reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No 15—“National Education”, had agreed to the Vote.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on Unauthorized Expenditure).

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr Chairman, I claim the privilege of the first half-hour.

Mr Chairman, this debate is taking place at a time when issues relating to foreign affairs are dominating the politics and media of Southern Africa. No doubt there is much that is still of real concern in the field of South Africa’s foreign relationships. In this connection the hon the Minister will be aware of the growth of the disinvestment lobby, especially in the USA; the pressures within international organizations, including the United Nations, and the continuing move to isolate South Africa in the fields of sport, science, business, etc. Nevertheless, viewed in the Southern African context the first six months of 1984 are proving to be the most fascinating and significant period in the history of South Africa’s international relationships. The full first six months of 1984 are, of course, not yet over and who knows what the next seven weeks are going to bring. It is understood that the hon the Prime Minister will shortly be making a visit to Europe, and it is rumoured that he may visit some African countries as well. I hope the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be able to give this House some more information during the course of this debate on the Prime Minister’s intended tour. Suffice for me to say that we in the Opposition benches wish the Prime Minister a safe and successful journey. We hope that his visit abroad will prove to be of benefit to all the people of South Africa.

Over the past few months statements, meetings, negotiations invitations, proposals, agreements and accords have followed fast and thick in a bewildering display of interlocking international diplomatic efforts. The scene has shifted daily: From Cape Town to Pretoria, to Windhoek, to Lusaka, to Luanda, to Maputo, to Dar-es-Salaam, to Cape Verde, to New York and even to Havana—to say nothing of Mbabane, Maseru, Gaberones, Lisbon and Lilongwe. The results achieved in this dizzying diplomatic whirl are to a very significant extent a tribute to the skill and tireless efforts of members of the Department of Foreign Affairs under the Director-General, Mr Hans van Dalsen. I believe we owe a debt of gratitude to the efforts of these gentlemen. In addition the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his deputy deserve credit where credit is due. And let me at this point congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister for having come out of the cold to become not merely a member of the National Party once more, but also a Deputy Minister. It would certainly be churlish of the Opposition not to acknowledge the tremendous effort that has been made by the Minister and his deputy in recent months. And I do so now.

The dramatic developments in the field of South Africa’s foreign relationships over the past few months must inevitably have an effect on the nature of this year’s debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote. Many of the issues debated in previous years can, on this occasion, be debated against a much more hopeful backdrop. I should like to identify certain of these issues to see where we stand with them today. The first issue is that of destabilization. Hon members are aware that over the past few years much time was devoted to debating the instability of the Southern African region and to allegations and counter-allegations on the issue of destabilization. It became a dominant feature of the Opposition’s participation in previous debates.

I hope that with the signing of the Lusaka Agreement and the Nkomati Accord, which has been powerfully backed up by the Cahora Bassa Agreement, Southern Africa is moving towards a new era of stability. I hope that all people in Southern Africa, and I say “all” advisedly, have come to realize that peace is preferable to war, that stability is preferable to conflict and that development is preferable to violence. Let us hope that all have come to realize that a bomb planted by the ANC in a street in Pretoria or by Unita in a street in Huambo, that sabotage by Swapo in South West Africa or by the MNR in Moçambique, or shooting by the LLA in Lesotho or by mercenaries in the Seychelles are all acts of violence and terror adding to the conflict and instability of this region. I believe we should condemn them all equally.

Let us hope that all states in Southern Africa will from now on respect the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of their neighbours. The agreement reached will in themselves not stamp out all terrorism or put an end to every attempt at destabilization. However, they do place Governments under an obligation to try to prevent terrorism and destabilization from being organized within their territories. At least the Governments involved will be able to accept one another’s bona fides and deal with one another on the basis of mutual trust. We in these benches believe that the creation of mutual trust in itself is a great step forward in Southern Africa.

The second issue which we have debated at previous occasions and which I like to reexamine now is our relationships with adjoining states. A year ago, except for Swaziland—I will deal with it separately—there was no doubt that relationships were bad. At the present time they appear to be much better.

We believe it is important that the Government should not allow the momentum generated during the past few months to fall away, but rather find ways and means of building on the new relationships which exists today. Experience around Africa has shown that financial handouts are not the way to achieve this. Given the economic problems of many states in Southern Africa, it could be that in the fields of trade, training and transportation beneficial mutual involvement could be expanded. Of course, as the hon the Prime Minister indicated the other day, it would be good if the private sector became involved in this. There are signs that the private sector is examining this. However, the private sector would be further encouraged were the South African Government be able to negotiate guarantees against nationalization of businesses, against the expropriation of property and against the freezing of assets. If these kind of guarantees could be obtained, it would be far more conducive for the private sector to do business across our borders.

Can the hon the Minister tell us what progress, if any, has been made with the Moçambique Government in connection with property belonging to South Africans which was taken over by the Moçambique Government after independence. The return of these properties, or at least the payment of reasonable compensation for them, would certainly encourage South African businessmen to consider doing business with Moçambique once again.

One country appears to remain aloof in all this, namely Zimbabwe. It is true that Mr Mugabe did after a while endorse President Machel’s decision to sign the Nkomati Accord. Nevertheless, as we observe it, the reality is that relationships between Zimbabwe and South Africa have not really thawed. As I have said on previous occasions, this is a great pity. One only has to look at the map of Southern Africa to realize that between them Zimbabwe and South Africa hold the key to the development of Southern and Central Africa. I hope—as I put it to the hon the Minister last year—that we will make the improvement of relationships with Zimbabwe an important objective of our foreign policy. [Interjections.] I believe that a meeting between the Governments of Zimbabwe and South Africa at ministerial level, or preferably Prime Ministerial level would put the seal on a highly successful round of Southern African initiatives. There are people who say that this is unlikely and impossible. But it is no more unlikely than the signing of the accord and the exchanging of pens and the mutual saluting of each other’s flags that took place between the South African Prime Minister and Mozambiquean President Samora Machel. I do not think one should say that things are impossible in the Africa of today or tomorrow.

The next issue that we raised, and which I want to raise again today, was the logjam in the settlement process of the South West African independence issue. Once again, there have been hopeful signs that the logjam is starting to break up. Nevertheless, the unresolved South West African issue remains an extremely worrying one for all of us in South Africa. We in these benches—I want to emphasize this—hold the view that internationally recognized independence for South West Africa, through the implementation of Resolution 435, should be one of the Government’s top priorities. That is our very firmly held opinion.

As this whole issue drags on the cost factor becomes more and more important for all South Africans, whether they be Black, White or Brown. This is cost not just in terms of money or manpower, but costs also in terms of the limbs and lives of young people of the Southern African continent. It is also cost in terms of international goodwill. Time and time we are riding a rollercoaster with the ever-present threat of sanctions if things do not go well. I believe we should try to somehow or other get off that roller-coaster. We saw only the other day the international, and especially the American, repercussion to the shock decision of the hon the Minister of Justice to invoke section 103ter(4) of the Defence Act to prevent the courts from intervening in the case involving persons who had apparently been detained since way back in 1978. I am pleased that in spite of the hon the Minister’s intervention the Government, through the Administrator-General, has decided to proceed with the process of releasing some of those detainees. I hope that process is going to be completed.

There is also the economic and political situation inside South West Afrika. The economic climate there is clouded with uncertainty. It just cannot attract investment. In many areas second-tier government is weak and totally ineffective. At first-tier level the territory, after six years, is still being ruled by decree through a South African appointed Administrator-General. That is the reality of the situation that has obtained for far too long.

The Multi-Party Conference has been formed. I want to say immediately that to date it has done good work, especially in relation to a bill of rights in a future constitution of Namibia. I believe the Multi-Party Conference could act as an important catalyst for debate, dialogue and negotiation, but the degree to which it is representative of the people of South West Africa as a whole is highly debatable. The fact is that someone like Mr Peter Kalangula, the chairman of the Executive Committee of Owambo, has pulled out of the DTA, that Mr Justus Garoeb, leader of the Damara Raad, has pulled out of the Multi-Party Conference, and that serious divisions exist at leadership level in Swanu over that organizations relationship with Swapo on the one hand and the Multi-Party Conference on the other hand. There is certainty nothing to indicate that Swapo is losing its political influence amongst the people of the territory. That is the situation that we face today.

Important steps have been taken which go some way in the direction of the implementation of Resolution 435, such as the phased disengagement of South Africa from Southern Angola, the Lusaka Agreement and the setting up of a Joint Monitoring Committee, the release of Herman Toivo Ja Toivo and the pending release of the Mariental detainees. There is also the meeting which it is presumed will take place on Friday of this week in Lusaka, when representatives of Swapo and the South African Government’s representative in South West Africa, Dr Willie van Niekerk, together with other interested parties, will be meeting face to face in direct consultation and negotiation on the South West African issue.

I realize that the path to peace and an internationally recognized settlement bristles with difficulties, but I trust that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs shares the Opposition’s view that the peaceful settlement of the South West African issue should be the Government’s top priority in international affairs.

One of the issues which the Government has repeatedly said is a pre-condition for the implementation of Resolution 435 is the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. Let me say immediately that the removal of Cuban forces from this part of Africa is a correct and legitimate regional objective. I believe that in this South Africa is supported by the overwhelming number of African states and leaders. In a highly unstable situation caused by civil war, insurrection and terrorism that has characterized the region of Southern Angola and the northern region of South West Africa, it has been appropriate that the removal of the Cubans should be associated in one way or another with the implementation of the settlement process in South West Africa.

It is possible that this unstable situation of insurrection, terrorism and war can change. The southern part of Angola may well become demilitarized as a result of the successful efforts of the Joint Monitoring Committee. The time may come when Swapo may be persuaded to lay down its arms and join in the peaceful settlement process. Indeed, in a speech made on 7 February this year, the hon the Minister said “Vrede met Swapo is moontlik”, and he indicated that from the power base that we had established, he had hopes that it would be possible to bring Swapo into the peace process. It is also possible that the parties, meeting as they are in Lusaka at the invitation of President Kaunda on Friday, may move towards calling jointly for the implementation of Resolution 435. It is possible and we are hopeful that in a short space of time we could have a different scenario in that troubled spot of Africa.

While the removal of Cubans must still remain in regional objective, their removal may be less relevant as far as the independence process in South West Africa is concerned if these new conditions obtain. We trust that the hon the Minister has contingency plans in the event of the Lusaka and other meetings being successful and the whole process taking a turn which hitherto had not been possible.

The fourth issue that we have raised from time to time and which I want to touch on again today in the light of the new developments, is the dominant position which I call the “total onslaught syndrome” has occupied in the Government’s decision-making process on foreign affairs. Ever since 1970 we have been hearing of the total onslaught being the touch-stone by which one should evaluate the attacks on South Africa from both abroad and internally. For years we in these benches have been pointing out that the Government’s tendency to see every foreign policy issue in terms of that total onslaught syndrome, has in our opinion resulted in the dangerous oversimplification both of the nature and the causes of South Africa’s problems in the international field.

Of course, the Soviet Union will always be ready to look for opportunities to exploit problems in Southern Africa, just as it will in other parts of the wold. Of course we in South Africa should be on our guard to counter any attempt by the Soviet Union to promote its global strategic objectives. However, it is one thing to counter the Soviets, or to deny them opportunities to exploit, it is another thing to see every criticism of South Africa, every attack on its policy, even every hostile move, as part of a strategy of the Soviet Union “to overthrow the present body politic in the Republic of South Africa and to replace it with a Marxist-oriented form of Government to further the objective of the USSR” as was stated in the 1982 White Paper on Defence.

I do not underestimate the problems which the Soviets create around the world, but the oversimplistic view that everything is bound up with a total onslaught, has, we believe, given an exaggerated importance to the Soviets’ ability to manipulate other countries in the field of their foreign relationships. I believe it has given the South African Government a distorted view of other Governments, in particular other Governments in Africa. What is more, it has hidden from objective analysis and debate the impact which our internal policies have on our international relationships. A man like Dr Brzezinski, who at one time was an adviser to the White House, said during his visit to South Africa that he believed that Southern Africa, as far as the Soviets were concerned, was “a target of opportunity” and not “an area of central focus.” He said it was an area where the Soviets would look for opportunities but it was not a question of total ongoing onslaught against South Africa.

Dr Chester Crocker, who is neither unfriendly towards South Africa nor without any knowledge of the Southern African situation under the heading “Total onslaught is seen as an illusion.” is reported as saying:

That is the perspective in which Dr Crocker sees this onslaught and the internal policy of South Africa. I trust that events of the past few months will free the Government from its obsession of seeing every foreign policy problem in terms of a simplistic total onslaught syndrome, and that they will result in a more rational appraisal of these problems and their causes and perhaps their remedies. I trust that the events of the past months will enable all governments—and again I use the word “all” in an embracing way—to see this subcontinent, its states, its peoples, its problems and its prospects for the future in a more realistic light. I would hope that it will cause other governments to see South Africa, not as a potential aggressor intent on imposing its will on its neighbours, but as a powerful state with a strong economy which, in the right circumstances, could play a major role in the socio-economic development of the people of this region. Equally I trust that it will enable South Africa to see its neighbours for what they are, namely people with fears, people with problems, people with views typical of a post-colonial era, but not to see them as surrogates or lackeys of the Soviet Union locked into a grand design to destroy the established order in South Africa and to replace it with a Black Marxist government. If this surrogate or lackey perception was in fact correct it would make nonsense of the signing of the Nkomati Accord. It would make no sense to sign an accord like that with someone who is locked into a total onslaught against South Africa. I would presume that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs at least, has turned his back on that simplistic attitude towards South Africa’s foreign policy problems.

As so often happens in international relationships, in spite of all the rhetoric and ideological posturing, pragmatic self-interest eventually dominates in determining relationships between states.

In conclusion let me say that I believe that we are entering an era of great opportunity here in Southern Africa. Certainly, the disruptive influence of the Soviet Union has been rolled back during the past few months. The risk of terrorism has been diminished and the opportunities for regional co-operation has never been greater. I trust that the Government will do what it can to make maximum use of these opportunities, bearing in mind that if these opportunities are going to endure, it will require more than an external effort beyond our borders. If these opportunities are going to endure, it will also require bold reform inside South Africa. Lasting good relations with other states in Africa will depend more than anything else on our ability to fashion a system inside South Africa in which Black South Africans can enjoy the status, the dignity and the rights which should go with being a citizen of this country, situated as it is on the continent of Africa. We say to the Government: Well done on these particular issues, but we also say that if there is going to be a lasting road to peace, it is not going to start beyond our borders, but has to start with reform right here in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point really dealt with a multitude of subjects here today. He covered the entire field and skimmed over everything without really making any points.

We want to thank the hon member for the introductory part of his speech in which he congratulated the hon the Minister on the success of our initiatives of the past six months. We thank the hon member for his realistic views. He then got back to the matter of the total onslaught on South Africa and referred to the “total onslaught syndrome”. We want to tell him that we shall not allow ourselves to be put off by them as far as their views on the total onslaught are concerned. The total onslaught on South Africa is real. It is true that Russia suffered a major setback on this subcontinent as a result of our peace initiatives, but we are well aware that Russia has not given up and will reappear un the scene in due course.

I want to concur with the hon member for Sea Point in regard to certain points. It is true that the more we scale down the potential for internal conflict, the more links we will be able to forge with foreign countries. That is precisely what this Government is doing. Far-reaching constitutional changes have been made and this has undoubtedly reduced the potential for internal conflict. This has also caused foreign countries to adopt a more friendly attitude towards South Africa. In addition, a very important Cabinet Committee is working very hard on the position of the Black people outside the national states. The entire internal reform process has not yet been completed. The Government is in the process of working out a dispensation which will accommodate everyone and will, as far as possible, make everyone in the country happy. We need more time to do this, however. Rome was not built in a day.

Before I go any further I should like, on behalf of the NP’s study group on foreign affairs, on behalf of the voters of my constituency, Bloemfontein North, and, I believe, also on behalf of many thousands of voters in South Africa, to thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for the tremendous work he has done at diplomatic level for South Africa during the past few months. We appreciate it; South Africa appreciates it. It also gives me pleasure to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment. This is the first time he has participated in this Vote in this capacity, and we wish him every success. Shortly after his appointment he was thrown in at the deep end and has already made a major contribution to the achievement and signing of the Cahora Bassa agreement. I should also like to convey our thanks to the Director-General, Mr Hans van Dalsen, and his team of capable officials for the long hours of overtime they worked and the enthusiasm with which they served South Africa in this exciting time of peace initiatives. We thank them most sincerely.

If we look at the international scene, we find that for the first time in a long time we have reason for cautious optimism. As a result of the courageous and imaginative peace initiatives of the Government, a new attitude towards South Africa is developing in Southern Africa and there are countries abroad that are now adopting a more friendly attitude towards South Africa. Proof of this is the invitation our hon Prime Minister received to visit two of the most important countries in the world, namely Germany and England, to hold discussions there. Until recently it was virtually unthinkable that the hon the Prime Minister would be invited to those countries. We would, however, be making the greatest mistake possible if we were to think that our enemies have given up. They will re-emerge in another guise.

Now more than ever it is necessary for us to have a strong Defence Force and a strong economy. Without a strong economy we shall not be able to keep South Africa going, and we shall not be able to play the greater outward-moving role in Southern Africa which has now become so much important to us. South Africa’s economy requires of us that we do not live in isolation, but that we open every possible eocnomic door and that we forge as many trade links with other countries as possible. The financial statistics of the IMF indicate that South Africa has an open economy, in the sense that it is very dependent of foreign countries. I can illustrate this as follows, by means of an example. Whereas Britain and France are dependent to an extent of 40% on foreign trade, Australia to an extent of 33%, and the USA to an extent of only between 15% and 18%, South Africa is dependent on foreign trade to an extent of approximately 60%.

In its report which was published recently, the Kleu Committee emphasized that South Africa’s interests were preferably served by expanding foreign trade rather than by concentrating on economic self-sufficiency. If we are seeking a greater number of markets for our products—and it goes without saying that we are in fact doing so—we have to realize that Africa is our hinterland. We cannot expect our trade with the states of the Northern Hemisphere to increase automatically. As a result of the present world recession, we have already noticed how difficult it has been to bring about an upswing in the American and European economies, which will result in our gaining a greater share in that trade.

With its almost static population growth we cannot expect European trade to increase significantly in volume. We therefore see how important it is for us to turn to Africa for our trade. If under these circumstances we do not concentrate assiduously on the markets of Africa, which are close to us, and on which we can compete there is no doubt that our economic development will not be able to make satisfactory progress.

In this regard I should like to quote a few interesting statistics. In 1983 we exported goods to the value of R194 million to Zimbabwe, R114 million to Zambia and R80 million to Mozambique. These exports are not to be despised, particularly when one considers the political climate in which they took place. This in itself points to good progress in Africa.

Now, after the Nkomati Accord, we have a golden opportunity to enter the markets of Africa more purposefully. This is a chance we should not allow to slip through our fingers. If we allow ourselves to be led astray by the fears and the ideological narrowmindedness of the CP, we are going to lose these important markets.

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

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Hillbrow for the concession.

In the normalizing of our trade with Africa, and particularly with Southern Africa, the political obstacles which may stand in the way of that trade will have to be shifted further into the background, particularly in view of the climate we are now operating in. The stronger our economic ties with the countries in our immediate vicinity are, the more difficult it will be for the UN and the other enemies of South Africa to apply sanctions against us, for then our trading partners in Africa, as well as ourselves, will suffer. They will have to be far more careful in applying sanctions against us while we are trading with these people because the other countries around us will suffer as much as we do.

The West must realize that it will also be to their advantage if we can draw Mozambique and its neighbours out of the communist sphere. Today we want to make an appeal to the industrial countries of the West, now that South Africa has made this breakthrough, also to play their part in drawing Mozambique, Angola and other countries out of the communistic milieu. It is true that South Africa will provide considerable expertise, for example for the rebuilding of Maputo harbour and Cahora Bassa as well as for the restoration of channels of communication, but a great deal of investment capital will have to come from the Western countries for the rebuilding of South Africa, and we hope that they will not refuse to participate in this regard.

Let there be no doubt about this: South Africa will do its share. We cannot allow the fear, suspicion and scepticism of the CP and the HNP to make us irresolute. We shall play our part in spite of them. The CP need not be concerned either.

Leave us alone if we are so unimportant.

Yes, Sir, but they are also so negative about Nkomati. [Interjections.] The CP need not be so worried either. As long as the NP is in power, South Africa will always put its own interests first. It should, however, be borne in mind that South Africa’s interests do not stop at its borders. Our interests are also served by goodwill, peace and stability in our neighbouring states. If we help our neighbours to get on their feet, they can develop into good neighbours of South Africa and that is what we would like to promote.

If we want to break through the wall of isolation which has been built up around us over the years, then we have to start in our immediate vicinity because our path to the world runs through Africa. I also want to tell the CP that. The interdependence of states which can lead to the exchange of expertise, electrical power and water, has never meant that we have to sacrifice our sovereignty or that we are going to weaken ourselves; far from it. In contrast to what the CP wants to suggest, South Africa has nothing to lose with these new agreements; it has everything to gain.

Whether things are going to develop further as we hope and foresee and whether more accords are going to be entered into or whether this entire effort is going to fail, South Africa can only gain in the process. The Republic is not writing off its sovereignty, its military capabilities or anything else for that matter. It is a fact that all South Africa’s premiers have worked diligently towards achieving better understanding with our neighbouring states. There are innumerable advantages inherent in the interdependence of states. One of these is that their welfare and their security can be promoted over a wide regional basis. I could mention many more such examples. If we do not, however, help to bring prosperity to our neighbours by means of co-operation then we are leaving the door open for communist infiltration, communist enslavement and eventual conflict.

I want to tell the CP, which under pressure from the NHP is increasingly finding fault with the accords and the agreements, that they would do well to take cognizance of one major and important fact, namely that co-operation with our neighbours is not an altruistic, self-sacrificing action but a necessity. Co-operation with our neighbours is essential politics. It is Realpolitiek in respect of which we have no alternative. The hon the Leader of the CP can say the Nkomati Accord is a piece of paper which can be tom up, but the hon the Leader must remember that the realities of Nkomati cannot be tom up.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal, I want to ask the hon the Minister a few questions about Lesotho. We took cognizance of the fact that South Africa held high-level discussions with Lesotho last week. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to inform the Committee about these discussions. I am asking this specifically for the sake of the Free State where there is growing unrest, and resentment of the bomb explosions which occur in Bloemfontein from time to time. Can the hon the Minister tell us whether there is any proof that the terrorists who planted the bombs in Bloemfontein came from Lesotho, as is suspected in the Free State?

I also want to ask the hon the Minister whether South Africa requested Lesotho to take action against undermining elements, such as the ANC, that are seeking shelter within its borders. If such a request was made, we should like to know what Lesotho’s reaction to this request was.

In conclusion we would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could inform us about Chief Leabua Jonathan’s attitude towards South Africa’s peace initiatives. Is Chief Jonathan really indifferent and aloof in regard to these peace initiatives, which is the impression that is being created outside?

We would appreciate it if the hon the Minister could reply to these questions.

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

I wish to take this opportunity to express my party’s and my own most sincere sympathy to the relatives, the US Embassy in South Africa, the US State Department and the American nation on the tragic death of Mr Dennis Keogh and Col Crabtree in South West Africa during our Easter recess. The cause of their death was a cowardly act of blatant terrorism which we deplore in the strongest of terms. I had the privilege of knowing Mr Keogh personally. I found him a very fine American, a friendly man, easy to talk to and dedicated to his task.

*The hon member for Bloemfontein North has compelled me to refer to him just briefly. His obsession with the CP puts me in mind of that old joke, half of which I can just quickly tell hon members. In class the teacher was explaining the various components of a novelette, drama or novel. She said every story had to have a bit of sex, a bit of royalty, a bit of religion and a bit of mystery. I cannot tell the rest of the story here; I shall tell you the rest a little later, Sir, if you are interested. [Interjections.] It is very clear that the NP has been given the following instruction in their caucus and in their planning groups: Look, your speech can be devoid of everything else, but it must contain a reference to the CP; that would catch the ear of the leader-in-chief and also of the Press. And this could possibly be a good mark on your slate. Let me tell him that if he and his foreign business group are only now discovering that we are part of Africa, and are only now beginning to tell us that we should begin discovering that we have to chart our course through Africa, they should go and see how we on this side of the House, including myself, came to light with that truth as far back as the time of Mr John Vorster.

What about Nkomati?

Oh, Sir. I shall be coming to the question of Nkomati in a moment. He has Nkomati on the brain. He has never looked at the CP’s standpoint on that issue. I shall tell him about it in a moment, and I hope that after he has heard our standpoint on Nkomati, he will have a good night’s sleep tonight, but I am sorry that he will then not have any topic left for his next speech. The hon member has made it possible for me to get round to talking about Nkomati. What this is all about is, after all, the question of the initiatives of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and of the hon the Prime Minister. I find it regrettable and unacceptable that certain Government members, for example the Government’s Chief spokesman, and newspapers supporting the Government, should try to make political capital out of my party’s standpoint, as presented by my hon leader. Let me ask the hon the Minister what his party wants. Does he want us to support the Nkomati Accord, or does he not want us to get involved? It was very clear to me, from the discussion of the hon the Prime Minister’s Vote, that the Government was longingly anxious to have the CP to agree on the principle of the accord. When the hon the Deputy Minister replied to my hon leader, on no less than five occasions in the first 1½ columns of his speech in Hansard he expressed either appreciation of, delight at or agreement with what my hon leader had said. On 25 April, in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, my hon leader put our standpoint and indicated where we agreed and what our reservations were. On what we agreed about, the hon the Deputy Minister reacted as I have just indicated. In regard to the reservations we expressed, the hon the Deputy Minister also more than once conceded that he agreed with those reservations or said how we would be dealing with the reservations. Of all the matters my hon leader raised, there are only two on which the Government is still silent, and the one is the intention behind the hon the Prime Minister’s call upon Marshall Machel: “Let us pool our energies and resources” and, secondly, my hon leader’s question about whether the Russian navy still had harbour facilities in Ncala harbour and how this tallied with the accord.”

After my hon leader’s speech in this House, on 2 May of this year, he and the leader of the HNP issued a joint statement bearing his signature. I have it here. Points 6, 7 and 8 of this statement deal with those aspects that the hon member for Bloemfontein North apparently has on the brain. I now want to state categorically that none of the points I have just mentioned deviate in any way from the standpoint my leader put forward in his speech on 25 April. Nowhere, but nowhere, are there any differences between this statement and what is contained in his speech on 25 April 1984.

I think the hon the Deputy Minister also made a mistake. Apart from my hon leader’s speech in this house, and this statement of 2 May, no other statement in this connection was made after 25 April.

The hon member for Waterberg gave an interview to Leadership South Africa in which reference is also made to the Nkomati Accord. He therefore made three statements.

I am talking about statements. [Interjections.] Suffice it to say that what my leader said in this House on 25 April, and in the joint statement on 2 May, fully accords with Conservative Party policy, as approved by the party’s first national congress in 1982.

I now want to tell hon members who, with a view to the provincial by-election in Potgietersrus, are so desirous of generating a little “woema” for themselves, that they can try as hard as they want to: We stand by what we have said.

Arising out of the Nkomati Accord there was the Cabora Bassa agreement.

Cahora Bassa.

I am not speaking Shangaan now, but old Portuguese. [Interjections.] My party’s standpoint is that we cannot support the Cabora Bassa agreement, and the hon member for Brakpan will be dealing with that aspect.

I want to refer, however, to the hon the Minister’s speech on the occasion of the signing of the Cabora Bassa agreement. In this connection I want to refer, in particular, to his remark about terrorism. He said:

I do not have time to quote all of it now, but will only be referring to the more relevant parts of his speech. I quote:

I can find no fault to find with this statement by the hon the Minister. I would, however, like to know from him who the terrorists are to whom he was referring. When do people qualify as terrorists and when is their status raised to that of non-terrorists?

When reference is made to Mozambique, reference must also be made to the northern front on the Western part of our subcontinent. Are Swapo members still terrorists? I am also putting this question to hon members who are so quickly able to reply to questions. Are Swapo members still terrorists?

Yes!

Then I want to ask what Unita’s status is. I would be glad if the hon member for Geduld would stop bothering the hon the Minister, because I would like to have his attention, even though he did not reply to me when I spoke to him previously. Let me ask him again what Unita’s status is. What is the status of the MNR? In this connection one of my colleagues, the hon member for Kuruman, asked the hon the Minister questions about certain Swapo members. I respectfully want to tell the hon the Minister that he dodged the question by saying that it was a matter for the Administrator-General. The Administrator-General is an official appointed by South Africa. In regard to those matters the hon the Minister still owes the House a reply. Such an adroit circumvention of the question holds the House of Assembly in contempt. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the “detainees” who were released—for the sake of argument I assume they were released—are terrorists or whether they are no longer terrorists.

I further assume, because he does not want to answer the question, that prior to the 54 being released, there were also others released. [Interjections.] Perhaps I am wrong, but I would be glad if the hon the Minister would give us a reply on this issue. Did that first batch who were released reach their destinations?

The hon the Minister also says he did not speak to Sam Nujoma, but I want to ask him what Sam Nujoma’s status is. Is he a terrorist, or what is he? I want to ask the hon the Minister what his standpoint is, in principle, regarding discussions with Sam Nujoma.

Mr Chairman, when one considers the unenthusiastic approach— to say the least, adopted by the CP to the Accords of Nkomati, Lusaka and Cape Town, one is compelled to remind them of the saying: Fortune favours the bold. I shall come back to that later. However, I have no doubt that due to the imaginative way in which the hon the Prime Minister has moved ahead with new initiatives, both at home and in the broader Southern African context, South Africa’s international position has improved immeasurably. This is borne out by the fact that since the signing of the Accord of Nkomati, he has been invited by prominent Western leaders, inter alia Chancellor Kohl of West Germany and the British Prime Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, to visit their countries next month. This is an indication of the appreciation that is felt for the way in which the hon the Prime Minister is acting with courage and faith in the interests of South Africa, Southern Africa and the Western World. I should like to convey to these Western leaders my appreciation of the recognition they are in this way according the efforts of the hon the Prime Minister to stabilize peace, security and prosperity in our part of the world. The degree to which the efforts of the hon the Prime Minister in this connection are meeting with approval also came to light during the discussion of his Vote, when spokesmen of the official Opposition, the NRP and speakers on this side of the House conveyed their appreciation to him. I wholeheartedly associate myself with these congratulations.

While the hon member for Waterberg could not quite bring himself to congratulate the hon the Prime Minister, he did, in essence, welcome the Accord of Nkomati and supported it in principle. He also supported in principle the idea of joint monitoring commissions when he referred to a similar agreement between President M W Pretorius and King Moshesh I. However, he also voiced misgivings. Apart from the two that the hon member for Soutpansberg has just voiced, there was another one, viz the extent to which joint guarding of the Cahora Bassa power lines would afford the other party the opportunity to spy on South Africa’s security position. This reason, and the allegation that the joint guarding of the power supply lines will give the troops of Mozambique access to South Africa’s soil were, according to Press reports, among the reasons for the CP’s—in my opinion astonishing—rejection of the Cahora Bassa agreement. In the first place, if there are opportunities for such spying, then at least they are reciprocal, and South Africa’s security forces and intelligence services, which, it is clear, are among the best in the world, need by no means feel inferior to any others in Africa.

The motion of no confidence in our security and intelligence services implicit in the CP’s rejection of the Cahora Bassa agreement is in my opinion totally uncalled-for. South Africa does not need fearful people who are lacking in faith, because fear and a lack of faith ultimately lead to isolation and self-destruction. What South Africa needs are people who are able to move forward with courage and faith to a better future. I repeat: Fortune favours the bold. Moreover, I do not see where in the agreement it is stated that Mozambique’s Defence Force will be able to enter South Africa without further ado. Moreover, such a perception is by no means in line with reality. After all, it is not in South Africa that the power supply lines are constantly being sabotaged. Nor is it in South Africa that problems are being experienced as regards securing them. Those problems are encountered in Mozambican territory, and if South Africa can assist Mozambique in resolving this problem then it will to be to the benefit not only of our two countries but also of Portugal, which is the third party to the agreement and which has a considerable capital investment in Cahora Bassa.

I do, of course, wish to concede the point to the hon member for Waterberg that these treaties do entail risks. We on this side are fully aware of that, and the hon the Prime Minister, too, has spelt this out. Treaties can, of course, be tom up. Moreover, treaties can only work if both sides have the will to make them work. This intention was solemnly pledged by all the parties to the treaties, and Mozambique has specifically shown its good faith by more than mere promises. ANC terrorists who did not wish to hand in their arms voluntarily sustained raids on their homes by Mozambican security forces, and what is more, the Mozambican media are devoting hours of broadcasting time and columns of newspaper space to committing the population to support of the treaty. In my opinion this is a very strong indication that this is not merely a trick. Against the specific background of Mozambique, and the framework in which it finds itself, it must be recognized that these actions on the part of President Machel and his government demanded courage, and I wish to express my appreciation of that today.

†Mr Chairman, I have paid tribute to the hon the Prime Minister and President Machel for the courage they have displayed in facing the realities of our region and entering into accords with one another for the benefit of the region and its people despite risks and opposition. There are others who deserve tribute in this regard, not least the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Deputy Minister for the long hours of patient work they have put in to bring about the Nkomati, Lusaka and Cape Town Accords. Their efforts have placed South Africa’s international relations on a better footing than they have been in decades. We know it has been a difficult and arduous role and that it is not all plain sailing ahead, especially as far as South West Africa is concerned. I am sure all right thinking South Africans wish them well in their quest for peace and good neighbourliness.

Under successive governments South Africa has always sought peaceful co-existence with its neighbours. So too have others, men in Africa played a role worthy of recognition, and I wish to pay tribute to them too. There is President Banda of Malawi, who pioneered the spirit of realism burgeoning in Southern Africa today, by entering into diplomatic relations with us a decade and a half ago. There is President Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast, who sought and still advocates a policy of dialogue between South Africa and the rest of the continent. There is the late King of Swaziland, who entered into the first security agreement with South Africa, and there is also President Kaunda of Zambia, who, in spite of dislike of our domestic policy, has in his way been fairly consistent over many years in seeking peace in our region. Let us not forget that Dr Kaunda reacted positively to the famous “Southern Africa at the Crossroads” speech made by the previous Prime Minister in 1974; that he played a positive role in the Victoria Falls Bridge talks; that the Maula Summit was held at his request and that he also reacted positively once again to the suggestion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that all the parties in the Angolan/South West African conflict get together. Indeed, he offered to host such a meeting, and is in fact this week going to host a meeting between Swapo, the Administrator-General of South West Africa and the Multi-party Conference.

During the previous peace initiatives a decade ago, I had the privilege of meeting the three Presidents to whom I have referred. I am convinced that it is not their fault that those initiatives faltered and failed. After all, it was they and other African moderates who prevented the OAU from condemning South Africa’s presence in Angola at the time. As hon members will recall, the OAU split right down the middle on the issue and Dr Kaunda at the time even referred to the Cuban presence in Angola as the “Vicious whelps of a dangerous tiger biting into the side of Africa.” Those initiatives finally failed because those leaders, like South Africa, were let down by the United States when Congress passed the Clarke Amendment, forcing the Ford Administration to cease its aid and support to the anti-communist forces in Angola. That action and the subsequent policy of President Carter of destructive interference and attempts to isolate South Africa, set the cause of peace back 10 years in Southern Africa. Today, 10 years later, Southern Africa has a second chance to move towards a constellation of states living in good neighbourliness to the benefit of regional stability and security. An important contributory factor is the Reagan Administration’s policy of constructive engagement in Southern Africa, which stands in stark contrast to the destructive interference of the Carter era. Let me pay tribute to President Reagan and Dr Chester Crocker for their involvement in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, time unfortunately precludes me from following on the remarks made by the hon member for Benoni, but I would like to associate myself with earlier remarks from both the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Bloemfontein North in respect of the congratulations extended to the Minister, his Deputy, Mr Van Dalsen and his staff.

Having said that, I want to move on to matters affecting this Vote. I want to say at the outset that the welfare of the people of the continent of Africa was never ever a prime consideration of the colonial powers and nations that had designs on it in a bygone era. I do not believe that this has changed in respect of the areas of the continent that are caught up today in the East/ West ideological conflict. What, we must ask ourselves, is it that interests the world in Africa? I think that former President Giscard d’Estaing of France who was reported in The Star of 24 April as saying that “In a world of crisis, Africa is the continent of the future for Europe. It is a gigantic market for our trade, with fabulous mineral reserves”, has given the most honest and straight-forward answer of late. I think that one might baulk at his lack of subtlety, but one must admire his candour.

It is an undeniable fact that for the more mature economies of the world, Africa holds out the prospects of raw materials, new investment opportunities and new markets. In return the prospect for Africa is of development on a gigantic scale undreamed of, development which could release the people of this continent from the suffering caused by centuries of ignorance, hunger and disease. However, there is a stumbling-block. The stumbling-block is undeniably the political instability of many African states. This instability is the legacy of the unseemly post-colonial scrambling away from Africa, and of course the commensurate lack of skilled and dedicated people as a result thereof. Unquestionably, however, the prospects for subequatorial Africa are looking brighter. This is largely thanks to the recent developments and initiatives on the part of this Minister and the officials of his department. I said in the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote that the Prime Minister’s role is now a pivotal one and that he can indeed today be considered to be the man of destiny on this continent. History will one day show whether he made a major contribution or whether he allowed the golden opportunities that present themselves to slip through his fingers. We sincerely trust that the former will be the record of the future.

The Prime Minister’s European tour presents a challenge. In order to rise to this challenge, I believe he must be seen by Europe to be moving towards the jettisoning of the burden of apartheid. You see, Sir, apartheid is an ideology that neither Africa nor Europe wants any part of. I have no doubt in my mind that the hon the Prime Minister will have to pay a heavy price in order to jettison this burden. Over the last weekend we saw an example of the hysteria that can be generated by racist fanatics who see their future in an exclusivity bought through violent conflict. Sadly, we know that that hysteria and that certain sect are not going to go away. They are going to be with us for a long time to come. However, the challenge facing the Prime Minister is to determine his options, not in the face of right wing extremism, but against the background of an overwhelming referendum mandate for reform, a mandate he received on 2 November last year. The price for failing to rise to this challenge is so bleak that I would hate even to attempt to describe it.

I believe that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will support me in what I have just said, because I sincerely believe that that gentleman has been in the forefront of the fight within the NP to dismantle apartheid. I commend him for that.

You are quite right.

For once I am in tune with the Conservative Party! I say I commend the hon the Minister for that, as I commend him for his tireless efforts to re-establish South Africa as a respected nation in world affairs. I believe that his efforts in this regard have been just as tireless. I believe, too, that the hon the Minister knows that inevitably the successful outcome of all his efforts will be determined by the Government’s ability to get on with, and follow through, the reform process it has initiated. Let me assure the hon the Minister—I think he knows this already and does not need this assurance, but I want to place it on record nevertheless—that along every step of the reform road the Government will enjoy the support of this party; but, equally, it will meet with the stiffest opposition we with our small numbers can muster if there is any retrogressive step.

I should like to express my personal deep satisfaction at the announcement that the Prime Minister has accepted an invitation to meet Prime Minister Thatcher of Great Britain. This was something I appealed for at some length during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote. I appealed for every effort to be made to improve relations between our two countries. I do not wish to repeat those arguments, but I think that we should examine some of the practical implications of this most welcome development. There is no doubt that, possibly even in this House, there are those on the extreme right who would like nothing better than to refight the Anglo-Boer War. [Interjections.] This time I find that the governing party agrees with me. I sincerely believe, however, that the vast majority of thinking South Africans will appreciate that the most important implication of the coming meeting between Mrs Thatcher and our Prime Minister is the prospect of greater development in Southern Africa taking place as a direct result of better understanding between our two countries. I say this because, as I have said previously, I believe that Britain is the missing factor in the Southern African peace initiative.

Let us for the record look at the ties with Africa of those countries that are reported to be included in the Prime Minister’s tour. There is Portugal, with Mozambique and Angola as the links. There is Germany with South West Africa and Tanzania as the links. Hopefully he will visit Belgium too. Let us only think back to Zaire and the Congo. Let us also think back to France with its host of Saharan and sub-Saharan colonies; Italy, with the countries in which it had interests—the countries around the Horn of Africa. Then there is also Britain and her links with Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Kenya. This emphasizes the fact that there is no doubt that Europe is Northern Africa’s logical trading and economic partner, and that South Africa and Great Britain are Southern Africa’s most logical trading partners. Figures in this regard speak for themselves and it is well known that South Africa is conducting approximately R1 billion’s worth of trade per annum with African countries. That is only scratching the surface of the real potential. A major curbing factor on this trade has been the rejection of South Africa by her potential trading partners, because of her internal policies and also because of the political and economic instability that exists in many of those countries.

This is where, I believe, Britain enters the picture.

Existing trading links between Britain and South Africa accounted for exports to South Africa from Britain last year of over £1 000 million, while Britian’s imports from South Africa last year—during the same period— totalled approximately £769 million. I think I can safely say that to the best of my knowledge Britain is still South Africa’s fourth largest trading partner. All the facts that I have set out certainly support my argument that while Continental or European nations are the logical trading partners of Northern Africa, Britain and South Africa are the logical trading partners of Southern Africa.

Order! I regret that I have to interrupt the hon member, but his time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon Whip for his courtesy.

To continue, Sir, I think we must now ask ourselves how effective a partnership between our two countries could be in achieving the alleviation of the new crisis of Southern Africa. That is the crisis of economic stagnation, which, in simple terms, can be translated into “empty bellies for the masses”. I have mentioned the three factors which are preventing development. I believe that they are—to recapitulate—in the first instance, the lack of political stability; in the second instance, poor or non-existent relations with South Africa; and in the third instance, the lack of people with the required skills.

With regard to the first of these I believe that Britain should use her influence to find solutions to the problems creating this instability in many of her former territories. A prime example of this—and also a prime example of where she can bring her influence to bear—is Zimbabwe, where irrespective of those who believe Zimbabwe is a miracle of reconciliation, we have Mr Mugabe, possessed of an unbridled ambition to bring about a one-party state. I would not be so presumptuous as to try to precribe a course of action for Britain. I do believe, however, that her silence on this issue has been too deafening for too long, and I think she would do well to look at the example which is today being set by Portugal. Portugal is now actively involving itself in trying to achieve a reconciliation between conflicting parties in its former colonies. I believe that a prime example of that is Portugal’s involvement, together with the hon the Deputy Minister and all the work that he has done, in connection with Cahora Bassa. We saw the agreement signed last Friday in the Castle among the three parties.

The second factor relates to South Africa herself. By recognition of the reform efforts in South Africa, as well as the recent initiatives in respect of our neighbours, Britain could contribute greatly to a changing of attitude on the part of African countries in her sphere of influence. Great Britain is ideally suited to the role of broker.

The third issue is the one concerning the lack of trained personnel in our neighbouring countries. It was interesting to note in The Argus yesterday an article by a columnist using the pseudonym of Zingesi. This gentleman writes from Harare. He says of the situation in Zimbabwe:

That, Sir, from a columnist in Zimbabwe.

All African countries should be looking to Europe for these skills. It is our understanding that at this moment there are over 3 million unemployed in Britain. What a tremendous drain that must be on that country’s economy! Technological trends in mature economies such as those of Europe and Britain are removing those countries from the establishment of labour-intensive industries which employ the trades and the skills that are so desperately needed in developing Third World economies such as we find on the continent of Africa. I sincerely believe that active immigration programmes would do more in terms of development aid than soft loans and handouts. Furthermore, in the development that would follow the initiation of such programs, South Africa would be ideally suited to offer training, technology, equipment, the processing of raw materials and leadership in a host of fields. Our contribution towards development would inevitably improve the quality of life of our own people.

We shall have to overcome many obstacles and we shall have to do some hard talking along the road I have mapped out. We are going to have to talk about South West Africa and its independence, the Mariental case. We are going to have to go back to Gleneagles, arms embargoes, the ANC in London—all these things will have to be spoken of. I am sure that straight talking will take place on these and many other issues, and I can only hope that the prospects of a developing and stable Southern Africa within the Western sphere of influence coupled with the prospects of global stability and the economic spinoffs therefrom will show that no obstacle need be insurmountable to those who are prepared to indulge in straight talking.

To the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department we on these benches tender our congratulations. They have set the stage well for the drama that is about to unfold. To the hon the Prime Minister we say: “You, Sir, are on stage. The success of the show is in your hands”. Never has the climate for acceptance of our initiatives been more favourable. The administrations of major Western powers are prepared to continue with constructive engagement. We say: Let us make hay while the sun shines!

Mr Chairman, to a large extent I associate myself with what the hon member for Umhlanga said. I want to tell the Opposition Parties that when it comes to a discussion of this vote, they must be very careful what they say and how they say it. Many people in many countries are very sensitive about what is said about them in South Africa, particularly what is said about them in this Committee. The hon the Minister has a great deal of information at his disposal that he cannot, however, make public or explain to the Opposition. Arising out of what the hon member for Umhlanga said, I also want to say that time and circumstances can often make friends of enemies or, if not, at least allies.

I now want to come to the signing of the Nkomati Accord. Just after that someone asked me: “How long will it last?” My reply to him was: “It is like horse-racing. There is no certainty, but that fact has never yet stopped people from backing horses, or favourites from winning.” Even if there were any risk, this would not prevent South Africa from continuing to strive for peace, co-operation and friendship with Black African states either.

Nkomati, that ray of light, was the culmination of faith, understanding and hard work by the department, and here I also want to record my congratulations to, and admiration for, the hon the Minister and his department. I want to express the hope that our mutual contribution on various levels and in various areas of co-operation will be of such a nature that it will profit both South Africa and Mozambique to persevere with this policy of good neighbourliness. With this accord both South Africa and Maputo have individually done their share to promote peace throughout this part of southern Africa. This accord could prove of inestimable value to Maputo, but then the USA and its Western friends must also do their share by making a fundamental contribution to restoring Maputo’s economic prosperity. It will have to be possible for Africa to see this prosperity in stark contrast to the position resulting from the Russian presence which, despite the plethora of weapons, results in economic stagnation and death from starvation. The USA and its friends, who dish out such a lot of criticism, now have a moral obligation to “put their money where their mouth is”. I want to make a serious appeal to the USA to do just that, and not to miss this opportunity of helping to lay the foundation stones for a peaceful and stabilized Southern Africa.

We must realize that this accord does not merely embody benefits for Maputo, having already paid tremendous dividends as far as South Africa is concerned. I also believe—as some have stated and others have jokingly said—that our future course does not lie merely through southern Africa, but in fact through the whole of Africa. When Cecil Rhodes said “we must look to the North” his intentions were not quite honourable and above-board, but I think he was right when he said we should look to the North; that is where our hinterland lies. We are part of Africa, after all, whether this is a new discovery, as far as the hon member for Soutpansberg is concerned, or not. If the countries of southern Africa want to or can accept one another, each country for what it is, the way it is, we can, if we respect one another’s territories, respect one another’s forms of government, respect one another’s ideological differences, share in one another’s joint interests and accept one another’s inter-dependence in various spheres, but I do not want to go into that any further at the moment. If that were to happen, it is my contention that each could, in his own way, but also jointly as a block of countries or a block of nations, have tremendous bargaining power on world markets, something that would enrich us all—all the countries of southern Africa.

As I have said, today’s enemies could become tomorrow’s friends, and this idea is no figment of my imagination, but a very real possibility that the reality of the situation will, sooner or later, bring home to us all. It would not have been possible for any of these many events to have taken place had it not been, as I have said previously, for the hon the Prime Minister’s initiatives and honest and sincere endeavour to achieve peace on both the domestic front and abroad, and had it not been for the tremendous support of our voters who supported his search for solutions in the referendum. Now they know what they voted for; now they can see what they voted for.

The agreements with African countries and African leaders, the hon the Prime Minister’s trip overseas, the fact that he could go and speak to people, would have been unthinkable only a few years ago, but this spectacular break-through has become possible because the leaders of the African states and the leaders of the Western countries realize they are dealing with a Prime Minister, a leader, a man who does not just talk and play party politics for personal gain, but rather a man who fearlessly devotes all his efforts to serving the interests of all population groups, both in the Republic and outside the Republic. All responsible South Africans support him in his efforts and wish him every success.

If we want to lead this frail child of peace to full maturity, we must all act responsibly, and the threats of the Jonathans, both outside and inside South Africa, must stop. It is only people who are afraid who have to bolster their own courage, who have to walk around all day threatening others. As has been said here, the hon member for Water-berg is apparently not all that happy about these and other treaties concluded with African states. The CP is fond of talking about traitors to the Afrikaner people—sometimes too, it seems to me, within the context of treaties. The other evening, in the Skilpadsaal, the hon member spoke about people who quiver and shake. Let me acknowledge that I quiver and shake when I see how my fellow-Afrikaners are being led astray and betrayed, knowing full well that the person who is playing a leading role in this will one day be unmasked for the false prophet he is. When this happens he will not, in his wretchedness and humiliation, be in any position to rectify the damage done, in the economic sphere, to our people and country or to recompense his fellow-Afrikaners for the damage done. That is what gives me the shivers.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow on his speech. All I want to say is that I agree whole-heartedly with him that yesterday’s enemies can become today’s friends. I will again refer to this during my speech.

I cannot resist, despite the limited time at my disposal, to make a brief reference to the speech made by the hon member for Soutpansberg, particularly his questions and charges against the Government as to who is a terrorist and who is not. It reminds me of all the questions from that side of the House put to Di Bishop and others in the recent Stellenbosch by-election campaign. It is quite funny how these chickens can come home to roost in the end.

Sir, the swift and stunning developments in Southern Africa on the diplomatic front, signal a decisive shift in style and tactics by the Government. Those of us who were privileged to attend the Nkomati Accord and the signing of the Cahora Bassa Agreement, could not help but being impressed by the prevailing attitude and the quite remarkable change in relationships and attitudes on both sides. South Africa is no longer regarded as the racist Pretoria regime nor is Moçambique regarded as a Marxist lackey of Soviet imperialism. This is all to the good and is welcomed by all the people in the subcontinent. It is an example of what the hon member for East London North referred to in his speech. To contrast the previous attitudes of this Government with what is taking place today would make a fascinating study, but would also be time-consuming and largely unproductive. Suffice to say that the present style is light-years away from previous attitudes as typified by a Cabinet decision made not so very long ago not to attend diplomatic functions which were multiracial. As they say in the classics, “You have come a long way baby”, and we are glad and grateful that this has happened.

I would like to place on record my own appreciation to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials for their leadership in the new initiatives. It is gratifying for us to see the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs no longer playing second fiddle to the generals, and he deserves the praise and credit which has been given to him for his persistence against quite incredible odds it is quite remarkable if one recalls that only a few years ago—perhaps a few months ago—there were so many people ranged against him who today are praising him. I refer to those within his own party.

You are dreaming.

Did that hon member not know that?

The announcement by the hon the Minister and the hon the Prime Minister of their visit to Europe suggests that the Nkomati Accord is only the beginning of a diplomatic initiative. It is almost, one might suggest, the tip of the iceberg. There are many on this side of the House who would hope that that is so. I would ask the hon the Minister, if he is able to, to tell us, perhaps in some more detail, what that visit will entail. There are so many rumours as to where the hon the Prime Minister will go and with whom he will speak. If the hon the Minister is able to, I will be grateful if he will give us more details of that visit to Europe and Great Britain.

The hon the Minister will know better than most that he will find both in London and in Bonn, and elsewhere, a policy not so much of constructive engagement but what could be termed “critical dialogue towards South Africa”. I make mention very briefly that the hon the Leader of the Opposition and myself had the opportunity only last December to talk to the Foreign Ministers of France and Germany as well as to senior officials in London. Everywhere we went there was genuine desire to see peaceful change in South Africa. The people with whom we talked were always ready to give credit for any positive move. One thing is certain, and that is that the initiatives in Southern Africa and the proposed visits to Europe and Britain, together with the attitude of the American Administration, must surely drive the final nail in the coffin of the prevailing total onslaught myth. It is high time, and it would be productive, if the Government were to stop telling the people of South Africa that she is totally isolated and alone and under total onslaught. It never has been true and it is not true today. I am grateful that the hon the Minister, together with his department, is carving out on the world map even stronger links between this country and the rest of the world.

It must be stated as strongly as possible that no matter how many accords are struck and no matter how many visits to foreign countries are made, they will end in disillusionment and failure if they are not accompanied by far-reaching changes within South Africa. Foreign policy, like charity, must begin at home. The best guarantee against external as well as internal aggression is justice. One prominent Black leader recently said:

If this is to be made possible there are two essential imperatives. Firstly, the willingness to face up to the reality that apartheid is not for sale, that it will not sell neither here not in the Western World. Whilst there is considerable friendship and understanding in the United States and the Western World in general there never has been and never will be compromise with apartheid in those countries. More important is the fact that the majority of the people living in South Africa itself reject this policy. I repeat: If there are no takers, it will not sell. Therefore apartheid cannot be repackaged. It must be jettisoned for good otherwise we could go out of business ourselves. The hon the Minister, more than anyone else on that side of the House, knows that full well. If one reads his speeches from the moment he came into this House to the time he spent in the United States and the United Nations and to the time of his return as Minister of Foreign Affairs, one sees that he has dared to challenge some of the prevailing myths. If he can persist in helping the Government to see that it is not merely a question of reselling or reshaping but jettisoning he will do ultimate good for his own country.

Secondly, the ultimate question is not peace with our neighbours, important as that is, nor sharing power with Coloureds and Indians, but a new deal and a genuine accommodation between White and Black South Africans. Dialogue, accord and peace must be made here on our own soil by our own people. There are many Blacks who in their desperation have chosen the route of what they call the “armed struggle”. No one is this House would support that choice, but we have to deal with that reality. Must we wait five or ten years with its inevitable loss of life and increased bitterness, or can we dare hope for a peace accord, not only with Swapo in South West Africa, but also with Black leaders, even the ANC, in South Africa? This would be indeed worth working for, worth struggling for. Those who tell us that it can never happen must look at what has happened in the last few months.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinelands started being positive in his approach to the South African situation and was also positive about and supportive of what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and this Government have achieved. But, towards the end of his speech he turned nasty, or should I rather say mischievous, by suggesting that we are trying to export a certain commodity, namely apartheid, and that it cannot be repacked.

However, I wish to approach this matter from a different angle. Quite apart from our differences, there are common interests and shared circumstances, and that is the ground on which we should continue building. The future of the Southern African subcontinent depends on the economic progress and development of the region, the political stability of the various countries of this subcontinent, the military absence of the Soviet Union and South Africa’s ability to play a meaningful role through its acceptance as an essential and integral part of the subcontinent. This has been stated by the hon the Minister and also by the Deputy Minister. It is most interesting and should be considered in the light of circumstances pertaining in Africa today.

That South Africa is a super-power in the African context and certainly a leader in regional context, with much to offer to our neighbours, is a fact conceded by all observers. It is, however, another matter to convince everybody that the acceptance of South Africa’s vast physical and human resources and the associated infrastructures, is an essential key to the well-being and prosperity of all the countries in this region. It goes without saying that we must maintain and even increase our leadership role in the African continent. However, we have to achieve this in a way that will be beneficial to all the countries which we co-operate with, whether voluntarily or through force of circumstances. This has been our objective, and I think we have achieved that objective. It is our right to continue to develop our resources but this can only be achieved to our own and our neighbours’ mutual advantage, if our political motives are understood and if our bona fides are placed above suspicion. The hon the Prime Minister in his speech at Nkomati mentioned the pooling of resources and thereby indicated the interdependence of countries in this region. We have also repeatedly stated that we have no territorial ambitions and have shown our preparedness to enter into pacts and agreements. Our efforts in this regard culminated in the Nkomati Accord, a triumph for South Africa, for the hon the Prime Minister and certainly for the hon the Minister of foreign Affairs.

Everyone is well aware and recognizes the fact that this accord is not solely due to our enequivocal political intentions. The fact that we share problems and have common interests with Mozambique was a major factor in bringing about this accord. The most remarkable aspect, at least in my opinion, of this accord is the fact that it was achieved with the maximum publicity for the whole world to see. This delighted our friends and certainly dismayed our enemies. I think it emphasizes three aspects which we should keep in mind, and these are the sincerity of our intentions, the shared circumstances and common interests that we have and the necessity for all contact to be fully visible. These factors we must bear in mind if we are to further fully extend and consolidate our relationships in Africa. Our strong trade and other links with many African states have been largely covert, thereby leaving the option to a country should it be expedient to deny it.

The proper consolidation of a political accord requires a follow-up in the form of economical and related matters. In the case of Mozambique, such follow-up has already started. However important accords and agreements in the political, commercial and technological spheres may be, it is my firm view that one of the best guarantees of permanence in cordial relationships with other countries can also be achieved by cultural exchange. Cultural exchange is self-publicizing and involves interaction at all levels, provides information of the societies involved in such a way that it is virtually impossible to distort this by propaganda. We have, of course, always insisted that we have our problems, but also that we have nothing to hide. The opportunity to follow up the diplomatic breakthrough must not be lost on this score too. By exposing our way of life by way of contact will certainly reinforce the political breakthrough which we have achieved.

One of the ways of improving or bringing about cultural exchange is by way of the admission of foreign students to our universities or other institutions of learning, and also by interacting with opinion-makers from foreign countries so that they can observe our country uninfluenced and at first hand. It is perhaps interesting to note that in 1983 there were 9 486 foreign students at our universities and 1 504 at our technical colleges. These figures do not take into account the immigrant students who have not yet been naturalized and the quite considerable number of students at Unisa.

Our guest programme during 1983 resulted in guests coming to South Africa from 24 foreign countries. The intention and prime motive in this respect is to create opportunities for well-placed foreigners and opinion-makers to come and obtain first hand information about actualities in South Africa. This action is very closely related to our missions abroad and are consequently designed to give a better perspective of South Africa.

I think we should pay more attention to our cultural relations with Africa and that the tilt should be adjusted accordingly. The Vorster era was one of dialogue, the Botha era is one of constructive engagement in Africa. Well-publicized consolidated agreements with our neighbours will prepare the ground for similar agreements with other countries. This could easily create a domino effect and I think the first signs are already visible. Nobody can and will deny the undeniable assistance which we receive from our major ally, the USA, and the role it plays in stabilizing this region. At the same time we should also face up to the fact that there may well be more direct confrontation with the major destabilization force in Southern Africa, namely the Soviet Union—that is my answer as far as that hon member’s reference to the total onslaught is concerned.

I would just like to touch on one aspect in respect of the nature of shared circumstances and common interests, one of the most powerful forces working in the direction of co-operation for mutual benefit. South Africa possesses a diversified economy, supported by a sophisticated infrastucture toned to the Third World context in which we operate. This provides us with the unique knowledge and experience of matching First World requirements to Third World realities. Our neighbours are Third World countries which share with us the same physical environment and consequently face the same problems and circumstances in their mining, agricultural and other spheres. This places us in a position to help solve their problems and at the same time to open opportunities for our own entrepreneurs.

I am emphasizing these obvious factors working towards the common weal of the countries in our subcontinent, because all too often they are relegated to an inferior position due to the over-emphasis on ideological factors and differences. The oldest forms, and most certainly the most stable forms of co-operation between states in this region, were not the result of ideological circumstances, but were due to satisfying supply and demand and satisfying needs. Longstanding labour contract agreements provided South Africa with the necessary labour and we have supplied them with income and skills. We must therefore not limit our search for common ground solely to the spheres of finance, technology and agriculture. I believe that there is a new element which has appeared in the realities of African politics, namely the struggle between the moderates and the radicals, which cuts across ideologies. This offers us an opportunity for co-operation with fellow moderates in Africa and it is in our interest to seek the company of like-minded states in Africa.

Mr Chairman, for the most part the hon member for Uitenhage referred to the economic strength of South Africa in this continent. That is a well-known fact, and the fact that economic strength can be ustilized to the benefit of Southern Africa is of course a matter deserving of support. However, he also referred once again to the issue of the so-called “pooling of resources.” He did not elaborate on that an I Hope that the hon the Minister will have more to say about it when he replies to this debate, because on more than one occasion we have questioned the significance of those words. In his statement my hon Leader said:

The hand of Jaap Marais!

Perhaps it would be as well if the hon the Minister were to elaborate on that. With reference to an interjection made by the hon the Deputy Minister about Leadership South Africa, I just want to quote to him what my hon Leader said in that article. He must then tell the Committee whether or not he agrees with it. My hon Leader said:

Has the hon the Deputy Minister any objection to that? In his reply he can state whether he objects to it.

I have no objection to that …

Very well; then we understand one another.

… but I gravely object to what appears in today’s Die Patriot. [Interjections.]

Then we understand one another, and we can lay to rest this little political gimmick on the part of the Government party. [Interjections.] I think there is no one so deaf as he who chooses not to listen. We support non-aggression treaties with neighbouring countries. As far as economic aid is concerned, we say “charity begins at home”.

This brings me to Cahora Bassa. The hon the Minister saw fit to take me to task somewhat on what the CP’s attitude was in regard to Cahora Bassa. He said that I had either not read that contract or had not understood it. I take it that both the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister have legal experience and a legal background and are trained in the law. Let us take a look at article 8:

I ascertained the meaning of “jointly” in Black’s Law Dictionary, fifth edition. It means the following:

Then it states:

Just after “joint” in that dictionary the word “joker” appears, and my eye fell on that. Perhaps—and I say this to the hon the Minister in a good spirit—he should have said “joker responsibility”, because in legal terminology “joker” means:

Perhaps he should have said “joker responsibility”. If he had said that then he would have been correct because then the meaning would have remained woolly. Moreover, in his statement the hon the Minister specifically said—this is the statement which, according to him, I failed to read—that the joint committee is now going to give further consideration to this contract and to the circumstances surrounding the accord. However, this does not appear in the accord, Mr Chairman. All that is stated in the accord is that they accept joint responsibility for the protection of that power line.

The hon member for Benoni wanted to know where it was stated that the people or troops of the one country could not enter the territory of the other country. Article 9 of the Accord of Nkomati reads as follows:

Indeed, the Cahora Bassa project is defined, and it is said inter alia with regard to this project that it extends to near Pretoria. I quote again as follows:

Legal terminology must be interpreted in terms of its normal meaning, and if the hon the Minister wants to interpret this to mean that this will only be referred to the joint committee in terms of the treaty, he must say so. I have still further evidence in this regard, and the hon the Minister can reply to me on this.

According to the Pretoria News of 2 May 1984, a statement was issued by a senior spokesman of the Portuguese Government. In a report entitled “South African helicopters patrol Cahora” we read the following:

The report goes on as follows:

In addition, the following important statement is made in the report:

In the statement issued by him the hon the Minister goes on to say that every housewife, every farmer and every businessman in South Africa will hold against us the fact that we adopt this standpoint if we are opposed to the possibility of obtaining electrical power more cheaply. We are not opposed to that. [Interjections.] No, we are not opposed to that. [Interjections.] Every housewife … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, reference is made in this contract to the agreement of 19 September 1969. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should appreciate it if I could at least have a little protection from you because the chorus is singing again. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, we supported the agreement of 19 September 1969. However, that is not the point at issue. If one son of South Africa dies protecting those power lines, or helping to protect them against an organization that seeks to overthrow Frelimo, every housewife in South Africa will be deeply upset. That, as far as we are concerned, is what is at issue.

I also wish to point out that South Africa is only going to obtain 8% of its electrical power from the Cahora Bassa scheme. The country that will benefit most from this agreement is Portugal. I also wish to place on record that we do not begrudge Portugal this. We are aware of the tremendous expenditure incurred by Portugal in connection with the Cahora Bassa scheme. Therefore we do not begrudge it. However, when I buy something then, surely, delivery to my front door is included in the price. Therefore, we are not supposed to protect those power lines; nor to pay the cost of the staff that has to look after those power lines. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have just listened to the hon member for Brakpan again, and as has become the custom of hon members of that party when it comes to the initiatives with regard to peace in Southern Africa, the hon member once again used words to conceal his thoughts. The hon member reminded me of the jurist who arrived at court and when he was asked: “What is your defence?”, he said: “I have no defence. I am here only to sow doubt”. That is what the hon member for Brakpan was doing.

If one reads the letter of the agreement, there must undoubtedly surrounding circumstances in the light of which one must read and understand it. Inter alia, article 8 expressly provides: “… shall jointly take immediate steps …”. Undoubtedly these words mean that this is taking place in a specific atmosphere within which the Joint Security Commission has to operate [Interjections.] Sir, those hon members are not accustomed to keeping to the letter of an agreement. [Interjections.] That is why they want every word in an agreement to be stated. We also stand by the spirit of the agreement, and the spirit of this agreement lies in the fact … [Interjections.] … that one cannot implement or conduct foreign policy in Africa if it is not supported by the necessary security actions. Consequently, it is undoutedly correct to assume that implementation will take place in conjunction with, and under cover of, the Security Forces of South Africa.

The hon member for Brakpan asked the Government party to leave the Nkomati gimmick at that. [Interjections.] I have absolutely no desire either to be on friendly terms with those hon members or to leave them alone. [Interjections.] I want to tell those hon members that they have awakened the tiger in us with their conduct over the past few days, and we shall hound them from Dan to Beer-sheba. [Interjections.] I am convinced that the policies of those hon members spell danger to the prosperity of South Africa, and that is why we will fight them whenever we can. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are hon members opposite entitled to deliver a running commentary while the hon member is speaking? [Interjections.]

Order! I have taken note of the hon the Minister’s point of order and I shall see to it that those hon members do not continually interrupt the hon member.

When the hon member for Soutpansberg is playing the role of the aggressor he is very brave. However, when he is being pursued, as he was in this debate, he wants to stand aside and ask: “Do you want us to support the accord or not?” I want to remind the hon member of a pronouncement he made, which is correct—that the signing of an accord need not be sanctioned by the House of Assembly.

I now want to come back to the hon member for Brakpan. In a fracas between the hon member for Turffontein and members of the PFP on 5 May 1982, after the PFP had been accused of, and reproached for, not participating in a tour to the TBVC countries, the hon member said: “It is unforgiveable that no one from the PFP was present”. I accept that as a correct and clear standpoint. Furthermore, I believe that the hon member is standing by that standpoint of his. However, when a tour of the TBVC countries was undertaken in 1982, hon members of the CP saw fit to visit the countries of Europe. They disregarded the TBVC countries, since there was not a single member of the CP on that tour. What is even more interesting, is that after due consultation between the various parties to participate in a tour to South West Africa, all hon members of the parties as they are represented here participated with the exception of the NRP, because provision had not been made for them in terms of an agreement among the Whips. The hon members of the CP, however, were the first to complain in these council chambers after the hon the Prime Minister had announced the possibility of a monitoring commission and withdrawal. Now I ask hon members whether it is not also unforgiveable that on two occasions in two consecutive years no hon members of the CP have participated in these tours. The tour to South West Africa afforded members of Parliament the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the facts first hand, to consult with leaders and to hold talks face to face. The tour group departed on 13 November, and the CP let us know on 8 November that they were not available. Not one of their members was available. I want to remind the Committee that those hon members were licking their wounds after the referendum at that stage.

I want to raise another matter. Having signed the Jan Smuts accord, the hon member for Waterberg must now also accept responsibility for his blood-brother, Mr Jaap Marais. He cannot escape that responsibility. We are familiar with the nimble footwork of those hon members. On Saturday they signed another treaty with like-minded people, but when they are called to order in this Council chamber, they make excuses and say: There was selective reporting which affected us adversely; nor do we accept responsibility for every pronouncement that was made there. Taking into account the selective way in which those hon members have quoted the hon the Prime Minister on various occasions when it comes to the pooling of resources, I think this is nothing but malice and wilfulness. Anyone who reads page 5 of the document concerned will see what is expressly meant when the hon the Prime Minister spelt out that he sees that we should take joint action to bargain for prices, when he elaborates on the spirit of the accord and when he says that we recognize one another’s sovereignty. The story that is being spread about that, is absolute rubbish.

Outside this House we are being accused of being traitors, but the history of Africa will show who the traitors of this continent are, it will show who the true South Africans are in South Africa. They are not the people who shy away, who are afraid and who think that their identity should be enmeshed in laws. They are not people like the hon member for Lichtenburg. Earlier this year he said that the aspirations of the Black people cannot be accommodated if we tread the path of South West Africa. They are not neocolonialiste. I think the time has come for us to maintain our identity with inner strength, that we should meet the aspirations of all the people of Southern Africa and that we should be prepared to reason and argue with the most militant Black people of this continent. Moreover, it is important to know that alliances can be concluded between White and Black people and that in some cases there is more to be said for alliances and treaties between White and Black than between White and White.

We dare not allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers. Fifteen years have past since the Lusaka Manifesto was issued, and in April this year we were involved in the Arusha Declaration. Certain matters are firmly established in them. In neither document is South Africa branded as a colonial power. The hope is expressed that we will solve our problems by peaceful means, and war is declared on apartheid.

I want to say immediately that these are favourable circumstances which we must utilize. The carricature which those hon members and overseas countries make of apartheid is indeed the carricature which we, too, must oppose. We are certainly also opposed to the remnants of the old model apartheid as expressed by those hon members. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Krugersdorp will not take it amiss of me if I do not follow up what he had to say.

Before beginning my speech I wish to convey my personal appreciation to the hon the Minister and his department for the successes they have achieved with their initiatives. I also wish to convey my best wishes to the hon the Prime Minister for his journey overseas.

As far as the budget of the department is concerned, I should be obliged if the hon the Minister could explain certain matters. It is a pity that it was not possible to draw comparisons with previous expenditure under programme 2. I take it that this may be possible in future. In the second place I note that there is a considerable increase in the amount budgeted for equipment. I refer once again to programme 2, in which there is an increase of R2 million for equipment. The explanation in the memorandum leaves me with several unanswered questions and I should be obliged if the hon the Minister could provide us with more details in this regard. An amount of more than R4 million is being budgeted for relations with international organizations. I trust that the hon the Minister can provide further details in this regard as well.

An amount of R35 000 is being budgeted for an institute at the University of South Africa for research on our relations with Latin America. I have nothing against the University of South Africa, but I should be obliged if the hon the Minister could tell us what is envisaged with regard to this institute. It seems to me that an amount of R35 000 for this purpose is totally insignificant. I should like to know what the hon the Minister has in mind as far as this institute is concerned, and whether other universities are also going to be involved.

I now come to a matter to which the hon member for Sea Point also referred, viz the circumstances in Southern Africa. In the nature of the matter we have the utmost appreciation for the degree to which the communality of our economic interests has in fact been decisive in our relations with these states. As the hon member for Sea Point also said, we trust that we are on the threshold of further developments in this regard.

In this regard I wish to make two remarks in particular. One relates to the growing demands which these agreements and better relations are going to set with regard to aid to countries in Southern Africa. As the hon member for Sea Point indicated, this need could be met to a considerable extent by way of private initiative, by way of investment, aid to development industries and the provision of technical assistance. It can be done by way of private initiative and official agencies. In the nature of the matter the Government, too, can make a tremendous contribution with regard to the provision of services and technical aid, as is already evident.

I have already taken cognizance of the standpoint of the hon the Prime Minister— the hon member for Sea Point also referred to this—that one should not believe in “hand-outs”. I agree with that in principle. If we are really to play our part in this regard, however, it is essential that financial aid be provided to these states, whether it be by way of the Development Bank or by way of loans. This is no new phenomenon. For example, we provided assistance to Malawi for the building of their new capital city. Lilongwe, and this is being done on a large scale in the TBVC countries as well. If we really want to make our influence felt in terms of these relations, it is essential that we recognize that a great deal is expected of us and that heavy demands will be made on us. We cannot get away from that fact.

It is very clear that in this regard we shall have to give constant consideration to our priorities with regard to foreign expenditure and domestic obligations. If we are unable to determine our priorities correctly we shall not be able to deliver what is expected of us. In this regard I foresee that we shall indeed be placed in a tremendously difficult position with regard to the possibility of providing jobs for Black people from these countries. We are already faced with the problem that from 1974 to 1982, the number of workers in the RSA from the SALC countries declined from 501 000 to 282 000. In mining alone there has been a decline from 417 000 in 1974 to 218 000 in 1982. Particularly significant has been the decline in the agricultural sector, where the number fell from 144 000 in 1964 to 26 000 in 1974 and to a meagre 15 000 in 1982. In a certain sense, of course, these dwindling numbers were also attributable to those countries themselves. After the aircraft accident, Malawi took steps to restrict the number of people from that country working on South African mines. Moreover, changes took place after the Frelimo regime took over in Moçambique. Whereas, in 1975 there were 118 000 workers from Moçambique in the RSA, by 1978 the number had dropped to 42 000, but in 1982 this figure rose again to 59 000. In 1982 there were 26 000 workers from Botswana, 141 000 from Lesotho, 27 500 from Malawi, 59 000 from Moçambique, 13 500 from Swaziland and 11 000 from Zimbabwe in the RSA. It is calculated that in 1982 approximately R305 million went to these countries in the form of delayed payments and transfers. The total amount paid to workers from those countries was apparently in the region of R550 million. Clearly this is a tremendously important component in the economies of those countries. Therefore it is difficult to imagine how these countries would be able to exist without this revenue. Nor can I foresee how they will be able to meet that need themselves, by means of outside aid or in any other way.

In this regard I also wish to refer to the ILO resolution of 1981 to the effect that a fund of R2,25 million be established to assist these countries to keep their labour out of South Africa. I take it that that ILO resolution was never translated into action. However, I should nevertheless like to know from the hon the Minister what the possibilities are that there will be a greater insistence on the implementation of that ILO resolution.

The problem we are faced with is that South Africa has a large number of unemployed Black people. We are increasingly going to be saddled with a conflict between the employment of people from these countries and the employment of our own Black people. This is already a problem. I honestly do not know how we can overcome the problem, and steer between that Scylla and Charybdis. It seems to me that there is going to be a growing conflict between the continued employment of people from those countries and, on the other hand, efforts to surmount the tremendous and growing unemployment among our own people. The only way in which we can hope to resolve the problem is for our economic growth to increase enormously. If that is not the case we shall not be able to satisfy these conflicting demands. Then again, we are faced with the problem of the extent to which an increase in the economic growth rate will enable us to combat inflation effectively. It is priorities of this kind that I wish to put forward. I wish to ask the hon the Minister whether, when planning is carried out, attention is given to these priorities in the highest circles. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I could not find much fault with the statistics and the problems we have to contend with on this continent, as set out by the hon member Prof Olivier. Apart from drawing our attention to the fact that we will have to have a significantly high growth rate, he did not really suggest any solutions to these problems. He really only referred to the problems. However, it is a well-known fact that we have a very high population growth rate of approximately 2,7% per annum in Africa. This creates a problem because productivity does not keep abreast of it. We are also all aware that even if we only want to take care of our own people, we will have to maintain an average growth rate of at least 5% until the end of the year 2000. We undoubtedly have to contend with tremendous problems, but the Government has been giving them urgent attention over many years, and it is continuing to do so.

During the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote he was praised for the initiatives he has taken, as well as for the success achieved on the diplomatic front. This was altogether fitting, and I should like to associate myself with it. Only after one has considered these successes in perspective, can one really appreciate the balanced pronouncements of the hon the Prime Minister, particularly during the debate on his Vote. He did not claim all the glory for himself alone, but pointed out that it was the fruit of the long-term planning of successive Prime Ministers. The crucial step in the whole process is the fearless and clear-cut leadership of the hon the Prime Minister on the local political scene, and this must not be underestimated. Apart from that, there is also the exceptional vision, sincerity and sound relations the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the officials on his department have maintained in their negotiations with other countries in Africa. The realization that South Africa’s salvation does not lie so much in direct liaison with the West, but through Africa, is a fact that has been accepted for a number of years now. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was almost prophetic in his vision when he expressed his views in a speech in a debate on 3 April 1979 on the new era of closer co-operation between the 40 million people in southern Africa, when he referred to the “new Great Trek” to southern Africa and said that it would be based on “an equitable division of power and land”.

The idea of closer co-operation did not simply appear from nowhere however; it developed slowly but surely. It began many years ago, but after the Carlton Conference on 22 November 1979 and the ensuing summit conference between the heads of state of South Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda on 23 June 1980, it gained impetus. The hon the Prime Minister’s view on a constellation of states formed the basis of the idea that ad hoc talks should be structured and formalized, and that there should be a movement away from bilateral agreements to multi-lateral agreements. This, then, was the basis of the success that was achieved.

Despite the three bodies that had existed up to and including 1973, and which formed the embryo for further steps that were taken, the major initiative has been taken since 1979. The basis of the idea of a constellation is peace and prosperity. The next important development was the meeting on 11 November 1982, viz the summit conference between the governments of the RSA and the TBVC countries. On that occasion an agreement was reached on an extended network of structures for economic and regional co-operation. Through negotiation between equals, objectives were set to co-operate in order to realize this goal to the benefit of every member. This agreement was based on the development of regions as a whole, the recognition of private initiative and of the autonomous status of participating states, a common interest and common approach, and the synchronization and harmonizing of actions after the identification of, and due consultation on, the fields that have to be covered.

The next aspect is multilateral liaison after proper talks between the parties. Then follows the acceptance of the reality that economic development defies the boundaries of political differences and that co-operation on a regional basis can take place voluntarily and on an equal basis, without encroaching on the autonomy of other states. This led to the multilateral technical committees that were established for agriculture, trade and industry and tourism, transport, posts and telecommunications, health and welfare, manpower and education, finance, urban development and housing. In 1983 this led to 62 multilateral meetings and nine regional meetings. Then there was the establishment of the Development Bank.

After the Carlton Conference a meeting took place at Arusha in Tanzania, where nine states met in a conference of the SADCC countries, which consisted of Angola, Mozambique, Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland. In the main they said that they wanted to be more independent of the South African economy. Despite this standpoint, these states were influenced by the disappointment with the Russian initiatives, as well as the assistance and realities they experienced in this regard. In view of this, I want to refer very briefly to the article “Socialism on the wane in Africa” in Africa Insight, 1984, in which, inter alia, the following is stated:

These people realize that the way the Russians and socialists were carrying on in Africa simply could not lead to the economic success of their people, nor would it feed them. Dr Adebayo Adedeji, the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa, clearly expressed his views in this regard as follows:

I also just want to refer to a recent article in the Courier Austral Parlementaire, No 8 of 1984, which also points to the spirit of realism in Africa. I quote:

Certain figures are then quoted. From 1977 trade grew from R807 million to R1 238 million in 1982. They show how development is taking place and how South Africa and its technical know-how are being used on a co-ordinated basis to open the harbour at Maputo for use by African states. The article to which I referred concludes as follows:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my thanks in general to those who have taken part in the debate thus far for the appreciation they have expressed towards myself, the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs, in respect of the Government’s initiatives in various parts of Southern Africa with a view to promoting greater stability, peace and progress. I am particularly grateful for the appreciation expressed in respect of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

With reference to what was said by the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Pinelands, you will permit me, Sir, to say that in terms of the present system of government, it is not true that the style or claims of one particular department carries more weight at any given moment than the view of a different department or Minister. [Interjections.] The hon members can take it from me that in the period during which we determined the strategy which was ultimately crowned with success at Nkomati, I was in absolute agreement with all the decisions taken. Hon members will recall that after the bomb explosion in Pretoria in May 1983, it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs that sent a telegram to Maputo in which it was stated that if they persisted in allowing bombs to be detonated in South Africa by the ANC, this government would take retaliatory steps against them—and we did in fact do so. That was the standpoint of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it was the standpoint of the Prime Minister of this country, it was the standpoint of the State Security Council and it was the standpoint of the Cabinet of South Africa. At that time the hon members were vehemently accusing us of destabilization. Let them be honest now. We were held responsible for all the mischief occurring in Southern Africa …

No.

… for the economic retrogression and economic decline. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon members did say that. They said that we were at the root of the evil in Southern Africa. Years ago this Government adopted a strategy, and at the time we analysed and identified the onslaught on this country in all its facets. The hon members opposite say that we must stop talking about a total onslaught. With all respect, do they not think that this is a little unfair, after the Government has over the years correctly analysed and countered that onslaught? I do not care what name the hon members want to give the onslaught. They can call it an internationally orchestrated onslaught. They can call it what they like. In fact, the hon member for Sea Point himself said that if we did not progress sufficiently rapidly with certain internal reforms, sanctions and other onslaughts would follow. Only today the hon member said that.

I said that the road to long-term peace starts in South Africa.

Yes, but the hon member said it will all come to an end abruptly unless we do certain things. The hon member for Pinelands …

I said we will go out of business if we do not do what is right.

One can call it “going out of business” or whatever one likes, but the fact of the matter is that this Government identified and analysed this onslaught, this attack, this vendetta, or whatever the hon members want to call it. Let them go and look at the UN resolutions. I do not know how total their “total” is. I do not know how comprehensive their “comprehensive” is. The point is that, in whatever field of human endeavour the hon members care to name from sport to religion, trade and diplomatic ties, I can point out to them tens if not hundreds of organizations, even inter-government organizations and UN committees, whose sole purpose is to undermine this country and to plot against this country. They try to prevent athletes from this country competing against others. That applies to every sphere of life. In the religious field some of our churches and particularly the Afrikaans churches are told they are not welcome any more. In every walk of life there is some action of this nature. Certain Committees of the House of Representatives in America is even now considering certain legislative, punitive, vindictive measures against South Africa. This vendetta has not subsided. Throughout every sphere of life, by way of terrorism and a host of other measures, this country is being undermined. There are certain organizations that are occupied full-time doing just that. The vendetta against South Africa has become institutionalized. I do not want to quarrel about the meaning of words or phrases with any hon member. The Government, however, analyzed in good time this whole vendetta, this onslaught, this attack against South Africa. I dare say that it is aimed against every one of us in this Parliament. It is also aimed at all moderate Black leaders and at all moderate Coloured and Indian leaders in this country. Hon members know that as well as I do.

Allow me, Mr Chairman, to make one thing very clear. Neither this Government nor the PFP, and certainly not the CP or the NRP, will be able to satisfy general international demands for reform. That cannot be done. No hon member can do that, nor can I. Let us face that. That is why the Government decided to analyse this attack against us so as to prepare to take the necessary measures against it; measures taken in our own way, and according to our own circumstances and on the strength of our own resources. We undertook that and we accomplished what we wanted to accomplish. I believe we did that by way of the military action that we took, as well as by way of diplomatic action. It was also a result of the relative economic strength of this country, its advanced technology, its developed infrastructures, and also as a result of the general availability of South Africa’s economic infrastructures, its markets, its technical know-how, its firm military action, and the fact that we made it clear to both friend and foe that we consider ourselves a regional power, with regional interests, and that we demand the same behaviour from our neighbours which we are ourselves prepared to follow in practice. A combination of all these factors ultimately made it possible for realism to crystallize in our relations with some of our neighbours.

We have to continue along this road. When we conclude agreements and treaties with our neighbours this Government intends to comply with the letter and the spirit of all such agreements. The Government, however, is going to expect exactly the same attitude from the other parties to such agreements. We will, however, observe the letter and spirit of all our agreements.

In the case of Mozambique that is exactly what we are doing. There will of course be accusations to the effect that South Africa is violating some of the provisions contained in the Nkomati Accord. We have concerns on our part as regards alleged violations of the Nkomati Accord by the ANC. That is exactly why we created a Joint Security Commission. It was the South African Government, our security services, our senior police personnel, our senior National Intelligence personnel, our senior Defence Force personnel, as well as others, including myself, who insisted on the creation of a Joint Security Commission. Why? Because the basic purpose of the Nkomati Accord is to prevent either of the two countries from being used for the planning and the launching of any deeds of terrorism, sabotage and violence against the other country. The question was how we were going to monitor and to control this. We needed therefore an instrument, a mechanism, that could be employed for checking whether both of us were complying with the agreements.

It is therefore directly in the interests of South Africa to have this Joint Security Commission. It is in South Africa’s interests too to have the right even to go into Mozambique in order to inspect and investigate whether the ANC is indeed operating in that country, and anybody who alleges that this will involve us in a clash with an organization fighting the Government in Maputo does not know what he is talking about. I have already said that, and I say it again here today.

*Anyone in South Africa who says that South Africa must conclude a security agreement of this kind and then not have the right to investigate in loco allegations of infringements of that agreement are opposing South Africa’s interests. He is directly opposing South Africa’s interests. He wants me simply to conclude an agreement. I must simply accept everything in good faith. He is therefore depriving me of an arm and an instrument whereby to assess any infringements of such agreement and to determine whether the agreement is in fact being implemented.

As far as the accord of Nkomati is concerned, we need not look for mystical and secret aims in it. I have been speaking to the representatives of Mozambique for years. It has been a long discussion, because the fact remains that Mozambique has a socialist-communist government. They made public statements to the effect that they supported the military struggle of the ANC. They said that they were bound by OAU resolutions, UN resolutions and resolutions of other international bodies. They said that the members of the ANC who were in their country were refugees. I told them that refugees do not carry AK-47’s. I also told them that it was pointless their advancing that argument. I also said to them that unless an agreement could be reached that all ANC activities aimed at violence in the Republic of South Africa should cease, and unless they were prepared to co-operate in that regard to prevent and eradicate it, there could be no peace between these two countries. I went so far to tell them bluntly on one occasion: “I warn you that what you think you can do to us, we can do to you so much better. We can do you far more harm than you can do us.” That is what I said. We made a great deal of progress in this regard. Then came the Pretoria bomb attack. It demolished all the discussions that were in progress at that stage. I adopted the standpoint vis-à-vis the Americans, the British and the entire world that even if it were to mean sanctions against South Africa, this country and the Government stood fast on this point. We will not allow ourselves to be exterminated and blown up by terrorists from across our borders. We will not do it. [Interjections.]

When I was in Europe in November and December last year and I paid a visit to Portugal, where I was very cordially received by Dr Mario Soares and Dr Jaime Gama, the Foreign Minister, Dr Soares conveyed to me certain points of view that President Samora Machel had conveyed to him a short while before. What they amounted to was that the President considered that the time had come for South Africa and Mozambique to speak to one another and to come to an agreement with one another. Initially I gained the impression that President Machel himself had indicated that he and our hon Prime Minister could meet, if necessary, in order to come to an understanding between the two countries. I then returned and we decided to wait for a time. Initially we took no steps. In December 1983, however, General Jacinto Veloso sent me a telegram asking whether we could not meet again, and on 20 December we met in Swaziland. I do not believe that Colonel Oscar Monteiro will mind if I mention it here today, but within the first hour he launched a stinging attack on me and on South Africa. He said that we had always been on the side of the colonialists; we had never been on the side of Africa; we were applying an economic boycott against them by not making more use of their harbour and railway line. He asked me why I wanted a railway line built through Swaziland when they had a railway line. At the time they regarded our railway line through Swaziland as a way of cutting off the railway line through Komatipoort to Maputo.

Thereupon I, too, spoke for an hour. [Interjections.] I told him that what I did not like was the fact that he was totally ignorant of what was happening in South Africa and of our history.

†I told him that he was not going to tell me that I am not an African. I said that I was more an African than he was because he is of Indian origin—he is from Goa in India. I then explained to him the way in which members of this party and in general most Afrikaners celebrate and see the Day of the Covenant. I made that clear to him. I then asked him questions. I asked him whether he was aware of the fact that the Shangaans, living in the south of Mozambique, came from Shoshangane, a Zulu chief who broke away from the Zulu king. He was not aware of that. I then asked him whether he knew about Umzilikazi who murdered more than 2 million Tswanas according to the missionary Moffat. He was not aware of that. I then asked him to point out a single instance where my people had ever stolen land from someone. All the land we got, we got in terms of contracts or it was wasteland or vacant land.

*My people had never taken, stolen or conquered land from other people. We had never done so. I said to him that that was how we had acted. I asked him to reply to me on this score: Dr Jonas Savimbi and President Samora Machel had stayed together in Tanzania as blood brothers for a long time when they were fighting the Portuguese.

†I wanted to know who had changed, to what extent and why. How did they consider Unita at that stage? Who changed? Dr Savimbi is still fighting; he says for the same cause. I then wanted to know who made efforts to get some of the former Rhodesian leaders released from gaol. Mr Vorster did that. I took him throughout our whole history and the latest developments. I concluded by saying that it was quite clear to me that I was wasting my time in talking to them. The hon the Minister of Defence was sitting on my left and the hon the Minister of Law and Order on my right and I told them: Boys, let us go back to Pretoria, we have a lot of work to do and these guys can go back to Maputo; they can run to Moscow, London, Paris and Washington; they can do what they like at the United Nations—I have had enough of them.

That was a good diplomatic move. [Interjections.]

Well, it worked. General Veloso then said: Please, Mr Minister, may I address you? I said that he could not; they had their chance. He said that they could not go back to Maputo to report to the President what had happened there. I then told them that I first had to consult my colleagues. We had tea for ten minutes and I consulted my colleagues. When we came back I said that he could address me on the question of peace. His first words were: If we are prepared to reduce the ANC activities to zero, can we talk peace? I said that we could then talk peace. Now hon members know how it came about.

*This, unfortunately, bring me to the hon members for Soutpansberg and Brakpan. Sir, if you were here you will recall that the hon member for Soutpansberg, with the bitterness he has shown towards me personally since our university days, said that I had acted in contempt of this House because I, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, had said that I was not responsible for the release of detainees in this country or in South West. [Interjections.] No, the hon member must listen now. I did not once … [Interjections.]

Order!

I challenge any hon member to say that I made a single remark today when any of them were speaking. I did not do so. I call upon the hon members to treat me as I treated them—nothing more and nothing less. If not, I must regard him as a sleepwalker and not hold him responsible for his actions and his mutterings. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think the hon the Minister needs any help in making his speech. I therefore call upon all hon members to leave it to the hon the Minister to make his own speech.

Thank you, Sir. That is correct, I do not really need help.

The hon member voted in this House in favour of an Act in terms of which statutory powers were granted by this Parliament to the Administrator-General of South West, in terms of which he could make proclamations and legislation for South West Africa in his own right. Therefore, in respect of this particular matter, the jurisdiction of this Parliament was vested in him in terms of an Act which that hon member also voted for. The hon member now expects me to answer questions about a power which I do not have in terms of an Act of Parliament or any other measure. Then, when I bluntly tell him the truth and point out that this is a power vested in the Administrator-General of South West Africa—the hon member ought to know that, because he helped to give him that power—then I am acting “in contempt”. Can you imagine that? He does not even take the trouble to ascertain what the powers of the Administrator-General are. In South Africa these matters fall under the hon the Ministers of Justice and of Law and Order, and in South West Africa they fall within the jurisdiction of the Administrator-General. That was my reply, but according to him I am acting “in contempt”.

You do not appoint him.

Of course I do not appoint him. The hon the Prime Minister, the Government, appoints him. Why does the hon member not put the question to the Government? The hon member asked me questions about the release of detainees. The person who has that power is not I, but the Administrator-General, and only he. [Interjections.] Today the hon members shied away from the Nkomati Accord. The hon member for Brakpan quoted from an interview his leader conducted with Leadership SA, Vol 3, No 1, 1st Quarter 1984. I quote:

He is referring here to the Nkomati Accord. I have already indicated that this was the main purpose behind this accord. If one reads this accord, one will find that there is no other treaty in the world in which violence and the planning of violence is countered as drastically as in this same accord. In the course of this interview the hon member for Waterberg went on to say, and I quote:

He therefore approves of our establishing better relations with Mozambique. I quote further:

Right at the start of this treaty the following is stated:

I ask hon members: What are we to make of the hon member for Waterberg? They take it amiss of me when I ask them whether they have read this accord. The interview with the hon member for Waterberg in Leadership Y4 was, of course, conducted a few weeks before he hijacked Mr Jaap Marais’ policy. [Interjections.] When a frog swallows too many fireflies, the truth shines through, unfortunately, as it did the other evening in the Skilpad Hall. On 2 May the hon member for Waterberg made a statement. One should examine it and compare it with his interview in Leadership SA.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Rissik once said to me that his forefathers had been part of the Thirstland Trek. I think that the hon member is still trekking in the Thirstland. [Interjections.] Those hon members made a tremendous fuss about the fact that the hon the Prime Minister said in his speech at Nkomati: “Instead of dividing our energies and resources let us pool them.” I have before me a speech made by Mr Vorster in this House on 30 August 1974. Mr Vorster was supported by the hon members of the CP when he said that we should have to use their harbours and their railway lines. At that stage Cahora Bassa had not yet been completed and he said that it should be completed, becaue only we could buy the power, and that we had to buy it. So we have been pooling the resources for years, not only in respect of Mozambique. Every Black tractor driver in the Eastern Transvaal is pooling with the White farmers the resources of manpower. Of course that is so. Who could deny it? What else are the 40 000 Mozambicans working on our mines, unless those hon members do not understand ordinary Afrikaans, or know nothing of the economy? What do the railway lines of the SA Railways to Maputo—from which harbour oranges from the Eastern Transvaal are exported at a cheaper tariff than from any other harbour so that the products of those farmers can continue to compete with oranges from Israel and Argentinia—represent, if not pooling? Tell me that. When we, Swaziland and Mozambique jointly build a dam to prevent future droughts from hitting us so hard, what are we doing? We are pooling a water resource. However, there are people who only seek to cause harm, who only want to disparage South Africa and are only interested in short-term political gain. First they tried to hijack the Transvaal NP, but that was nipped in the bud. The hon the Prime Minister must forgive me, but I want to differ with him today. Recently he told the hon leader of the Conservative Party that he sympathized with him because he had to co-operate with Mr Jaap Marais. However, I sympathize with Mr Jaap Marais because he has to co-operate with the hon leader of the CP. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg said that his hon leader had asked a question about the Russian naval facilities at Ncala, and he wanted to know how this tallied with the Nkomati Agreement. In article 6 of the agreement, provision is specifically made for that. I specifically foresaw this because I was afraid that Mozambique might have certain treaties with Russia or other Eastern Bloc countries that might be in conflict with the Nkomati Accord. Accordingly I wanted to ensure that they could not use that right in terms of the accord against me to give the Nkomati Accord a lower status, by saying that it clashed with their other obligations. Article 6 was inserted for that specific purpose. It reads as follows:

In other words, commitments undertaken in this agreement cannot be rendered void by any other commitments. There is the answer, but those hon members do not read it. [Interjections.] If one wishes to slight another party or person and one is in a coma of resentment—a form of concussion—then one no longer reads, one no longer cares what one says and it no longer matters what one writes, as long as one thinks one is inflicting hurt.

You might as well just answer the question. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, it was the hon leader of the CP who said in the Skilpad Hall the other evening that certain people were suffering from an attack of the shakes. He is quivering and quaking at the moment; that is his problem. He must take his medicine now. The other evening it was the shakes (“bewerasie”) and now it is perspiration (“perspirasie”). He will have to take his medicine today. We have by no means finished speaking yet.

The hon member for Soutpansberg asked who the terrorists in Mozambique were. He also asked what our attitude was towards Unita and the MNR. There was a time, about 20 to 23 years ago, when the hon member for Soutpansberg regarded all the organizations fighting against the Portuguese as terrorists. I know that was his viewpoint, because he made speeches about it. He regarded those people who fought against the Portuguese government in Angola, as terrorists. One of those organizations was Unita and, the leader of Unita was Dr Savimbi. Therefore, let us speak to one another bluntly in this regard. It is a simple fact that nowadays, whether one is a terrorist or a freedom fighter depends to a great extent on which side of the fence one is on. [Interjections.] Let me admit it openly: From our point of view people are terrorists when they enter South Africa with the aim of blowing up South African lives and property by way of bombs and violence. Then they are terrorists, now and in the future. When they cease to do so, they are no longer terrorists, but when they start again, they are terrorists again. [Interjections.] Let us understand one another very clearly. I am not trying to conceal anything. This is a very simple and practical norm whereby to assess something. If they are prepared to stop their attacks, they are not terrorists; however, if they begin again, they are again terrorists and we act against them once again.

Have you told that to the generals?

They are in full agreement. The purpose of the SA Defence Force and the Police is not to attack people; it is to protect people. That is their object, but that hon member does not seem to understand it. The purpose is not to attack, but to protect. I hope that I have now made it clear.

*The hon member for Brakpan referred to joint steps to be taken to protect the Cahora Bassa powerline. It has been agreed that we may use the electrical power from Cahora Bassa, and is the cheapest power we can get. As far back as 1974 Mr Vorster said that we should obtain this power because it was the cheapest available. That electrical power represents 8% of out total power consumption, and according to the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, if my memory serves me, it will cost approximately R4 billion to R5 billion to build power stations capable of providing 8% of our total electrical power consumption, and that does not even include the water they would use. South Africa is now succeeding in having ANC activities in a different country. We are creating a joint international security commission to clamp down on ANC actions. This was essential to enable me to follow their trail if it was alleged that they entered through Maputo or Mozambique. However, the CP states that we may not do so. According to the CP we may not prevent the ANC from blowing up electricity pylons supplying power to South Africa. It is entirely possible that the ANC may infiltrate through those inhospitable areas without the knowledge of the Maputo government. Indeed, Maputo notified me that they had obtained information that the ANC and the resistance movement there were now beginning to team up, although I have not yet been able to confirm the information. I am not asking the CP now because it is pointless asking them anything, but I call upon South Africa to judge. South Africa has here entered into a contract to provide the people of the Northern and Eastern Transvaal with an efficient export harbour in an effort to ensure that they can export their oranges and other products more cheaply, because to convey products across the Drakensberg, which are about 1 500 metres high, requires energy and money. We are succeeding in achieving a tremendous psychological victory over the ANC. We are persuading Mozambique, that was initially unwilling to do so, to accept that we should have the right of access to Mozambique so as to combine with them in clamping down further on the ANC. We have succeeded in obtaining their consent to joint steps to protect the lines. Agreement has not yet been reached on the steps to be taken, however, but they will be discussed next Friday when the next meeting takes place in Maputo between Mozambique and our security people, the police, the Defence Force, the National Intelligence Service and the Department of Foreign Affairs. On that occasion we shall act in terms of the Cahora Bassa Agreement and we shall negotiate an agreement. However, no one in South Africa can say at this juncture what steps will be taken there, or how the various parties will act. There is no one here who can say whether we are going to send in helicopters or not. My own feeling, and that of the hon the Prime Minister, is that we shall not be able to do so because an arms embargo is in force against us at present, and it can hardly be expected of us that under those circumstances we should use helicopters that have to be maintained in embargo conditions. However, if Mozambique is prepared to request certain equipment and machine guns denied by us by the Americans, the British and the French, and if they can point out that they have an international agreement with us, that it is registered with the UN and that South Africa is unable to meet its international obligations unless we obtain helicopters, machine guns and equipment, who is opposed to the arms embargo being dented a little in this way? The CP is opposed to that! The CP is now officially on record as being opposed to attacks on the ANC. It is opposed to our power-lines being protected against terrorists and the ANC. It is opposed to our achieving a psychological victory. It is opposed to our farmers and industrialists obtaining cheaper, reliable power. It is opposed to us pooling water resources in order to combat droughts. It is opposed to our exporting products at the cheapest rates through Maputo harbour. That is now on record, and if the CP thinks that we are going to leave it at that, it is making the mistake of its life. Due to their bitterness, the CP have walked into this trap with their eyes open. I just hope that I have now stated that matter clearly. Just imagine: We have a Joint Security Commission on which senior members of our Defence and Police Force serve. Would they, in the course of joint action, permit espionage against us to take place? Could anything more ridiculous be imagined? Who could have dreamt that up? There are regular flights between Johannesburg and Maputo, but that is not dangerous. It is not dangerous that people sit in an aircraft looking at what they wish. The trains run and the passengers look at anything they want to. The farmers in the Eastern Transvaal employ hundreds of Shangaans from Mozambique. There are 40 000 of them working on our mines. However, when our Police, Defence Force and other security staff sit in the same vehicle with the people of another country, those people are going to overwhelm and invade us and finish us off. Oh no, really! One really gets to a stage when one begins to ignore the inanities of the CP.

Do that.

The reason I am unable to do so in this instance, is to be found inter alia in what appears in the latest edition of their little newspaper, Die Patriot of 8 May.

Do you read it?

Normally I don’t, but in this case it was brought to my attention. What is stated in that newspaper jeopardizes the country’s relationship with Mozambique, because an infamous lie is propounded in the newspaper. The title of the article is “P W gooi SA grense oop vir kommuniste”. I say that that statement is a lie. The question is also asked: “Who bought Machel with $40 000?” I want to quote the following from the article:

We are constantly being accused of running after the Americans. It is said that we are influenced by the Americans and that we act under their influence. It is untrue. However, when an American source writes something, the CP swallows it. When it suits them it is true and they swallow it. They accept it unconditionally and it is then a law of the Medes and the Persians as far as they are concerned. Anything that comes out of America must be right. It occurs to me to wonder who does in fact swallow America, and who does not. I requested our embassy in Washington to carry out some investigations in this regard. I had to do so, because our men are going to Maputo on Friday and they are going to hear about these things. It bedevils relations. I requested the embassy to provide me with information about this Centre for Strategic Investing, which is so sanctimoniously being put forward by the CP as their source in the USA. I should like to quote from the report sent to me by the embassy, as follows:

That is the Israeli Intelligence Service:

I then traced this Mr Brink. He says that he flatly denies it. He is a South African businessman. He said that when he saw this rubbish that this newspaper had swallowed hook, line and sinker, he wrote a letter to this centre in which he asked them to indicate their source of information, because Mr Brink could not accept this. When we telephoned the Centre for Strategic Investing, they used Mr Brink as their source. So they have no source whatsoever. However, Die Patriot arrogated to itself the right to publicize this in South Africa. It does not investigate its sources. It does not care what it does to this country. It does not care how it tries to damage us. It does not care what it does to its country’s Prime Minister, who is going through a challenging and demanding time internationally and who has displayed the leadership to bring about all these initiatives? What is this little newspaper implying by placing this report on the eve of the hon the Prime Minister’s visit to Europe? Who would bribe Machel? The Russians would certainly not bribe him, because they are angry with him. Who, then, would bribe him? An American source is good enough for the CP to swallow hook, line and sinker, as they say, merely to attack Mr Botha and his party in South Africa, to destroy and place them under suspicion in the outside world. [Interjections.]

The members of the CP have made a great fuss about Afrikanerdom. We on this side of the House have never said that we are the only, and most pious, Afrikaners. We have never tried to suggest that. However, I also wish to say to them, with all due respect, that if they think that they personify what is noble and fine in the Afrikaner, they are making a mistake. We do not boast that the Germanic blood flows in our veins makes us better than other people. There is Dutch blood, French blood, Swedish blood and even English blood in our veins. I also wish to say this: We do not light fuel, obtained from Mohammedan countries, with a torch to commemorate a thousand year Afrikaner Reich in imitation of Hitler. We do not believe in that. We do not believe in such thousand-year reichs. What is more, wo do not believe in insignia which look like the tracks of a chicken with misshapen claws. [Interjections.] I guarantee that we do not believe in that either. I want to say to them today: Afrikanerdom is deeper, higher, bigger and greater than what took place the other evening in Pretoria in the Skilpad Hall. If they do not want to accept my word for that, then they can test it throughout South Africa. If that is their Afrikanerhood, I want to say that I do not associate myself with it. Now the hon members of the CP have heard it said bluntly. Now they know where we stand. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the leader of the CP said that no monuments to traitors were erected in South Africa. I agree with him. That, of course, is quite correct. However, let us add that no monuments are erected in South Africa to people who turn around and run away. [Interjections.] I am not accusing anyone now, Mr Chairman. However, we can extend the list somewhat. [Interjections.]

In his book Die Siel van die Mier Eugène Marais gave a fascinating and impressive description of how the queen of an ant nation, an anthill, remained in touch, in a mystical, almost inexplicable way, with all the various factions in such an anthill—the workers, the soldiers, who have to fight when the crust of the anthill is broken, while the builders have to repair the damage; the food-seekers, who go far into the veld to collect food in the midst of great dangers that beset them, eg birds and insects that can eat them; and, of course, the canal-diggers that dig canals up to 50 feet deep to obtain water to build the nest with; as well as the ants whose task it is to attend to the queen, to deposit the eggs in their cells, and so on. Marais ascertained that the same ant took the same grain of sand out into the sun every morning in winter, in the afternoon, when the heat of the sun waned, carried it back to heat the nest. He marked the grains of sand with coloured paint and the back legs of each ant accordingly. In that way he as able to determine that the same ant carried precisely the same grain of sand every day. He then reached the conclusion that the queen of the ants was the soul of the ant. She exerted her influence and control over each individual ant in the colony. She bound them all together. She was the binding factor, and when she was killed, the entire nation of ants died. The entire anthill died. The workers in the field did not return from outside. The canal-diggers stopped working. The soldiers no longer repaired the walls of the anthill. The nestbuilders stopped building.

Accordingly, what I now wish to ask my fellow Afrikaners in the CP, in all sincerity and in all seriousness, is this. What is the soul of the Afrikaner people? It consists of a variety of elements. What I am saying now, I do not say in order to disparage hon members of the CP or to accuse them of anything. What I say applies also to me and to every other Afrikaner. Have we reached consensus on the basic elements comprising the soul of the Afrikaner people? That is my first question.

If we have not reached that consensus, then let us speak about the. Afrikaner with greater humility and piety. Let this be our attitude if we are not in agreement on this question. I also wish to make the statement that we must not allow the constituent elements of the soul of the Afrikaner to be killed. We must remain true to ourselves so that we may continue to exist. If we are untrue to the deepest norms that have given life to us, we shall be destroyed. Then we shall not need the UN to try to do it. We shall not need any enemies. We shall not need any ANC either. Nor shall we need sanctions, or even Cubans or Russians. We would then destroy ourselves, and we would die as the anthill dies when the soul, the queen is destroyed.

It is part of the soul of the Afrikaner that he must remain true to himself and to the norms that formed him, norms such as his sense of religious freedom, his general sense of freedom, his sense of fairness. Some of our people fled because they no longer had the right to belong to the church they wanted to belong to, or to worship where they wanted to worship. That is true.

We came to the Cape, and from here we trekked northwards. However, we established for ourselves a basis of fairness that we adhered to at all times because we wanted to be true to our faith and our own norms and standards, to our sense of fairness, and to the maintenance thereof. Throughout, however, we insisted that we would act fairly, that we would not be conquerers, that we would not act towards others in an unchristian or uncivilized way or show a lack of understanding in our dealings with others. The Afrikaner, just like the English-speaking person—there is a great deal we have in common—possesses all these qualities, and for more. I am now speaking about what is spiritually noble and uplifting. I am speaking about what Paul Kruger referred to as that which was noble and fine in our past, on which we had to build our future. By that, of course, he was implying that there were also a few things in the life of a people that were not so fine and not so elevated. Those things, he said by implication, we should reject.

My plea here today, is therefore, that we should seek for what is noble in ourselves. Let us seek those uplifting and inspiring elements that comprise the soul of the Afrikaner people. Then I wish to respectfully suggest to the CP that they will certainly find that it is not part of that soul to carry on as some of the associated organizations did the other evening in the Skilpad Hall. They must concede that point. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sea Point, quite rightly, asked questions about South West Africa. However, before discussing South West Africa, I first just wish to refer to something else. Hon members are aware that our relations with Swaziland are very good. The hon member for Sea Point also mentioned this. I thank him for his remarks in that regard.

It must be said that our good relations with Swaziland did not come about overnight. Both countries have been working on them for a long time, and I wish to pay tribute today to the late King Sobhuza the Second, who, throughout his life, believed in dialogue and did a great deal to promote discussions with us. Accordingly, a short time ago we were able to make known the treaty we concluded with him two years ago, and I might just mention that we are expecting a very important Swazi mission in Cape Town tomorrow comprising three senior members of their Supreme Council of State, their Prime Minister and about ten of their other Ministers. They will be the guests of the hon the Prime Minister and the South African Government in Cape Town tomorrow afternoon. I wish to extend a cordial welcome to them in advance. I shall not be there to meet them personally, but we shall conduct discussions with them on Friday, together with several Ministers of the South African Government, relating to a wide range of subjects such as agriculture, transport, power supply, security matters, education, training, water supply, water conservation, health services, preventive health services, etc. As far as our relations with Zimbabwe are concerned, the hon member for Sea Point said—and I think I understood him correctly—that relations were not satisfactory. He is right. I should like to see them improved. I should prefer not to say anything at this point about what I regard as Zimbabwe’s shortcomings, because then they, in turn, will state what they regard as our shortcomings, and that would simply sour the atmosphere. I want to give the hon member the assurance that this is important to us. In fact, in essence the relations between us are realistic. Trade flows freely and there are South African companies that are again beginning to tender for contracts in Zimbabwe. We are not opposed to that. We still have an office in Zimbabwe, a large office at which there is also a commercial representative, a person from my department. He has access to Zimbabwe’s official offices. I should prefer to say nothing more at this state, but I do not think that one can force the pace as far as improved relations are concerned. The reason I am not really geared to concluding a security agreement with Zimbabwe is the fact that Zimbabwe has consistently stated that they will not permit terrorists to act against South Africa. On the one or two occasions that we have arrested people that have come in through Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe has given its co-operation in ascertaining the fact together with us. We and they ascertained the facts together and this yielded good results. I should prefer to say nothing more about that. Moreover, Mr Mugabe welcomed the Nkomati agreement and expressed the hope that this would lead to more stability and a greater understanding for one another. As far as Botswana is concerned, I am in contact with my opposite number there. Botswana is not very happy about South Africa’s request that we, too, conclude satisfactory security arrangements, because it is their standpoint that Mozambique made war against us whereas they did not, and they do not understand why we want a security agreement. Recently there was an incident involving terrorists passing right through Botswana to South West Africa. Botswana then had the decency to invite our police to join their police in ascertaining whether that trail was the trail of terrorists. We then caught one or two of the terrorists, and their police and ours then retraced the trail of that terrorist to where they entered. We saw all the places where they had made fires and the biscuit containers and beer cans they had left. Their police then admitted that those people had indeed travelled through Botswana. We are at present negotiating with Botswana, not in order to conclude a Nkomati Accord or a non-aggression treaty, but to negotiate about satisfactory, practical arrangements between the security forces which will prevent anyone from either South Africa or Botswana planning or carrying out any violent or terrorist act against the other. I am hopeful that we shall achieve something in this regard. As far as Lesotho is concerned discussions will, I hope, take place tomorrow between their security people and officials of their Department of Foreign Affairs as well as our people in order to discuss this matter further. I must admit that our relations with Lesotho have been cool recently, due inter alia to remarks made by Mr Jonathan from time to time. We react to them and then he, in turn, makes a fuss. It seems to me that one simply has to learn to separate the emotional rhetoric of some leaders from the substance. That is the advice Pres Kaunda gave me the other day. This is not always easy because sometimes, if one does not react to what one regards as rhetoric, then that, too, is taken amiss of one. The fact of the matter is that in my negotiations I have adopted one standpoint and that is that I have spoken frankly, bluntly, even if it has sometimes inflicted hurt. They, too, have spoken just as frankly. My argument is that these people think that we think in a certain way and that we maintain certain points of view. If I say something to him which is not in line with what he thinks I think, then he will not believe me. Therefore one has to state bluntly what one thinks, and that is usually what he had thought you were thinking, and then he believes you. Then one has credibility. This has contributed considerably to the success we have achieved, even though it sometimes gives rise to emotional clashes.

The hon member for Sea Point expressed his concern about the South West/Namibia situation. He is quite right. The Government too, is deeply concerned. It is true that we may make progress at Lusaka with the agreement on disengagement—and the joint monitoring commission. The Angolan component is already very close to the border. We are at the final station, the last point before the border, namely Ongiwa, as far as I know. The following move will probably be to Oshikango on the border. My problem, in all honesty, is this: What then? The other day, when I was there, I said as much to Pres Kaunda.

†It will be a great tragedy if we successfully implement this disengagement process and then cannot manage the success which we have achieved. That is a problem. My last agreement with Mr Kito Roderiquez of Luanda was that when the Joint Monitoring Commission reaches Oshikango on the border, the two of us will meet again. That is as far as we could agree.

*I do not know what is going to happen at the next meeting. The hon member is correct. I do not know what is going to happen over the next seven weeks, because what makes the whole South West African situation so much more conplex than the Mozambican situation is the foilwing: In the theatre of South West and Angola one has UN interference. One has far more direct Russian investment and interests vested there than in the case of Mozambique. There are approximately 30 000 Cuban troops. Then, too, there is the Unita movement which regards itself as a just movement and is conducting an armed struggle against the MPLA. I cannot mention their names, because I should embarrass them by doing so, but certain African leaders have discussed the matter with me.

†This is what they told me. They do consider the position in Angola totally differently from the position in Mozambique. In the case of Mozambique power was handed over by the Portuguese to one organization, Frelimo. Whether one likes it or not, the fact is that at least in terms of international law that power was transferred to Frelimo. Frelimo was then generally recognized. Frelimo was even recognized by us.

In 1976 Dr Connie Mulder, a former Minister and now a member of the CP, explained to Parliament that it was proper that we should have recognized the Frelimo Government at the earliest possible stage. He defended that recognition in Parliament on 27 January 1976. It is ironical. The hon member for Sea Point attacked the Government at that time for having interfered at Calueque on the Cunene river in Ovambo to protect the water and the pumps of that hydro-electric project. Dr Connie Mulder then responded to the hon member for Sea Point and other opposition members. Dr Connie Mulder then said: But can you not understand? If they threatened the water supplies of the Ovambo, even if it should happen in another country, we have to go in to protect those supplies. That was his response to the hon member for Sea Point. He said that we had to go in to protect the water for the Ovambos even in another country and even without an agreement. That was the attitude of somebody who now is a member of the CP but who at that stage was a Minister of this Government. That was his attitude when the Government was attacked by members of the Opposition. I mention this just by the way. It is indeed ironical. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that in the case of Angola we are confronted with far greater complexities, and I think the hon member will concede that. I am not arguing with the hon member, and I agree with him to a large extent except that South Africa should not interfere in Angola. The Angolans told us that the situation vis-à-vis Unita is an internal affair and that they would settle it themselves. We agree with that.

The other complicating factor is that we have evidence that within the ranks of Swapo there are factions who would like to wreck the Lusaka Agreement. Although I do not want to be that definite so as to embarrass the Luanda Government, I believe that they also believe this is the case. There are, in other words, elements in the ranks of Swapo who would like to wreck an agreement between Luanda and Pretoria. We are therefore all confronted with a very difficult and unpredictable situation.

There were 22 violations of the Lusaka Agreement, but despite these violations the two components of the two countries found it possible to agree to move southwards. We agree that should there be evidence of Swapo presence north of the line of an area which we vacated, the Joint Monitoring Commission can operate. I will personally propose to Angola at our next meeting that whatever we do, we should prolong the existence of this Joint Monitoring Commission. It has become a very useful tool as a means of communication between us and Luanda and a very useful mechanism to build mutual trust in each other’s motives and intentions.

The meeting between the parties of the MPC and Swapo in Lusaka which President Kaunda has kindly consented to host next Friday—touch wood—has nothing to do with the South African Government as such. The South African Government’s viewpoint is that the peoples of South West Africa/Namibia should decide their own political future. That has been the attitude since the time of Dr Verwoerd and even before him. South West Africa is not part of South Africa and we cannot prescribe to the people of that territory. The Multi-Party Conference—the hon member for Sea Point referred to this— issued a so-called “declaration of basic principles” on 24 February. The National Party of South West Africa is also member of this conference. I quote from this declaration:

Mr Kosie Pretorius, leader of the NP in South West Africa—the hon the Prime Minister quoted him in a debate recently—appealed to South African political parties not to interfere in the internal affairs of South West Africa. Here it is. It is their decision. They are going to Lusaka. The hon member is quite right—I can say it now—that if the internal parties of the territory and Swapo can come to an agreement, whether the South African Government likes it or not, we are bound by a commitment on the part of Prime Minister upon Prime Minister that the people of South West Africa and their leaders will decide their future. This Government, and no other Government following us, can renege on it. It is therefore totally irresponsible for the hon member for Waterberg to say that his party rejects Resolution 435. Who gives him the right to reject it? Who gives him the right to reject a resolution intended for a country which was never part of his own?

*What is worse, the hon the Prime Minister himself explained here how, on 19 and 20 January 1982, every Minister in the Cabinet had the opportunity to express his opinion about the constitutional principles based on and arising out of Resolution 435. I have the letters here, if anyone questions it. Every Cabinet Minister received a letter from me on 11 November and 21 December 1981. I have proof that the hon member for Waterberg received his letter, because everyone’s office had to sign for it. This time there can be no somersaulting.

Just repeat what happened in the Cabinet.

Every member of the Cabinet was opposed to it. I have before me a copy of the letter I wrote to General Haig on 20 January 1982 in which I expressed my sentiments—in stronger language than that of the hon member—and in which I indicated that I was not happy about the way in which minority groups would be treated. The hon member for Waterberg said that he was not happy about that either. Indeed, there was not a single Minister who was not unhappy about it. The hon the Prime Minister was the most unhappy. As far back as 1978 the two of us held a long discussion, under the chairmanship of Mr Vorster, and the hon the Prime Minister was resolutely opposed to it. He and I clashed violently about this in the Cabinet—I can say it now— but eventually he said that he would abide by it although he did not like it. Subsequently, after he had become Prime Minister, he did not throw Resolution 435 out of the window and say that he washed his hands of it.

What is not always realized is that one is not concerned here with internal politics, but with South Africa’s international honour and integrity. When General Smuts joined the UN and signed the Charter and the NP subsequently came to power, they did say that there were certain elements of the Charter that they did not like, but Dr Malan accepted it, sent Mr Dönges there and took part. If one does not meet one’s international obligations one becomes a banana republic, one loses integrity, credibility and everything that makes a state a worthy subject of international law. Of course one cannot argue as the hon member for Waterberg does. Not only did the hon member for Waterberg participate fully in the discussion in the Cabinet; he expressly approved this. I contend that he approved the letter to General Haig. I read it out in the Cabinet. I call all my colleagues in the Cabinet to witness. I also call the caucus of the NP to witness that when Resolution 435 was accepted, it was put to the party caucus and agreed to. Now, however, for the first time, now that he and Mr Jaap Marais have come to an agreement with a view to the election, he rejects Resolution 435. [Interjections.] This country must take cognizance of the reckless way in which the hon leader of the CP wants to steer South Africa in international waters. Why did he not at the time stand up and refuse, like a man? He knew what his duty was if he could not come to terms with it. He agreed to it and lived with it, and last year, in this debate, he admitted that he agreed with it. Now, however, when he has had to hijack HNP policy, he does not care what happens to South Africa’s international relations. What does he think the world must think of us? What does he think the world must think of an Opposition leader who served in the Cabinet and agreed to an international commitment, and subsequently said that he rejected it? This is a case of an international commitment, and not merely an internal matter in regard to which expedient political tricks can be played. Mr Vorster gave this undertaking to the world in writing, but now the hon member states that he rejects it. He had a part in its creation and he also had a part our giving an international undertaking. Now he comes here and recklessly rejects it, merely in order to obtain a few votes from the HNP. The country can judge that for itself. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to South West Africa.

Mr Chairman, the issue of South West Africa is a source of constant concern to me. I do not know what is going to happen there. I do not know whether Swapo is again going to infiltrate in greater numbers. I must say this very clearly here this evening, and it is no threat: If Swapo persists, and crosses the border in larger numbers, there is no alternative—we cannot deviate from this standpoint—and this is that the South African and South West African security forces will again have to take appropriate action to prevent them. I can only hope that next Friday’s meeting in Lusaka will lead to something, although everything cannot be solved on Friday, of course. They must find a solution among themselves, because after all, it is their country and their future. I have already said that one South African Government after another has adopted that standpoint, viz that it is their country and they must therefore decide.

It is true that South West Africa is costing us vast sums of money, money we should certainly have liked to spend in South Africa, specifically on the creation of job opportunities, on new infrastructure and on water conservation. There are dams in South Africa that cannot be used because canals have not been built or because the irrigation land is not yet available. The old saying goes: “Charity begins at home”, and I agree with that. I only hope that that principle will be adhered to.

South West Africa does not even have a population of 1 million, but its budget is at present bigger than that of Zambia, with a population of 6 million. The SA Transport Services, for example, suffers losses of R90 million per annum and R250 million is voted for South West Africa from the customs pool, when in fact they should only receive R50 million. The other R200 million we simply take from our part of the customs pool and therefore we get so much less. Apart from this there is budget assistance of R300 million as well as loans amounting to hundreds of millions that our Government has to guarantee. However, we do not hold this against the people or their leaders. Earlier this year the hon the Prime Minister explained in this House what his standpoint was, viz—he did not say he would—if it were ever to happen that he had to choose between the interests of the Republic of South Africa and those of South West Africa, he would have no alternative but to choose the interests of the Republic of South Africa.

As far as Swapo is concerned—let me say this bluntly, without mincing my words: As long as Swapo continues to detonate bombs in South West Africa they are terrorists, and they will be shot down, followed, opposed and, as far as possible, eradicated. [Interjections.] I want that to be clear. However, Swapo is also a political party in South West Africa. I do not like them. But at the time Mr Vorster said that any political party or politician who wished to take part peacefully in politics in South West Africa had the right to do so. Moreover, it is my personal opinion that it was in that spirit that the Multiparty Conference requested Dr Van Niekerk to request the Minister of Justice to transfer the Swapo members on Robben Island to Windhoek. It seems to me that it was also as a result of the representations of the MPC to the Administrator-General that he released these prisoners. Those are the facts.

However, the Government will not stand in the way of an agreement between Swapo and the internal parties. If they want to come together to form a government of national unity, they may do so, because it is their country and it is their right to do so. Then I shall have an entity with which I can negotiate on our railways, on our trains, on the loans, the presence of our troops in South West Africa, our police, our officials, the farmers’ right to their land and respect for ownership. Then we shall also be able to prevent the occurrence of a ten years’ delay before realistic relations are established, as was the case with Maputo. There it took ten years before the disadvantages of hostility and badneighbourliness penetrated to them. It took ten years, until people began to die of hunger in their tens of thousands, and South Africa and Maputo were virtually on the brink of large-scale conflict and war. I sincerely hope that it will not take ten years for the internal parties of South West Africa, including Swapo, to find out that South Africa is not an aggressive neighbour, but a friendly neighbour that wishes to help and will help. However, at the same time they must recognize that we are also a regional power in Africa, and that we have our interests here too. We do not want foreign troops in our part of the world. They must go, whatever country they may come from. We must solve our own problems. The thing that struck me most forcibly was when President Machel said to our Prime Minister in the saloon of the White Train: “We Africans in Southern Africa must resolve our own problems, without outside interference.” That was a tremendous step forward.

I agree that nothing is impossible. Nothing is impossible where there is a will to turn one’s back on the past and wipe out old grudges and prejudices. If we all devote ourselves to promoting the prosperity of our people and strive to ensure a place for all in this beautiful southern land of ours, we shall succeed. We have done tremendously well. We have the capacity to do it. When I visited Europe last year, I hoped that it was the last time I would visit Europe. All I really wanted to go and tell them was that if they thought they were doing me a big favour by receiving me there, they were making a mistake. Let me say it frankly. They are not doing me a favour. I am not badly in need of going to Europe, nor is the Prime Minister. However, there are mutual interests, there are things they do which I do not like. I do not like the invisible tariff walls that European countries are building around themselves. I do not like the high subsidies they pay for milk, cheese and butter which are then, in point of fact, recovered by way of the high prices of their manufactured products that we buy from them, while they set low prices for the products of Africa. I went to speak there on behalf of Africa. I went to fight for higher copper prices, higher mineral prices, higher prices for coffee, tea and rubber. However, Europeans have now formed a cartel once again. If they think that they can continue to get away with abusing South Africa, they are making a mistake. There are Black leaders who have said to me: “People in Europe will not bluff us any more. They think that by shouting at South Africa and accusing South Africa of apartheid, they will fill our stomachs, but they do not”.

Governments in Europe are also guilty of siding with the neo-colonialists. There are certain Black colonialists in Africa today. When these Black colonialists abuse us, the Europeans are afraid to oppose them, and these people then get away with murder. They steal their own people’s money, they place it in bank accounts in Switzerland, and they refuse to attend to the development of their countries, and to clinics, hospitals, food products and the eradication of diseases in their countries. They steal their own people’s money. And then they are supposedly concerned about their Black brothers in South Africa, whilst they are stealing millions from their own people, which they could rather have spent on the improvement of conditions in their own countries. Am I to respect that? No, I do not respect it. However, there are also African leaders who do their best, and we must not generalize. There are African leaders who want to do their best and in those instances we must support one another. South Africa cannot save the whole of Africa, but I contend that if the countries south of the Zambesi, and perhaps a little further north than that, show mutual understanding for one another, a great deal of progress can be made. After all, South Africa has 45 000 km of tarred roads and 35 000 km of railway line, 14 000 km of which are electrified. There are three and a half million motor cars in this country, representing approximately 40% of the motor cars in the whole of Africa, whereas we comprise only 4% of its surface area, and only 6% of its people live here. We use approximately 40% of all the cement produced in Africa, while until recently we conveyed approximately 63% of all rail cargo in Africa. This figure has now dropped, during the economic recession. We also have far and away the most tractors in Africa. Every important factor of economic life and every important facet of infrastructure is available to us in South Africa, and that is not to speak of the field of health. It was not by coincidence that the first human heart was transplanted in Groote Schuur Hospital. Nor was it coincidence that the first nuclear power station on the continent of Africa is in South Africa. Our farmers have continued to do well in conditions of the most extreme drought, and they are still holding out. We have a diversified economy which can help us to get by. We can import maize and pay for it, even though it is sometimes such poor quality maize. However, we can pay, we can import and we get by. There are very few of our voters who can complain that they do not eat well. The South African diet is the most protein-rich in the world. We also have 2 500 White schools and 259 000 White students at universities, technikons and educational training colleges, the highest number of students per capita in the world. We also have 600 hospitals with 109 000 beds for patients. Escom has built 110 000 km of powerlines in this country, whilst there are 20 million kilometres of telephone lines, including main-line communications and microwave communications in South Africa. We have refined the technology involved in manufacturing fuel from coal to such an extent that even the Americans are interested, and I understand that the Russians, too, have shown an interest. We build roads and bridges as efficiently as any other country. We train doctors, farmers and technicians as efficiently in this country as in any other country in the world. We do not yet go to the moon or to Jupiter, but basically we have the resources, the people and the technology to become far stronger and to grow further. I also believe that we have the willpower. I believe that there is a sufficient number of moderate leaders in Southern Africa who know that there can no longer be a winner in a conflict among the peoples of Southern Africa.

†I said to leaders of Angola the other day that, if we allow conflict to escalate, not only will Southern Africa be destroyed. The destruction will go further afield. I believe that the reality of this has trickled through and that there is now emerging a pattern of consensus amongst the leaders of Southern Africa—Black, White, Brown and Indian—that conflict is going to destroy all of us and that co-operation and understanding will not only save us but will also lead us to the hopeful future which this land of hope has always promised us.

Mr Chairman, it is an exceptional privilege for me to speak after the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who made a very interesting speech. I want to thank him most sincerely for his very clear standpoints. He mentioned that the ANC had been confounded. I am of the opinion that other organizations have also been confounded this evening. In certain respects there was a massacre this evening. Certain people were given bloody noses. I want to thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for the perspective he gave and for the confidence he inspired. It is clear to one and all that as far as the diplomatic front and foreign affairs are concerned, South Africa is in good hands. We want to thank him most sincerely for the assurance he gave us. We also want to thank him for the assurance he gave that violence would not be tolerated in South West Africa. I should like to thank the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the department most sincerely on behalf of my constituency, Walvis Bay, for the mammoth task they are performing on behalf of South Africa and the unbelievable successes they have already achieved, all in the interests of South Africa and its people. I should like to take this opportunity to wish the hon the Prime Minister and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs every success on their impending overseas tour.

The word “Nkomati” has flashed around the globe and has astounded and amazed friend and foe. We know that the road ahead, particularly with regard to South West Africa, is strewn with pitfalls and that the negotiations in this connection are delicate, but we hope that they will succeed. If South Africa succeeds, it will be the first time anywhere in the world that communism has been halted in this way. The hon the Minister and his department are building tunnels, tunnels to other states and tunnels to the hardened hearts of people. In Angola the hard diplomacy of the Defence Force is slowly making way for the soft diplomacy of foreign affairs. The Defence Force actions made negotiations possible. That is why it is fit and proper that these two departments are now holding joint discussions with Angola.

This brings hope and expectations to that hard-pressed country, South West Africa. The disruption caused by war and violence has taken its toll, and we hope and pray with the people of South West Africa that their Nkomati will come soon. The silent majority in South West Africa never have an opportunity to express their thanks. For that reason I should like to take the liberty to express thanks on their behalf for the unselfish help and assistance given by South Africa over many years. I want to give you the assurance that this is appreciated in South West Africa.

The shared destiny of South West Africa and Walvis Bay, the tiny island in South West Africa, is an absolute fact. The weal and woe of South West Africa laps around us. South West Africa is Walvis Bay’s hinterland. Walvis Bay also realizes the importance of good relations with its neighbours, the importance of strong trade links, the importance of the joint utilization of common resources and the value of peaceful co-existence and of “live and let live.” For that reason we have greater understanding, greater fellow-feeling, greater sympathy and greater compassion for our own people in South West Africa. It is therefore extremely important to Walvis Bay that a friendly Government should be established in South West Africa.

Mr Chairman, before business was interrupted, I was referring to Walvis Bay. I now want to resume my speech by stating the standpoint that it is the declared policy of the South African Government, after independence, to negotiate with the future Government of South West Africa on the use of the Walvis Bay harbour and other facilities.

Walvis Bay has various important links with South West Africa, which in my opinion should receive urgent attention at this early stage. We are thinking, for example, of the labour force, which comes exclusively from South West Africa. We are also thinking of the problems arising out of the uncontrolled influx of work-seekers. Then there are also the residents of Walvis Bay who work in the territory of South West Africa on a commuter basis. We are also thinking of the supply of power to Walvis Bay, the joint utilization of water resources, and particularly of the fishing industry, which is the most important pillar on which the economy of Walvis Bay rests. Under normal circumstances, 90% of all the catches for the fish processing factories in Walvis Bay are made in the territorial waters of South West Africa. This year things were different, however, and a large quantity of the pilchards were caught in the immediate vicinity of Walvis Bay. Be that as it may, the licences of those factories expire at the end of 1985. It is therefore of the utmost importance to us that attention be given to this matter now. We feel that the renewal of those licences should really receive priority treatment.

I know that this matter falls under the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. The Department of Foreign Affairs, however, has a very important role to play in this regard. We therefore want to ask that the three interest groups, viz the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Sea Fisheries of South West Africa, should hold discussions on this matter at the earliest possible opportunity in order to reach finality on the extension of the period of validity of those licences. I want to emphasize that this matter is of the utmost importance to Walvis Bay because we are dealing here with the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is therefore of decisive importance to the economy of Walvis Bay.

It is equally important to South West Africa that this common resource should be effectively utilized. At the same time I also want to make an appeal for better control over foreign vessels. Once again I want to ask the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to give attention to this problem.

There is a specific agreement in this connection. It is, however, well known—this is, after all, proved day after day—that three countries in particular, viz Poland, Russia and Rumania, do not abide by the provisions of the Icseaf at all. Past experience has taught us that only the presence of the South African Navy can discipline those poeople. Of course it is not necessary to fire on them or to declare war on them. The mere presence of a vessel of the South African Navy will keep those people out of our territorial waters because none of them can afford to be taken into custody.

I also want to ask for a forum for discussions between Walvis Bay and the government of South West Africa—the office of the Administrator General—in order to deal with matters of common interest and problems at an early stage. This could be done at departmental level. I feel, however, that it is really necessary to do so at an early stage because at this stage there is no liaison between Walvis Bay and the office of the Administrator General.

In view of the abovementioned liaison problems, I want to suggest that the hon the Minister consider opening a regional office of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Walvis Bay.

I should also like to refer to radio and television broadcasts to Walvis Bay. I am extremely grateful to be able to announce that direct FM broadcasts are already being received in Walvis Bay. As far as television is concerned, we are still receiving broadcasts from Windhoek, however. Originally the arrangement was that a cassette service would be established in Walvis Bay, which could be televised from the microwave tower of the Post Office. After negotiations between the hon the Minister and the Administration of South West Africa, it was decided to televise the cassette service from Windhoek. As a result we in Walvis Bay are still receiving our medium from South West Africa. We prefer our own, however, and would therefore greatly appreciate it if the hon the Minister could reconsider this matter.

Up to now the hon the Minister has taken care of the interests of South Africa with great success, and we know that he will take care of the interests of the small Hong Kong of South Africa with an equal degree of success. Talking about Hong Kong, we hope that the hon the Minister will also support Walvis Bay in its long-continued efforts to establish free trading zones in Walvis Bay. This would mean a very great deal to Walvis Bay and South West Africa. It would make the harbour a hive of activity again, it would bring foreign exchange into circulation and it would stabilize imports and exports. We really hope that the hon the Minister will assist us in this effort because we have been making desperate efforts during the past four or five years, but we have not yet succeeded in knocking on the right door.

In the final minute at my disposal I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon Mr A du Plessis and his wife. They have now left South West Africa permanently to settle at Hartebeesfontein in the Transvaal. He was the architect of South West Africa. In 1948 he became the first MLA of South West Africa. In 1950 he became an MEC and in 1960, MP for Windhoek. In 1970 he was appointed Deputy Minister of Finance, and in 1972 Minister of Community Development and of Public Works. In 1975, at the request of the NP executive committee of South West Africa, he resigned to participate in the constitutional conference. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Walvis Bay has raised a series of local matters and I do not want to follow him in that respect. I am just surprised that he did not ask for a railway line from Botswana to Walvis Bay as well. In this climate of detente that is something he could possibly have requested.

†Mr Chairman, the objective of any foreign policy—our own as well—is to promote a country’s interest and, in our case, particularly that of our own country. In that sense the past few months have shown that whenever national interest and ideological commitment clash, national interest is the stronger. Fortunately for us, the national interests of South Africa, Mozambique and Portugal, and the general interests of the West, have coincided over the past six to eight months to produce important diplomatic breaksthrough. The total onslaught nonsense and the myth of an iron ring of Soviet-controlled Marxist states have been discarded, and not a moment too soon. Sadly, we are still left with the Frankenstein of the MNR’s terrorism, and it will always be a shameful blot on the record of the Government that calls itself Christian that it acted as godfather to this monster when it was orphaned on the demise of Mr Ian Smith’s Government which conceived this violent offspring.

The exciting and constructive developments of the past few months have taken us back, in diplomatic terms, to where South Africa was 10 years ago. At that stage the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had made his statement at the UN on 24 October, namely: “And we shall do everything in our power to move away from discrimination based on race or colour.” Mr Vorster’s speech in the Senate in Cape Town on 23 October 1974 was responded to in a speech by President Kaunda at the University of Zambia on 26 October of the same year. Then, on 5 November, Mr Vorster said at Nigel: “You will be surprised to see where South Africa is within six months and within 12 months.” Then came 1975, Angola and the lobbying of the OAU. This was perhaps the height of detente. However, all that progress was destroyed when we invaded Angola because the OAU reacted strongly and the Cubans were brought in to back the MPLA. It has taken us 10 years to recover from that ill-considered invasion, and regrettably we still have a Cuban army in our sub-continent.

It has been cheering to see that the theme of all the Government speakers has been that the road to international recognition starts in Africa, and our party has always held that view and we applied it practically in visits over the last 10 years to most of the capitals of Central, West and East Africa. We can have a useful debate once we have agreed on that aspect. Our foreign policy objective must remain acceptance in important African capitals, and the first prize must be membership of the OAU. I believe that it is vital that we define our foreign policy in the light of our seeking OAU membership and our recognition that we are an African state and that we want to be recognized as such.

The most comprehensive statement from the OAU remains the Lusaka Manifesto drawn up in April 1969. It is still supported by the OAU and it was referred to in what I consider as one of the most important statements which was the final communiqué by the six frontline presidents on 1 May. The Lusaka Manifesto says a number of things, and I want to quote some of them. In section 7 it says:

Here they refer to South Africa:

In section 8 it says:

In section 3 it says:

It goes on to say in section 4:

The Lusaka Manifesto says that if there was a commitment to the principles which the hon the Minister enunciated in the UN 10 years ago:

Section 21 says:

Here reference is made to the South African Government:

That is the crunch issue. The hon the Prime Minister reminded us to be proud of the fact that we are the powerful economic country that we are, but if in the 1950s Adv Strijdom, when he was Prime Minister, had opened the CSIR to allow the Blacks of Africa to come to be trained here in the technology of which we are all rightly proud and which we have in this country, we would have taken our place as leaders in Africa. That is the issue. We have to get to this question of the humanity of the Black man. We must understand that he is a person and that he is to be treated just the same as you, Sir, and me. That is the real issue.

What else does the Lusaka Manifesto say? Let me quote:

The OAU still stands by that Lusaka Manifesto, and I believe that those are the words of realists. To me the most exciting thing about the Nkomati Accord—the hon the Minister mentioned it briefly—is the acknowledgement that we are an African state, that we are White Africans, that we have a future in this country and that we are not a colonial power. That Nkomati Accord, particularly in view of the understanding reflected by the six frontline states, I believe is the most significant breakthrough that we have made. If we are to look towards the OAU, I believe we need to understand that we are part of Africa and that we should follow their foreign policies in general—not that one can always generalize about OAU members—when we define our policy. If we are to lead in Africa, and certainly in the subcontinent, and provided we can dismantle apartheid and give citizenship to all our people, we must pursue a policy which I would like to call “semi-alignment”. Our self-interest as a state is served by being associated with the West and identified with Africa. Simultaneously we should seek wider contact and more particularly with countries which are not necessarily aligned to the West. We could for example start with Rumania and Hungary. The most helpful foreign policy model which I can think of is perhaps that of Finland. Finland has been able to prosper through a determined commitment to national interest and although has remained in the Western orbit it has somehow been able to live with the Russian bear and to prosper despite that. I believe this is the kind of style we should copy in our foreign policy.

Mr Chairman, I do not think I want to follow the Alice in Wonderland speech … [Interjections.] … of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. That kind of nineteenth century liberal paternalism is just as outdated as all the other nonsense we have seen in the run-up to our history over the past 10 years. What is true in what he said is that Western interests, African interests and our interests now coincide in many respects. That is what makes this movement of history so exciting. It is properly founded in historical fact and in African reality, and for that reason it is a real turning point in history and much that will happen in African history will depend on our skill, enthusiasm and willingness to accept the challenges. However, African history will never be the same again.

The euphoric party that followed upon the independence of Ghana in 1957 is over. I want to give the House a few brief quotes which will demonstrate what I say. The first quote is from a speech by Congressman Philip Crane in Washington which appeared in The Argus of 8 May. He said:

I would also like to quote from Time of 16 January 1984, under the heading “A Continent gone wrong” This was a landmark article:

The third article from Tunis from which I want to quote appeared in The Argus of yesterday:

The commission continued:

I refer to this because this retrogression in our part of the world cannot continue. What we are seeing in our part of the world is an Africa which is drawing back from this abyss of chaos and despair. There are voices being raised in this part of the world which state essentially that the cycle of violence must be broken. We must not allow the recent history of Africa to be compounded in this part of the world. The significant thing also is new in the whole situation is that Africans overtly, openly and with goodwill are talking to each other instead of shouting at each other through third parties. I believe Africans do not want to lose their hard-won independence—it has been a struggle for these people: Africans do not want to become recolonized in whatever form.

The other significant thing is that Africa is not only rediscovering itself but is rediscovering the map in the sense that geography is beginning to triumph over ideology. Reality is beginning to triumph over illusion. If we take the populations in our part of the world we find that half of the world’s landlocked states are in Africa and 10 of them are in our subcontinent. If we take the world’s micro states we find that 28 are in Africa, and 10 of them in our part of the world have populations of under five million. These states, no matter how much goodwill, skill or support they have, can never develop unless they have access to the regional markets and to the ports, roads and rail systems that exist in this subcontinent. At the beginning of his speech the hon the Minister said we consider ourselves a regional power with regional interests, while towards the end of his speech he said that that recognition—referring to regionalism—has come and that it will continue to grow. I think he is absolutely correct. That regional imperative has grown. Our policy has always been a regional policy—for example, the Customs Union and many other achievements demonstrate this—and foreign Governments are now beginning to recognize this reality and are applying their foreign policy accordingly. Adversary postures in the subcontinent are giving way to co-operative postures. There is an over-arching loyalty to co-operation being sought in the region. There is an attempt in the region to break the cycle of violence. The reality is that if societies are to succeed, also in this subcontinent, they must advance in depth in every field of endeavour across a broad front. In that scenario South Africa can play a huge role. We can play a role because we have the acclimatized technology, the infrastructures, the industry support systems, the administrative and technical skills, the potential for product manufacture, and so on—the whole plethora of things which the hon the Minister mentioned in his magnificent address to the House before supper. The reality is that we have to share a sense of responsibility in the region. We have to develop a sense of responsibility to the region. If Africa were to choose to exclude South Africa it would be like unhitching the locomotive of the region. There are new hopes, new aspirations and new attitudes arising in the region. Africa is being looked at with new eyes, and in my view Nkomati will stand as the opening chapter in the new history that is unfolding in this part of the world.

I want to address myself very briefly to hon members of the CP. I listened to them and their friends on Sunday night on TV. If one takes the magnificent history of this wonderful country over this period and I want to say that never have South Africans written a more magnificent chapter into the history than what is happening at this time: South Africa is responding magnificently to the challenges of our time. When this time has passed, as it will, the epitaph that will be written for the CP will be that they took the greatest foreign policy initiative in the history of South Africa, certainly since the war, and attempted to trade it off to win a provincial by-election in the Northern Transvaal. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Maitland must pardon me for not reacting to his speech, since I should like to discuss a few other matters very urgently with the hon the Minister. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we should like to hold our Minister of Foreign Affairs in high esteem, but when he descends to the level of a cheerleader at an intervarsity and he wants to melodramatize facts, he is harming the office which is really the highest ambassadorial office … [Interjections.]

You are a clown.

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw the words “You are a clown”.

I withdraw them, Mr Chairman.

The hon member may proceed.

Sir, he is harming that office, the highest ambassadorial office in South Africa. He must realize that he is following in the footsteps of his great predecessors who sat in that bench. [Interjections.] That hon Minister speaks of the soul of the Afrikaner. I want to tell him in a few words what the soul of the Afrikaner is. It is his striving for his identity. It is the value he places on the sovereignty of his Parliament and of his territory. [Interjections.] The Afrikaner refuses to enter into a compromise with aliens; with aliens who make common cause with people like Mandela of the ANC. Rev Hendrickse has said in public that he follows Mandela, because Mandela is pursuing the path which he, too, would like to pursue. It is those gentlemen with whom the hon the Minister wants to form a coalition and, in the process, turn his back on his fellow-Afrikaner. [Interjections.] For example, he refuses to associate himself with the venerable Mrs Betsie Verwoerd. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members will agree with me that we cannot continue in this vein. I appeal to hon members please to respect the dignity of this House and to afford the hon member for Brakpan the opportunity to complete his speech.

For example, he refuses to associate himself with the venerable Mrs Betsie Verwoerd.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Brakpan permitted to repeatedly refer to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs as “he” and “you”?

The hon member must please use the form of address “The hon the Minister”.

I shall do so with pleasure, Sir. The hon the Minister also refuses to associate himself with Prof E M Hamman, who was his professor in the law faculty at the University of Pretoria. He also refuses to associate himself with former Cabinet Ministers, like the venerable Daan de Wet Nel. [Interjections.] The Nationalists laugh when I mention the name of Mr De Wet Nel. The hon member also refuses to associate himself with Mr Lourens Muller and former generals of the Defence Force and the Police and with various professors of the different universities. [Interjections.]

He is guilty of divulging incorrect facts. Inter alia, he says that the construction of a power station in the Transvaal will cost between R4 billion and R5 billion. However, that is not the figure the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs gave me. He should first go and verify this with that Minister and not come here with over-statements about what such an installation will cost. That electricity will cost only three cents per kwh to pay the capital and the interests. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister says that we reject any contract for the supply of electricity. Surely that is not true. We have repeatedly stated that we welcome it, but then it should be supplied at the Limpopo. It is not our duty to see to the security of those powerlines and the supply of electricity on our doorstep. We have never said that we are opposed to contracts being concluded in this regard. However, that is the impression the hon the Minister conveys when he speaks on platforms in Potgietersrus and Rosettenville. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister also says that we belittle the security forces. When have we done that? When have we belittled the security forces of South Africa? We do not want our sons, our soldiers, to protect 800 km of that power-line in Mozambique and possibly lose their lives in the process. Nor have we said that it is the ANC that we are dealing with in this regard. When someone wants to damage the power-lines, are we first going to ask him whether or not he is a member of the ANC, and are we only going to shoot members of the ANC and not the others? Is that what the hon the Minister is trying to say?

The hon the Minister went on to say that the Administrator-General of South West Africa has his own discretion, he does his own work and can release people, or do as he pleases. The hon the Minister must not try to bluff us. Surely he knows that the Cabinet appoints the Administrator-General and that he acts in consultation with them. The hon the Minister must not pretend that he is completely innocent when it comes to releasing terrorists and the actions of the Administrator-General in South West Africa. It is an exercise in deceit and it is not true. He knows that it is not true.

Order! The hon member is not permitted to say that the hon the Minister knows that it is not true.

I withdraw it, Sir. I want to conclude by saying that we must reason things out with one another point by point in this debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote without using the debate as a political platform. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister to deal with our arguments point by point. Joint responsibility was mentioned, but let the hon the Minister define this concept for us. Do not misrepresent our arguments and then try to shoot them down in a theatrical way. That simply will not wash.

Mr Chairman, I find it absolutely amazing that the hon member for Brakpan asked the hon the Minister not to drag politics into this debate and to deal with their arguments point by point. All hon members on this side of the House know what the political game the CP is playing outside this House with regard to the hon the Minister. We all know what is being said about the work he is doing. We know what is being said about the hon the Minister, his association with Dr Chester Crocker and the efforts that led to the recent peace initiatives. Whether or not the hon member for Brakpan wants to listen, his conduct here this evening and what the supporters of his party are doing outside is a disgrace.

I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that if they are going to conduct this kind of politics in South Africa so that 10 000 people can cheer them in the Skilpad Hall when they shout that Pik Botha is selling them out and that P W Botha is selling them out, and they pretend to be sanctimonious in this House about how they want to fight for the interests of the Afrikaner, I say to them: That will be the day. We on this side of the House will show the public at large step by step what kind of game the CP is playing. I therefore do not find it odd that they are playing this game with regard to foreign affairs. The hon member for Brakpan is one of the people who repeatedly tells people that the NP is scaring the public so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Chester Crocker and their fellow-travellers can sell out the country. A member of Parliament who tells those stories about the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the day, viz that he is selling out his country and his people and that he is a kind of traitor, is not worthy to be here, and we want to root out such a member and a party like the CP completely. The Afrikaner will not take this kind of standpoint, this arrogance, this kind of hypocritical and smear politics. Afrikaners who take it, who listen to a man who says that Pik Botha is a fellow-traveller of people who want to sell out South Africa, who listen to a man who says that the NP is selling out the Afrikaner with its foreign policy, who says that the Prime Minister is the man who is selling out the Afrikaner, dare not rise in this House and call themselves Afrikaners.

Let us stick to the facts. Let us speak to one another about the facts in this debate. I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that he contradicted himself time and again in his argument. He knows as well as any other hon member in this House that there is a water scheme at Calueque in Angola which has been protected for many years by White soldiers from South Africa. Why is it being protected? It is being protected because we want to utilize the energy generated by that power station to the benefit of the people in South West Africa. Since I have been in this House I have never heard any hon member of the CP saying that this Government must see to it that we do not use the electricity from the Cahora Bassa Scheme. Moreover, I have never heard them saying that the Cahora Bassa Scheme is wrong. If they have not said so, I want to ask them whether or not it makes economic sense for one to use an existing scheme for one’s own benefit. Secondly, does it make sense in conflict-ridden and tension-filled Africa for one to let one’s neighbours benefit from the money one pays for the electricity? Or does that hon member’s idea of building a new power station here perhaps fit in with that foolish, reckless, irresponsible, crazy idea of a White homeland somewhere near the Orange River, where everything will be moved and where that power station must then be built?

When it comes to issues that are of major importance to everyone in this country, the hon member for Waterberg, who is the leader of those sitting opposite, is in fact not leading the people, but misleading his followers and the people. I want to tell him that he cannot continue misleading the people about the economic realities.

Since we are dealing with this Vote, we on this side of the House want to express a word of gratitude to the hon the Minister and each of his officials throughout the world. They have worked day and night to keep South Africa on its feet and to prevent sanctions against South Africa. They have worked day and night to bring about projects which are in the interests of South Africa, to keep them going, and to make them work. We in this House therefore want to say to the hon the Minister and each of his officials throughout the world: Thank you for what you are doing in the interests of South Africa. We want to tell them that this evening we are ashamed that there are people in this House who, in the name of the Conservative Party and in the name of Afrikanerhood, overlook basic, elementary economic projects of co-operation, who overlook the fact that it is necessary for the White man and the Black man in Southern Africa to find one another and to understand one another.

The hon member for Rissik and I appeared on the same platform together at the University of Stellenbosch on Saturday evening, and I listened to him carefully. I want to tell him that one of the standpoints he adopted on Saturday made me realize anew that if those hon members can gain any party-political advantage at all from an argument, they do not care how recklessly detrimental it could be to South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

Perhaps I should just tell this House that when the hon member for Rissik spoke before a number of students at the University of Stellenbosch on Saturday evening, he said with reference to the urban Blacks that the Black people are here in South Africa to sell their labour. Then a Black man in the audience rose and said: “I live in Johannesburg because my mother gave birth to me there.” The entire student audience then laughed at the hon member for Rissik. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member of the CP that in South Africa we are wrestling with the whole world. The UN and all its organizations, the left wing and Europe, the AntiApartheid Movement, every fellow-traveller of these people and all our enemies throughout the world are seeking the destruction of this country. They are seeking the destruction of the White man. We as a Government say that we have a formidable task, and that task has a number of components. One of those components is that at all times and under all circumstances we must bring about sound co-operation between White and Black in South Africa. We as Whites must at all times make the Black people in this country understand that we do not regard them as our enemies. The hon the Leader of the CP sill has to reply to this question in public. After all, the relations policy between White and Black in South Africa is echoed outside. The price we will therefore ultimately have to pay is a distorted image of our country, sanctions and all kinds of other actions against our country. The hon the leader of the CP must therefore state in public whether he and his party regard the Black people in South Africa as the enemies of the White man. If that is the case, they must state this openly. From the CP’s policy with regard to a White homeland and a Coloured homeland, from their attitudes to labour matters and from many of their other pronouncements, one can only infer that this is, in fact, their view. I put it to hon members of the CP this evening that the NP does not regard a single ethnic group or a single nonWhite in this country as its enemy. In fact, we regard those people as our allies in the future struggle.

Moreover, we believe that we can maintain our own identity, whilst they, too, can maintain theirs. We believe that we can be what we want to be, and that we will still come through it together. We are not prepared to say or do anything—as the CP does—which could cause the Black people of South Africa to gain the impression that we are their enemies. This is in fact what the CP is doing. I should like them to rid themselves of that syndrome. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I have here with me a short extract from today’s edition of the CP’s little newspaper. In the article in question the hon member for Brakpan claims that they think the agreement that was signed to obtain electricity from Mozambique is wrong. They think it is wrong because, inter alia, White soldiers have to go there to protect that power line. In addition, he says that soldiers from Mozambique could possibly enter South Africa in order to protect the power line on this side of the border. Now I cannot understand what is troubling him. Does it worry him that a White soldier is entering a Black state to do his job there and to protect an electricity supply line? Or is he perhaps worried that a Black soldier could possibly enter a White country to protect an electricity supply line there? [Interjections.]

Order!

After all, he is only a soldier who is doing his job in the interests of a government. I think hon members of the CP should tell us where they want to lead South Africa with all their questions and emotional pronouncements in these times.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Innesdal has dealt very effectively with the arguments of the hon member for Brakpan, so I am glad to speak after this hon member.

I wish to refer specifically to a matter which was mentioned in the debate earlier this afternoon. This is the report which appeared in Die Patriot under the heading “P W gooi Suid-Afrika-grense oop vir kommuniste”. In this report, the impression was created that the Nkomati Accord would actually promote communism in this part of Southern Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. Precisely the opposite is true, and I want to give just one illustration of this.

Surely Soviet expansionism in Southern Africa is a reality. Whether it enjoys a high or a low priority is not relevant. It is a fact. Therefore there is a particular strategy for expanding Soviet power in this area. That strategy consists of establishing a belt of Marxist states across the breadth of Southern Africa, which are then to be used as bases for terrorist attacks on the RSA.

Surely it is also a fact that the security forces are being involved in a lengthy struggle across a wide front in this way, so when a specific state, which is a Marxist state, states unequivocally that it is not going to make its territory available for terrorist attacks on South Africa, as is provided in section 3 of the Nkomati Accord, surely this is a definite setback to Soviet expansionism in this part of the world. With this accord, South Africa has succeeded in doing something which few countries have been able to do up to now. That is to arrest Soviet expansionism in a particular part of the world.

I should like to refer briefly to another aspect. South Africa happens to be the country which is unfortunately being singled out by the world for the implementation of sanctions. Personally, I have never been able to find a logical explanation for this behaviour, except if one has to assume that so-called institutionalized discrimination is a greater evil in the eyes of the world than public executions, mass murders, racial conflict and persecution on the basis of religious beliefs. I specifically referred to so-called institutionalized discrimination, because one gets the impression that any system of government in the Republic which did not provide for one man, one vote would be dismissed by the international community as institutionalized discrimination in any event. If there has been any change in the approach of the international community in this respect, the hon the Minister will tell us about it, because he has wide experience in this connection. The fact remains, however, that sanctions are a reality, and one has to take them into consideration in the practical implementation of one’s foreign policy. There are people who wish to dismiss sanctions as an empty threat which we can afford to ignore, and this is also a popular sentiment to proclaim from political platforms. Of course it is true that no country or government wishing to act responsibly could take decisions which would be detrimental to that country, merely as a result of the threat of sanctions.

In this connection, both the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Prime Minister have adopted important standpoints. In November 1980, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed himself as follows:

During the same time, the hon the Prime Minister said the following:

Two things are clear from these statements. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department are not yielding to the threat of sanctions, and South Africa is able to withstand any form of sanction effectively. These are the inferences one could draw from these speeches. However, the fact that South Africa is able to retaliate effectively when sactions are applied against us does not detract from the fact that sanctions, if they were in fact introduced, would have an adverse effect on the Republic. In spite of the fact that South Africa was able successfully to survive an arms embargo against it, it remains true that it may experience problems from time to time in obtaining certain sophisticated weapons because similar weapons are being used against the Republic. South Africa is also able successfully to withstand a full-scale oil boycott against it, but it is a fact that the present oil embargo has also dealt the South African economy a serious blow. It is a fact, too, that in his book Economic Boycott against South Africa, Spandau points out several adverse effects which sanctions could have on South Africa. It is a fact that a trade boycott of only 20% against South Africa could mean a total decrease of R1,748 million in the revenue of the country. This could result in unemployment for 22 000 Whites and 136 000 Blacks in the gold and uranium sector. This would be the effect of a trade boycott of only 20% against South Africa. The point I want to make, therefore, is that a responsible Government will certainly not yield to the pressure of sanctions, but will also do everything in its power to avert such sanctions.

In this respect, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department have an outstanding record, I believe. I want to refer to only one example. On 6 October 1978, the US State Security Council decided that sanctions should be applied against South Africa. A letter from the President of the US was delivered by hand to the Prime Minister to inform him of this. South Africa was faced with the possibility that its aircraft would not be able to land at international airports and that its ships would not be able to offload their cargoes in international harbours. The consequences of this are clear to everyone.

By means of the consistent statement of reasonable arguments and the attitude that South Africa would not yield to the threat of sanctions, these specific sanctions against South Africa were averted. The hon the Minister and his department deserve all the credit for this. There are many other similar situations. The hon the Minister and his department have averted sanctions from South Africa in difficult times. When a Labour Government was in power in England and a socialist government in West Germany, and when President Carter was in power in the US, sanctions against South Africa were nevertheless prevented. South Africa is now being led into an era in which this international isolation is being broken down. I repeat that I think that the country also owes a debt of gratitude to the hon the Minister and his department for this.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randfontein raised a very important issue in regard to the question of possible sanctions against this country. I think he made a very good case, and it is quite clear—I agree with him fully—that the possibility of sanctions being imposed upon South Africa has been very much diminished as a result of the recent agreements that have been reached with our neighbouring states.

There is another aspect on which I should like to comment briefly. This I do from the point of view that, since the weekend, there has been a very marked “stryd tussen die Afrikanervolk in hierdie Raad”. As an English-speaking South African I must say that we regard this as tragic. I should like to point out that it does not in anyway imbue confidence of the English-speaking people in the politics of this country while we have such bitterness among the Afrikaner people. We get no joy, we get no pleasure and we get no satisfaction from it.

I should like to touch briefly on a completely different matter and to deal with it under the Vote under discussion. I want to return to a comment briefly which was made by the hon member for Pinelands. I think it was relevant in that he indicated that we should not allow, as it were, our wider vision in regard to relations with other countries to obscure the domestic needs of the states within our own South African sphere. This is extremely important. In my view this could easily be a temptation and we must not be carried away by the recent diplomatic successes at the cost of ignoring the problems on our own doorstep. I should like to refer also to a point which the hon the Minister made in his speech prior to the suspension of business. That is that South Africa expects the same behaviour from its neighbours as we show towards them, as well as respect for each other’s boundaries.

In the short time available to me, I want to use this as a point to sustain my argument in regard to the matter I wish to raise. I want to deal with the very vexed question of the farms bordering on independent states. It is a source of considerable regret that this matter needs to be raised under this Vote. However, I do so as a matter of urgency because I must warn the hon the Minister that a very serious situation exists in some border areas. Here we live in an urban environment but when one goes into the rural areas and areas which are confronted with border problems, one realizes that there is no conception here how serious the matter is.

I must point out that efforts by the Government Departments involved to improve the position in border have not been successful. In fact, present relations between neighbours in some of these areas can only be described as being severely strained. I am aware too that efforts have been made by the hon the Minister and his department to solve these problems which have existed for some time. In fact, since the granting of independence to some of these states, the Department of Community Development and the Department of Co-operation and Development have also been involved in trying to find a solution. However, these three departments have had their heads together for a considerable time, and I feel that they could have made a greater effort to come up with something far more positive than what they have in the pipeline at the present time. It leaves one with the impression that there is not a full appreciation of the present difficult situation.

Meanwhile, conditions in some of these border areas are deteriorating steadily. What we need are deeds, not words. It is absolutely essential that steps be taken to remove any possibility of border incidents which in turn would evoke serious international repercussions. There can be no question that the position in some areas can only be described as highly sensitive. For this reason it is important that the matter be raised under this Vote with the object of emphasizing the need for a permanent solution. I want to stress the words “permanent solution”. The hon the Minister and his department must take the initiative and ensure that on-going contact is made between the governments concerned as this is the only basis on which problems will be resolved in the long term. To put it in another way, a determined effort by both sides affords the only practical means of preserving a spirit of good neighbourliness.

It is a well known fact that efforts have been made from time to time by landowners in the Republic to iron out problems with their neighbours. Temporary relief in respect of such issues as the straying of cattle and the prevention of stock theft has resulted, but no permanent adherence to assurances has been observed by the other parties concerned. This emphasizes how important it is that the department adopt a long-term view towards solving a long-term problem.

I want to elaborate on some of the problems being experienced in order to highlight the theme of my speech. The incidence of stock theft is increasing with little hope of animals being recovered. Little or no attempt is being made to curb stray animals. They damage crops and are a source of infectious diseases. I refer particularly to the spread of such diseases as scab and brucellosis which has been brought to the attention of the hon the Minister on a previous occasion.

Farmers have had to contend with the theft of crops, resulting in landowners being compelled to switch from one crop to another and being denied the opportunity of exploitation of land potential. Land values in many of the border areas are falling because buyers are sceptical about buying land in these areas.

Finally, a sense of insecurity is beginning to manifest itself. It is little wonder therefore that unnatural hazards of this nature lead to frustration, resentment and bitterness, ingredients hardly suitable to enhance a spirit of good neighbourliness. I am aware that plans are afoot for the erection of border fences but, while I accept the principle that under normal circumstances good fences make good neighbours, I am sceptical whether in practice this means of defining boundaries will endure for any length of time unless it is backed by Government to Government contact. One knows from experience that fences as such have their limitations, and I am doubtful if this will solve the problem in the long term. I trust that the hon the Minister will take note of the points that I have raised and that he appreciates that they are based on fact. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River actually talked about a very specialized and local subject, one on which I, coming from my part of the world, cannot really make any contribution. If he will forgive me, therefore, I shall not react to it.

I should like to put the recent developments in our relations with our neighbouring countries in perspective in the course of my speech, and I also wish to discuss the concept of “terrorism” which was mentioned here earlier tonight.

The history of the Nkomati Accord goes back a long way, in the sense that South Africa first made an offer to our neighbouring countries in the General Assembly of the UN in 1970, through the mouth of Mr Von Hirschberg, our ambassador there at that time—he is also present here tonight—inviting them to enter into non-aggression pacts with us. Since that day, this has been a declared principle of our foreign policy, although it was not very favourably received at the time by the people to whom it was addressed. There were good reason for this, of course. Our attempts in the early and midseventies also ran into certain problems. If one may be permitted to voice some criticism in the light of the perspective that history has given us, I think we were a little opportunistic in those years. I am merely mentioning this because to a certain extent, it puts in perspective our present attempt to come to an agreement with our neighbours. In this connection I wish to mention two perspectives.

The first perspective is that unlike the attempt made in the mid-seventies, this is an attempt which has been carefully prepared over many years of hard work behind the scenes by the hon the Minister, and especially by the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Those relationships were built up with a great deal of effort and frustration, and eventually it resulted in a situation where it is possible today to enter into agreements with some of our neighbouring states, who rejected those offers out of hand 14 years ago. On the one hand, we are able to do this today because we have stabilized relationships through hard work, but also because a sense of realism has developed on the part of our neighbouring states and ourselves, after the neighbouring states had initially lived in an euphoria of independence. In spite of ideological differences, we are able to identify those common interests and to build our relationships on them today. An accord should be much more, therefore, and in this case it is indeed much more, than just the piece of paper on which it is written, because it is based on firm relationships which have been built up over a long period. However, I also want to put the matter in a different perspective, and that is that these accords would not have been possible if we had not been engaged in a process of internal reform over a period of years. Under the leadership of the hon the Prime Minister in particular, internal reforms have been tackled at great expense and with great difficulty, and also with great courage. Among other things, they have laid the foundations on which we can build, not only in respect of our relations with our neighbouring states, but also in respect of our relations with European countries. Indeed, it has always been clear to me that it is possible for us to let down our diplomats abroad, or to supply them with ammunition, by the things we do in this country. In fact, I believe that the officials, my former colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs, will agree with me that over the years, we have provided them with ammunition by the things we have done in South Africa and in this House more often than we have embarrassed them. In that respect, too, we have therefore worked hard to reach our present position.

I now want to come back to the point which I believe was raised by the hon member for Pinelands, and this concerns the question of terrorism. What is a terrorist, and when is a person a terrorist? This question was raised because it was envisaged that people whom we had previously regarded as terrorists might participate in negotiations in future. However, this is not a strange phenomenon, for whether one sees one’s enemy as a terrorist and labels him as such, or whether one is fighting against him for some other reason, does not make much difference. The point is that they are going to kill one another at a certain stage. Meanwhile, circumstances change, and one reaches the point where one makes peace. However, this does nothing to change the definition of terrorism, because terrorism basically means the waging of war and of a political struggle by the spreading of terror, by intimidation, rather than by conventional warfare, and that is what labels such a person as a terrorist: Who he is, where he is, when he is—this is what labels him as a terrorist: terror as a method of waging a struggle. We on this side of the House condemn that kind of conduct, wherever and whenever it may happen.

The point I actually want to make in regard to the hon member for Pinelands, and the PFP in general, is that our recognition of the fact that we may have to negotiate in future with people whom we have described as terrorists in the past does nothing to change the problem which they experience in their own ranks, namely that the people whom we are fighting against have been described as the people who are actually in the right and that our soldiers have by implication been branded as terrorists. This does not change that in any way. It does not mean that if one is on this side, the man is a terrorist, and if one is on the other side, he is a freedom fighter. [Interjections.] I just wanted to make this point so that we would be absolutely clear about this.

I want to refer briefly to a point made by the hon member for Sea Point in connection with a total onslaught. He said that by using a concept such as “total onslaught” one could be creating a phobia. It has been alleged—I am not saying that he has done so—that it is in fact the intention of the Government to create a phobia in this way. He said the risk one was running was that one might over-simplify the matter, and as a result one might then get a distorted idea of other states and their actions. I want to give the hon member the assurance that the situation is much more complex than that. Very well, when one speaks from a platform, one has to simplify matters. However, on the basis of our knowledge of the internal functioning of the Public Service, of the mechanism for the gathering of information, and specifically of the people in the Department of Foreign Affairs, we know that these people observe the situation in its full complexity and that there is no danger of our falling into the trap which the hon member for Sea Point has pointed out to us, namely that we may get a distorted idea of other countries and consequently follow a distorted policy towards them.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the Diplomatic Privileges Act, Act No 71 of 1951. I am convinced that all the parties in this House will agree with the arguments I want to put forward concerning this Act. In particular I want to endeavour to eliminate misunderstandings and incorrect approaches among part of the general public.

Some people are under the impression that the South African Government provides accommodation for diplomats and their staff, whereas others think that the Government has to prescribe to diplomats and their staff where they may purchase property and may live. As we all know there are various countries in Southern Africa and elsewhere in the world with which the Republic maintains formal relations. They are therefore represented here at diplomatic and consular level, in the same way that South Africa is represented in those countries. Here I am thinking of countries like Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei, Venda and Malawi in Africa and countries like England, Canada and the USA. Of course there are many other countries with which we have such relations, but I merely mentioned a few as examples. I mentioned these countries as examples for a specific reason. I mentioned the names of countries in Southern Africa, as well as a Western European country and North America. It must be borne in mind that the status of diplomatic staff of all countries is recognized internationally. This recognition is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of states. In South Africa these privileges enjoyed, inter alia, by diplomatic representative of foreign countries, are defined in the Act to which I have referred, namely the Diplomatic Privileges Act. This entire Act is unique because it deals with virtually all aspects affecting diplomatic representatives in South Africa. It deals with the immunities, rights and privileges of persons attached to consular missions, career-consular officers and certain other persons, with cases in which immunity does not apply, a register of persons entitled to diplomatic immunity, exemption from taxation, certain other exemptions and arrangements and the recognition of the building occupied by the diplomatic agent.

I want to dwell on section 9 of the Act, however. This section deals with the exemption from special restrictions on the acquisition or occupation of immovable property. For the sake of completeness I should like to quote this section. It reads:

1. (a) the acquisition, in the name of his Government, of any immovable property by any diplomatic agent or political, career-consular or trade representative; or
2. (b) the occupation of immovable property by any person referred to in section 2, or by the political, career-consular or trade representative of another government, and the family staff and alien servants of such representative:

There is no prohibition on the purchase of property by any foreign embassy in any suburb or town for occupation by an official of the relevant mission and his family, even if another Act were to prohibit this on the grounds of the racial group to which the relevant person belongs. After all, this principle also applies to our embassies in any other country. We all want this to be the case too. If a person makes the great sacrifice of putting South Africa’s case aborad away from his family and friends and away from his property and other assets under foreign conditions, he or she must at least live in comfortable and pleasant conditions. This principle also applies to the ambassadorial staff of other countries who are representatives of those countries in the Republic. They should be placed in the same position.

The remarks by the late Dr Malan on 21 June 1951 here in the House of Assembly—I am referring to Hansard, volume 76, col 10253—will interest hon members. He made these remarks when this Act was passed, and he had the following to say in respect of section 9:

In view of what I have said, I trust that hon members of the political parties in this House and the voters outside will understand that the South African Government cannot take any steps to prevent embassies from purchasing a residence for official occupation in any suburb or town. Any attempts by the Government to prevent an embassy from purchasing a property, would have a serious negative consequences on the state of mutual relations which have sometimes been maintained and promoted with dedication and care over a period of many years. Conditions were sometimes difficult for certain countries as a result of outside pressure.

In view of the country’s efforts to promote and develop relations with Black states, I want to make a serious appeal to everyone to show the necessary understanding as far as this matter is concerned. The decision to introduce the particular provisions of section 9 was taken with to one thing only: The best interests of South Africa in future.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Minister for replying in detail to a number of points I raised. I must say, however, that it is extraordinarily difficult to keep this debate on an even keel with the ding-dong emotional battle that is being fought between hon members of two political parties in the House. I think that, perhaps, the hon the Minister at times reacts too vigorously to the gentlemen of the CP, not in terms of the substance but in terms of the emotions and the mood. Be that as it may, there are one or two points to which I want to return because the hon the Minister has not dealt with them. One is the question of the hon the Prime Minister’s tour. Now I accept that it may be difficult to spell this out in detail. Nevertheless I believe it is bad for MPs and for the public to have to read about the hon the Prime Minister’s tour in reports on what is happening in the Westminster Parliament or what is said in debates elsewhere. Surely the arrangements have advanced sufficiently far for a definitive statement to be made within certain parameters about the objects and the purpose of this tour, and also about what is planned for the tour. It is bad that we should learn about this from bits and pieces reaching us from the overseas Press and from overseas government sources. I hope therefore that the Hon the Minister is going to make a definitive statement in connection with this proposed tour.

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, in his reaction to hon members of the CP, the hon the Minister once again got the balance wrong. This is in connection with the question of the responsibility of the Cabinet of South Africa—not his personal responsibility—for the laws and the administration of the Territory of South West Africa. The South West Africa Constitution Act, as amended in 1977 by amending Act No 95, makes it quite clear that the Cabinet may by proclamation make laws for that Territory. The Cabinet can make laws which can amend any existing laws. The Cabinet can change any laws simply by proclamation in the Gazette. What is more, if the Cabinet actually delegates authority to someone else, the laws made by that person cannot become of force and effect unless they have been approved by the State President.

Whatever else there is on this issue, let us accept that South Africa is the formal legal power in South West Africa, and that total responsibility for decisions by the authority does not rest with the Adminisrator General. He is the agent of the Cabinet. Therefore the responsibility rests with the Cabinet. That is the legal position.

On the other hand I am delighted to hear from the hon the Minister that it is the policy of the Government to consult with and to take note of the views and the expressions of the internal parties of South West Africa. I think that is correct. I believe that we should as far as possible take note of their views and be guided by them. The ultimate responsibility, however, is the Cabinet’s and that is why I am pleased that the Cabinet’s representative is in Lusaka, and that the Cabinet’s representative will be speaking with Swapo in order to try to reach a settlement. It is not Willie van Niekerk; it is the representative of the Cabinet of South Africa, and I believe it is a good thing. I am therefore not criticizing the hon the Minister for it.

Thirdly, Mr Chairman, I want to ask what happens when stability is indeed accomplished in southern Angola; when the Joint Monitoring Commission has done its work successfully. The question of the Cubans is still there, and I want to put it to the hon the Minister that a situation is likely to occur in which the internal parties, including Swapo, may say they want peace and they also want Resolution 435 to come into operation. What I want to know is this. In those circumstances will the Government accept the advice of the internal parties on this issue or will the Government still not put Resolution 435 into operation until the issue of the Cuban presence in northern and central Angola has been resolved? Mr Chairman, we have to have some clarity in this connection. If we are in fact going to be guided by the decision of the internal parties, is that going to be the dominant factor or will we still make our regional objective of getting rid of the Cubans the dominant factor in a future settlement in South West Africa? I believe this point should be clarified.

I am delighted that the hon the Minister, while not repudiating the total onslaught concept or syndrome, has watered down that concept by referring to it as an international vendetta. I believe there is a great difference between an international vendetta and an orchestrated total onslaught in which various peoples in the rest of the world are the dupes or the agents of the Soviet Union. Then, at least, one can see different purposes or different reasons in this regard. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that whoever else are dupes or agents of the Soviet Union, I do not believe, from my knowledge of Africa and of Africa leaders— certainly in the 1970s—that Black or African hostility to South Africa was founded in any love for communism or in any pressure on the part of the Soviet Union. It was a simple, natural reaction in the process of the emancipation of people from colonialism, people who saw in South Africa and in the Rhodesia of that time the continuation of colonialism. It was a perfectly natural reaction of people in a post colonial era.

When they saw that emancipation from colonialism in their country, accompanied by full status for Black people, they saw in South Africa, on the other hand, an entrenchment of an inferior status for Black people. Because of this the issue of South Africa’s bad image was compounded. I believe that if we lost touch with Africa in the sixties and the seventies, this must not be sought primarily in Soviet munipulation or in love for communism. It has to be sought in the post-colonial mood of Africa and, in South Africa continuing with policies of discrimination against Black people. That is the essence of the matter. I believe that this is still the key and, until we can unlock the door which will allow Black people of our territory to become full citizens, we are going to continue to experience this problem.

The next point I wish to touch on is the Swaziland Accord. I want to say that we are delighted that Swaziland has also entered into an Accord with us. However, I must say that I find it strange and indeed unique that such an Accord could have been signed between two governments, an Accord of such importance and with such ramifications, and yet neither the people nor the Parliament of those two countries knew about it for two years. I find this an extraordinary situation. I am not saying that there were no tactical moves behind it but I do find it extraordinary that for two years this Parliament was not informed that this important treaty had already been signed. I believe that this is a bad thing because I feel that in principle this Parliament has the right to be informed of treaties that are entered into between the Government of South Africa and the governments of other countries. This is a principle to which I feel the hon the Minister should subscribe.

There is another point I wish to put to the hon the Minister. I should like him to give an assurance that in the process of the negotiation of this accord with Swaziland the question of tranfer of land and of citizens of Kangwane and Ingwavuma played no part. I say this because, although I feel that we should have arrangements of this nature, I do not believe that non-agression treaties can justify the deprivation of 800 000 citizens of South Africa of their South African citizenship. I do not believe that deals of that nature should be done at the risk of alienating a vast sector of the Black community of South Africa. You see, Sir, there was a very close time correlation between the Ingwavuma issue and the signing of this accord. I should like the hon the Minister to give us the assurance that he would never be party to a situation in which 800 000 South Africans were stripped of their citizenship in order to get some other country to sign a agreement with South Africa.

The next point I wish to raise is in regard to something a little closer to home namely the question of Transkei. We have already asked certain questions in this regard. In the explanatory memorandum on the Estimates of Expenditure there is reference to special employment-creating projects in Transkei. On 29 April there was a meeting between President Matanzima and the hon the Minister, and there as an air of secrecy about the whole thing. Mr Timo Bezuidenhout and other officials of the Western Cape Administration Board were also present. We should like to know what these projects are. If they are to create special employment, are they in any way linked with the removal of Black people living in the Cape Peninsula to Transkei? We are totally in favour of projects that will increase employment within Transkei but we are opposed to a situation in which people who are living in this part of the country are removed from here in terms of a special agreement between the Government of this country and the Government of Transkei in regard to the issue of job creation.

The next question I wish to raise is a general matter. We all know that the four TBVC countries are independent in the sense that we have given them sovereignty. We cannot interfere in their domestic affairs. Nevertheless the fact remains that we pay a large proportion of their public service and development expenses. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point touched upon a few matters that I do not want to react to because I am sure that the hon the Minister himself will be doing so. I would just like to say in passing, however, that the hon member has once again tried—as his party has done quite frequently—to latch on to the hon the Minister’s reference to how we viewed the total onslaught against South Africa. He has done so in an effort to scale that onslaught against our country down to something that is merely some colonial bequest for which South Africa itself must accept responsibility. The hon member ignores the fact that all the militant organizations ranged against South Africa, taking up arms against South Africa, have in some or other way been infiltrated by Marxists. If one does not want to perceive that larger pattern, comprising all the different facets of the onslaught against South Africa, no one will be able to make one see it. That suits the hon member for Sea Point, however, because it gives him an opportunity to try to focus all the blame for everything that is being done to South Africa on what South Africa itself is doing and on South Africa’s policy. I do not want to go into that any further.

Several speakers referred, this afternoon and this evening, to the great successes achieved in our foreign policy in recent years, but particularly in recent months. These successes have probably highlighted foreign relations more prominently, as far as the average South African is concerned, than in any earlier period in our history. I also think that events in the field of foreign relations have probably, more than ever before, strengthened the feeling of goodwill, as far as the average South African is concerned, towards the incumbents of our diplomatic posts. When all is said and done, it is a fact that the staff at our missions are the men and women who are managing our outposts, people who often have to put South Africa’s case under extremely difficult circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that when foreign affairs are in the limelight, one involuntarily asks oneself whether those representatives of our country are as well as their thankless task dictates they should be. In the past few months reports have appeared in the Press creating the impression that economy measures are being instituted in regard to their mail, newspaper distribution and motor-cars …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member for Innesdal to read a newspaper here in the House?

Order! The hon member for Innesdal may not do so.

Sir, what I am now reading is not registered as a newspaper. It is Die Patriot. What is printed here, however, relates to the debate.

Newspaper reports have appeared, creating the impression that we are applying economy measures to our staff overseas, creating in turn the impression of miserliness on the part of the department, the impression that we are unnecessarily niggardly in the way we set about doing things. That is an erroneous impression. The fact on the matter is that our overseas staff have always paid for whatever personal mail has been posted from these missions. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Rissik is making uninterrupted references to the hon member for Innesdal because of the newspaper he is supposedly reading. I request you to give a ruling, because the hon the Minister quoted from that newspaper.

Order! I draw hon members’ attention to the fact that Standing Order No 105 reads as follows:

That is also something hon members should take note of:

The hon member for Umlazi may continue.

Sir, as I have said, the position is that the staff at our foreign missions have always paid for their outgoing mail. The only change that has now been made is that of having unnecessary difficulties eliminated in regard to the stamping of mail destined for South Africa, and this is being done on the basis of the department having ascertained what the average amount is that is spent on mail to South Africa. This amount is now paid once a month and staff members pay the local 11 cent postage. They still have the benefit of having their mail rapidly despatched through diplomatic channels. The same applies to daily and weekly newspapers of their choice which they receive from South Africa. The cost of sending those newspapers to them is still being borne by the State. The department even goes so far as to send certain other items, for example, certain medicines that are in scarce supply to our staff abroad. These newspapers that are sent supplement the ordinary daily news review that is sent by telex to all our diplomatic missions. All that is now being eliminated, to a large extent, is unnecessary or undesired mail—the so-called “junk-mail”. This alone leads to a saving of approximately R50 000 per annum.

Whilst I am dealing with homes contacts, it is a good thing to take note of the fact that the telephone calls staff members make to their families in South Africa are in no way affected by this new ruling. In addition staff members are now being given home leave every second instead of every third year. Staff members attached to remote missions, for example in the Far East or South America, have their trips home financed by the State, whilst other receive assistance in regard to their travel costs to South Africa. In addition the major conferences of missions are now held in South Africa and no longer in Europe or elsewhere. In other spheres the staff members at our missions also have special privileges. On the death of relatives, for example, the State bears the cost of a trip home. They also receive an allowance for each child who is at boarding school here, and if the children attend schools abroad, the State pays 95% of their school fees.

A second report, which unfortunately also appeared in the Press, created the impression that embassy staff were no longer being allowed to purchase private cars of their choice abroad and to bring them with them when they were transferred home again, again creating the impression of unnecessarily niggardly treatment of staff members. The truth is that only officials in the service of the State are granted the concession of bringing cars through customs free of charge. Officials of Iscor, Escom and other State corporations who are serving abroad do not have this privilege. All that is now being done is to adapt the value of the vehicles, qualifying for such free entry, to the status of the relevant officials, just as Ministers, members of the House of Assembly and senior officials locally qualify for specific classes of motor-cars. In this way one combats any abuse of this privilege. A diplomat who has the same amount available as his counterpart in South Africa, is in a consistently better position than his South African counterpart as a result of the relatively lower prices in countries where cars are manufactured.

I do not have enough time, particularly not after the interruption, for any further illustration of how well our ambassadorial staff are remunerated. If it is borne in mind that our officials in foreign climes are compensated on a fourfold basis, over and above State housing, including furniture and services, and that provision is made for the high cost of living and specific expenses attached to the post, one can rest assured that the department’s officials are well looked after.

No matter how well they are looked after, however, we can never over-estimate the value of the services furnished by these men and women. They are people who are on call day and night, often in hostile surroundings and without the comforting proximity of their own people.

Mr Chairman, I am sure all hon members have received a great number of documents through the post recently.

One of the documents I should like to refer to this evening is the fine annual report of the South Africa Foundation. We are all acquainted with the emblem, MM, on the front cover. Many hon members also use the diary of the SA Foundation, because it is one of the most useful and effective diaries on the market. When one pages through this report—and I shall have something to say about the foundation itself at a later stage, because I was impressed by what I read in the report—it is as well to take note of the presidential address of Mr Pavitt. In his introductory paragraph he said:

He then goes on to spell out the three very important trends we have to consider and the reason why there is so much self-confidence in South Africa today. In the first place he refers to the resilience of our economy, in the second place to developments in the constitutional, labour and education fields during the past few years, and in the third place to our foreign policy which, to a large extent, reflects public opinion. I am referring to this specifically because there was so much criticism of the department and this hon the Minister from the ranks of the Opposition today. It is therefore a good thing to listen, for a change, to an objective view from a person who is very well-informed about the department and South Africa’s image abroad.

When one listens to what this man has to say in his presidential address, one realizes that there are certain warnings being issued to us. In the first place he is warning us that South Africa has an open economy which is extremely sensitive to political and economic developments. I cannot emphasize this fact strongly enough. What happened last weekend in the Skilpadsaal when the leader of the AWB made his Hitler-Facist salute—and everything he and others said there—is definitely going to have an effect on the South African economy and our foreign relations.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Pietersburg is worried. The fact remains that nothing that happens in South Africa goes unnoticed abroad. That is why I maintain that what happened in the Skilpadsaal is going to have a negative effect on the South African economy. This will become very clear to us from various quarters in the coming weeks.

A second danger which we are exposed to, and which we have to be very sensitive to, is that the cultural and sports boycotts of the Republic and the general attitude of a total onslaught—the hon member for Sea Point should take note that he referred to the total onslaught against South Africa—tend to strengthen this spirit of isolationism. I also want to point out that we have to be aware of the fact that South Africa cannot live or survive in isolation. There are some people who think it can. Some people think one can withdraw to a White island in the Verwoerd Dam and survive that way. Those people are living in a fool’s paradise. The fact of the matter is that Africa is part of a region, Southern Africa, and Southern Africa is a part of Africa, which in turn is part of the world at large. We are living in an integrated world, and if we think we can paint ourselves into a corner and hope we will grow and survive economically, we are living in a fool’s paradise.

I want to refer to a final remark in this very good presidential address of Mr Pavitt, namely his last sentence in which he states:

Let me quote a few figures in this regard, because what we are dealing with here is communication. What the South African Foundation is concerned about is improving the image of South Africa abroad.

At the beginning of my speech I said that I wanted to pay tribute this evening to this independent organization for what it has done to promote a positive image of South Africa. This is an organization which does not receive a single cent from the State, but which obtains all its money by way of contributions from its members. It nevertheless does incredible work to supplement the services rendered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. There is also excellent communication and interaction between the department and this foreign affairs branch in the private sector.

The composition of the SA Foundation is rather interesting, with a president at its head and a board of trustees assisting him. As I have already mentioned, the foundation is financed by contributions from its members. I again want to emphasize very strongly that this organization is strictly independent and is composed of members of the private sector. It has very clearly defined goals, and I should like to bring a few of them to the attention of this House. The foundation runs an established professional, international network of people and organizations liaising closely with decision-makers and organizations in the country influencing the lives of all South Africans. In addition, this organization furnishes information on South African trends and events, and brings the policies involving South Africa to the attention of decision-makers in countries well-disposed towards us and also in countries not so well-disposed towards us. They therefore mirror the unfolding South African scene without defending the status quo or defending any specific policy, ideology or sectional interest.

The foundation also endeavours to prevent South Africa becoming economically, politically and culturally isolated while changes are taking place internally. Except for to the most important of South Africa’s trading partners, it operates in a similar fashion in about 15 other countries by means of a network of committees and collaborative organizations in South Africa and abroad. In addition it distributes specialized information locally, and I am certain that hon members have already found some of this information on their desks. The foundation also supplements personal contact by means of a visitors’ programme which, during the previous financial year, afforded to more than 300 visitors an opportunity, as its guests, to gain firsthand knowledge of South Africa. On the other hand, South Africans are also exposed to positive criticism from these visitors with whom they come into contact.

It is amazing to consider the number of programmes, seminars, discussions and information meetings presented and arranged for more than 10 000 other prominent visitors in and outside South Africa. A detailed research project has been instituted and established publications are dispatched to a select circle of readers in more than 20 countries, to more than 20 000 individuals, universities and public libraries. Thus I could continue telling hon members about the phenomenal work done by this organization on behalf of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before I react to a few matters I should like to say that we on this side of the House take note of the fact that within the foreseeable future the hon the Prime Minister is going to pay a visit to various countries overseas. The hon the Prime Minister will be visiting countries abroad as Prime Minister, in the interests of this country, and we hope that visit will prove fruitful to South Africa.

I should like to refer to what the hon member for Innesdal said. On several occasions he strongly emphasized the question of attitudes between Blacks and Whites, etc. I do not dispute with him the necessity for good relations, not at all. I just want to ask him whether he can imagine how someone would feel if he extended a gesture of courtesy, as I did to Black visitors in my capacity as Deputy Minister, and as I have done as leader of the CP, and those same people, on occasion, made fun of the courtesy extended to them. The hon member also mentioned the attitudes that prevailed at the meetings last Friday evening and Saturday. I do not want to repeat what I said yesterday during the discussion of the National Education Vote. I stand by what I said then, but I do want to elaborate on it a little. Has the hon member any fault to find with what I said in front of a very large audience at the time and which was received with appreciation? I said:

You also said you were not talking politics; you were talking war.

I said I was not talking politics, but that I wanted to talk about politics. The hon the Deputy Minister was not present. I did not talk about war, and he must now please keep quiet. He will not make my speech for me; I shall do so myself. Nor will he make the speech I made there, because I made that speech there and am now quoting what I said at the time. I went on to say:

That is nothing new. I also said:

That is an idea the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs also came up with before the supper break.

I now want to say a few words about the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ reaction to the speech I made during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote. I am sorry the hon the Minister worked himself up into such a state, and I miss in him, I do not want to call it comprehension, but rather empathy for the spirit in which I made that speech. I made that speech and put my party’s standpoint on foreign policy. I also put our standpoint on the Nkomati Accord. The hon the Minister invited me to attend the signing of that accord. He reassured me by saying that we would like the accord. We wanted to know in advance what it contained because one did not want to be compromised by its content. We obtained certain overall assurances. I went and read the accord; I read it on the spot! In the speech I made here, I highlighted the positive aspect I had come across in that accord. I also want to tell the hon the Minister, if he wants to know it, that for Mr Jaap Marais I singled out that accord’s verbal content, the strong principle underlying its standpoint, ie the sovereignty of countries and all the other aspects. What I miss is some acknowledgment of what I said in my speech about the Nkomati Accord. The sovereignty, the normal international and diplomatic traffic, the rejection of interference, the non-aggression pact, economic aid and the right to be defended are aspects contained in it. Then I said that no one would blame us if we viewed the accord critically. We did just that. It is our right to do so. Well, after I had spoken, the hon the Deputy Minister took the floor, and I must say to his credit that his reaction to what I said was much fairer than that of the hon the Minister. I do not, however, want to go into that now.

I said, amongst other things, that the questions I was putting were not being put by way of accusation. It seems to me, however, as if, in the eyes of some hon members, there is simply not merit in an ordinary, decent approach to things. One is treated as an enemy, even when one asks, in all decency: There are questions involving this accord that bother us; would you please give us some information about these points? [Interjections.]

Look who’s talking!

I can assure the hon member that I shall not lose my temper. I could become serious and tell him where I disagreed with him. It is specifically because we disagree with hon members opposite that we adopt certain standpoints. Hon members can find fault with many things said in the Skilpadsaal, but one thing they must know: There is collective opposition to a political sell-out of the White man in South Africa! [Interjections.]

In my speech I said that in the accord there were indeed wonderful things committed to paper, but although they were on paper, and that was an agreement, we wanted to ask how certain other aspects could be reconciled and whether clarity had been obtained in regard to treaties between Russia and Mozambique, in regard to the treaty with Cuba and in regard to the support which, according to Die Burger, Mozambique’s Minister of Foreign Affairs promised the ANC as recently as 7 March. We just wanted to know how one was to view those aspects. The hon the Minister could have told us: “Well, those things were cleared up before the time.” We merely sought that assurance.

In regard to the security commission I said I thought it was important to know how far the security commission could go in monitoring South Africa’s military and security activities. In article 9 reference is made to “with the aim of supervising and monitoring”. It is my feeling that the concepts “supervising” and “monitoring” can go much further. I should like to have assurances in that connection, but it is my feeling that those two concepts go much further than the mere implementation of a directive emanating from the joint security commission. That was the question we put. So why all the fuss?

The hon the Minister also tried to score another point, if I may put it like that, by alleging that we had agreed about everything. That is a very popular approach on the part of the NP. We were members of that party and do not deny responsibility for many of the things we agreed to. The fact of the matter is, however, that within that party a debate has been in progress—I presume it is still going on, but for now I shall leave that aspect there—about the implications for South West Africa of the implementation of resolution 435. The point I want to make is that the hon the Minister left the impression that we had sat in the Cabinet and had not said a word—the hon the Minister said it at Walvis Bay and elsewhere too. He gave his information, but I also told him on a previous occasion, across the floor of the House, that in that Cabinet I had said I had problems with its implementation because up to that time we had, in South Africa, been opposed to a federation in principle. The Government is no longer opposed to a federation, because it has now incorporated this in the new constitution. We have said, however, that we are opposed to a federation in principle.

That is not really true, is it?

Were we not opposed to a federation?

What is being incorporated in the new Constitution is surely not a federation.

It is even worse than a federation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Waterberg started his speech in his characteristic proper and pious fashion. He does, however, have a very strange habit. When he is speaking in this House he keeps himself completely within bounds. As soon as he joins up with his strange friends, however, he grows quite reckless. [Interjections.] The hon member wants to know from us what fault we have to find with what he said at that meeting last Saturday evening in Pretoria. Is it wrong, he wants to know, to ask for responsible and level-headed action to be taken, for us to act in a Christian fashion, with courtesy and with goodwill. It all sounds very noble. But, Mr Chairman, it is always accompanied by a very sharp rap over the knuckles. This evening I specifically want to deal with that rap over the knuckle that the hon member again dished out. The charge-sheet against the hon the leader of the CP is getting longer and longer. [Interjections.] We want to tell him in very down-to-earth, plain language that promises are binding. He does, in fact, owe us quite a few answers in this House. He promised us a reply in regard to that section of the people who had disavowed their Christianity, and also a reply about the figure 666 that he related numerically to the anti-Christ.

Surely you have had your answer to that already. [Interjections.]

The hon member also still owes us a reply in connection with the so-called bomb gimmick in Pietermaritzburg. [Interjections.] Before I discuss the hon member’s conduct at the Afrikanervolkswag meeting, however, there is something else I first want to refer to. Here in my hand I have a copy of the Tukkies’ student newspaper, Die Perdeby. It was the hon member for Brakpan, in particular, who made quite a fuss about the Tukkies.

That is correct, yes. [Interjections.]

In this issue of that publication there was an interview with the Kappiekommando. I take it that the lady with whom the interview was conducted was also present when the AV was established. In the interview with Die Perdeby that lady says the following:

You are a member of the Black Sash, are you not?

The hon member for Rissik is telling a blatant lie. I am not a member of the Black Sash, and he knows it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Turffontein say the hon member for Rissik is telling a blatant lie? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Turffontein say that?

Mr Chairman, I did, yes. I do, however, withdraw it. I want to put it to the hon member for Rissik, however, that he has become a real political sissy. He now comes along with the accusation that I am supposedly a member of the Black Sash. Is it possible to imagine anything so ridiculous? [Interjections.] No, wait a moment. I first want to talk to hon members of the CP about the Kappiekommando. [Interjections.]

In that interview with Die Perdeby the Kappiekommando states:

Then she goes on to say:

[Interjections.] That is what that lady says.

Mr Chairman, I now want to come, however, to the rap over the knuckles that the hon member for Waterberg administered at the Inaugural meeting of the AV. I want to quote to him from a newspaper report, and I should like the hon member to tell us whether it is correct. [Interjections.]

Order!

In the relevant newspaper there is the following report on the hon leader of the CP:

Then the hon leader of the CP said the following:

I now want to ask the hon leader of the CP whether what I have quoted here is correct.

It is correct, yes.

Very well. So the hon leader did, in fact, say it. I now want to know from the hon leader whether he was referring to members of the Government of this country as traitors.

No.

No? [Interjections.] Was the hon leader then perhaps referring to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in particular, as a traitor?

He is not important enough for me to have given him any thought.

Andries is again not saying what he means, not so? [Interjections.]

Oh, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not important enough for the hon the leader to have given him any thought? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to know from the hon leader of the CP …

And do not make the mistake of thinking I had you in mind.

No, I did not want the hon leader to be thinking about me either. I would definitely give me nightmares. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to know from the hon leader whether he perhaps had the hon the Prime Minister in mind when he spoke of traitors.

I have already replied to you. If you are not satisfied yet, it is not my fault.

So why did the hon leader make such a snide remark? It was, after all, a remark that cast a shadow over people not present at that meeting. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I please ask a question? I want to ask the hon member whether he would erect a monument to a traitor? [Interjections.]

Of course I would not erect a monument to a traitor. The hon leader of the CP, however, cast a reflection on all Afrikaners who were not present at that congress. The hon leader must tell us what he meant. [Interjections.]

Order! I would be glad if the hon member Mr Vermeulen and the hon member for Roodeplaat would not speak so loudly while the hon member for Turffontein is delivering his speech.

In the course of his speech the hon member for Brakpan asked the hon the Minister whether he did not associate himself with Prof Hamman, ex-Defence Force officers, Mrs Betsie Verwoerd and certain professors of Pretoria. The hon member for Brakpan asked why the hon the Minister did not wish to associate himself with those people. I now want to ask the hon member for Brakpan whether the gentleman he mentioned, and he and his party, associate themselves with the standpoint adopted by Prof Carel Boshoff at that meeting.

Of course.

Very well, then. Let me also ask those hon members whether they associate themselves with the utterances of Col Jacobs.

He merely recited a poem. [Interjections.]

I am asking those hon members whether they associate themselves with the utterances of that Col Jacobs. [Interjections.] Do they also associate themselves with the utterances of Mr Jaap Marais—they did, after all, give him a standing ovation?

No wonder the minister did not want to christen him. [Interjections.]

I am putting these questions to those hon members, and they can make as many snide remarks as they want to. I am also asking those hon members whether they associate themselves with Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche? [Interjections.] I have here, from Die Vaderland, a photograph depicting a lovely flick-of-the-wrist salute. Let me ask those hon members whether they associate themselves with this kind of politics in South Africa. Those hon members are now showing a clean pair of heels to the people with whom they associated themselves at that meeting. [Interjections.] Now the hon leader of the CP says I am wrong. If I am wrong, let me again ask the hon leader whether he associates himself with Eugene Terre’Blanche? [Interjections.]

Who was the minister who did not want to christen you?

Those are the Christian values he propagates! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Krugersdorp must also abide by my ruling.

Mr Chairman, that hon leader is the kind of minister of religion who did not want to christen the children of old SAP supporters in the NG Church. That is the sort of person he is. Those are the kinds of people who are his present-day compatriots in the Afrikanervolkswag. [Interjections.]

Hon members can keep themselves aloof from those friends they have suddenly become so ashamed of, but they cannot deny paternity when it comes to Die Patriot. The front-page heading in this newspaper reads: “Who bribed Machel with R40 million?” My question to the hon leader is whether he endorses that. Does he now have any doubts about that? [Interjections.] You see, Sir, the hon members are not prepared to answer questions. That hon leader is not prepared to answer questions. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon member for Turffontein an opportunity to continue with his speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip of the official Opposition for the opportunity to complete my speech.

That Machel has been bribed with R40 million is a very serious allegation for the CP’s official mouthpiece to make. The hon the Minister had that situation investigated in detail by our Embassy staff in the USA. The hon the Minister gave an explanation to the House and to the hon the leader of the CP. I am asking the hon member whose word he accepts. Does he accept the word of an hon Minister in the Cabinet of the South African Government, or does he stick to the word of the Centre for Strategic Investing in the USA? The hon member must reply to this. It is no good the hon the leader sitting here yawning. [Interjections.] The hon leader must give us an answer, because he has a great deal to say when he gets outside the House. Where has the masses cheering him, there he has a great deal to say.

In their tens of thousands!

Order! I would be glad if the hon member for Soutpansberg would also give the hon member for Turffontein an opportunity to complete his speech.

Here, where we monitor what the hon leader and his colleagues are doing, where they are called to account, they do not have the courage of their convictions when it comes to answering questions.

The hon member for Brakpan took exception here to that portion in the Nkomati Accord that makes provision for joint supervision in protecting the Cahora Bassa powerline all the way down here. Then the hon member for Brakpan said that some of our boys would be shot dead. Let me ask the hon member for Brakpan whether the Government should support Renama, and the next hon member can answer this question. Their tactics now involve not responding.

You go ahead and make your own little speech.

The hon member came along here with cheap politics by saying we obtained only 8% of South Africa’s electricity from the Cahora Bassa scheme. Let me ask him what about the one major benefit involved, that of ANC bases in Mozambique being curtailed, let alone any question of only 8%. Now the hon member for Brakpan is laughing.

That has nothing to do with Cahora Bassa.

No wonder they joined the ANC in saying “no” in the referendum last year! The chess game of both African politics and international politics is incomplete without South Africa, and the breakthrough we have achieved in having our neighbouring countries in Africa talk to South Africa, with Europe and Britain moving towards the USA’s “constructive engagement” approach, and with purposeful efforts being made in South Africa, by the South African Government, to finally solve outstanding internal questions, puts us on the road to victory in Southern Africa. The hon the Minister spelled out to us that he and the rest of the Government had determined a strategy on which they have been basing their actions in the past few years—and the crowning achievement of that great work lies with Nkomati.

We want to tell the hon the Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet that notwithstanding snide, unfounded accusations from right-wing and left-wing radicals, notwithstanding the contempt and the suspicion-mongering on the part certain politically demented individuals in South Africa, notwithstanding the scornful references and reproaches about traitors for whom no monuments will be erected, such as those made by the hon leader of that party, responsible and moderate Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Black people will cover the backs of the hon Ministers who unselfishly and unstintingly direct their efforts towards peace on the Southern tip of the African continent.

Mr Chairman, on 1 June this year Mr J E O Adendorf, at present Chief Director of Internal Information, will retire from the service of the department. Mr Adendorf was appointed on 3 January 1949. He served our Embassy in Lisbon from 1949 until 1955, in our office in New York from 1964 until 1968 and subsequently, from 1979 until 1981, he was Director of Professional Services at head office until he became Chief Director of Internal Information in 1981.

Mr J Vlok Delport retired on 29 February this year. He was appointed to the department on 1 April 1964. From 1967 until 1969 he served in our office at the United Nations in New York. Subsequently, from 1970 until 1973, he also served in the Federal Republic of Germany. From 1973 until 1976 he was Director of Information at our Embassy in London, and subsequently he was Director at head office.

Mr M U Zimmermann retired from our service on 29 February this year. He was appointed in 1961 and served in various positions in the Internal Information branch. On 1 March 1975 he was promoted to Director of Internal Information, and served in this post until his retirement.

Mr J S F (Frikkie) Botha was appointed in the Public Service on 16 May 1936. On 1 August 1947 he entered the service of the Department of Foreign Affairs. From 1950 until 1954 he served abroad at our offices in Washington; from 1954 until 1957 in Ottawa; from 1957 until 1959 at the United Nations in New York; from 1962 until 1964 as Consul General in Tokyo; from 1964 until 1967 as minister in Washington and also as ambassador from 1971 until 1975 and again as Consul General in Tokyo from 1978 until 1984. He is to retire on 26 May this year.

The present Director-General of Foreign Affairs will retire on 31 March next year, and because it is unlikely that another Foreign Affairs Vote will be discussed in this House before 31 March 1985, I also want to take this opportunity to mention this excellent gentleman’s period of service. He was appointed on 30 November 1945, and rendered service abroad in Elizabethville—at present Lubumbashi—in Zaïre from 1946 until 1947; in Washington from 1947 until 1951; in the Hague from 1951 until 1953; in Rome from 1957 until 1960; in London as minister from 1964 until 1969, and in Brussels as ambassador from 1969 until 1971. He subsequently became senior Deputy Secretary at the head office of the Department of Foreign Affairs. He was second in command at head office from 1971 until 1980. He then became ambassador in Paris from 1980 until 1982, when he was appointed Director-General of the department. He is retiring from the service on 31 March 1985.

If one considers the Foreign Affairs Vote, one sees that under programme 2, Foreign Relations, which primarily comprises the political and information task of the department, the estimate is R82 699 000. Salaries and other conditions of service add up to R50,9 million of this amount. That leaves R31,7 million as the means with which the department has to administer all our offices abroad. This includes subsistence and transportation costs, communication costs, maintenance services in respect of our grounds and offices, equipment, motor vehicles, receptions, printing and stationery, information advertisements and the payment of co-workers.

By way of comparison there cannot be another country in the world in which such a relatively small amount of money placed is at the disposal of the political and information arm of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and which has achieved so much success in the face of so much resistance and so many onslaughts on South Africa and which has acted so professionally and loyally as has been the case with this department. Those men who have already retired and those who are going to retire, in particular the Director-General, deserve the greatest appreciation from this House on behalf of the whole of South Africa, because they represent all the people of South Africa. They represented the best and finest we were able to offer with honour and success. If there have ever been guardians who stood watch over South Africa’s real interests, if there have ever been guardians who gave warning when the enemy threatened us, who had to act judiciously, who had to adapt to changing circumstances, who had to reason on the highest level of intellectual competition, if there have ever been men who could construct and create visions, who loved their fatherland, who were the guardians of South Africa in the true sense of the word, it is these men. It is a privilege for me to thank them. Only I and Mr Van Dalsen, the Director-General, will know what the two of us have been through together during the past two years aboard aircraft, in African countries, in European countries and also here in South Africa during visits by the representatives of other countries—hundreds of them—some of which may never be mentioned, or may perhaps only be mentioned later. All these things were done for South Africa. Mr Van Dalsen is a quiet person and has claimed no credit for himself. It is my privilege this evening to give him and the other men the full credit which is due to them.

Hear, hear!

I also thank the hon member for Waterberg for the good wishes which he expressed in respect of the visit which the hon the Prime Minister will pay to countries abroad. I shall gladly convey them to the hon the Prime Minister. We appreciate it.

The hon member for Waterberg said that what he missed was acknowledgment. Let me tell him, on my part, that after his speech in this House on 25 April 1984, my reaction towards some of my colleagues was that the hon member had in general displayed a positive reaction. That was my reaction. At that stage he asked questions and wanted assurances in regard to certain misgivings. This evening the hon member repeated—and I thank him for doing so—that he is now satisfied about the sovereignty issue with reference to the Nkomati Accord. He referred to it specifically. I accept that immediately. However, I have a further problem, namely his agreement of 2 May with Mr Marais. I should like to put it to the hon member, and then he will understand why I am reacting.

The hon member said that if it was being envisaged that accords similar to the Nkomati accord could also be concluded with other African states with the view to the NP’s proposed constellation-confederation of Southern African states, the implications were “catastrophic”. The hon member then said, in his joint statement of 2 May with Mr Marais, that we would in that way be surrendering the sovereignty of our country. A moment ago, however, the hon member said that he was satisfied about the sovereignty of his country. [Interjections.] But he signs a joint statement with Mr Marais in which he says that the country’s sovereignty would be surrendered. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, Sir. That hon member is not responsible for his actions. [Interjections.] I do not mean that in an insulting way.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister say that the hon member for Soutpansberg is not responsible for his actions? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister does not need any hon member to help him make his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Waterberg said just now, and also quoted, that he had said in his speech that he had been satisfied on the point of sovereignty. If I understood him incorrectly, I am sorry, but that is what I understood him to say. That is how I wrote it down here. I am satisfied if he has been satisfied on the question of sovereignty, but now he must go back and rectify this matter with Mr Marais. The two of them said in a joint statement that accords of this nature would lead to our country surrendering its sovereignty, they would lead to the destruction of our economy and to the Whites surrendering their political power.

Throughout the world the Nkomati Accord was accepted as a victory for South Africa; also that we had in that way dealt the ANC a crippling blow and that it was going to result in greater economic benefits for South Africa. Yet, according to the CP, it is economic destruction! Mr Chairman, with all due respect, we cannot conduct a debate with one another on this basis.

The CP must in all fairness answer one question now—not for my sake, but for the sake of South Africa. Why are they in their animosity, in their negative disparagement of what the Government is doing and of what is being brought about as a result of the Nkomati Accord, equalled only by the Peter Hains, by the Kinnocks, the UN, and ANC and the Russians through their mouthpiece Pravda? I can prove this, Sir. I can prove that Pravda speaks the same language as the CP. Pravda said inter alia that the Nkomati Accord was a mistake. [Interjections.]

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

I am sorry, Sir, but I only have a few minutes left. I did not interrupt that hon member and I am not prepared to reply to any questions now.

Sir, I am not trying to be acrimonious when I say these things. I am prepared to produce documentary proof of what I have said, just as in the case of the referendum. [Interjections.] Those hon members were annoyed when I indicated who the people were who had condemned the yes vote. The hon members can go into this, because there is documentary proof of its factuality. And then there are the UN resolutions condemning the yes vote. Strangely enough, when those hon members attack and disparage the Government, then the enemies of South Africa are in absolute agreement with them. This may of course be for other reasons. I concede that. However, the result is exactly the same. I invite any hon member of this House to go and establish what the reaction of the worst enemies of South Africa to the Nkomati Accord was. Go and read what the left-wing newspapers in the Western World wrote about the accord. Establish what the reaction of the ANC was to that accord, or what Gaddafi’s reaction to it was. When it comes to matters of this nature, why does the CP always find itself in this kind of company? And they need not give me the answer, they must give South Africa the answer. [Interjections.]

As far as the hon member for Brakpan is concerned, he kicked up a terrible fuss because, according to him, I furnished inaccurate figures on the cost of a power station that could generate the same amount of power as Cahora Bassa. My colleague from Mineral and Energy Affairs has just informed me that if a decision should be taken to build such a power station, it would cost approximately R3 billion by the time it has been completed.

No, that is not what you said.

I said that it would perhaps cost R4 billion, R5 billion or R6 billion. At that stage I turned to my colleague, and I do not know what he said, I think it was R4 billion, R5 billion or R6 billion, but he has now told me it is R3 billion. [Interjections.] Very well, I am completely satisfied with R3 billion. Those hon members must not try and run away now! Is R3 billion nothing to them? [Interjections.] The second statement I made was that that was the cheapest power we could find. Do they dispute that? [Interjections.] Do they dispute that that is the cheapest power we can find? No, they do not dispute is.

Your facts were wrong.

It was a communication statement on estimated amounts and I stated it as I understood it. The hon the Minister subsequently sent me a note telling me that the amount was R3 billion. Does that mean nothing to hon members of the CP?

We do not think that it will cost as little as that.

Mr Chairman, those hon members have no place to hide! They have still not replied to this repugnant headline in their newspaper—“P W gooi SA grense oop vir kommuniste”. Now the hon member for Waterberg rises to his feet here and says that what he misses is some acknowledgment. He misses some acknowledgment when his party organ writes stuff like this! He misses some acknowledgment when he apparently supports what was said, for he has not repudiated it. We are waiting for him to do so. After that he may perhaps receive some measure of acknowledgment.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.