Mr. Chairman, I move—

To omit the proposed paragraph (e) inserted by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) and to substitute the following paragraph:

1. “(e) (i) solitary confinement in an isolation cell, with full diet, for a period not exceeding thirty days; or
2. (ii) solitary confinement in an isolation cell for any one of the continuous periods set out in the first column of the sub-joined table, with for each such period of solitary confinement in an isolation cell, dietary punishment combined, where applicable, with full diet in the sequence set out in the other columns of that table opposite each such period of solitary confinement in an isolation cell: Provided that where on more than one count such punishment for a total period exceeding thirty days has been imposed, there shall after every period of confinement in an isolation cell, with dietary punishment as so combined with full diet, of thirty days, be an interval of fourteen days, or such longer period as the medical officer concerned may direct, upon full diet and without solitary confinement in an isolation cell:

and to omit subsection (2).

Mr. Chairman, I have studied the amendment. It does improve the clause as it stands in the Bill in that at least one knows that there is going to be some limitation to the time factor whereby spare diet and solitary confinement can be imposed on the prisoner who has infringed some of the regulations in prison. I am glad to see that this period of punishment and what appears to be a rather unpalatable diet are at least going to be varied every so often by returning to the normal diet, which anyway, does not exactly live up to the level of a one-star hotel. I cannot understand the hon. the Minister telling us yesterday that the new diet which is going to be given to prisoners as a punishment is going to be made in such a way that it is going to be particularly inedible because no salt is added. What he did say is that it is not going to contain salt, that it is not going to be particularly well-prepared and indeed, if any member of this House had to eat that diet with the food containing no salt, they would soon not be eating at all. I reckon that solitary confinement in itself is a pretty severe punishment. Therefore I think it is very harsh indeed and in this day and age it seems to be out of place that in a country which is trying to introduce a modern penal system we should introduce ideas like this spare diet which is particularly unpalatable. I will admit that it is an improvement from a dietary point of view on the old rice water which the prisoners used to get. Still this seems a pretty tough punishment.

That is really only one aspect of my objections to clause 5. I think that to extend the period of solitary confinement from the maximum period that it used to be, namely six days on a certain diet and 15 days with light labour, to a maximum of 30 days is something that I cannot condone. Obviously it is not going to be imposed on every prisoner in every case, but the fact remains that it is going to be imposed on some prisoners in some cases. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me of any modern country in the world, which is attempting to improve the treatment of prisoners, that has introduced solitary confinement up to 30 days as a method of punishing intransigent prisoners. I heard a remark from the back bench yesterday when I was arguing this point during the Second-Reading debate that these are prisoners we are dealing with. I would like to point out to the House what Winston Churchill said many years ago, namely that the degree of civilization that a country had reached could in fact be gauged by the way in which it treats its prisoners.

He had reason to say so.

Every country has reason to say so. He was not only thinking of war time, but also of civil prisoners in the ordinary civil prisons in his own country. The fact that people have been deprived of their liberty by courts of law is the punishment which has been imposed on people who have transgressed the law. For us to add to the punishment by allowing the prison authorities to impose solitary confinement of up to 30 days is not putting South Africa in the best light as far as modern penal systems is concerned. Already we use the system of corporal punishment in South Africa to a degree unheard of in any Western country.

That has nothing to do with this clause.

It has something to do with this clause. This clause in fact amends the corporal punishment section in the Act and I suggest that the hon. member study his Bills properly. In point of fact the solitary confinement that is now being introduced is well beyond what I would say is normal punishment for transgression. Thirty days’ solitary confinement is a very long time indeed and doctors and psychologists who have done studies of the effects of long solitary confinement have spoken up strongly against any such system. For that reason I intend to vote against this clause. I do not agree with the extension of the solitary confinement period under the old system from six days and 15 days to a period of up to 30 days.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to certain aspects mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton. In the first place, she said that it was apparently the intention of the hon. the Minister to make the diet inedible; to me this sounds like cheap propaganda because there is no truth whatsoever in what she says.

It is even worse than the diet.

As the hon. member sitting behind me says, the propaganda of the hon. member for Houghton is even worse than the diet itself.

The position was that in the past solitary confinement could be imposed for a period of six to 15 days. What is important, is that it was possible for these two periods to be imposed simultaneously. In other words, it was possible for a person to be put in solitary confinement for a period of 21 days. All that is happening here now, is that the period of 21 days is increased to 30 days. This is being done with the specific purpose of maintaining discipline in the prison. The prison authorities do not really have many measures at their disposal for maintaining discipline. This is one of the methods they can apply to maintain discipline. The hon. member for Houghton presented her argument on the basis that solitary confinement constitutes the usual way in which our prisoners are being treated. This is not so. This only applies to prisoners in respect of whom disciplinary measures are taken, in other words, prisoners who become subject to disciplinary measures, people who do not behave themselves in prison and who have to be punished in some way or other. One of these punishments is solitary confinement. I think the oblique attack made on the way in which we treat prisoners in South Africa as though we are not a civilized country, is totally unfounded. The Prisons Act is aimed at rehabilitating people who are being detained. In this connection it is worth our while to take note of the fact that our prison regulations and penal system comply with the minimum requirements laid down by the U.N.O. as far as they are applicable in South Africa. I can also point out that it was laid down as a principle in these requirements that solitary confinement as such is regarded as being justified. I do not think this House should give any serious consideration to the criticism voiced by the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are pleased to see the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. It is a great improvement on what was contained in this clause before. It has removed the main objections which we indicated yesterday we would have to it. He has, once again, set out in the Act itself the manner in which the dietary punishment should be achieved. We also appreciate that there is an increase in the punishment which may be meted out in solitary confinement, namely from 15 days to 30 days. But we do not feel in the circumstances as it is “up to 30 days”, that this measure is necessarily unduly harsh. The hon. member for Houghton during the Second Reading debate paid tribute to the people in charge in the Prisons Department and the manner in which they were attempting to administer the Act.

Only the Minister and the Commissioner.

I am sure that these matters will be properly administered by them. I think one has to have regard to the fact that in fact we are dealing with a prisoner. As the hon. member for Zululand pointed out, one is dealing with persons who are already serving a period of imprisonment. In what other way do you punish them for transgressions against the code of conduct in that prison other than by those methods which were suggested by the hon. member for Zululand, of which this is one. When the hon. member quotes Winston Churchill as saying that the measure of civilization is the manner in which society treats its prisoners, I suppose one could take this matter to absurd lengths and quote Oscar Wilde, who, when he was a prisoner, said that if Queen Victoria treated all her prisoners the way he was being treated, she did not deserve to have any. We are dealing with persons who are convicted prisoners, and one has to maintain a discipline in those prisons. We feel that the amendment of the hon. the Minister is satisfactory.

Furthermore, Sir, we feel that the other aspects introduced here, are also to be commended, especially the substitution of paragraph (f), which stipulates that there may be a recommendation by the officer trying the person concerned “that remission of sentence not exceeding 30 days in respect of any punishment imposed upon the prisoner, shall not be granted”. When one has regard to the sort of situation that one seems to find, namely that the prisons have become so full that the number of people who are sentenced come out at a very early stage as a result of remissions, it seems to us that this power to recommend that the remission be not granted is also an improvement of the situation as it is. We will therefore support the clause as amended by the hon. the Minister.

Amendments put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, amendments declared agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

We shall vote against this clause. During the Second Reading debate we indicated our objections to this change in the method of appointing Ministers as being merely a further constitutional step taken by the Government on the way to bringing about complete independence for the Transkei. The method of selection now proposed in this Bill is the same as the method by which our Government chooses the Executive and is strongly associated with sovereignty. I do not know of any subservient body anywhere which has this provision, that the chief officer responsible for government in a particular area is able to choose his Cabinet, or his administrative executive, and to sack them at will. In this case, in the case of the Transkei, the Chief Officer controls an area which is under the control of the Central Government. It is of course possible that this power may be given to a subservient body provided it is understood that such a body will never become autonomous or independent. In the case of the Transkei, however, the Government has made it quite clear that this is a further constitutional development towards complete independence. In view of our party’s record of opposition to such constitutional development we shall oppose this as well.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister mentioned that the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei had passed a motion asking for this power, a motion which had been supported also by the opposition in the Transkei. That is quite true. The position is that only one man on the Government side moved this motion, and was supported straight away by an Opposition member who said very little except that he supports it because this is the democratic way of electing an Executive. He said he was glad that the governing party of the Transkei was now becoming democratic. It was because of this sign of a swing on the part of the Government Party towards democracy that the Opposition Party was prepared to support it. There was no discussion at all about the necessity for this change, the only reason given being that it was a democratic move. No other reason at all was given; there was no statement to the effect that this had become necessary, for instance on account of the difficulty of governing on the basis as it existed up to now. Moreover, I doubt whether our Government will accept all motions moved and supported unanimously by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. For instance, there was a resolution which was also supported by the Opposition, that more land should be given to the Transkei. They even named the areas they wanted. Nevertheless, I see no move by this Government to give effect to that unanimous request.

As I said earlier, we shall vote against this clause and we shall signify our objection to the remaining clauses which have any significance. Accordingly I shall not get up to speak on each one of them.

This clause is the most important one in the amending Bill. We base our opposition to this clause on the fact that it can lead to greater independence, to eventual complete independence for the Transkei. As an authority on and student of constitutional law, Mr. Chairman, you as well as hon. members on the opposite side who are also authorities on constitutional law, will know that there is a great difference between representative government and responsible government. Provision is now being made here for the Transkeian Cabinet henceforth to be responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. It is a major constitutional step in the, I might say, British Parliamentary system to greater independence for an area. This amendment places the Transkei in a position somewhere between a colony with responsible government and an area approaching dominion status. This is therefore part of the process of granting the Transkei greater independence. Because we are against that process, we are also against this particular clause.

Yesterday, however, a very strange thing happened here. The hon. the Minister vehemently denied that this particular clause had anything to do with the independence of the Transkei …

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that the principle of this clause was accepted at the Second Reading and consequently he must confine himself to the details of the clause without repeating the arguments which were raised in the Second Reading debate.

I shall not repeat those arguments. I should just like to inquire of the hon. the Minister what the real reason is for this clause. There appears to be confusion in Government ranks in this connection, for the hon. member for Christiana also expressed a point of view and said the following—

That was the view of the hon. member for Christiana, and I am inclined to agree with him.

Order! At the moment we are not dealing with the question of whether or not the Transkei is going to get independence; we are dealing only with the details of this clause, and at this stage I cannot allow a comprehensive discussion on the question of independence.

With due respect, Mr. Chairman, the details of this clause deal with greater powers for the Chief Minister of the Transkei to appoint and change his Cabinet at will. As such this Bill signifies a further constitutional step in the development of the Transkei. I think I am correct as far as this is concerned.

Yes, and this is all that is before the Committee.

That constitutional step I may condemn. I strongly condemn it, and I must give the reason for doing so, which is that it can lead to greater independence. In view of your decision, Mr. Chairman, I shall not take the matter any further in that particular field, but in that case I think the hon. the Minister owes the Committee an explanation of why he adopts one attitude with regard to the reasons for this particular clause, while the hon. member for Christiana adopts a different attitude with regard to the same matter.

Sir, the hon. member for Christiana was not the one who first raised the issue of the coming of independence yesterday; it was first raised by hon. members on the opposite side, and that is why this matter was taken up. But I should like to respond to what the hon. member for Orange Grove has just mentioned here, i.e. that there is a difference between a representative government and an irresponsible government. The hon. member for the Transkei also referred with contempt to the Chief Minister of the Transkei. The time has now come for us to accept responsibility in respect of these people. The Chief Minister of the Transkei was actually elected by the people of the Transkei, and as such he must be respected in that position. That is why this clause is applicable; that is why he himself has to accept responsibility for his own Ministers. Consequently I support this clause.

I do not have much to add to what has already been said about the clause, except that I just want to point out once again that the Opposition is really reading something into this Bill, and especially into this first clause, which we, who have to do with the practical administration of the matter, do not read into it. This is the only reason why hon. members are trying to make politics of the matter. To try to create the impression that this Bill has something to do with the Transkei becoming independent, is really to drag in something which has absolutely nothing to do with this Bill. It is a perfectly simple Bill based on the fact that some years ago the Bunga put the request to the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the late Dr. Verwoerd, that the Chief Minister and the Ministers of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly be appointed by ballot by that Assembly. In the meantime they have gained practical experience and as a result they have now approached the department with this new request which, I want to stress once more, is a unanimous request from the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei, as the hon. member for Transkei has conceded. Whether their Opposition said they supported the request for democratic reasons, or whatever reasons they might have advanced, is, after all, irrelevant to us. As a result of their own personal practical experience in that Legislative Assembly a motion was adopted and the facts of the matter are that all the members of that Legislative Assembly were unanimously of the opinion that the Ministers there should not be appointed by ballot by the Legislative Assembly, as in the past, but that they should be appointed by the Chief Minister. The normal procedure was then put into motion and they asked the department whether we were prepared to carry this into effect. Sir, where the question of independence enters into this, heaven only knows; we do not. The request was made to us that the Chief Minister be allowed to appoint his own Ministers, and what is wrong with that? If the Official Opposition had been in power, on what grounds would they have refused this reasonable, unanimous request by the Legislative Assembly? And because we had no reasons to refuse, we did not do so. I repeat that independence does not enter into the picture at all. For that reason we said it was a reasonable request and it was duly considered. For that reason this clause now appears in the Bill in its present form. Therefore, all these other things which are now being raised are really completely irrelevant and unnecessary. This is also my reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove as to the reason for this clause being included in the Bill; indeed, for the entire Bill, because the other clauses, with the exception of clause 8, contain only consequential amendments in any event. The only reason is that as a result of practical experience those people addressed a unanimous request to the department. The department regards it as a reasonable request and it is being carried into effect in clause 1 of this Bill. What did the hon. member for Orange Grove want to ask?

I am asking whether this is also the reply to the hon. member for Christiana, who said that this legislation was leading to independence?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER: I have already replied to that aspect at length by saying that this is all there is to this matter and if you want to read more into it, it is not my fault, and it does not exist as far as we are concerned. Anyone is free to read into it whatever he chooses, hut I am only stating the facts regarding the reason for this clause being included in the Bill in its present form. Is the hon. member satisfied now?

No.

The hon. member will never be satisfied.

Clause 1 of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, when this clause was discussed yesterday, the Minister chided us for not having opposed the clause. He had hoped we would oppose it because this provides for the appointment to the Legislative Assembly of an additional chief. He said that as we opposed the appointment of chiefs in the Assembly, we should automatically oppose the addition of this chief. Of course, our attitude to chiefs taking part in the legislature of the Transkei was not that they should not take part at all, but that they should be in a separate Chamber. We want the two Chambers, as is demanded by the Democratic Party in the Transkei.

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister went on to say that this resolution for an additional member has not been accepted by both sides in the Legislative Assembly and that the Democrats opposed it. Therefore he expected us to oppose it too.

I did not say that.

Well, the hon. the Deputy Minister implied that. However, the point is that the Democrats, the Opposition in the Transkei, did not oppose giving Kentani representation by a chief. They opposed the addition to the number of chiefs and they wanted Idutywa to give up a chief. They moved as an amendment that Kentani be given representation by a chief and that Idutywa be asked to give up one of its chiefs. They proposed that the local bodies meet and come to some agreement and that the Constitution then be amended. However, when the amendment was lost they did not oppose the motion which proposed giving Kentani representation by a chief. I just want to point it out. As the principle of representation by chiefs has been accepted by this House and chiefs therefore do take their place in that Legislative Assembly, we could not oppose the principle of chiefs being in the Assembly. In view of the fact that only two districts were not represented, i.e. Port St. Johns and Kentani and because Kentani now has a chief who can represent it, we thought it right that he should do so. However, Port St. Johns is apparently not going to make any request in that regard. That explains why we did not oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to this, I just want to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition seems to have told the hon. member for Transkei to do his homework. Apparently he then did his homework and this is why he knows all these facts about the chiefs today. The hon. member has stated them quite correctly. The only difference is that no member of the Opposition knew this yesterday and we on this side of the House knew it very well. Today, however, they know it as a result of the fact that we mentioned it yesterday.

But, as I have said, the hon. member has stated the position quite correctly. The Opposition in the Transkei did not oppose the increased number of chiefs in principle. They wanted Idutywa, which has two representative chiefs in the Assembly, to give up one in order to retain the original number of chiefs. This is quite correct. However, the fact remains that yesterday, during the Second Reading, the United Party Opposition did not have a word to say about this matter of the chiefs. It was and still is very strange that the United Party Opposition, which has been fighting against representation by chiefs all these years, did not say a word yesterday about this matter which is contained in the Bill, while they have been reading so many other non-existent things into the Bill. I think they have proved by this that the charge of inefficiency which they levelled at the Government last week does not apply to the Government, but to themselves.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast suggested a few amendments in the grammar of clauses 10 and 11 and the other clauses. We have gone into the matter and have found that he is quite right. Unfortunately we were unable to give notice of these amendments so that they could be effected here. However, the amendments requested by the hon. member will be effected in the Senate.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, our objection to this Bill starts right at the beginning, in the first sentence of the preamble which reads as follows:

I am not going to start an argument about whether the word “nations” has been used properly in this sense. It makes no difference in this Bill whether the Bantu people are described as ethnic groups, race groups, volke or nasies. It does not matter how they are described in the preamble which I want to discuss now. The preamble says that it is the desire of the Government “that further provision be made for the development of the Bantu nations to self-government and independence”. Let us compare this preamble with the preamble to the Transkei Constitution Act, No. 48 of 1963. It reads as follows:

This is how the preamble to the Transkei Constitution Act reads. Not one word is said about independence. There is not one word about “self-government towards independence”. There may be some argument about what is meant by “self-government”, but the mere term “self-government” can mean local government.

Did you also read the other Acts?

What other Acts?

Those with relation to South-West Africa.

I am talking about the Transkei Constitution Act. In the White Paper and also by the hon. the Minister in his speech reference was made to the development of the Transkei. Chapter 2 of the Bill we have before us now is almost a replica of the Transkei Constitution Act, in which no reference is made to independence. The term “self-government” can also mean “local government”. Reading the preamble of that Act there is nothing to suggest that the legislation had to be passed merely to give them independence and a greater say in their own affairs. But when one looks at the provisions of the Transkei Constitution Act one sees that it contains measures for granting symbols of sovereignty. We also know by speeches made by the hon. Minister and by Nationalist members during the Second Reading debate that the Bill was introduced to put the Transkei on the way to independence. Comparing the preambles of the Act and this Bill, one finds that there is no comparison at all. The preamble of the Bill we have before us states clearly that it is only passed for one purpose, namely to put the Reserves on the path to independence. I say that it is most undesirable that any legislation which purports to put the Bantu Reserves on the way to independence and has as its aim the fragmentation, the Balkanization, of South Africa should be passed and we shall strenuously oppose this Bill. We are convinced that the majority of the people, White and non-White, do not want this Bill and that they reject this measure as a solution of our problems in this country.

We reject this Bill because, in the first place, it is folly to embark on a policy which will divide South Africa into eight, nine or ten separate states leaving the so-called White South Africa ringed with a horseshoe of foreign states which the Government hopes will be friendly towards us but which may in fact be hostile. When independence is bestowed on them, the leaders may be friendly disposed towards the Republic of South Africa, but we never know who will be the leaders in future. We only have to look to the North to see what has happened up there where leaders have changed and how their attitudes have changed. The change which we fear may take place, may not be in the interests of the Africans themselves, as also has happened up North. When the Transkei Constitution Bill was passed, the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. De Wet Nel, said that it was to be done to take the Transkei on the way to independence, but he hoped that they would not ask for independence, that they would be so friendly towards us that they would not want independence. Now the point is that, if they are going to be friendly, they will not ask for independence. That was what was hoped. Does it mean that they are going to ask for independence when they are not friendly and when they cease to be our friends? Is that when they are going to seek independence and government on their own?

This policy of granting independence to the reserves is not the traditional policy of South Africa. It was not the policy of General Botha, and certainly it was never the policy of General Smuts. It was not the policy of General Hertzog, who in 1936 said that the reserves could have a form of self-government, always under the umbrella—this was the word he used—of the Central Government who would have the control. This policy of granting independence was introduced for the first time by the late Dr. Verwoerd. We will remember that he said that it was not traditional, because it was something he did not want to do, but something which had been forced on South Africa by the outside world. We say that this policy, which is embodied in the Bill, namely the idea of giving independence to the reserves, is not a traditional policy of South Africa. This Government is carrying out a policy which is being forced on it. I think that is why the Prime Minister during the last session of Parliament invited the reserves to ask for their independence. He wanted to show the outside world that he was giving independence and that he was sincere in carrying out the policy of the Government.

This policy entails that White South Africa will be surrounded by possible hostile states. It offers no solution to us. It offers danger to us, and possible dangers also to the Africans who will be living in the reserves. But it is no solution otherwise, because the majority of the Bantu will still be living, not in these independent states, but in White South Africa. What is the Government’s problem? Why does the Government embark on this independence policy? I submit that it is to find a solution to giving political rights to the Bantu. This is an attempt to solve the question of what political rights they will enjoy and to satisfy their other aspirations. Unless the Bantu all leave the White areas, move out to the reserves and live in these independent states where they can enjoy their political rights to the full, unless this ideal of the Nationalist Party materializes, this policy is no solution. The ideal will have to be carried out, because with the majority of the Bantu still living in the White areas—and here they will live!—the Government has no solution to their political aspirations. That is the problem they have before them.

The outside world is not worried about what is happening to the reserves. They are worried about what is happening to the Bantu in the urban areas. The legislation which they see introduced by this Government is to try and contain the stream of Africans to the White areas, to try and get them to return to their reserves and subject them all to a migratory system of labour. That is what the outside world sees and that is what brings disfavour upon this country. I say this effort merely to give them independence for the sake of doing so is going to offer no solution to the problems of our country.

I wish to deal with paragraph 6 of the introduction to the White Paper, which reads:

Where do we see this generally felt need? Who in particular asked for this provision to be passed? I know there are suggestions that one of the minor Reserves would perhaps like its independence but there has been no general request for this type of legislation.

If you do not know of it …

The Minister says the object of this is to put the other Reserves on an equal footing with the Transkei. However, this is not putting them on an equal footing with the Transkei, at least not until we get to Chapter II; only then can we talk about an equal footing with the Transkei, Chapter I is not necessary because they can go on as the Transkei did under a Territorial Authority. That is how the Transkei developed, i.e. as expressed in the preamble to the Transkei Constitution Act “they have participated over a number of years in local government and have thus gained experience in exercising limited authority”. We say let them go on with that until they are sufficiently trained to take over the system of government now operative in the Transkei. Now, why is this being done in this way? Why not adopt the course followed in respect of the Transkei? It is not necessary to come with this form of self-government, with this promise to them of independence. They are being given a form of government lower than the form of government operative in the Transkei but at the same time they are being told that this is the first step on their way to independence, irrespective of how they behave or carry on. The provisions of Chapter I for government by Executive Council elected from the Assembly and chosen by the people could fit into our proposal for a communal council, although not necessarily in every detail. Chapter II however, which provides for self-governing territories, practically a replica of the Transkei Constitution Act, never could because of the symbols of sovereignty contained in that Constitution —i.e. the flag and the anthem. Citizenship is not mentioned in this Bill because dual citizenship was granted in the Bantu Citizenship Act. The whole tenor of this Bill is that it recognizes and substantiates the fact that there is dual citizenship and to dual citizenship we are opposed. We say it is an unnatural form of citizenship, It was not popular with the Nationalist Party when we still belonged to the Commonwealth. But here we have a system of dual citizenship in terms of which all the Bantu living within South Africa are now citizens of South Africa and also of their respective homelands. Under this Bill the Government of a homeland can make laws applicable to citizens living outside its borders. I wonder whether there is any other country in the world which would tolerate that. Does the hon. the Minister know of any Government in the world which allows foreign citizens within its borders to be governed by laws passed by another Government? Here another Government can legislate not only for its own citizens within its borders but also for its citizens living within our territory and who therefore are also our citizens. This is what is proposed in clause 30 (1) (b). Sir, I say we are giving up our sovereignty. Our sovereignty diminishes when once we permit this sort of thing to happen and we remove from our control reserves which have not yet attained their independence and which are still part of the Republic by providing that their government can amend or repeal Acts passed by this Parliament. Sir, the Ministers are always keen on giving precedents to prove that they are democrats and that other Western countries proceed in the same manner. I ask them if they can find any precedent for this type of law which they are passing here.

Sir, although this Bill does not give independence it is a step towards it, and Parliament will lose its control of the timetable. We, the elected representatives of the people of South Africa, will be denied the right to express our views on the proposals. The State President will decide—naturally on the advice of the Minister—when this law must be applied and when an area becomes sufficiently experienced in managing its own affairs to take over the powers given in this Act—not this Parliament.

Sir, the boundaries of these reserves are not set out anywhere. The State President will consult with the various Bantu bodies. He will consult with the authorities in the Bantu areas as to the boundaries but not the members of this White Parliament; he will lay down the boundaries. When the Transkei Constitution Act was passed we knew to which districts the provisions would apply; we knew over which areas the Transkeian Government would have jurisdiction, and the boundaries could be altered in consultation with the Transkeian Government. But here Sir, right from the beginning we provide in this measure that the State President will himself lay down the boundaries of these reserves without consulting this Parliament. The State President will set out by regulation what the constitution of the Legislative Assembly is to be. He will say who will have the right to vote; he will say how the Cabinet will be elected and how they will be dismissed. All the administrative provisions which were contained in the Transkei Constitution Act are being omitted from this Bill because it is left to the State President himself—on the advice of the Minister naturally—to say how these legislative bodies will operate.

Sir, this question of the boundaries of the territories is a most serious one. I referred earlier today to a resolution which was passed in the Transkeian Legislative Assembly asking for further additional districts to be added on to the Transkei, the districts of Maclear, Elliot, Matatiele, Mount Currie, Kokstad and Port St. Johns. That motion was unanimously passed by that body. The Government has not yet reacted to that request but, Sir, it has been a most disconcerting resolution for the people living in the neighbouring areas. Port St. Johns has taken the matter up with the Prime Minister because after the resolution was passed the Chief Minister of the Transkei made a further claim to these areas extending right down to Port Shepstone. I see in the Kokstad Advertiser, the local newspaper, that the sale of two farms was cancelled. Protracted negotiations were broken off when this notice appeared.

Three.

The hon. member for Aliwal says three, not two. It was stated in a leading article that the matter had been brought to the attention of the hon. member for Aliwal because his area was involved and they hoped that he would be able to finalize this matter so that there would be no more claims for this area to be incorporated in the Transkei. The hon. member should support me because he is having difficulties now in his constituency; he cannot deny it. I would like him to get up during the discussion on this Bill and tell us what he has proposed to the Prime Minister or to the Government as to how this problem can be resolved. Has he asked the Prime Minister definitely to lay down the boundaries of the Transkei? Has he asked him to tell the country definitely where the boundaries will be? Because it is no good relying on the old answer, as the Prime Minister does and as the hon. the Minister does, that the boundaries were laid down in 1936. That, of course, is no reply and the people in East Griqualand know that it is no reply, because the Government goes on buying land adjacent to the boundaries set out in 1936. And it is not only East Griqualand or the Transkei that is worried; there is Zululand. A territorial authority has now been established in Zululand and there will have to be some consolidation. Mr. De Wet Nel, this Minister’s predecessor, said there would have to be consolidation; there would have to be embroidery, as he put it. You cannot have independent Reserves unless there is a consolidated area and we know the difficulties we are going to run into around Tswanaland. All these problems are in connection with boundaries and they must be solved before you embark upon giving these people self-government and independence. The Transkei was given a form of self-government and now you have that legislative body clamouring for more land. I say that we in this Parliament should know, before the State President proclaims the self-governing area, the boundaries of that self-governing area.

The hon. the Minister said yesterday that the proclamation will be laid on the Table of the House. That may be so, but of what use will that be? Let me read clause 37. It says—

Any proclamation issued by the State President under this Act shall be laid upon the Table of the Senate and of the House of Assembly within 14 days after its promulgation … and if both the Senate and the House of Assembly by resolution passed in the same session disapprove of any such proclamation or any provision thereof, such proclamation or provision shall cease to be of force and effect …

So if the Senate and the Assembly, both by resolution passed during the same session, disapprove of the State President’s proclamation, it will be of no force and effect, but it goes on to say that it will be without prejudice to the validity of anything done in terms of such proclamation or such provision before it so ceased to be of force and effect, or to any right or liability acquired or incurred in terms of such proclamation or such provision before it so ceased to be of force and effect. The President may proclaim a certain area for self-government in consultation with the Bantu people living in that area, and steps may be taken to start acquiring property in that area. It may be done during the recess immediately after Parliament adjourns, and so it will be some time before the proclamation is laid on the Table of Parliament to discuss it. Some irrevocable steps may have been taken already before Parliament has a chance to discuss it. I say therefore that this is a most serious matter for the people of South Africa, who find that their own representatives, Nationalists or United Party or Progressives, will not have an opportunity of discussing these matters before the Government takes these steps. I say that when the Transkei Constitution Act was passed we knew what was happening, but now in future we will not know.

The Minister further talks about a point of no return. They say they have progressed so far now with their promises of independence that they cannot go back on them.

That is a logical development.

Now the hon. member says it is a logical development, but it is an illogical development, a development which was never expected in South Africa until this Nationalist Government came into power. It had never been thought of by any previous rulers.

They denied it.

Yes, they denied it. Dr. Malan denied it during his régime. But the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration now says it will be immoral for us to go back on the promises made and that they have already reached the point of no return.

Once independence has been granted, we shall probably have reached the point of no return as far as that particular reserve is concerned, but until then control will still be in the hands of this Parliament. Control is still in the hands of this Parliament now, but once this Bill has been passed, Parliament will have given up its right of control. If this Bill is passed Parliament will be giving up its powers. Parliament will be saying to the Minister and to the Cabinet: “You can in future decide when to grant these people a form of self-government, with the promise of independence.” This Government, having once embarked on such a course in consultation with the Bantu, and having set aside land for them and given them a form of self-government with the promise of independence, will no longer be able to go back on its promises.

Let there be no mistake that we on this side of the House do not consider ourselves bound by the promises made by this Minister. We shall not consider it immoral, when we get into power, to stop this particular type of development. This constitutional development is not aimed at giving the Bantu government in their own areas to deal with their own affairs through the communal councils which we have proposed. As I said yesterday, it is our policy to let them develop. Our policy is aimed at ensuring economic and political development in the Reserves. In terms of that political development they may have even more powers than provincial councillors. Hon. members opposite know what our policy is in that respect. As far as independence is concerned, we have made our position very clear. When the Transkei Constitution Act was passed my Leader said:

The Leader of the United Party has made the party’s position quite clear, so that when people ask us whether the point of no return has been reached, we can say “no”. This desperate Government is, however, clutching at straws for its survival, and bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s irresponsible invitation to the Reserves to ask for independence, the time may be running out for this country to find a proper solution to its problems.

Mr. Speaker, for various reasons I have been listening with more than the usual attention to the hon. member for Transkei. The first reason is, of course, that he is the main speaker on the Opposition side as far as these matters are concerned. Secondly, all of us ought to realize that here we are dealing with a very important development, as regards the growth and development and evolution of the race and population situation in South Africa. That hon. member is much older than I am, and he has been a member of this House for a much longer period than I. Therefore I do not want to offend him. Each person has his own nature and personality, and these colour the view he takes of things. I want to say, however, that I shall have to wait for other hon. members, such as the members for Bezuidenhout, Zululand and Pinelands, because they are people who are usually very profound in discussing these problems of principle with which we are struggling in this Parliament.

The one difficulty I am experiencing as regards the speech of the hon. member, is that he did not really touch on the major problem of principle. At least, he did not do so to my satisfaction. This major principle concerns the question of what the real political future of the various groups in South Africa is going to be. One often has to give a reply to the question of what is apartheid and what is separate development. There are many replies to this question. There are many facets to this—as far as I am concerned—beautiful diamond. The one facet of what apartheid really is, is that it implies the right that every people may determine its own destiny and that every people should govern itself. This is the one aspect of apartheid with which we are dealing in this particular piece of legislation. As regards the handling of the population situation in South Africa, the National Party has never evaded giving a clear statement of the basic principles out of which it formulates its standpoint. This afternoon I just want to quote once again from the National Party’s Programme of Principles and Constitution, so that the Opposition may once more see from which premises the National Party is operating. The programme contains the following—

These, on the one hand, are the fundamental principles on which the National Party bases its policy, but actually we cannot deal with this Bill in the right perspective if we do not contrast the fundamental principles of the United Party to those of the National Party. It is only from these premises that one can advance any argument. The United Party rejects this legislation, because it views it on the basis of the following fundamental principle, which I quote—

This is their attitude in respect of the relationship between Bantu and White in South Africa. Then they go further and state as an ideal, in contradistinction to the National Party—

In other words, in contradistinction to the National Party, that accepts a diversity amongst the Bantu and the right of these various people to develop separately, the United Party sees South Africa as one integrated organic whole and this is how it wants to carry this into effect on the political facet of the South African way of life as well as on one integrated economic system. Moreover, in recent years the United Party also referred to the education aspect, and it stated very clearly that in respect of tertiary education, there should be an integrated educational system. In order to illustrate further the philosophy of the United Party I just want to quote what was said by their Transvaal leader in respect of the Bantu’s political aspirations and how the Bantu were to realize those aspirations within the same political structure as the Whites. In 1964 in a television interview, he gave the following reply to the question, “Then, does the United Party envisage that there will one day be Black M.P.’s in the National Assembly in Cape Town?”—

That is an old story.

I know it is an old story, but it now applies as an argument in the one I am advancing. After all, it is the continued existence of the various groups in South Africa that is being discussed now. If I am wrong now, then Mr. Marais Steyn was wrong too. But this is the argument of that side of the House. The hon. member for Yeoville then replied as follows—

In other words, he involved the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the argument he advanced abroad—

In other words, Sir de Villiers Graaff, the Leader of the United Party, accepts this view of the United Party which cannot be argued away—

In other words, every member of the United Party accepts it—

I fully accept that the intentions of the United Party are sincere when they say that to them this is not a permanent situation—

In other words, this is the contrast between the National Party and the United Party. In this debate we are again touching on the basic difference between the National Party and the United Party. According to this argument, also the younger generations in South Africa who will come forward, be they White, be they Bantu, will argue from this point. For that reason I am grateful for the fact that the United Party, through the mouth of the hon. member for Transkei, has adopted such a strong standpoint here.

Mr. Speaker, one simply cannot take this Bill and look at it without seeing it in a particular historical depth. This Bill was not just thought up there in the Minister’s office together with a few public servants over the past few months. It is in line with a long historical development as the various Bantu groups on the one hand, and White and Black on the other hand, met in South Africa. Consequently I should like to refer to it in brief. I refer hon. members to the works of Dr. Scholtz. If hon. members do not like the works of Dr. Scholtz, I refer them to another man they like to quote in this House, namely Dr. Nick Rhoodie, and his work “Ontwikkeling van die Apartheidsgedagte” (Development of the Apartheid Idea), and other works written by him. When one reads these works, one sees that a policy of separation, in the political field as well, was accepted in the period 1652 to 1795, the time of the old Dutch East India Company, the time of Jan van Riebeeck and subsequently, by the White inhabitants of South Africa. When one reads about the period 1795 to 1803 and from 1806 and subsequently, the period of British rule, one sees that many of the British rulers and the governors in South Africa were forced by the practical circumstances of the South African situation to accept a policy of separation between White and Black in South Africa. I have in mind Sir Benjamin D’Urban for example. The people who caused problems at that time for the British governors in South Africa who proposed a policy of separation, were the strayed clergymen of that time, such as Phillip, Read and Van der Kemp and those people. I should like to refer especially the hon. member for Zululand, who comes from Natal, to the administration which Sir Theophilus Shepstone, for example, had in Natal. He was an out and out English-speaking person. He laid down certain basic rules for separation between the White man and the Black man. I want to go further and refer to the history of the old Voortrekkers. I have many quotations which I can mention in which those people who settled in the northern provinces made it very clear that neither in State nor in Church did they want any equality. When we refer to the history subsequent to that, the history of our country after Union and the period when Gen. Hertzog was in power, it is very clear that Gen. Hertzog in the foundation work he did, was a champion of a very clear policy of separation. And, as I have already noticed, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has a great admiration for Gen. Hertzog. Since 1948 it has been very clear that the National Party has been propagating a policy of separation in South Africa. The National Party came into power in 1948 for various reasons. One was that it had a very definite policy of seeing the various Bantu groups not as one organic unit together with it, but as a diversity. Moreover, it was clear that it would lead this diversity to full political independence.

We must have very close regard to the full history of Africa since 1948. When we do so it is as clear as a pikestaff that all the various national groups have been striving after political independence. Most of the Black states have already caused that process to come to an end for themselves. From the beginning we in South Africa have been telling the outside world very clearly that we are honest and sincere in our policy and that we would lead these people on the basis of a process of separate development to full realization in the political field as well. Along with that we have always been telling these people that we in South Africa have our own particular composition. We have our own particular approach and we have our own particular way of seeing matters and we shall control and administer the dependence and the independence of the Bantu peoples in our own way. This is what we are doing now. We are not using examples of what we have been taught by other peoples. We are doing this in accordance with the observations we have made in South Africa in the course of three centuries. That is why this piece of legislation of the Minister is part of a process peculiar to our South African situation. If hon. members will forgive me, I want to make a few theoretical remarks.

They are all theoretical remarks.

I want to discuss the features of political unity as one finds them in general. At the end of my speech I want to compare them to the situation of the various non-White peoples in South Africa. The features of a political unit are as follows. In the first place there is a social bond between the inhabitants. In the second instance there is a definable area in which the social unit makes itself known in the political sphere. Then there is an authority that rules the social unit in that area. In the fourth place there is a willing submission to this authority and lastly there is the recognition by other political units of the independent right of determination of this political unit.

Now let us elaborate to some extent on these few points I have mentioned to hon. members. Let us first deal with the existence of a social unit. The social bond which forms a definable and independent unit in the political sphere, is in all cases the largest and most multitudinous social bond, i.e. the entire tribe or the entire people. The entire people, or tribal units, as they are to be found amongst the South African Bantu peoples, came into existence through a process of coalescence. Usually it developed from a pivotal group together with foreign groups. In the course of time, through the acceptance of the culture of the pivotal group by all the foreign groups, the heterogeneous origin was eliminated so that the initially political unit developed through coalescence, also in the cultural sphere, into a national unit. This eventual condition, in which the subjects of one political authority came to share in one culture, may then be called a homogeneous tribal unit. Therefore, a political unit of heterogeneous origin always tends towards cultural union.

The second point is the occupation of a particular area. Each political unit distinguishes itself from another in that it is bound to its own particular area in which all members of the community recognize the authority established over them and within which they make a livelihood. The members of the political unit translate the consciousness of distinctiveness which exists in their minds towards all other political units into perceptible boundaries. In exceptional cases we find a political unit, or at least a political consciousness, without the consolidating bond of a tribal area of its own. In South Africa we have this as far as the Ndebele are concerned and we also find it amongst the Jewish people.

The third point is the existence of an authority for providing order. Within each political unit we can indicate the presence of an institution of authority recognized by the community within the area of the fatherland. Internally this authority orders the community and externally it leads the community in its action. This authority may be exercised by an individual, by various leaders or even by an institution such as a council. The most important function of a political authority as regards internal regulation is to be found in the giving of guidance in all spheres of life in which it is expected of those having political authority to do so. Alongside this, as an essential component, the power of exercising authority over the subjects bolds good. This includes the establishment of a legal system through which the rules and laws can be made enforceable. What is important is that the activities and the duties of the political authority are not restricted to the administration of justice only but are extended to look after all other facets as well.

Then, in the fourth place, there is obedience to authority. A feature of all political units is that the members of such a unit have to show obedience to those in authority and the leaders of the people. In the fourth place there is the independence of the political unit. Each political unit forms an independent unit under those in authority inside the fatherland. In this connection we are actually concerned with two matters. In the first place there is the feeling of independence or feeling of separateness from others, and in the second place there is the crystallization of this consciousness of national distinctness in the political sphere. This consciousness finds expression in the political sphere in the willingness to defend to the utmost any violation of the right of self-determination under the existing political authority. Any national group will do this. This consciousness of the right of self-determination is one of the most important grounds for the demarcation of a people as a political unit. Therefore, political regulation everywhere in the world has to do with the regulation of the relationship between an independent institution of authority and its subjects who are bound by a particular social bond within their fatherland.

How do these Bantu groups we are leading to independence comply with these broad, theoretical requirements I have stated? First I want to mention the existence of social units. Do social units exists amongst these various Bantu groups? To this question I have to answer, “Yes”. In this regard I refer hon. members to any ethnological work or other scientific work in this field of study, or to any historian, as well as to the Bantu themselves. In the second place there is the question of the occupation of a particular area. Also to this question the answer is, “Yes”. There are, in fact, Bantu areas in South Africa, their homelands. It is not true that the National Party has fragmented South Africa. The National Party did not meet in 1948, draw a few lines and say that this was the Ciskei, that this was the Transkei, that another part was Vendaland and that another part was Tswanaland. History gave these parts of South Africa to these people. It belongs to them. It is theirs.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That this House expresses its deep concern at the increasing incidence of various forms of violence and revolutionary warfare aimed at undermining authority, order and world peace, as well as at the encouragement thereof, morally and financially, by bodies such as the World Council of Churches; and that it directs the attention, as a matter of urgency, of the people of South Africa and all peace loving nations, to the necessity of combating this phenomenon timeously and resolutely at all levels for the maintenance of civilization and the stability of the free world.

The motion standing in my name on the Order Paper deals with revolution. Will you allow me, Sir, before dealing with the motion, to refer briefly, by way of contrast, to a case of evolution. I am referring, Sir, to your announcement on 1st February that members of this Parliament will be allowed from now on to change from one official language to the other in the course of the same speech. You know as well as I do that Parliament is very jealous of its traditions and that it does not change its traditions easily. In this case, we have made quite a change. I think it is a very appropriate change, because it will enable members of this Parliament to make use of the other official language more freely. On the other hand, it will symbolize the degree of bilingualism that we have attained in this Parliament and also in this country.

I also wish to pay tribute to the role of the hon. the Leader of the House, the hon. the Minister of Transport, because he was actually the man who engineered this matter through the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. The hon. member for Durban (Point) will be rather surprised to learn from me that he also fits into the picture. It all started when he made a speech last session during the Railway debate. He spoke in Afrikaans. When the hon. the Minister replied to him, he said that the only thing worthwhile about his speech was the fact that he spoke in Afrikaans. He urged other members in this House to do the same and to make use of the other official language. That same evening I approached the hon. the Minister and told him that I thought it was time that we could make a change in this regard. He told me that if I could procure the support of the Parliamentary staff including Hansard, he would be prepared to take the matter to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Within one week I reported to him that the staff was behind him. After two more days he reported back to me that the whole issue would be mentioned by the Speaker at the beginning of the session, enabling members to make use of the other official language.

*Mr. Speaker, the motion on the Order Paper deals with a phenomenon which is occurring in the Free World to an increasing extent, but which has its origin in the Communist world. There are almost no limits to the variety of forms taken by revolutionary warfare. It is directed at the human mind, at people’s way of life, and at the political and social order of nations, and it gnaws at the foundations of authority, order and stability in the Free World. Although South Africa has thus far been spared most facets of this phenomenon, our country remains one of the main targets for this onslaught, and in my opinion it is essential for the Legislature of our country to take note of the extent and significance of revolutionary warfare and to raise an urgent and timely voice in order to call upon the population of South Africa to be vigilant and in order to seek application with other free peoples with a view to combating the problem resolutely.

The reason for this motion is that I have noticed, especially over the past two or three years, a tremendous increase in violence and revolutionary warfare in the Free World. During a visit to Britain and Europe at the end of last year, I found, in the course of conversations with prominent people there, that they were also concerned about this phenomenon, but that at the same time there was often some hesitation to express it in public and to identify the ringleaders, for fear of intimidation, which is in fact one of the most effective weapons of these revolutionaries. At the U.N. and at other gatherings of international power groups, South Africa has in recent years more often than not been singled out as being a threat to world peace, while the course of events in South Africa has in reality proved the opposite. I nevertheless believe the time to be appropriate for sounding a warning note about the dangers which the phenomenon of revolutionary warfare holds for the stability and peace of the Free World, and to point out that it can in fact lead to new international flash-points of an extensive nature.

I shall briefly try to sketch the significance and the extent of this phenomenon and to outline the means by which it can be combated, and I shall leave it to other speakers to go into more detail. Revolutionary warfare has its origin in the Communist world. Since the Second World War however, it has expanded in an alarming way to the free and uncommitted world, an it aims at undermining the established order of government. For this purpose the revolutionary uses every means at his disposal, reckless violence very often being one of his weapons. The revolutionary makes use of finely contrived organization by means of which a small minority imposes its will on the population of a country and eventually tries to stir up a revolutionary spirit among them. It seldom comes to open confrontation between conventional defence forces, although the road to that is frequently opened. I concede that not all cases of revolutionary warfare are caused by open communistic incitement, but such warfare invariably creates the opportunity for Communist revolutionaries to step in. So-called youthful idealists who want to change the existing order by means of revolution, must therefore be warned that revolutionary action never leads to the Utopia which the inciters hold up to them, but virtually always to Communist domination. Over the past quarter of a century, several revolutionary wars have been waged throughout the world, with propaganda, guerrillas and terrorism as the main weapons. Only in one single case the existing authority was eventually able to triumph. At the moment isolated examples of this threat are raging at various points in the Free World. On 6th January, 1961, Kruschev announced that the Soviet states would support revolutionary wars in the Free World, something they had in fact been doing for a long time. Red China also followed this example. Let us now cast a quick glance at the various ways in which this phenomenon is manifesting itself at present.

In the first place, we have the problem of terrorism and, as in Asia, this blatant form of revolutionary warfare has now begun to manifest itself on the African Continent as well. Fugitives, especially from Southern African countries, go to Communist countries, where they are thoroughly trained in guerrilla warfare, and then they are transferred to bases in certain member countries of the O.A.U., properly equipped with weapons of Communist origin for their task of infiltration and the creation of chaos. Their orders are to kill innocent people and, by so doing, to acquire the additional mighty weapon of extortion and intimidation. Terrorists or guerrilla fighters of this type, whom South Africa is coming up against to an increasing extent, can best be described as assasins; that is in fact what they are. By means of a well-chosen propagandistic move, however, they have acquired for themselves the name of “freedom fighters” and “freedom movements”. I believe it is our task as well as that of all freedom-loving peoples to expose these terrorists for what they actually are. In this regard, too, a great responsibility rests on all freedom-loving nations not to allow their countries to be used as bases for terrorists, nor to supply arms and financial aid to such murderous bands. I want to go further and say that if the Free World wants to eradicate this evil, no member of the Free World can afford to open its borders in the name of freedom of movement, even temporarily, to the infiltration of terrorists or terrorist inciters. Without making specific accusations, I want to say today that come Western countries have already paid dearly for their carelessness in this connection or for their actions which were aimed at gaining the favour of certain countries. Sheltering or admitting murderous bands bent on attacking another sovereign country, inevitably becomes a boomerang in the end. That terrorist activities in South and in Southern Africa are of real and increasing importance, is a fact which must consistently be brought to the attention of our population and especially of our youth. There is irrefutable evidence that the number of terrorists trained elsewhere and directed at Southern Africa is increasing. Moreover, in a report entitled “The Armed Forces of African States. 1970” the British Institute for Strategic Studies states that since 1966 there has undoubtedly been a general increase in the strength of the armed forces of member countries of the Organization for African Unity. Our youth, Mr. Speaker, who form the nucleus of our Defence Force and of our Police, are being trained thoroughly today; also for the additional task of anti-guerrilla strategy. The Defence Force does its share in motivating them for the task, but this is a duty which rests also on parents, educationists and the whole of society. Mr. Speaker, South Africa is on firm ground in the categorical statement made by our Prime Minister last year, and also by our Minister of Defence, that we do not harbour any aggressive aspirations whatsoever against neighbouring or any other countries. In fact, this is quite obvious if one considers our population density in comparison with those of other countries. I feel that this consistent standpoint of South Africa is one of the reasons why we have until now been successful in our actions against attempted onslaughts on our freedom. Our neighbouring states, White and non-White, understand and believe in our integrity in this connection to the extent that even the report to which I referred a moment ago, mentions the fact that Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland do not even deem it necessary to build us defence forces of their own. However, it is equally essential to emphasize, as our Minister did explicitly last year, that in the interests of its self-preservation South Africa will on all levels resist with power and resolution any terrorism directed against it, and will even chase them to the bases from where they have come.

Mr. Speaker, in recent times terrorism has started taking on a new form, in that it is also occurring in the air. As a means towards international extortion, terrorist organizations have in recent times struck at civil passenger services, with the danger of loss of life among innocent passengers and aircraft crew. Although these actions initially radiated from Cuba, several Western and Middle Eastern civil aircraft have also been attacked in recent times. In 1969 alone, there were 82 such hi-jackings or attempted hi-jackings of aircraft. Last year the position was no better, and several large aeroplanes, even some belonging to Western countries, were blown up after successful hi-jackings. The U.N. has given attention to this phenomenon, but has thus far been unable to do anything effective about it. I believe that a modus operandi for effective action in this connection has become essential. In view of the above-mentioned type of terrorism, it needs no flight of the imagination to foresee the possibility of terrorism at sea, or terrorism which is supported from the sea. The activities of the Russian fleet in the Indian Ocean do not augur well in this connection, and it is essential that South Africa continually brings its role in the route around the Cape to the attention of the nations of the Free World.

But, Sir, there is a fourth form of terrorism which has reared its head, namely spiritual terrorism. Quite recently we have had the phenomenon, emanating from ecclesiastical circles, of all places, of financial and moral support being granted to the assassins who call themselves freedom fighters. It was an evil day when the World Council of Churches took brutal murderers under its financial and moral wings in the name of the Gospel. This means that some church leaders have shown themselves incapable of distinguishing between good and evil. The protests of some member churches of the World Council of Churches met with little success. Unfortunately I cannot describe this in any other way than that the majority in the World Council of Churches openly associated themselves with the powers of evil. A great responsibility rests on Christian churches, which are still members of that body, to bring it to its senses. Spiritual terrorism can under no circumstances be condoned.

A fifth form of revolutionary warfare initially occurred in the South American states in the form of the abduction of diplomats of other countries, but in recent times this phenomenon has reared its head in Western Europe as well. In the past year there were 19 such cases of attempted and successful abductions of diplomats. In several cases the blackmailers murdered their victims. In other cases they were eventually released in exchange for imprisoned terrorists. In one case a statesman was murdered in his own country by the abductors. Sir, I believe that if co-ordinated action cannot be taken in the Free World against this evil, it can lead to chaos in international relations.

A sixth form of revolution manifested itself a few years ago in the form of widespread, violent student riots. These have often been associated with great loss of life and casualties among civilians and the police, and quite often such violent student riots linked up with industrial unrest which had nothing at all to do with those student riots. The role of drugs in this connection must not be underestimated either. I do not in any way want to underestimate the causes of such student riots, which sometimes may have some foundation, or to deny the right to demonstrate, but when they take on the form of nihilism, they deserve the attention of the Free World. An American author, Anthony Harrigan, declared in 1969, in a lecture he gave before the S.A. Institute of International Affairs, that many young people who take the lead in such violent riots, quite often come from well-to-do homes, but have been treated too permissively over a long period. Things have also been too easy for them in regard to their training and they make the most impossible demands, even demands that they should receive daily allowances as students. However, he also referred to the part played in such riots by mass news media, which present the actions of the rioters as sensational and popularize them, and he also pointed out the part played by educationists, who too often neglect to set ideals for the youth which are worthy to be followed. He said inter alia:

Fortunately we in South Africa can state with pride that our youth, and especially our students, have not yet fallen prey to this phenomenon. This is to the credit and to the benefit of our country and our youth, especially because South Africa is the target of a very strong revolutionary onslaught. Two days before Christmas last year, two colleagues and I had the privilege of having talks with a number of politicians and academics in the focal point of the East-West confrontation in West Berlin. The elderly prof. Fränckel, a retired professor in political history at the Free University of Berlin and a man who has done tremendous work for U.N. agencies, inter alia in Korea, in connection with the re-establishment of democratic administration there, gave us an account, with very deep concern, of the extent of violent student riots as he had experienced them at the Free University of Berlin, scarcely a stone’s throw from where an inexorable wall separates the Free World from the Communistic world. It was good to hear him express his admiration for the discipline of South African youth which he was able to observe here during a visit a few years ago. He gave us the message that they were looking to South Africa from there to take a firm stand against revolutionary phenomena of this and other types.

What is the solution, Mr. Speaker? I believe the internal solution is to be found therein that all institutions, starting at the family level, and in the educational, church, social and military spheres, should be harmoniously united to make the population, and especially our youth, aware of the threatening revolutionary spirit which is seeking our downfall, and to make them fully capable of offering both moral and military resistance. But, Sir, South Africa also has a few words to exchange with the Free World outside in regard to a common problem. The Free World today needs courageous and resolute statemanship in order to resist this variety of threats to its stability. I believe that our Government is prepared to hold discussions on the highest level with other Western Governments in regard to co-ordinated action in order to combat these phenomena. Fortunately there are signs today of the emergence of statesmen of stature, courage and integrity in the Free World who are prepared to resist revolutionary threats with resolution. I believe the time has arrived for such action to be taken and for discussions to be held outside of the U.N., which has shown itself powerless to combat this threatening world phenomenon.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that it is possible for me to get up and be able to say that I accept this motion on subjects such as revolution and subversion, is indicative of a healthy state of affairs. I accept the spirit in which the motion was introduced, and it may be a good thing that we are being afforded the opportunity in this House of once more placing on record the determination of all South Africans that we shall defend the security of our country without any party strife or division. There is no difference in policy between the Government and the Opposition on this fundamental principle. We may differ as far as methods are concerned and we may often differ about details, but there is no difference of opinion as to the basic fact, i.e. the safe-guarding of our country, the maintenance of law and order and the annihilation of any subversive organizations and movements. We believe that the authority of the state must be maintained and that, before anything can be done to develop a country, it is essential that such authority be in safe hands.

†This motion is based on the increasing violence and revolutionary warfare in the world today. The mover of this motion dealt at length with a summary of some of the factors affecting the world as far as violence and revolution are concerned. Unfortunately this is not something entirely new. The history of mankind has been one of violence, one of warfare and one of bloodshed. In fact, when one looks at the world as a whole today, one finds that outside Africa, Indo-China and the Middle East, the world is comparatively peaceful and quiet. I cannot remember a time when there has not been violence and warfare going on somewhere in the world. If members pause for a moment to think, they will remember incidents such as those of Spain, Abyssinia, Palestine, Malaya, Indonesia, India, Thibet, Goa, and in Europe Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Albania and so on and so forth. None of us here have ever lived in a world in which somewhere there has not been warfare and bloodshed through clashes between peoples, either within a country between themselves or between country and country. This has been the unending story of human conflict and it is part of the nature of mankind. But that is no reason why we should be complacent, nor is it a reason for us to panic, because we have difficulties today which we must face.

Even our young country has not been immune from violence and warfare. From the earliest times, from the frontier wars, or the Kaffir Wars, as they are known, through the violence which accompanied much of the Great Trek to the battles of Blood River and Isandlwana—where my ancestors, both Raws and Vauses—fought, and the battle of Rorke’s Drift. Even up to the Bambata Rebellion, as recently as this century, there were continuous unending periods of warfare and violence, which were not only confined between Black and White but between White and White such as the two World Wars, the two Anglo-Boer Wars or Vryheidsoorloë, a rebellion, a strike, incidents like Bulhoek and others.

These are all incidents of violence within the short history of South Africa. I list them, not to give a history lesson, but to emphasize the importance of keeping this sort of problem in what I believe to be the proper perspective. Objectives have changed, the methods of violence have changed. They have changed from confrontation to undermining, to subversion, to attrition and the object has become a gradual take-over of authority rather than a violent clash and the taking over of authority by direct victory.

As the hon. the mover said, in this new type of violence there has been only one war in which the holding power has been successful in winning that war, a war fought by guerrilla tactics. I believe that there is a lesson to be learnt from that. I refer, of course, to the Malayan campaign which is the only occasion on which the holding power has ultimately succeeded in winning and stabilizing its authority after guerrilla warfare. I believe that the lesson is a simple and clear one, namely that this victory was gained because the holding power could count and rely on the total loyalty of the local population. That is a factor which does not only apply there.

We have five fronts, if one can call them fronts, affecting us here in South Africa, and naturally this becomes of major importance and significance for us. We have two of them being protected by our friends, the Portuguese, in Angola and Moçambique. A little over a year ago I took the trouble, through the kind invitation of the Portuguese Government, to visit Angola and to see something of what was happening in stabilizing the northern and northeastern frontiers, where a little while before there had been violent warfare, complete insecurity and very little hope of a satisfactory solution. What struck me was that, from confrontation, the Portuguese authorities had gone over to a settlement scheme of bringing the population into villages where they could enjoy a home life, building for them a church hall, a water point, a school and a communal centre and giving them their own armed guards so that there could be security for the local population against the intimidation and the victimization of the terrorists. By doing this they took away from the terrorists one of their strongest weapons, namely their ability to intimidate and terrorize the local population and to get from them food, clothing and security by being hidden amongst the people. This lesson is one which, I believe, will play a major part once the immediate conflict is past. But it shows again the importance of the loyalty of the local population in combating a war of this type.

We have the same lesson in the third front that affects us in Rhodesia where all reports that one receives emphasize the important part which the loyalty of the local population is playing in ensuring security against invasion. The information supplied by the local population to the security forces is the foundation on which much of their success is built. It is also important—let us face these facts too—to have available well-trained forces. But those who have been to Rhodesia will tell you that very often you find patrols of a hundred or more people with only one or two or three White men amongst them who are officers. The rest are all Bantu troops. It is again this loyalty, the loyalty of those people towards their country, which is enabling them to cope with it. And for the same reason I believe that we in South Africa are fortunate in that we can count on the loyalty to South Africa of those who inhabit our borders. Those who saw the Sibasa exercise for instance, where quite a large scale exercise was carried out, were all impressed by the way in which the local chiefs and the local tribes have played their part in pledging their support for the security of South Africa. If you look at the terrein of our borders, the mountainous bushy country, then you will realize how almost impossible it would be to find isolated infiltrators if the local population tried to hide them. But one of the great factors on our side is the fact that the local population is prepared to tell us when this happens. We can then deal with those individual infiltrators.

The question of a full-scale frontal assault is unlikely to be an immediate problem. But I emphasize these points because I believe that in the long run, the sort of warfare dealt with by the hon. member is not a war which will be won entirely or solely or even mainly with guns. The guns are necessary. The military forces and police forces are necessary, but they will not be the final deciding factor, because basically these are wars of civil administration. The part played by the civil power and the civil administration is as important, if not more important, than the direct military campaign against the guerrilla and subversive type of warfare. But of course administration must be backed by a military force and that is the reason why we on this side of the House have always supported the Government in all its attempts to build a strong, a viable, a well-trained and above all a mobile defence force. This has to be done, because the civil power must have behind it a powerful striking force which gives it its strength in times of emergency or in times of confrontation. But while it is the military force that can win the battle, it is the civil power which wins the war. This is another factor which I believe we must keep constantly before our own eyes and before the eyes of those of us in South Africa who are concerned about these things.

Violence as such has to be stamped out. There can be no question about it and no division about it and there can be no room for legalistic quibbles as to how revolution is fought when you come face to face with it. You cannot fight revolution with your hands tied behind your back. I welcome the fact that this motion emphasizes that it aims at fighting revolution and violence with the object of “the maintenance of civilization and the stability of the free world”. We on this side of the House agree with that. I agree wholeheartedly that we are aiming at the maintenance of civilization and therefore the maintenance of civilized standards and civilized practices. If it is necessary to use rough tactics to ensure our civilization, those tactics must be used.

Having said that unequivocally and without any qualifications, I want to direct a word to another group of South Africans who are the opposite of the revolutionaries. These are the people who are often sincere reformers. They are persons who have been described under the general title of “do-gooders”. They are people whose ambition and target is to reform and to do good. However, I believe that many of them are allowing their humanitarian and Christian sympathies to make them the unwitting tools and the unintended allies of revolution. I think it is important that people should know that it is possible to become an unwitting tool of revolution when you in fact think that you are doing good. I believe that if you are looking at revolution and violence this aspect should also be borne in mind. I also believe that we should emphasize that there is only one way to achieve reform and that is within the framework of the law. All Christians abhor injustice but no Christian supports murder and violence. If they do they cannot hide behind their Christianity if they turn themselves into terrorists or assist subversive forces.

In passing I would also like to address a word to some of the temporary visitors to South Africa. We welcome them here to assist us to christianize our people, to build our industries and to create jobs for our people. We welcome their contribution to the strengthening of South Africa and building it up, but we ask them as temporary visitors to leave us to sort out our own problems and to settle our own differences. This is a South African problem, this is a matter affecting the future of every South African. So, in supporting this motion, I have chosen to give these two kindly-meant warnings—kindly-meant expressions of opinion—to those who may perhaps be misled.

Finally I would like to say I believe that we should neither be afraid nor overconfident, but that we should know from the history of South Africa that security is in the hearts of our people and that patriotism is in the hearts of our people. In this loyalty of our population to our country I believe we have the strength to meet the subversion which threatens us. Despite the fact that to us here it may appear that subversion and violence are growing, I believe we have the means to combat them and that a united people will in fact succeed in combating and ultimately eliminating them.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. There were two aspects of his speech in particular which were very interesting, and which it will at a later stage again be possible to argue about. As far as this motion is concerned, I should like to confine myself to one specific aspect thereof, namely to the encouragement of the undermining of authority through violence and through revolutionary warfare and then, too, the persons and bodies who play a part in this. I want to confine myself to Africa, and to South Africa in particular.

I have already, on a previous occasion, pointed out in this House how politically immature Africa really is. I pointed out that since 1956, 39 countries have gained their independence. It is for that reason not surprising to one that since 1952 there have already been 32 successful military coup d’etáts and secessions in independent African countries. The most recent case was that of Uganda in January of this year. Of particular importance to us as far as this motion is concerned are the terrorist activities in the Congo, Zambia, Tanzania, Angola and Mozambique in particular. The Portuguese alone have at times found it necessary to have up to a 100,000 men under arms, which has cost them up to R200 million per year. This applies particularly in regard to their operations in Mozambique and Angola, and particularly in respect of attacks from Zambia and Tanzania. Our country borders for a distance of approximately 5,000 kilometres on the various countries involved in this revolutionary warfare, and for that reason we must, so much more so today, take cognisance of what the situation is. It is also interesting to note the standpoint of the terrorist leaders, i.e. that anyone standing in their way, particularly in Southern Africa, be it White or non-White, must be wiped out. This was said by Tauna Niingungo, a member of Swapo (the South-West African Peoples’ Organization) in an interview with the Netherlands newspaper, De Volkskorant. He said—

It is interesting to note that the present leader of Frelimo, who operates from Tanzania, is a Protestant pastor, namely the Rev. Uriah Simango.

Most countries manufacturing and selling arms, also sell arms to countries in Africa. Some do so from purely economic considerations, while others do so mainly for the purpose of encouraging and fanning violence and revolution here, and sometimes it is done in the spirit of indifference to the purpose for which the weapons are actually going to be used. The two most important countries that are rendering assistance, inter alia, with the purpose of fanning revolution and violence in Africa, are Russia and China. The time allotted to me does not allow me to go into details, but I just want to mention that Russia is operating in the northern part of Africa in particular, in countries such a Egypt, the United Arab Republic, Algeria, the Sudan and Nigeria, as well as in a few other countries. Radio Moscow and Radio Peking broadcast to Africa for more hours every day than the B.B.C. the Voice of America and Radio R.S.A. combined. This gives one an indication of what is being done by these countries by means of the radio. Bursaries and terrorist training are being given, for example at the well-known Consomol high school in Moscow. Similar training is also being offered in Prague, East Berlin, Bernau, Bautzen, Leipzig, Warsaw and even in Cuba.

China, on the other hand, is concentrating more on East and Central Africa, south of the Sahara, that is Tanzania, Zambia, Burundi, Congo Brazzaville, and the Chinese contribution is at present approximately 380 million dollars per year. It has already been pointed out repeatedly that Zanzibar is in fact China’s Cuba in Africa, and how it has been possible for the past seven years to regard Tanzania as the bridgehead of China in Africa. There are other countries such as Canada, Sweden, Yugoslavia and others in regard to whose actions I do not want to go into details, but who are supplying weapons to countries in Africa, and do not care if those weapons are in due course used against Whites; but the same countries would not sell an air gun to South Africa. According to Die Vaderland of 6th August, 1970, President Julius Nyerere visited a terrorist camp in his country, Tanzania, on 2nd December, 1969, and was received with full honours there. It has been indisputably proved that the Government of Zambia is actively supporting terrorist attacks on Rhodesia. This was evidence given by captured terrorists.

During a conference held in April, 1969, in Lusaka, 13 of the 14 countries present decided to act against White minority governments by means of active hostility, and more specifically by means of terrorist wars. The Red Cubans, Algerians and Chinese are training terrorists in camps in Tanzania, apart from the fact that they are training so-called “students” within their own ranks and within the boundaries of their country. A Bantu terrorist charged with the murder in Rhodesia of constable Du Toit of the South African Police testified that he was trained by Arabian instructors in Tanzania. That shows you, Sir, where these people are already operating. According to the Cape Times of 21st September last year, Nigeria promised to provide Bantu terrorist groups with vast quantities of weapons and ammunition. Nigeria also instructed certain officers to proceed to Zambia and Tanzania and train terrorists there.

Then there is other encouragement as well, from the East. The Vietcong and Peking have regular contact with leaders of these revolutionary organizations such as Dos Santos of Mozambique, Agostino Neto of Angola, Oliver Tambo of the A.N.C. in Dar-es-Salaam and Sam Mujomia of Swapo fame. These organizations liaise with one another. At a recent chief executive meeting of Frelimo, for example, messages were received from the head of the Vietcong movement in South Vietnam. There is also contact with North Vietnam, with the Russian Communist Party, the National Liberation Front of Nigeria and the various terrorist organizations acting against Israel. This just shows how far this liaison stretches.

But there are other bodies as well. The British Labour Party did not lag behind, and in October of last year decided unanimously at a conference to lend moral and material assistance to terrorists in Southern Africa. This resolution was unanimously adopted, and this in the face of a resolution that no arms sales would take place to South Africa. But our local Progressive Party as well, and certain students at the Witwatersrand University, are, through their sympathetic conduct towards these people, also indirectly rendering assistance. A Swapo leader testified, for example, that some of the 22 detainees in Johannesburg were terrorist leaders of Swapo. But then the hon. member for Houghton lent herself, together with other Leftists, to addressing a meeting on the steps of Wits. University, where a protest was held against the statutory provisions in terms of which these people were being detained. But Britain’s young liberals did not lag behind either, and resolved to collect funds for the support of the terrorists. They even made use of a young boy, David Harris, son of John Harris of Johannesburg station bomb fame, to have him lead the procession as a means of advertisement.

Other persons and bodies whom I just want to mention in passing are Mr. Breyten Breytenbach, South African writer, who does not hesitate to foment high treason against his own country from the Netherlands and condone the activities of organizations such as the A.N.C., Zapu and Swapo and lend financial support to their organizations. Against this whole background of revolutionary warfare and the fomenting thereof there is now the donation by the World Council of Churches which, inter alia, granted R7,000 to a body such as the A.N.C., R3,500 to Swapo,—whose leader’s standpoint I quoted—and R7,000 each to other terrorist organizations, of which I have the details here. But it is interesting to note how the World Council of Churches arrived at the resolution they eventually adopted. Originally the standpoint was stated thus. I am referring here to an article by a scientist which recently appeared, as it happened, in “Woord en Daad”, a good publication from Potchefstroom, in which it was stated that in May, 1969, in the Notting Hill Ecumenical Centre, London, it was resolved that the time for consultation politics was past, and that the time for confrontation politics had arrived. At the same meeting the task of the Church was stated as follows—

But before this kind of standpoint could be stated an entire theology of integration had to be devised over a great many years. An entire theological justification was worked out in order to reconcile such action from a Christian point of view, and it is interesting to see an analysis of this, how the Church had to identify itself with the oppressed. The Church is the church for others; the Church plays the part of the reconciler of nations, etc. This development has been traced by theologists through all the meetings of the World Council of Churches, from Oxford in 1937, Evanston in 1954, Cottesloe in 1960, New Delhi in 1961, Mindolo in 1964 and Upsala in 1968. In 1964, during the meeting at Mindolo, a Dutch theologian, a Mr. Visser ’t Hooft said—

This is the background to the development of the attitude of the World Council of Churches. It surprises one, one actually finds it tragic, that under these circumstances and against this entire background, the British Council of Churches also supported the resolution of the World Council of Churches, It also surprises one that a church like the United Methodist Church of the U.S.A., which contributed R71,500 to this amount of R143,000 which the World Council of Churches voted for these various terrorist organizations, had this to say—

This is the same attitude as that of Rev. Huddleston who, with all due respect, calls these terrorists “patriots” and compares them to the French Underground movement during the war. Mr. Speaker, if one takes this background and considers this theological analysis, and sees how it originated, then one is grateful to have a motion such as this one before this House today, through which this House can express its concern, inter alia, at the state of military and spiritual readiness of our population in South Africa. Sir, in conclusion I should just like to refer to something which I find very salutary as far as our Bantu peoples are concerned, and I am referring in particular to a speech made by Chief L. Mangop, chief councillor of the Tswana Territorial Authority, in which he said the following in pursuance of this resolution of the World Council of Churches (translation)—

We as Batswana, more so as a government of the Batswanas, on the day we heard of the amount of R143,000, which was donated to people who murder other people, looked at this name and found that the Press, the English-language press, calls this council the World Council of Churches. We then wanted to know what churches these were. Would it have made any difference if the name of these churches had been “World Council of Christian Churches”? But, my fellow citizens, we have always believed that the churches preach love. We have always been under the impression that the churches follow our Lord, who restored the ear that had been struck off by the sword. We wondered whose church this could be. Is it Christ’s church that says that people must be helped to kill and to murder each other?

Sir, a few days later this same leader of the Tswana people called upon his people to attend the Republican festivals which will take place this year; he called upon the Tswanas to take part in the greatest possible numbers in the Republican Festivals, and he made an appeal to every Tswana, young and old, to contribute 10 cents during the Republic festivals; the total amount will then be handed over to the South African Government during the Republican festival in May of this year as a contribution from the Tswana people to the combating of terrorism in Southern Africa. Finer examples than this one could probably not find when one thinks of the state of spiritual readiness of our people, White or Black. Sir, I want to mention another fine example of the same peoples’ concern. The Advisory Council of the Bantu township in Potchefstroom was a few months ago the first body of that nature to resolve to donate an amount of R5,000 to the Southern Cross Fund; the amount was handed over to the ladies who are responsible for the fund. This is a particularly fine example of the state of spiritual readiness which this people would like to share with us in displaying. That is why it has been a pleasure for me to participate in this debate today from the point of view of that aspect of the motion.

I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member for Potchefstroom said in the speech he has just made, but I do want to comment on one aspect to which he referred, i.e. on the World Council of Churches. We all greatly deplored their adopting the resolution they did in fact adopt. We greatly deplored it. But we nevertheless found it encouraging and we are glad that the South African member churches, as far as I know, dissociated themselves completely from that resolution by the World Council of Churches. I think it is encouraging for us as South Africans to know that our own churches did not associate themselves with the attitude of the World Council.

Mr. Speaker, in the time at my disposal I should also like to range myself on the side of those who introduced the motion, and in particular I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Durban (Point) and what he had to say about this. I just want to draw your attention to two points, Sir. The first point may perhaps be regarded as a minor one, but since we are now discussing methods to try to combat these phenomena, there is in my opinion something we can do about this. Since the Motion requests that the attention of the population of South Africa and of all peace-loving nations be directed to this, I think that this following point might be relevant: I think that we are often hampered in combating these phenomena by the fact that one does not always know precisely who is behind them. It has been my own experience, when I say in an argument with someone that the Communists are definitely behind this, that they tell me: “No, you cannot generalize; that is simply your own opinion.” We can look into a few of these phenomena, and we will find that there are cases where we can definitely state that it is the Communists who are behind it; in other cases which I can mention there may perhaps be more uncertainty about it. In the case of Korea and Vietnam for example it is accepted by everyone, I think, that the Communists were behind it all. Whether it was the Russians or the Chinese or whether it was merely the communist governments of those two states one cannot say with certainty, but I think that the situation there is reasonably clear. The result of this was that the free world was on the side of the United States and the Allies there in their attempt to combat communism. When we come to phenomena of a different kind, it is not always as clear who is behind it. Take for example the industrial difficulty in Britain. I understand, on good authority, that this is also largely due to the Communists; that the Communist Party and their adherents in Britain are to a large extent responsible for the strikes. But I do not think that this is generally accepted, and it would help if there could be greater clarity here. When you enter the field of the university disturbances we have had throughout the world, I want to say this at once: There are many good people at the universities and there are various places in the world where things might have been unsatisfactory and where the young people felt that the facilities were not what they ought to have been, etc. There are consequently good idealists who perhaps joined in the protests for the best reasons; but I feel that in this respect as well there are probably communists who are behind these people, or behind one section of them, giving momentum to the Whole process. If you bear in mind, Sir, that the Russians and the Chinese, particularly the Russians, are involved in a great struggle with the free world, one would expect them to seize upon every possible method to enfeeble the free world. I feel there are probably communists, in certain cases, behind some of the university disturbances we have had. But as matters stand—and this is my point—one cannot be certain about this, and one may perhaps exaggerate and attribute too much to them. Take, for example, the demonstrators who demonstrated against our rugby players. This is another phenomenon which, I think, the introducer of this motion discussed. Who was behind it? Who is behind the phenomenon of the distribution of drugs in the world, and particularly in the U.S.A.? Here I also have my suspicions, but I think that while we are now requesting the governments and the people of the world to take action in regard to these matters, I want to suggest that we request our Government to seek the co-operation of the other countries in making authoritative statements in regard to these phenomena and also adducing proof so that there can be no argument about these matters. I think that the detective services of the various Western countries probably know who and what is behind these matters, and also behind precisely what sections of these matters, and I feel that co-ordinated action by the various Western governments is necessary to expose these people by revealing these events in their true light. I do not want to accuse any particular country or creed, but I think that if we could only get clarity from an authoritative source, it could mean a great deal in combating this phenomenon.

†I want to conclude with my second point. I welcome the fact that in this motion there is reference to the fact that there is need for the maintenance of civilization in the Free World. Sir, we have a precious heritage to protect in South Africa, as in other Western nations. We know that it has been necessary in our past, and other Western nations know that it was necessary in their past, to go to war to protect this precious heritage, our freedom, our country, our homes and our heritage. We know that all of us would fight to the death to protect the things we hold dear and of which I have spoken, and so will other Western countries, but equally, in doing so, we will fight in accordance with the best international standards. I speak here of the Hague Convention in regard to the conduct of war and The Hague Convention in regard to the treatment of prisoners of war. We know from various writings that unfortunately, to give one example, the Russians in their treatment of prisoners of war during the last war did not conform to these Conventions. But I say again that although we will fight with the utmost tenacity and ferocity, we will nonetheless, true to our civilization, fight in accordance with those agreed and true Western standards of conducting war. Secondly and likewise, we shall fight internal subversion with equal determination. In our history, we in South Africa have tackled internal subversion with the greatest determination. I speak here of a time when a Government on this side of the House had to deal with such situations in our past, and I refer equally to the times when the present Government and its predecessors had to deal with matters of this kind.

Sir, both parties in government have found it necessary to suspend the normal protection of the law and some of our civil liberties in such times. Everything, in my opinion, depends on the facts of the case and on the seriousness of the situation. And so, just as in the case of conducting war, so in fighting subversion we must also respect such standards as are contemplated within the concept of Western civilization. Thus, when the emergency is past, we must be astute to bring back into play those standards, whether of the protection of the law or of civil liberties which we have had to push on one side in greater or lesser degree in order to deal with the challenge facing us.

I conclude by saying that if we fight these phenomena in accordance with these precepts which I have outlined, I believe that not only shall we prevail but in doing so we shall be true to our high Western standards.

This is undoubtedly a happy day for our country, in the sense that in this, the highest assembly of the country, our attention is being concentrated unanimously on one of the greatest onslaughts to be launched against civilization and against the free world. I do not have the slightest doubt that this concerted action will bear fruit.

Reference was aptly made here by hon. members on both sides of the House to the numerous revolutionary wars which have taken place over the past number of decades. The majority of those revolutionary wars—not all of them, but the majority of them—were instigated by Moscow or from Peking, and in cases where they were not instigated by Moscow or Peking, they were seized upon and exploited for the benefit of Moscow or Peking. In all these cases propaganda, terrorism and guerrilla tactics were the principal weapons employed by those revolutionaries. Hon. members also referred here to the statement made by the Russian Prime Minister as far back as 1961, i.e. that it was Russia’s stated policy to identify itself throughout the world with wars and uprisings of this nature and to make it its business to cause them to spread. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the pronouncements made by Mao Tse-tung are generally acknowledged as being directed at inciting the local population and rousing them to revolt in various ways. But the tragedy is that these pronouncements have on so many occasion been heard by so many people all over the world that we are no longer shocked by them. This merely goes to show how adaptable man is. We have heard and read about these things so often that they do not really shock us any more. We have learned to live with them. For that reason it is proper for this House to pronounce on such a matter with the greatest measure of resolution and without being panic-stricken. As a result of this kind of revolutionary action the world has over the past two or three decades probably undergone a more drastic change than it did during any comparable period in the past.

It is also true, as was said by the hon. member for Durban (Point), that world history is strewn with wars and conflicts of a military nature. This has not always been without advantages to humanity, for after all the misery and wars, something good did always emerge for humanity. However, the fact remains that, as a result of a specific situation that has arisen in recent years, since the Second World War, new aspects and new facets of this matter have come to the fore, which were unknown in the past. If the world were foolish enough, for example, to use nuclear power for warfare, methods of warfare could of course, change even more drastically in future. I think it was Einstein who was asked with what weapons the Third World War would be waged. His reply to that was, “That is very difficult to determine, but it is quite clear that if the Third World War were to be waged with nuclear weapons, the fourth one would be waged with knobkieries and assegais.”

As a result of this situation and the dread which mankind has developed of nuclear war, we are being confronted with a new situation. The great powers on both sides of power politics in the world are afraid of a nuclear holocaust, and because they are afraid of it, they have become unwilling to have a confrontation with one another. Therefore, they are trying to evade it as far as possible. In other words, a neutralization of power has been brought about by the tremendousness of the weapons which mankind has at its disposal. At present, therefore, heavy and sophisticated arms act as deterrents rather than instruments of attack. Furthermore, it is true that the countries of the free world do not see in military action a solution to their problems. The world has experienced this repeatedly. Consequently, responsible elements in the free world are longing for peace, because there is a longing for advancement and because the leaders of the free world are experiencing a desire for positive and constructive action. That is why there is a tendency to recoil from a large-scale military confrontation, but because of that and because of another important element a new situation has arisen.

We have the continuous hunger—I want to call it an insatiable hunger—of the communist philosophy to bring about world domination, and that is why they are always confronting us with new methods. In the first place, there is the easy and cheap method of creating unrest, such as destructive measures and destructive action for undermining stable governments. The Republic had experience of these methods during the ’sixties, when they were dealt with effectively by our police but constituted a real problem in this country because they launched the first phase of their onslaught against South Africa in that form. In this regard I have here a very interesting article which has just been published in a Dutch public opinion publication for marine and merchant shipping, “Ons Zeewezen”. This is what they have to say on how unrest is being stirred up and dissatisfaction and a psychosis are being created in a country—and my Dutch should kindly be excused as it is not very good (translation)—

Therefore, these are small committees for everything in regard to which grievances can be caused. These are bodies for stirring up unrest and distrust. This is the first process, and here we also have confirmation of it from another friendly country, as it applies there as well.

In this regard there is another aspect which has more bearing on Russia itself for Russia, unlike China, has certain other tactics, and in recent years it has clearly adopted an imperialistic, militaristic policy, and there is no longer as much evidence of subversion by means of its ideology as there is of a hunger to achieve by means of its militaristic power what it could not achieve by means of its ideology. In his book “Trends in Soviet Thinking on Theatre War”, Thomas Wolfe rightly said the following—

In other words, unrest in these countries, the instigation of local wars and even the provision of means and trained personnel to achieve these ends, and the tactics of not putting in a personal appearance in the large-scale direct confrontation with the Free World.

There may appear to be differences between the conduct of Moscow and Peking, but to everybody who has any knowledge of these matters—and there are people who have made a study of them and who have written about them—it must be obvious that these differences stem from a desire to gain control over so-called liberation movements. The ultimate object, the socialist revolution which is to dominate the world, remains the same. The methods are, in the first place, penetration, incitement and subversion, and, in the second place, the exploitation of revolutionary tendencies, irrespective of whether they were originally communist-inspired, infiltration in organizations, civil resistance, terrorism and guerrilla tactics.

We have seen terrorism in action on land throughout the world, to the North of our borders as well. In recent times we have seen it in the air, not always as a direct communist attempt, but sometimes communist-inspired or exploited by them. We know for a fact, with the information at our disposal, that preparations are being made for certain types of terrorism at sea.

In this regard there is, as far as we here in South Africa are concerned, a fact that we must understand. Two decades ago Russia had representation of some kind or another in one country in Africa. That was the Republic of South Africa, then the Union of South Africa. Today it no longer has any representation here, but at the same time it has now, two decades later, some form of representation in no fewer than 39 countries in Africa.

†In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to another important aspect. In these times and in the years to come the cold war, local wars and the war of machines go side by side with the war on man and the mind of man because if the mind of man can be conditioned and conquered, it paves the way for revolutionary and subversive forces, to set the trend in which political aims of our enemies can be achieved and consolidated. In its wake of anarchy it leads to the inner and total destruction of man himself. Psychological conditioning of the mind is today as part of the total strategy which the free nations are subjected to on all fronts as is the direct approach of confrontation with armour under the leadership of Moscow and Peking. This is deliberate. It will serve us and the nations of the free world well to be fully aware of this real danger so that we can guard against its consequences. Quite often, also in our own country and right around the globe the written and the emotionally spoken word is used to give false impressions about unlawful deeds, to minimize the impression of lawlessness and make the individual lose the direction of the path of truth. In our world of tension the words “peace” and “freedom” must surely be amongst the most misused ones of our vocabulary. The claim of the so-called “freedom fighters” that they have the right of revolutionaries to disregard international law is typical. In this manner Fidel Castro was presented as a hero and a statesman of stature and the hi-jacker of an aircraft full of innocent people became a daring and a pretty little heroine. This is nothing less than political and ideological blackmail. We must take note of this because the psychological war on us is one of the most important aspects of this matter.

*This indirect strategy—for Moscow and Peking have for the time being abandoned the direct strategy for the reasons I mentioned earlier in my speech, inter alia, because there is a fear of nuclear war and also because it is unnecessary—does not only manifest itself in the forms I have just mentioned. It is also being applied in the political, administrative, economic, psychological and military spheres. In all these spheres it has to be resisted. This indirect strategy is total in its scope and must be fought in a co-ordinated manner in every sphere. A military expert of repute, who made a study of these matters, rightly said the following—

I am not saying this in a party-political sense, but I am saying this as a warning that we who have a stable state should have regard to the fact that there are elements wanting to attack the stability of governments in South Africa and elsewhere in the Western world.

The Western world has found its formidable deterrents against conventional military onslaughts. Those deterrents are made up of its industrial capacity, its economic potential, the nuclear bomb, heavy and fast weapons, such as projectiles, and other means. However, in the sphere of indirect strategy the free world does as yet have no effective and total answer. This was proved by what happened in Czechoslovakia. Furthermore, this was proved by what happened in Hungary and Poland and also by what is happening in Vietnam at present. I do not want to make a claim on my own, but I would rather call a witness. Sir Robert Thompson wrote the following in his book “Exit from Vietnam”, and I quote—

This is the question with which the world is being faced today. The standpoint, of the free world is not actively present in the form of workers’ associations, political action or concomitant organizations in some or other form of fronts or action in the Russian territory or in the Chinese territory. However, communist activities are taking place in every country of the free world in youth organizations, in the universities and in certain churches as well. These activities are taking place under the cloak of “Christianity” and of “freedom”. Here in our country we have had experience of the awful application of dual standards when the World Council of Churches made 200,000 dollars available in order to give active support to people who want to murder, kill and destroy in stable, civilized countries. However, when certain unjustified acts were committed in Guinea, where people were executed in that terrible manner, the World Council of Churches was heard to beg in a squeaky voice that the sentences should kindly be altered. Was there any large-scale fuss on the part of the World Council of Churches that appealed to the consciences of civilized people, urging them to take a stand against the inhumanity that had taken place in Guinea? It is this kind of indirect strategy and the consequences thereof with which we have to cope in the civilized world today.

We are living in a time of dual standards. The threat of the revolutionary warfare in South Africa must also be viewed against this background—and with this point I want to conclude. It is a total, indirect strategy which is directed at us, and if and when it has achieved sufficient success, the final conventional confrontation will take place. As far as Moscow, Peking and their minions are concerned, South Africa’s industrial capacity and its wealth must eventually be obtained in order that Africa may be subjected. Southern Africa’s strategic situation and its position must be used in order to deprive the free world of the most important sea-route. In this regard it is also interesting to read what is being said in this publication. The name of this publication is “Ons Zeewezen”, and this is what it has to say (translation)—

Now, we know that against this background the direct Russian entry into the Indian Ocean at Socotra Island and the influence it is already exercising in the horn of Africa in Somalia, are enabling it to have more effective and direct contact. We know about the contacts which they have with M.P.L.A. We also know about the contacts which ZAPO has with certain foreign organizations which are lending this support under the most pious of cloaks. And this is the portion while forces of subversion are receiving financial support from abroad, their camps in Zambia. Tanzania and elsewhere are being maintained, while these undertakings are being supplied with communist arms, strategic airports are being improved, the Tazara railway line between Dar-es-Salaam and Lusaka is being built and roads are being prepared, not for the sake of the economic benefits involved —in fact, it has been admitted that the economic benefits are minimal—but in order to be in a position eventually to make an onslaught on Southern Africa by using heavy equipment, even if it were by way of a local war. In the meantime all sorts of smokescreens are being thrown up by using fine sounding words such as “human rights” and “freedom”. What is involved here, is neither the oppression of people in the Republic, nor the freedom of people in Angola and Mozambique, nor the freedom of people in Rhodesia. What is in fact involved here, is the insatiable craving for power on the part of Moscow and Peking, also in respect of Southern Africa. In this regard the O.A.U. plays the role of a minion. That is why this motion is, to my mind, an appeal to the national conscience of our country. It is a clear call to our people to be aware of danger without panicking. Panic is the twin brother of ruin. We in this country must develop an awareness of danger, an awareness of danger outside this House in our population and an awareness of the fact that we are faced with new methods and that we must prepare ourselves in order that we may resist these new methods. This is not the first time that this country of ours has set foot on new territory. To my mind this motion is a new way, a new beginning, in which we are telling the world in a friendly and proper manner: All of you who believe in a decent, stable life, we are drawing your attention to this danger.

This is not the first time that our country has taken the lead in this sphere. Seventy years ago our nation produced some of the greatest military leaders in the sphere of guerrilla warfare, not for aggression, but for defence. Seventy years ago the principle of trench warfare was born in this country, a principle subsequently adopted all over the world. During the two world wars some of the greatest feats on the side of the democracies were accomplished on land, at sea and in the air by South Africans. Our pilots in Korea performed acts which, to this day, American military authorities still regard as being amongst the greatest achievements. We have a right, Sir, to speak to the free world. We have a right to make our voice heard in the free world and to tell them that we are dealing with new, diabolical forces which are making an onslaught on Southern Africa, not for the sake of justice and freedom, but for the sake of the forces of Moscow and Peking which seek to destroy them. Today this House has been afforded the opportunity to express its will in a unanimous manner.

I want to conclude by asking something. In doing so I do not for one single moment want to be misunderstood. Is the fault in the Western world not the fact that we are paralyzing ourselves by the exaggerated degree of disunity which we are introducing under our democratic system, whereas the forces that are opposing us, stand united under dictatorships and do not allow any disunity amongst their peoples? That is why I am so pleased that this House has raised a united voice in saying that South Africa will be protected against the forces of subversion and destruction.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. the Minister say this afternoon that on this occasion we have a united Assembly, both sides of the House standing four-square against terrorism and in favour of this whole motion. But is this so? Where is the hon. member for Houghton? She was here when the hon. member for Stellenbosch started his speech. She was making notes; then she disappeared, and she came back. But where is she now?

*Is it not then possible in the discussion of major, serious matters such as this for South Africa to show the entire world, unanimously, that we are not looking for trouble from anyone, but also that we do not tolerate any trouble from anyone in our own country? One would have expected—after everything the hon. member has said—her to have taken the trouble to be present here this afternoon, and also to make it clear to the world that she and her party are also supporting South Africa solidly in combating and counteracting these phenomena. Where do we stand, Sir? I think it is time South Africa stated loudly and clearly where she stands in this respect, and not only one section of the nation, but the entire nation as such.

Not so long ago I received this pamphlet on terrorism from the Israeli Embassy. This is not a phenomenon which is making its appearance in South Africa and in Rhodesia only, but it is doing so in other parts of Africa as well. I think it is the civilized world, together with those countries, that has perhaps to a greater extent become the victims of terrorists. I am thinking of countries such as Israel, Rhodesia and Mozambique. If they are able to understand our difficulties, they have already progressed a long way towards helping to solve this problem.

Sir, what are the methods used by the communists? The hon. member for Pinelands asked whether the communists were behind these things. I do not think there is any doubt in regard to who is behind it. I think it is quite clear who is behind it. One need only read the writings of Mao, the chairman of the Communist Party in China. He begins by describing the ideologies of the two world groups. Of us, the so-called democrats, he states that our motto is as follows—

With that he refers to us. Opposed to that he gives us their motto—

But what does he say the Red Army must do? This is what he says—

He goes further and says—

He is correct. He continues—

Sir, you must listen now to what he has to say about the politics itself. This is what he has to say about political activities—

He then goes on to describe what methods will be used and where he will get his power from. He does not confine himself only to the ideology. Just as Hitler did in “Mein Kampf”, he tells us everything. As a result of that we have the blueprints of what they want to do. Listen now to what he says—

To return to and deal more specifically with the wording of this motion before us, I do not think that this is anything new. Those of us who have read a little about Communist tactics, are aware that long before the last World War research had already been made in regard to Communist and Nazi methods. The book “Propaganda Boom” was written about these matters. It was clearly stated in that book that the Communists would not merely launch a direct attack if they were convinced that they were strong enough to win. Mao made the same statement in his writings. There would also be insidious attacks, of which the hon. the Minister spoke. One of their methods is, for example, to make use of women’s organizations and religion. One of their methods is to ridicule religion. Sir, I can give you a fine example of this. One of the first films made by the Communists in Russia was called “The Abortionists”. It was apparently a very good film. That film was advertised in Central Europe as follows—

The first method is to ridicule religion, to ridicule the birth of Christ and there are various other cases one could mention and which are mentioned in many places. One of the greatest experts in the field of communist infiltration in Vietnam, Dr. George Tanin, whom I had the privilege of meeting personally and with whom I conversed, wrote a pamphlet for the American foreign office, a pamphlet which was published and which may be quoted, in which he said that the dilemma of the West as far as Communistic propaganda was concerned, was as follows:

I will give you another instance, Sir. In this information pamphlet which has been issued, he says this:

That is how I would have thought; that would have been my logic. Sir, I am grateful to be able to state here today that not one single church in South Africa, as far as I know, that is a member of the World Council of Churches, supported the resolution of the World Council of Churches. I do not know of one; there is not one. What the attitude of individual clergymen may be is a different matter. I know that the Roman Catholic Church most certainly does not endorse that resolution of the World Council of Churches, although they are not a member of the World Council of Churches. I take it and I know that the Jewish church, although they are not a member of the World Council of Churches, do not endorse that resolution to afford assistance to saboteurs and terrorists. Sir, I think it is a good thing that we are stating our conviction firmly and making our standpoint clear that murderers and terrorists will not be tolerated in South Africa, and that they will especially not be tolerated by people who believe that we must do good and spread the gospel.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few matters which I should like to mention here. The question of student disturbances has already been mentioned here. Is it not strange that in the same week in which student disturbances occurred in France for the one reason, disturbances which virtually crippled France, there were student disturbances in Germany for a different reason? In the same week in which there were student disturbances in Japan for one reason, there were student disturbances in England for an entirely different reason. Is this mere coincidence, or has it been organized? Sir, mention to me any communist state in which student disturbances are allowed or in which student disturbances occur. Is that mere coincidence, or what is the reason?

†Sir, we hear so much nowadays about the drug menace, a subject on which I shall have more to say when the Bill is introduced, but is it not strange that some of the countries exporting these drugs, even to South Africa, certainly do not tolerate the use of drugs by their own people? Show me any communist country where this will be tolerated. We are blamed sometimes and the Government is blamed if they act in a determined manner to stop these people from proceeding with their wicked ways and putting into effect their wicked intentions. The case of Malaya was quoted here this afternoon by the hon. member for Durban (Point). What was the position in Malaya? It is true that Great Britain did successfully put its foot down and stop this nonsense in Malaya but how was it done? It only succeeded because in that instance Britain did act with determination.

*That was the first time a government said “So far and no further” and acted with the same determination as the communist countries. I think I am correct when I say that 90 per cent of the Police in Malaya are today still Malayans, and not Chinese. I do not know what the reason for this is. When one sees what is going on here in Southern Africa and what is happening in Rhodesia, then one wonders what is going on, and what worries me is that there are important people—and here I am referring again and deliberately so to the hon. member for Houghton, who not so long ago went to Zambia and met Kenneth Kaunda there—who maintain, as the hon. member does, that he appears to be a very reasonable and intelligent person and that he will be quite satisfied with only a small alteration in South Africa’s policy. I am only mentioning this because President Kaunda is one of the people who does not make a great secret of the fact that terrorists are making raids into Rhodesia from his country.

She did not visit one goal there.

Sir, that is not the point. She said, according to newspaper reports, that she was quite convinced that if we would only change our domestic policy to, I take it, adapt it to the policy of the Progressive Party, there will be no further raids by terrorists. Sir, as far as I know there is not one Zambian terrorist in the Republic of South Africa. Nor are they trying to come here, perhaps because it is too far, and also for various other reasons. But there are terrorists in Rhodesia at the moment. To what extent does the hon. member want to believe President Kaunda? Is the entire political policy of Rhodesia not precisely one and the same as that of the Progressive Party? Why would she satisfy him, but not Mr. Ian Smith? Why would the Progressive Party policy in the Republic of South Africa satisfy him while the Progressive Party policy in Rhodesia does not? I hope I will still live to see the day when the entire nation of South Africa, when the security of our State and of our people is at stake, will be able to rise courageously and say: Look, here we all stand together. Sir, the World Council of Churches states that they approve of terrorism because there are certain aspects of our policy of which they do not approve. Well, there are some things of which none of us approve, but surely there are other ways of remedying those matters. Is there any person who can condone the actions of these communist-inspired murderers—for that is after all what they are?

Sir, I had hoped that we would on this occasion speak candidly and firmly. I had hoped that we would speak unanimously, but it did not happen. But I hope that enough has been said here to show everyone that we do not hold anything against anyone. We want to coexist in peace and quiet and love with everyone to the benefit of the entire population, and where there are matters in regard to which we differ and argue, let us solve those matters here. I know, Mr. Speaker—and I am speaking only on behalf of this side of the House and I believe that I am speaking on behalf of a large section of the members of the opposite side of the House—that there is not a single person here who does not feel deeply in his heart as a Christian, or anything else for that matter, that he wants to do the best he can for every sector of the population of this country. We can differ in regard to methods. But I believe that each one of us would like to do as much as we possibly can to develop the entire population to the best of our ability— the White population, the Black population, the Coloured population and the Asiatic population. But we cannot sit still, nor will we be able to give of our best to them, as long as we are being handicapped by people who have political motives, devilish motives, diabolic motives, to seek a fertile soil here for a world revolution and to come and do harm here and hurt other people in the process.

The hon. the Minister and hon. members on both sides of the House very competently indicated the extent of the threat we are faced with. Its several forms in South Africa were analysed very thoroughly. I want to refer to another part of the motion, i.e. to the necessity of combating this phenomenon timeously and resolutely at all levels. To be sure, it was inevitably a dark picture that was painted. There is reason for us to be concerned about many of the matters mentioned in this debate this afternoon. But fortunately there is also a great deal we can be thankful for and there is a1so reason, in our country, for us to feel consolation in spite of the threats. In commencing I just want to refer to the arms boycott against South Africa.

Regardless of what politicians, statesmen or clergymen, or whoever the case may he, may say about the arms boycott against South Africa, it is aimed at achieving one effect and one effect only, and that is to leave us as weak as possible against any form of attack that can be aimed against South Africa. The exclusive aim of this, regardless of the sanctimoniousness with which people may state why it is being done, is to weaken South Africa to such an extent that it is left defenceless against specifically this threat we are referring to in this House this afternoon. But, thank the Lord, South Africa has its own means of defence, and this afternoon praise must also be extended to those who have done wonders for us in this field and achieved great things. In the short time at my disposal I want to refer to a few of these.

In this country we have built up an arms industry which at present has hundreds of contractors and thousands of sub-contractors directly or indirectly manufacturing arms for the South African Defence Force. We have a team of scientists whose achievements rank with the best in the world. I want to refer to one particular weapon, i.e. the cactus-projectile, our air defence system, which I had the privilege of making a study of when I was in France. This weapon is one of the most modern in the world, and the U.S.A., which has a massive arms industry, one of the most advanced in the world today, equal to that of Russia, is at present interested in purchasing this weapon designed in conjunction with others, it is true, by South African scientists and taken to its present advanced stage of development. I do not think that any greater compliment could be paid to our scientists and our research workers in South Africa than specifically that fact.

The threat against South Africa does, it is true, cover a very wide spectrum. Its several subdivisions have been mentioned here: ideological, technological and economic. It is conducted on psychological and diplomatic levels and in all the spheres of society. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that strategy has lost its meaning, and it is true that the old meaning of strategy no longer applies today. Today strategy has become total war, against the spirit of man as well as in other fields. One of the ways in which this fight against South Africa is being conducted is through information from our country reaching the countries abroad in a manner which is not reassuring. In this connection I just want to refer to one article that appeared some time ago in Dagbreek en Landstem of 11th August, 1968, in which Col. Puren, who was a mercenary in the Congo at the time, and journalists referred to the fact that before it was known in South Africa that exercise Sibasa was taking place, there was already knowledge of it in certain circles, particularly amongst our enemies and in organizations hostile to us in Britain and elsewhere. Therefore, information is apparently leaving our country and going elsewhere, and I now want to make an appeal this afternoon, because information as such is today one of the most important aspects of viability. Foreknowledge of events and information about what is being planned against a country, are today amongst the most important elements in viability, and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Defence and to the Government to give this aspect of the matter the closest attention. We know that praiseworthy attempts are being made to place us on the highest level in this particular field, but my plea is that we go further, that still greater efforts be made to advance us in this field. But I want to make a particular plea for understanding amongst our people of what is being done in our country and how it is being done, and of how our viability is being strengthened and improved and ought to be improved. I want to refer more specifically to our system of national military service. It is astounding what ignorance we encounter in this country in respect of the national military service that we have for our young men in South Africa. I find that ignorance even amongst hon. members of this House. I find it amongst educationalists and I also find it in every sphere of society. There is an alarming ignorance about our system of national military service. May we by repetition emphasize here once again that national military service for our young men is not only of a military nature; it is not only the old concept of “military drill”, as it is still called.

Sir, it has become one of the most important systems in building up a national defence force in South Africa, and in strengthening the spiritual viability of not only the young man but also his family and circle of friends, to whom he extends his experience and knowledge, to make them spiritually viable and stronger too. Their task, therefore, is also to carry these ideas forth from where they get them. Sir, I wish time permitted me to give you a description of the experiences of the young men who are trained there in Middelburg in the Transvaal, where I come from. I want to tell you, Sir, that there every aspect of the young men’s welfare and the circumstances of their lives are cared for. As an example I may just mention to you that a small church was built that was apparently very soon too small. A D.R.C. congregation has now been established within the base. For the men belonging to other churches ample provision is made for transport to take them to their various churches. Those for whom there are no churches in Middelburg, are even taken to neighbouring towns to give them an opportunity of visiting their synogogue or church. When I mentioned this fact about our church and congregation within the base, parents were dumbfounded. They said: But do you also look after the spiritual welfare of these men? We have a chaplain who is also the minister of religion for that community. Care is also taken of how they spend their free time. One of the loveliest of swimming baths has been built for them, and there are the best sports facilities available anywhere. In reality national service means the enrichment of the spirit of these young men by way of healthy competition, and at the same time, in accordance with the old Greek concept, a healthy body is being built up to accommodate a healthy spirit. We are grateful that we have those young men. Without in any way detracting from the military aspect of it, I want to mention that here we are engaged in building up a future generation which will leave its imprint on the people through the years to come, an imprint of solidarity which they gained by way of this instruction. It is, of course, also necessary for these men to be trained in the military sphere. These young men receive training in regular as well as irregular warfare. They are each given a turn to visit the border and to serve there. They each get a turn to learn about desert warfare in the West and they get the chance to learn about bush warfare in the East. I want to say that when these, young men return to society, after a year’s training, they have an extremely broad knowledge of everything they could encounter as soldiers in the future. They have extended their knowledge in a way they would otherwise not have been able to do.

In connection with national service and training I now want to refer here to a less pleasant matter. I want to refer to an article that appeared on a front page of last Sunday’s Rapport in connection with the young girls being trained in George. I regret having to quote from this article because I regard it as beneath the dignity of this House. To keep the record straight I am now compelled, before I deliver my argument, to quote, from the article, that portion to which I object. The article is headed: “Chests and pants leave ‘Sarge’ blushing.” I just want to read a few snatches from this article in order to make my statement. It is written under the name of a reporter called A. S. Lake. I quote (translation)—

I quote further—

As if a soldier is ever kicked in the seat of the pants! I want to allege in the first place that this reporter trumped up everything he wrote here, and that not a single word of this is true. I do not believe that the things to which he refers here ever took place. I allege that every word of it is untrue. In the second place I get the impression that it is solely a product of his rich imagination, which is apparently tuned to this particular level. Can we imagine how much embarrassment this article caused, not only to those girls, who are girls of high standing, but also to the staff, and how much consternation it must have caused in the parental homes of those girls? How much repugnance must it not have caused among the people in George? Our Government established something very praiseworthy here when this form of training was put into effect for our young girls. It did not simply happen of its own accord. The Government established it in the face of opposition, and we are very grateful for the fact that it was established. Here is an institution with the best hopes for success. That is why we must express our discontent at the scandallous disservice done to them. I want to tell the editor of the newspaper that while I could perhaps find a merciful excuse for the reporter by saying that it was mere stupidity, I cannot find the same excuse for the editor. He should have known better. That article fits very well into the pattern of the quality of that newspaper’s recent reporting. It is symbolic of the kind of articles appearing in it. I want to ask the two gentlemen concerned whether they are not ashamed of placing people, who are not in a position to defend themselves and are innocent, in such an embarrassing position. We, on the contrary, are proud of our boys and girls who undergo compulsory military service. We know that a very heavy task is going to rest on their shoulders in the future. We are also, together with all our other compatriots, proud of the parents who are bringing up such boys and girls so that they may carry out national service for us in South Africa. What a contrast they are to the long-haired creatures and the drug addicts that are defacing our country! We hope that this good example that is being set will serve as a stimulus to help those people up to the level where our national servicemen stand today.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to support or to oppose the hon. member for Middelbrug in his attack on Rapport. I do not believe that that part of his speech really had a place in this debate. It is something that could have been raised elsewhere.

It was very much part of this debate. It was a scandalous article.

However, I do wish to agree with the hon. member in his praise of these young girls who are taking up training in South Africa today and also our young men who are being trained, together with those who are serving on our borders. I believe that we should express our very deep appreciation to those members of the Defence Force and of the South African Police Force who are serving in the north and are protecting our interests against terrorist infiltration.

The hon. the Minister of Defence, in his speech today, said that it was indeed a happy day for South Africa to present this motion with unanimity. I agree with him that it is a happy day. I believe that we are always unanimous in this matter. But I do believe that it is also a very sad and unhappy day for Western civilization and the Western world when councils of a peaceful country such as ours have to debate, despite the unanimity on the matter, the dangers which are facing the Western world emanating from the Communist bloc today.

The hon. the Minister and other speakers have spoken about the dangers of psychological warfare, of revolutionary warfare and of the erosion of society by the elements of Communism. I wish to say that I agree entirely with what has been said in this respect. I believe that the erosion of society by the use of drugs has become worse in this country since the closing of the Suez Canal. Perhaps this can be ascribed to our hospitality, the fact that our ports are open to ships of all the nations of the world and that it has become easier to make contact with us and to infiltrate and smuggle than it was in the past because of the large number of ships that now passes our shores. One notices that drugs are now beginning to infiltrate into our schools. I have discussed this with certain high-ranking military officers. It is found in the Services as well. The Forces are doing everything they can to control this. I believe that this is the first step in the erosion of our society. I believe that this is the first step from the communists to soften the field for their activities. I am grateful to see that on the Order Paper there is another motion under which this question of the abuse of drugs can be fully debated. I must say that I have great faith in the South African youth; I believe that our South African youth do not easily succumb to this sort of thing. It is only in dire circumstances that they are caught in the trap and the web of drug addiction. I do feel that we must do everything in our power to help our youth to withstand the temptations which are put in their way today. This applies not only to ourselves but also to the parents of every child and every teenager in this country today.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) has made an appeal to certain people who believe that they are doing good in this country and who are unwittingly in most cases and wittingly in other cases becoming the tools of international communism and international subversion. I wish to support him in his appeal and I wish to draw the attention of those people to the beginnings of the war in Vietnam. That war is probably one of the greatest tragedies and sources of bloodshed which we have in the world today. If we study the history of Vietnam we find that there was a conflict of religion in the beginning. There was a conflict between the Buddhists and the Catholic reigning government. One remembers the public suicides when Buddhist priests burnt themselves to death. It is my belief—and I think it is everyone’s belief—that these priests were purposely whipped up and inspired to create unrest in Vietnam at that time. This was done in order to allow the Communists of North Vietnam to step in and utilize that unrest to formulate a civil war and a bloody war that does not seem to be nearing its end. Therefore, I believe that anybody who is unwittingly used, no matter how sincere he is in his belief that he is doing good, should think very, very carefully about what he is doing in this country and in every country in the Western world. They start, for instance, by protesting against a rugby match; later on against a cricket match perhaps, and finally the position deteriorates to such an extent that they become totally involved in something in which they never intended initially to become involved. I believe the hon. member for Durban (Point) has made a very sincere appeal to all people to be very careful in this matter.

I also wish to support other speakers who have publicly thanked all the churches of South Africa and all the religious organizations of South Africa for not supporting, in their own identity, the decision of the World Council of Churches to aid the terrorists on our borders. I believe this was a tragic and sad decision for a community of Christians to have taken, against a Christian country. We all realize that we are faced with many problems. I do not think that any other country is faced with similar problems. I believe that all of us, whatever our political beliefs are, are doing our utmost to solve these problems. None of us would have been sitting in this House today had we not felt that we could contribute something in our own way to a peaceful and stable solution of our problems. I believe it is tragic that a Christian organization should have taken such a decision against us. I think that everything that could have been said in this debate has probably been said already, and I have much pleasure in supporting this motion.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister said, we are all very glad that there is unanimity here about this matter. The hon. the Minister said that when it is necessary he is sure the whole of South Africa will come forward and not hang back when we have to fight against this. When there is ever a war against the Communists one day, there will probably be unanimity in South Africa such as there has never been before.

The hon. the Minister also said that a third world war could be a nuclear war. The mere fact that such a war may be a nuclear war is a deterrent which will perhaps prevent such a war from ever taking place. I agree with the hon. the Minister up to a certain point. During the Second World War everyone feared that it would possibly degenerate into a gas war. However, because all the powers involved in the war were afraid of this, gas was never used. To the same extent the possibility of a nuclear war serves as a deterrent.

In my opinion the greatest danger today is Communist China. I do not think, however, that Communist China would want a nuclear war, provided it can achieve its aims by other means. The hon. the Minister rightly said that today communist countries have a tremendous desire for power. It is not only a desire for political power, but also a hunger for territory or “lebensraum”, as the Germans called it before the last World War. A country such as China has 750 million inhabitants today and is terribly over-populated. It is calculated that before the end of the century there will be about 1,000 million people living in China. This means that China will have to get hold of more territory if it wants to survive. If they cannot succeed by their present methods which have been mentioned repeatedly in this House, it is my humble opinion that they would then not hesitate to start a nuclear war.

What would be the result of a nuclear war in which all the Great Powers are involved? Of course, when we think of such a nuclear war we see the communist countries on the one side and the Western countries on the other. If such a war were to break out there would, of course, be unparallelled devastation throughout the entire world. And it is possible that China and Russia would perhaps lose 200 or 300 million inhabitants. I want to allege that China could afford to suffer such a loss of lives, but can the West afford it? Can the West afford such devastation and such a loss of human life? I am of the opinion that the West cannot. If so many million lives were to be lost in the West there would be chaos. Thereby the communist countries will achieve by means of war what they could not achieve by the means they are now adopting. I therefore want to suggest that we should not be so assured that this terrible war, which is a deterrent to the Western world, will not be started by the Chinese. If we look at the East today we see that it is coming under the influence of China to an increasing extent. The Eastern countries, without exception, are today altogether over-populated. Their standard of living is low. They are hungry. We must not be assured that the deterrent is so great that these countries will not adopt such measures. I think it is quite possible that they will start such a war when they are driven into a corner and when the old methods are no longer successful.

Mr. Speaker, this has been indeed a very interesting debate and, as my hon. bench-mate has indicated, a debate in respect of which everyone in this House, except perhaps one person who has chosen not to take part in the debate, is at one. It is almost incredible, I should say, to most South Africans that there could have been such a decision as the one taken by the World Council of Churches, a decision to give aid to organizations whose object and aim are to take part in warfare, in violence and, in fact, all the un-Christian acts that one can think of that accompany violence and have accompanied it. The evidence of murder, looting, rape and robbery is there for everyone to see. It is unbelievable that a World Council of Churches could take a decision in that regard to give money to these organizations, and then be naïve enough to say that they do not wish that money to be used for terrorist purposes.

We have gone to the extent of ensuring, not only that our borders are going to be protected, but also that the borders of our neighbours will be protected with our help if our help is required by them. It is as well for the world to know that any such terrorist organization which operates on our borders or on the borders of our neighbours, will be cut down and destroyed root and branch. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, when one is dealing with revolution and violence, when one is dealing with revolutionary warfare, there is no room for anything else but its destruction by all the means at one’s disposal. I think we have made it clear that that is precisely what we are going to do.

I think that a word of congratulation is due as well to those persons, and especially the members of our Police Force, who have played such a distinguished part in dealing with terrorism on our borders. Indeed, Sir, I think it is well known amongst the terrorists that where the South African Police operate, it is an area they prefer to avoid; they would rather go somewhere else. I was lucky enough to have accompanied the hon. the Minister of Police through those areas where our Police are doing their duty, both in Rhodesia and along our own borders. Again I can speak from first-hand knowledge as to the amazing job of work that is being done, not only a job of work per se, but a job, that is being done in relation to the local population as well, to get them on the side of the authorities, without which an anti-terrorist operation could never get off the ground, because they rely completely and absolutely on the co-operation of the local population.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion lapsed.