Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, as I promised yesterday, I should now like to reply to the hon. member’s amendment. Firstly I just want to make the general remark that it is not only the large diamond companies that feel that illicit diamond dealers should be dealt with very severely. The small diggers on the proclaimed diamond diggings, too, for whom the theft of a single diamond can mean the difference between a reasonable existence and real indigence, feel very strongly that this illicit diamond trafficking should be dealt with as severely as possible. If one visits these diggers, as I did recently, and has seen how hard they have to work to extract a diamond from the earth, then when, as a result of illicit diamond trafficking, they are robbed of a diamond, one not only understands, but also has great deal of sympathy for the Police and all bodies that are engaged in combating illicit diamond trafficking and that ask that a very strong standpoint be adopted in this connection.

†As promised during the debate yesterday, I have gone very carefully into the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Von Brandis. I fully appreciate the reasons why he feels that the money or consideration paid should on a conviction not automatically be forfeited to the State. The hon. member’s proposal is to substitute the word “may” for the word “shall” in order to alter the clause accordingly. May I point out that automatic forfeiture on conviction is a provision of the existing Act. This is very important to remember. If the hon. member’s proposed amendment is accepted, we will then in fact be watering down an existing deterrent against such illegal transactions and we would, to my way of thinking, go against the principle of the original Act. I have consulted the chief of the Diamond Detectives’ Branch in this matter and he is very much opposed to the proposed amendment as it will render the existing provisions aimed at combating illegal diamond transactions much less effective. I can assure the hon. member that in spite of all our attempts and the expenditure of millions of rand to stamp out illicit diamond trading, the illegal trafficking in rough diamonds is still very rife throughout South Africa. I therefore feel strongly that we should not do anything to weaken the hands of the Police in this very delicate, complex and difficult matter. I have again been given fresh assurances that traps are simply not set up to lead innocent people into trouble. In this regard permit me to say that I personally had long discussions with the Chief of Police and with individual policemen in this regard and I can assure hon. members that I have satisfied myself personally that they go about their business in this respect in a very circumspect way. In any case, should hardships occur, such as in a case where a person is convicted for the first time under circumstances where the court feels that he should be leniently treated, such a person can then always apply to the State for an ex gratia refund of the amount forfeited to the State. Naturally, I personally and my department will look very sympathetically at such a case. Therefore, in the circumstances I regret that I cannot see my way clear to accept the hon. member’s amendment and I hope he accepts the reasons why I find it impossible to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I must honestly admit that I am very disappointed with the explanation furnished by the hon. the Minister. We do of course accept that the action taken with regard to traps is taken with the best intentions. A trap is not really something which anyone could approve in principle, but we realize that the case of diamonds sales is such that special action may well be necessary. Like the Minister, we, too, have a sympathetic understanding of the special situation in the diamond industry and the conditions under which the digger—particularly the small digger—has to work. He is entitled to a degree of protection and we realize that although we cannot condone the general principle of traps, they are a necessity in the special circumstances of this industry. The fact remains that with all the assurances that can be given, with all the good intentions of the Minister and the Police diamond branch, abuses can still occur owing to the fact that the traps themselves give rise to persons being tempted to do things that are against the law. There can be no doubt that there are such cases. Everyone who lives in South Africa and reads the newspapers knows that cases of this nature do occur. Since these cases do occur, I am simply unable to understand why the hon. the Minister is not at least prepared to allow a certain degree of discretion to be granted to the courts in such eases. The Minister does give the assurance that a first offender who enters a trap innocently may apply to the Minister for compensation or repayment of the amount in question. This is not really satisfactory. The fact is that many persons who become involved in such cases are persons who have little knowledge of the law and of their rights and know little about the possibilities of access to the Minister. They are people who are perhaps unable to plead their case very effectively, and I feel that in this country of ours our courts are here for the very purpose of preventing such incidents. I am simply unable to understand why the hon. the Minister, with all the arguments he has raised and which, to a large extent, I accept, is unable to concede that the courts must be able to employ a certain amount of discretion in these cases. With all the sympathy in the world we are simply unable to accept the argument of the hon. the Minister. We do feel that there should be a degree of discretion and that that discretion should be entrusted to the courts, because they are the bodies with the knowledge and experience to distinguish between cases of the kind which we want taken notice of and those to which this piece of legislation applies. We are still of the opinion that it would be an improvement if those words were replaced. I fear that we shall have to vote against the Bill in its present form in favour of the improvement I have proposed.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want there to be an unnecessary misunderstanding concerning this matter. I therefore wait to add these few remarks. The Chief of Police, with whom I discussed this matter very thoroughly after the amendment had been proposed here, told me that if there were a statutory possibility that the person could get the money back, half of the deterrent value of the provision in the original Act would vanish. With this definite expert advice at my disposal, how can I now be prepared to replace the word “shall” in the original Act? We are introducing this amendment Bill in the House precisely because of a judgment of court in which money that was used was returned to the person in question. I have already mentioned the other arguments and the position is as I have put it to the hon. member. One other point I mentioned and which I want to re-emphasize is that such a person can always come to us if he has a case in order to have part of that money returned to him by way of an ex gratia payment. I repeat that we are very sympathetic as far as that is concerned. This would actually be better than to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Then I want to raise another point. The necessity for the continued existence of the trap system is set down in the findings of the Botha Commission which recently instituted an investigation into criminal procedure and submission of evidence with regard to the trap system. Mr. Justice Botha, a very respected judge, says that the criticism levelled at the trap system is ascribable in large measure to the ignorance and misleading newspaper reports about it. It is very important that we should bear this in mind. Having investigated the system for months, the judge states that the trap system is only employed to combat offences under the acts dealing with liquor, diamonds, the gold-dealing, gambling and lotteries as well as offences under the legal provisions concerning the possession of and trade in drugs. I quote (translation)—

Unfortunately I am unable to discuss individual cases in this House now, but I have personally confirmed the assurance given to me by the Police dealing with this, namely that they only use the trap system after having spent months and often longer watching people or suspecting them of being engaged in activities of this kind. They will not use the trap system on, a person in respect of whom there is no reason to use it or on a person who is not under suspicion. I have satisfied myself of this and Mr. Justice Botha satisfied himself that this was in fact the procedure. Against the background of these facts I must say that I honestly feel that we are acting in the interests of the country by not accepting the hon. member’s motion.

Mr. Chairman, I too have no wish to draw out the argument unnecessarily. As far as the hon. the Minister’s second argument is concerned. I just want to say on behalf of this side of the House that we, too, accept and agree that the Police will not misuse it in cases of offences against the Diamond Act, and that justification does exist for extraordinary measures to protect this particular industry. We know what the special circumstances are and we realize that extraordinary measures may well be necessary. Nevertheless it is still true that there are exceptional cases where action could perhaps be taken in a way that could not be justified under law. This could occur simply because there had been misunderstandings, because people failed to understand each other properly and because people could perhaps take the wrong action owing to ignorance. The courts are there to deal with that. One simply cannot rely on bureaucratic action. That is really what the hon. the Minister is advocating. He states that if there should be a case where incorrect action is taken, all that would be necessary would be to go back to the department concerned, which would then ensure that the matter was rectified. If one could rely on bureaucratic action of that kind, there would be no need of courts. The fact remains that cases where there is justification do occur, and that there misunderstandings do occur. We know that misunderstandings can occur very easily, particularly in the case of traps. For that reason I am unable to accept the hon. the Minister’s second argument entirely.

As far as the first argument is concerned, viz. the argument that this amendment would water down the legislation, I just want to point out that the original Act was only deficient in that it could perhaps have been in conflict with the common law of the country, in other words that there might have been a contract that was not completed and the money was therefore repayable. The fact remains that if my argument is accepted, the use of the word “can” instead of “shall” would still, in fact, allow the court, in a case where it was justified, to retain the money with which the diamonds were purchased. However, the court would still retain the right to repay that money if the court were convinced that the circumstances were of such a nature that it were justified to do so. As the Bill reads at present, the court does not have that discretion.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member not realize that this Bill only applies in a case where a person is found guilty? In other words, the person concerned must be found guilty of this offence by the judge. It is only in that case that this Bill applies and the money in question forfeited to the State. I am therefore quite unable to understand the hon. member’s argument.

I accept that this only applies where the person concerned is found guilty, but circumstances of the conviction can differ enormously from case to case. It could occur that a person caught in a trap may be found technically guilty while the circumstances are of such a nature that he has been trapped in a manner that really does not justify his losing the money paid on an un-completed contract as well. In any event he may perhaps have to go to jail.

Then he could come to us and ask …

That is precisely the point. The hon. the Minister states that in such a case the person concerned could go to him and ask for the money to be repaid. In other words the hon. the Minister is asking to exercise the powers that really belong to the courts. That is the very point on which we differ with him. In other respects we do not really differ with him. To a large extent I agree with all the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister, but I am quite unable to concede this point. We shall simply have to record our objection to it.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister in his reply lost sight of two points. First of all, it is the accepted procedure of this House like any other legislature, that one cannot legislate for specific cases. At the same time one cannot legislate in such a manner that all cases are brought under the same umbrella because that would lose sight of the different circumstances which may pertain to a particular case that is before the courts. The second point which the hon. the Minister raised is a valid one. He said that this provision will only apply when there is a conviction. As the hon. the Minister knows, when a person is convicted of the most serious of crimes, viz. murder, there can be extenuating circumstances which must be taken into account when deciding on what the penalty will be. If, as the hon. the Minister says, this provision applies merely because there has been a conviction, then this full penalty will apply, as the hon. member for Von Brandis pointed out. If that is the case, the courts are not granted the opportunity of applying their discretion, having regard to the circumstances surrounding a particular conviction. There may be a conviction on purely technical grounds. Under certain circumstances the courts may take a lenient view of the gravity of the offence. The hon. the Minister must know that in cases where traps have been set, the courts and various members of the judiciary have expressed views calling into question the justification for the steps that were taken to bring about the commission of the offence by setting a trap. I am sorry that I was a bit too keen yesterday when I said that the hon. the Minister had said that he would give consideration to this. I said then that he was very reasonable, but it seems to me today that his reasonableness has departed. There are two points which I want to make briefly. Firstly, as I have said, we cannot possibly have in mind all the cases in which a person may be convicted of illicit dealing. The second point is that we cannot possibly in this House legislate in a manner where the courts cannot use their discretion as between, what I might term, the more serious or flagrant contraventions of the law and those which are technical offences. I think that the hon. the Minister is wrong if he adopts this attitude. It is attacking one of the basic principles of our courts, namely that there should be discretion in regard to the penalty.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although certain adjustments have over the years been effected with regard to the functions, activities and composition of the Public Service Commission, it has remained basically unchanged since 1912. During 1973 the Public Service Commission sent a study group abroad under the leadership of the chairman of the commission to investigate the organizational structure of central staff institutions and their place and role in the machinery of State as far as the overall regulation of Public Service staff administration is concerned. The object of this study was to examine the structure and functioning of the Public Service Commission in this country by means of a comparison with other countries, in an attempt to determine, in the light of present-day requirements and circumstances, whether the institution as such is still effectively organized and whether the arrangements of the overall staff administration of the South African Public Service is still effective in all respects. The study group published a report on its findings. It appears that certain adjustments will have to be made, inter alia, to enable departments to be afforded greater administrative independence, to keep pace with the requirements brought about by changing circumstances, and to enable compliance with the requirements of the modern state in future. This is by its nature a matter which cannot be implemented over-hastily, nor do I intend doing so. Thorough consideration will have to be given to the nature and extent of such adjustments, as well as to their implications. However, this could lead to the role and functions of our central staff institution, and possibly its form as well, having to be modified. This could in its turn lead to legislation aimed either at retaining the present system but making it more streamlined and even more effective, or it may, as an alternative, lead to an amendment of the present, dispensation and the establishment of a completely new system. However, I cannot and will not commit myself in any way on the direction in which this development will take place. It will have to receive very thorough consideration, and there will have to be considerable consultation. From the nature of the case this will take up a considerable amount of time, and to bridge the interim period, the present measures for which provision is being made in this Bill are necessary. I shall now proceed to elucidate the clauses of this Bill which is at present before you separately.

Clause 1(a): In terms of the provisions of section 4(2)(b) the State President shall designate one member of the Public Service Commission to act as chairman, and one member to act as vice-chairman, of the commission. There is no sound reason why the office of vice-chairman should be established on a permanent basis. The object of this clause is to eliminate the provision made in this regard from the said section 4(2)(b).

Clause 1(b) contains new provisions and entails consequential amendments, viz. to legalize the position of the member which is at present holding the office of vice-chairman.

Clause 1(c) also contains consequential amendments In terms of the provisions of section 4(2)(c) the vice-chairman shall act as chairman of the commission during the absence of the chairman, and during the absence of both the chairman as well as the vice-chairman, the State President shall designate a member or acting member of the commission to act as chairman. In view of the proposed abolition of the office of vice-chairman provision is being made for the designation by the State President of a member or acting member of the commission to act as chairman during the latter’s absence.

Clauses 1(d) and (f): In terms of the existing provisions of the Public Service Act, (section 4(4)) a member of the Public Service Commission is appointed for a period of five years. He may be reappointed upon the expiry of his term of office—according to a legal opinion for further periods not exceeding five years. However, a member’s services may only be terminated during a period of office for misconduct, for unfitness for the duties of his office or his incapacity to carry them out efficiently or if, for reasons other than his own unfitness or incapacity his removal from office will promote efficiency or economy, and owing to his having attained the age limit (65 years). This provision in itself creates problems in that, owing to its inflexibility, it makes any departures which may be necessary at certain stages impossible. Furthermore, section 4(12A) of the Act provides that, if it is in the public interest, a member of the commission may continue to be employed upon attaining the age at which he shall retire, for periods which may not in the aggregate exceed two years; and any person who was the chairman of the commission and who retired owing to his having attained the prescribed age or whose period of office as member of the commission has expired, and who has already attained the age of 65 years, may be appointed by the State President as member of the commission on such conditions as determined by him and for a specified period.

Some members of the present commission are retiring from service soon or in the near future, and replacements have to be appointed or the terms of the members concerned have to be extended. In view of possible adjustments with regard to the Republic’s central staff institution mentioned above, it is necessary that there should, particularly in the interim period, be more flexibility with regard to the duration of the terms of office. It may for example not be in the interests of either the authorities or persons appointed as members of the commission to commit them for relatively long periods. Clause 1(d) and (f) seek to meet these needs until attention can be given to the improvement of the present system and consequently envisage provision to the effect that the terms of office of the members of the commission may be determined by the State President, and provision for the appointment or retention in office of persons of an advanced age, as the need arises.

Clause 1(e) entails firstly a consequential amendment of section 4(5) with reference to clause 1(a), and makes provision for the legalisation, upon the abolition of the office of vice-chairman, of the present incumbent of this office. He receives a higher salary than an ordinary member of the commission. Secondly, this clause seeks the deletion of section 4(5)(b) which was necessary, with the commencement of the revised Public Service Act of 1957, to legalize the determination of the salaries of members of the commission before that commencement. This provision is obsolete and may therefore be deleted.

Clause 2 contains the short title and date of commencement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that we on this side of the House support the Bill. I welcome the standpoint of the hon. the Minister where, in his capacity as Minister of the Interior, he is now prepared to accept modifications. Today we are only concerned with this legislation; we can discuss other modifications with the hon. the Minister on another occasion.

†Sir, I appreciate that this is an interim measure to tide us over the old and somewhat antiquated system which we have operating in the Public Service Commission until a new and modernized system is introduced. For that reason we have no objection to the measure which is now before us. But I should like to refer to just one aspect, which I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has not perhaps overlooked, in regard to the question of inconvenience and possible cause of delays. I refer to clause 1(c) where the State President is to designate a member or an acting member of the commission to act when the chairman is not available. I wonder whether that cumbersome procedure—and I say cumbersome because of the necessity for the proclamation of notices, etc.—is really necessary. As this is, as I say, an interim measure, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not in the interim assume unto himself the right to designate an acting chairman for any particular short period when the chairman is not available. The commission will be very much smaller in numbers than it is at the moment and it will be acting more or less as a caretaker Public Service Commission. Although I begrudge any powers being given to this Minister to make appointments, I believe that since only a temporary caretaker function is involved here we would be prepared to let him act for a month or two in that capacity. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has given consideration to that because it can lead to considerable delays in filling in what is really only a temporary vacancy while the commission is sitting as it will be, with depleted numbers. The commission will be operating not with its full quota of members but with a small number, pending a new scheme which will be brought before this House for approval in future.

I want to thank the hon. member for his support of this measure. I want to give him the immediate assurance that it is an interim measure, purely for the purpose of giving us the opportunity of having a good look at the whole system in view of what is happening in other countries and in the light of the report brought out by this commission of inquiry, so that we can deal with the matter in a very much more serious way, I hope, next year.

Will we see that report?

It is a departmental report, but I will give it to the hon. member personally so that he may have a look at it.

Sir, it surprises me that the hon. member wants to give the Minister more powers in this respect; they usually object to any powers being granted to any Minister in normal circumstances.

*But I shall consider the hon. member’s suggestion and perhaps effect the amendment in the Senate. I just want to put it to the hon. member as follows: The Public Service Commission is after all a body which has to exercise control over all departmental officials. It is therefore not a departmental commission: it is a far higher authority and normally the Minister does not really want to have that authority vested in him. Therefore we give this authority to the State President, who exercises a co-ordinating function over the entire structure, to make the appointments and to determine the terms, and that is why I brought the State President in here, and rot the Minister, to maintain the status and prestige of the commission at the same level, viz. as a body with a higher status than all other State institutions, because it deals with the careers of all officials. I shall consider the practical implementation thereof, but as I have said, I do not like making the Public Service Commission subordinate to the decision of a Minister. From the nature of things this is a body of high standing and therefore it has to come under the State President. I thank the hon. member for his support and if I understand matters correctly, the Opposition is prepared to dispose of more than one stage of the Bill on the same day.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am convinced that this legislation will be non-contentious and will enjoy the general support of hon. members.

The Fisheries Development Corporation of South Africa Limited—or Fishcor as it is better known in general—was established in 1944 by the Fishing Industry Development Act, 1944 (Act 44 of 1944), for the specific purpose of developing the fishing industry of South Africa.

In terms of this Act, the share capital of the corporation consists of five hundred thousand A shares of R2 each, all of which were to be issued to the State President, and as many B shares of R2 each as the State may from time to time take up in the corporation. At the time of the establishment of Fishcor the State invested R1 million in all the A shares of the Corporation and R752 934 in its B shares. The Act also provides that the funds in the A Share Account are to be used for loans to fishing undertakings and individuals for the purchase of, inter alia, boats and houses, while the funds in the B Share Account are to be used for direct investment in fishing undertakings for development purposes. At this stage I may mention, for the information of hon. members that the State receives annual dividends as laid down by the Act on both A and B share investments, viz. 4% and 6% for A and B shares respectively.

Hon. members will be interested to know what progress the Corporation has made in achieving its objectives during the past years. Since the establishment of Fishcor in 1944 up to October 1974, the following financial assistance has been rendered by the corporation in the aggregate (all amounts are given to the nearest R100):

When one makes a further analysis of the figures, one finds that the total expenditure incurred by Fishcor from its own sources, comes to the considerable amount of R13 411 300. I may just point out that an amount of R22 500 000 was provided by the Department of Industries from appropriation funds for the development of fishing harbours. Although Fishcor was established in 1944, the South African Railways, in terms of an agreement with the Government, undertook the development of fishing harbours up to 1963, in which year the task was transferred to Fishcor.

†Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members will agree that the achievement of Fishcor to generate from its own resources, development aid of R13 411 300 to the fishing industry, based on an initial appropriation of R1 752 934 by this House, is quite an achievement, especially in view of the fact that, with the exception of the first two years of its existence in respect of its A shares, Fishcor regularly paid dividends on its A and B shares to the State as is provided by the Act. I should, therefore, like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate and thank the corporation’s board of directors, management and staff for their dedicated and loyal services. The corporation’s current obligations in so far as its A share capital is concerned—that is, for boat-buying, home-ownership and other assistance schemes—are as follows:

E. The shortage of funds, therefore, already amounts to R1 588 700 if all the applications currently under consideration are approved and without provision for further applications which will no doubt be received.

In this connection I may add that the offshore trawl-fishing industry which provides in the country’s fresh fish needs, is finding it increasingly difficult to operate economically. This is mainly the result of the operations of foreign trawlers on the high seas around our coast. Arising from the operations of these trawlers the South African industry must continue with its programme of replacement of smaller outdated trawlers by much larger ones embodying the most up-to-date equipment in order to improve its catch per unit of effort. The cost of these trawlers have become almost prohibitive and the industry is unable to provide sufficient money for this purpose. Fiscor will, therefore have to afford assistance in this direction. The off-shore trawl fishing industry has indicated that its immediate future capital requirements for purposes of replacing and acquiring more deep-sea trawlers will amount to approximately R3 million. This together with the estimated shortage of about R1,6 million I have just referred to, amount to an approximate shortage of R4,6 million for the period 1975/1976. It is clear therefore that if Fischcor is to continue its task in so far as the development of the local fishing industry is concerned, it must be provided with additional money for the purposes of its A-shares account either by increasing the number of authorized A shares prescribed by section 12 of the existing Act or by raising loan funds in terms of section 17 of the Act. Fishcor has agreed that the money it requires be obtained by way of a combination of the aforementioned methods, as a result of which it is now suggested in clause 1 of the Bill to increase the existing authorized number of A shares of the corporation from five hundred thousand to two million five hundred thousand at R2-00 each.

This House will be asked to approve the provision of the required loan and capital funds on Loan Vote J of the Department of Industries for the financial years 1974-’75 (additional estimates), 1975-’76 and 1976-’77. Full details in this regard will be furnished when this Vote is discussed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has introduced a Bill in this House and we on this side of the House wish to take this opportunity of conveying to him our congratulations on his appointment to this high office. I said recently in this House that in the Financial Mail his predecessor was described as the second most powerful man in the land. I realize also that there was a certain degree of nostalgia in the voice of his predecessor when he spoke in the House yesterday and endeavoured to give a picture of the whole economic position of South Africa in his short 15 minute speech. If it can be said that the hon. the Minister of Finance holds the keys to the vehicle of State, surely the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is in the driver’s seat and has his hands we hope firmly on the wheel and his foot firmly on the accelerator and near the brake. On the way in which he guides this vehicle in the interests of all South Africa, we shall judge his performance in the future. He may count upon us to give him such assistance as is necessary when he introduces legislation which is in the interests of South Africa.

I also want to say that today we are going to support this Bill before the House. We do so because fundamentally we are supporting a good original Act. In 1944 the parent Bill was steered through this House by the hon. S. F. Waterson. It was one of the early Bills in which the State interfered in private enterprise. In those days we still blushed at having to introduce a Bill in which the State did interfere in private enterprise. The hon. S. F. Waterson took infinite pains to explain the Bill to the House. He indicated that at that time the fishing industry was in a state of chaos. It was being run uneconomically and some 50 000 to 60 000 souls, along our west coast predominantly, were concerned about the fact that they were not making a very good living.

How do you spell “souls”?

So good a Bill was presented to the House that I am happy to state that Mr. Erasmus, who spoke next on the Bill, was able to say (Hansard, Vol. 47, Col. 517):

I am certain that, seen against this background, the development of the industry which has taken place, which the hon. the Minister has outlined today, is something of which South Africa can be duly proud. I must again give credit to Mr. Erasmus for the way he spoke on the original Bill He noted then that the capital allocation of the original A shares was insufficient and he is on record as having said (Hansard, Vol. 47, col. 521):

He goes on to say that they had £6 000 000 in capital to start off with in the Industrial Development Corporation. His prediction has come true. If we take into consideration the erosion of the purchasing power of money which has taken place under the present Government, one can well see that what one could do with 500 000 shares in those days one cannot achieve with that amount of authorized capital today. Because of a feeling of nostalgia for the period when there was a good Government ruling South Africa, I want to refer to comments by the Rev. Miles Cadman who talked about the state of affairs in the fishing industry at the time. He states:

Can’t be! Misprint!

He goes on to say—

Then he says that the controlled price of fish in the shops—all good white fish—is 7d. per lb. Well, those were indeed, the good old days. Today we are dealing with a state of affairs where our fishing industry has grown tremendously in size and where because of the wealth and value of our offshore fishing industry we are threatened with encroachment from international interests. It is known today that while we can divide our fishing industry roughly into the off-shore fishing industry and the inshore fishing industry, the cost of trawlers which can compete with the international competitors is such that it runs into millions of rand. To that extent we believe this short Bill which is before the House today is a valid one and should be supported.

I do wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give me an indication—that is if the information is available—of the price of the average house which will be provided when the funds are eventually made available. I realize that we could have elicited this information under the Vote, but in terms of the escalating costs of today, it would be interesting to note roughly what is envisaged as the cost per unit.

With those words I associate this side of the House with the Bill and we give it our support and our blessing.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising in the first place to thank the hon. member for his support for this legislation. I also want to thank him for the remarks he made in connection with my appointment to this specific department.

†The hon. member has spoken about the erosion in the purchasing power of money. There are other forms of erosion, as he well understands, such as the erosion in the numbers which they are experiencing on the other side of the House. I do not think that it is appropriate that we should discuss either the one or the other at this stage.

Just stick to the Bill.

I want to say immediately that the achievement of Fishcor is really emphasized when one considers that one year’s catch—the latest figures I have at my disposal are in respect of 1973 —amounted to R160 million. Of that amount exports represented about R60 million. Therefore, it is not only a very important industry but also one of those which could earn us substantial foreign exchange over the years.

The hon. member asked me whether I am in a position to inform him about the loans allocated for housing. I just want to tell him that these loans are allocated in two ways. Firstly, loans are allocated to companies for utilization in connection with housing of their employees. The other loans are allocated to individual people in the fishing industry. Unfortunately I am not in a position to say with certainty what the maximum amount is for which a loan is granted, but I think the maximum amount for individual loans is R15 000.

†I think the maximum amount for individual loans is R15 000. The other advances are made to companies themselves and they in turn readvance these to the workers of those particular companies. If any other information is needed I shall be glad to supply it to the hon. the member privately.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

I just want to confirm to the hon. member that the maximum individual loan is R15 000 as I have indicated.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, there are two Acts which protect the interests of producers who entrust agricultural products to agents and auctioneers for sale. The two Acts are the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act, 1961 (No. 2 of 1961) and the Livestock and Produce Sales Act, 1956 (No. 37 of 1956).

In addition to these, the Meat Board exercises similar control over marketing agents who handle and sell slaughter animals, meat and by-products at abattoirs in controlled areas on behalf of producers. Likewise, brokers in hides and skins are controlled by the Meat Board. In order to simplify the administration of these control measures, it is considered desirable to consolidate the aforementioned two Acts and to make the provisions concerned applicable to agents in the meat trade as well. This will bring about that the Meat Board will no longer exercise control over and demand security from those agents from the point of view of protecting the farmers’ financial interests. It is not being envisaged to bring about drastic changes in terms of the new measure in the method of exercising control over the activities of those agents which may possibly hamper the marketing of slaughter animals. Furthermore, provision is also being made for making the proposed Act applicable to statutory agents, i.e. compulsory marketing channels in terms of the Marketing Act, excluding control boards or agents of control boards. Although the Bill re-enacts the basic provisions of the abovementioned Acts, it also includes a number of amendments, of which the following are the most important.

Fidelity Guarantee Funds

Although the obtaining of guarantees from commission agents in terms of Act No. 2 of 1961 has served its purpose to a significant extent up to the present time, it is not necessarily the best method of safeguarding the interests of producers. Moreover, this is a very expensive method of safeguarding, and as it may have an effect on the commission charged by the agents, the farmer is after all the one who carries the expense in the end. After consultation with the bodies and persons concerned the conclusion was reached that this expenditure could be incurred to greater advantage to both the producer and the agent by the establishment of a fidelity guarantee fund for such agents. Therefore the Bill now makes provision for such a fidelity guarantee fund now as well, in addition to the usual security given by commission agents. The aim is to do away with compulsory security once a fidelity guarantee fund is strong enough to be able to make good possible losses as a result of non-payment by agents. Because of the diversity of the products to which the Bill relates, it will be possible to establish different fidelity guarantee funds for the various classes of commission agents.

Investment of Trust Moneys

Commission agents for fresh vegetables and fruit are already obliged by law to keep trust accounts for the handling of the proceeds of products. Because of the time lapses between the deposit of money into and the payment of money from trust accounts in a process in which such deposits and payments are continually being made, it appears that considerable amounts of money remain permanently in trust accounts without earning interest. The Bill now makes provision for such moneys, the so-called suspense balance, being invested by commission agents to their own benefit, provided that the interest yield of the first year, in addition to an annual contribution, is paid into a fidelity guarantee fund. Prior to the establishment of trust accounts some of the commission agents already derived an income from interest earned on such balances. This proposal does not only ensure a financial boost for the guarantee funds, but also creates an extra source of income for commission agents as a counter to representations to increase their sale commission as a result of rising prices.

Security by livestock auctioneers

It has been attempted in the revision of the two Acts, to simplify the control and to do away with the requirements which are of little value, where possible. For example, it is being proposed to do away with the obtaining of security from auctioneers in respect of livestock auctions. It has been found that this requirement was of little use over a long period of time and that it is not worth the trouble and expense. In contrast to sales by commission agents, the sellers of livestock are usually present at auctions and see to their interests themselves. Hon. members will know that if a farmer has taken his livestock to an auction himself, he will wait for his cheque. Therefore this cannot cause much difficulty.

I should like to mention that interested bodies and persons have all been consulted and that they all support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. We shall support its Second Reading for a number of reasons. In the first place it is a consolidation of legislation passed by us in this House, legislation which enjoyed the support of this side at that time as well. Therefore it would be ridiculous if we were to oppose anything new to which we agreed before. The second reason is that in the past it was not the intention with the appointment of commission agents to obstruct these people or to prevent their being appointed, but, in fact, to be of use to the farmer and to help him to effect a proper distribution of his products, coming closer to the consumer in this process. We also welcome the fact that these fidelity funds will be established. While in the past there was security to protect the producer, I think that the changes which are being effected here can only be to the advantage of our industry.

However, there is one specific point which I should like to bring home to the Minister and that is in connection with the fidelity funds. Of course, those fidelity funds are established by the agents. We on this side were a little worried at one stage that the eventual responsibility of paying for those funds might fall to the farmer, in other words paying for their establishment. When a commission agent is appointed, he gets his commission in respect of products which he sells on behalf of the farmer.

As far as security which must be provided is concerned, in the end it is once again the farmer to whom the responsibility falls in this regard. In connection with these fidelity funds, we on this side of the House should like to have the assurance that the establishment of these funds will not take more money from the pocket of the farmer. Although the agent does not have the power to do this, of course, we only hope that there will not be some way of circumventing this, so that the farmer will have to make an extra payment for some service which the agent provides, which will mean that these funds will in actual fact be a creation of the farmer himself. The impression is often created that when transport costs rise for example, the point is often made as far as the consumer is concerned that prices have risen because transport costs have risen.

Very few of the consumers know, however, that those increased transport costs are carried by the farmer. It is he who carries the transport costs from his farm to the controlled market. The same applies in respect of vegetables and many other perishable products. While some café owners, vegetable dealers, shopkeepers, butchers or whoever, may get away with this story, I think that it is essential to point out that anything which will mean extra expenditure for the producer, will not be welcomed by this side of the House, and that if the extra expenditure is incurred by the producer, it must not be passed on to the consumer. Our plea to the hon. the Minister is therefore that if the application of the new principle brings about extra expenditure for the agent, he will see to it that these are not passed on to the producer in any way.

Sir, it is not necessary for me to emphasize here the marked extent to which marketing and production costs have risen recently. Although there is a higher price today for the farmer’s product, these increased costs often take a tremendous slice from the increased price which he gets for his product. We on this side of the House are thoroughly aware of this situation, and should like to see that the marketing costs are kept as reasonable and fair as possible for the farmer. Then the consumer, too, will derive the benefit from this at the same time. Sir, we on this side of the House will not object to the Second Reading of this Bill.

I think the hon. member for Newton Park underestimates our farmers’ knowledge of the marketing system if he thinks they do not know that all costs such as railage and commission are deducted from their cheques.

Sir, the Fidelity Guarantee Fund, of which the hon. member is so wary, will eventually bring about, in my opinion, a saving for the producer, because it will mean that it will not be necessary for the agents to provide security. I think therefore that the hon. member is unnecessarily anxious on this point. I think due cognizance has been taken of the fact that we should like to have saving. Sir, when we are dealing with fresh products, we are dealing with products which are produced all over the country, and it is very difficult to exercise effective control. For example, up to now it has not been possible to succeed in establishing a control board which could guarantee insured marketing for these products, and therefore it is very important for us to take another look at the agents and how they operate and to see to it that there will be security so that the farmer will get his money within a fixed time, which is laid down in this Act—I think that it will be seven days—and that there will be measures in terms of which control may be exercised over agents. Sir, the production of fresh fruit and vegetables is difficult. In winter there is usually just enough of those products, but in the summer months major over-production occurs very easily, and therefore we must see to it as far as is possible that the product which the farmer sends to the market is handled properly there. Therefore we welcome this Bill and this Fidelity Guarantee Fund which is to be established, as it provides the farmer with the assurance that he can get his money and that he will get it soon, and also so that he may know that there is proper supervision the the activities of the marketing agents.

There is one problem I should like to mention to the hon. the Minister, and that is the problem of the private commission agents. This has been mentioned to me by certain private commission agents.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) takes note of the ever increasing attention being paid to Africa and the Indian Ocean by communist militarism and imperialism and of the implications this holds for the Free World and Southern Africa in the areas mentioned; and
2. (b) is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the contribution that can be made by the Republic towards the defence of Southern Africa and of the interests of the Free World in the Indian Ocean.

When I refer here to the “free world”, I mean all those States which are not linked ideologically to the communist bloc of either the Soviet Union or Red China. That, then, is my definition of the concept “free world” for the purposes of what I have to say. Sir, it is a known fact that the West, and specifically the U.S.A., has during the past few years been following a policy of détente in the cold war between itself and other great powers. Strategic arms limitation talks have been a facet of that policy. This led, inter alia, to the U.S.A, putting an end to the further development of ballistic missiles, as well as imposing other military restrictions upon itself. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, has continued to expand its nuclear striking power under the cloak of an alleged backlog vis-à-vis the U.S.A. As far as conventional weapons were concerned too, the Soviet Union continued to expand the forces of the Warsaw pact countries in Europea, to such an extent in fact that as far as tank forces are concerned, the Soviet forces outnumber the Nato forces three to one. This state of affairs has enabled the Soviet Union to pin down the Nato forces in Europe. It has even enabled the Soviet Union to deploy a naval unit in the Mediterranean, and consequently to pin down a considerable element of the American fleet in that ocean. With the large measure of freedom which the Soviet navy now enjoys, it has been possible for it to be deployed in the Indian Ocean as well. That, then, is the background to the deployment of the Soviet navy in the Indian Ocean. The movement of the Russian fleet to the Indian Ocean may also be seen as a direct consequence of Admiral Gorshkov’s statement that power at sea paves the way to political and economic influence. This has, then, become the basis of the Soviet view. A military expert, Prof. Ericson of the University of Edinburgh, points out that this drastically altered military policy of Russia, viz. to develop a balanced war fleet, must result, firstly, in a need for bases and, secondly, a need for a strong land-based air arm as a support for the naval forces.

Sir, the question now is what the Soviet planners have in mind. What is the military policy of Russia and to what extent does it have an effect on us? In the first place experts agree that the strategic balance between America and the Soviet Union is very important to the Soviet Union itself precisely because that balance of power creates the climate in which they are able to develop their ideology of class struggle between the countries which support capitalism and socialism, respectively. The premise here is that for the sake of preserving peace the U.S.A, or any other major power will not involve itself in a revolution or lesser conflict in which the survival of such a great power is not at stake, and consequently they score minor gains here and there and make progress in that way. Secondly it is seen that Russia accords high military priority to Europe, where the centre of gravity of the super and great power interests is situated. Here the Soviet Union must at all times—it is their policy—be capable of waging an offensive or a defensive war. As a result of sustained pressure on this centre of gravity, viz. Europe, the Western powers are being prevented from looking after their interests elsewhere. In addition, because these Western Nato partners are capitalistic countries and defence is financed by the taxpayers, it means that if sustained pressure is exerted, maintaining a sustained arms programme eventually wears down the taxpayers’ financial resilience. The result of this is that Nato force countries either withdraw troops or cut down considerably on defence expenditure.

Third priority is China itself. In respect of this country Russia’s approach is that of always maintaining an advantage. Fourthly and for our purposes it is also important to know that the Soviet Union sees the Middle East as a target area of high priority because two-thirds of the world’s known oil supplies are to be found here, in contrast, for example, with only a sixteenth in America and a ninth in the Soviet Union itself.

Fifthly on this list of Russian military priorities in order of preferences are seen all those areas and territories throughout the entire world in which there is a need for support for revolutions which are being conducted for the sake of the socialistic system. Practical experience has already shown that the above is a correct version of the Soviet’s military goals. The nature of these goals leaves us in no doubt that the Soviet Union is implementing a policy of expansionism, and that it is unashamedly imperialistic.

When the Suez Canal is reopened it can be expected that the Russians will send additional warships from the Black Sea through that canal and will establish a stronger presence in the Indian Ocean. Military observers have differing views on the motivation of such a step by the Russians. We may summarize these views briefly. In the first place the Russians themselves say that they are undertaking this deployment so that they may be able to maintain a balance of power vis-à-vis the U.S.A., particularly in respect of the latter’s powerful fleet of Polaris submarines. Secondly it is also true that the Russians will in that way establish a line of communication with their interests in the Far East, specifically in the Pacific Ocean. On the other hand Western observers are convinced that with their presence in the Indian Ocean the Russians envisage that their position will be such that they are able, in a time of crisis, to exercise control over the entrance to the Suez Canal from the Indian Ocean, and so that they are able to exercise control over ocean traffic from the Persian Gulf to the Suez Canal, the Indian Ocean and particularly Japan in the Far East. In this regard it is important to note that 50% of Europe’s and 90% of Japan’s energy requirements are derived from the Persian Gulf. The Americans also have major business interests there, and earn an impressive amount of revenue from the Persian Gulf.

Therefore the Soviet Union will also be placed in a position to control other shipping routes across the Indian Ocean, and specifically the route around the Cape. Along these routes, coal, iron-ore and wool for Japan as well as copper, rubber, tin, tobacoo, cotton and wheat for Europe are conveyed. All these products are of vital strategic value to the free world, to the industries of those countries.

An important aspect which we have to bear in mind when we consider and evaluate the shipping route around the Cape is that before but specifically after closing of the Suez Canal in 1967 giant oil-tankers were utilized, tankers which cannot at present travel through the Suez Canal. To make that possible this canal will have to be widened and deepened. But while this has not been done, the route around the Cape will be of paramount importance to the Cape and to the free world. Therefore it is an open question whether the opening of the Suez Canal will affect this in any way. We in Southern Africa ourselves have a fundamental interest in these Indian Ocean routes because our most important harbours are situated along the East Coast, on the Indian Ocean. Sixty-five per cent of all our dry goods are handled by those harbours. In 1969 our international trade contributed 39% of our gross domestic product, while our exports comprised one-fifth of our per capita income. Consequently it is important to every citizen, White and Black, of our Republic and of Southern Africa that this important lifeline be preserved. But other states in Africa also have a fundamental interest in ensuring that the routes across the Indian Ocean to their harbours which handle their exports and imports will be protected. The Indian Ocean countries represent one quarter of the world’s population, but produce only one-sixth of the world’s grain supplies. Apart from South Africa and Australia therefore, quite a number of States are dependent on what happens to these sea routes.

We can now ask with justification what the implications of the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean are. We have already pointed out that the Russians are able to strike in a time of crisis and are even able to apply blackmail on the coastal states. More important still is that the Russians have here, by seizing an easy opportunity, obtained influence which is greatly out of proportion to their investment. Experts say that the size of the fleet is not important. What is in fact important, is the Russian presence which enables them to assert themselves, to make their voice heard in negotiations and to apply coercion if need be. Subjects on which Russia is now able to speak with greater force as a result of its presence in the Indian Ocean relate, inter alia, to the riches of the Indian Ocean itself. The publication The Intelligence Digest reports that according to Peking the Russians, after six years of careful surveys and research, concluded that the Indian Ocean is the richest ocean in the world. It contains just about all the varieties of minerals, and that at a time when the known mineral resources on land are rapidly becoming depleted. In addition the Russians also have a say in regard to the riches of the Antarctic. Scientists maintain that this territory has the richest protein resources in the world, and that it will be able to feed millions in future. It will also be possible for the Russians to have a say in regard to a very important subject, namely the declaration of the Indian Ocean as a neutral zone. They are already here, and are established, and their voice will have to be recognized in this regard. The idea of declaring the Indian Ocean to be neutral originated with the African States. As long ago as 1970, at the Lusaka conference, the African States realized that it was in the interests of Africa that this territory should be a peace zone. On one occasion we ourselves abstained from voting on a resolution before the U.N. in this regard because we as a coastal state had not been accorded recognition and not because we did not agree with that idea. In addition it was our standpoint that this was only an ideal and could only be realized if the great powers would abide by such a resolution.

A further implication of the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean is that a country such as Japan, which has not up to now considered it necessary to develop in the military sphere, will now have to look to its economic interests. It could therefore happen that Japan will have to become militarily involved. The Indian Ocean countries obviously have an interest in the development of that ocean. The Republic’s involvement in the defence of the Indian Ocean is a further consequence of the Russian presence here. That aspect has been stressed time and again by the hon. the Minister. Therefore it is fitting that we ask ourselves what contribution we could make to the defence of the Indian Ocean. Firstly, South Africa could form an important link in a possible South Atlantic treaty. Secondly, in general and in co-operation with the free world, South Africa has much to offer. Captain Amelio Gelmarini, a well-known Argentinian militarist, had the following to say about what we have at our disposal. He said we have the only developed base on the continent south of the equator, viz. at Simonstown. He admired our excellent harbour system. He is aware of our effective control and communications system which is equipped with the most modern apparatus. He is aware of our effective air-ground control system which protects our borders. To this I want to add that we in South Africa have the hinterland at our disposal for the provision of the necessary food stuffs and other requirements to ships. We are also able to convert industries to war production at short notice. Not only have our landward defences been thoroughly prepared, but at present we are also developing a shipping industry which will strengthen our seaward defences. Add to this that we also have the technological ability to manufacture ever more sophisticated armaments and one can see that we are certainly not an ally that can be scorned by the free world, particularly if they know that we shall not deny them facilities in a time of crisis. Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that no single power apart from the U.S.A, can on its own maintain a balance of power with the Soviet Union. If the coastal states of the Indian Ocean and other interested parties would stand together, such a balance of power could in fact be achieved. Consequently this is the answer to the Soviet Union in the Indian Ocean area. We are the Gibraltar of the Indian Ocean. More and more people are facing up to this fact. An objective military writer such as Col. Norman L. Dodd, who contributes to international publications, holds this view. The Washington Centre for Strategic International Studies is also playing no insignificant role in this regard. We are able to make a contribution to the defence of the interests of the free world in the Indian Ocean, but in order to make it a full contribution, other countries will have to support us, particularly in respect of long-distance reconnaissance and patrol aircraft for example, as Minister P. W. Botha has already pointed out.

As regards Russian and Red Chinese intervention in Africa, I want to point out that we should never lose sight of the fact that the Russians and the Red Chinese are involved in a race for power. To both it is not only the leadership of the communist world which is at stake but also control of the world’s strategic channels of communication and mineral, commercial and food resources. Both have selected Africa as a target area, and it is in the interests of South Africa that this territory does not become the arena in which their personal vendettas and problems are settled. So far Russia has only concluded four friendship pacts, viz. with Egypt, India, Iraq and Somalia. Initially the friendship pact with Somalia created the impression that Russia was primarily interested in a base along the coast of that country with a view to its interests in the Red Sea. Developments in Ethiopia and Uganda suggest, however, that Russia also wishes to use Somalia as a springboard to other States in East Africa. The presence of the Russians in Somalia and of the Red Navy in the Indian Ocean definitely constitutes a major threat to the countries of East Africa. The presence of the Red Chinese in Tanzania might even be a challenge to the Russians.

The Soviet Union’s campaign in Africa is a many-faceted one. I want to enumerate the most important of these facets. Firstly there is the supply of arms. In this way they are trying to gain a foothold for themselves in the army of each specific country, for they undertake the training of the military personnel. Secondly their policy in Africa implies economic enslavement. This is accomplished by stipulating in their aid agreements that the countries concerned shall pay back to them the aid which has been rendered by supplying Russia with goods. In this way a country is drawn into the economic system of the communist bloc. In this way the increasing aid given by the Russians to Egypt has been accompanied by increasing exports to Russia. In 1971 Russia was already receiving 39,6% of Egypt’s exports. On the other hand there was a sharp drop in the exports to the United States of America. At present the United States is receiving less than 1% of Egypt’s exports. What is revealing in the same context, is that the Soviet Union’s trade with under-developed States in 1971 comprised 15% of its total foreign trade. In 1972 this rose to 46%, and in 1973 to 54%. This spells out intensified Soviet supplies as well as action. Fortunately a country such as Egypt has begun to recognize this as a “instrument of policy leverage”, and a reaction has begun to set in.

Russia’s effort in Africa is moreover aimed at applying the political system of each specific country to its own ends. To term the one-party political system in Africa—there are at least 17 African States in which this system is in force—as a communistic socialistic system, is deception. The fact of the matter is that most African leaders accept the party of the masses and the socialism of their country, achieved without violence and revolution and based on the sentiments of the people, as the ideal political model for that country because, so say the African leaders, that system fits in with the framework of the traditional system and is unique to the national character. Most of the African leaders have had experience of the Western model of democracy, but they have found that that model is not applicable within he African context. Consequently African leaders do not see the one-party state as inevitably being an invalidation of the democratic principle. If the Westminster model cannot be transplanted to Black States, communism or revolutionary socialism has scant prospects of establishing itself; in fact, after all the years of influence there is not one communist party of any stature on the continent. Heterogeneous tribal customs, such as those of Islamic groups, entail that they offer no breeding ground whatsoever to communist doctrines. Not even one-party states or military dictatorships have so far shown themselves to be receptive to communist ideology. But they are present in Africa, and it is possible that governments could in fact be overthrown with communist resources and communist weapons.

I have already referred to their economic involvement in Africa and we also want to point out that Africa has sufficient economic potential to develop an economy which will afford the other States in Africa an opportunity of developing independently, without enslavement. I want to point out that the Chinese are adopting a policy similar to that of the Russians, viz. a policy of economic enslavement. Already their aid to Africa is allegedly a hundred times more than that of the Soviet Union. In turn their programme also makes provision for the reception of Chinese consumer goods. Because buyer resistance has developed in various States, a balance of payments problem has consequently developed in those countries. This, understandably, leads in turn to instability. Africa, Southern Africa and the free world have an interest in such stability being maintained. This can be done by making it clear to Red China and the Russians that they are unwelcome. That is, in fact, the policy of the U.S.A.

Our Defence Force has developed over the years with no aggression whatsoever in mind, only defence goals. Our Defence Force is a guarantee of our being able to develop independently in Southern Africa in the economic sphere. The same standpoint is possible on the part of other unaligned countries in Africa. Southern Africa and Africa need fear no imperialistic aggression from us. With justification we want to say from Southern Africa to the Russians and the Chinese: “Africa first” for the people of Africa. Possibly the time has arrived when similar sentiments will be expressed in other parts of Africa.

In conclusion I want to state that the hon. member for Cradock will go into detail as far as the onslaught on Africa is concerned, and that the hon. member for Waterkloof will go into detail concerning that part of my motion relating to Russia establishing itself in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West gave a very thorough exposition of the aims of Soviet Russia and the threat to and importance of the Cape sea route. He had obviously made a thorough study of the matter. Accordingly, I do not want to repeat what he said or cover the same field. I rather want to pay more attention to the second part of his motion, because the first part is common cause. We do not differ from him as far as that is concerned. I do not believe that any thinking people will differ from the hon. member as regards the aims of Russia and China and the importance of the Indian Ocean and the Cape sea route. Therefore I do not want to take up the time of the House merely to repeat or to confirm what has already been said in this regard.

The hon. member’s proposal consists of two parts. Unfortunately the hon. member discussed the second part rather superficially and gave few details of the contributions the Republic of South Africa can make to the defence of the free world.

†We shall accept the motion as it stands; we have no intention of moving any amendment to it. We agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member when he pointed out the dangers facing us in this regard. We also welcome the opportunity to analyse the contributions that South Africa can make in this field. In doing so I want to emphasize that we will concentrate on the defence angle. I emphasize “defence” rather than “security” because if we were talking in terms of South Africa’s role in the security of the West, then we would be talking about something far transcending the pure military aspect, something transcending Simonstown, the sea route itself—in other words, something beyond the mechanics of military contribution and military action.

We see South Africa’s role as the sheet anchor of stability in an unstable sub-continent, a sub-continent which is subject to the insecurities and uncertainties, the emotionalism and the experimentation of the new countries trying to find their feet. At the same time it is subjected to pressures and temptations in the process. I believe that if South Africa is to fulfil this role, then the answer does not lie in pure military strength or in military activity alone. It lies in the first place here at home, in uniting all our people in a common determination and effort to become the breakwater on which communism and anarchy will break itself in Africa. This, however, is a political task and not the subject of this motion. Nevertheless, it is necessary to emphasize that we see this as part of the key to our own security and the key to the true potential role which South Africa can play in contributing to Capricorn Africa a stability that will help to secure freedom throughout the free world. I do not intend to debate this today as we have had a full opportunity in the no-confidence debate and as there will still be other opportunities to debate the political solutions.

I want to keep in perspective what is militarily realistic in the concept of South Africa and our potential The first thing that I believe is important is that our Defence Force should be free to deal with foreign aggression and not be knee-haltered by the need to keep looking over their shoulder at internal security. I want to say immediately that I believe that this is part of the strength of our defences in South Africa, that we have not fallen for the temptation or for the bait which the communist world keeps throwing clearly at us, to concentrate to that extent on internal security and terrorism that we fail to preserve our potential capacity to deal with external aggression. Our forces must necessarily be trained for the task of internal disorder. That is plain common sense. Any country in the world does that—not only Africa, but any country in Europe has to train its forces to be able to deal with internal security as well as conventional defence. We must have that as part of the emphasis in our training. The main emphasis, the objective of our approach to defence remains, however, a defence against external aggression for which we need weaponry, e.g. hardware, and motivation, backed by men dedicated to defending and securing South Africa against an attaok from wherever it may come. I emphasize again that defence against foreign attack is the objective.

In this context we have to build up our forces. Let me repeat, for the sake of the record, what has been said often enough to those who see our Defence Forces as a force of internal security that we do not need frigates and submarines, Shackletons, Buccaneers, Mirages, radar screens, Silver Mines, Cactus and tanks—that sort of weaponry or that sort of hardware—for internal security. The fact that we spend a large percentage of our defence expenditure on that sort of equipment should in itself be the token of our sincerity in regard to the objectives for which we are building up a defence force. But in addition to the pure military hardware, there are other aspects to which the hon. member for Bloemfontein West referred in passing and which I think are important when considering South Africa’s role. I refer, for instance, to our harbours, not just Simonstown. We tend to think just of Simonstown, but we have other harbours, harbours with ship repair facilities and engineering facilities. We have a heavy engineering industry in South Africa; we have a well-developed electronics industry and so the list goes on and on. In other words, we have the knowhow of a modern industrialized State, and this is part of what South Africa can contribute to the mutual security of the Indian Ocean and of Southern Africa. Sir, apart from the political stability which I believe we can contribute and which is the common purpose of our peoples, we have a moral contribution to make towards the thinking of Capricorn Africa, and this, I believe, we can best do by example. I do not want to go into details on that aspect, as I have said earlier, but I must emphasize that one cannot isolate pure defence from the broader question of security.

Mr. Speaker, let me look specifically at the second leg of the motion—

I think we must face the fact that there are some weaknesses and some gaps. I do not want to deal with classified or sensitive matters, but the Minister and the Supreme Command must be aware of some of these. I have time only to deal with one or two. I believe that the most obvious weakness in our structure is that 5 million odd White people are having to carry the major burden for the security of a population of 20 million people. Although we have started, I believe belatedly, to bring in all South Africans into our defence structure, I believe that we are not moving fast enough in this direction; that we are dragging our heels and that we are being too cautious. Then, Sir, I believe that there is another mistake that we are making; we cannot look towards the use of people of colour in our Defence Force as a cheaper substitute for our existing soldiers. Take, for instance, the Indian unit which has been established this year. I understand that the starting cash payment for these men is something like R20 a month; that is the net amount which they take home. Sir, we are not going to draw in people to make their contribution to defence if we are going to place that sort of valuation on their task and offer them that sort of cash incentive. And the same, to a certain extent, applies to the Coloureds and the Bantu. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to say here that in principle where there is the same responsibility, the same task, the same danger involved and the same degree of training —in other words, where all aspects of the duty of a person are the same—we should accept that the value of a human life in the defence of South Africa has the same value to our Exchequer as the reward we are paying for it. We can then show not only our own people but the whole world that patriotism is not divided into categories or classes, but that it is a common patriotism which applies to all our people and that it is recognized and accepted on a basis of equality of sacrifice and equality of reward. I will take that no further, Sir.

The next point I want to raise is also perhaps a sensitive one, but I think it is time that it was aired. Some time ago there was an agreement between the parties following a commission by means of which the intelligence services of South Africa were co-ordinated and streamlined. I was a party to this agreement; all of us agreed on it, but I am not happy that it is working as it was intended to. I must say frankly that I have the fear that military intelligence is being squeezed out of the picture. There is an army expression for it; “You are sucking something that is not exactly in the front row.” Military intelligence is something which is vital particularly in Africa; it is vital to the effectiveness of our security. It is essential to and the essence of strategy and planning, as Israel has proved, both positively and negatively. Good intelligence enabled her to strike a crippling blow in the first war, but the failure to read intelligence properly and to react to intelligence reports put her on the wrong foot in the last one. What is important to civil intelligence is not always important to military intelligence. When people look at the same event, military intelligence will see one thing in it and civil intelligence will see another thing, another consequence. I cannot feel entirely happy that our military intelligence is playing the part which I believe it should be playing in giving military information from a military viewpoint on the issues which are so vital to proper planning. I believe this is another field which requires attention.

I do not have time to deal with much more, but I want to mention one more matter, and that is in the field of coastal defence. We welcome the building of fast misside-carrying MTBs. I am not going to deal with this at length because I believe one of my colleagues is going to do so. I want to say, however, that coastal defence is another field in which I believe we need to act faster. Since the refitting of the frigates and the purchase of the submarines I believe that the Navy has not had perhaps the full share it should have had of our defence expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, this is all that time allows me to deal with, but I hope that I have given some indication that there are matters which we should look at and which we should like to discuss. The hon. the Minister last year gave an indication that there would be an opportunity for private discussion on some matters which I have not touched on, matters more sensitive. I hope that opportunity will arise and that it will be possible to make use of that invitation shortly when one will be able to deal perhaps more fully with some of these questions.

I welcome the opportunity which the motion of the hon. member has given us to take a look at our defences and to take a look at the role we can play. At the same time I believe we must not just look at these matters blindly but look at them critically and to try to point out fields in which we believe there can be improvements, as I have tried to do. I repeat that we welcome the opportunity for this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot but express my amazement at the speech by the hon. member for Durban Point we have just heard. We are discussing a motion of cardinal importance for Africa and South Africa, but despite that he used this debate to raise points that could far more fittingly have been raised under the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote than in a debate of this kind. If this is the only contribution the hon. Opposition can make to a debate of this nature, they should rather keep out of these matters.

What is asked in the motion?

In my opinion the hon. member’s contribution was petty, to say the least, and certainly not at the level demanded of him by this motion. In a recent edition of Paratus an article appeared which ended as follows (translation)—

This truth must also be seen against the background of South Africa’s position in the world-wide strategy of the world powers, which is to a large extent determined by the U.S.A, on the one hand and by Russia and China, the Communist countries, on the other. This strategy is based largely on the nuclear strategy, to which the hon. member for Bloemfontein West has already referred, which has caused politico-military ideas to be revolutionized. It has made it possible for countries like China and Russia to develop and escalate their influence, particularly in Africa, without any hindrance. In this process the generally prevailing world opinion advocating the destruction of all forms of White rule in Southern Africa, is put to the test and exploited to the utmost. The tragedy is that the Western world is unable or unwilling to realize that if the White Government on the Southern tip of Africa is destroyed, the entire continent of Africa will be left to the mercies of Communism, whether of the Moscow or the Peking variety. This being done, Communism’s striving for world domination will continue irresistibly towards its ultimate objective.

South Africa’s White Government is still indisputably the last stumbling block to be overcome before Africa as a whole is given over to Communism. I say this on the basis of a number of quotations. In the first place, a representative of the ANC said at a liberation committee of the OAU in May 1974—

As far back as 1969, the following was said at an international gathering of Communist and workers’ parties in Moscow (translation)—

As recently as July 1974 Genl. Gowon of Nigeria said (translation)—

My hon. colleague, the member for Bloemfontein West, also referred to the rivalry between Red China and Russia as regards the provision of weapons, equipment and training facilities on a large scale to the so-called liberation armies of Africa. These two powers are also in fierce competition with one another to provide the developing states of Africa with technological and economic aid in an attempt to create power bases for themselves and also to extend their spheres of influence in that way. The fact that the rivalry between these two countries places them in a situation of conflict themselves, is cold comfort for the Whites of South Africa because, although their methods and even their ideologies differ, their eventual aim is the destruction of White domination.

In the first place, I want to refer to the role played by Russia on the continent of Africa. Its basic strategy in Africa is part of its world-wide anti-Western strategy and has only been developed as a means to effect its ultimate aim of communist domination of the world. In other words, it is a means to an end and not an end in itself. As a matter of fact, this strategy amounts to the following: By instigating revolutions in the so-called Third World, it is attempting to create a united front of all powers that can be grouped together under the term “anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist and racist” in its struggle against the West. I read the following in Paratus of August 1974 (translation)—

To a large extent, therefore, it is Russia’s ideal to establish Communism as an ideology in Africa in its striving for world domination. On the other hand, China’s involvement in Africa is part of its overall foreign policy which, apart from its desire to propagate the ideology of revolution, is really based on four main objectives, namely—

1. 1. The establishment of China as a world power.
2. 2. The expansion of its foreign trade.
3. 3. The containment of Russian power in the communist world movement.
4. 4. The diminution of Western influence in Africa.

China’s attempts at infiltration in Africa must therefore be seen against the background of its campaign to become the leader and the mouthpiece of the so-called Third World. According to China, Africa occupies a central position in the struggle between West and East. In a military document that was available for scrutining, it is stated that Africa is at the centre of the struggle against colonialism. At present Africa is the central problem in the world. China’s aim, therefore, is not so much to spread Communism as an ideology in Africa, as to expand its own influence and authority in Africa. In this respect China is quite far behind Russia as far as the control and influencing of terrorist organizations is concerned, but it is fast making up the backlog. Its building up of the Tanzanian defence force, which is virtually entirely under its control, the construction of the Tanzam railway line and its involvement in the economy of Tanzania must all be seen as an attempt to bring about an escalation of strife in Southern Africa, in which it will be able to fill the role of the power with the greatest influence in Southern Africa. Through its entry into this struggle in Southern Africa China has made important progress, not only in its struggle against the West, but also in its rivalry with Russia. In the same way it has established itself as a very important rival in the international struggle for influence in the Third World. It is true that China’s influence is not yet sufficient to play a decisive role in the conflict of power in Africa south of the Sahara, but its progress in that direction is remarkable and is increasing by the day. This is very clear from extracts from so recent an edition of the South China Morning Post on 19 December 1974. I shall quote a few extracts from it—

It is significant that this information originated in Hongkong. This is an indication of the extent to which China has already progressed towards the attainment of its goal in Africa. In the sphere of the provision of aid, too, the progress China has made in the last few years is disturbing. If we take note of the amount of aid provided to African states by Russia in the Sixties, when it was the leading communist influence in Africa, we find that in the period 1954-’72 Russia alone put the amount of 12 520 million American dollars at Africa’s disposal. Since then this amount has grown substantially. In 1970-’72 we find that only 243 million dollars was put at the disposal of African states. In 1972-’73 no aid was provided and in 1974 only military aid was given to Somalia and an agreement concerning arms supply with Uganda was concluded by Russia. Hon. members will note that to begin with, China expended approximately the same amount as Russia. During the period 1956-’72 China spent the amount of 13 022 million dollars on the African states. However, what is disturbing about this is the fact that since 1970, this aid to Africa has started to increase in tempo and in scope. In the two years from 1970 to 1972 China put no less than R959 million at the disposal of African states. It is, of course, true that the West also puts large amounts at the disposal of African countries. In comparison with these amounts contributed by the communist countries, the amounts contributed by the West are really astronomical. For example: In 1972 the West put as much as R13 200 million at the disposal of African states. What is disturbing about this is that in spite of the scope of that aid, it makes no impact on the African scene because—one can only speculate on this—it appears as if this money is regarded as a different form of neo-colonialism that is infiltrating the country. Secondly, the African states actually regard this provision of aid as a right to which they can lay claim because, so they maintain, they have always been exploited by the Europeans and the Western Powers.

The relative deterioration of Russia’s position in Africa is not to be sought chiefly in the fact that it has lost interest in Africa. To think that would be a total misconception of the truth. Factors contributing to the situation—I shall mention a few —are, in the first place, that Russia, as my hon. colleague has said, is more involved with other fronts at the moment and does not have the means to be active on the African scene. At present its major target area is the Mediterranean Sea area, the Middle East, and, of course, the Indian Ocean as well. On the other hand. Peking is engaged in a purposeful attempt to win over to its side the goodwill of Africa. On the other hand, Russia’s approach in Africa is also heavily larded with ideology, which is not really acceptable to the basically religious Black man. Its provision of aid goes hand in hand with the dissemination of ideology and this does not have the impact on the African that it would have liked.

On the other hand, China does not make this basic error. In its provision of aid, China becomes more involved with the problems of the state in question. It identifies itself with the inhabitants of that state and its efforts are directed more towards encouraging economic growth in a specific country. Not only does it provide financial means to finance projects, but it also provides the manpower. A good illustration of this is the 20 000 to 25 000 labourers it has made available for the construction of the Tanzam railway line. The defence force of Tanzania is packed with Chinese. It is in this way, by becoming involved, and by identifying itself with the people of the state which it is infiltrating, that it achieves the degree of success which it does at the moment. We could quote a long list of aid provided to African states by China. Owing to the time factor, I just want to mention a few in order to point out that these people are purposefully directing their attention to Africa. We are aware of the enormous amount of aid provided to Tanzania and Zambia. I have already pointed out that the Tanzanian defence force has been virtually brought into being, financed and trained by the Chinese régime. Today Tanzania is Peking’s major trading partner in Africa. In the same way China has many important points of contact with, inter alia, Zaire, Congo-Brazzaville, Somalia, etc., so much so that there is at present a Chinese belt extending across the breadth of Africa from Tanzania on the East Coast to Congo-Brazzaville on the West Coast. This is a disturbing phenomenon. This belt now also includes countries such as Zaire. President Mobutu was a visitor to Peking recently, He returned and has already declared himself in favour of the economic system of the Chinese.

In conclusion I just want to mention that in the light of the real threat to world peace, a new dimension and a new content has been given to the Prime Minister’s efforts to bring about detente in Africa. I trust that the West will also take cognizance of this.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Cradock thought fit to show this measure of enmity towards the hon. member for Durban Point. We had hoped that this would be a constructive debate aimed at finding any weaknesses in our strategy and defence. We had hoped that this would be a debate in which hon. members could make constructive suggestions. We of the United Party have no doubt that ever-increasing attention is being paid to Africa and the Indian Ocean by communist militarism and imperialism. I think this fact is self-evident. There is enough evidence to support this besides the various facts and views expressed here by hon. members. Armed communist ships pass and survey our coastline regularly. We regularly read about the financial aid and economic help being given to African states by means of projects such as the Tanzam railway line and the high wall of the Aswan dam. We read of the supply of arms to African countries and their freedom fighters, and of the provision of instructors to train their armies. This certainly concerns us immensely, but very little was said about how this Government hopes to combat these phenomena. There is also no doubt that the communists covet the living space and the great natural resources of Africa, particularly Southern Africa. They also realize the potential of the human resources of undeveloped Africa which could more readily be influenced and persuaded to support the communist philosophy in exchange for financial and economic aid. The affluent and more developed countries would obviously be more resistant to the overtures of communist countries.

Geographically South Africa is strategically situated between the two great oceans of the world on the major shipping routes between the West and the East, thus making it able to keep watch over and control the shipping of imported and exported goods including oil between the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. One would therefore expect Africa and particularly South Africa to be a coveted objective of communist countries seeking to expand their empires and influence and also a place where they hope to dump their excess peoples. Our geographic situation makes South Africa particularly vulnerable because of its long coastline and border and because of the few people we have spread over such a large surface area. Think of the long arid South West African coast where there are hardly any people. The same applies to Namaqualand. I believe that much could be done to make Namaqualand less vulnerable by promoting its development. This could readily be done by improving the services to the community by means of multi-purpose railway line that runs between Sishen and Saldanha. The development of a good fishing port on the Namaqualand coast with a rail link and future potential harbour development should, I believe, be positively promoted. Our coastline is being patrolled regularly by aircraft and boats which are available, but I do believe that we could do it more efficiently with locally built boats and if more of them patrolled our coast. South Africa should actively promote the establishment of our own large and modern shipbuilding yards, making use of our own South African-produced steel. Through the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa the Government could certainly sponsor some of the big South African companies which are now forming cartel and monopolies by buying small independent firms and swallowing them up instead of rather investing their enormous profits in a company to build our own ships here locally thus making us independent of overseas countries. The long, sparsely populated borders of South Africa and South West Africa, especially with Mozambique and Angola, should have strategic tarred roads, where feasible, a few kilometres inland running parallel to the border. There should also be link roads to serve the community which will be available for patrol duties and the moving of troops if this should become necessary. In Mozambique this was regarded by many of the officers as being one of the best ways of controlling insurgents across the borders.

I believe that South Africa is almost self-sufficient as far as arms and materials to deal with internal security are concerned. The great progress in the development and manufacture of weapons in South Africa has made us totally independent of the rest of the world. We have read in the Press and various publications that we have had major achievements in the manufacture of our own armoured cars and ground-to-air as well as air-to-air missile systems. I think that this is a considerable advance on what the position was in the past. We also make our own Impala jet trainers at the Atlas Aircraft Corporation. South Africa will, however, not be able to hold its own in armed conflict if we do not have the support and loyalty of all our people. The best way to ensure the loyalty of our people in South Africa, both White and non-White, is to get them to be closely associated with decision-taking and the economy, the welfare, and the future of South Africa. They should have an investment in the land and the welfare of South Africa and also a stake in its future. I believe that a happy non-White middle-class settled on their own properties and participating in the economic prosperity and having a good future, will be loyal to South Africa against all aggressors. To achieve this, we will have to increase the productivity and the living standards of all our people. We can then expect real patriotism from not only the Whites but also the non-White people of South Africa. I believe that it is also essential that we should strengthen the backbone of the people living in South Africa. I have already heard from people, not from this side of the House, but belonging to this Parliament, who have confided to me that they have invested money in Switzerland in case conditions should be such that they will have to get out when trouble arises. [Interjections.]

I believe that it is the duty of this Government to propagate the thought that we should stand strongly against any incursions and against any person threatening our internal security. I well realize that it is not the size of the dog in the fight that counts but the size of the fight in the dog that is important. This applies to every country which is fighting insurgents from neighbouring countries. We saw this in Mozambique. I believe that the authorities there were sincerely and desperately concerned about their future and that they had definitely hoped to stay in Africa, but because of the collapse of their government and because of the collapse of the will of their people, their fight against Frelimo also collapsed. Diplomatically and politically South Africa will actively have to pursue the normalization of relations with our neighbours and the other States of Africa, as the hon. the Prime Minister has recently started doing. It will not be enough to promote détente only; we should have a diplomatic offensive to make friends in Africa and in the rest of the world.

During the time of Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd South Africa looked inward to solve its internal problems and became isolated and insulated from its neighbours and also from the rest of the world. He would not initially participate in help or joint schemes with neighbouring countries such as Swaziland. When they invited us to help them build the railway line from Kadoki to Lourenço Marques, South Africa did not see its way clear to assist in this venture. Sir, we now have another opportunity to do just that, and I sincerely hope that South Africa will see its way clear to do this so that we can bind these people to South Africa with bonds of friendship and mutual help. I remember the problems that my father, Dr. Van Eck, had to persuade the then Prime Minister to undertake joint ventures such as the Kunene River project in Angola and also the Cabora Bassa project with Mozambique. It took quite a bit of persuasion to get the Government to cooperate with these neighbouring territories. Now we again have an opportunity to cooperate with Swaziland. If we in South Africa do not build the railway line, we could lose a friend. In other ventures in Africa, where the Western countries were not prepared to co-operate, we saw the Prime Minister moving in and doing the job. I hope therefore, Sir, that South Africa will certainly fulfil its responsibilities in South Africa.

Before calling on the hon. member for Rondebosch to speak, I just want to point out to hon. members that the hon. member for Edenvale has already given notice of a motion which is going to be discussed on 7 March. I want to ask hon. members not to anticipate that motion in their discussion of the motion this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to give my support, in principle, to the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. Before commencing with my actual argument, I just want to make a remark about the points touched on by the hon. member for Cradock. Sir, in my opinion it is important for one to distinguish between the aims or objectives of, say, communist imperialism with regard to Africa, and the acceptance gained by the communist ideology as such in a specific African state. For example, I would not like to mention Nigeria and Tanzania in the same breath; to me there is quite a substantial difference. For example, I cannot equate exactly the antagonisms of someone like Gowon with the antagonisms of someone like Nyerere; they must be related to the specific social and economic structures that exist in their societies. I think Tanzania really has a more socialistic or a Mao Tse-tung communistic social set-up than is the case in Nigeria.

But, Mr. Speaker, I really want to come back to the central point made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West with regard to the military and imperialistic strategy of communism in respect of the cold war, to put it in those terms, and that is that one of the key objectives is supposedly to establish a balance of power that would compromise the Western world or the free world into a high degree of internal expenditure on defence in their societies, and in this way to restrict them from giving much attention to the necessary changes in the social and economic sphere within those societies, so as to enable the communist ideology to gain greater acceptance within those societies. I think that that is more or less the point which the hon. member tried to state and which was the basis of his analysis.

Sir, I think that the important point we must bear in mind here is that no political ideology can become the accepted ideology of any society without the substantial support of the majority of people in that particular society, who see in that ideology a solution to their problems. Whether that ideology will offer a solution or not is an entirely different matter. The fact that they believe it, is in itself sufficient motivation to encourage them to effect changes. At the outset I would want to say that there is a definite difference between the strategy and organizational abilities of Peking and Moscow, of Russia and China, in their interest in Africa, but that they have one thing in common, viz. an ideology that creates expectations for the future in people, an expectation for the future that is clothed in the language of scientific prediction. In other words, not only do they tell the people belonging to the societies in question that there can be a better future, they also promise them, in terms of their ideology, that that future would be the only possibility if these people were to convert to this ideology. That is why it is that in the nature of their ideology, champions of communism address themselves to societies where the social and economic structure is such that people in those societies will believe that for them this expectation for the future is the only reality worth striving for. I therefore welcome the motion of the hon. member in that he asks that we should take note of the increasing attention being given to Africa by the communist countries, precisely because most countries in Africa display the characteristics that could possibly cause the communist ideology to appear to them to be the only solution to their problems.

What are the characteristics of these societies? I should like to mention four, four outstanding characteristics. The first is that in the said society, there is a clear difference between the economic, social and political situation of the élite and that of the masses. A clear distinction is drawn between those who are privileged in the political, economic and social sphere, and those who are not privileged. The second is that access to this privileged position from, the masses is limited, in other words, the man who is part of the masses feels that he has no hope of political, economic or social mobility, that he is trapped in a situation that cannot be changed by action on the part of the elite group itself. The third is that the gap between the privileged position of the élite on the one hand and that of the masses on the other is increasing, in other words, the hope of large-scale economic and social progress actually diminishes owing to the widening of the gap between the privileged and the unprivileged in that society. Fourthly, there is an increasing overlap of interest between the political and the economic élite in the society in their relation to the masses. It is in societies with these characteristics that communism find a particularly fertile breeding ground and applies a characteristic strategy. This strategy has very definite characteristics and I shall deal specifically with the ideological component mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West when he pointed out that when a specific society, say for example a society like South Africa’s, tries to make itself strong and prepared in the military sphere in order to combat any foreign aggression, communism makes an effort to direct matters in such a way that the society concerned is unable to devote sufficient attention to its internal development, that it is unable to devote sufficient attention to those very social and economic problems within the society that would make the communist ideology an attractive one to people in that society. This is a very important characteristic of communism. As part of their strategy with regard to the governments in such societies—and this does not apply to South Africa alone; it also applies to Nigeria and Zambia and other African states—they will also see to it that the impression is created that the governments of those societies want to maintain the status quo at all costs. Even though the governments in those societies declare that they want to effect changes, an attempt will nevertheless be made by communism to ensure that there can be no change and that these governments are not interested in making concessions. That is why it is a fundamental aspect of the strategy of communism that they must preserve the impression that all governments in such African societies are reactionary and opposed to change. They do this with the very intention of establishing the impression that change in the social and economic conditions of those societies cannot be effected from within those same societies, but that changes are dependent on a revolution, on a radical change, a change that can only be brought about if the vast majority of the population in those societies grasps at the communist ideology and then brings about change by revolutionary means. It is therefore of cardinal importance that part of the communist strategy should be that a society such as that of South Africa or that of any other African state in which the communist ideology has not yet taken root, should devote so much attention to defence in the purely technical sense of the word that it is unable to devote sufficient attention to its domestic social and economic conditions, conditions that must change in order to prevent a communist ideology appearing attractive to the people in that society.

For that reason I want to support this motion in principle and say that I feel that it is also essential, in order to supplement the motion, to say that we should not only consider the importance of making ourselves prepared in the military sphere in the technical sense of the word, that we should not only see to it that we have a strong army, a strong navy and a strong air force, but that we should also see to it, particularly in view of our special situation in Africa as part of the defence of Africa, that we change the social, economic and political conditions in South Africa and in Southern Africa in such a way that communism as an ideology loses its power of attraction for people in that society.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply at length to what was said by the hon. member for Benoni. In my opinion the hon. member for Benoni and the hon. member on that side who spoke before him, too, have seized upon this motion in the most reprehensible manner to make attacks on the Government, something that was unnecessary.

Do we all have to be your blooming sycophants?

You need not be that at all.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “blooming”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

We are discussing a motion involving Africa as a continent and the Indian Ocean as an ocean. Notwithstanding this the United Party is nagging about petty matters.

Read the second part of the motion, or can’t you read?

The motion concerns defence and adopts a military rather than an ideological approach. It concerns Africa and the defence of Africa. Even though we find ourselves in a period of detente between East and West and between Africa and South Africa, it is still as well that we should discuss aspects of defence. The detente which is being sought is always a good thing, but nevertheless it is essential that defence also be discussed at times. I do not believe that this debate will harm the spirit of détente between South Africa and Black African states in any way. However it would be foolish for any realist to leave aside defence and military preparedness while a search and a striving for peace was in progress. Surely it has become an axiom that the best guarantee for peace is military strength and military preparedness. As my friend the hon. member for Bloemfontein West indicated, his motion concerns communist penetration into the Indian Ocean region and its implications for the free world, and South Africa’s contribution to the defence of the free world in this important region.

Looking at the Indian Ocean today in order to evaluate it, we have to do so from two points of view. First of all we must consider the communist, and specifically the Soviet Russian penetration into this area. Secondly, consideration must be given to the necessity of keeping the Indian Ocean and the routes that straddle it, open and accessible to the free world.

Of all the great powers, both past and present, imperial and Soviet Russia has been the only one that has really been land-locked. Its own natural harbours have an almost permanent ice barrier that renders them unusable as far as naval planning is concerned. Apart from this, the harbours to the North and East have been vulnerable owing to the location of the defence installations of other powers. As far back as 1770, or thereabouts, imperial Russia gained access to the Mediterranean Sea after having defeated Turkey in a war. By doing so it gained access to the Mediterranean through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. But anyone who knows the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus will also know that this entrance to the Mediterranean Sea is an extremely vulnerable entrance. As far as Vladivostok, its eastern harbour, is concerned, one of its major problems is that it is situated so far from its western, i.e. its European border and that the trans-Siberian railway line, being the only overland link, is a handicap. Since the days of Tzar Peter and Catherine the Great, Russia’s territorial aspirations have been in the direction of the Indian Ocean, but these aspirations have been checked by Iran. In one of the secret protocols of the Four Power Treaty that resulted from the Von Ribbentrop/Molotoy negotiations of 1940, the following is stated (translation)—

In contrast to the land-locked geography of Russia, all the other great powers are either bordered by oceans or have easy access to them. We in this House have on innumerable occasions discussed Russia’s penetration into Africa, but up to now we have placed little emphasis on its penetration into the Indian Ocean. Until the announcement in March 1968 by the British Premier, Mr. Harold Wilson, there was no question of a Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean. Now, all of a sudden, it is here. What is the position today?

In the first place, we can take a very brief look at the presence of the traditional powers in the Indian Ocean. Apart from Simonstown, the Seychelle Islands and Perth in Australia, Britain, as a traditional presence in the Indian Ocean no longer has a basis here. Britain is out of Aden, Iraq. Singapore and Mauritius and only has a task force left in the Indian Ocean. France had to move out of Diego Suarez, but retained a place for itself at Djibouti where it has a force at present comprising an aircraft carrier and five or six torpedo boats and frigates. Apart from this it also still has facilities at Reunion. The United States is establishing itself at Diego Garcia and we know that this is being done in the face of strong resistance. It is not so easy to make a precise evaluation of the Russian navy in the Indian Ocean at the moment. The reason is that they are artists when it comes to the disguising of naval vessels as fishing boats, commercial vessels, etc. However, at the moment the Russians have one cruiser armed with anti-aircraft missiles there. This cruiser is equipped as a headquarters. Then there are two frigates with conventional armoury, two minesweepers and one landing craft with marines on board. At the moment this landing craft is moored at Basra, Iraq. In addition there is one and sometimes two attacking submarines equipped with torpedoes. Besides this there are 14 or 15 support ships and then, too, as we know, a large number of research ships. On occasion Russia has had 30 warships in the Indian Ocean at the same time. At the moment it has certain bases, or at least facilities, if it does not have the bases themselves. India provides it with the bases Vishakhapatnam and Vizianagaram. Apart from this it has facilities on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In the Horn of Africa area close to Bak El Mandeb, where the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean meet, viz. close to the Persian Gulf and the oil states of the Persian Gulf, Russia has at its disposal the former British harbour of Aden, the former British harbour Zeila on the Socotra Island. Then, too, it has Mogadishu, the former Italian base in Somalia. In addition it can call at Madagascar and Mauritius. It has occupied the British bases in Iraq and is training the Iraqis in the handling of missile boats. South of the Seychelle Islands, which are still a British possession, it has set up buoys on the Fortune Banks. I may just mention that these buoys are painted red and bear the legend, in large letters: “Property of the USSR.” These buoys can be used as anchoring places and as meeting places for submarines, supply ships and so on for maintenance purposes.

It is known that Russia has suffered major shocks in the history of its navy. In the Russo-Japanese war at the beginning of this century, its navy was devastated. After the First World War its fleet lay in ruins. The latest shock was the confrontation with the American fleet on the way to Cuba, when Russia itself had to withdraw. All these defeats over about the past 70 years have been lessons to Russia. As my friend the hon. member for Bloemfontein West has indicated, Russia has built up a fleet in recent years. General H. J. Kruls had a great deal to say about this fleet In Nato’s Fifteen Nations Magazine of December 1974 to January 1975, he said—

That is how seriously Gen. H. J. Kruls views the Russian naval build-up. I do not think it is necessary to convince the free world that it is confronted today with a formidable Russian fleet. It is no longer necessary for South Africa to send out further messages that the Russian fleet is showing its flag across the greater part of the Indian Ocean. Apart from Djibouti, the Seychelle Islands and Perth in the East, there are only two bases worth mentioning in the West Indian Ocean that are open to the free world. The one is at Simonstown and the other is at Bandar Abbas in Iran. As regards the base at Iran, I just want to say that that country is fortunate in having a leader of the calibre of the Shah who, with his insight, experience and wisdom does not hesitate to build up a navy for himself in order to secure the territory and integrity of his country. The Persians have had centuries of experience of Russian aggression. It is fortunate, too, that at the moment Iran is financially in a position to prepare itself in this way independently of foreign financial aid. As far as Simonstown is concerned, it is generally regarded as the best equipped and most modern naval base in the Southern Hemisphere and, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Defence, is there for every country in the free world who wants to co-operate with us. The Armed Forces Journal states the following in this regard—

I want to conclude by saying that it would be foolish for the free world to close its eyes to Russia’s expansion. Russia’s penetration of the Indian Ocean is not aimed at Africa alone, but forms part of its pincer movement around the entire Western Europe and Britain. Wise men of the free world, as my hon. friend the member for Bloemfontein West has defined the free world, must take cognizance, with speed and promptitude, of this penetration. I think they would be wise to consider something in the nature of an Indian Ocean Alliance speedily and without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there is much dispute in this House in regard to the question relating to the threats which communism poses not just for Southern Africa but for Africa and for other parts of the world. I think, however, that there is another matter to which we should pay attention and that is the endeavours not merely to pose threats by means of military aggression and military threats, but the endeavours on the part of major powers—in particular the communist powers—to create spheres of influence in regions with which we in South Africa are concerned Left alone by the outside major powers and agencies, I believe that Southern Africa would in fact be a peaceful region. I believe that developing states by reason of the outside interference expend increasing portions of their gross national product on military equipment. Sir, this expenditure is not in their interest, nor in anyone else’s interest because it is sterile and unproductive. No developing country should in fact spend an undue proportion of its gross national product on what is sterile and unproductive when its people are crying out for help. It would, however, be too much to hope for that foreign aims could be kept out of Southern Africa but an effort can be made to promote an agreement in Southern Africa to the effect that foreign spheres of influence should be kept out. This is nothing new in the world. You may remember that in the earlier days when there were threats from European States of interference on the American continent, there was the Monroe Doctrine. There is no reason why there should not now be a doctrine initiated by South Africa to bring peace to Southern Africa by dealing with what is in fact a new style of colonialism which is the “sphere of influence colonialism”.

Developing countries can become dependent upon major powers by reason of receiving economic aid and military assistance. There can be cultural influences as well as advisory influences. As a result of this kind of activity a new form if colonialism is being created in Africa. We believe that South Africa should promote the concept of a true Southern African independence and that it should encourage this kind of independence rather than a dependence upon major powers for assistance. It should be clear, in so far as non-African powers are concerned, that their activities and desires to create spheres of influence in Southern Africa as well as the effects of those spheres of influence are unwanted and undesirable in Southern Africa.

The doctrine that we as South Africans should promote in Southern Africa is, firstly, that no Southern African state should be allowed to become the sphere of influence of another power, particularly a non-Southern African power. Secondly, Southern African states should conclude non-aggression pacts to enable unnecessary expenditure in respect of military equipment and military activity to be avoided by them. Thirdly, Southern Africa should, by agreement between the independent states of this region, become a nuclear-free zone with no power seeking to hold nuclear weapons but working towards an undertaking to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes only. Fourthly, I believe that no Southern African state should permit its territory to be used as a base for insurgents or terrorists seeking to attack another state or supply arms to individuals seeking to make incursions into another state.

I believe that the concept of détente will be meaningless if there is not a real result from detente. Détente is not important in itself if it only produces a few years of peace; it needs to produce a lasting solution. It is necessary to get to the root causes and to create, in fact, a doctrine in Southern Africa which will produce peace on a long-term basis. I am very happy to see the emergence of years of peace, no matter how few, but détente must be something which produces a lasting peace in Southern Africa.

The form of the Southern African Freedom Doctrine which is suggested, could produce peace in Southern Africa, would enable growth to be diverted from non-productive military expenditure, would allow Southern Africa to be freed from this new type of sphere of influence colonialism and would promote peace together with all the advantages in respect of development, in respect of new economic communities, in respect of mutual assistance and in respect of the raising of living standards in this particular sub-continent.

If there was to have been a vote on this issue, despite agreeing with all the sentiments that have been expressed in the motion itself and the principles behind them. I would have moved an amendment which reads as follows—

1. (a) would agree to respect their individual territorial integrity and rights to sovereignty;
2. (b) reject attempts by outside powers to establish spheres of influence of military presences;
3. (c) furnish mutual and economic and technical aid without conditions affecting their sovereignty;
4. (d) agree mutually to assist in the defence of Southern Africa; and
5. (e) undertake not to allow their territories to be used as bases for aggression upon one another.”.

To my mind this concept is essential if we are going to keep powers such as China and Russia out of Africa, not merely from a military point of view but also from a sphere of influence point of view.

There is one further point which I believe must be made and I want to make it very briefly in the time available to me. The best means of defending South Africa and its territorial integrity is not simply that South Africa be militarily, economically and morally strong. It is also necessary to be sure that all the people in South Africa have a meaningful stake in our society, the society they are asked to defend. It is all very well talking about bringing the Black population into the defence of South Africa—I am all in favour of it— and it is all very well talking about the concepts that we have advanced in relation to equal pay for equal work in the Defence Force. What is important is the will, the desire to defend your country because it means something to you and because of the stake you have in the country and in its welfare. People do not defend their country merely because they are being paid. People fight for and defend their country because they have fervour and a belief that it is something worth defending. If we do nothing to meet the challenge offered by communism, if we do nothing to meet the challenge offered by African States which are at present being influenced by outside powers and which influences are hostile to us, we will be failing in our duty to South Africa. We must create a feeling in Southern Africa, particularly in our own country, that here is something that is worth fighting for, here is something that is worth defending. If we do this we will have the answer to aggression, we will have the answer to communism, we wall have the answer in fact to attacks upon our territorial integrity.

Mr. Speaker, it is really quite remarkable that I find myself in accord with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville. I am very grateful that he kept the debate on a high level and did not descend to the level of party politics. I must admit, however, that I do have a difference of opinion with the hon. members for Waterkloof and Cradock in regard to what I consider to have been a most unprovoked attack upon the hon. members for Durban Point and Benoni.

*The hon. member for Cradock expressed his surprise as though the hon. member for Durban Point had allegedly used the debate to make points which were petty and inappropriate. Surely he is completely mistaken. The hon. member for Durban Point made a positive contribution which was perfectly reconcilable with the second part of this motion. This part of the motion reads as follows—

As regards this leg of the motion, the hon. member for Durban Point made a much more positive contribution than the hon. member for Cradock. It was only in the final sentence of his speech that the hon. member for Cradock had something to say about this.

†Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that, but I do not think that this type of debate should be used for this sort of unprovoked attack on people when they are supporting a motion which I believe was moved in good faith by an hon. member of this House to discuss this situation and our whole military situation in general. I do not believe that any of us should use this sort of debate for that purpose, and I do not believe that hon. members on this side of the House have done it.

Sir. I wish to welcome, as the hon. member for Durban Point did, the announcement of the modernization of the Navy and the building of the six high performance missile-carrying ships in, I believe, the constituency of the hon. member for Durban Point. We believe that this process should be continued and expanded in conjunction with the wonderful efforts which are already being made by the Armaments Board through Armscor and Atlas and other organizations. I believe that we should ensure the co-ordination of all our ports and communication systems towards the defence of Southern Africa. Sir, the importance of the Indian Ocean has become far more serious with the impending re-opening of the Suez Canal and the quick connection between the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Eastern ports, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Waterkloof. I believe it becomes far more important strategically to the whole of the Western world and to Southern Africa. But, Sir, it is not military preparedness alone that we should discuss. I believe that we have the mineral, the technological, agricultural and the economic power and potentiality to lead Africa on a road of development and the building of an African civilization which could be an example to the world. I stress the fact that we have the power to lead. Similarly, it can be said, Sir, that our very strength is our weakness. The eyes of Africa and of the world, and particularly of the communist world, are on our wealth, and these eyes are very often jealous. This is all the more reason why we should continue with the policy of détente in Africa and at home, with all the African nations in Africa, at home and abroad, with whom we have to live in peace. I believe that our strength lies in our economy, our knowledge, our technology and the expansion of this into Africa in a mood of peace and a mood of guidance. We have unfortunately left a vacuum, or perhaps I should put it this way: Colonialism left a vacuum in Africa, but we were not quick enough to jump into that vacuum, or perhaps we were not able enough to do so at that period in time. I believe that we are able to get into Africa today and to lead Africa away from Communism. Sir, without plagiarizing the motto that I knew very well as a farmer for many years, a motto that appeared on one of the old stock remedies “Our shield is your defence”, I believe that we could go into Africa with the shield of our economy, our knowledge, our technological advancement and our defence preparedness and lead Africa and say to Africa, “This shield of knowledge, of economic strength, is your defence; come with us: stand behind this shield and shield yourselves from Communism.” Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has spoken about a power bloc in Southern Africa. If by this he means economic co-operation, it means defence co-operation, agricultural co-operation, international co-operation between the peoples on the basis of “Our shield is your defence” or “Eendrag maak mag” for Africa, then we are right behind him, because I believe that this is the way in which we can keep Communism out of Africa. I believe it is the way in which we as South Africans can stand together as Africans in Africa, because that is in fact what we are and that is how we should recognize ourselves, because for us, Sir, there is no other home. This is the home where we and our children have to live out our lives, and in order to do this we must have peace and co-operation and strength through our economy and our defence.

I am very grateful that this motion has been brought before the House and I am extremely sorry that endeavours were made to score a few political points in this House in regard to the speeches of my hon. colleagues on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member for Bloemfontein West and those who supported him did the country a service by once more, by means of this motion, drawing the country’s attention to a major problem confronting our country as well as Africa. I want to thank hon. members for the spirit in which they conducted this discussion. Where we had a slight deviation here and there, it quite probably contributed towards heightening the interest. Before making a few remarks about the motion itself, in the short time at my disposal. I should just like to say in passing that the question of improved remuneration may be discussed to better effect under my Vote.

And the question of discrimination?

The question of discrimination, which is being eliminated to a large extent in recent times—only last year the gap was narrowed by an average of 22%—can also be discussed to far better effect under the Defence Vote.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred in passing to the question of military intelligence and expressed some doubt as to whether justice was being done to military intelligence. The Military Intelligence division has never been organized as efficiently as it is today. What we cannot release, however, is classified information, and if the hon. member receives complaints that people do not have classified information, I want to tell him that there is a reason for it. But the Military Intelligence division works in the closest association with the other information services and all of this, in turn, is co-ordinated by the State Security Council. Therefore there can be no complaints. Moreover, the staff of the intelligence service has been strengthened, i.e. the people working in this division, and the people for this division are selected in co-operation with all the Chiefs of Defence so as to obtain the best people. If the hon. member would like to discuss this with me personally, I am prepared to furnish him with more detailed particulars.

The hon. member for Benoni said that it was only since the present Prime Minister has been in office that we have started considering other parts of Africa. The hon. member is not here now, but I want to remind him that he could read the memoirs of the late Dr. Van Eck. Then he would find out who started the Cabora Bassa scheme.

The hon. member for Rondebosch mentioned in passing that we should not spend too much on direct military expenditure while neglecting other facets of national expenditure. I agree with him. We are not doing this either. We spend only 3% of our gross national product on direct military expenditure. This is one of the lowest percentages among all the countries of the world, too low in fact for a century such as the one in which we are living.

The hon. member for Albany pointed out that we should tell Africa that they suffered under colonialism, but that we unfortunately stepped in a little too late to fill the gap. What the hon. member omitted to say, however, was that we suffered with Africa under colonialism, but that we were the first to free ourselves from colonialism. We can set an example to Africa of how a country can uplift itself after it has thrown off the yoke of colonialism.

That was precisely my point.

There is no need for us, therefore, to stand accused before Africa; we can set examples to them.

The fact is that Communism manipulates the masses by promising them a better way of life. As far as this is concerned I agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch. It seldom happens that I agree with him, but on this point I do agree with him. The Communists manipulate the masses by promising them a better way of life, a better way of life which they themselves do not create, for nowhere in the communistic world do the masses have a good way of life, with the possible exception of China, but then only in comparison with what the Chinese had in the past. In Africa those who oppose Communism are classified as either racists, imperialists or colonialists. A psychosis has been created by suggesting that the Black masses in Africa are being suppressed by Whites. This is the psychosis which has been created under Communist guidance, but it is a false psychosis which has been created by the Marxist-inspired strategy of the Communists. It is a psychosis rather than an ideology, because it is being created with ulterior motives, i.e. to implement military imperialism. In terms of Russian thinking its military imperialism is far more powerful than its ideology. I have here a document which came into our possession, a document which was issued by the Communist Party in an African state whose defence forces recently collapsed. The document sets out clear directions about what should be done to undermine defence forces—

They even give instructions on how to filter these ideas into the defence forces of the West, of the Free World. Therefore, it is no use our trying to combat Communism on ideological grounds only. It must also be combated on ideological grounds, however, by providing an ideology which is better than that of Communism. And this is what we are trying to do. We are giving people freedom, the right of possession and the opportunity to climb to the highest rung, to develop in their own way and in their own sphere of civilization. We are creating an ideology which is the answer to the Communist ideology. We have to convince our neighbours and potential friends in Africa that mutual respect, the recognition of one another’s right of existence and orderly evolution are preferable indeed, infinitely preferable, to that which is brought about by Communist-inspired action, with its enslavement and misery, for if Communism should triumph over Africa, misery and enslavement would be facing Africa, as opposed to what we offer Southern Africa, i.e. the road to freedom and evolutionary development. And I want to pose the question again. Where in the world has Communism brought liberation. Has it brought liberation in Eastern Europe, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, or in the Far East? In a rapidly developing world our relationships with the international community are for the most part being influenced by our relationships with Africa and our mutual domestic relationships. That is true. The South African Defence Force is one of the instruments which makes a positive contribution today to improved relations between peoples in our country as well. We are doing so on the borders—in fact, however we come into contact with people. This has become part and parcel of the action we take i.e. not only to be prepared from a military point of view, but also to prepare ourselves to be able to co-operate with people. This was one of the most striking features observed by foreign journalists who recently visited our troops on the borders, when all of them testified to the goodwill which exists between the South African Defence Force and the inhabitants of the border areas. This is what impressed them most of all. It is also determined to a large extent by our economic power and the contribution we are able to make in respect of trade and agriculture, as well as the contribution which South Africa, in particular, is able to make to alleviate the energy crisis.

A factor which is equally important is that we have to prevent or resist interference in our domestic affairs. It is in this respect that I always advocate that we should emphasize in season and out of season, in spite of the fact that our political recipes might differ from one state to another, we should tell the outside world that we shall try and find the solution here. Our Defence Force is one of the guarantees that we shall not permit others to try and find the solution for us.

Moreover, the hostile powers which seek to confuse, undermine and overwhelm us will improve their strategy. There should be no doubt on this score. Attempts will be made to thwart the endeavours of our hon. the Prime Minister, endeavours which all of us support, and these attempts will continually be improved. There is no question about that. Therefore we dare not relax our vigilance for a single moment; we must be prepared for this.

I just want to mention briefly that Russian presence in Africa is not a myth. Russian presence in Africa is a reality which we have to take into account. According to the British Institute for the Study of Conflicts, Russian influence is present in at least 20 to 25 African States. It varies in degree from time to time. It is also present along the north-western coast of the Indian Ocean, in Yemen and Iraq, because Russia wants to gain control of, among other things, the Persian Gulf. Once it has gained control of the Persian Gulf, its chances of dominating the Indian Ocean will be so much better. According to a report issued on 20 September 1974 by the UN, the Soviet Union has large-scale naval and other military facilities at Aden, Socotra, the Chagos Archipelago and on the east coast of Africa. I do not intend furnishing this House with classified information today; this would be an irresponsible thing to do. But we know where hundreds of tons of munitions were off-loaded by Russian ships quite recently, munitions such as automatic rifles, aeroplanes and mediumsized tanks, because we patrol our coasts and we take photographs of the oceans around our coasts. That is why I want to repeat that we shall not relax our vigilance. In this regard I want to call a witness, who sounded a note of general warning.

†I refer to Gen. Kielmansegg, the former Commander-in-Chief, Allied Forces, Central Europe, who had this to say in an article he wrote in a military publication—

*This was said by a man who ought to know, a man who has intimate knowledge of these things, a man who was the Commander-in-chief of the Western forces in Central Europe recently. We should heed this warning he issued against the West relaxing their vigilance in spite of our earnest endeavours to achieve détente. We should constantly be on our guard.

As far as Chinese influence is concerned, the Chinese are attempting to extend their influence, not always because they subscribe to the same ideology or a form of the same ideology as does Russia. They often act in competition with Russia. The American State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research recently revealed that during 1973 China added five new names to its list of receivers of foreign assistance. The total amount used for these purposes during 1973 was R335 million. China is not of Africa. She does not do these things out of love for Africa. Whether she does these things in competition with Russia or whether she has other motivations, the fact is she does them, but she will never have the same motivations as we who are born, live and die in Africa.

Other Communist states, East Germany, North Korea and Czechoslovakia, inter alia, also join their allies in playing this game. But there is the credit side, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately there are signs, on the credit side, of a realization to be found among numerous countries of the free world of how important the South Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean, together with the North Atlantic Ocean are in the interests of peace. With that I do not mean to suggest that Navo as an organization acknowledges this. Navo has not yet officially adopted a standpoint on this matter. But there are countries in the free world, among which there are Navo countries as well, both in the West and elsewhere that are once again starting to regard the Southern Hemisphere as important. I do not for one moment claim that the Republic of South Africa is the only important strategic point in the Southern Hemisphere. I am not saying this but, without fear of contradiction, I want to say: There are few strategic points, if any, that are more important in the Southern Hemisphere. In a global war the Republic of South Africa would be important in respect of protection and/or the interdiction of shipping, important as a base for maritime operations, as an air base, as logistic support and as a communications and repair base. In a localized conflict the Republic is also of inestimable value, even if it is merely used as an observation post.

I now want to refer to Simonstown. Within the foreseeable future, within a few years, the Simonstown base will double its present capacity in respect of its submarine base, its communications capacity, its other developing facilities and its shipyards. I want to avail myself of this opportunity today to repeat what I said recently, i.e. that Simonstown is not only at the disposal of one country outside South Africa. Simonstown, and whatever is supporting it, is at the disposal of the entire free world which has the interest in the security of the southern Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean and the Cape sea route. In the past I repeatedly emphasized the importance of this sea route. For that reason I am not going to discuss it again today. Some countries have mooted the idea of the Indian Ocean being declared a peace one, as has been said by one of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon. This is a fine ideal to which the Republic is not opposed, but the possible threat to the sea routes is merely a side issue because the real or future threat lies in the role played by the Soviet Navy in the overall Communist strategy against the free world. There is far more at issue than the physical safety of shipping. Other important considerations concern the strategic placing of the Republic in the framework of the real power struggle. International Communism has never relinquished its aim of world domination, and it is using its navy and its military bases in order to victimize and intimidate. It makes use of these things in its indirect strategy, and its interpretation of détente differs from ours. We understand détente to mean coexistence and peaceful co-existence, while Russia regards détente as an indirect strategy to be employed in achieving its aim of world domination. To bring this to pass, it uses its armed forces together with its political action. The Republic of South Africa occupies a key role in the struggle waged against Communism by the free world, and also by those countries in Africa that want to be free. Our key role is to help to serve peace with evolutionary development for every nation.

That is why we said that we wanted to sign non-aggression treaties in Southern Africa. This offer was made by the hon. the Prime Minister. For that reason we said that other countries did not need to arm themselves since we were not threatening anyone. For that reason we said that we wanted to form an economic bloc and that we were in favour of being able to develop economically and otherwise in this part of Africa, without threatening one another. We shall not neglect the share our armed forces have on land, at sea and in the air, for we have a far greater task to perform than merely seeing to our own protection. Our task is to ensure stability for others who still have to develop in many spheres. We must continue making our country as independent as possible in the military sphere, and for this we have to pay. It makes no difference who is the Minister of Defence now or in future, for any Minister of Defence who preached something else would be disloyal to South Africa. We have to pay, for we are living in a time in which armaments have gained tremendously in complexity. Let me just give two examples of this. It required 5 000 man-hours to build a Spitfire or a Messerschmidt. To build an Impala aircraft today requires 30 000 man-hours. To train a pilot to fly a Mirage requires R93 000. We cannot think in terms of small amounts when we are speaking about the military security of South Africa or its neighbours. We must be prepared to pay the price, not a price which will retard other aspects of our development, but a reasonable price which is worth paying in order to protect the other things as well. We must constantly concern ourselves with applied research and modernization. And this we are doing. We must not merely serve an ideal of deterrence; we must also prepare ourselves by building up reserves. If we have learned one thing from the recent wars, it is that a country without reserves, particularly a small country without reserves, has no hope of survival. Therefore we must build up our reserves so that we may be able to resist not only attacks which may be launched against us, but also against undesirable assistance, for a small country may sometimes obtain undesirable assistance which may involve its freedom.

This brings me to the point where I want to express my most sincere appreciation to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West and everyone who supported him and made a contribution. I want to express the hope that we in this Parliament may more often proclaim our message of unity to the world and say: Do not gain the impression that South Africa is being paralysed by disunity. Rather gain the impression that South Africa is united in its calling and in its task of being a guarantee for itself and Southern Africa on the road to peace.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I find it a great pleasure to express my appreciation to the hon. members who took part in the discussion of this motion for the exceptional insight they displayed and the particular trouble they took to prepare themselves for this debate. In particular, I want to address a word of appreciation to the hon. the Minister for a particularly powerful message which was directed not only at us in this House, but also at the whole of South Africa. For that reason, with leave, I withdraw this motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.