Yesterday evening, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) gave to the House the Opposition’s view on the United Nations situation. Broadly speaking, their attitude appears to be the same as when the debate took place on the Commonwealth Conference. There was general condemnation; an attempt to create an atmosphere of fear and despondency; and above all, to use both these events for the purpose of making political capital for the United Party. Mr. Chairman, the Opposition have shown once more that even in a matter of national interest, even in matters of such importance as this, they are not able to rise above considerations of political expediency. I repeat what I said yesterday, that undoubtedly the impression has been created, also by the Press supporting the Opposition, that they are exulting in what they term “ South Africa’s diplomatic defeats ”.

They were your defeats!

For instance, last week when the vote was taken on the apartheid question at the United Nations, one of their newspapers (I think it was the Argus, but I am not sure) had a huge headline extending over several columns: “ South Africa gets its biggest drubbing.” Mr. Chairman, the use of the word “ drubbing ” is a clear indication as to what was in the mind of the man who wrote that headline. Yesterday the hon. member for Constantia said: “To-day we are running away with our tails between our legs.” A shocking statement! A shocking statement coming from a front-bencher of the Opposition. But in the same breath he complained about the Government standing firm; he also complained because I had hit back at those who have attacked us at the United Nations. He objected to what I said about nations that we expected would abstain, and who on this occasion voted against South Africa. One gets the impression, judging by the speech of the hon. member for Constantia, that the Opposition’s attitude is that South Africa must willingly lie down to be kicked by our enemies at UNO; or alternatively, that South Africa’s traditional policy of separate development, of racial separation, should be abandoned in order to satisfy the Afro-Asians at the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, if that is their policy, then I suggest that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and those who speak on behalf of the Opposition, should tell the country quite frankly where they stand. What is happening is that the Opposition is riding two horses. On the one hand, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) admitted on Friday, they are in favour of what is undoubtedly a policy of discrimination, a policy of White control, sometimes termed by them “ a policy of White leadership with justice ”, whatever that may mean. On the other hand, they appear to favour a policy which must eventually lead to racial integration.

I come now to a matter which I referred to last night. I deal with it to-day because of doubt having been cast upon the correctness of the statement that I made last night. I pointed out that the late General Smuts in 1946, and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) in 1947, when he led the South African delegation at UNO, were subjected to exactly the same attacks and hostile resolutions at the United Nations. The correctness of my statement was questioned yesterday. Had it only been the know-all member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), I would not have taken much notice of it, but it has also been questioned by more responsible members.

Sir, in essence there is very little difference between the 1946-7 situation at the United Nations and that existing to-day. Then as now, the whole issue centred round the issue of “ separation ” or racial discrimination. That is the crux of the matter which was last week, and previously discussed at the United Nations. I hope to settle this matter once and for all by giving to this House what General Smuts actually said. I quote from an official statement issued by the Department of External Affairs in 1947, that is before we came into power. It appears in a memorandum which was submitted to the United Nations. I quote from paragraph (3)—

He would have been criticized for that by the hon. member for Constantia—

What resolution are you referring to?

I shall give the resolution.

But what resolution was it?

The hon. member I believe was there. It was just before he got notice, as he will recall, in connection with his employment on the staff of the Information Office.

You are wrong again. I was not there.

He was not all there.

I continue reading from the memorandum—

I give a further quotation from the statement which was issued in 1947 by the then Government of the Union. I am only quoting a few extracts which are pertinent to this issue. Amongst other things it stated—

that is to say those who have condemned South Africa—

In another paragraph it is stated—

Mr. Chairman, the statement issued by the previous Government goes on to to speak of—

“ apartheid ”—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Salt River in 1947 represented South Africa—and may I say, put up a very good show; he did not take up the same attitude as he is taking up to-day in the Progressive Party! He seems to have changed his views since then! The hon. member made a speech at the United Nations in 1947, and I quote some extracts—

Correct! Then he went on to say—

If I am to judge by the statements which he makes these days, that does not appear to be his policy to-day. He went on to say—

Quite right. And yet, yesterday we were given the impression that it is only since this Government came into power that we have been condemned by the United Nations.

They did not condemn us then.

The question of economic sanctions imposed by India would also be left unsettled. He said—

The question of economic sanctions was then also raised!

I am giving the Committee this information to show that in essence the issue is the same as it was then. To a certain extent it may be a matter of degree, but it is the same issue of racial discrimination. The impression was given yesterday that this year there had been these exceptional attacks made on South Africa. But exactly the same attacks took place then! Let me quote a few of the statements made. The Polish delegate stated—

that is the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence)—

Exactly the same attacks which are being, and have been, levelled against South Africa during the past years. The delegate of Iraq stated that—

that is by the hon. member for Salt River—

The Chinese delegate stated—

The same as this world condemnation that we were told of yesterday—

The Russian delegate said—

Then we get Yugoslavia—

And then you get Pakistan—

The delegate of Egypt said—

The delegate of Mexico, one of the Western delegates—

again this world condemnation—

Mr. Chairman, I have quoted these statements to show that the previous Government was facing exactly the same situation and had to meet the same attacks and the same arguments in 1946 and again in 1947 as we have to-day. I have here the Year Book of the United Nations. Unfortunately, I do not have with me a record of the exact terms of the resolution of 1946, which is in Pretoria. But here it is stated that—

Which resolution was that, the Indian resolution?

Yes, the Indian resolution. The apartheid resolution was raised for the first time in 1950. But essentially it was the same racial issue, and the same arguments as on the Indian resolution. Then India submitted a fairly strong resolution, and they come back again to the statement made by the South African delegation—

A debate followed and the following resolution was passed—

1. 1. States that, because of that treatment, friendly relations between the two Member States have been impaired, and, unless a satisfactory settlement is reached, these relations are likely to be further impaired;
2. 2. Is of the opinion that the treatment of Indians in the Union should be in conformity with the international obligations under the agreements concluded between the two Governments, and the relevant provisions of the Charter;
3. 3. Therefore requests the two Governments to report at the next session of the General Assembly the measures adopted to this effect.

What year was that?

That was 1946.

Mr. Chairman, I hope, that having given this information my word will not again be questioned when I state that the previous government had to meet exactly the same attacks, and met with the same hostility. I have a right to ask, particularly in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson): Does the United Party still stand by the attitude taken up in 1946 and 1947 by General Smuts and by the hon. member for Salt River respectively? I think, particularly in view of yesterday’s criticisms, that we have the right to expect a clear reply from the Opposition.

Another matter which was raised by the hon. member yesterday was my alleged attacks on Western nations. I pointed out in the course of my statement, as I have done on previous occasions, that some of our accusers are themselves practising racial discrimination in a greater or a lesser degree. What I stated was a fact. It was perfectly justified. I said, and I say it again, that those who accuse South Africa, and who have described our policy as abhorrent—that word “ abhorrent ” was recently used by two Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth—do not have the moral right to do so, in view of the fact that racial discrimination is practised in their own countries. I would be neglecting my duty to my own country if I did not refer to those facts. Also they do not have the right to support by implication, the imposition of sanctions. As far as the Opposition is concerned, and also a section of their Press, it is the same old story which we have so often experienced in the past, namely, that the Opposition and certain newspapers are always anxious to rush to the defence of or to the support of South Africa’s enemies—to take sides with South Africa’s enemies.

Yesterday I was criticized, as the hon. the Prime Minister was criticized the other day, because of my statement regarding the motives which determine the votes of delegations. None of those delegations will deny that their governments are subject to pressure, internal pressure as well as external pressure. They will not deny that their own nation’s national interests in those circumstances, receive prior consideration; that they must go with the stream in regard to certain matters. Take, for instance, this new world slogan of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms. The cry of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms was used, as I showed to-day, also against both General Smuts and the hon. member for Salt River. Something which must not be forgotten is that governments and nations react like human beings when their own interests are at stake. There is nobody in this House who, in certain circumstances, does not ask himself the question “ What is in the interest of myself and of my family, my wife, my children and my property?” And the same applies in the cases of nations and governments. In the first instance they have to look—and they do look —to the interests of the countries which they represent.

Yesterday the charge was made that the whole world is against us. May I say at once in that respect I do not think we should worry about the opposition of the Eastern nations, and of the Afro-Asian nations. But what is of concern to me is the attitude of the Western nations. That is undoubtedly a matter for concern. Mr. Chairman, it has happened again and again that a delegate tells you quite frankly “ In this matter I would like to support South Africa, but we are subject to strong pressure at home by the Socialist Party ”, or “ We have a coalition government at home or “ We have to keep in with this or that crowd”.

The South American nations generally vote together. They hold a caucus meeting to decide how to vote. Then the delegate will say “ I am very sorry, but the Latin-American nations held a meeting this morning and it was decided to vote in such and such a way ”. And they all vote accordingly. That happens continually. But that does not mean that the people of those countries are necessarily antagonistic to South Africa. The bulk of the British general public and the public of the United States of America are not hostile to South Africa, whatever their governments may do. I gave the reasons yesterday. I did not blame the British government. The British government had practically no alternative but to act as they did in view of political pressure at home; their commitments outside, and political considerations in Africa. But that does not mean that the general public feels that way.

Mr. Chairman, last year I had the honour of representing the hon. the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Conference. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know from the Prime Minister the other day why he did not sit tight and do nothing. That was the time when I did sit tight. I refused to agree to attempts made to discuss our internal affairs, and to put certain statements in the communiqué. And when I got back to South Africa I was criticized by members of the Opposition and by their Press for not being more forthcoming! I held a Press conference in London, and it was astonishing to see the packs of letters that were received every day from all over Britain approving of our policy and wishing me all success. The same thing happened during the last Prime Ministers’ Conference. Our private secretaries were over-burdened with the work of attending to the masses of letters which were received from all over Britain. There is a big reservoir of goodwill in Britain towards South Africa. The attitude of the governments at the United Nations must not be taken to represent the feelings of the people of the countries they represent. And that is where the hon. member for Constantia is making a mistake.

The same applies to South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred the other day to the number of letters he has received. I think he would be surprised, and also perturbed, if he were to know about the large number of letters that the Prime Minister has received from English speaking people in South Africa since his return from London. I also have received a large number. The attitude of a government is not necessarily a reflection of the attitude of their people. The same applies to North America. I met many Americans when I was there, and they are perfectly satisfied, in spite of the fact that they are influenced almost daily by Press reports giving entirely distorted pictures of the position in South Africa.

Listening to the speech of the hon. member for Constantia yesterday, and to other speeches from those benches, on the Commonwealth and United Nations issues, I say that their object is to create an atmosphere of fear and despondency among the people of South Africa.

You do not expect us to praise you, do you?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be surprised if he realized that the swing is taking place in South Africa, since the Prime Minister’s return from London.

The Opposition is faced with the same old trouble. They must satisfy both the conservative and the more liberal sections of their party. All the liberal minded people are not in the party of the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler). The United Party has to satisfy both sections of their party. Therefore they have to blow hot and cold. I fully agree with the statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Progressive Party viz. that this latest, so-called racial federation policy of the United Party is nothing more than—to use his words—an attempt to make United Party policy look respectable by world standards. That is correct and I could not agree more.

I repeat, that what is happening now and what has been happening during the past week, is an attempt on the part of the Opposition and their Press to divert attention from what I may call their double-faced colour policy, and/ or, the lack of it, by creating an atmosphere of doubt, fear and despondency. Those tactics will not work, and the sooner they realize it the better.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister entitled to refer to what he calls the United Party’s double-faced policy? [Interjections.]

For the third time this House has seen the spectacle of the hon. the Minister entering this debate since 8 o’clock last night. We cannot say that we have listened to the hon. the Minister, we have merely watched the spectacle of the Minister digging into the records of his Department over 13 years to produce for this House certain extracts that he has selected to prove a case that his foreign policy—if it can be called such —is perfectly justified on the basis of the events of the past 13 years.

That statement was issued in 1947.

The hon. the Minister forgets that there are possibly other hon. members in this House who may have done as much research in respect of these documents as he has. And I say most circumspectly, this afternoon, that the hon. the Minister has adopted the tactics of selecting what suits him out of certain extracts of White Papers published by the government of those days, and by the United Nations, in order to support the case that the policy he adopts at United Nations is perfectly justified. I submit that the picture he has given to this Committee is entirely erroneous and completely incorrect. Let me show this Committee why I say this.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and I both interjected while the hon. the Minister was speaking and asked him what resolution he was referring to. The hon. the Minister said he would give it to us, but he did not give it to us. Why not? Why did he not give us that information after quoting these remarks that were made at United Nations to General Smuts at that time? Why did the hon. the Minister not give us the true facts?

I did give them to you.

No, the hon. the Minister did not give us the true facts, and he knows it. Let me tell this Committee, the only two resolutions that were before the United Nations in 1946 and 1947 comprised the one that the hon. the Minister quoted from General Smuts’ statement on the refusal of the United Nations to accede to his request at the time for the incorporation of South West Africa. Our racial policies as such were not under consideration by way either of resolution or condemnation by the United Nations of those days. And the second example which the hon. the Minister quoted when referring to speeches made by the hon. member for Salt River who, at that time, was leader of the South African delegation to the United Nations, was a resolution in respect of the treatment of Indians in South Africa. That had nothing whatsoever to do with racial issues or policy. [Laughter.]

It is no good the hon. the Minister of External Affairs laughing. Let me ask the hon. the Minister to make the admission across the floor of this House to-day on this point: In 1946, 1947, 1948 or 1949, when South African delegations attended the United Nations, was there any references whatsoever to the policy of apartheid? I challenge the hon. the Minister to produce any document in this House to-day showing that that was the subject of discussion. It was only when this hon. Minister went over as the first delegate of the Nationalist Government at the United Nations, as the first leader of a Nationalist Party delegation—and his speeches are on record in the Parliamentary library if any hon. member cares to see them —it was only then that he said that the United Nations must realize that there is a new Government elected in South Africa, a government with the policy of apartheid, which was entirely different from that ennunciated by previous South African delegations. And it was only from that day onward that the opposition to our racial policies arose. And the hon. the Minister himself admitted to-day that it was only in 1950 that the first resolution appeared on the agenda of the United Nations, condemning the racial policy of apartheid in South Africa. Is that correct or is it not correct?

Racial discrimination. What about that?

You see, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will not make the admission. He is now frightened of it. He is caught up in the tangle of his own half-jack arguments that he has attempted to present to this Committee. A more idiotic conception that an hon. Minister can come along to-day and justify his policy of to-day by comparing it with the policy of a United Party Government in 1946 and 1947, I cannot think of.

Are you serious?

If the hon. the Minister finds so much justification for United Party policies at the United Nations of those days, why did he not support the United Party racial policy in South Africa in 1946 and 1947? Why did he go to the electorate of South Africa and say that the Nationalist Party had this new policy of apartheid on which it asked for the support of the electorate on that policy if there was so much discrimination and so much condemnation of United Party Government policy at UNO in those days? Was there no difference then between the Nationalist Party Policy of 1948 and the United Party policy of 1948? You see, Sir, now the hon. the Minister sits in his seat and will not make that admission because by making that admission he will blow the case he has presented here sky high.

You have got the floor, I have not got the floor at the moment.

What this House wants to know and what this country wants to know from all these speeches of the Minister since 8 o’clock last night in which he has condemned not only the United Nations, the United Kingdom, France, Malaya, Australia, Canada and other countries, plus all the news services and the so-called distorted Press of the United States and the distorted Press of the United Kingdom; the perversions of the B.B.C. and the National Radio Network of the United States of America—through all that we want to know what the Government’s policy is. We want to know, are we going to remain a member of the United Nations? Are we going to follow a policy of trying to make friends with anybody at all in this world?

This hon. Minister says “ I hit, I attack: I hit back diplomatically ”—the hit-back diplomat of the world! And look where it has landed South Africa: We have not a friend in the world because he hits back all the time. And yet this Minister says he is a diplomat, a foreign Minister with whom one can negotiate! But his methods are just to hit back. With what? With the racial policy of the Nationalist Party? He hits back with apartheid, a policy which the world has condemned and which the Commonwealth Conference and every Western nation has condemned; a policy which the Afro-Asian countries have condemned. Who are the friends who help the Minister to hit back? Who is going to stand on his side and at South Africa’s side? Who is going to support South Africa?

Let us have another observation of this hon. Minister. He says there is a new spirit in Africa and because of that we cannot find friends. But for six years we have been told of this wonderful policy of seeking co-operation with the African States and with the emergent States of Africa. Where are the friends that the hon. the Minister sought to make in six years? Where are these people who will stand with us in times of trouble? The result of the Minister’s policy is this new spirit in Africa which has locked South Africa out of the rest of the African Continent. We sit alone and the only alternative we have is that this hon. Minister stands up and says “ Well, the rest of Africa has kicked us out and we must stay south of the Limpopo; we are kicked out south of the Sahara so now I will try and make a group with the Federation and with the Portuguese to the east and the west of us. And what has happened to that policy? Have we found any support for it? Is there any support for the Minister’s proposal from the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasa-land? Has there been a word of welcome from Sir Roy Welensky or from any other leader of the Rhodesias for this new idea? Can anyone of these countries really afford to associate themselves with a policy which is condemned by the rest of the world? Can they afford to say they want to form a White group with this menace, with the policies of this Government? The case that the hon. the Minister has tried to make has failed. He has tried to justify himself but he finds that he cannot justify himself or his policies against the unanimous vote of the United Nations. [Time limit.]

I do not usually take much notice of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). Again to-day, in his usual blustering manner, with much shouting and much noise, he tried to wriggle out of the situation, that during the time of his own Government, when General Smuts and the hon. member for Salt River were at the United Nations, the attack against South Africa was based on the policy of racial discrimination. The hon. member must be deaf. He surely heard when I read the statements made by General Smuts on his return to South Africa, and also the statements made by Mr. Lawrence in his speeches at the United Nations. The speeches of our opponents also in those days were on the one subject of racial discrimination. Now that hon. member cottons to the word “ apartheid ”. He wants to get away from racial discrimination. We have been told again and again that our policy of apartheid is a policy of racial discrimination. Apartheid is a word that was coined, but the meaning is exactly the same, and the hon. member knows it. But now he comes in his blustering manner, and tries to give the impression that I misled the House. I suggest that he read through those reports again. The words “ racial discrimination ” run like a thread right throughout the discussions at the United Nations since 1946. In the resolutions and the statements made there, you find the words “racial discrimination” and “offending human dignity All the arguments were the same as used against apartheid during past years. Now he tries to wriggle out of it. Let me tell the hon. member that all his bluster will not get him and his party out of the position in which they find themselves, as a result of what happened in 1946 and 1947, when the issue was substantially the same as it has been during past years.

May I have the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, the Minister of External Affairs last night, and again this afternoon, attempted to make two points in his review of world affairs. The first was that many of the Union’s critics were themselves practising racial discrimination; and secondly, that while the Opposition ascribe the adverse voting against us to the Government’s racial policy, they forget that General Smuts and I received the same treatment at UN. Well I listened very carefully to the hon. gentleman this afternoon. His first intervention was a depressing speech, an unhelpful tirade and a boring reiteration of many irrelevant matters. Sir, the hon. the Minister speaks too much. The time has come for the Minister of External Affairs—· and I have no doubt that he will consider whether his title should not be changed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs now that we have left the Commonwealth—not to talk so much either in this House or at UN, but to do a little more clear thinking in order to grasp the realities of the situation.

What were many of the irrelevancies we had this afternoon? He said there was an attempt by Opposition members to create an atmosphere of fear and despondency. Is that what you do when you point to the realities of the situation and try, from the patriotic standpoint, to face clearly the dangers with which we are faced, and then to see whether the time has not come for adjustments and rearrangements which will bring us into line not merely with world opinion but with changing opinion in South Africa itself? The Minister says that the Opposition cannot rise beyond an attitude of political expediency. But what have his words been this afternoon? Quotations of what happened 14 years ago, idle reminiscences of the past. He takes exception to the fact that the Cape Argus had treble column headlines saying that South Africa had had the biggest “ drumming ”.

Drubbing. Do you not know what drumming means?

Yes, I know. I thought he said “ drumming ”. I would not have been surprised to hear about a drumming from one in this House who is so fond of blowing his own trumpet!

The Minister spoke about South Africa’s traditional policy of “ racial discrimination ” and then, realizing his mistake, he quickly changed the phrase to “ racial separation ”, a lapsus linguae! Some of my colleagues will deal with other aspects of his lapsus linguae when we come to deal with the Minister’s allegations in regard to Sweden. The Minister went out of his way, in his speech last night, to suggest that other countries practice racial discrimination and that therefore their political hands were not clean and that they should not make allegations against us. He went out of his way to name certain countries, like India, Norway, Sweden, Canada and the U.S.A. He spoke about the Eskimos and the Lapps. And he said that in the U.S.A. there was more discrimination than in South Africa. I ask you, Sir, is this wise diplomacy? Is this tu-quoque argument, even if completely true, going to help us in the situation in which we find ourselves? The Minister of Foreign Affairs is in a position of special responsibility, both in the Cabinet and in relation to the whole country. After all, he is the link between the Government and the foreign representatives in this country, the heads of missions of other Governments here. I would say that my own reading of the situation is—admittedly I have not the evidence at the disposal of the Minister—that most, if not all, of those countries with diplomatic missions here are sympathetically disposed towards us and I believe would be disposed to help us. In those circumstances I would repeat my conviction that, even in this age of Russian rudeness, I do not believe that good diplomacy is inconsistent with good manners and that _ it is necessary to give our friends a kick in the pants…. [Interjections.] I have no doubt that the heads of missions here report the facts back to their Governments. I am sure that many of them attempt to describe the benefits we have bestowed on the more backward sections of the people. [Interjections.]

Oh, shut up, you!

On a point of order, is an hon. member allowed to say “ Shut up ”?

Who said that?

I said it.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I am sorry this noisy element on my left is trying to distract me. I may say that the hon. member who first made the injection was fast asleep when the Minister was talking. As I said, I have no doubt that this is the attitude of the missions in this country, and the Minister goes out of his way to give these countries a slap in the face. He talks about Canada, and suggests that race discrimination is condoned by the Canadian Government in respect of the Eskimos. Well, I am not venturing into the far North now; I leave that to the Canadian Government. But I would remind the Minister that when he refers to Canada, Canada has a particular reason for knowing that race discrimination in this country is linked with strong-arm tactics because it was a Canadian journalist who was locked up in this country.

Are you actually defending him?

I have no doubt that that incident was not calculated to improve diplomatic relations between the two countries. [Interjections.] I am not concerned with those rather boorish interjections by the hon. member. I hope they are recorded in Hansard and will be judged according to the persons who uttered them. If not, I shudder for the future.

You always shudder.

Order! Will the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) please stop interjecting.

I want to suggest that the Minister’s approach in his speech last night and this afternoon is not likely to consolidate international friendships. He very rightly made one observation with which I heartily agree. He said Governments behave like human beings. I think that is true, but they also want to be treated like human beings. One of the basic charges against our policy, however much the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs may believe that the so-called policy of parallel development will lead to the best of all worlds in South Africa, is that it brings in its train a denigration of human dignity and frustration of the human spirit, which obviously is resented by human beings. And why does his policy do that? Because it is not based on an approach to the individual so much as on an approach to groups.

Finally, in regard to the Minister’s charge that whatever our position may be, the rest of the world is worse, may I say that in any event racial discrimination elsewhere, if it exists and where it does exist, does not have the stamp of the approval of the Government concerned. There is a genuine attempt, e.g. in the U.S.A., which the Minister has so maladroitly chosen as an example, on the part of the Government not only to stamp out racial discrimination but to safeguard the dignity of the individual. Why does the hon. gentleman make these statements? Does he really believe that he is doing South Africa good by denigrating these other countries and using these cheap, fourth-form school arguments of trying to blame the other fellow? Of course much of the criticism of South Africa is incorrect and is based on false premises. Some of it, I concede, is due to malice on the part of our critics. But the fact remains that when you get down to rock-bottom, the policies which this Government have been following for the past 12 years are abhorrent—and I use the phrase quoted by the hon. the Minister—to modern thinking. The Minister mentioned the Afro-Asian group. That group has been consolidated because of the binding effect of their dislike of what they regard as colonialism and any differentiation on the basis of colour and not merit. It would be idle for me to dilate on the merits of colonialism. I believe that colonialism has played a greater part in the history of the world and of Africa. It has been the precursor of emancipation for backward nations. It has played its part. But like many other factors in the development of the human race, colonialism has had its day, and in the minds of many of the emergent non-White States it is linked with subjugation, and for that reason the Afro-Asian block has been able to gather an increasing number of supporters and is exercising an increasing influence at UN.

The hon. gentleman then comes to General Smuts and suggests that General Smuts and I had similar treatment at UN, He was at pains to quote from a resolution which was passed by UN in 1946, dealing with the alleged treatment of Indians in the Union. Why did he not refer to what happened in 1947, the very next year? It is perfectly true that in 1946 a resolution was placed on the record at UN calling upon the Union Government to take certain steps in regard to the treatment of Indians. The Minister mentioned my name. I would not mention my own part in this, except that he has done so and has specifically singled me out for—I will not say most favoured nation treatment, but special treatment. Why did the Minister not tell the Committee this afternoon that in 1947, when the Government of India attempted to reimpose the resolution against the Union, that resolution failed to get a two-thirds majority and it lapsed, and that when I left UN in 1947 the slate was clean and we had nothing against us? And why was the slate clean?

How many Coloured nations were there then?

I admit that the membership of UN was not then as large as it is at present. The Minister has referred in somewhat scathing terms to the La tin-American bloc. Let me tell him that the bulk of that bloc which voted with the Union in 1947 and that Siam, according to the somewhat crude observations of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to a coloured nation, refused to vote against South Africa because its representative understood the position in this country. Why was I, when I went to UN in 1947, able to prevent a resolution being passed against us? The reason was that I was able to present two things to UN. In the first place, I offered them reports on South West Africa, on the instructions of General Smuts. We were prepared to report on the position of South West every year, although we took up the attitude that we were not bound in terms of the mandate conferred on us by the League of Nations to submit ourselves to a trusteeship agreement. But we voluntarily agreed to submit reports every year. Secondly, I was able, in dealing with this Indian resolution, to point out that we had offered the Indians of Natal and of the Transvaal, for the first time in the history of the country, a franchise on a separate roll. It has been suggested that General Smuts, if he were alive to-day, would have followed the same policies as the present Government. Let me say that that is a ridiculous argument which is not borne out by the facts of General Smuts’ own policies, his flexibility and his rejection of segregation in 1942; and let me tell the Committee that when General Smuts was prepared to give the vote to the Indians on a separate roll in 1946, he was prepared to give them direct representation. Let me tell the Committee that in 1946 the Cabinet was prepared, if the caucus of the party was prepared to accept it, to give direct representation to the Indians. But the caucus was not prepared to accept it. I state that fact so that it may go on the record to show that any suggestion that General Smuts was not moving with the times is untrue. General Smuts was flexible. He was prepared to submit reports on South West and to recognize the dignity of the human being.

After listening to the Minister this afternoon, I fear that his diplomacy is muddled and maladroit. We have the world against us because we have made race discrimination the basis of a dogma and it affects every aspect of our lives. It is not merely a question of giving this man or that one the vote; it is a question of our attitude. Think of the Group Areas Act. Think of that Coloured vice-principal at Rondebosch, who, the other day, gallantly made a public statement, and said that if he was ordered to move in terms of the Group Areas Act he would remain. He had spent all his life’s savings in building a house in Rondebosch in an area which is not obnoxious to Europeans. He and other Coloureds had grown up there. In terms of the Act, they are now forced to be uprooted. That is an attack on human dignity. It is those things which are bringing us into disrepute. It is not necessarily the question of the vote, but the question of this discrimination on the basis of colour alone which has brought us to the state we are in at present.

What about the Pegging Act?

There was no discrimination on the basis of colour alone in terms of the Pegging Act. It applied to Whites as well as non-Whites. I know the terms of that Act, because I introduced it. It is no use the Prime Minister saying that parallel development does not involve discrimination; it is the very core of it.

We are now about to be outside the Commonwealth, and I want to turn away for a moment from our thoughts about the Commonwealth and to move to another world sphere which has been affected by some events in Cape Town just recently. I think, for instance, of the new Germany. What happened just recently? We have had a visit from Herr Eric Luth, a member of the official German Opposition and chief of the Hamburg Information Department, who expressed certain criticisms in the Cape Town Press. This visitor spoke out of a friendly attitude in regard to his worries about the Union. What was the motive which induced him to speak? As I read it, he emphasized that he, as a German, spoke from personal experience. He had experience of race discrimination, and where it could lead to. It certainly led to the complete isolation of Hitler’s Germany and to ultimate disaster. I would say that his critical remarks did not stem from animosity towards South Africa, but because he was well-disposed towards the Union. Actually he has a daughter and grandchildren living in this country. What did he say? That we in South Africa, Government supporters and Ministers of the Cabinet, are misjudging the diplomatic relations in the outside world by suggesting that, though we have left the Commonwealth, all is well because we have many friends. He went on to say, in effect, that if Western Germany is put to the test of having to choose between Black South Africa and apartheid, there will be no choice. Western Germany is not yet a member of UN, and she has to be specially careful not to adopt an attitude which will make her ultimate admission impossible. Herr Luth claimed that, because of the situation in East Germany, which is under dictatorship, she was unable to have a free decision about her destiny…. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, when there is a mild murmur from the Opposition you call them to order, but now there is a running commentary going on opposite. Will you please deal with them?

Order!

I said that Herr Luth stated that because of the position in East Germany under the Russian dictatorship the people should have a free decision about their destiny. It is the hope of West Germany that East Germany will be emancipated from Russian dictatorship. They want to give the opportunity to the people in East Germany to have a free choice, and because of that ideal Western Germany must adopt the same attitude towards the young African States. The Minister said that Governments are subjected to pressures. Of course they are, and the Government of Western Germany is also subjected to pressure. Does the Minister not realize that, as far as Western Germany is concerned, with whom we might be able to enter into trade agreements, there could be no choice when it comes to choosing between apartheid and the emergent Black States? The criticism of this visitor met with great attention. There was a reaction against him from the Minister’s Department. He was accused of having abused our hospitality. We were told that he had made shocking statements. He wanted to know what crime he had committed. He felt that he had acted in a friendly manner and merely wanted to state the standpoint of the Western German public. He emphasized that foreign visitors in Western Germany are taken seriously when they express criticism and are even asked to appear on television and on the radio. Western Germany is coming back to democracy. If there is criticism of their country they want to hear it, and it is not stifled. Does the Minister really believe that this friendly critic of South Africa is a relatively unknown person, whose opinions have little value? This Herr Luth, who was hunted by the Gestappo in Nazi Germany, became well known all over the world because of his uncompromising stand on racial discrimination. He immediately after the war advocated in Germany compensation for the Jews who had been persecuted, and he became the watchdog against any form of neo-Nazisms in the resurgent Germany. He believes that all race discrimination is bad. He is a member of the German Opposition party and, therefore, he did not feel himself obliged to make polite diplomatic statements which do not get one anywhere. I tell the Minister that a friend has an obligation to state his views frankly and not to lull us into a false sense of security. I ask myself what impression will Herr Luth take back to Germany, and what will he tell the people there on his arrival? Will he tell them about the muddled diplomacy of this Minister? I want to ask the Minister whether he was responsible for the rocket which was given to this visitor. Was he responsible for the treatment of this visitor; did he give instructions that he had to be rapped over the knuckles; and is he responsible for the fact that this visitor, who was prepared to absorb our problems and to go back with friendly feelings, cancelled his appointment to visit the State Information Office and returned overseas? Did the Minister give those instructions? I come back to where I started. I believe that South Africa is in a difficult position. We are in the pillory because it is official Government policy, as admitted by the Minister this afternoon, to practice race discrimination. The Prime Minister seeks to suggest that it is not really race discrimination but is adaptation. If he really believes that that is so, I would have thought that it would be the primary duty of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to turn the other cheek when difficult criticism comes, to listen to the critics, and to give them the opportunity of going around the country and having their criticism confounded if possible, rather than to take up this high-handed attitude which gets one nowhere. That is why, in my opinion, our internal diplomacy is based on the wrong tactics. It is muddled; it is incompetent. And if the hon. the Minister makes speeches such as he has made in this Committee this afternoon and last night, and at the United Nations, no wonder that the record of votes against us increases every day. [Time limit.]

What a pathetic figure we had here this afternoon in the person of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I have never heard anything more pathetic than what I have listened to here this afternoon. He had a word to say in defence of everybody; he had a word to say in defence of Mr. Luth, whom he does not know, because if he knew him he would not have said that he was a member of the Opposition in Germany, which he is not. He is a city councillor. He is more or less like Sidney East in Cape Town.

What is wrong with Sidney East?

And he is even worse than Hymie Miller of Johannesburg. The hon. member had a word to say in defence of everybody. He even defends Phillips of Canada, but he does not have a single word to say in defence of South Africa, as he had in 1947. How the heroes have fallen! I would like to exchange a few words with the hon. member in regard to Mr. Phillips of Canada. Does he agree with what Mr. Phillips wrote about South Africa? Did he write the truth? I want to go further. I challenge him to show me any member of the Canadian Parliament who defended Phillips. The only body in Canada which tried to defend Phillips was the equivalent of the Association of Journalists, which in Canada is certainly just as Leftist as it is in this country. No member of Parliament tried to defend Phillips, but the hon. member for Salt River must defend him. Surely he knows that Phillips is a professional liar. I ask the hon. member for Salt River whether he read what Phillips wrote about South Africa, and is he aware of the fact that Phillips was sitting in Durban and then wrote a lot of lies about Langa and said that he had been in Langa?

Is that why you locked him up?

You locked up many people.

We locked him up for good reasons. I now ask the hon. member for Salt River—he is a brave man—whether he read what Phillips wrote about South Africa? Is what Phillip wrote the truth or not? Did Phillips sit in Durban and then tell the public that he was in Langa? Did his editor tell Phillips to send “ blood and guts ” stories? The hon. member for Salt River will defend anything except South Africa. And then he asks the hon. Minister of External Affairs: “ Is it necessary to give our friends a kick in the pants?” Sir, he will defend everybody who receives a kick, but not South Africa which has received so many kicks. He cannot say a word in defence of South Africa. What has gone wrong with the hon. member? In the first place, he defends this German who has no status, who definitely acted discourteously, and he defends Phillips, who not only is a blatant liar but who is clearly a professional liar like Stanley Uys and his ilk in South Africa who sell their souls for lies, who sign documents to betray South Africa.

Will you repeat that statement about Stanley Uys outside this House?

I say Stanley Uys is equally as blatant a liar as Phillips.

Will you repeat that outside?

I will repeat it outside. I have told him this before and he has not the courage to take me to court. Those are the people whom the hon. member defends. If Stanley Uys goes to Canada or to Australia and makes an attack on Australia, will a member of Parliament get up there to defend him? South Africa must be the only country in the world where a prominent person like the hon. member for Salt River, an ex-Minister, gets up to defend a professional liar like Phillips, and then he still says that we should not kick our friends. But we do not hear a word from him about the kicks we receive. And what is the hon. member pleading for? He pleads that we should adopt a policy to satisfy UNO. But when he was in the Cabinet there was a similar motion before the Senate and I am going to read that motion—precisely the same motion with which the hon. member came along here to-day, a motion introduced by ex-Senator Basner and seconded by Senator Campbell—

And what was General Smuts’ reply to this motion?

What is the date of it?

It was introduced on 30 January 1947.

Did Basner move it?

Yes, Basner moved it; not Harry Lawrence. Then he was still a South African; then he sat in the Cabinet. General Smuts replied to that motion, and this was his reply to the motion, which to a large extent agrees with what the hon. member said here to-day—

And then General Smuts quotes the motion and continues to say—

That is what General Smuts said in reply to a motion similar to the one for which the hon. member for Salt River pleaded this afternoon. General Smuts said further—

That is what General Smuts said on precisely the same sort of motion as that of the hon. member for Salt River, and at that time the latter sat in General Smuts’ Cabinet. Then the hon. member said that they should not interfere with our internal affairs.

However, he did not put them in gaol.

Mr. Chairman, there sits the greatest gaoler South Africa has ever seen. He imprisoned people by the thousand, and what is more he asked me to trace them and to assist him in imprisoning them. He did not wait until people besmirched South Africa in order to imprison them. He imprisoned them because he did not like the colour of their eyes. [Time limit.]

All I want to say with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is that there is a big difference between the Government of this country and the country itself. It is only in totalitarian countries that the government party equates itself with the country, and there is a big difference between criticism of the Government and criticism of South Africa, and we on this side will continue strenuously to criticize the Government when it deserves criticism; but criticism of the Government is by far not criticism of South Africa, and we refuse to accept that totalitarian conception of the government party.

What are you being paid for your criticism?

On a point of order, we cannot hear what the hon. member is saying because there is such a lot of noise emanating from the cross-benches opposite.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Heilbron entitled to allege in this House that the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is paid for his criticism of the Government?

Sir, I do not mind …

He asked what the hon. member is paid for his criticism. Surely that is a reflection on the hon. member.

The hon. member may continue.

Sir, I take no notice of personal attacks; I know the hon. member. All I want to prove is that this row which is continuously going on in this corner is an indication of the deterioration which parliamentary democracy is suffering under this Government.

Order! The hon. member may not reflect on the Chair.

I am sorry if I did that; I did not intend doing so. I would like to give heed to your appeal in regard to the discussion of South West African matters and I also want to say that I am quite sympathetic towards the attitude adopted by the hon. Minister of External Affairs that certain matters affecting South West Africa are sub judice in the International Court and that he, as the Minister responsible, is not prepared to discuss matters which may influence the case prejudicially to us. I am quite sympathetic towards that standpoint. I actually live in South West Africa and perhaps I have more reason than the Minister or any other member of the Government to be concerned about the future of that territory and to act in such a way that South West Africa’s case will not be prejudiced. When, therefore, I speak about South West in so far as its external position is concerned, I shall try to draw the line in the right place. To eliminate all discussions on South West would be quite unrealistic, because the case before the International Court can easily last two years, if not longer, and in the meantime matters do not become easier for South West and the public grows increasingly concerned. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I was in Windhoek a few days ago. I returned from South West yesterday afternoon, and in all the 14 years I have been living in South West Africa I have never yet noticed such a feeling of concern and uncertainty amongst the farming community as well as the businessmen as now.

That suits you.

There is a serious recession in trade and the initiative which was such a prominent characteristic of life in South West is disappearing.

Is that our fault?

There was a long drought which certainly made its contribution, but at the moment it is the international political situation which causes uncertainty and even fear amongst the people, and the Minister, who was a Minister of Economic Affairs, will realize how conditions of fear and uncertainty and a feeling of insecurity affect the economic life of a country and have a snowballing effect. The first shock came with a charge laid against us in the International Court, and the consequences which people fear it may have for us. The second shock came as the result of the loss of Commonwealth membership by the Union. It is generally realized that it is really the pressure of Black Africa which manoeuvred South Africa out of the Commonwealth more than anything else. In any case, the Blacks in Africa regard our loss of Commonwealth membership as a victory to them and a miracle, which they want to follow up at all costs, and the feeling unfortunately is that if the Union Government cannot withstand the pressure from Black Africa or negative it in respect of our link with the Commonwealth, in the long run it will have the greatest difficulty in surmounting the pressure of Black Africa plus that of the whole world in respect of its bonds with South West Africa. The recent resolutions about South West Africa in UN, their aggressive tone, the unanimity with which they were adopted and the fact that our last few friends who have hitherto always supported us on the South West question have now also turned against the Government, are creating further concern on the part of the public. In addition to all this, there are two important factors. The one is a fast-developing political organization amongst the Natives in South West, particularly amongst the Ovambos. The other factor which causes serious concern is the violence taking place in Angola which adjoins South West. Angola has always been regarded as a sort of buffer strip between South West and the rest of Africa, a natural buffer, but I think there are few people to-day who believe that that buffer will remain what it was for long; and the disappearance of Portuguese control in Angola, if that is to happen, will expose our borders on almost all sides to the same sort of thing now taking place in Northern Angola, which adjoins the Southern Congo. The same tribes which inhabit the northern parts of South West, the Ovambo, also inhabit the southern parts of Angola, and it is these very Ovambo who to-day have become so politically active in South West. But the most important source of concern to-day is the collapse of the Union’s international position. There are people who mention Spain as an example of a country which for years stood alone in the face of the enmity of the world, but that gives us no comfort. Spain has a more or less homogeneous population and its internal policy did not arouse the feelings of the world to nearly the same extent that our Government’s policy did. And apart from that, the position here is different from that in Spain. We have this serious complication in South Africa, that in addition to all the pressure being exerted from abroad we have a divided White population and an inimical non-White majority in the country. As the result of all these circumstances there is in South West to-day an atmosphere of approaching crisis. I regard it as absolutely essential and as being part of the Government’s duty towards South West that it should show that it is aware of the seriousness of the position and that it should not merely sit still and confine itself to defending the case in the International Court. The public wants to feel that the Government will anticipate possible incidents, and that in the meantime it will take certain concrete steps to eliminate as many grounds for attack and criticism against us as possible. One of the main grounds of criticism and attack against us in UN is that not enough official information about South West is being given to the world. I have here the official Year Book of South Africa, and in that Year Book there is an excellent section about South West Africa, a section containing all possible information and statistics about South West. It cover the same field as the reports which were formerly submitted to the League of Nations about South West Africa. The only pity is that this year book always comes out years too late. The last issue was four years ago, for the year 1956-7, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible that the section in the year book dealing with South West can be kept up to date annually and then be published as a separate volume as a year book for South West and as a report tabled by the Government in Parliament, so that in this way it can be made available to the outside world. [Time limit.]

I had not intended speaking about South West Africa to-day, but I do feel that I should say something in regard to South West. I feel, after your ruling yesterday afternoon in connection with the fact that the question of South West Africa is sub judice, that we should be very careful in discussing the matter. I realize the delicate and dangerous position in which South Africa finds itself to-day in regard to this difficult problem, particularly in view of the fact that a case has now been initiated in the International Court by Ethiopia and Liberia. I want to tell you right in the beginning, Sir, that I am not as pessimistic in regard to South West Africa as the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is. I can assure you that we should be very careful in handling this matter, because this case can have very serious results for South West Africa, and that is the last thing we want. It is not for me or for anyone in South West to make matters more difficult for the Union Government, but I consider it my duty as a representative of South West to illustrate our position here and to tell the Committee how it affects us.

Let me say very clearly right in the beginning that the Whites in South West Africa have decided that, come what will, they will not leave South West. Let me emphasize this: Whatever happens, we do not intend leaving South West. We have been living there for years. We went there when the territory was still completely uninhabited and undeveloped. We tamed it and made many sacrifices and spent money to make it inhabitable. Most of, us to-day possess farms in South West and also big businesses which were built up with great trouble, and we do not intend abandoning all our possessions and leaving the territory, as was done by the refugees from the Congo and Tanganyika. We have decided to stay there.

Tremendous development has taken place in South West during recent years. I want to mention it here so that hon. members can realize what is actually going on in South West. The total population of South West Africa to-day is about 500,000, of whom only 72,000 are Whites. It can therefore be realized what the achievements of these 72,000 Whites were. Tremendous development has taken place in place of agriculture, mining, fishing, the provision of rail and harbour facilities and the building of roads. During the last ten years enormous amounts have been spent on those facilities. I do not wish to weary the Committee by giving figures, but I just want to mention a few. We now have 1,463 miles of railway in South West. In the last few years R58,000,000 was spent in respect of rail and harbour facilities. Of this amount, R14.6 million was spent on broadening the narrow gauge line; R8,000,000 in respect of improving the harbour at Walvis Bay, and between R18,000,000 and R20,000,000 was spent on purchasing diesel locomotives. To-day South West Africa can boast of having the most modern railways in Southern Africa. We are proud to know that the Government did this for South West. Apart from that, large sums were spent on public works, schools, hospitals and administrative buildings.

Let me come back for a moment to the subject of roads. We have 2,000 miles of main roads, 5,000 miles of truck roads, 17,000 miles of proclaimed public roads, and then the Administration is now launching a big programme in terms of which R46,000,000 will be spent in respect of tarring the roads, 200 miles of which will be completed by the end of the year. I mention this so that hon. members can see what is going on in South West Africa to-day. Furthermore, I want to say that South West Africa to-day. Furthermore, I want to say that South West is a happy country. We have done much for the non-Whites there. There were in fact a few little riots, particularly those in Windhoek recently, which were incited by agitators, but apart from that I can give the assurance that South West is a very peaceful country. The Government as well as the South West African Administration have done everything in their power to fulfil their obligations towards the population there. I therefore feel that we have nothing to feel ashamed of. We have no reason at all to fear anything and we feel that we can look the whole world in the face; we have confidence in ourselves and in our future. I want to emphasize that in those circumstances South West Africa will not allow the territory to be handed over. This Government has repeatedly assured us, in the words of the Ministers, that the Union Government would not hand over South West Africa, and we accept it. We are very glad to have that assurance. It gives us confidence for the future. The mandate over South West Africa was granted to the Union as the result of the Union’s participation in World War I. We fought for South West Africa. Our troops conquered the country, and what, moreover, is even more important, is this: We did not conquer South West from the non-Whites, it was taken from the Germans, and if any section of the population has any claim to South West it is the Germans. Fortunately they no longer make any claims to South West. The German section stands together with the South African population in South West Africa, as one man behind the Government’s policy, under no circumstances to hand over South West. Let me emphasize that we have every reason for believing that South Africa will stand or fall by South West.

But there is something which causes us great concern, and I just want to mention it in passing. I think the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has already referred to it. It is the threat with which we are faced from Angola. Unfortunately my constituency stretches along the full length of the northern border of Ovamboland, which is on the border of Angola. My border is the last trench between Angola and the Union. Now I personally want to give the assurance that I have full confidence that the Government has taken all possible steps to ensure that the inhabitants of that area will be fully protected. But we never know what can happen, and I just want to ask that the people there should have the assurance that the Government will not leave them in the lurch. [Time limit.]

I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to South West Africa. Later in my speech I want to ask a question in regard to South West Africa, but I shall endeavour, Mr. Chairman, to comply with your request last night.

I want to go on from here by referring to the large number of speeches made on the other side comparing the position of South Africa in the world in 1946-7 with the position as it is now. Such a comparison of course is ludicrous and unreal and can only be intended as a smoke-screen to hide the position into which the policies of the present Government have landed us. To-day South Africa is in danger, as we all know. External pressures are building up daily and none of us know what the next few months are going to bring. The prime responsibility of the Minister of External Affairs surely is to inform the hon. the Prime Minister of the outlook of foreign countries and UNO towards us. He must tell the country, as the hon. the Prime Minister can’t or won’t, what the possibilities are of the development of these dangers that surround us. He cannot sit back as he has been doing, trying to throw the whole responsibility on to the Prime Minister. Surely he has got the Prime Minister’s ear. Surely the Prime Minister listens to him, or perhaps he does not. One wonders sometimes. But surely in any case, he advised the Prime Minister before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference as ta the outlook of the outside world on the Prime Minister’s policy of baasskap apartheid, yet the hon. the Prime Minister after the Conference said that he was amazed at the outlook and the hatred that this policy has brought to us. Surely, too, he must have evaluated and told the Prime Minister of the dangers of action by the United Nations, definite action against this country! He must have advised the Prime Minister of the danger of leaving the Commonwealth, leaving us entirely alone with the last restraining influence on our enemies removed. Mr. Chairman, there are two old mottoes in Europe which I think can be used in connection with the position we are in. One family motto is “ I may break but I will not bend ”. The other is “ I may bend, but I will not break ”. Here we have a man in control of the destinies of his country, the hon. the Prime Minister, and we have another man, the Minister of External Affairs, and between the two of them they are, I am afraid, incapable of changing the course of the events that have fallen on us. The policy of this Government has failed, and failed once and for all. The Prime Minister knows this and the hon. the Minister of External Affairs knows this. The cold war is on us, and it may become hot. What do they say? Both of them? “ We may break, but we will not bend.” The hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly told us after the Commonwealth Conference that he was amazed at the dislike of South Africa and the misunderstanding about South Africa in the outside world. This I can well believe as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. He has not been out of the Union for many, many years. But the Minister of External Affairs has, frequently, and surely he being in touch with the outside world, knew what the position was, and what the result was going to be of our leaving the Commonwealth. Did he not tell the Prime Minister of the hatred of the Government’s policy? Why the surprise on the Prime Minister’s part when he found out about it? Did not this Minister advise the Prime Minister of our growing isolation? Or did the Prime Minister disbelieve him? I don’t know. I wish I knew. I have a very great fear indeed that the Nationalist Afrikaners of this country are being led to immolation. They are groping about, unhappy, looking for safety and content and security on a road on which none of these things can be found. In addition they seek, apparently, strength from the thought that I and mine will meet the same fate as they do, with them, side by side. We won’t, Mr. Chairman. Don’t let them delude themselves. We will find a way of living together in a multi-racial state under the United Party, and no mealy-mouth appeals from anyone will bring unity on the basis on which it is now offered. Mr. Chairman, things are so dangerous, I think, that one can’t draw on one’s personal experience to seek a solution. If something is worrying you and the Prime Minister will not reply, then one goes to the next best man. And here is where I come to South West Africa. I am not referring to the International Court. I will do my best to keep within your wish, Mr. Chairman. I want to know what the Government’s policy is if we are going to be attacked, or if there is the slightest suspicion of our being attacked. I want to know whether this Minister has warned the Prime Minister of the dangers inherent in the South West situation. We are at the present moment before the court of the world. I want to know what is the worst sentence we can get, and going from there I want to know how we are preparing to meet the worst that can happen. As a member of the South African public and a member of the reserve of Officers, I want to ask the hon. the Minister how far his thoughts have carried him in this debate? Does he intend to advise the Prime Minister to submit reports to the United Nations? Does he intend to advise the hon. the Prime Minister that we should let the United Nation’s Delegation come here if the court finds against us?

Order! I do not think the hon. member should anticipate the findings of the International Court.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I leave it there. I come to the United Nations. If the United Nations decide to use force against us, will the Minister advocate meeting force with force? I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard, but he did not answer. I think, however, it is a question that demands an answer, and the country demands an answer to the question. The country must know the possible consequences of this policy of “ I may break, but I will not bend”. If we cannot meet reasonable requests from outside, what is the end of the road going to be for us? Certainly nothing pleasant. I want to know whether there is a possibility or a probability of my having to go on service against United Nations troops, with people behind me exhorting me to go on, the same people who were not with me not so many years ago? I can’t help saying to myself, “ That will be the day! ” Mr. Chairman, my Leader pointed out that the United Nations might be in the position of sheriff. I fear that the United Nations and the world at the moment are not prepared to wait for the court’s decision, and it is quite conceivable— and I am not stretching the point—that if we refuse to accede to the United Nations request, United Nations troops will land in South West. I want to know what the plans are in such an event. I want the Minister to tell me. He has helped to bring us to this possibility and he cannot say that it is not a possibility. The country must know. J hope he is not relying on what he calls the inaction of the United Nations in the Congo, because he should look at that rather as an experiment. Things are changing. I should also like to remind him how the only time that the whole world was together was in Suez, and this next development here, will certainly have every nation of the world against us. I am afraid we have to remove the cause, this non-European policy. In conclusion, I would like the Minister to remember a little jingle, “you can’t run away from South West Africa”.

The hon. member who has just sat down tried in his speech to do nothing else but to make a poor attempt at creating suspicion and he used this sentence “ If we are not willing to meet reasonable requests, how far are we willing to go? ” Now I ask the hon. member—I assume that he means reasonable requests by the UN—what does he regard as reasonable requests by UN and by those nations who attack South Africa? The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) said in his speech that General Smuts would never have landed the country in the position in which it was now because, he said, General Smuts would have been much more flexible, General Smuts would have made many concessions.

Adjustments.

General Smuts, he said, would have made more adjustments, and then he said that General Smuts was prepared to go much further than to give the Indians three representatives in Parliament. And, if I did not misunderstand him, he said that General Smuts was prepared in the caucus of the United Party to go so far as to place the Indians on the Common Roll.

No, direct representation.

To give them direct representation. But it was brought to grief by someone. Who brought it to grief? The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell)?

No.

But we know that it was brought to grief by the hon. members for Natal. We know that they were not only opposed to that issue but that they were also opposed to the whole Act, and the hon. member knows that the hon. members for Natal were given permission by General Smuts to abstain from voting on it. The hon. member for South Coast and his followers would not even give the Indians the three members in Parliament. But I don’t think this is really relevant here. But what is relevant is that the hon. member for Salt River says that General Smuts fared much better at the UN than the present hon. Minister of External Affairs fared because General Smuts would have been more flexible. Sir, General Smuts at that stage gave the Indians three representatives ip Parliament. That is the maximum that the official Opposition is prepared to do to-day. They are not prepared to go further than that. I am not talking about what the hon. member for Salt River is prepared to do because he is obviously prepared to give these people total equality. But the trouble with him is that he has no supporters in this House or in the country.

On the basis of merit.

Yes, but he has not got any support for it. Therefore, when he condemns this Government and the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of External Affairs he says that South Africa will get no further at UN because she continues to discriminate on the grounds of colour. But the official Opposition does the same. It is important to remember that when General Smuts made that concession of giving the Indians three representatives in this House (which is as far as hon. members opposite are prepared to go to-day) and he went to UN just after that, Mrs. Pandit introduced a motion and General Smuts lost it. He lost against Mrs. Pandit not before but after giving the Indians three representatives. Now my question to those hon. members is: “How far are they prepared to go?”

May I put a question? The hon. member refers to a motion against General Smuts there.

The hon. member knows that Mrs. Pandit introduced a motion about the treatment of Indians and that the motion was adopted, and it makes no difference whether it was adopted in the Political Committee or in the General Assembly, that is not relevant.

It was not adopted.

The fact remains that the motion was adopted, despite the fact that General Smuts gave the Indians three representatives. But the position is now becoming very interesting and one should get some clarity in this debate as to where the Opposition stands. I want to allege that the Opposition apparently accepts that UN is fully justified in interfering in South Africa’s affairs. I want to know where ¿hey stand. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said that UN has for all practical purposes rejected Sec. 2 (7), whether we like it or not. Now we want to know from the Opposition whether they agree with it or not. If that is the position then what will their attitude be at UN? Do they accept that UN is entitled to reject that section? Do they accept that the UN is now entitled to interfere in South Africa’s affairs? It is of the utmost importance to know what their attitude is. If they acknowledge the right of the UN to interfere in South Africa’s affairs, which the hon. member for Constantia apparently admits because he says that it is no use arguing about it and that it does not matter whether we agree with it or not because the fact is that the UN has for all practical purposes rejected Section 2 (7), then I ask: To what extent are hon. members opposite prepared to submit to the pressure of UN? In this regard it is very interesting to see what General Smuts’ position was under precisely the same circumstances. When a motion was introduced at UN General Smuts said: No, you have no right to introduce such a motion because it concerns the domestic affairs of a member state. Then the UN said: We have the right to interfere. To that General Smuts replied: Very well, then you must give me permission to go to the International Court on that point (it concerned the treatment of Indians in South Africa). General Smuts was refused that permission. General Smuts said that they violated their own Charter and that he wanted to go to the International Court to confirm that they were violating their Charter, and the UN refused to give General Smuts that permission. Then General Smuts said—

But General Smuts continued and said that he had his document and that he would not allow them to interfere in South Africa’s affairs, and then he continued to say that there were only two alternatives: Either UN would collapse or South Africa’s position in UN would be untenable. That was what General Smuts said, and after having said that South Africa should remain, he said—

The United Party has now apparently changed its standpoint and I ask hon. members opposite whether they still stand by the standpoint that the United Nations has no right to “ poke their nose into our affairs ”? But if the United Party does in fact stand by it, then what sense is there in the hon. member for Constantia saying that for all practical purposes Section 2 (7) no longer exists. What does it mean? General Smuts continued and said—

But the hon. member for Constantia says: No, we must adjust our internal policy because that principle does not exist any longer. General Smuts put it so clearly that there cannot be any misunderstanding, that if UN continued with it they would collapse or South Africa’s position would be untenable. I think the Opposition should tell us where they stand. Do they maintain the position that there shall not be any further interference, or will they support those nations, or are they going to bring pressure to bear on the Government, or are they going to suggest to the people of South Africa that for all practical purposes Section 2 (7) does not mean anything any longer and that only one choice remains, namely to adjust our policy according to what UN wants? That is what the hon. member for Salt River wants; he makes no secret about it. He says that we should now adjust our policy according to what the UN wants because interference is an accomplished fact. But I am not interested in what the hon. member says. I am interested in what the official Opposition says. Is it their policy that we should adjust our policy? My time has almost expired, but I hope I will still have an opportunity to read what General Smuts said in connection with where the UN gets its information from, and this is my charge against the Opposition of South Africa this afternoon, that they are continually stating the problem but that we have not heard one single word of criticism about the attacks against South Africa, no single word of criticism about the way in which South Africa is being attacked by those countries which have changed their policy. It is not a case of “giving your friends a kick in the pants [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) I am sure has convinced the House that legally the United Nations can take no action against this country. I am quite sure that he is correct, but he has failed to face facts. He may be correct legally. He reminds me of the surgeon who does a beautiful operation but the patient is dead. The United Nations Organization, should it so wish, will take action, and there is nothing that this country can do about it, and the hon. member can go on fiddling while Rome burns and still that action will be taken. The hon. the Minister is a most convincing debater. He has convinced himself completely that he is a failure as the diplomatic representative of this country. For two days we have listened to a dirge, almost accompanied by laments from the pipes of the hon. member for Benoni—we have listened to a dirge of his failures. When I read through his speech in the House here on 24 February, that also was a dirge, one failure after another, always somebody else to blame, always his friends turning out not to be friends, always the other side not keeping the bargain which he made with them. I feel that the hon. the Minister should forget the mote in the other people’s eye and sit down and ask himself about the beam in his own, the beam which prevents him from seeing where and why and how he failed, or the policies of this country failed to make an impression which was favourable on other people. The people who occupy high positions in the world are judged not by their intentions, not by what they try to do—that is the way you judge children, that is the way you judge teachers, but not the way you judge Ministers. You judge them on results and the results of this hon. Minister have been disastrous for this country. He received this country from the United Party full of friends and peace, and he brings to us to-day a country without one single friend in the world. Whether he tried or did not try is not the point. The point is that he failed, and on that he must be judged. All people in high places are judged purely and simply on results, and his results, as I have said, have been disastrous.

But I want to refer particularly to his failure in Africa. Why did he fail so dismally with the Black states in Africa? If you refer to his speech in the house on 24 February of this year, and you hear his laments about what he did and what little thanks he received, you can see in that, if you judge motives, why his failure has been so dismal. He says, “ We are co-operating with the C.C.T.A. We have sent our experts to African territories to advise them in regard to their housing schemes.” He goes further and says: “Let me tell the hon. member that according to the reports I received from our delegates to the C.C.T.A. Conference, there is very hearty co-operation at the conferences and that they are most grateful for the part which South Africa has played in the deliberations.” To anybody who has attended scientific conferences, to anybody who has attended any conference in respect of literature, or music, or anything else, that is quite understandable. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that people are grateful for contributions by individuals, but that does not mean that they approve of the character of those individuals, nor does it mean in any way that they approve of the policies of the countries from which those people come. It is an acceptance of the individual, and of course our scientific men who went to these conferences were welcome, of course their contributions were welcome. Some of them are great men, and of course they were accepted, but it does not mean that those countries are going to be bosom friends of the hon. the Minister and his Government for the rest of their lives. He said, “ I went out of my way to be friendly to the Black delegates to the United Nations. I invited them to lunch.” Mr. Chairman, he did not invite them to lunch here, which might have meant something.

Would you?

I would.

They did not want lunch, they wanted the vote.

They withdrew their invitation to Ghana, the Minister said. Mr. Chairman, it is because of our racial policy as such that this Minister has failed with the Black states. He has made gestures. I would be the first to admit that. He has tried, but it has always been a one-way traffic. Every scientist of ours who goes to the north knows and knows well that he is not in the position to invite one back here, and every man up there knows well that he will not be invited to South Africa. And now he comes forward with this futile effort to erect an hotel and a conference hall near Jan Smuts aerodrome. How can any man in his senses believe that you can bring distinguished men, scientists, politicians—it does not matter who they are— to Kempton Park and keep them shut up in an hotel. How can you expect to bring these people into the country and keep them shut up in an hotel when you know full well that if they happen to walk outside and stroll into a cinema they are going to be asked for their pass? [Time limit.]

During the course of the debate and also during discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister one repeatedly heard from members opposite that it was the obstinate attitude of the Government in connection with its racial policy which stood in the way of friendly relations between South Africa and other countries. It is said that it is an inflexible policy. I think one should study what interpretation is given to inflexibility by the United Party. Here in Parliament one repeatedly hears the allegation that the Government is inflexible, that they do not want to alter anything in order to satisfy overseas opinion. Last week I addressed a meeting in Swellendam where a by-election is taking place. I addressed a meeting at Bredasdorp and a question was put to me there by someone whom I regard as a very important person, and I would like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to listen to this. The person who put the question was the anti-republican referee agent during the referendum last year and he was therefore an important person in the United Party. He asked me: What do you think about the Government permitting an Indian to play in the South African Open Golf Tournament? He put the question just after having asked whether the National Party’s policy was one of adaptability. In reply to his question I said: Yes. I added that in my opinion it was practical proof of the adaptability of the policy of the National Party. But I put a question to him in my turn, which I could not really do because he was the questioner, but he was good enough to reply to it. I asked him: But what do you think about it? And he said: I am most decidedly opposed to such permission being granted.

What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say about it?

My point is that where a by-election is now being conducted it is being said that one should not even show such flexibility as to allow the Indian Papwa to participate in a golf tournament, but here one has to hear the allegation that the Government is inflexible, and that charge is sent overseas via the Press.

The argument is advanced that South Africa has no friends and it is said that it is the Government’s policy which stands in the way; it is said to be due to the Government’s obstinacy. I ask hon. members opposite: Is it really the policy of the Government of the day which stands in the way of a vote in favour of South Africa at the UN or is it the pattern of life and the way of life of the White population of South Africa which stand in the way? I say it is the way of life and the pattern of life of the whole White population, of which not only this side but also that side are the co-builders, which stands in the way. I want to remind hon. members, following on the reference by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to the speeches of the late General Smuts and the opposition which he experienced at the UN, that South Africa has a mode of living which, inter alia, gives rise to non-White children not being admitted to the English Church schools in the Cape Peninsula, despite all the protests by all those church leaders against apartheid. I say that we are not the sole builders of that pattern of life; hon. members opposite are the co-builders. South Africa will not be able to influence the UN and others abroad in her favour until she demolishes that pattern right down to its foundations. Let us in times like these put our heads together and let us not reproach one another and blame the Government’s policy and thereby put ammunition in the hands of South Africa’s attackers at UN. Let us make use of an opportunity such as this to say to the outside world that we neither intend deviating from the pattern of life we have built up, nor are we prepared to do so. We on this side do not intend deviating from it. Neither do I believe that it is the intention of hon. members opposite to deviate from it, in spite of what they say.

Then I want to go further into the allegation that South Africa no longer has any of the friends which she inherited in 1948. I say that that is nonsense. I also referred to this in a previous debate. International friendship is surely not measured by a Murrayfield score against South Africa at the UN. Friendship is measured by the actual relations between the population of South Africa and the populations of other countries. I quoted from a report in the Cape Argus the other day dealing with a survey made in Britain in connection with the British population’s attitude towards South Africa, in which approximately 60 per cent voted in favour of South Africa remaining a member of the Commonwealth. We had to hear that Canada was so hostile towards us. Yesterday afternoon a report appeared in the Cape Argus under the heading “ Diefenbaker is wrong, say many Canadians The report says—

In other words, in Canada there has also been a change. This morning South Africa had the privilege of hearing the news that at the ceremony where the new ambassador of the United States to the Union took the oath, the President of the United States referred to the friendly relations between the United States and South Africa and expressed the hope that it would be developed further. There is no doubt about South Africa’s friendly relations with Australia and New Zealand. But, Mr. Chairman, here South Africa has a neighbouring state, the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. I remember very well that eight or nine years ago discriminatory legislation was adopted in that country against the entry of Afrikaans-speaking people. Such were the sentiments at that time. Does one hear anything about that to-day? A complete change has taken place there and the people stand solidly behind South Africa, more solidly than many of the hon. members opposite. So we can go from country to country in the Western group. Therefore I say that it is absurd to argue that South Africa has now suddenly lost her friends in the world just because there was a Murrayfield score against her at the UN. That argument nearly has no weight. What is in fact significant is the true friendship which exists and which is expressed in trade agreements, in cultural agreements and in agreements to exchange students between South Africa and other friendly countries of the Western world.

To me this debate appears to be completely futile. I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that I listened to him attentively but really, if one asks oneself what the value of his speech is and those of his supporters is in regard to external affairs, then I must really come to the conclusion that it amounts to nothing. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and also the hon. the Minister seek refuge in Section 2 (7) of the Charter of UN. I regard it as totally unrealistic for South Africa to seek shelter behind that section any longer. It is simply just a fact …

You reject it?

It is not a question of rejecting it. I do not reject it in any way, but the unfortunate thing is that in regard to human rights—not as far as other questions are concerned—the whole world to-day rejects it. That is a fact, and the time has arrived for South Africa to begin thinking realistically about Section 2 (7). It really applies only to powerful nations like Russia and perhaps the U.S.A., but the section no longer applies to the small nations. I appeal to the Government to realize that we should not seek shelter behind that section. It is quite unrealistic to do so.

There is just one thing, and evidently our hon. friends here are afraid to say it, just as hon. members opposite are afraid to say it. No one wants to say that we should simply forget about Section 2 (7), but that is what the circumstances of the times demand of us. The hon. member for Vereeniging quoted Gen. Smuts. Of course in 1946 or 1947 Gen. Smuts was quite correct in standing by Section 2 (7). At that time it was still sensible to do so. But to-day, as I see the position in the world, in respect of racial questions and human rights, we can weep about is as much as we like and quote what Gen. Smuts said in 1947, and we can pretend that in the meantime nothing has happened in the world, but all I can say is that then we are completely unrealistic and I cannot imagine that Gen. Smuts, if he were still alive, would have adopted an attitude of obstinate inflexibility in regard to the great human problems of racial discrimination.

May I put a question?

No. South Africa will have to decide whether it wants to continue with the pattern just referred to by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. H. H. Smit), the pattern of life of South Africa which is based on racial discrimination. If we continue with it, we should not be surprised if we stand alone in the world and if our membership of UN becomes increasingly untenable, just as in the case of the Commonwealth. We should have no illusions about that.

Are you prepared to go all the way?

We must start reconsidering our position. The Prime Minister tells us that his policy is not based on racial discrimination. I listened carefully to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs, that it is his view that racial discrimination is still the basis of our policy.

Also of the policy of hon. members opposite.

Yes, also of the part on this side. That is the question, that either we will have to prove that the Prime Minister’s policy clearly leads away from racial discrimination—and not in 50 or 100 years’ time or we will make no progress. As I see it, these things will now develop very rapidly indeed and the Government, through the Minister of External Affairs, should stop making the sort of speeches we heard here to-day. Let him tell us what he will do as a practical step to steer his policy away from racial discrimination. That, and nothing else, will influence the world in any way. I repeat that there is a human revolution in progress such as humanity has never yet experienced in the whole of its history. The whole question is this: Can one race still dominate another race? I believe that this period of domination by one race over another is for ever past. The race which wants to continue with racial discrimination, under whatever pretext, will be crushed under the feet of marching humanity. There are opportunities for making concessions which we will have to make, whatever we may say.

What kind of concessions?

The Government will increasingly have to give way to this pressure, otherwise the nation will be destroyed. I refer here once more to the Coloured community of South Africa. Let us have the courage, as Nationalists and others. My future and your future and the future of our children depends on it; if the Government does not want to make concessions in regard to the Coloureds it will destroy the nation. I believe that we should make a start there. It must and it will come, whatever we say. Let the Minister of External Affairs use his influence with the Prime Minister. Let us stop simply being too afraid and not having the courage of our convictions. I blame my hon. friends opposite because I know there are some of them who in regard to this question of the Coloureds are not as inflexible as they profess to be. The future of the people of South Africa demands that we should get rid of these party politics we have in this House every day. I believe that if we again want to make friends overseas we must make a start, and we should make a start with the Coloureds. In regard to the Bantu the Government must stop talking about apartheid. I welcome the fact that there is something on the Estimates this year for improving the Native reserves. But I say again that those aspects of the reserves are of less importance, however important they might be. The aspect that cannot wait a day longer is what should be done with the 6,000,000 Bantu who live and work and die in the so-called White areas. If the Government cannot do something positive in that respect which will convince world opinion, I predict that the result will be nil in the view of world opinion to-day.

I have much respect for the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie), but I have never seen him so lacking in direction as he is to-day. The hon. member thinks that if this Government begins making concessions we will gain the sympathy of the world. I want to tell him that if ever he made a mistake, he is making it now because the world will be satisfied with nothing less than complete capitulation.

The hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson)—I am glad he is here now— said earlier to-day that the inhabitants of South West Africa are very concerned about the future. He said that we who have interests there … Now I want to ask the hon. member what interests he has in South West? He is an unemployed person in South West.

And you are a fool.

I am not asking what the hon. member is but what interests he has there.

The hon. member for Namib used the word “ fool Is he allowed to do so?

Did the hon. member say that the hon. member for Windhoek (Mr. van der Wath) is a fool?

Yes, and that is what I think.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

Sir, the hon. member thinks differently every day. May I just say what he thought recently still? Then he thought—

The hon. member opposite should not tell me that I am a fool. Nobody in the world can deny that everybody in South Africa, in South West Africa as well as here, is concerned about the world position, not only in regard to South Africa but also in regard to other parts of the world. It is not only South Africa which is in trouble. What about Cuba? Ceylon has declared a state of emergency. What about the other countries in Africa? What about Ethiopia which went so far as to accuse South Africa in the International Court of sitting on a boiling cauldron, and then its own pot boiled over beneath it. What about Angola? Sir, I say nobody would be so foolish as to deny that we all feel concerned. But what does the hon. member expect should be said to South West Africa? Does he expect us to reply to their questions? We must say what we will do if the International Court gives judgment against us! If we say that we accept the judgment there will be chaos, and if we say we will not accept it we prejudice the case. We know that the case is pending. The hon. member also admitted that it was pending, and why should we cause even more concern to the people in South West by telling them that if the judgment goes against us we will do this or that; and if it does not go against us we will do that and the other? I want to ask the hon. member rather to leave the question of South West alone, and also other hon. members. We cannot do anything about the matter to-day, whatever we decide here. We cannot change the position in South West Africa. As far as I and my party are concerned in South West, we believe in the future of South West. We believe that we will remain there in the same way that the Whites will remain here. We believe that we are just as safe or unsafe there as the Whites are in the rest of South Africa. We believe that we form part of South Africa, as that hon. member always believed, and on the basis of which he fought election after election in terms of the policy of the National Party, namely that we would not submit. I would be ashamed if I were to be in his position, having fought three elections on that policy and with that slogan, and then to say that it cannot be accepted. The hon. member asks that the hon. the Minister should give UN more information about South West Africa. May I tell him this, and he knows it, that UN knows more about what goes on in South West than he or I do. They know more; they have all the information at their disposal, and there is nothing which prevents their having it at their disposal. They get the newspaper reports, wrong and distorted as they are, and they make use of them. They get the minutes of the Legislative Assembly. They get all the reports of the various departments which are also made available to the Government here. They have all that information at their disposal. The hon. member also knows as well as I do that if the Government should dare to submit a report it will be said that those are distorted facts which they cannot accept.

I agree with what the Minister of External Affairs has said, viz. that the countries represented at UN first look to their own interests. It does not matter to them what happens to another country as long as they can promote their own interests there. No decision is taken unless they have held caucus meetings about it beforehand. When I was there it often happened that when a meeting of the Fourth Committee, in which I sat, had to commence, the Chairman announced: I am sorry, but we cannot begin now because the African bloc is still holding a caucus meeting on the matter. And at the next meeting they again announced: It is a pity, but we cannot commence because the Afro-Asian group is holding a caucus meeting on the matter. When they take a decision they stand by it as one man. In the same way we have the communist bloc and the Latin-American bloc. But unfortunately there is no Western bloc there.

When the hon. the Prime Minister went to London to attend the Commonwealth Conference, I knew what would happen when they met. Before that we expected the Prime Minister to succeed in keeping South Africa inside the Commonwealth. If one took note of what appeared in the newspapers, even what was said by Mr. Diefenbaker, by the Tunku, by Ghana, etc., it indicated that they were favourably disposed towards the matter. But when they got together they held caucus meetings in the same way that they do at UN, and then they decided: No, South Africa cannot be tolerated there. It was quite obvious to me that we would not be able to remain a member because I know those people.

Mr. Chairman, the shocking thing at UN is to see how the representative of the smallest little state gets up there and throws out his chest and says just what he likes without any hesitation, whilst the representatives of the mighty England and of America have to count their words. They are afraid of stepping on the toes of the small ones, because they know that the vote of one of those small nations carries the same weight as the vote of America or Russia or Britain. That is the position there, and it is an unhealthy state of affairs. Why do they hate South Africa? Why do they want to force the South West problem to a head? Because they want South West Africa to be independent. They want to have another Black state and another Black vote in UN. [Time limit.]

This debate on external affairs is drawing to a close and I am intervening in it to stress, once again, the extremely unsatisfactory position in which this country and this House finds itself in respect of the South West Africa position. This matter has been the cause of the greatest worry to the public of South Africa, and more particularly to the inhabitants of South West Africa, of all parties, for some considerable period. And that worry, I beg leave to say, has been accentuated by the fact that nobody has known clearly what the attitude of this Government is in respect of that Territory. And that despite the fact that they have been given every opportunity to make a statement clarifying the position, but they have shown a complete unwillingness to give us any information at all, even on the simplest matters. I think the fear and perhaps the justified fear that the people of South Africa have is that this Government may face us with a fait accompli without the people having any idea of what the position may be and how it may develop in respect of South West Africa and how it may affect the rest of the country. It is quite clear that the plea of this Government that the matter is sub judice and should therefore not be discussed by the Fourth Committee proved of no avail. I cannot pretend to give a judgment as to whether the Fourth Committee was right or wrong in that regard, but it is quite clear that they are going ahead, regardless of whether there is a case before the International Court or not. It is quite clear also that the Fourth Committee has completely disregarded the plea of sub judice and they have appointed a commission to report upon South West to UN. I fail to see how we can prejudice our case before the International Court in any way by the Government telling us what its attitude will be in respect of that commission, whether it will accept it or not and whether it will give it information or not. I do not propose to debate the attitude and say that it is right or wrong, but I think the public is entitled to know what the Government is going to do.

Now as to the court case itself, your predecessor in the Chair, Sir, gave a ruling that the plea that the matter could not be discussed in the House because it was sub judice did not hold water, but at the same time he indicated that members should discipline themselves in the discussion of this matter, and I propose to do just that. Despite requests of the Minister and the Prime Minister, we have had no reply up to date across the floor of the House as to whether the Government accepts the jurisdiction of the court or not, but from the ruling of your predecessor it would appear that jurisdiction was accepted by the Government. Sir, is that the manner in which we should get information on this important matter? Must we read it into a ruling given from the Chair when the information must be available to the Minister and to the Prime Minister?

Now I take this a step further. There are various theories as to the powers of that court, very interesting theories. Is that court purely advisory, or has it any mandatory power? It is not necessary for me to debate that. I put the question to the Minister. There are theories also as to how any judgment given by the court could be effected. Is the Minister prepared to tell the country what the views of his Government are in regard to those questions? There is the belief that if the judgment were given there might be an international dispute in terms of the Charter, of which the Security Council would have to take cognizance. Is that correct or not? It has nothing to do with the points on which the court has to find, or with the case before the court, but the Minister owes it to the country to tell us what the effect of a judgment could be and how it could be carried out. One of the points which has worried the country most is whether that court regards itself as bound by former decisions of the International Court given in the past. That is a vitally important matter in respect of the attitude of the court.

On a point of order, surely the Leader of the Opposition must abide by the ruling given from the Chair last night.

I am making no attempt to debate the merits of the case.

You are anticipating the decision.

No, I am not. What I am asking is that the Minister should have the courage to get up and tell the House what the country is faced with, but he will not do it, nor will his Government, and they are creating a situation where the people may be faced with a fait accompli without knowing what they are in for and without having an opportunity to debate the wisdom of the actions of the Government, and then the Government will rely on the patriotism of the people to get them out of the mess in which they landed themselves.

As far as I am concerned there are only two important points which have developed recently as regards our foreign policy and our relations with UNO. The first is: Do we recognize the attitude which UNO adopts in respect of the principle of non-interference, that is to say Section 2 (7)? The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) has said that we must now accept that this is the opinion of the world and that we should forget as quickly as possible that such a provision exists. But what I regard as being of importance is this: Who governs South Africa? The two parties in this House will have to settle between themselves what our standpoint is in respect of that principle. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition in all humility and also the Leader of the Progressive Party: Do you still uphold this principle that South Africa will not allow interference in her domestic affairs? That I regard as being of cardinal importance.

But your leader has done so.

Then he was doing nothing more than General Smuts did at UNO in 1946. Allow me to read to him what General Smuts’ attitude was. At that time it was quite in order, and I find this reported in the official record of the proceedings of UNO on the discussion of the Indian Problem—

When our Prime Minister does so, it is wrong, but when General Smuts does so, and upholds the principle that he will not allow UNO to interfere in our domestic affairs, it is correct. I think that is a conclusive reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). Here we are faced with a cardinal question and we shall have to give a reply to that question. Are we going to permit or agree with the attitude of the member nations of UNO as to whether the principle embodied in Section 2 (7) is valid or not? We say specifically that we uphold this principle just as the previous United Party régime did, but we want an answer from the Opposition. In 1949 the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) wrote the following in an article entitled “ Breakers Lie Ahead for Dr. Malan ” which appeared in the Cape Argus of 14 May—

Does the hon. member still stand by that? That was written when we were already in power, that is to say, in 1949. I ask the Leader of the Opposition. He will have to answer this cardinal question.

You must answer.

We have already answered, but we cannot get an answer from the Opposition. No, their answer is contained in the racial federation scheme. In other words, we must bow before world opinion as expressed at UNO and we must therefore concede the demands made by the world as expressed at UNO and we must make concessions under pressure from UNO. That is the United Party’s answer.

But a second point has become clear at UNO, and this relates to the struggle of the Afro-Asian bloc and particularly the bloc of African nations. It is that the White man must be expelled from Africa. I concede that not all the members who belong to UNO are obsessed with that ideal. I believe that the countries which recently voted against us did not do so with that object in mind, but as the result of other circumstances, domestic and international. But there is a definite group in UNO which has the object of eliminating the stabilizing factor in South Africa as personified by the White man with his political experience and his stability. I want to ask the Leader of the Progressive Party and the Leader of the Opposition where they stand in respect of that object. They can tell us, and I know they will say this, that they stand for the preservation of the White man as a stabilizing factor, but in saying that they will refute the whole content of their racial federation plan which they have submitted to us. This plan of theirs means in brief that they want to create and perpetuate everlasting animosity on the part of that bloc which wishes to eliminate the White man because of his discriminatory measures and they want to create a perpetual position in which our friends will not be able to support us as a result of pressure or circumstances. This principle of discrimination is embodied in their federal scheme. While they want to embody perpetual discrimination in their federation, our policy envisages the eventual elimination of racial discrimination. In the second place they want to concede to UNO that control and influence in South Africa must eventually be based on numbers because in their racial federal plan numbers will eventually determine the number of representatives. Our policy under which we want separate development and four parallel schemes, will share control and political influence on the basis of authority against authority and not on the basis of numbers—one State, one vote. But their plan embodies the principle of control on the basis of numbers and not on the basis of authority.

But there is a third point to which they must reply and it is that they want to perpetuate this discord in UNO because by their federal plan they want to bring about a conflict between authority and authority. Our policy will eliminate the conflict of authority. We do not want perpetual sources of friction. When UNO demands a price, and the latest events there represent nothing but a demand for a price … [Time limit.]

I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Grey-ling) along the somewhat complicated and intricate reasoning he used, nor do I want to reply to him in respect of the hypothetical questions he has asked, because they have been replied to over and over again from these benches. In fact, it ill-behoves members on that side to ask us to reply to hypothetical questions when neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of External Affairs has given my leader or this side of the House any reply to the reasonable and vastly important questions they have put in respect of South West Africa.

But I want to come to a completely new matter which has not been touched on in this debate. It is something which the Minister of External Affairs last year called his hereditas damnosa. I refer to the Press Commission.

That comes under the “South African Information Service Vote ”.

It does not. We had this argument last year.

It falls under the “South African Information Service Vote” and I do not intend to reply to it.

If the Minister looks at the Estimates he will see that under Vote 10. his Vote, there is a footnote (a) which says “ Includes provision for R25.503 in respect of the Commission of Inquiry into the Press ”. We had this argument last year and your predecessor in the Chair, Sir, ruled that this was the competent Vote. The Minister attempted to rebut it, but in the end he had to admit that this was the competent Vote.

On a point of order, I do not think it is a question of the Minister’s wishes, but of your ruling. The Chairman of Committees may rule that the hon. member is out of order when he brings it up under a later Vote.

It is quite in order under Vote 10.

If it were in order under Vote 11, I would discuss it then, but I am afraid it will not be. We have got a little further than we did last year in that these Estimates at least show us what total sum will be spent on the Press Commission during this financial year. What we want to know once again is: When is this commission going to report? It is a very simple question which we have asked every year for ten years in succession. Last year the Minister said this was his hereditas damnosa, but he said also that he had every reason to believe that the commission would report in November last year. It has not reported. Again a sum of public money has to be voted for the activities of this commission. Sir, this is an important matter now particularly when we get from those benches day after day veiled threats against the Press and suggestions that the Press should discipline itself. In fact hon. members opposite are very fond of using the sub judice argument, but I think that many of the remarks from those benches were highly improper because of the fact that you have a commission sitting inquiring into the whole sphere of operations of the Press. I raise the matter now particularly. What we on this side want to know is when is this commission going to report? This is a particularly apt question at this stage when day after day we get threats and suggestions which anticipate the judgment or report of the Press Commission. Some of these remarks could be regarded as an attempt to influence the commission. So it becomes of vital importance for us and the country to know when this report is to be expected, so that we can get this thing off the Estimates, which we have to pass year after year, once and for all.

During this debate the Opposition have been very critical of everything the Government has done and perhaps has not done, and the main reason for their criticism has been our colour policy. During these debates we have been told that we have failed in our colour policy as regards the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu. I am glad the hon. member for Hill-brow (Dr. Steenkamp) is in his place because I want to make very short shrift of this criticism which we have had from hon. members opposite, and I want to show how dishonest and unrealistic that criticism is. I am going to read to the hon. member for Hillbrow from the Hansard for 25 March 1946 (Col. 4216). He was discussing the Indians in Natal—

What does this have to do with external affairs?

Everything—

Does the hon. member admit that he said this?

That is correct.

He then went on to say—

Does he still say so to-day? No, he is as silent as the grave. He said—

Does the hon. member still believe to-day what he said at that time? If so, he is repeating exactly what General Hertzog said in 1936. I now ask the hon. member: Why are he and his party pleading on the External Affairs Vote during this Committee Stage for steps which are in direct conflict with what General Hertzog said in 1936, and I say that the hon. member committed plagiarism because he repeated what General Hertzog had said word for word.

That is untrue.

I shall prove it. I ask him to read the 1936 Hansard and to compare the final paragraph of what I have read to the House with what General Hertzog said, and he will see that he was copying General Hertzog.

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

Hon. members must not think that our political memories are so short. They have now criticized the Minister strongly for the way in which he has represented us abroad. I say that as sons of South Africa they should be ashamed of having done so.

You are not a son.

No, but the hon. member who has made the interjection is a fool.

Order! Hon. members can see where these interjections lead.

I withdraw that and I merely say that he is irresponsible. We have had repeated attacks on the Prime Minister and the Minister of External Affairs. We have not received any support from the Opposition who claim that they are sons of South Africa and patriots. We have seen that the Opposition have defended in the highest Chamber of the land the people who are vilifying our country, instead of criticizing them. I now ask the hon. member for Hillbrow this pertinent question and he must give me an answer. He must tell me whether he still stands by what is recorded in the 1936 Hansard, where General Hertzog put his standpoint clearly, or whether he stills stands by what he himself said ten years later when he copied General Hertzog, and he must say whether the struggle which we are waging today in respect of the non-Whites is a struggle for self-preservation, which is what he believed in 1946. I ask the hon. member to tell me whether General Hertzog was right or wrong in 1936 and whether he himself was right or wrong in 1946 when he adopted that standpoint in respect of the Indians. He was either right or wrong. One cannot be right and wrong at the same time and the hon. member must now tell me where he stands.

Do you know anything about history?

I know far more history than the hon. member for Hillbrow.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow will force me to take serious steps against him if he persists in his interjections.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is pointing to me and saying: Answer. When he asks me to do so, I shall reply.

That is not a point of order. The hon. member must now abide by my ruling.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has said that he knows more about history than I.

On a point of order, with all due respect, I am trying to follow the hon. member, but I should like to know what this matter has to do with External Affairs.

Order! That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has asked me what I know about history. My reply is that I know more about it than he does because I have never had to withdraw an article which I have written on South Africa’s history and say something else, as he has done. [Time limit.]

I want to deal with subhead D under this Vote. Sir, I have here a Digest of South African Affairs, 3 February 1961, Vol. 8, No. 3. I had occasion last year, I think, to refer to certain publications and figures which had come from the Department under the Minister, in respect of information which was given to people coming into South Africa, being lodged in aircraft which were coming here and purporting to be certain information in regard to certain happenings in South Africa of a political character.

Should the hon. member not raise that under the next Vote “ South African Information Service ”?

With respect, Sir, I am dealing with a publication and I submit it comes under D. Vote 11 deals with the staff.

On a point of order, Vote 11 also has a sub-head D dealing with printing, stationery, advertisements and publications. This is purely a matter for the Information Office. I shall be very happy to reply, but let us take it where it should be taken. It is a State Information publication.

The hon. member will see that the amount involved under Vote 10 is only R40,500 whereas under Vote 11 it is nearly R300,000.

Sir, it is such a large amount, it is beyond my ken. It seems a tremendous amount to me. However, I shall raise it under Vote 11.

I am sorry the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) is not in the House. I shall now be obliged to endow him with the degree of Dr. Know-All in absentia. There are many unpredictable things in life.

Including the Leader of the Opposition.

Yes, unpredictable things· on this side and on that side of the House, and as regards our foreign policy, our non-White policy, and so on. But the most unpredictable factor in the immediate vicinity of all of us in recent times has been the hon. member for Germiston (District). When he rises both sides of the House think: This time he will support us. When this side of the House thinks he is going to support us, then the position is just the reverse, and when hon. members opposite think that he is going to support them, then the position is also just the reverse. But what is characteristic of the hon. member is that he always waits until a debate is well advanced; he listens to what is said on both sides and then he constructs a speech for himself on the basis of what has been said by members who have prepared themselves to speak on the subjects under discussion. The hon. member then rises and tries to adopt a very objective standpoint. I should like to see him rise at the beginning of such a debate and try to give guidance and not rise afterwards when members on both sides of the House have practically finished speaking. He waits until the debate is well advanced and then he takes what he regards as being useful from the speeches of members on both sides and he tries to adopt a very objective attitude and in effect to lecture to hon. members on both sides of the House.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has now pointed out that the hon. the Minister of External Affairs should remember that he is an important link between South Africa and the outside world and that he should therefore not act as irresponsibly as he has done. Mr. Chairman, every hon. member opposite should remember that they are just as important a link in this House as well as between this Government and the electorate outside. Hon. members opposite and the official Opposition should remember that in fact the function of the Opposition is to be an alternative government and in this sense to form part of the Government. That is the position in the Western European countries where changes in government do take place from time to time. The people in Europe think that this is also the position in this country and that is why they take so much notice of what the Opposition in this country say. But here the position is the reverse; this Opposition is not an alternative government, and yet they make such irresponsible statements of which the outside world takes note while in fact they will never have the opportunity to extend these ideas of theirs and to apply them in practice because they will never form the government of the country.

Mr. Chairman, are the conditions which prevail in our country and the disturbances which we can expect and fear, only to be found in South Africa? Is it not the position that disturbances, division and discord are to be found throughout the world in countries like Laos, Kenya, the Federation, Angola, the Congo and Cuba? There are far worse disturbances and bloodshed to be found throughout the world than is the position in South Africa. It is such a great pity that so many of us take notice of these scaremongering stories. It simply does not pay South Africa to sit and listen to these people who tell these scaremongering stories and who give them to the Press, namely that we in South Africa are always sitting on a powder keg which could explode at any moment. Mr. Chairman, something which grieved us while the hon. the Minister of External Affairs was speaking was to see the contempt in which the Opposition hold the Minister of External Affairs. When he said that at UNO he was the only member who protected Portugal and the Netherlands, when they considered that they deserved protection under Section 2 (7), we heard hon. members opposite say: “What a man!” It is not a case of “What a man”. At that time it was not Eric Louw who spoke there, but the representative of the country of hon. members; it was the representative of this Government and as such he was speaking on their behalf and on behalf of us all. When the hon. the Minister said that South Africa would no longer be able to promise its support to those countries whom she had always supported and who had now started to vote against her, we also heard derisive laughter from hon. members opposite, and I was surprised that we did not hear them say “ What a country!” because they consider South Africa to be small and the Government small, and our Prime Minister is small and our external policy is small. In the eyes of the Opposition all these are small. That is why they can do nothing but make derisive and disparaging remarks and laugh, and that is why when one of our Ministers is speaking, he is not given any constructive suggestions or any support by hon. members opposite. I just want to point out that the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), inter alia, has said that if General Smuts had been in power over the past 13 years, we would not have been in the predicament in which we find ourselves to-day. We would perhaps have had more temporary so-called friends abroad, but these would not have been friends of a White South Africa. If we had followed the policy which hon. members over there (the Progressive Party) advocate, these would have been friends of a potentially Black South Africa. It is said that we have so few friends abroad because the hon. the Minister of External Affairs has already attended UNO on six occasions. Do hon. members deny that we no longer have any friends left as a result of the type of advertisement which they are for our own country, here and abroad? It has simply become impossible for us to go on trying to convince the outside world that we are not what hon. members claim we are. Mr. Chairman, when we read the March 1961 issue of Tegniek (Vol. 13, No. 3), for example we find the following—

I shall only read one or two extracts if I have sufficient time—

They then come to the “ buts ”, namely that “We 13 experts are unfortunately not the people who will be able to convince the public in our own countries of what we have seen here ”. They will not be able to do so because we receive so little support in this regard from the Opposition. But the eyes of these people who have paid a short visit of a few weeks to our country have been opened and they have changed their opinions. But the people who must wage the struggle together with us here in this country and whom one expects to be patriots, can never realize what these people have realized, these people who want to go out and become ambassadors for South Africa in their own countries, while the Opposition in this country have become the public enemies of our country and nation. Mr. Chairman, this is the general opinion of the 13 presidents of the stock exchanges of Britain, the United States, Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Southern Rhodesia and Scotland. But they say they are powerless because they are not the people who can convince the public in their own countries of what they have heard and seen, namely that South Africa is a safe field for investment and that South Africa is the only area throughout Africa where the West is not being played off against the East. Mr. Chairman, this “ but ” is nothing less than a tragedy, when leading figures in the financial world realize their impotence to remove these gross misconceptions regarding our country which are prevalent amongst their fellow countrymen. We are fighting in this country to eliminate the misconceptions regarding our country not only in the outside world but in our country itself, these misconceptions which are being deliberately built up against this country and against our Government. I just want to read this extract—

This teaches us that these people can only change their opinions when they see for themselves what is the position in this country. That is why we must do everything in our power to ensure that more of these people come to visit South Africa as the guests of our Government and the guests of various financial institutions in this country so that they can see for themselves and then go and convince their countries of the great and golden future awaiting this country of ours, to quote the words of the hon. the Prime Minister in the Other Place.

Sir, our external policy and our relationship with the world is of the greatest importance to South Africa, but the speeches delivered by members on that side convinced me that the hon. the Prime Minister governs this country with blinkers and that he has put all his followers in blinkers. They are unable to see what goes on around them. All they can see is the narrow road of Nationalism, and they are quite oblivious as to what goes on on the side-line. Hon. members opposite who spoke here to-day about our relationship with other countries will not accept the fact that we are condemned today because of the Government’s policy. I only want to deal with the question of the Coloureds.

You have blinkers on.

No, Sir! I can see perfectly clearly. I want to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) a few questions in regard to the Coloured people and it is on the question of the Coloured people that I want to address the Committee. I want to tell all the hon. members who have attacked the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) that the hon. member made a very important and cogent contribution to this debate in regard to the Coloured people. He has indicated that there should be a willingness on the part of the Government to show that its policy can and should be changed in regard to the Coloured people … [Interjections.] The Government has had no case against the Coloured people. The hon. member for Vereeniging who is so garrulous nowadays addressed a meeting at Sea Point and I put these questions to him: “ Do you admit that the Cape Coloured people are first-class citizens of the country?” He was quite honest and he said “ yes ”. I then asked him the next question: “ If they are first-class citizens, are they entitled to all the rights and privileges that go with that?” and he said “ yes ”. Why does he deny them that now? What right has a section of the White people of South Africa to make second-class citizens of the Coloured people?

Why not attack the United Party of which you are a member?

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

With respect, Sir, I have tried to be objective and to tell the Minister that if he could persuade the Government to do something in relation to the Coloured people, it would show that they were anxious to do something for a section of the community which has been politically ill-treated by this Government. I would like to point out that there are many ways in which our relationship with the outside world can be improved if the Government would just do certain things in regard to the Coloured people. In the first instance, every member on that side must admit that taking the Coloured people off the Common Roll was a step that was taken to prevent them from voting in the referendum in regard to the Republic of South Africa. But to-day my hon. friends have their republic. It is going to come into being on 31 May. Why then have you not got the courage to get up and say, “ Now that we have achieved our object, we will put them back on the Common Roll ”? What are you afraid of?

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am trying to point out that in order to improve our relationship with the world, we must do something along these lines. Putting the Coloured people back on the Common Roll would be a start. If the hon. the Minister can go to the United Nations and say, “We will not carry out the provisions of the Group Areas Act; we will not uproot thousands of families merely because they are Coloured,” that would be a start. There are members of the Nationalist Party who know the Coloured people. They know perfectly well that that Act should never have been brought into being and should not be implemented.

It is your guarantee against the creation of slums.

May I digress for a moment to answer the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). He put up an excellent case for his party the other evening in regard to the Bantu. He pointed out that the Bantu had no claim on South Africa. Does that apply to the Coloured people? I asked him that question before and he candidly said that it did not apply to the Coloured people. The hon. member must realize that the Coloured people are full South African citizens and you have no right to refuse them the full rights of citizenship.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Vote. The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

I am trying to point out that the speeches made by hon. members opposite in regard to the Coloured people are useless as far as the outside world is concerned. I am trying to point out that we could improve our relationship with the outside world and with UNO by doing away with some of the Acts on the Statute Book applying to the Coloured people, and I am trying to detail some of the complaints which the outside world has against us. We have legislation affecting 1,500,000 of our Coloured people, who are full South African citizens. The hon. member for Vereeniging shakes his head. I am not concerned with Mr. Phillips of Canada or with Mr. Stanley Uys of the Sunday Times. I am concerned with the Coloured people of South Africa.

If you can discuss that, I can discuss the price of mealies.

Well, the price of mealies suits the hon. member because that is his staple food, I understand. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that he can improve the relationship of South Africa with the world if he will say that he has done away with job reservation; that he will allow the Coloured people as full citizens of this country to sell their services in the best market, without job reservation.

Are you speaking about the Coloureds of the Transvaal too or only about the Cape Coloureds?

I am concerned with the Coloured people of South Africa. It is high time we recognized that the Coloured people of South Africa—in the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal—are also full citizens of this country.

Do you really believe that that would satisfy the United Nations?

Order! If the hon. member for Ventersdorp wants to put questions he must do so in the proper manner and he must stop making interjections.

Mr. Chairman, you will permit me however, to answer the hon. member for Ventersdorp.

No.

I would like to say that the interruptions from hon. members opposite mean one thing only and that is fear, fear of what would happen to their party if they were to give some concessions to the Coloured people. This is a case of fear governing the Government. That is the trouble with the Government. They are afraid that if they say to the Nationalist followers in South Africa, “ We will remove certain Acts from the Statute Book to ensure that South African citizens who are Coloureds get their rights back in South Africa ”, they will lose their support. Do they not think that that would establish a bridge-head, if I may call it that? [Time limit.]

Order! I shall be glad if the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) will direct his attention to Standing Order 61 (2).

We have had the spectacle during the Committee Stage of the Estimates that for almost five days we have been talking about almost any subject under the sun while the Prime Minister’s Vote has been before us. But that is quite correct; that is permissible. On the Prime Minister’s Vote even matters which fall under other Departments and other Ministers have been discussed. We have now had the spectacle this afternoon—and this is the first time that I have experienced this—that in order to discuss international relations, we are taking any domestic matter …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you have referred the hon. member for Hillbrow to Standing Order No. 61 (2) which reads as follows—

The hon. member has now pointed out to me that he was reading a book in which the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) will be interested, namely, “ Eichman, Minister of Death ”. This obviously refers to racial discrimination which is being discussed during this debate. I want to submit for your consideration that the hon. member is quite entitled to read this book and then to lend it to the hon. member for Karas.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Now that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has finished clowning I shall try to proceed. I say that we have had the spectacle during this debate on the Vote of the Minister of External Affairs that any domestic matter is being grasped and is being held responsible for our poor international relations. I have risen to say that I am glad that during these difficult times—because these are difficult times —we have someone like Mr. Eric Louw as Minister of External Affairs, a man with so many years of experience, to represent not the National Party or this Government, but to represent South Africa abroad. I want to say here this afternoon that we are grateful that we have a man with such mature experience to act as Minister of External Affairs and to represent South Africa without surrendering any principles relating to our domestic policy and by so doing paying a price in order to gain the goodwill of the world. We are now very tired of the unpatriotic and un-South African attitude of the Opposition and their allies, the Progressive Party. We can see right through their fig leaves. We know that the separation between these two parties is artificial; that it merely offers a home to the anti-Nationalists or anti-National minded people of South Africa. Those who do not feel at home in the Progressive Party, join the United Party, and those who do not feel at home in the United Party, simply join the Progressive Party. We can see right through that. We are very thankful that at a time like this we have a Minister of External Affairs such as we have to-day with his mature experience, a man who does not seek party political gain and credit but who represents South Africa abroad. I do not want to be personal, but I want to say this: With all due respect to the Opposition, it is fortunate that there is no one on those benches who can replace this Minister in putting South Africa’s case either at UNO or at international conferences. For that reason it is a pity and it is disturbing that personal and sarcastic attacks are being made on a person who has been called upon to undertake a very difficult task. At this time we cannot afford to indulge in petty politics.

Then you must sit down.

I have tried, Mr. Chairman, to refrain from participating in this debate and I make this courteous appeal; Is South Africa, then, not our home? South Africa has now sent one person to UNO to keep our international relations on a sound footing. Is it possible for him to do so when we have the type of speeches which we have heard this afternoon, speeches which are only making the task of the Minister more difficult under circumstances which are already difficult enough. I know that hon. members opposite will return to our domestic policy again, and the United Party must now tell South Africa once and for all whether they are prepared to let the outside world interfere in our domestic affairs.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Just before business was suspended I was busy saying that we are grateful for having a Minister of External Affairs in these days who does not look only to his own party but to South Africa as a whole, and I briefly pointed out what a difficult task has been entrusted to him in these days to maintain overseas relations and goodwill towards South Africa in the world. But now we have listened to speeches from hon. members opposite, and I think that is unfortunate, and one really feels a little ashamed and guilty because one still has to plead in South Africa to-day for a more South African attitude, particularly in this House. We have no objection if the Opposition does its duty and criticizes the policy of the Minister of External Affairs, but then it should not be negative criticism. Although we on this side of the House have many faults, because we are only human, hon. members opposite also have their faults, and one of the great faults I find on the part of the Opposition in regard to every debate is that they simply criticize blindly and negatively arid destructively without making constructive suggestions which can assist the Minister. That is what we would welcome. It is the duty of the Opposition to point out the mistakes, but they should also state an alternative. I now want to ask the speakers on the opposite side of the House not merely to criticize. You know, Sir, that if one does nothing one cannot make a mistake, and now the Opposition is in the position where they need do nothing except to criticize negatively and destructively. Constructive criticism would be welcomed, as also practical suggestions. I am reminded of the speech of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), who made use of this opportunity to exert pressure on the Government to restore the Coloureds to the common roll. I am very sorry that that was done. We are now debating the External Affairs Vote. What is the indirect inference which any observer in the gallery must draw from it? That this hon. member has only tried to exert pressure on the Government to change its external policy. That is what I deplore in this debate and in the speeches made here, that this Vote was grasped at to tell the Government: Change your internal policy and there will be better external relations. It is a very dangerous and ugly and contemptible behaviour to want to make use of foreign powers and to invoke the assistance of the outside world—because that is what it amounts to—to influence one’s own domestic matters. We are grateful that we have a Minister who takes no notice of that.

We have witnessed the scene here to-day that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence)—and I think he was very ably dealt with by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee)—defended in this House a reporter who wrote unfavourable reports about South Africa. It is because we notice that un-South African spirit on the part of the Opposition that we feel unhappy and it is that spirit which makes matters so much more difficult for us. I do not expect hon. members of the Opposition to agree with us in regard to the policy of the National Party, but when a foreign reporter comes to this country to write reports about us and action is taken against him, it is surely reprehensible for members of this House to attack the Minister who took action against that journalist, in order to defend him. Then I say that the time has arrived that we in this House should examine our own hearts to see how far we have deviated from the duty entrusted to us as the rulers of this country, which in these days is a really responsible task.

It is a pity, but we could not but help noticing from the speeches made in this debate that hon. members of the Opposition are not trying to do what is best in the interests of South Africa in the International sphere, but that they ask themselves what is in the best interests of the outside world, an inimical and malicious world. It is this type of speech and the Press which is only too willing to publish it to the world which are doing South Africa a disservice. I now want to issue another warning, viz. that in so far as we in South Africa and this House are concerned, we should be on our guard against one thing, inter alia, namely that we should not be prepared to hold our friendship with the Western world too cheaply. The Western world takes us for granted. But let me now tell the Western world that South Africa with its rich mineral resources and its strategic situation, after the failure of Western diplomacy in connection with Suez, can expect the Western powers to treat South Africa a little more sympathetically. The time has arrived for us to be careful, and not be irresponsible. And when I say that we should not hold our friendship with the Western world too cheaply, then hon. members should not infer that I am saying that we should look to the Eastern bloc. But one thing is certain, viz. that we should not lose our self-respect in South Africa. We will solve our own problems, even though we stand alone. But we should not hold our friendship with the Western world cheaply, just to receive a slap in the face from time to time. South Africa has too much self-respect for that. We the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people, come from proud nations with self-respect. Cannot we co-operate in respect of these things which affect South Africa in its International position and seek what is best for South Africa, without trying to make some political capital out of it? It is just as well for us from time to time to regard ourselves objectively and to look at South Africa through an international telescope, but it is just as imperative for us sometimes to survey the world through the South African telescope and to take note of the nations which so readily attack us to-day. I want to make an appeal that we as members of Parliament should turn the telescope round and that we should stand in South Africa and look through one common telescope, the Government party as well as the Opposition parties, at the world which to-day is so much under the influence of a non-White Afro-Asian bloc, and that we should tell that world that this is our fatherland, and that they should keep their hands off us.

It has become the custom in this House for a number of members from South West Africa to allow no opportunity to pass for making a personal attack on me. There are particularly three members who do that, viz. the hon. member for Windhoek (Mr. van der Wath), the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe), and then that big son of South Africa, the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke), who for years walked about in South Africa in a Hitler uniform with a swastika on his arm. If I have to reply to all the allegations and personalities of those hon. members, I would never be able to make a speech of my own in this House. Therefore I want to make it clear that I will ignore their personal attacks. I may add that the record of some of those hon. members is such that if people were to know about it they would never greet them again.

The hon. the Minister of External Affairs asked me across the floor of the House whether the suggestion I made in regard to a factual Year Book for South West meant that it should be submitted to UN as an official report. That was not my intention. I felt that if we placed an official Year Book about South West Africa as a factual Year Book on the Table of this House every year, and then distributed it to the rest of the world, it would, even if it did not give complete satisfaction, at least help to controvert the complaint that no official information at all in connection with South West is made available in the form of an organized composite book. Apart from that, it would be of great value to commerce and travellers. That is being done in Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda, and it is of inestimable value to people visiting those territories. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the problem is serious. He knows that UN annually draws up its own report about South West Africa, and they rely on information they get from newspapers and other documents, and the world accepts this report as the only authoritative material about South West. We have read that the Chairman of the South West Committee at UN in February suggested, according to Press reports, that the Committee should go to Africa and go as near as possible to the borders of South West in order to collect their own information. We can all imagine what type of report will be submitted if such a committee has to go close to the borders of South West in order to collect information about the territory. Therefore I want to urge the Minister seriously to consider publishing such a Year Book for South West Africa as a report to this Parliament, which will then also be available to the rest of the world. I want to go further and say this, and I am sure the Minister will agree with me, that one of the most important reasons for the growing opposition to South Africa in UN, particularly in regard to the South West problem, is based on the suspicion which exists that the Union wants to incorporate South West unilaterally as a fifth province. I think that is a suspicion which the Government could easily remove. But then I would like to tell the Minister that I think he should tell his own supporters not to talk so wildly when they hold meetings in South West. A few months ago, as recently as November last year, after this whole matter had been discussed and it was clear that there would be a case before the International Court, the hon. member for Windhoek, who is the leader of the National Party in South West, in a public speech before the congress of the National Party in Windhoek said that South West should be fully incorporated with the Union as a fifth province, and he said that that was the course his party would follow, and he added that that was also the object of the Government and of the National Party in the Union. This type of speech is sent overseas and used against South Africa there.

May I ask a question?

The point is that the intention is openly stated that South West should be incorporated as a fifth province of the Union. We continually hear the story that it is the Opposition which supplies UN with ammunition. When one analyses it, however, it is not the criticism of the Opposition which does the damage, but the actions of the Government and the speeches of Government speakers. I have here the latest report on South West Africa by UN, and I am quoted in it in connection with a factual speech I made in this House, but it contains many more quotations from what was said by the hon. members for Windhoek and Karas, the hon. the Prime Minister and Senator Dr. J. H. Steyn, all leaders of the National Party. They are the stars in the report; what they said is prominently featured in this report on South West. I think that if there is one thing which can make the position worse for us and lead to aggression against us, it is that UN is really becoming convinced that the Government is aiming at a unilateral incorporation of South West Africa. I think it is in the interests of everybody that the Government should give the country complete clarity as to how it visualizes the future of South West. I believe that we can submit a plan to the world which, in so far as the constitutional future of the territory is concerned, gives universal satisfaction to all the parties concerned, to South West, to the Union and also to UN. It rests on certain accepted facts, which are briefly as follows: That the territory cannot become a colony again; that it cannot become a colony of Germany or of England or of the Union. In this world colonialism is a thing of the past. Nor can it become a sovereign, independent state, because the population is too small and circumstances do not allow it at this stage. It need not become a trust territory either, because the International Court in 1950 declared in an advisory opinion about the constitutional position of the territory that the Union was under no legal compulsion to hand over South West to the trusteeship of UN. Nor can South West become a fifth province of the Union. I cannot go into that matter now because it is a long story, but all the leaders of the past, General Smuts, Dr. Malan and everybody recognized that special circumstances exist in South West which make it impossible to govern the territory on the basis of a fifth province. It will be too much subjected to distant control from Pretoria, and it will have to sacrifice too many local powers, such as its own powers of taxation, and it will lose its own character. Therefore I say that not only will infinite and insurmountable difficulties be created if the policy should be to make it a fifth province, but if they have to vote on the matter in a referendum the great majority of White voters of South West will not accept anything like that. There remains therefore only one step for the Government to take which I believe will satisfy all the various parties, and that is federal self-government for South West Africa. I believe that if that step is explained to the world in the right manner and by the right people, it ought to provide a solution for the present impassé. Because incidentally it complies with the main requirement that it does not comprise incorporation as a province, with the result that this ought to satisfy UN. It gives South West the fullest opportunity for constitutional development according to its own needs and taste; and viewed from the side of the Union, it retains the constitutional bond with the Union. Federal self-government will particularly make it possible that race relations in South West need not necessarily be regulated according to the hard doctrinaire pattern in force in the Union at present. I want to say clearly that it would open the door to separate the Native affairs of South West Africa from the Native affairs of the Union, and it would facilitate the whole position, also vis-à-vis the outside world. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) tried to put his case very mildly, but he put his foot into it quite a few times. He is the one who has always pleaded that South West Africa should become a fifth territory of the Union, and I want to ask the hon. member for Namib whether he denies that.

I definitely deny it.

While he was in the Nationalist Party, he was the one who constantly pleaded that South West Africa should become a fifth territory of the Union.

Not on the basis of a province.

The hon. member now suggests that South West Africa should be given a sort of federal self-government. I want to ask the hon. member this: Let us assume that South West Africa is given that federal self-government; to whom would he give the vote? Does he want to give only the Whites of South West Africa a say in that self-government? Or does he also want to give the Coloureds of Rehoboth a say in it and the Hereros and the Namas and the Damaras? Does he want to give everybody a vote? These are questions to which the hon. member for Namib should reply. He cannot simply come along and say that he advocates federal self-government for South West Africa.

Order! I want to ask the hon. member to bear in mind what I said yesterday evening about discussing this subject.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have clarity. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter before business was suspended this afternoon, and the hon. member is now discussing certain aspects of the administration of South West Africa under the mandate.

In reply to the hon. member for Namib.

I want to point out that the hon. member is quite correctly dealing with certain aspects of the administration of South West Africa under the mandate. This is not a matter which is sub judice, and I feel that it is perfectly in order.

I see the hon. member’s point, and I have asked the hon. member for Middelland to be careful.

I will, Mr. Chairman. I want to know from the hon. member for Namib, since he is pleading for federal self-government in South West Africa, to whom he is prepared to give a say in that self-government. This is a matter which is of importance to the inhabitants of South West Africa. I am convinced that his constituency would like to know whether he proposes to give only the Whites of South West Africa a say in that self-government; and if he is only prepared to give the Whites that power, is he not discriminating them in the eyes of UNO and in the eyes of the outside world against the non-Whites of South West Africa?

The hon. member for Namib is in the habit of standing up here and making completely irresponsible statements, which he then has to qualify later on. He now comes along and says that the statement by the hon. member for Windhoek that South West Africa would like to become a fifth province of the Union, is one which that hon. member sucks out of his thumb and which is against the wishes of the inhabitants of South West Africa. But this is no new statement. The previous Government tried to make South West Africa a fifth province. The late General Smuts went to UNO and asked them to allow South West Africa to be incorporated in the Union. This is by no means a new idea. But the hon. member for Namib is now trying to make capital out of this matter; he puts up his own skittles and then tries to knock them down. The hon. member for Namib, as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, asked whether the Union Government was prepared to accept the verdict of the International Court. I do not want to enlarge upon that.

Order! The hon. member must not pursue that subject.

No, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say here that at this stage it is not of importance to the inhabitants of South West Africa what the attitude is in that connection, because assuming the Government does accept the verdict of the International Court, what would the position of the hon. member for Namib be then? What would his attitude be? Would he go to the inhabitants of South West Africa and try to frighten them, or would he pack his bag and clear out? Assuming the Government is not prepared to accept it, would he be the first to run to the Rev. Michael Scott and to UNO to go and tell tales there about this situation? These are questions to which the hon. member for Namib must please reply.

But I rise really to raise two other points. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) has dealt with a very important international law standpoint, and that is the new idea which prevails in the world to interpret the sovereignty of a state in the spirit of this new idea of human rights, which has existed particularly over the past 20 years. It is true that such attempts are being made. Well-known writers such as Burgess, Jellinek, Jean Bodin and others describe the sovereignty of the state “as that power of a country to judge its own controversies, to enforce its own conception of its rights, to treat its own nationals as it sees fit, and to regulate its economic life without regard to the effect of such regulations upon its neighbours.” It is quite true that UNO is circumventing that definition to-day, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of External Affairs whether, since these countries, in spite of article 2 (7) of the Charter, have repeatedly tried in the past few years to interfere in South Africa’s affairs, the time has not come also for the South African Government to lodge charges with regard to the domestic affairs of other countries? There is, the position of Ceylon for example, where the Tamil followers are being discriminated against; we have the case of Ghana where many members of the Opposition have been imprisoned; we have the case of various other countries which play a leading rôle every year in connection with attacks made upon South Africa. The question which occurs to me is whether South Africa should not adopt more aggressive attitude at UNO, and, if they refuse to respect article 2 (7), to protest against the malpractices in their domestic affairs. The best method of defence is attack, and I shall be pleased if South Africa herself would go so far as to put forward resolutions at the General Assembly asking for those matters to be discussed, not only in the political committee but also in the General Assembly.

For practical purposes South Africa will be outside of the Commonwealth after 31 May. The Commonwealth is recognized under article 52 of the Charter as an ordinary regional organization, and there are various regional organizations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for example, the South East Asian Treaty Organization, the Pan-American Regional Agreement, the United Arab League, the Cominform, etc. I have never attached much value to our position in the Commonwealth, for the simple reason that membership of the Commonwealth cannot ensure that your friends in the Commonwealth or your fellow-members come to your assistance when you are faced with a threat of war. There is no such rule. But because of the fact that for practical purposes South Africa is going to withdraw from the Commonwealth, we will have to try to link up with some other organization …

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) entitled to say to the hon. member for Salt River by way of interjection, “You lie”?

I never said anything of the kind.

Since South Africa, in the near future, is no longer going to be a member of the Commonwealth, I ask that South Africa should make arrangements with a view to joining one of the other existing regional organizations. I am thinking, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for example. The members of that Organization are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and West Germany, as well as the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Turkey, for example, only became a member in 1952, and in order to make provision for Turkey they stretched the limits of that defence agreement to both Greece and Turkey. [Time limit.]

I think it is a great pity that the hon. member who has just sat down as the result of his personal political quarrels with the hon. member for Namib was not prepared to consider objectively the eminently sensible suggestion that South West Africa should be thought of in terms of a federal component of South Africa rather than in the present rather amorphous position. It is not a province of the Union of South Africa in terms of the Constitutional Bill which we have just passed, nor is there a completely satisfactory arrangement as far as the people of South West Africa are concerned, and certainly the arrangement between ourselves and South West Africa does not meet with the approval of a very large number of people outside South Africa who have a considerable interest in developments in that country. I think it would be well for the Government to consider whether one could not bring South West Africa into the orbit of the interest of South Africa on a much more orderly basis which would allow the local people a considerable measure of local autonomy and of self-expression rather than the present highly unsatisfactory position relating to South Africa and South West Africa.

It is a pity also that hon. members in defence of the Minister of External Affairs in general have adopted the technique, to which we have become accustomed, that whenever the Government is criticized in the field of External Affairs, of accusing members of the Opposition side of selling South Africa short, of being saboteurs of South Africa, of being unpatriotic. Of course this flows from the fact of hon. members on the other side’s mistaken idea that the Nationalist Party is the same as the Union of South Africa. I think it should be made abundantly clear that although they are temporarily in charge of the affairs of this country, under no circumstances can they identify themselves with South Africa as a whole. Secondly, it seems to appear to them that it is the hallmark of a good patriot to accept that everything that is being done by the present Government in the field of External Affairs is wisely done. The hon. member for Salt River mentioned the Norman Phillips affair. Because he criticized the handling of this affair by the Minister of External Affairs, he was accused of defending Norman Phillips, and his actions whatever they might have been. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) apparently considers that there are only two alternatives: Either you are a defender of Norman Phillips, or you believe that he should be put in gaol.

He is a liar.

I do not want to enter into details, but I believe that there was no single episode, no single situation handled by this Minister which did more damage as far as South Africa’s relationship with Canada is concerned. He chose the most inept handling of this situation. I think the debates of the last Session showed very clearly, that there were many other ways of dealing with Mr. Norman Phillips if indeed he had to be dealt with, and the worst way of dealing with him, and the most inept way of dealing with him, was the way in which the Government dealt with him under the circumstances. So the hon. members must realize that we on this side of the House do not suggest that we should change our policies, or necessarily adapt our policies merely to please the whims of the outside world. But we do say that when deciding what policies are in the interests of South Africa—that should be the yardstick in deciding what policies to adopt— we must take into account the effect that that is going to have on our external relations and the effect that that, in turn, is going to have on the inhabitants of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, we will press and we will continue to press for such reforms in our policies which we believe are in the interests of South Africa. Fortunately many of the policies that for which we press for are policies which, internally will bring peace and stability and which will enable us to regain the respect of the world which we have lost over the past thirteen years.

I now want to deal with the main theme which the hon. the Minister of External Affairs introduced into this debate, and the elaboration of this theme by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). There has been a lot of documentary evidence read to this Committee by that side of the House designed to prove that the United Nations was not very well disposed towards the idea of racial discrimination. Evidence has been produced to indicate that at its inception in 1946 and 1947, difficulties were encountered by the Smuts régime of that time. I think the hon. the Minister is quite correct; this has always been a theme which appeared to be dominant at the United Nations. But I think it is quite clear that in 1946 and 1947 the prestige of South Africa was at that time so high and the intention to lessen the aggravation of racial discrimination in South Africa was so patently understood, that while attacks were made on South Africa, it was not possible for these people to drive home the attacks in the way in which they had driven them home in recent years. So let us accept that the majority of the members of the United Nations have always been opposed to policies of discrimination. Over the years they have become stronger and stronger in their opposition to these policies. But unfortunately, in the same time period South Africa has lost the prestige and her power to put forward her case. Whatever influence she might have had in the United Nations in 1946 and 1947 has been lost. And now one finds, in 1960, that racial discrimination is utterly and totally repugnant to everyone of the members of the United Nations. South Africa stands alone.

I want to deal briefly with the case put forward by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs. It would appear that his new line of defence is one of attack, that is, to tell other people “ that their hands are not clean ”. Now, I doubt the wisdom of this kind of statement because it would appear that the attacks made on other nations have not always been founded on fact. Indeed, one of the attacks made was on Sweden, founded on a newspaper report. And of all the people I thought who would be the last person to resort to basing his case on newspaper cuttings, it would be that hon. Minister. After the attack made by the hon. the Minister on Sweden for its treatment of the Lapps, we not only got a statement from Sweden that this was pure invention, but the Lapps themselves issued a long statement in which they flatly denied the very statement made by the hon. the Minister.

Secondly, Sir, it would appear that the technique of the hon. the Minister is one in which he says he is seeing that our critics get a dose of their own medicine back. I wonder how many friends we are going to make by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs of this country trying to dose the critics of South Africa with their own medicine? I do not believe that this is the role of a diplomat or of a Minister of External Affairs who believes that he has a good case himself. No, Mr. Chairman, I think that we should realize the utter futility and the barrenness of this kind of argument, because when examples are produced of the other States, it is quite clear that each one of them will concede to a greater or a lesser extent that there has been discrimination in their countries in the past. But where the Union stands condemned in this regard is that we are the only State in the whole world which has racial discrimination as the cornerstone of its legislative programme. We are the only nation in the world which tries to make virtue of this thing which is repugnant to the rest of the world. We are the only nation in the world which practises policies which intensifies the affront to the human dignity of the people of our country. This approach of the hon. the Minister is, in fact, a repudiation of the hon. the Prime Minister himself. I would have thought that if the hon. the Minister of External Affairs had listened to the hon. the Prime Minister in the speeches he made during the course of last week he would have realized that if he was to be a true ambassador of the Prime Minister he should not defend racial discrimination and he should have adopted the line of the Prime Minister and said, “ It is our avowed intention to get away from discrimination ”. But every time the hon. the Minister joins issue with these people and accuses them of also being guilty of racial discrimination he denies the very sentiments expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister during last week.

Sir, I think we should realize, whether we like it or not, that there has been a change in the attitude of the rest of the world towards this very difficult problem of race relations and of human relationships. It is something which has flowed, perhaps, from internal politics, as the hon. the Minister of External Affairs has said. I think it also flows fr« m the rise of the Afro-Asian nations, and we can do nothing about that. The fact is that there are a large number of Afro-Asian nations and they have thrown off the shackles of colonialism, and, in this new climate in which they live this theme of racial discrimination is, to them, a cardinal issue. ¡Time limit.)

Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said in this debate about the crisis in which South Africa finds herself to-day. It is clear from a close analysis of the position, that this crisis is being caused by an attempt on the part of the outside world to interfere in our internal and domestic affairs. That is the cause of the crisis; it has nothing to do with our domestic policy. No injustice which is being done internally, can be responsible for this crisis. There is nothing in our internal policy which threatens world peace. I say that this is simply an attempt on the part of the outside world to interfere in our domestic affairs. Mr. Chairman, if the outside world really demands that we should end racial discrimination in South Africa, then we say to the outside world that in point of fact our policy of apartheid is designed to end racial discrimination. If the policy that the outside world wants to introduce here is that of “ one man one vote ” for the Black man, then we say that in point of fact the object of our apartheid policy is to introduce the policy of “ one man one vote ”, but for the non-White in his own area, just as in the case of the White man in his own area. But what UNO and many of the great powers expect from us is that we must also introduce the policy of “ one man one vote ” for the Black man in our own White area.

Why do they Demand this; why do they expect South Africa to introduce the policy of “ one man vote ” for the Blacks as well in the White area? Mr. Chairman, is it coincidence? It is supposed to be in the interests of right and justice and of democracy that they demand this. But is it purely coincidence that wherever the policy of “ one man one vote” has been applied on the Continent of Africa and elsewhere, those countries have been taken over by the Black man? And that is their true motive—Africa for the Africans. Wherever the policy of “ one man one vote ” has been applied hitherto, the White man has had to clear out; and wherever the White man has cleared out, it has resulted in racial intermingling and chaos. The great powers of the world and particularly the communists are fully aware of this. They know that it results time and again in chaos. Why then do they encourage this by encouraging the Black man in his demand for a policy of “ one man one vote ”? It is because they pin their hopes on the fact that eventually those countries will have to call in the assistance of those great powers to save them from the chaos that must inevitably follow upon the granting of self-government to immature people who are not competent to govern themselves. It is for that chance that they are waiting. They realize only too well what a stranglehold they will get on those non-White states when they turn to them for economic assistance. That is why they are so anxious to offer that assistance. In this covert way the imperialistic and the colonial policy of the 20th century is being continued. No, Mr. Chairman, imperialism and colonialism are by no means things of the past. The same policy is being pursued to-day but only in a more cunning way and in point of fact under the cloak of “ away with colonialism and away with imperialism ”. That is why the communists continually come along with the slogan, “ Away with colonialism ”. We know that in fact they are pursuing this colonial policy under the cloak of humanism and fraternisation.

We say that in fact the crisis in which we find ourselves has been caused by those sinister and hidden motives of Blacks and Whites. On the one hand we have the ambitions of the immature Black man and on the other hand the hidden colonial exploitation urge on the part of certain big powers, and it is against this background that our great efforts at UNO and the Commonwealth Conference have failed. When one asks oneself how they hope to bring this policy to a point eventually, one sees that in the first place they encourage and thrive on these disturbances, these Sharpevilles that we have from time to time in our country, and we cannot help wondering whether some of these big powers are not behind those disturbances. They encourage them. They are out to cause trouble in our country. They are out to cause incidents, to cause more serious Sharpvilles so as to give them an excuse to intervene in our domestic affairs. Many of our Opposition members believe that that will be their opportunity then to get into power. But, Mr. Chairman, let me tell them that when that time comes, when those incidents take place and the big powers intervene here, they will put a Black government in power to rule over us, as they have done elsewhere in Africa.

I want to conclude by saying this. I believe that South Africa will emerge from this crisis in which she finds herself to-day. I believe that imperialistic and colonial powers will be crippled in their efforts, and I honestly believe that something is still going to happen which is going to cause them to stew in their own juice, and that they are going to be at each other’s throats. Then they will forget South Africa and then our crisis will also be over.

I wish to raise certain issues with the hon. the Minister in respect of his policy in Africa. But before I do so I wish to make one observation. Out of all the words we have had from the hon. the Minister in respect of the position at the United Nations and our country’s position in that organization, we have heard nothing definite as to what his plans are. I therefore pose the question to the hon. the Minister once again: What is his policy, or that of the Government in respect of South Africa’s continued membership of the United Nations It can hardly be expected that the Foreign Minister of our country can rise in this House on three occasions—as he has already done—in a debate of this nature, attacking the United Nations, and the individual members of that organization without some implications being attached to his words. And if this organization is a body dominated by the Afro-Asian States, by communists and by people who have only one object in life and that is to attack South Africa at the United Nations; if that is true is there any value in South Africa continuing to retain its membership of that organization?

The hon. the Minister has given quotations from 13 years ago of things said during debates at United Nations. But in doing so he took merely one aspect of those quotations. And he said that whether it was this or another Government in power we would still be attacked on the policy of racial discrimination, on the ground that there is very little difference on that issue between this side of the House and the Government side of the House. But one would have expected his attack to be rather along the lines of an attempt to justify the standpoint he advocated on behalf of the South African Government’s policies when defending our position at United Nations, rather than to compare it with the approach of the United Party Government in 1948.

Just as the hon. the Minister has produced documents covering these years, I also have access to some of those documents. And during the dinner recess I took the trouble to look up some of the statements and speeches made by the South African delegation under the United Party Government in the year 1947. That was one of the years when the Minister alleged there were so many attacks on our racial policies. I also took the trouble to read the speeches of the hon. the Minister when he first went to United Nations as South Africa’s delegate. And one may say that the contrast between the Minister’s speech and those of the 1947 delegation is as between day and night. Let me give this Committee an example of the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) who will clearly remember his words in this connection. This was when an attack had been made on our racial policies, and this was the reply of the United Party Government delegation to the world. This was their justification of our standpoint and of the cause for which we were pleading. I will quote a few of the sentences—

That may not have been a hundred per cent true when one considers the fact that there was a Nationalist Party in those days—

Then, again, he said—

And when it came to voting in the United Nations there was no condemnatory resolution against our country. But when this hon. Minister went there in 1950 he did not adopt that approach. The policy of apartheid as he enunciated it, this new racial philosophy that he attempted to propagate in the forum of the world, was there accepted as representing the acme of a Fascist ideology, and that led to the introduction of condemnatory resolutions on South Africa’s racial problems. They started in 1950 and they have appeared ever since. That is why it is not a matter of argument as to whether we are being attacked on racial policies or not: We want to know what the attitude of the Government is and what its policy is to achieve a better understanding of South Africa at the United Nations. Therefore, as this is a very pertinent question at this time, in view of all the attacks the hon. the Minister has made on this body and on its individual members, the Minister must tell us what are the Government’s intentions in respect of South Africa’s future membership of the United Nations. It is not only important as far as the United Nations are concerned; it is important for us as an African State. We already participate in the activities of other agencies of the United Nations as far as Africa is concerned. In the Economic Commission for Africa we participate fully with the other African States, and that is a UNO agency; it obtain its funds from the United Nations. And if we resign from the United Nations we automatically lose membership of the Economic Commission for Africa.

This matter goes even further, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we are going to remain a member of the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa, the body to which the hon. the Minister refers as the C.C.T.A. It is very necessary that I put these questions to the Minister because at a meeting of the Scientific Council for Africa which was held in our own country in August last year, the Minister sent a message of welcome to the delegates who were prominent scientists from all the countries of Africa, and in that message he said this—he used a threat; he said that if the member states continued to level attacks against South Africa he considered that the South African Government would have to review its position in that organization.

That is not true.

The hon. the Minister says that is not true. I will quote his very words.

You are quoting a Press report.

Mr. Chairman, I have here not a Press report but a copy of the text issued by the Minister’s own Department of External Affairs …

Don’t shout. Don’t get excited.

As soon as you pin this hon. Minister down he starts to dodge round all the corners he can find to try and escape the real issue …

Don’t bluster.

Let me read this—

What do these words mean, if anything at all?

Read the introductory paragraph.

The hon. the Minister will not face up…

I was referring to the fact that Ghana would not allow any South Africans to go to Ghana, consequently we could not send a delegation …

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing here with South Africa, not Ghana …

You are omitting certain things.

I am dealing with South Africa’s membership of an African body on which there are some 27 member states. And if these words mean anything, they contain an implied threat to South Africa’s continued membership of that organization if any one of those states criticises South Africa’s policies.

I never used the word “ criticism ”. You are misleading the House.

Let me remind this hon. House that having seen this message in August last year there was such an outcry in the Press of both this and other countries that the Minister was compelled to issue a correction in regard to the first message. Is that not true? The hon. the Minister is now silent. [Time limit.]

This afternoon I used an adjective here to describe the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), and I had to withdraw it. You will forgive me if I do not reply to his speech but rather devote my attention to the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), somebody who, I think, has been living in South West Africa for about 14 years and whose speech here this evening has proved that he still does not know the ABC of the political history of that country. He has objected here to the fact that Native Affairs in South West Africa fall under the Union of South Africa. But I challange him to stand up and to tell me that he did not vote for that Bill. I have the proof here in Hansard; he did vote for it. He defended it with me on public platforms.

You are wrong.

No, I am not wrong. I am perfectly sure of that. The hon. member had the opportunity, when this Bill was discussed in the caucus of the governing party to object to it, and he did not do so. But do you know what he says nowadays when one puts questions to him on public platforms? He either says, “ I did not vote for that Bill ”, or “ I made sure that I was away when the voting took place”. I leave it to this House to decide what value one can attach to the opinion of a member of Parliament who adopts that attitude.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to enlighten the hon. member with regard to the political history of South West Africa, and in doing so I shall respect the advice which you gave us yesterday evening. It is this: The father of these mandates was the late General Smuts. That is known throughout the world. Shortly after he had become Prime Minister, General Smuts held a public meeting in Windhoek for the first time in his life on 16 September 1920. At that meeting, in my opinion, he made the clearest and the most succinct statement about South West Africa’s relationship with the Union that I have ever read. I do not want to repeat it because I mentioned it just recently in Parliament. The member for Namib has said here this evening that the Union has no right unilaterally to incorporate South West Africa, but I want to tell him that the father of the mandate, General Smuts, said that it was not necessary to incorporate; that it was not necessary to annex; that we relied upon article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles which was internationally recognized.

Order! I just want to say to the hon. member that the object of my ruling yesterday evening was that hon. members should rather refrain from discussing South West Africa.

Then I just want to say this to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, because I want to respect your ruling, that there has not been a single Prime Minister of South Africa, starting with General Smuts on 16 September 1920, up to the present Prime Minister, who has adopted a different attitude with regard to this cardinal question over which our country has now become involved in a case before the International Court. The hon. member for Namib now comes along and calls me the “ great son ” of South Africa, and he as the little boy of South Africa poses here as the only one who knows anything about these matters. I want to remind him of the fact that since 1920 there has not been a single Prime Minister of South Africa who has expressed an opinion in this House or outside with regard to the political position of South West Africa that differs from the opinion expressed by General Smuts. The hon. member now comes along with a different idea. Let me just say this to him before I sit down: If he rakes up our past, he must not think that we cannot rake up his past. He has such a chequered past that he himself does not know to-day where he stands. He has no moral right to say that he represents the Namib constituency, because at the recent election there was the clearest evidence that where he formed an alliance with another party, a party which is also in Opposition, the governing Party also obtained a greater majority than that obtained by them when he actually represented that constituency. I want the hon. member to realize once and for all that actually he is no longer a representative; normally he is, but in actual fact he is not the representative of any constituency in South West Africa. He must not come here and provoke us, who are really the elected representatives of South West Africa, in a debate such as this in which the Chairman himself has intimated that we should restrict the scope of our speeches; he must not provoke us to take part in a debate on a matter which is of such little importance to him that when the next election comes, he is going to offer himself for election in Outeniqua but certainly not in Namib again.

That is nonsense.

No, it is not nonsense. The hon. member cannot deny it. There is not a single constituency in South West Africa where he would dare to offer himself for election again, and unless he joins the United Party and is presented with a safe seat, he will not come back to Parliament again.

On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, is it in keeping with the dignity of this Committee that the hon. member should continue with an attack which has nothing to do with the Vote under discussion?

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry if the hon. member for Salt River does not understand Afrikaans well enough. I just want to say to the hon. member who made this attack upon the Minister sitting in front of me, that there is one thing which he must remember, and that is that he does not represent South West Africa at all. He will not come back to this House again unless the United Party presents him with a safe seat, or unless he can be returned as the member for Outeniqua. The hon. member, who has established two political parties, one in the Union with the slogan “South Africa first” and one in South West Africa with the slogan “ South West Africa first —and he is the leader of both—has no right to discuss these matters in this House. I want to make an appeal to him. Now that the Chairman has given this ruling, he must not make the position difficult in this debate in this House for us South West Africa members. I hope he will leave the matter at that.

I do not want to take up the time of this Committee for what is in fact a private fight against me. I want to leave it there. I am very sorry and I want to apologise to the Committee for having to rise again, but I do not do so to reply to personal attacks. I just want to tell the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) this, that I will be a member of Parliament longer than he will. The hon. member alleged that I voted for the Bill transferring the control of Native affairs in South West to the Union. He is confused. There was a Bill before this House transferring the Native affairs of South West from the control of the Prime Minister to the control of the Minister of Native Affairs. I voted in favour of that, but it did not comprise the transfer of South West to the Union. It was always with the Union, but it was in the hands of the Prime Minister and not of the Minister of Native Affairs. That was what I voted for. But my request to the Minister of External Affairs now was to place Native affairs completely in the hands of South West, which is quite a different matter.

May I also reply to the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) that in the old days everybody was in favour of the incorporation of South West Africa in the Union and for closer association with the Union. But the question on which there was a difference of opinion was the basis on which this was to be done. At one stage people thought that the status of a fifth province would be best. But after the International Court in 1950 completely rejected it and UN rejected it, that appeared to be a cul-de-sac. The late General Smuts thereafter gave an undertaking to the world that he would not incorporate South West Africa, and Dr. Malan subscribed to that on behalf of the Government now sitting here, and the late Adv. Strijdom also did so. It is the policy of this Government not to incorporate South West as a fifth province. Now they attack me. As long ago as 1951 I made a speech in which I said that I still stood for the closest possible association between South West and the Union, but the basis should not be a fifth province, because that did not suit us, but that it should be a federal basis.

Order! Can the hon. member not leave it there now?

Very well, Mr. Chairman. Just allow me to reply to one more point. The hon. member for Middelland asked me to reply to matters concerning racial policy. I am quite willing to reply, but I do not think it fits in with External Affairs. I have dealt with the racial policy of my party so often already, particularly at meetings in South West, and I have replied to his questions on numerous occasions, and I will be only too willing to do so in this House again at the right time.

Mr. Chairman, you will have to give me the opportunity to reply to what the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has said.

The hon. member must not go into the constitutional question.

No, I am only going to reply to what the hon. member for Namib said. I just want to quote to the hon. member from Hansard what he said about Native Affairs—

The Native Affairs of South West fall under the Union … And in connection with South West Africa, just this short quotation—

I leave the hon. member there. Sir, the argument which has been advanced here by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) in connection with the representation of Coloureds is this; he says that if we will only give the Coloureds direct representation, we will have peace with the outside world. May I say this to him. UNO’s quarrel with the Union is not about direct representation for the Coloureds; it concerns the representation of the Black man in this House, and it is the Black states which are fighting for this. In this fight the Black states are playing the leading rôle at UNO and they played the leading rôle at the Commonwealth Conference. Those Black states are fighting for representation for the Black man here and unless they are given representation we will not be able to satisfy them.

I will not keep the Committee long, but I want to say something before the Minister replies. I want a little more clarity about the Government policy in seeking reciprocal representation with the other states in Africa and elsewhere. Looking at the Estimates I see this new item in connection with the appointment of an Ambassador in Tokyo, Japan. I would be glad if the Minister would tell us when it is proposed to appoint a Minister Plenipotentiary there. I think it would be very interesting if the Minister could tell us who he has in mind, particularly in view of some of the contributions made to the debate this afternoon and this evening. Is it the intention of the Japanese Government to send a Minister here? If so, can the Minister tell us when he expects the Japanese Minister to arrive? I would be glad if he could tell the Committee something of the negotiations which have taken place between the Japanese Government and ourselves in regard to facilitating trade between the two countries.

Then I want to come back to the other aspect of the appointment of diplomatic representatives in other parts of the world and on the continent of Africa. In the course of the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, we were told that one of the reasons why this Government is not seeking to have reciprocal representation between us and the emergent states of Africa is that you only have diplomatic relations with friendly nations; and the suggestion has been made that we cannot have these close diplomatic contacts with the emergent states in Africa because, in the view of the Prime Minister, these states have not shown a friendly spirit towards us. I want to ask the Minister this, because he is responsible for making these appointments. What yardstick is adopted by the Government in deciding whether to open up new diplomatic missions on the continent of Africa? Take Nigeria. She has now become independent. She may very well be one of the most important African states. We have considerable trade with Nigeria, or had in the past, and there is tremendous scope for increased trade. What is the Minister doing about reciprocal diplomatic relations with Nigeria? Is it the policy of the Government, so far as the African states are concerned, not to seek to enter into diplomatic relations with them if they show themselves apparently hostile to us at UN; and by apparently hostile I mean if they record their votes against us in any particular resolution. I ask that question because if that is going to be the test, where do we end? One of the recent resolutions in which our policy was condemned was carried by a majority of 94 to 1. If, therefore, it is the policy of this Government not to have close relations with the countries which may be compelled for some reason to vote against us, it would mean that we would have to break off relations with all those countries which have missions in this country at present. And that is absurd. Is a distinction going to be drawn between those non-White states and the White states? There was a clause in a resolution which was carried, not by a two-thirds majority but by a simple majority, in the Political Committee of UN recently which was sponsored by three African nations and which sought to sever diplomatic relations with us, close their ports to us, to boycott our goods, and to refuse facilities for our aircraft to land there in their territories. That resolution was sponsored by certain African states, and in the Committee it had a majority of 47 to 29, with 18 abstentions. Did the representative of the United Arab Republic vote for that particular clause, and if so, does the Minister regard that as an unfriendly act? If we have to get down to rockbottom, I think we should test the proposition put before Parliament by the Prime Minister himself, and that is why I put the question to the Minister who is responsible for making these contacts with other nations. It seems to me that it is quite indefensible to take as your yardstick the question whether a particular nation, at a particular time, is prepared to give support to a particular resolution for or against us at UN. What we have to consider is the need for the Union to play its part on the African continent, to achieve a destiny, as the Minister himself once expressed it, as the link between the emergent Black states and the West; and you cannot achieve that destiny unless you have representatives. How can we be a link if we cut ourselves off in isolation? Therefore I would be very grateful indeed if the Minister would tell us, precisely, what considerations influenced him and the Government in deciding whether to provide closer diplomatic links with the emergent Black states in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the trouble about the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is that one never knows whether he is being serious or facetious. Some of his statements this evening make one wonder whether he was serious or merely playing the fool. After all, the hon. member should know what is meant by “an unfriendly act”!

The hon. member asked me whether we contemplated establishing diplomatic relations with Japan. Negotiations were completed about a month ago between my Department and the Japanese Government for the establishment of Embassies. A South African Ambassador will be appointed to Tokyo, and a Japanese Ambassador to South Africa. It is hoped that the formalities will be completed in about a month’s time. He wants to know who the Ambassador will be. I think the hon. member knows sufficient about diplomatic practice to know that such matters are not announced beforehand. The consent of the governments concerned have to be secured and while we are still a member of the Commonwealth the consent of the Queen has to be obtained. These are matters which are not discussed in public, and therefore I cannot satisfy his curiosity.

The hon. member inquired what the policy of the Government is in regard to diplomatic representation in the states of Africa. The establishment of diplomatic relations presupposes friendly relations. Where there are already diplomatic representatives, and if a country commits what is considered to be an unfriendly act, the other country will recall its Ambassador for consultation. That is a means of showing displeasure. It is not as the hon. member suggests, a matter of certain countries voting against us at the United Nations. If the hon. member is under the impression that we judge friendly relations or otherwise by a vote against us at the United Nations, then he is very much mistaken. UN is an international body. Delegations attack each other there and vote against each other, but never yet has an adverse vote at UN been considered a sufficient reason for breaking off diplomatic relations. Last week however a resolution was introduced there by 24 African states which called for the breaking off of diplomatic relations with South Africa. I ask the hon. member in all seriousness: Could we possibly contemplate establishing diplomatic relations with a country which has just sponsored—and not merely voted for—a resolution at the United Nations calling for the breaking off of diplomatic relations? There is also the case of Ghana. Last year the Ghanian government decided that no South African would even be allowed to touch at Accra by plane as a transient unless he was prepared to sign a declaration dissociating himself with our colour policy. As the result of that, South Africa was unable to send delegates to the Regional Health Conference held at Accra, because we ascertained that even delegates to the conference would not have been allowed to land in Ghana. That was the reason why, when the C.S.A. Conference was held at Cape Town, and I had to send the usual message, I referred to the fact that we were unable to attend the conference in Ghana because of the unfriendly act of the government there. I then pointed out that it would put us in a very difficult position if we had to attend conferences on a part-time basis, and I warned that if that sort of thing was going to be continued it would break our connection with the C.C.T.A., C.S.A. and Fama. There was no question as was this evening alleged, of a warning that we would not attend conferences held in countries that criticized us. In this case there was a definite prohibition on the attendance of South African delegates to the Health Conference at Accra, when they were on the point of leaving. We made inquiries through the British High Commissioner there and we were told that Dr. Nkrumah would not allow them to come to the conference. Obviously it is quite impossible to establish diplomatic relations with a country which adopts that attitude.

The hon. member also mentioned Nigeria. Is he aware of the statements made not only by Members of Parliament but by the Prime Minister of Nigeria about South Africa. The Government of Nigeria—not the trade unions or dockworkers—has issued a decree prohibiting the importation of South African goods. That is an unfriendly act. Now I ask how, in heaven’s name we can be expected to establish diplomatic relations with any country that adopts that attitude?

Did they not invite you to attend their independent celebrations and you turned it down?

I did not turn it down. We sent the usual telegram of congratulations, but in this particular case there was another factor. We had already discussed the question of sending a representative when the Nigerian Parliament passed a resolution calling upon the government to cancel the invitation to South Africa. Having regard to our experience in the Congo, where we had accepted an invitation to attend the independence celebrations, the Minister of Economic Affairs was on the point of leaving for the Congo when we were told that the South African representative would not be welcome. Does the hon. member seriously suggest that we should have risked another rebuff in the case of Nigeria? After all, there is such a thing as national honour and prestige. I admit that it means more to some people than to others, but to us, to the Government, it does mean something, and we were not going to send a delegate under those circumstances. These are my replies to the points raised by the hon. member for Salt River.

May I ask a question on the subject? Was not the United Arab Republic one of the co-sponsors of the resolution at UN calling for a severing of diplomatic relations with us?

Yes, but they already have their diplomatic representative here, and it is a very serious matter indeed from an international point of view to ask a country to remove its Ambassador, or in this case its Minister It is not done. On the other hand any country which sponsored the resolution would not have the nerve to approach us and ask for its exchange of diplomatic representatives.

*The hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) asked me about the Year Book. I do not object to his having asked me, but I think that is a matter for the South West Administration. I do not think either the Government or my Department can be held responsible for a Year Book that will give all possible information about that territory.

I want to thank the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) for his kind words. I can assure him that I greatly appreciate it. Mr. Chairman. I can also tell you and the Committee that where I have attended UNO, Prime Ministers’ Conferences and many other conferences in the past my one and only object has been to further the interests of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

I may not always have employed the right methods—I am also human—but I do say that I have always to the best of my ability sincerely and diligently and honestly tried to serve and protect the interests of South Africa. I thank the hon. member for what he has said.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) raised a matter this afternoon which strictly speaking should be raised under the Vote of the Information Office, viz. the visit of a man called Luth. I saw a statement in the Cape Times …

I raised it because it now has diplomatic implications.

Not really. I saw this statement in the Cape Times. I knew nothing about the whole matter, and I immediately asked the director of the Information Service to let me have the facts. It appears that this man, on very short notice from the German Embassy, came to the office of the State Information Office and told the local information officer that he had come to Cape Town to see his daughter. He said he would be staying here for only a fortnight and that he would like to see something of the town and particularly he was interested in architecture. He would like to make a study of South African architecture. At no time during this discussion did he make any reference whatsoever to ideological questions of the colour issues, or anything of the kind. He also said that he was interested in housing projects and later on asked whether he could have the opportunity to visit Nyanga and Langa. Then he spoke about the rebuilding of Hamburg after the ravage of the war. He then discussed questions relating to information and said he was the Director of the Information Office of Hamburg. The conversation lasted for about an hour and Mr. Meiring said he would give him all assistance possible, as we generally do in these cases. He told Mr. Meiring that he was the chairman of the Hamburg Press Club. He is not the chairman of the German Press Club, as was stated in the Cape Times. Nor is he a member of the Senate, as was also alleged. He is a member of the Hamburg City Council. In fact, he is the publicity representative of the Hamburg City Council.

Everything went off very well and the Information Officer said that he would make the necessary arrangements for Luth. He also wanted to see the K.W.V. The next morning the statement appeared in the Cape Times in which Luth said many other things, inter alia, that if the Prime Minister had visited Germany it would have been a source of great embarrassment to the German Government. He criticized South Africa’s racial policy and he said that most intelligent people in Germany could not understand why South Africa was going ahead with its policies; the workers are not prepared to aid Dr. Verwoerd by buying our goods, and then he went on to say in the Cape Times interview—

He also told the Cape Times that he intended staying for two weeks but that he was feeling very uncomfortable because when he walked about the streets he saw notices saying “ Whites only ”.

Naturally the Luth statement came as a great shock to Mr. Meiring because this man had represented himself in an entirely different light. When he saw him again Mr. Meiring expressed his surprise at this attitude adopted by him. Yet, in spite of all this he still seconded a man from the Information Office to take Luth to Paarl to visit the K.W.V. He was treated with the greatest courtesty. It seems to me that we had here another Williams case, a man coming here and misrepresenting himself, and getting free hospitality on the strength of his misrepresentations. That is the story of Mr. Luth.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) was very anxious to know what advice I had given to the Prime Minister at the Common wealth Conference and what advice I was going to give him on this, that and the other thing. Sir, I am afraid the hon. member will have to curb his curiosity. I am not in the habit of disclosing, either in Parliament or outside, what advice I give to the Prime Minister.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford)—the burden of his song was that he had been listening for two days to a dirge. If so, he listened to the wrong people. He listened to the people on his own side. If there was a dirge, it was being sung by his own people making these doleful predictions, painting this gloomy picture, and creating an atmosphere of despondency.

Then there is the hon. member for Sunny-side (Mr. Horak), who raised the question of the Press Commission. I want to admit at once that I was under a misapprehension in regard to this matter. It always used to be under the Department of the Interior, and when the late Mr. Strijdom asked me to take over the State Information Office I inherited the Press Commission together with the Information Office. In the past the Press Commission has been discussed under that Vote, and it was only the year before last that for the first time it appeared under my Vote, and not even in the Vote itself but in a little note at the bottom of the page which I certainly never noticed. I regret that I was under a misapprehension, and so I want to deal with it right now.

In March this year, just before we left for the Conference, a question was first put on the Order Paper. I was ill at the time and it was dealt with by the Prime Minister. Then he had to leave, and a lengthy reply was laid on the table by the Minister of Lands. The reply went into very great detail regarding the work which had been done and still had to be done by the Press Commission. I have said before that I do not interfere with the work of the Commission. It is a Governor-General’s Commission and it would be most improper for me to interfere with its work. The most I could do, and which I have done on more than one occasion, has been to tell them to get a move on. I had discussions with Mr. Justice van Zyl, the Chairman of the Commission. The Cabinet appointed a small Committee and we met the members of the Commission about a year ago, or nine months ago, and discussed with them the question of completing the work.

Are they still in orbit?

I can assure the House that so far as is humanly possible for me, as the unfortunate Minister responsible, everything possible has been done to try to speed up the work. But having said that, I think it would be less than fair if I did not tell the House that I do not think hon. members have any conception of the amount of work that had to be done.

Is there any chance of the Commission coming to an end when we change our constitution, or will it be appointed as a President’s Commission after I June?

I thought it was a serious question, otherwise I would not have given the hon. member the opportunity to ask it. The hon. member should not follow the bad example of the hon. member for Salt River.

I admit frankly that one of the mistakes was that the terms of reference are far too wide. That was the chief complaint of the Chairman of the Commission. The terms of reference are very wide indeed. The Chairman of the Commission is a very meticulous man, and it is a big job. I also think it would have been better, with all respect to the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), who is doing a good job there, if they had not appointed Members of Parliament to the Commission. The result of that was that there were continual changes in the membership of the Commision. There was Mr. Trollip and he went; there was Dr. van Rhijn and he went; there was Mr. Diederichs and he went. Consequently the Commission’s work was retarded. There were also staff difficulties. I have on numerous occasions negotiated with the Public Service Commission to try to get the necessary personnel for the Commission.

I anticipated that this question would be raised, so I asked the Chairman of the Commission to let me have what I called a progress report since the last report was sent to me two months ago. I have received a report from the Chairman in which he gives me the number of pages that have been completed etc.; but that takes us no further. I asked him at the same time to give me some indication as to when the Commission’s report would be ready. I told him that I was being pressed, and that Parliament was anxious to know. The letter which I received from the Chairman ended with the following paragraph—

That was the letter which was laid on the Table of the House in a slightly condensed form—

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question. Will the hon. the Minister not use his undoubted influence with members on his side to refrain from comments on the Press until this commission does report.

Mr. Chairman, after the debate of yesterday and to-day, I did not think that I had any influence left, and I am very grateful to hear that the hon. member thinks I have.

I can only let the House have the information that I have been given, and it will be appreciated that I cannot interfere with the work of the Commission. If I were to do so, I would be very severely criticized. It would be most improper on my part to do so. We have made certain suggestions. I suggested that the Commission might submit an interim report …

Could it not be declared a Historical Monument?

Mr. Chairman, this is a serious matter. I do not think this spirit of levity is appropriate. I can only ask hon. members to exercise patience. I cannot interfere. From what I have been able to gather from it, it is clear that when this report is submitted it will be a very voluminous one and it will be very complete. That is as much information as I can give hon. members. I can only assure the House that I will continue to do my best to expedite the submission of the report.

*Mr. Chairman, I want to refer briefly to the debate which has taken place. I cannot say that it has been a very satisfactory debate. The Opposition has revealed nothing else than a pessimistic outlook on what happened at London and what happened recently at UNO. We did not get constructive criticism. What worried me particularly, and which should worry any decent South African, was the way in which they revelled in the fact that South Africa has had these set-backs. You do not expect that from a patriotic South African, and certainly not from a member of this House. From the very start, also during the discussion on the Prime Ministers’ Conference, it was clear that the whole object of the Opposition was to make political capital out of the difficult situation that has arisen. There is not the slightest doubt about that. That was their object; that was the tenor of their speeches. I am sorry that that is the spirit in which the Opposition approaches this matter.

I went into detail this afternoon to show that the position which we have at UNO today—this opposition to South Africa—was exactly what General Smuts experienced in 1946 and what the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) experienced in 1947. But they do not want to admit it. In spite of the fact that I read out certain quotations to show that the attacks against us to-day are exactly the same as those made against us in 1946 and 1947, the Opposition clings to the word “ apartheid They say, inter alia: “ Oh, but in those days it was not apartheid ”, How often did our own representatives not speak about “ racial discrimination ” in 1946 and 1947? At that time the hon. member for Salt River tried to justify the policy of racial discrimination, as he himself called it. All the attacks were against the policy of racial discrimination.

We were told to-day that if we had been slightly more conciliatory in our attitude, South Africa’s position would not have been so bad. Mr. Chairman, I have been there on no less than six occasions; I know those people: They are not interested in concessions. They are only interested in complete racial equality. They are not satisfied with anything less. The hon. Leader of the Opposition can come forward with his policy of race federation, but they will not be interested in it. They are only interested in complete equality. And that does not only apply to UNO, Mr. Chairman. On 8 April Mr. Macmillan, the Prime Minister of Britain made a speech at Cambridge, Massachusetts and according to a Sapa report he said the following—

“ Nothing less than full equality ” that is the policy. That is what they expect and they will not be satisfied with anything less. Anyone who thinks that they will be satisfied with anything less, is making a big mistake.

Had I had the time I would have liked to lift the veil and to tell the House what happened at that Conference. Mr. Diefenbaker has done so and to some extent Mr. Macmillan and the Press. I would like to show what the attitude of the non-White Prime Ministers was. Pandit Nehru said, inter alia—

The Prime Minister of Pakistan said—

Dr. Nkrumah—

The Tunku of Malaya—

The Prime Minister of Ceylon—

It is just as well that these things are known in view of the criticism which the Opposition has levelled against the Prime Minister concerning his attitude at the Conference.

The Prime Minister of Nigeria said—

It was after this discussion that the Prime Minister of the Union gave a clear exposition of South Africa’s colour policy. It was a very detailed exposition. Dr. Verwoerd spoke for more than an hour and they listened to him attentively. Dr. Nkrumah was the first person to react and he said: Do not let us waste time—

The Prime Minister of Nigeria made a similar statement.

It was very clear at that stage that because of the turn of events Prime Minister Macmillan was in a difficult position. He suggested how the communiqué should be worded. After Mr. Macmillan had spoken Pandit Nehru said—

Subsequently Dr. Nkrumah said precisely the same thing. I think it is necessary for me to say that at that stage Dr. Verwoerd told the British Prime Minister—

When the meeting adjourned for the day with a motion that a communiqué should be prepared, other Prime Ministers insisted that the communiqué should contain a statement disapproving of the racial policy of South Africa. They were supported by Mr. Diefenbaker who said—

The position reached a climax on Tuesday. Mr. Macmillan summed up the position and said—

The discussions were continued and a new draft statement was prepared—I will not go into that at this stage—in which our Prime Minister went a long way to meet the other side. Our Prime Minister went very far to meet the other side in the drafting of the communiqué. We had had a meeting with Mr. Macmillan, the Prime Minister and myself, before the conference started on Wednesday, 15 March—the Ides of March! We discussed matters with Mr. Macmillan and he was perfectly agreeable to the draft communiqué as amended by our Prime Minister, and he felt sure that it would be acceptable. He agreed to submit it to the conference himself. Later after Mr. Macmillan had put the communiqué before the conference, there was a short, somewhat awkward silence. I got the impression that the other members of the conference had not expected the South African Prime Minister to go as far as he did. In the draft communiqué there were two parts, and the first part stated clearly that in view of past precedents, South Africa would continue her membership of the Commonwealth. It then went on to state in very strong language the opposition of the other Prime Ministers to South Africa’s colour policy. But the draft communiqué also gave the reply of our Prime Minister to their objections. There was silence. May I first state that when the Prime Minister of Britain closed the conference the previous afternoon he said—

The following day when the draft communiqué was submitted to the conference, Mr. Macmillan said that the Prime Minister had withdrawn his objections to the draft paragraphs containing the views of the other Prime Ministers, provided he had an opportunity of setting out his own views. I return to the Wednesday meeting. I repeat that I got the impression that the Prime Ministers were surprised that Dr. Verwoerd had gone as far as he had gone. Mr. Diefenbaker again took the lead, and said that the communiqué gave too much emphasis to the views of the South African Prime Minister. And then there followed a repetition, but in stronger language, of the attacks which had been made on South Africa during the previous two days. The attack of the Prime Minister of Nigeria was particularly vehement. He condemned South Africa’s policy of racial segregation in the strongest language. He said—

He even objected to our Prime Minister expressing his views in the communiqué! He said that would imply that the other Prime Ministers acquiesced in the continuation of South Africa’s racial policy. He further said that in those circumstances he would have to consider whether Nigeria could remain a member of the Commonwealth. Dr. Nkrumah expressed a similar view, and added that he wanted to make it perfectly clear that Ghana reserved the right to move at any time, perhaps even within a day, for the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth, and failing that, that Ghana herself would have to retire from the Commonwealth. Similar views were expressed by some of the other Prime Ministers and to all intents and purposes that was the end of the conference. Mr. Macmillan left the table; there was a short consultation with Dr. Verwoerd—I am not at liberty to say what was discussed at that private conversation—the Prime Minister returned to the Conference Table and stated that in the circumstances he had decided to withdraw South Africa’s application.

Mr. Chairman, it is after considerable hesitation that I have given this information. I had read the statement made by Mr. Diefenbaker in the Canadian Parliament and I see that he gave a fairly full account of what had happened at the conference. Some of the other Prime Ministers have also made statements. I think it is time that the record should be put straight, otherwise we will continue to get differing accounts of what actually took place. The Leader of the Opposition also said last week that the time had arrived that there should be a clear statement as to what actually took place. What I have given here this evening, Sir, is a correct statement.

Was there no reference to diplomatic relations?

It was mentioned in passing. It was not a factor, but it was mentioned in passing by one of the delegates, and I think that Dr. Verwoerd then dealt with it briefly I do not remember it being dealt with again.

I have checked my notes and I hope the House will accept my statement. I have been in Parliament since 1924—in fact I am the only member in this House to-day who was elected in 1924—and I have never knowingly given the House incorrect information. I think it is well that we get this account of what happened on record. I also gave the information to show that the Afro-Asian nations both at the Commonwealth Conference and at the United Nations insist on full racial equality and will be satisfied with nothing less. Anybody who thinks that they will be agreeable to accept gestures is sadly mistaken. They will not be satisfied with anything less than complete racial equality.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have dealt with all the matters that were raised this afternoon. I shall not deal with the matters that were raised in regard to South West Africa. I think too much has already been said in regard to that matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of External Affairs has now given us a report as to what happened at the Prime Ministers’ Conference, a report which differs in certain respects from the reports that we have already had from other Ministers and Prime Ministers overseas. I have already pointed out that these differences exist, and up to the present moment we have had no satisfactory reply. What perturbs me is something else. The hon. the Minister has now told us what the attitude was of members at the Prime Ministers’ Conference with reference to racial equality. Am I to understand that that attitude has completely changed since last year? Last year there was a Prime Ministers’ Conference, and the hon. the Minister has now revealed certain private notes that he made. I notice that Mr. Diefenbaker says in the course of a statement in Canada that in his opinion our Minister of External Affairs intimated last year that he understood that if South Africa wished to remain a member of the Commonwealth in the future, it would require a unanimous decision.

I know about it. I shall give the facts.

I shall be very pleased. What causes us some difficulty is the fact that the hon. the Minister, when he returned last year, was apparently of the opinion, judging by certain public statements made by him, that South Africa’s continued membership of the Commonwealth was practically a certainty; there was no suggestion that there would be any difficulty. He even went so far as to accuse me publicly of having tried to mislead the public by saying that there was some doubt.

I am sorry that time does not permit me to do so, but I would like to have given the House the statements made by the British Prime Minister—unfortunately I have not got my notes here; I only brought those dealing with racial discrimination.

Dr. Verwoerd submitted his request that South Africa be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, and he left the matter just there. Mr. Macmillan then immediately stated what had been the custom in the past. He referred to the precedents, including that of Ghana’s application the previous year. He said that granting consent had been virtually a formality. On a subsequent occasion he also said that consent to retain membership was virtually a formality. But then Mr. Macmillan proceeded to say that in this instance there was another element, the racial policy of South Africa, concerning which a number of Prime Ministers had considerable doubts. Thereby he threw the question of South Africa’s racial policy right into the lap of the Conference. Dr. Verwoerd had not said a word about racial policy up to that time.

As regards the statement made by Mr. Diefenbaker the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know what his attitude on the apartheid issue was last year. His attitude was more or less the same, except that we did not discuss it in open conference. I refused to do so, and the British Prime Minister supported my attitude. It was then arranged to have small gatherings at 10 Downing Street where I could meet four or five of the Prime Ministers at a time and explain our policy to them.

As regards the point made by Mr. Diefenbaker viz. that I had said that unanimous approval would be needed, that referred to approval in anticipation. The referendum had then not vet taken place. I had asked that the same policy should be followed as in the case of Ceylon, where approval was also given in advance. The attitude of the Conference was that if approval was given in advance it would mean that the Commonwealth Conference would in effect be influencing the referendum campaign, because naturally the temptation would have been very great to make use of the approval given in advance. I admitted that there was something in that. It was at that stage, Sir, that I made the remark that if it were to be given in advance I fully appreciated that it would have to be unanimous because of the particular circumstances of giving approval in advance. I think that Mr. Diefenbaker unwittingly confused the two issues.

The hon. the Minister has now either said too much or too little. The hon. the Minister has now revealed for the first time in this House that last year he applied for approval in advance. That was refused and that it was indicated to him that unanimous acceptance was necessary for South Africa to continue to remain a member.

There was no indication as to whether consent had to be unanimous or not. It was simply said that we could either by correspondence or at the next conference ask for approval once the referendum had been held. But on this occasion Mr. Macmillan twice made the statement that in the past the granting of permission to remain in the Commonwealth had been regarded practically as a formality. I made the statements myself in the pre-referendum campaign that it was a mere formality. The previous year when Ghana applied Mr. Macmillan simply said: Ghana has submitted her application, any objection? “No objection, agreed to! ”

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to have clarity on one further point. The hon. the Minister has said that the attitude of members the previous year in respect of this matter of racial equality was the same. Is that correct?

Not quite as strong, because it was not such a formal discussion. It was, however, perfectly clear, particularly in the cases of Ghana and Malaya, that they felt very strongly about the matter. The Prime Minister of Pakistan did not express himself so strongly, as in the case of the last Conference, but it was quite clear that even at that time he would not have been satisfied with anything less than full racial equality.

The hon. the Minister has now indicated to us what these gentlemen said. Almost immediately after the Conference we had the statement by Dr. Nkrumah in Ireland about the possibility of retaining South Africa’s membership, and yet despite that, the hon. the Minister in the pre-referendum campaign gave the impression to the people of South Africa that our future membership was virtually certain. That is, Sir, what disturbs us and what we cannot understand and where we feel that the Government did not play open cards with us.

Mr. Chairman, I saw that statement which Dr. Nkrumah made in Ireland. He did not make any such statement at the Conference. But I also had occasion to discuss the matter privately with Mr. Macmillan and it was on the basis of those discussions that I felt quite sure that there would be no objection particularly because of the precedents which had been established in the past. I was sure that the precedents of the past would be followed.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 11.—“South African Information Service”, R1,242,000,

Under sub-head D I want to deal with this copy of the Digest of South African Affairs, Vol. 8, No. 3, dated 3 February 1961. I said on a previous occasion that the information which came from this Information Office was quite incorrect. As I said earlier this afternoon this Digest is distributed in aircraft bringing people to South Africa. I want to quote from this Digest which is issued by the South African Information Office. It is headed “ A Bill to establish a Republic ”. The article gives certain statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister in quotation marks and then it goes on in narrative form—

It appears therefore, Sir, that what is attributed to the Prime Minister here was a knowledge that if he had accented the request of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to give an assurance that we would remain in the Commonwealth that would have given those other nations an opportunity to interfere in our affairs. I deal with this in passing, Sir, because I want to come back to the statement here—

I want to put it to the Minister that there is no such provision in the Bill at all: that that is absolutely untrue: it is misleading the public and I want to ask the Minister to tell us who is on the mailing list for this Digest? I hope he will tell us. I led a deputation to the Prime Minister in Pretoria to ask not only that our language, but that our religious and other rights should be safeguarded.

Of course they are.

I have a copy of the official reply which the Prime Minister, in the normal and proper manner, directed to His Honour, the Administrator of Natal, in which it is made clear, in fact categorically stated, that those safeguards would not be provided. The safeguard of language, Sir, is the safeguard which was taken over from the South Africa Act for what it is worth. But this statement that religious and other rights will be safeguarded is absolutely untrue. [Interjections.] I want to ask the Minister what check there is over matter that is published in these, shall I say, semi-official documents; they are issued by the State Information Office. Presumably on the face of it they should be trustworthy, particularly when the hon. the Prime Minister is quoted. I want to be quite clear on that point. This article starts off with quotation marks in respect of certain statements, which quite clearly are attributed to the hon. the Prime Minister. Then it goes on in narrative form attributing statements to “ him ”. That pronoun is used repeatedly.

You are just like Michael Scott.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) entitled to say that I am just like Michael Scott?

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Is Michael Scott then so bad, Sir?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.