they still are.

Then this Government started to deal with this danger. They produced laws which, they said, would control Communism, would wipe the communists out, would do what we all want. The United Party at that time pointed out, during the debates on the Suppression of Communism Bill in 1950, by means of amendment that they were going about it the wrong way. The amendment read—

At that time all the speakers for the United Party pointed out that we stood four square in favour of the eradication of Communism by any democratic means available. We told this Government repeatedly that this party accepted the danger to South Africa, accepted the importance of emphasizing South Africa’s strong anti-communistic policy, and accepted the need for intensifying the realization … etc., etc. They all stressed that we accepted that. But we wanted it done to the limit under democratic methods, otherwise we knew and we pointed out that it would bring to us troubles arid difficulties which, at that time, were not even dreamt of. But all the advice that was given to this Government from this side of the House was ignored. When this party pressed for the right of appeal to the courts, they were reviled and, I repeat, ignored. We pointed out in this House that to take away the right of people to have access to the courts would create the impression, true or false, that injustice and not justice was being administered behind closed doors. That was a phrase that was used by a speaker at that time, and a very apt one too. We pointed out that to drive Communism underground would make its disciples doubly dangerous by clothing them in a cloak of anonymity as far as the public was concerned. We pointed out that the knowledge of the general public that a man was a communist would, in itself, weaken his influence. But all to no avail. I repeat here, Mr. Speaker, that at that time there was no shadow of doubt that our people—all the people of this country—were not receptive towards communistic ideals.

I was at a conference a few years ago in Canada when certain Australian delegates pleaded that all constituent organizations should, in their constitutions, prohibit memberships to any communist. They pleaded that to refuse admission to communists would kill off communist influence. Arguments and objections in this friendly conference were raised by Canada. They said that Communism had been suppressed by law and it had sprung up elsewhere. There were arguments from the United Kingdom where tolerance still lives and where, of course, it is incredible to think that Communism could really get a leg in. New Zealand, too, said “You cannot legislate against this sort of thing ”. The Australians went so far as to spend thousands of pounds taking the matter to the Supreme Court, and they were only an organization, not a Government. They did that to get rid of one communist. They finally succeeded in getting rid of that man but it did not help. Every country at this conference affirmed and stressed its abhorrence of the communist creed. I heard Mr. St. Laurent, the then Prime Minister of Canada, say “These communists want to break down everything our fathers have proved wise, and have nothing to put in its place ”. And that is quite true. And so it is necessary for all of us to fight this thing to the fullest extent of our capabilities.

The argument put forward by someone was that it is better to know who your enemies are then to have them secret. That I believe. The counter-argument put forward was that if you allowed the communists legally to exist you would not know who the real top ones, the secret ones, were. I suggest that in either instance you do not know who the real top secret ones are. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) pointed out that communistic literature was still flooding into this country, and we have not been able to find out from whence it comes. So I say that while Communism must be fought with every means at our command this Government has, as usual, chosen the wrong method, or made mistakes in the application of its method.

We then come back to the cardinal feature of all our unpopularity throughout the Western world, and that is that we have taken away from people the right to appeal to the courts of law in connection with most of these new crimes.

Mr. Speaker, not so long ago a wife and mother—non-White—was banished, with her children, from Paarl. Following that, this is what the hon. the Minister of External Affairs said in this House, and I quote from Hansard—

Those were the words of the hon. the Minister of External Affairs. Those words show the sorry pass to which we have come in regard to our fear of Communism—and our justified fear of Communism. Who exiled this woman? Was it the Paarl Municipality? Can municipalities now exile people? According to the words of the hon. the Minister of External Affairs as recorded in Hansard, they can. What an explanation for action against Communism! I think that even the Minister must have been ashamed of that particular act, and how he thought of this answer I do not know.

Order, order! The hon. member may not reflect on an Act which has been passed by this hon. House.

I am referring, Mr. Speaker, not to the Act but to the hon. the Minister.

Mr.Speaker, I must say this: how our fathers must be turning—not turning, revolving very rapidly, in their graves at what we are doing at the present time. In regard to this Paarl incident, from what I have since heard I believe that this woman was a communist. But she was not brought before a court and she was exiled with her children. I ask you, Sir, what you think the reaction was throughout the Western world amongst all our erstwhile friends—and I use the word erstwhile from choice—as a result. The impression created was that she was exiled and her home broken up because she was working, as anyone should be entitled to do, in the interests of her own people. Had she been brought before a court of law and proved to be a communist, the whole Western world would have been behind us in this particular sentence. Let me assure you that that one incident, one of many, did more to convince the outside world that this Government is tyrannical and actuated not only by fear of Communism but, in the main, by its policy of baasskap apartheid; by the maintenance of baasskap no matter at what cost to others. No matter what protestations come from this Government, I am afraid the Western world will never accept these protestations of anti-Communism; it will never accept that they are honest and genuine until all citizens accused of being communists have access to the courts.

I know that the danger from Communism is great, but I also believe that the danger from the Western world’s dislike of our Government policy is as great as far as the White man is concerned, and possibly even greater, and certainly closer in terms of time. This danger from the West will never be removed while our people do not have access to the courts when accused of so many of these new crimes. That is the main difficulty to-day confronting the mover of the motion before us now. It is no use our telling the world that so-and-so was a communist or that such-and-such organizations are communistic if the accused are denied the right of appeal to an open court to prove or disprove the accusation. This Government has done many stupid things, but this policy of punishment without recourse is the most stupid …

And this is a most stupid speech.

You are no judge …

Order, order!

The safety of the White man is one thing, injustice to others behind closed doors is another. And that is the way things are being read to-day. It is no use hon. members on the Government benches jeering at me, we are behind them in this question of dealing with Communism, but we say that the way that they have dealt with it is wrong. Surely, never was it more necessary to debate a motion such as this and its counterpart, our amendment. And surely, never in South African history was it a more opportune or more wise time to say “I told you so ”. We have been telling this Government for so long, but they will not listen. Now they have to bring up a motion such as this. The clouds are growing black. It may be that our problems will be solved to the north of us, partially or otherwise. Or they may not be. It may even be in the future, near or far, that the way of life as we know it now will undergo considerable modification. It may be that these things will happen, and if they do I charge that this Government has the main responsibility and will have the main responsibility for anything that happens. I intend to say “We told you so ”, and I will not apologize for dealing in past words and deeds of this Government in that connection. It is those words and those deeds which have made it necessary to bring this matter before this House for discussion on the basis of this motion, and for us to move an amendment such as we have done.

Let me start by reminding this House of what we on this side of the House have previously said about our Information Service. After all, the Information Service is the spearhead. By no other method is it possible to advise the outside world of the facts of particular incidents happening in this country, caused by our Government’s policy; caused by the flow of events; caused however you like. Without our Information Service we would be even worse off than we are, if that is possible. We have agreed that the Information Service is essential and we have supported its maintenance. We have agreed that it must be financed to a greater degree and that its activities must be extended, but I can never get out of my mind what the thoughts are of those officials when one little act of this Government wipes out in one fell swoop all the success they might have achieved in explaining our position to the world. The Minister of External Affairs said in the Transvaal on 11 November 1959—

We told him we were surprised and did not agree with the statement. Then again, on 26 February 1960, he said in Hansard—

Again we did not agree and we told him so. I repeat that we on this side are as fully aware of the dangers besetting our land as members opposite, but unfortunately the coping with these dangers is in their hands and not in ours. If it were in our hands the position would be entirely different. We realize the difficulties. We voted for the recent defence amendments because we realize that we are in such trouble that great powers must be granted. One of the reasons why I personally voted for it is that I believe the present Minister of Defence—not the last one—will never use those powers in any way except in the interest of his country. Some of these powers would not be necessary if we were in power, but with the present Government in power they are necessary. All we got from the speeches this morning was what terrible things were happening in the world. They are happening, but all they did was to accentuate the danger in which we find ourselves. But they gave no suggestion as to how it should be remedied. Our problems may be worked out to the north of us, or they may not, but they will not be worked out under this Government. We have the Information Service. Outside Government circles the South African Foundation was formed by men who desired to put as good a face as possible on South Africa and its problems, including its stand against Communism and its endeavour to be a bastion against Communism on behalf of the Western world. The members of the South African Foundation are right that as our economy dwindles so will the standards of living of the White population. We therefore have two agencies working to explain Government policy to the world, and yet on the danger of Communism we have within the last 18 months the Minister of External Affairs telling us that things are getting better, and that his party, through his private members, considers that it is now necessary to debate the matter and to tell us about the dreadful dangers facing us. We have told them for years about this danger. We must retain the friendship of the Western world. It is impossible to retain the friendship of our friends in the world unless we acknowledge that regardless of colour a man must have a chance, and the one chance which should never be taken away from a man in a democratic country is the right to appeal to the courts. We have told them this so often and we have told them also on more than one occasion that never was there a worse time to tamper with the political rights of the non-Whites when the communists are fighting to get a grip on their minds. We have stressed this and we told them so, and what did they do? While the Information Office was battling to explain to the world what our policy was and that it was directed towards uplifting the non-White, they sat back smugly, awaiting events in UNO, in which the White nations would break away from the Black nations for acting irresponsibly. Of course they are acting irresponsibly, but that does not help us. They just sat back smugly and said they would leave UNO. Then they closed the doors of the universities to the non-Whites and removed the Coloureds from the Coloured Roll. We joined the Commonwealth scholarship scheme to make bursaries available to all. It is extraordinary how at certain administrative levels we always do the right thing, and if you go overseas you hear kindly remarks about the men who are administering the country—but not the politicians. We have done our share and we have been generous in our offers of help, but unfortunately this one was spurned as all our other offers of help have been spurned, because of the actions of this Government. Out of all the bursaries we offered, three people applied, three White people, but not a single Coloured man in the whole of the Commonwealth was prepared to take advantage of our generous offer. I cannot even find out what strings are attached to these benefits, and whether Coloured students are allowed to go to the open universities, or whether they are told to go to the new Coloured universities. That is what we are up against. We try to explain to the world that we are a bastion and we are so essential to them in any war against Russia that they must have us on their side, notwithstanding what happens to the 200,000,000 Blacks to the north of us. That is ludicrous. I only want to compare that with Australia and the Colombo Plan. Australians are joined to hundreds of millions of non-White people by the sea—the sea does not divide them, it joins them. What do they do in regard to the Colombo Plan? They have given not hundreds but thousands of bursaries to non-Whites to take courses in the Australian universities, where they learn to appreciate Australian policy. What happens to us? Not a single non-White has applied for a bursary to come to a South African university, and we could give them so many courses that would be of tremendous use to them in their own countries. We have so much knowledge of conditions in Africa and we can teach them so many things which would be of value to their own people, and that would help to get us out of our trouble and to prove to the Western world that we are anti-communist. We do not believe, and I think the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark agrees with me, that Communism would flourish amongst the non-Whites of this country if the conditions did not exist to bring about that growth. We do not believe that such conditions ever really existed. As I said before, this Government chose the opportunity to take away the little that these people had in the way of political rights, and in many ways their human dignity is non-existent. I have touched on all these things to prove what an impossible job we have given to our Information Office, which I honestly believe is doing its best to explain to the world how the policy of this Government is inspired by anti-Communism and not by baasskap apartheid. But they have to explain away things such as one member of this House saying it was a pity that more Natives were not shot at Sharpeville. We all remember that incident and how the Prime Minister had to rush to his assistance. They battle to make friends for us and then some Black man is refused a passport. All that results in is to build him up, a small man who would never otherwise have been heard of, and he is built up to be a world figure and a martyr, and that is used as proof against us that we are not anti-communist; we are only pro-White and to perdition with anyone else. We have told this Government these things so many times. We have explained to them how stupid they are but they would not listen to us, and this is the pass to which we have come. Where the next step will take us I do not know. When a Canadian reporter came here they slapped him in gaol, a most irresponsible man who should have been ridiculed, but they threw him into gaol. Then they deported Bishop Reeves. None of these people had the right to go to the court. How can we prove our sincerity and that our every action is directed towards keeping the communists away from the Western world? The Information Service has to explain all these things, and they are the only weapon we have to convince the Western world that we are not what the Nationalist Party is. What chance have we and how can we expect friendship and tolerance when we have such a Government? Only recently we had Pondoland and it was closed in the interests of keeping law and order, according to the Minister, and according to him also the disturbances there were due to communists who ran over the hills at night and disappeared with the morning mist and they could not be caught. How can you explain things like this, with the Western world watching us like a hawk? This sort of thing is done in the name of anti-Communism. We on this side know infinitely more than the uninformed people outside. We read our sensational Press and laugh and then stop laughing because we realize the dangers behind it. We are well informed in this country, but I cannot believe that all these actions of the Government are directed towards Communism. I say they are acts of baasskap domination. They cannot deny that relations between the Whites and the Blacks in South Africa have deteriorated in the last ten years. One reads these exaggerated reports and it makes one boil and seethe and one wonders sometimes whether it would not be best to pass a law allowing irresponsible Pressmen to be shot, but if you did that the law would also have to apply to irresponsible politicians.

Then you would be shot first.

Everybody must agree that if we could establish fairly friendly relations with the new states in Africa, our struggle to be regarded as the bastion against Communism to the West must be won once and for all. This friendship with the Black states to the north of us is a sine qua non for our relations with the Western world, and what has this Government brought us to? The Minister of External Affairs told us the other day that the day was past when we could have friendship with these states to the north of us and that they spurned our offers of help. Sir, I have great pleasure in sitting down.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down has frightened me.

That is not difficult.

If what he says is true, namely “that they are behind us ”, when I look around and I see what the hon. member has said to-day is behind us, I wonder how we can put up any sort of showing as far as Communism is concerned. The hon. member frightens me but I do not understand him either. He has pleaded for these people who are being deported and he says that they should have recourse to the courts. Was it not during the régime of hon. members opposite that legislation was passed providing that no one who was to be deported would have access to the courts? Now he condemns his own legislation. But I leave him there.

I do not want to detain the House for long. It is not necessary because the two hon. members on this side, the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) and Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) have both made speeches of a very high standard. I hoped that we would be able to maintain that standard until the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) rose to speak. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark most sincerely on having introduced this motion and the hon. member for Soutpansberg on having seconded it. They have rendered South Africa and this House a great service by introducing this motion and by discussing it in the way they have. Both speeches have testified to careful preparation, to a study of the subject and also to knowledge of the subject. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has often travelled outside South Africa and he was therefore able to discuss these matters with great knowledge and his seconder also spoke with a great measure of knowledge. They have made a study of Communism and they have presented the subject in a way on which I want to compliment them. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has referred particularly to points which I need not discuss any further. He has referred the House to the objects of the deadly danger, Communism, and the methods the communists are using to achieve their objects. He has also referred us to communist activities in Africa. What I appreciate greatly is the fact that he has given suggestions as to how South Africa should combat Communism. Those suggestions will be studied and will receive the necessary attention. It is unnecessary to say the Government supports the motion and that we cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) because the amendment is in such sharp conflict with the attitude of hon. members opposite as revealed to-day. To me this was a disillusionment. I always thought that on one point at least we in South Africa had the greatest opportunity of our lives to present a united front to the world, but hon. members opposite have done nothing to help us. What is the outside world to think of the speeches of hon. members opposite? What was the reply of the Opposition to this motion? Hon. members have complained that we are not going far enough. The amendment says that the House is disturbed at the Government’s failure to make the Union a sturdy rampart of liberty against the onrush of Communism, but they have not offered us any assistance. The Opposition’s difficulty is that one cannot blow hot and cold over so vitally important a matter as Communism, which threatens to throw its shadow over Africa. One cannot adopt a two-faced approach, to put it mildly. One cannot raise one’s hat to Communism to-day and say tomorrow that one condemns it with all the emphasis at one’s disposal. One cannot bitterly oppose the anti-communistic legislation which this Government has introduced in order to combat Communism in South Africa and then blame the Government for not going far enough. One cannot approach such an important matter in so contradictory a way.

It is true as hon. members have said, that there is no part of the world where the seed of Communism will find more fertile soil than amongst the anti-White masses in Africa. The tempo at which Communism is infiltrating into Africa has given the whole civilized world food for thought and discussion because there has hardly been one international conference in recent years where the onrushing danger of Communism in Africa has not been discussed. It may be that the emergent States in Africa will embrace Communism. We hope not. All we can say is that South Africa is and remains the friend of the West and that she is a bastion of Christian civilization, and intends remaining so. That may be why Communism is concentrating so greatly on its drive southwards to southern Africa. Perhaps the communists themselves realize that they cannot conquer Africa until the life and death struggle between Communism and Christian civilization is settled here. This was not always the position. At the end of the second world war there were only four independent States in Africa, while the rest of the Africa was divided into Western colonial areas. A short 15 years ago world trends still passed the Native of Africa by. His sole interest was his simple struggle to make a livelihood. Then suddenly the doctrine of human rights blew over to Africa and with it the slogan of self-determination of which the communists have become the protagonists in Africa. Here they have adopted self-determination as their slogan. The majority must govern, and the majority are the Black masses. In Africa Communism immediately established an anti-White front in order to serve its aims. It has been said that when the British arrive in a new place the first thing they do is establish a club. When the Russians arrive anywhere the first thing they do is establish a front. This has also happened in Africa, and is still happening. The communist pattern is the same everywhere. The achievement of their objects is furthered by the creation of chaos. It is easy to create disorder in primitive communities such as those found in Africa. At the moment we are seeing in the Congo how the communists are exploiting conditions of barbaric chaos. The communists fatten on disturbances which they themselves try to create: Communism flourishes on chaos. Reference has been made to-day to the various ways in which the communists are infiltrating into Africa. I just want to refer to one or two.

In the first place they do so by establishing organizations for promoting friendship between Russia and the African states. Their second method of infiltration is by use of broadcasting services beamed on Africa. Today the anti-Christian voice is heard more loudly over the air than ever before. This process is continuing. The Soviet Union is broadcasting programmes totalling nearly 20 hours per week in English, French, Portuguese and Swahili to Africa and 50 hours in Arabic. Another method of infiltration is economic penetration. This process was started in all seriousness four or five years ago and has gradually been expanded. During 1959 alone 15 trade missions from communist countries visited Africa. As a result of Russia’s recent trade agreement with Guinea approximately one-quarter of that country’s foreign trade is with the communist bloc. As we have been told to-day, Russia is providing financial aid to Africa to an ever-increasing degree. Her loans to Ethiopia already total approximately $100,000,000—this is the figure I have been given; to Ghana $40,000,000; and to Guinea $50,000,000, just to give one or two examples. The amounts may be larger, but these are the figures I have. The communist front organization represent yet another method of infiltration. The Afro-Asian Peoples’ Solidarity Council was established in 1957 in Cairo, and to a certain extent it serves the communists. Both the Russians and Chinese are represented on it. In addition the World Federation of Trade Unions (W.F.T.U.) is working energetically in Africa. Militant trade union leaders from Africa regularly receive training in Budapest. An increasing number of trade union leaders are going to Russia from Africa; bursaries are being given to young students from Africa to study behind the Iron Curtain. Hon. members have also been told that communist China has now made her appearance in Africa where she is very active. According to reports China is already establishing communist cells in certain African states. China has also established her friendship societies in African countries; she has her radio broadcasts, her students’ training programme, her trade relations and her trade union relations. China has already established diplomatic relations with a number of African states. Twenty-five Chinese delegates recently visited Africa and in exchange 84 delegates from Africa visited China. Hon. members have referred to technical aid. China is providing technical aid to Africa. China is already teaching Morocco how to cultivate tea; in Guinea the Chinese are teaching the people how to cultivate rice. The Chinese enjoy the advantage in Africa that they can hold themselves out to be non-Whites. They are not, but they can do so, and consequently they can work more successfully than the Russians amongst the Natives of Africa against the West. In this way, Mr. Speaker, Communism is attacking on two fronts in particular; in this way it is rapidly entering the arena in Africa. For this reason South Africa is faced with a tremendous and weighty challenge. It must be our task to keep the flame of White Western civilization burning in Southern Africa to the bitter end at any cost. Hon. members have referred to rays of light (ligpunte). I do not know why hon. members opposite are now criticizing us for not having acted firmly enough. They know after all what has been done, and I therefore regret that hon. members have not taken the opportunity to-day to close ranks with us in the face of the one danger which threatens us all so that we could present a united front to the outside world. As regards the two speeches hon. members opposite have made, I can only say that they do not present South Africa in the true light in which she should be presented. It is not the correct light and it is not a good light either. Mr. Speaker, let us differ in the political field, but let us, as least as far as this important matter is concerned, see whether we cannot achieve a united front. Hon. members have said that we are not doing enough. I pay tribute to South Africa’s political representatives throughout the world for the way in which they are doing their work without any fanfare; valuable work which they are doing day and night in order, if I may use this anglicism, to sell South Africa to the world; to make the world realize that South Africa means well and South Africa stands firmly on one point, namely that she is the champion of White Christian civilization against Communism in this part of the world. There is our Information Service which has been criticized here to-day. I would have thought that we in South Africa should give our wholehearted support to the Information Service and that we should tell them: “Continue with the magnificent work you are doing in telling the world about South Africa.” But, no, we have a debate to-day on Communism and all we hear is criticism of the way in which we are doing things. I say this is not the opportunity nor the time for criticism. If hon. members must criticize, let them do so in other debates, but the eyes of the world are on Africa and particularly on South Africa when she discusses Communism, and at such a time we must stand together.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that South Africa is faced with a tremendous challenge. There are rays of light. I consider the first to be the fact that a high percentage of the Bantu and Coloureds are hostile to Communism. This gives us hope that in co-operation with them we shall be able to present to South Africa and the world a civilized front against the infiltration of Communism and that we shall be able to say:“If the principle that the majority must govern is accepted, we do not know what is going to happen with Communism higher up in Africa, but all we do know is that this is our bastion.” Now hon. members have said that we are not doing enough. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Western nations are beginning to realize that the Western-inclined South Africa is indispensable strategically and otherwise because we form part of the West and because we have tried to preserve one area for Western civilization here. There are signs that the Western countries are beginning to understand South Africa’s problems; there are signs that South Africa’s honest intentions, as well as her unequivocal opposition to Communism are beginning to earn respect. Our neighbouring states are also hard at work throwing up bulwarks against Communism.

Last year an important resolution was adopted by the Mississippi Legislature in America, and I just want to read part of a resolution dealing with South Africa which was adopted by that state. The resolution of the Mississippi Legislature, “House concurrent resolution No. 67 ”, under the heading: “A concurrent resolution commending the determined stand of the Government of the Union of South Africa in maintaining its firm segregation policy” reads as follows—

This is encouraging support from Mississippi. I wish that it had found an echo here to-day as well. The Cape Argus recently published a report from New York which read as follows—

I hope the United Party will not stand on the side lines either when South Africa is attacked in this way.

We never do so.

My hon. friend said that they never do, but what has happened here to-day? They say that they do not do so but none the less they do. Mr. Speaker, South Africa is the West’s bastion. We have banned the Communist Party and we are the only country in Africa which has banned Communism. Ever since that time, ten years ago, Communism has had a difficult time in our country. A number of communists have gone underground and are active under all sorts of new names, but because they must work underground, they cannot operate so successfully. It is no longer easy for them to continue their activities.

I am glad that the police and the Department of Defence have taken steps to equip themselves with modern equipment so that they can safeguard South Africa’s internal position if necessary, and so that they can guard against communist infiltration in particular. The Department of Justice has experts on Communism who are of great assistance and value. The Security Branch of the police, which was a subdivision, has recently been raised to the status of a full division. It is now one of seven separate police divisions and is directly responsible to the Commissioner and the Minister. A post of Director of Internal Security has been created to control the Security Branch. We expect much of this division. I should like to say a few words today in praise of our Security Branch. The work which the police and particularly the Security Branch are doing, is work to which publicity cannot be given, but it is work for which we are grateful because it is keeping us fully informed of what is happening in our country. They are keeping Communism under control. Fortunately as a result of the fact that it has been kept under control, it has not developed too far in South Africa with the result that we only have a little more than 600 listed communists. It is fortunate that there are not more. The police are strictly enforcing the orders confining such persons to certain areas. And this is a good thing. It keeps Communism under control when these restrictions are as strictly enforced as the police are doing. Communist-inclined meetings and the meetings of “fellow travellers” are either restricted or completely prohibited, and this hinders Communism. The ringleaders are removed from dangerous spheres such as the trade unions so as to protect industries against disruption. At the moment certain persons are appearing in court on a charge of high treason. As I have said there are rays of light—and with that I conclude. Nothing creates such a sense of unity in a country as when that country has one common enemy or sees one on the horizon.

And what happened during the war?

Listen to that, Mr. Speaker. Here we are discussing this threatening danger and the hon. member wants to start waving the flag once again. There were circumstances at that time which resulted in our refusing to join in co-operating with the communists. Now we do have a common enemy, and I say there is no factor which creates a greater sense of unity than the existence of a common enemy; and this applies particularly in a country where the conditions are so ripe for the spread of Communism. Our task is to stand together. The deadly danger of anti-Christian Communism gives us this opportunity to stand together, to combat it with all the strength at our disposal, because when South Africa’s turn, when Southern Africa’s turn comes, it will not help us to say “I belong to this or that party ”. We will only be asked one question, namely “Do you believe in Africa for the Africans, or do you believe unequivocally in the continued existence of the anticommunist White civilization in South Africa?” That is the question which will be put to all of us when the time comes. I therefore say: Let us stand together as one man when that time comes. I extend my sincere thanks to the hon. members for introducing this motion. I hope that we shall have such a motion annually and I hope that when discussing such a motion we shall try to present a united front to the world as far as Communism is concerned.

The hon. the Minister set great store apparently by the statement of the Mississippi Legislature. I think what the Minister said about Dixie is true, but I doubt whether that really represents the feeling of the Western world. The hon. the Minister has praised the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) not only for his motion but the standard on which he introduced it. With regard to objectivity I agree; with regard to teaching us something about the problem with which we are dealing, I cannot say that I associate myself with the Minister, because it seems to me that anyone who has reasonably read the Readers Digest could have given a similar outline of Communism and its activities. [Interjections.] Very well, let me put it this way. He said nothing that was not within the general knowledge of any reasonably well-informed man in the street. I do not consider myself to be an expert on Communism or on the international implications, on the detailed implications of the present struggle for the balance of power that is taking place between the West and Communism in this matter. Sir, this is a very difficult debate to take part in if you are trying to say something seriously, because you are dealing first of all with the core of the whole international situation and you have to be reasonably well informed to attempt to deal with that. Secondly, we have to deal with the whole situation in Africa, and however seriously you may set out to talk, you are in danger of making comments with regard to the internal affairs of other nations, which is a thing that we will not allow in regard to ourselves. Thirdly, you are dealing, when it comes to the strength and the influence of Communism, with information which in the various states is only possessed in detail, in confidence, by the security people and certain higher men of the Governments in those states.

I want to deal with the lines that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark took and I want to deal with his points as they arose. First of all he set out to define Communism and it seemed to me that he made a sufficiently good job for it to be quite capable of incorporation in the Anti-Communist Bill where the definition of Communism is immeasurably wider than the one he gave. To me the cardinal mark of the communist, apart from being a disciple of Marx and Lenin, is the fact that he believes in class war; in other words, he believes in force and unconstitutional methods as the method to right what he considers to be wrong. In other words, he believes that those who hold power will never sacrifice except in the face of force, and I might say in passing that the only people who can prove the communist wrong in that regard, are societies where privilege and power is modified without the use of force. I do not see much indication on the part of this Government to do anything but prove the communists right in that regard, since there is no readiness to modify any of the powers and privileges that the power and privilege class possess in this country. I am not talking now particularly in terms of race. Secondly, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark went on to deal with the international objectives and the balance of power with regard to Communism. I think it is true that it is the general objective of Communism to seek world domination for the ideal for which they stand, but I think the hon. member in his speech rather over-simplified the picture of what is involved. Lenin said 40 years ago that the road to Paris goes via Peking and Calcutta, and he was echoed later by Stalin who said that the back of the British would be broken on the banks of the Ganges and of the Nile, and that is why at the moment Africa comes into the picture as an important pawn in the game. First of all, the big resistance to Communism is the 500,000,000 people who live on the Western marches of Europe and in America, and anything we can do here is chicken feed compared with the resistance that those people can set up. Therefore it is not my policy here to-day to criticize either the United Kingdom or its diplomatic methods or the United States or its diplomatic methods. I am very grateful to those people, acting to the best of the wisdom and the knowledge that they possess, for standing as a bulwark against Communism, in which we may in a small way assist. I think to speak of them in this House in critical terms is perhaps not the wisest thing to do. The reason that Africa becomes of significance in that particular struggle is that the Russians naturally wish to make the Atlantic the dividing line in the struggle. So far the West has held them from there, but Africa can now become a weakness to the West in that it is the source of raw material and power that can be got on the continent of Africa. First it weakens the resistance of the great power of the West in that portion of which I am speaking. Secondly, the infiltration, the attack in this way, of course, is a method of out-flanking on the one hand the bastion that stands to the east of us—India—which after all is standing on the border line of Communism …

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 10 March.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I want to express my appreciation to the Leader of the House for having given preference to this Private Bill. This is a private Bill which is being introduced as the result of a decision of the Synod of the N.G. Church of the Cape Province. The Bill has only one clause, which repeals four old Cape Ordinances. All four of those Cape Ordinances refer to the N.G. Church. These Ordinances, which were passed in the last century, and which this Bill now seeks to repeal in toto, emanate from the history of that time. The N.G. Church was practically a State Church; the salaries of the ministers were paid by the State; the State approved the laws of the Church, and the State had its Commissioner present at every meeting of the Church to see that things were done in an orderly fashion. That was the position during the régime of the Dutch East India Company. After the Cape was taken over by the Batavian Republic, the then Governor, De Mist, passed an Ordinance in 1804 by means of which he attempted to relax the bonds binding the Church, as a privileged State Church, to the State. He repealed many of the old limitations, but quite a number of them remained in force, and they remained in force even after the British took over the Cape. It was only much later, in the year 1843, when these bonds were again relaxed. Legislation was introduced in the old Cape Parliament in 1843 by Sir William Porter, the then Attorney-General, who was also Minister of Justice. In this legislation passed in 1843 he deprived the State of much of its control, but peculiarly enough it still retained a certain measure of control. In this legislation of 1843, inter alia the Church doctrine was laid down and, inter alia, it was determined how the Church would be constituted, namely Church councils and the Synod. In 1845, two years later, this law was amended, and this amendment provided, inter alia, that when the salary of a minister of a congregation was paid by the State, the Queen had the right to appoint the parson of that congregation. This law was sent to the Queen for her approval, but in 1851, eight years later, it was discovered for the first time that the Queen had in fact given her consent but that the necessary publicity had never been given to it, that it had not been promulgated, and that this law had therefore been invalid for all these years. In 1851 legislation was then passed to make it retrospective. We find that in 1889 there was another amendment to amend the Church doctrine and to give the Cape Church the right to expand beyond the borders of the Cape Province. Those were the four ordinances passed in the last century which are still in force, and this Private Bill now proposes to repeal those Ordinances. The reason for this repeal is that it is the desire of the five N.G. Churches in South Africa to amalgamate, but at present it is impossible to do so; these Ordinances prevent them from doing so. In view of the fact that an attempt is now being made to amalgamate, it is the desire of the Cape Church to repeal this limitation, so that the Church can be free to amalgamate with the other Churches. The repeal of these Ordinances will not in any way bring about a change in the present composition of the Church. When the Synod decided to make representations and to introduce the legislation now before us, they inter alia reaffirmed their own standpoint, and the Synod passed the following resolution—

It therefore does not make any change in the existing position. On the contrary, it simply reaffirms the fact that the N.G. Church is an autonomous body corporate and as such is entitled to make laws and regulations for the control and the management of its own affairs. That is the right which all the Churches in South Africa have, the N.G. Church is therefore now being put into the same position that applies to all the other Churches.

This wish of the Churches to amalgamate is not something new. In 1911, shortly after Union, legislation was passed here to repeal the old Ordinances, but it was never promulgated because it was conditional legislation. It was made dependent on the success of the amalgamation. They did not then, however, succeed in their efforts to amalgamate and the 1911 Act therefore lapsed. The Church also took legal opinion and both opinions were to the effect that if these Ordinances were repealed there would be no change at all in the essence or nature of the Church. This Bill has been referred to a Select Committee on which both sides of the House were represented, and it was approved of without any amendment, and seeing that I understand that there will be no objection to this Bill I hope it will be passed speedily.

The hon. member for Bellville explained the matter very thoroughly so that it is practically unnecessary to go into further details. It does, however, appear that the main reason why this legislation has been introduced is the desire on the part of the various N.G. Churches in South Africa to amalgamate. It seems to me that that is also the main reason which should influence this House. It is desired on all sides that there should be an amalgamation of what belongs together. We are even trying to amalgamate elements which could not hitherto be brought together. In these circumstances there is no objection to the Bill from this side of the House.

When the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Christiana was adjourned on 10 February, I was stressing how the Karoo was visibly extending in all directions, and that this was an indication of desert encroachment. Over a wide area karoo bushes are replacing our grasses which are essential in the building up of our soil structure and holding our top soil from being washed to the sea. Mr. Speaker, in our areas of low annual rainfall, annual grasses are a great asset and rotational grazing brings great advantage to soil cover, in the interests of the farmers, but in areas of average rainfall, permanent grass cover can only be re-established by total de-stocking for a long period. This is a matter that needs the Minister’s particular attention because the present scheme of rotational grazing cannot provide the time essential for the establishment of permanent grass cover, and permanent grass cover can counter Karoo encroachment, and permanent grass cover is essential to retain the moisture in our soils and to maintain our water table. We all know how essential our water table is and if we do not pay more attention to the maintenance of grasses in this country, we are faced with tragedy. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to direct his attention and to direct the attention of his experts to the restoration of permanent grass cover and the introduction of edible pioneer grasses. An endeavour should be made also to displace our “steekgras” which annually brings a loss of millions of rand to our nation through the deterioration of our wool clip. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that however high-class the Free State merino sheep may be, we realize that those farmers in the stick grass areas never receive anything like the price where “steekgras” intrusion does not exist, and any money spent on this particular development would be in the interest of the country. This is a matter of urgency. It has also been authoritatively stated in this debate that a quarter of the original fertility of our soils has been lost since 1914. I accept that, because that statement has the backing of experts in our Agricultural Department. It does bring home to us how serious this proposition is. I say that our civilization will be tested on the White man’s ability to feed our growing population which is estimated to reach 30,000,000 by the end of the century. The future of this country depends on the development of our agricultural resources and not so much on our mineral assets. I say, and I think everyone will agree, that the Minister of Agriculture is carrying a very great responsibility. The Minister has concentrated on the proclamation of soil conservation areas and donga control, but there is an evident lack of soil protection and scientific crop rotation. Sheet erosion and soil destruction is evident over a great part of this country, to an appalling extent. In parts of the Karoo, Mr. Speaker, bare patches actually predominate and there is evidence of wasteful methods of endeavour for reclamation. I often think, Mr. Speaker, that these patches could be covered with shale which is available, in the vicinity, from our iron-stone “koppies” and that in that way we would create a seed-bed. This shale does decompose readily, it is rich in phosphates, it would restrain wind erosion, stop our dust and create a seed-bed at an economical cost. Then our mountainsides and our head water sponges are still subject to the cutting and burning of the indigenous growth. I think it is a calamity, Mr. Speaker, how fire brings about destruction, especially here on Table Mountain, mostly brought about by the uneconomical planting of pine trees, and the removal of our indigenous growth; our indigenous growth is resistant to fire, but these pines that creep up our mountainside, I regard as the most dangerous weeds in existence in this country. Pine needles are full of turpentine and they actually encourage these fires. It would be difficult to see a fire sweep Table Mountain like the recent one did sweep Devils Peak if it were covered by natural foliage. We realize that the natural growth on our mountains used to restrain the rush of water which convey so many tons of our top-soil to the sea annually. As the hon. member for Christiana said, the late Mr. Ross stated that 300,000,000 tons of our top-soil reaches the sea annually. It is an astounding statement, but it is based on facts and we must accept it, and when such astronomical figures are mentioned, it is incumbent upon us to pay due regard to them. Most of our cultivated soils are deficient in humus and these could be restored by compost and scientific crop rotation. We hear of crop rotation, Mr. Speaker, but not scientific crop rotation. It is not practiced here. It is intensively practiced in other countries. In Kenya it is absolutely compulsory that a crop, a legume and a grass has to figure in the system of crop rotation. In this country there is no compulsion. Our soil is a national asset and I have no doubt that if stress is brought to bear on the farmers, they would co-operate with the Government. The Government should initiate a drive for the manufacture of compost. It could be made an evil to destroy waste. The Minister could initiate a campaign for the production of compost and towns could be induced to put all their waste into compost and sell it to the farmers. This is done in many cities of the world. There are many cities in the world which are not threatened with the dangers we are faced with in this country, whose agricultural assets are rich; yet still these cities find it remunerative to produce compost from their waste and sell it to the farmers. The recipe as to how this is done can be readily obtained. I think I recently saw a statement in this regard in “Organized Agriculture ”. I also think that the Minister should initiate more intensive research into combating soil acidity and into trace element deficiency. Trace element deficiency is reflected in much of our stock in this country, in the growth, in the condition, in their lack of resistance to internal parasites and also in our heavy stock mortality. I have not the comparative figures, but I imagine that South Africa must lead the world in averaged annual stock mortality. That is nothing to be proud of, but I have no doubt that if research were made, we would find that we lead the world by a material figure as far as average annual stock mortality is concerned. It is a disgrace! It can be countered by better feeding, by better pastures, by the introduction of trace elements into the water, and no doubt these trace elements would pass through animal droppings onto our pasturage and in that way we would enrich our pasturage and build up our agricultural assets in this country. We have to do something of a radical nature, because ours is a poor agricultural country. We have a low rainfall but as our country is a succession of plateaus from where the rush of the water to the sea is rapid, we have enormous erosion, we have evidence of this in the rapidity with which our dams are silting up. There is no disputing the fact that man in South Africa has been most destructive. In the early days we had the “trekboer” who moved from the dry areas to where it was raining, following the lightning in the sky in search of grazing and water. In that way drought-stricken areas were not trampled and overstocked as they are to-day. Mr. Speaker, when you have a drought like the one in South West, extending over three years, three or four head of a stock on a farm is over-stocking. In times of drought one should remove all stock. As I have said if in our average rainfall areas we want to re-establish the grasses, which is so essential, we must also de-stock over a long period. The farmers cannot afford to do it, but if experts investigate and report on the matter, the Government would have to find a way to restore the soil. I think the hon. Minister should initiate a battle to save our soil and that that should be the responsibility of all South African citizens. We talk about volunteering to fight for our land and to fight for our way of life and to fight for our principles, and we shudder when we talk about Communism, but we should shudder more when we realize that we are losing our national asset, our soil in this country. Within half a century the assurance of our food supplies may be critical. Even if we conserved all our waters in this country, we have not a run-off to produce the quantity of food required for, say 100,000,000 people, and that is a figure which will be attained by our population within the next couple of hundred years, and a couple of hundred years very soon passes. Although we are a young nation, we are well over 300 years old. I would appeal to the Minister to make greater endeavours to induce students at our agricultural colleges to become extension officers. We realize that the Minister has an enormous shortage of extension officers in this country. He has not an extension officer for each proclaimed conservation area, nor has he the sufficient staff for these offices. They are all overwarked. They are putting up a magnificent effort and all my praise goes out to them and to the members of the Department of Agriculture who are doing all they possibly can. They realize how serious this problem is. I even say that the Minister should go further. If he cannot obtain the men volunteers, let him make an appeal to women. I have no doubt that women would come to our assistance. Women are the mothers of our nation and in all national emergencies and at any time of stress or strain, our women have taken a leading part. I do not think that we should say that we cannot provide the staff for our soil conservation schemes, unless we appeal to womento volunteer to assist us in this work. I have no doubt that we would have a gratifying response. I do not want to speak longer. I realize that it is Friday afternoon, and I imagine that many members consider that I have taken up too much of their time.

Soil fertility has always been a matter of prime consideration to me, but before I proceed I just want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that I am grateful that there is one member opposite who has shown that he has at least seen something in the soil. He has at least seen that there are difficulties which must be corrected and those are the difficulties which this motion proposes to solve. I wish to tell the hon. member that I want to agree with him because he has shown a love for South Africa.

When I listened to the very capable and well prepared speech of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) when he introduced this motion I thought that it would not be necessary to talk any further on the motion. I expected the reaction of hon. members opposite to have been more or less the reaction which we got from the previous speaker. But it was not long before I emerged totally deceived. It did not take very long to observe that the motion was not being viewed by hon. members opposite as it was intended to be. I must explain why I say this. The second speaker on the motion had hardly begun and he just wanted to explain that he wished to express the thanks of the farmers in his constituency for the assistance they have received from the hon. the Minister when, as from one mouth, there came a chorus from the opposite side: “Thank you, Mr. Minister a belittling remark which was certainly not suited to this motion. When the hon. member continued to express the thanks of his constituents some of the hon. members opposite threw back their heads and made audacious and disparaging remarks as a result of the thanks expressed to the hon. the Minister. That was clear proof to me that no matter what came before this hon. House, it was wrong in the eyes of hon. members opposite just because it came from this side of the House. It is regrettable to think that a motion like this, on the fertility of our soil, which is the soil of everyone of us, should be dealt with in this fashion. I so often hear that hon. members opposite are also Afrikaners, South Africans.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but with your permission I would like to mention the weapons used to fight the motion.

The hon. member must not deviate too far from the contents of the motion.

I am sorry that I am being restricted like this but I wish to bow to your ruling. The criticism which came from the opposite side was the sort of criticism which proved to us that every bit of it was intended to strike at this side of the House and at the motion. It is very clear that all of us cannot understand or speak the language of the soil. The previous speaker understood the language of the soil but it is impossible for all to understand it. But it is at least the duty of hon. members of this House to convey the language of the soil to their constituents and to the consumers. It is clear that a large section of the inhabitants of our country, the consumers, cannot see what we see, namely the deterioration of the fertility of our soil. We cannot blame them, because by reason of the work they do they have not been trained to understand the question of soil fertility as we do, but it is the duty of hon. members of all sides of this House to convince their constituents of the necessity for the conservation of the fertility of our soil. It is a national matter and should not be made a political issue. All the efforts of the people should be inspanned to conserve that fertility. Let us all realize that there will be nothing if the fertility of South Africa is gone. We can replace all industries, all sources of revenue and all the worked-out mines by other undertakings which will also be remunerative. We have a substitute for nearly everything we can think of. But we have no substitute for the fertility of our soil. There is no substitute which we can employ in order to restore the fertility of our soil so that we will be in a position to feed our country. Every day we talk about having to get immigrants to increase our population and that we should expand our industries. We agree with that and believe in it but we neglect the main thing that will enable us to maintain it. And when we raise such an important matter here then it is not always received as such. One can travel through the agricultural areas of the country and the cry coming from the impoverished and exhausted soil is no longer a cry for help. It is a shout, it is a loud shout containing a warning. It is a loud shout containing a threat. The exhausted soil is shouting for us to do something about it. And while we sit for days on other matters in this House we forget that the greatest of all matters in our country is the conservation of the fertility of our soil. If you ride through the agricultural parts you can close the doors and windows of your car but the starved mealie plant will still shout at you. The only way to stop it is to open one’s eyes. But if the farmer or the agriculturalist with his love for the soil will not shut his eyes then he will hear that voice because the voice will penetrate through his eyes to his ears, through any window and any door. We cannot overlook that stunted plant. I want to explain what I mean by this. A stunted plant or a stunted animal is an animal which, through lack of proper nourishment, grows in such a manner that it develops a larger stomach than is necessary in order that it may absorb more of the less nourishing foods to maintain itself. In order not always to have to give an explanation of how it comes about we call it a stunted calf, a stunted lamb, or kid, or plant in the agricultural language. That stunted plant, Mr. Speaker, is shouting at us. It is shouting at us that it will no longer be able to feed our country if we who sit here do not make some effort to restore the fertility in the soil which must feed it. If you ride over the plains, and that is not very far away, you will find those grey whirlwinds. They are shouting loudest of all. Those grey whirlwinds can no longer gather grass or leaves or vegetation, they cannot even gather dust any more. The ground has been trampled so hard and bare that the whirlwind cannot gather anything and it only makes a grey cloud of dust with the little it can gather. That little whirlwind is shouting at us: Conserve the fertility of the soil. When we do come upon these dust storms which blow away our fertile soil then we press the accelerator right down because it is a painful sight and we want to get away from it. It would appear as if tons and tons of that fertile soil which one loves so were being blown away. It would appear as if one was powerless to do anything. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste much time on this. I think the case has been put very strongly. I just want to say that I cannot shout loud enough, like that little plant in the improverised soil is shouting at me. If it was possible for me then I would also like to shout out that warning and at each crossroad, at each farmers’ store, at each co-operative shop I would like to put up a notice: Conserve the fertility of your soil. But because the plant cannot shout loud enough and because no one will hear me if I shout, and because there are also so many who will not understand when we shout, I will just have to talk softly to this House. I want to tell the House: Leaders of the people, listen: South Africa is shouting “preserve the fertility of your soil ”.

It is all very well for the hon. member who moved the original motion to thank the hon. Minister, because that is what it amounts to, for raising the fertility of the soil in South Africa. But what is the true position? The position is that owing to heavy mechanization of our agricultural and arable areas, and the heavy fertilization that is used, our people are now producing grain crops for export. But is that really raising the fertility of the soil? It is most important that we should look at the return per acre for the crops which we do produce in the Union. Our most efficient farmers are those who conduct mixed farming operations and who use the cattle to make sure that the fertility of their soil is built up by using kraal manure and humus. Then the general productivity of that soil is raised by the fact that the humus remains in the soil and the bacteria that work in that soil to make chemicals available to the plant life, are increased. This not only maintains but very efficiently protects the soil and improves its fertility.

Mr. Speaker, when one thinks of the amount of soil that is being washed to the sea every year in this country, it presents a frightening picture. There can be no question that all of our technical experts and specialists have told us time and time again that the dust bowl that is being created in the western Free State and the Western Transvaal is steadily creeping into our productive areas. But the fact is that we are still washing out our soil, even where we have irrigation, through the overuse of water. We use too much water in proportion to what is put back in the way of humus and kraal manure, and that is where we see the wasting assets of the soil. You can maintain your production at a fairly high level by fertilizing heavily and by using mechanization, but in the end that amounts to mining our soil and is not actually raising the fertility of the land. I am prepared to admit that you are getting higher crops, that the grain crops in the Union over the past few years have been becoming higher and higher. We have created records in terms of what has been produced of the same amount of land. But the question is, is the fertility still there? We see that as soon as we are beset by drought we have the wilting of our grazing, of our pastures, and because of the fact that moisture is in short supply the same crop is not gathered as in previous times, and you have lesser crops than if the soil contained a fair amount of moisture through the use of humus. Farmers can stand up to drought far better if the soil does contain a lot of humus.

I think that one of the reasons why these serious droughts that we have experienced over the last few years are having such devasting effect on the carrying capacity of the land and in terms of livestock losses can be said to be due mainly to the lack of fertility of the soil. In other words, our fertility is actually receding and not being built up. I think that the hon. the Minister and his technical advisers should undertake more extensive research into this particular aspect. But the matter does not end there. They have to go further. They have to convince many farmers in this country that the production of crops for sale, such as grain, especially where it is to be exported, is not a good thing for the land. Wherever you see good animal husbandry being carried out by livestock farmers you will nearly always find that those farms are improving year by year, but unfortunately we do not to-day have sufficient animals on our arable land to build up the humus content of the soil. As I said a little while ago, if your soil has sufficient humus deposits in it that soil is better able to conserve moisture. If instead of ploughing so much land we were to plough less and to carry livestock on the balance of the land and went in for proper crop rotation, it would be a great improvement in our farming methods.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that farmers in this country are not going in for proper crop rotation in relation to the bulk of their arable land, and I think that that is a great mistake. As a result of that we are losing the fertility of our land instead of building it up. Let me refer to what the sugar farmer has done. Last night under the Seed Foundation Bill the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) told this House what has been done over the last 20 years by private enterprise through their experimental station and through bringing into being new seeds for sugar cane. He told us how that has raised not only the quantity of the crop per acre but of the huge tonnages now taken off the same land which previously produced very much lower tonnages. That is not only because of the new strains introduced but because they are ploughing back into the land humus, which increases the fertility.

I would earnestly request the hon. the Minister to put his experts and technical advisers on to the task of convincing farmers in other arable areas that it is most important to watch this particular factor of our farming practice. As I have said, over the last few years all our crop records have been broken in terms of quantities that we have produced, particularly of maize. But what do we do? We send that out of the country. Other people are really reaping the benefit of our mining that soil. With wind erosion, particularly in the maize triangle, you see our arable land being spoilt. Then in the summer rainfall areas you see the tremendous amount of soil that is being washed into the sea year after year. It is high time that the hon. the Minister really convinced those people that they have to protect that soil and to put something back into it, the things that nature requires to enable the soil to build up its fertility.

Mr. Speaker, an amendment has been moved to this motion by the official Opposition expressing concern as if the fertility of our soil had been completely ruined. In fact, the last speaker also referred to it. But, Mr. Speaker, I think we should also let another note be heard in this debate. The previous speaker even admitted that during recent years all records in agriculture had been broken because of the larger crops harvested. Mr. Speaker, would that be possible if our soil was as ruined as was alleged? I remember that as a young man in 1924-5 I travelled from the Transvaal to the Cape by motor car and the Rand Daily Mail of that time said—I recall the words—

I think it was an abnormally favourable year and the crop was the largest of all time, namely between 24,000,000 and 25,000,000 bags. If anyone wants to take the trouble of turning up the records they will find that it was so. This year the estimate is 50,000,000 bags. If our soil is as ruined as is being alleged here then that would not be possible. We are busy virtually reaching a climax. Do hon. members know that we produced 85 bags of mealies per morgen in the Transvaal last year? One cannot do that on poor soil. It was produced on soil which had been used for years. We must also admit that we have learnt the “know how”, as the Americans say, or that we have improved the fertility of our soil to such an extent that this is possible now. I look forward to us eventually having the “know how” to improve the fertility of our soil. I do not for one moment want to suggest that the Department’s efforts to give assistance should be stopped. On the contrary, I would be the first to express appreciation for the tremendous progress we have made. I think, for example, of the cultivation in recent years of the Ermelo-type of grazing and of the tremendous improvement it has brought about in our herds. The original idea that it would improve the soil was later proved to be baseless. That grass does not improve the soil but it is indeed valuable for grazing. What does in fact happen is that the farmer is virtually compelled to introduce the animal factor into his farming.

In view of the increase in the population of our country during recent years the expectation is that the South African population will be doubled by the year 2000. In other words, we will have approximately 30,000,000 people to feed. Reluctantly the question arises: Will the agricultural community of South Africa be able to feed that 30,000,000 people or will food have to be imported? Let me say at once that we have been extremely unfortunate in the importation of foodstuffs. Every time we tried it in the past—I do not want to refer to the experiment of the hon. members opposite with the importation of mealies from the Argentine—it was fatal for South Africa. In view of these facts it is the duty of the Department and of the hon. the Minister to prepare South Africa as far as possible now so that it will in fact be possible for the farming community to feed the country. About the year 2000, when the population will be approximately 30,000,000, our agriculture must be in a position to feed those people. The question is whether we will be able to do it. I have already spoken about the “know how ”. What has happened that farmers who at first got 10, 20 and 30 bags of mealies per morgen can now rise as high as 85 bags per morgen? How is it possible for this to have come about? In the first instance I want to thank our Department and also our fertilizer factories, factories which produce fertilizers but which are also continually busy doing experiments. How is it possible that where we at first had 15,000 mealie plants per morgen we now have 40,000 on the same area; and how can we feed that soil to the extent where 50 bags of mealies per morgen is no longer a rarity? I say that if we can improve the “know how” then it is obvious that the South African farmer will be able to answer the call coming to him from the country.

Allow me to point out that if the price of wheat in South Africa could be increased I venture to predict this afternoon that within a few years we will no longer be importing wheat from Canada or Southern Australia. The wheat farmer has shown that with the increased price now in existence he has come very close to providing all South Africa’s needs. A further increase will automatically bring it about that the farmer himself will find a way of doing it. This is not only true in respect of wheat and mealies. There is in fact hardly any product of which there is not a surplus. That is one of our main problems —surpluses which must be sold at a loss on the oversea market. That is so. That makes our agricultural industry a difficult one. We are suffering from precisely the opposite of what is being aimed at in the amendment of the Opposition. We are suffering from too great soil fertility and too high production. That is the truth. It may sound funny to say such a thing but is it not a fact? Have we not got too much cheese, butter, milk, too much of everything except an item like wheat? We have too much meat. The meat farmers are saddled with it and do not know what to do with it. Mr. Speaker, let us be reasonable. It is the task of the Department, and I as agriculturalist who lives with my nose to the soil and as one who wants to make a living out of the soil want to bring the highest praise where it is due. Where the hon. the Minister has already put his heart and soul into the matter I think I can tell him that the South African farmer appreciates very much what he and his Department are doing in this direction. When I say this I am by no means saying too much. We owe a lot to the Department for teaching us to do things we did not know before, for teaching us to combat diseases among our cattle, diseases from which our stock died in the past; for teaching us to prevent our horses from dying of horse sickness, to prevent our sheep from dying from the many diseases we know, and the same with our oxen. We have great appreciation for the Department which makes all this possible for us. There is appreciation from our people for this having been made possible. In the past, when I was younger, it was nearly impossible to keep a horse alive in the Transvaal during the summer months. To-day there are thousands of horses on the plains of the Transvaal. We have the incidence of blue tongue among our sheep; and the incidence of bloody kidney disease. To-day there are thousands of sheep where no sheep could be maintained before. Gallsickness, red water and heart water were all dreaded diseases but that is no longer to to-day. Heart water was an incurable disease until a few years ago. To-day it is curable. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, let there be a ray of light in this motion. While we want to retain the fertility of our soil and would like to increase it we should not forget that we have in fact progressed far in that direction and have achieved much to the credit of the farmers of South Africa and also to the credit of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) posed the question to this House, was it not a question of too much butter, too much milk, too much maize etc. Well, I think there is only one reply to that, and that is not enough people in South Africa are able to absorb the commodities that represent surpluses in South Africa to-day. The sooner that is brought about the better it will be for South Africa. I think it is one of the greatest essentials in this country that we try to absorb the commodities we are producing on the land rather than subsidize them in order to feed people in other countries.

The motion before the House is one thanking the Government for what it has done to bring about greater soil conservation and to raise soil fertility, and it asks for more research and technical services. I belong to the group of people who support the amendment to that motion, in that I think the fertility of South Africa, while it may have been raised a little, has not been raised sufficiently rapidly. It is the method of approach to the whole subject that is wrong. What the hon. member has said is perfectly correct, that we have more than doubled our production of maize, but is consideration given to the fact that in 1925 the amount of land and the nature of its cultivation in comparison with 1960-61 was very different. We were expecting 50,000,000 bags of mealies, of which at least 20,000,00025,000,000 have to be exported overseas subsidized by South Africa. It is mining the soil, and personally I feel deeply concerned, as is clear from the amendment, at the slowness with which we are trying to restore the fertility of our land. But when I say that I am not trying to cast a slur upon the technical services which we have, and the services being provided by soil conservation. They are doing their best, but are they getting the greatest amount of response from the people for whom they are working? In South Africa we have mined our land for far too long, and let me say that fertilizers, as we are using them, are no remedy for the position. There are parts of this country that are growing almost every one of our cereals, plus maize, on fertilizer. But it is not the raised fertility of the land that is doing it. We must settle down to the fact that we have to put back into that land some organic matter that is going to raise its fertility, and we must employ methods that will bring about still greater fertility, by rotating our crops. The establishment of nitrogent producing crops on land that has been completely worked out is the remedy.

May I suggest to the hon. member for Pretoria (District) that that is the know-how which the Americans employ, the raising of the fertility by raising the organic properties of our soil. In addition, a system of rotation is employed in those countries to which he referred as having the know-how. If we follow their example I think we would know-how in this country as well, and we would make a very great contribution towards bringing about greater soil fertility in South Africa. We have a growing nation to feed. That nation’s attitude to everything in this country is being raised. We are raising their standards of living as a contribution towards putting those people in a position to be able to absorb our surplus products. There will be an increasing demand made on agriculture, and are we in a position to meet it? What contribution are we making as far as waste is concerned in this country? There must be some hundreds of thousands of tons of effluent passing from the towns, which might readily be absorbed to raise the fertility of our lands, but no, it is discharged into the sea. Can we not institute research into the recovery of that particular organic matter in the interest of the fertility of our soil? There are many other methods that we might employ. It is not my intention to weary the House, but I can assure you, Sir, that the fertility of our land is a primary factor and unless we tackle it with a will and with the know-how, our position will be desperate in the course of time.

There is one incontrovertible fact, viz. that in large areas of our country the fertility of our arable soil as well as our grazing is deteriorating. I do not want to go into the causes of it which have already been discussed widely, but I merely state the fact. I also want to point out that reference has been made here to surpluses. In my opinion, these surpluses are merely temporary. South Africa’s great problem, and in the very near future, in the agricultural sphere will be to feed its own population. We are faced with that problem. As our population, White as well as Black, attain higher living standards, so its demands for food will increase, and we will have a new eating pattern in South Africa, and the great danger in future, with the natural increase in the population and the higher standards of living, is that there will not be enough food, and the farmer will be faced with the problem of producing food for the people. Therefore, although we may have surpluses, they are only temporary and we must look further ahead. In order to enable us to provide the necessary food for the people in future, it is absolutely necessary to increase the fertility of our soil, because on that will depend whether the population will have enough food, and the task will rest on the farmer to provide the food. This is an interesting motion and it has been discussed thoroughly. I just want to say a few words about two additional causes for the deterioration in the fertility of our arable soil and our grazing.

The first basic reason is the lack of sufficient training for our young farmers. I want to put it this way, that there is no community or group of people in South Africa who are worse off in regard to their training than the farmers, except perhaps politicians and Members of Parliament. But we cannot afford to fail because of lack of training for the farmer. Let us analyse the position. Although we have facilities in the country for training farmers, thanks to the steps taken by the Government since 1948 to alleviate that position to a large extent, my proposition is that we cannot train all the young farmers who enter the profession every year, because we do not have sufficient facilities. I said a moment ago that there was no community which receives less training than the farmers, and I want to prove it. If we take any other calling or profession in South Africa, the inexorable requirement is that the person who wants to practice that profession must be trained thoroughly. Just take a bricklayer. We realize to-day that we cannot take a young boy and give him a trowel and a set square and some bricks and mortar and call him a bricklayer. We require that he should receive a thorough training for at least six years and then he must also receive two years of apprenticeship training before he can become a professional bricklayer. The same applies to a carpenter and to all the other professions. But what is the position in regard to our young farmers? There are facilities, for which we are grateful, but they are insufficient. About two years ago I read in the report of the Secretary for Agriculture that every year approximately 3,000 young farmers leave school to go and farm. How many of them have been trained to cope with the modern requirements of agriculture? This same report tells us only 10 per cent of them —300 out of the 3,000—are equipped with the necessary training to practice this calling. Then we are surprised when our soil fertility deteriorates and because in many cases the farmer is a failure. But we need not be surprised at this position, because I want to state that there is no calling in this country, whether professional or technical, which requires so much knowledge as that of the farmer. We are no longer living in the time when a man became a farmer because he was not good enough to do anything else. To-day the farmer must be equipped with the necessary scientific training and technical knowledge if he wants to be successful. In these modern times there are quite a number of sciences which apply to agriculture. I do not want to go into it, but the farmer has to be a bacteriologist if he wants to know everything about the fertility of the soil. In regard to cattle raising, he must know something about heredity and he must know something about cattle diseases and their causes and how to combat them. There is hardly any science which is not applicable to agriculture. What is more, he must be an economist and an accountant and a bookkeeper and even a meteorologist, and he must be equipped in every way if he wants to be a successful farmer. Therefore I say that there is no other class of people to whom it is more essential that they should receive proper training. I am not one of those who think that training alone counts. One must also have practical experience, and therefore the training given should be scientifically practical. I must admit that there are other facilities also. The 10 per cent I refer to are only the students at the agricultural colleges. Then we still have the agricultural high schools in the various provinces, which will raise the percentage a little. But here again there is a lack of coordination and we are faced with the evil of differentiation in regard to the agricultural training of our youth, and that ought to be remedied. I have not the time at my disposal to discuss how this problem should be solved, but I feel that the whole of our educational policy, also in respect of agricultural training, should be better co-ordinated and made more uniform. Then we also have the agricultural faculties at the universities, which specially train a certain percentage of people to take agricultural degrees, but they do not play any great role in our farming population, because the majority of them are employed either by the Department or by private initiative. My plea is that the Minister and the Government should begin thinking along broad lines in respect of the training facilities for our farmers, because agriculture to-day is such a complicated and scientific subject that the farmer must be fully equipped in order to keep his head above water. We dare not allow South Africa to have a farming community which merely struggles to make a living and then expect them to feed the people of the country now and in the future and to preserve the fertility of our soil. We cannot afford such a large percentage of them going under every year because they are not equipped with the necessary technical knowledge.

I just want to draw attention to the fact that we have our extension services which try to give adult education to the farmer. They do excellent work, but is that the right way? Would it not be better first to train the farmer for his calling and then use the extension service so that the farmer would know what the extension officer was talking about when he came to his farm; then he could interpret the information given to him, but to-day he cannot do so. That will also result in our farmers not only becoming professional farmers, but also farmers who are conscious of a vocation, who will not love the soil and agriculture only for what they can get out of it, but who will feel a vocation which will give them the strength to surmount all difficulties.

I just briefly want to mention a second reason for the deterioration in our soil fertility, viz. the high price of land. The gap between the actual market value of the land and its actual economic value is too large. We are told that when the average farmer wants to equip himself to start farming operations to-day and he has to buy land and all the other necessary things, it costs him from £15,000 to £20,000 or more. He needs a tremendous capital sum in order to farm successfully, and the greatest proportion of it goes towards the purchase price of the land. I say that, taking the prices of agricultural products into consideration, the market value of land is out of proportion to its economic production value. Unless there is a different price policy, or unless we can do something to bring the market value of the land closer to its economic value, I fear that our farmers will be faced with serious problems. I am therefore pleading for means to be adopted to make that gap narrower, because even if we give the farmers all the training and assistance possible we will always find farmers in this country who will fail. We must close the gap between those two things.

Mr. Speaker, one must appreciate the emotional fervour revealed by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. J. A. van der Merwe) in regard to matters on which he has strong feelings. I do not want to be as emotionally fervent as he was, but I gained the impression that the hon. member has put his finger on the pulse of the actual troubles of the farmer. The hon. member referred to land values, something which is very important, and to the gap between the market value of arable land and grazing and the actual economic value of that land. There are many reasons for it. The hon. member did not go into the reasons, but there are various reasons as to why there is this gap. I do not think this gap can always be prevented, but one of the most important reasons is something one also sees reflected in the world economy, viz. that in times of prosperity one finds that the prices of agricultural products rise more slowly than the prices of all other products. We then find that whereas any other products, commercial products and also the price of land, show a normal increase in time of prosperity, the increase in the price of agricultural products lags behind, and then one has this gap. The converse is also true. When there is a recession in the economy we find that the price of agricultural products falls fastest, and the price of industrial products and land prices show the least fall. That is one of the basic reasons why one always finds this gap between the market value of land and its actual economic value. There are other reasons also.

Order! The hon. member should not go too far.

I do not want to discuss the other reasons, such as the devaluation in the value of the currency, but I am glad that the hon. member for Kroonstad mentioned it this afternoon because that is one of the difficulties a farmer has.

He mentioned another very important matter, the training of the farmer. He drew the parallel that in any other profession, except perhaps in commercial life, a man is first trained thoroughly before he is allowed to practice his profession. I do not want to overemphasize this aspect to the same extent that the hon. member did. In my time I have seen some of the best trained farmers, who received their training at agricultural colleges and universities, going insolvent, and I have seen farmers who received no training and who had not even passed Std. 3, becoming rich. Therefore I do not want to over-emphasize it. But I do want to say that as a general statement what was said by the hon. member for Kroonstad is the truth, namely that with the specialization in agriculture and with agricultural units becoming increasingly smaller, it will become essential for the farmer to have more technical knowledge in order to be successful. To that extent the hon. member is right.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) advanced a very strange argument. He came to the conclusion that the motion as well as the amendment had been drafted wrongly; and that the motion should rather have read that the House felt concern at the fact that the agricultural soil of South Africa was too fertile instead of not being fertile enough. He employed a very peculiar kind of logic in order to prove this statement.

I do not think the hon. member should reply to that.

But, with respect, he spoke about soil fertility, but he said that the proof of the fact that our soil was too fertile is that 25 or 30 years ago one found big headlines in the Daily Mail if we expected a record crop of 25,000,000 bags of mealies and this year the estimated crop is 50,000,000 bags. I do not want to go into the matter, but I think the hon. member’s argument is founded on a false premise. In the first place the area planted to maize is much larger than it was in 1924. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Key ter) will support me there. In the second place, during the. last few years in regard to soil fertility and particularly the cultivation of the soil we have seen a different phenomenon in South Africa which causes me concern, viz. that instead of trying to increase the fertility of the soil we are busy on a large scale putting those elements which are lacking in the soil into the soil artificially for just one year. I want to tell you, Sir, that by means of this method of adding large quantities of fertilizer, particularly in so far as maize is concerned, one can practically produce maize in a sandy desert if only one has water. But I want to warn the farmers that I am concerned about this method of adding large quantities of fertilizer to grow crops. I will not follow suit.

It is dangerous.

In my opinion, it is more dangerous than planting wheat in the North-eastern Free State, where wheat should never have been sown, because if one has a dry year, and as a result of the tremendous cost connected to the fertilizer used, the costs with cultivating the land and the cost of applying top dressings once or twice afterwards, the farmers of South Africa, and particularly the maize farmers, will have to pay the price if there is a small set-back. In the second place, it requires so much technical knowledge that only the very efficient farmer should do this sort of thing. Therefore I think that the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) is based on a completely wrong premise. But seeing that we are now discussing the fertility of the soil and the deterioration of our soil fertility, in terms both of the motion and of the amendment—we do not differ on the point—I think that in the first place the State should realize its responsibility towards South Africa. Sir, when I cast my mind back 30 or 40 years ago when I was a small boy and I think of the Free State and the Transvaal Highveld and the Western Free State and the Western Transvaal, and when I remember the splendid pastures we had there, I ask myself: Why were they ploughed under? The State should in the first place bear the responsibility for that, because in the 1920’s the State evolved the idea of building up an export market for grain and the farmers of South Africa, particularly those in the maize triangle, were encouraged to increase their production. That was the slogan of Ministers of responsible politicians and of technical officials at meeting after meeting: Produce, produce, produce. And the farmers of South Africa did so. They ploughed those beautiful pastures. Accompanying it was a subdivision of the land, and hand in hand with that we had pirate farming, over-cultivation of the soil, etc., until we reached the stage when that soil could not produce any more. I am convinced that the one great defect in the agricultural set-up, as supported by the State, is that the Soil Conservation Act was passed 26 years too late. That is one of the most important reasons. In 1924 South Africa started with the large-scale growing of grain for commercial purposes, and if at that time the soil Conservation Act had been passed so that the soil conservation could have been applied simultaneously with the large-scale production of grain, we would perhaps not have been faced with the problem with which we are faced to-day. But we only started with the Soil Conservation Act in 1946-7; we woke up 26 years too late, and now we are faced with the position that we have to catch up with a backlog of 26 years. At this stage I would like to move—

I second.

Agreed to, debate adjourned until 24 March.