Mr. Chairman, on various occasions this year South Africa’s relations with the rest of Africa have been the subject of discussion here in the House of Assembly. I think you will agree with me that it is a good thing that so much interest should be shown in such an important matter—a matter which is of such vital importance to us all. During the recent debate on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, the subject of contact and dialogue with Africa, as well as with Rhodesia and South West Africa was fully debated once again. It is encouraging that these aspects of our foreign relations have been considered so thoroughly on this particular occasion. As the hon. the Prime Minister was right in saying on 23 October last year, Southern Africa has reached the cross-roads, and we are all facing a choice between peace, or escalation of violence. Consequently it is essential that there should be no uncertainty or misunderstanding in regard to our position, and that it should be stated with the authority of a Prime Minister. It is also a good thing that our Prime Minister dealt with this in such a masterly fashion, as he did during the debate on his Vote. I am certain that we are all grateful that South Africa at this juncture has a Prime Minister who, with so much statesmanship and success, gives guidance and takes the initiative in our endeavour to achieve peaceful co-existence in Africa. South Africa is fortunate that at this very juncture we have a Prime Minister whose role in Africa is recognized and appreciated today by friend and foe alike, a Prime Minister who has been praised in public by various African leaders for his honest, sincere and realistic approach, and because he is a man of his word. This can only benefit South Africa.

I am entering the debate at this early stage to emphasize—nor is this the first time I am doing so—that the gravity of the situation requires us all to speak with the utmost circumspection and responsibility of our relations with Africa, because these relations have reached a particularly delicate phase. I appreciate the attitude of both sides of this House during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote, in particular that there was so much appreciation in this House for our hon. the Prime Minister. Nevertheless I feel it is necessary for me to issue a word of warning in the hope that we will maintain in this debate as well the high level of debate which was established during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote.

Since 1948, when a National Party Government came into office for the first time, until today, it has been the endeavour of one National Party Government after another, under various Prime Ministers, to build up contacts with Africa and to improve South Africa’s relations with the rest of Africa. During the past 11½ years, for three years under Dr. Verwoerd and for the past eight years under our present Prime Minister, I have had to perform this particular task. During these years I have reported regularly to the House of Assembly on our aim and endeavour, and the problems we encountered. As far as this was possible I reported regularly on the progress or lack of progress which had been made from time to time. I must say at once that it was an uphill struggle. In general we came up against a wall of prejudice. Frequently we came up against hostility, if not hate.

Nevertheless, there was progress. Thus I was able to state in this House on 11 September last year that I had reason to believe that a new spirit was developing in Africa. Many hon. members paid no heed to my words. They were sceptical. Rut subsequent developments have proved that my statement was not far-fetched and that it was not the result of wishful thinking. What has happened since then is well known. I need not remind you of the combined efforts of our Prime Minister and others to make it possible for the parties in Rhodesia to get together, to sit down around a conference table and to try to solve their problems themselves. I need not remind you either of the extensive contacts with African leaders. These developments have aroused great expectations here in South Africa as well as in Southern Africa, and further afield, too, among those in Africa who are supporters of de-escalation, instead of escalation and confrontation. The interest of virtually the entire free world has also been roused.

But in spite of the excellent work of our Prime Minister and others, and in spite of the progress which has already been made, there have also been setbacks and disappointments, and major obstacles still await us. The reaction of President Kaunda and others to the cross-roads speech of our own Prime Minister, created the hope of a new era in Southern Africa. But, Sir, voices were also raised, voices which, tried to sow suspicion, which condemned the peace offensive, which called it a cunning ploy of Mr. Vorster to undermine the unity of the OAU, to safeguard South Africa’s position in the U.N., to strengthen South Africa’s position in Africa at the expense of the rest of Africa. In the meantime the conference of African foreign ministers was held at Dar-es-Salaam, from the 7th to the 10th of this month. The hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt with that, and I think you will agree with me that for me to dwell on this again today would not serve any good purpose.

Sir, in spite of the disappointing aspects of Dar-es-Salaam, there are positive aspects as well, inter alia, that in consultation with South Africa a solution to the Rhodesian and South West African questions may continue to be sought. As far as the South African Government is concerned, we shall persevere with our peace offensive. We shall not allow ourselves to be diverted from our course, for there is too much at stake, not only for us but also for the entire subcontinent, and even for Africa as a whole. Sir, we shall proceed on the course we have adopted, and in the same unimpeachable manner in which we have always acted, even in spite of occasional provocation.

We shall continue with these actions, actions which have compelled the respect and confidence of those in Africa with whom we have had contact, or with whom we have co-operated. I am thinking for example of South Africa’s reaction to the revolutions in our neighbouring states. Angola and Mozambique. I could mention to you our attempts to get the parties in Rhodesia around the conference table, without interfering in their domestic affairs, or prescribing to them. I am thinking of our interpretation of self-determination in the case of South West Africa, and the progress which has already been made and is being made in respect of our attempts to enable the people of South West Africa to co-operate and to find a solution to their problems themselves; to work out their future themselves. But, Sir, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that we who will participate in this debate, should all be on our guard and should not try to derive a little political advantage from a useless bickering over whose policy is more acceptable or less acceptable to whom. This is a temptation with which we are regularly faced. During the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote a great deal was said about our internal policy and how it influences our foreign relations. It is true that there is a very close connection between the two. No one can deny that. But it does not seem necessary to me that we should blaze the difference among us abroad, particularly when we debate our foreign relations in this House. For example, Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary, not advisable to proclaim that South Africa is not acceptable to Africa because we in South Africa have shortcomings, shortcomings which are present in a far worse degree in some African states.

Over a period of many years South Africa has demonstrated its willingness and its ability to co-operate with our neighbours and with the rest of Africa in many spheres.

My own department and many other Government departments and bodies are already engaged in fruitful co-operation with several African states. In some cases we are doing this openly, and in many cases this is being done on a confidential basis. These Government departments and bodies are properly equipped and primed to continue and to expand their activities over a wider field. I need not mention the departments. There is virtually no Government department in South Africa which cannot become involved in some form of co-operation with the rest of Africa, to say nothing of institutions such, as the CSIR, the South African Bureau of Standards, the Industrial Development Corporation, and private bodies which specialize for example in the hotel industry, mining, agriculture, etc. Among all of these there is no lack of knowledge, experience, enterprise and enthusiasm in co-operating with Africa. Therefore, Sir, that is not our problem. It is indeed a good thing that we discuss methods and spheres of co-operation in this debate. We in Foreign Affairs and our colleagues in other departments, as well as the private sector, welcome new thinking, new ideas, but our problem with Africa at this stage is a political problem, and until it is solved, we will not make much progress in any of the other spheres. The search for a solution to the political problem is the task of the Government in the first place, and it is, to the Government, a task of the highest priority.

It is here that our hon. the Prime Minister’s selfless labour is of inestimable value to South. Africa. His personal contributions, his initiative, guidance and contacts on the highest level, have given significance, have given cohesion to the work which has been done for many years on the diplomatic and other levels, frequently behind the scenes. I repeat: It is the task of the Prime Minister and of the Government, to find political solutions with the other leaders in Africa. Sir, this is a difficult, but not impossible, task, for we must also take cognizance of the fact that, in spite of certain negative aspects which feature prominently in the resolutions and in the published speeches of Dar-es-Salaam, there appeared nevertheless to be a consensus that the door should not be closed to the search for peaceful solutions. That is the direction in which the Prime Minister and the Government has been working, and in which we shall continue to exert ourselves. It is the duty of all of us to strengthen the hands of the Prime Minister and the Government in this respect, instead of making their task a difficult one. This applies to us all, on both sides of this House. I repeat, Sir: It is not a question of political advantage here, but of the interests of our country and people, the future of all of us. Unanimity on this important matter, is in the interests of us all.

Therefore an obligation rests on all of us to have a deep concern for the gravity of this matter, and to try to make a contribution to the promotion of dialogue with Africa. In exactly the same way an obligation and a great responsibility rests on all the leaders in Africa, on both sides, to act with extreme caution so that the progress which has been made is not destroyed, and so that this does not lead to an escalation of violence, which, will be disastrous for the entire continent.

Since the subject of contact and dialogue with Africa has already been debated so fully, and since as much as can be said about it with consideration for South Africa’s interests has been said about it, it may be beneficial to the debate if I comment briefly at this stage on a few other aspects of our foreign relations, particularly in respect of Western Europe.

It is true that there have recently been indications of a decrease in the irresponsible attacks of the past on South Africa, attacks on us on the part of the free world, which were so discouraging to us all. In the annual report of the Department of Information, which has just been tabled, the statement is justifiably made that at present our relations with the outside world are better than they have been for three decades. Perhaps it is too early to speak at this stage already of a re-appraisal of South Africa in Western Europe, but nevertheless there are clear indications of a more cautious approach. The mounting trade offensive, if I may call it that, in South Africa by most of our important Western European trading partners, including Great Britain, definitely indicates a renewed confidence in the future of South Africa.

There are various factors that have been responsible for this, and I want to indicate a few of these. Take for example the oil-crisis with which the world has been afflicted since October 1973. As a result of the higher gold price South Africa has been better able to resist the rise in the oil price than most of the other non-oil producing countries of the world. Fortunately our dependence on oil as a source of power for industrial purposes is also far less than in the case of most other industrial countries. This has helped to create the impression, and quite rightly so, too, that South Africa is reasonably unaffected by economic disasters. In this way South Africa’s status as a trading partner has been enhanced. In its turn the oil crisis has created an increased demand for alternative sources of power. This is also of significance to South Africa’s uranium, and even to its coal. The effective functioning of our pilot project for the enrichment of uranium indicates that we shall become an important supplier of enriched uranium. Apart from energy, Western Europe is dependent on imported raw materials for its industries. It is true that South Africa offers a stable supply of raw materials, in contrast to the instability of some other suppliers. South Africa’s correct attitude in regard to the role played by gold, as well as the rise in the gold price, has definitely benefited our position in the world. There are other factors as well, and I am merely mentioning them. I am thinking of the maintenance of law and order, and of the fact that South Africa is at present one of the most peaceful countries in the world. I am thinking of South Africa’s strategic position here at the southernmost point of Africa.

The main object of the peace offensive in Africa launched by the Government is to eliminate confrontation and to normalize South Africa’s position in Africa. However, this endeavour is producing by-products. This is already having a noticeable effect on the attitude of Western Europe. I am thinking in particular of the appreciation for the guidance given by the hon. the Prime Minister and his contribution to the attempt to achieve an understanding with Africa. Not only is this making a good impression in the West, but it is definitely helping to bring South Africa’s detractors into disrepute. Persons and bodies that are well-disposed to South Africa are in this way being encouraged to take up the cudgels for us. Now we all know that at first there was a measure of scepticism at the détente attempts of the South African Government As we made progress, however, this scepticism made way for an earnest desire that our attempts should succeed and that a large-scale conflict in Southern Africa should be averted. It is therefore gratifying that there is more and more encouragement, from Western Europe and elsewhere, for these détente attempts. Admittedly the encouragement at present is unobtrusive, but subsequently it may perhaps be done more openly.

The progress which has already been made with the implementation of our relatione policy internally, has not gone unnoticed either and this has also benefited our position in the world. The same also applies to the emphasis we have placed on the human dignity of people and to our attempts to get away from discrimination on the basis of colour within the framework of our policy of separate development, as it had already been envisaged by the late Dr. Verwoerd.

Let us consider the question of the communist threat. In Western Europe the fear of the growing Russian strength and influence is increasing. Just think of the role of the communists in the trade union movement of Western Europe. Even socialist governments are becoming increasingly aware of the communist danger. The communists are also triumphing in a brutal manner in South-East Asia. Russian influence is becoming stronger all the time in the Indian Ocean, and it is generally feared that that influence will intensify once the Suez Canal has been reopened. In addition, the Russians are already present in the Atlantic Ocean. South Africa’s unshakeable opposition to Communism has for many years been seen as unjustified and as a kind of neurotic fear with a view to internal unrest, to which it could give rise. However, it is now becoming clear in Europe that our standpoint was justified in view of communistic imperialism and its pursuit of domination, not only of Africa, but of the entire world.

Let us come to the U.N. and the effect of the actions of this body against South Africa. The West and the free world noted with dismay the developments there when the General Assembly deprived South Africa of its right of participation and placed our membership in jeopardy. Western European states and other members of the free world not only rejected these actions against us with the votes which they cast there, but several of them also expressed their opposition to this in the strongest terms. This had a beneficial influence on the attitude of other bodies, for example the news media, and persuaded them to reconsider their standpoint towards South Africa. This development also helped South Africa to cause its voice to be heard more effectively in Europe than ever before. It is no longer all that easy to make far-fetched and unfounded charges against us. Take for example, the propaganda which they tried to make from the faked film in regard to the alleged massacre in the Caprivi Strip last year. This charge was effectively and convincingly refuted with the aid, inter alia, of the findings of representatives of foreign news media in South Africa. All this is contributing to the influence of the anti-South African lobby—for something like this does exist—being undermined, and to it being discredited to a large extent. As it meets with increasing resistance, and as its influence wanes, it is reverting to more irresponsible actions and it is invoking violence openly. However, I am convinced that its actions are less effective than they were in the past.

I could elaborate at considerably greater length on South Africa’s relations with States in other parts of the world, for example with Latin America, the United States and so on, but I think that at this stage I have already said enough.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask for the privilege of the half-hour although I may not use all of it at this stage.

However much we on this side differ from the Government on domestic policies, and however much we believe that the Government’s race policies were responsible for the damaging decline in our international status, we do at last appear to be entering a new period in the field of international politics. During much of the Government’s period of office since it came to power in 1948, they were toally on the defensive. There was very little in the nature of a positive foreign policy, and our domestic politics were conducted with almost total disregard for their wider implications. It was left largely to Mr. Eric Louw to battle along overseas and at the United Nations on a basis of tit for tat. The hostility we aroused abroad was simply ascribed to deliberate distortions and to a lack of understanding of our problems.

Fortunately this period is now largely a matter of the past and we hope that it will remain a matter of the past. The past couple of years have seen a much greater awareness by the Government and South Africa in general of the relevance of our presence in the world and of the necessity of good relations with the countries of Africa and the rest of the world. I think it can now be said that we have arrived at the stage where we are developing a positive foreign policy—that is, we have moved from a defensive policy to a positive one and certainly to a more confident one.

At the United Nations we have admitted that there are conditions in our country that need to be put right. The hon. the Minister emphasized this just now in his speech. The Government has admitted that we have discriminatory legislation and that we are following discriminatory practices based on the colour of a man’s skin, but that we will, in the words of our then Ambassador at the United Nations, do “everything in our power to terminate it”. We emphasized even more strongly than before that we would solve the South West Africa question and that we would do so along the lines of self-determination, independence and the emancipation of the peoples of South West Africa. Furthermore, contact and exchanges were established with important Black leaders in Africa while the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs embarked upon a round of personal diplomacy, meeting with a number of important leaders in Africa and offering their good offices in respect of the Rhodesian situation. It think it should be realized that if achieved, détente is still a long step from entente or from cordial relations Entente should, of course, remain our ultimate goal. Every one of the steps which I have mentioned in the new approach of the Government, received the fullest support from the Opposition simply because they are fully in line with the policies for which we have always stood. There is no doubt that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister took a calculated risk in their détente efforts, a calculated risk because the Prime Minister’s position is far more vulnerable than that of the other leaders. At any moment any or all of the African leaders can turn around and revert to militancy and blame the hon. the Prime Minister for not moving fast enough and far enough in respect, for instance, of the removal of discrimination or for stalling on the South West Africa issue. We therefore have no hesitation in commending the hon. the Prime Minister and in commending the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the efforts they have made despite the risks involved for them.

What is left for us to do is to look at the preliminary results and to see if we can make an assessment of where we are at the present time. I must say that our conclusion remains, as we have put it before in this House, that from the present positive approach in the field of foreign policy, we shall have to move to a productive foreign policy. By that I mean that we carry out almost immediately all the changes that we talk about abroad. I shall return to that point at a later stage. Looking at the preliminary results of the Government’s efforts, we note the following: Firstly, there is the question of the Western powers which the hon. the Minister touched on. There is no doubt that there is an improvement in the climate as far as South Africa is concerned, an improvement amongst some of the important European nations. Of course, this is to be welcomed, but I think we would do well to remember that this is largely based on the belief that real and meaningful changes are taking place in the field of race relations in our country. We should also remember that we are faced all the time with the danger that a strong reaction may set in if we do not live up to the expectations which were created. In one of its newsletters, the S.A. Foundation reported as follows—

It adds:

I am inclined to support this. I also have here a report from Washington in which the S.A. Foundation reports the following in respect of our relations with the United States of America:

The trends they had in mind were that Congress was “becoming more liberal with each election”—

States need to be assured that the situation in South Africa is not static, that South Africans recognize what is amiss and are concerned to remedy the situation.

If this is to be achieved, particular attention should be paid to three points: South Africa’s reaction to its critics should not consist in references to their peripheral misrepresentations and omissions when the gist of what these critics are saying …

This is a South African reporting …

In passing I do want to pay a special tribute to the S.A. Foundation under the presidency of Dr. Jan Marais for the excellent work they do both in South Africa and abroad. They have outstanding workers here and abroad and their reports and publications are a tremendous help to those who study South Africa’s international position. However, the point that emerges from what I have quoted is that it is entirely in our own hands whether or not we shall be able to make the fullest use of the improved climate to strengthen our support in the West As far as Africa is concerned, there is the meeting which was held in Dar-es-Salaam recently. Last Friday the hon. the Prime Minister reported to us in very blunt terms that détente and dialogue were now out but that room was left for contact and consultation with South Africa, though only in respect of specific measures such as South West Africa and Rhodesia. A few days ago President Kaunda spoke in Washington. His speech was seen here as something of a kick in the teeth. I had occasion to look at the full text of his speech and there can be no doubt that he gave very strong support to the liberation movements in Africa, as he called them. He said among other things that the struggles of the oppressed peoples—

What is significant though—and I was pleased to see it—is that while he made a strong attack on apartheid and racial domination, he said: “It has to be put to an end peacefully.” and he repeated the word “peacefully”. That as far as the Africa situation is concerned.

*As far as Rhodesia is concerned, the position seems to be far from encouraging. If reports are correct, a ceasefire has not yet been achieved on the terrorist front, and it seems that in terms of the standpoint it has adopted, the Government has not yet been able to withdraw the S.A. Police from Rhodesia. This means that although we have no direct responsibility for solving the Rhodesian question and we cannot interfere with Rhodesia’s domestic affairs, we are nevertheless involved in the problem because of the presence of our Police forces there. There is no doubt about the fact that if terrorist activity against Rhodesia were to be resumed, and if that terrorist activity were developed into large-scale guerrilla warfare with the support of the OAU and the powers which support the OAU, South Africa would be in an extremely difficult position and would have to take a very critical decision. The OAU has already intimated that a renewed attack would be made on Rhodesia if negotiations with the Government of Mr. Tan Smith were to fail. I believe that they have referred to a period of six months in this regard. We have also seen in the Press that Mozambique, which shares a lone border with Rhodesia and controls the Beira harbour, has intimated that if a settlement is not forthcoming in Rhodesia, they will be prepared to act as a base against Rhodesia for the Black nationalists. The problem is that the Black nationalists can wreck any negotiations which are taking place whenever they like and then lay all the blame on the Government of Mr. Smith.

If one looks at the world situation today, there are militant powers on every continent of the world—we have just seen this again in Vietnam and Cambodia—which adhere to a new philosophy and which advocate guerrilla warfare as a means of solving problems. Unfortunately that philosophy has its adherents in Africa as well, and obviously it has the full support of the communists. I recently came across the following statement—

†They could have added, if this article had been written later, America’s experience in Vietnam and Portugal’s experience in Guinea Bissau, Mozambique and Angola. I read further—

*This view has become the basis of a new political philosophy, and one gets the impression that there are large groups of professional guerrillas lying about in Africa today who would be only too willing to resume terrorist activities where others have stopped. This is why I said that if the struggle in Rhodesia were to be resumed on any large scale, South Africa with its Police Force in Rhodesia would be faced with critical decisions. This gives one all the more reason to hope that a settlement will be reached in Rhodesia.

†A factor which is extremely disturbing to us, is the serious decline in our relations with Lesotho, one of our closest neighbours and one of the first countries which originally supported the policy of dialogue with South Africa. Lesotho may be land-locked and, in terms of military strength, may be powerless, but surprisingly the meeting at Dar-es-Salaam and the previous one in Addis Ababa—as in fact the hon. the Prime Minister also pointed out when he spoke—have shown that Lesotho’s attitude is not without influence in Africa. I think that this is in a great measure due to the fact that they are known to have intimate proximity with the South African scene. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us that Lesotho’s hostility was due to the fact that its leaders were excluded from the exchanges which, took place between the leaders of South Africa, Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana and also Mr. Machel. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister is not entirely right, because it goes much deeper and much further back than that. I think that it has much to do with the question of labour relations, economic relations and the reception of their citizens. There also seem to be border problems. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government has made a mistake by nor forging closer links with Lesotho When the climate for that was better. After the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech last Friday, the Prime Minister of Lesotho replied and accused the Prime Minister (I am quoting from a press report)—

This is a very serious allegation which needs attention. Chief Jonathan added that it was false that Lesotho had been invited to join in the current détente move. “She would not have accepted”, he said, “because it would have been contrary to the resolutions of the OAU, the Lusaka manifesto and the wishes of his people.” Sir, whatever the case may be—if the hon. the Minister can enlighten us we will be pleased—I think the Government should take a thorough look at our relations with Lesotho and see what can be done to improve them. I must say, Sir, that I am terribly sorry that the Government did not use the occasion of inauguration of the State President last week to invite some of our neighbouring leaders. Was it not possible for the Government to invite men like King Sobhuza of Swaziland, Sir Seretse Khama of Botswana and even Chief Jonathan—why not? And what about Dr. Banda? I pose the question realizing, of course, that it would not have been without certain difficulties, but, Sir, it would certainly have been a very farsighted move if we had done it. We talk a lot about our being an African State, but in fact we do very little to make ourselves part of Africa. Sir, in March the Department of Foreign Affairs brought out the South West African Survey 1974. It cost the department R34 000 to produce, and it is quite an attractive publication, but I must in all frankness say to the hon. the Minister that it is not likely to serve any useful purpose. Sir, the facts about South West Africa, its economic development and the Government’s high political intentions have already been very well documented. In fact, the Prime Minister quotes from the 1967 Survey here and abroad to substantiate his policy of self-determination and independence for South West. He does not quote from this Survey but from the 1967 one. This publication is a disappointment because, let us face it, what everybody here and abroad wants is information about the future, full information about what practical steps are being planned to achieve the goal of self-determination and independence. Sir, it was mainly because of the Government’s failure to give practical meaning to its concept of self-determination and to say clearly how it planned to implement its declared aims that the contacts between the Government and Dr. Waldheim were terminated, and it still remains the weakest spot in the Government’s defence in respect of this particular problem. I think the Government, should attempt to overcome this problem and I hope that they will do so soon. There is an unfortunate thing about this Survey, Mr. Chairman, and that is that it still uses the term “non-White”. In the pictorial section of the Survey, reference is made to a non-White hospital and a non-White nursing home. Surely, Sir, this should be avoided in publications by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which are largely meant for foreign consumption. I think the term “non-White” should be dropped completely.

What do you suggest then?

Sir, in a statement to the United Nations in April 1973 the hon. the Minister said the following— and this in fact is quoted in the Survey—

All political parties will have full participation in the process leading to that.

Mr. Chairman, this does not seem to be in accordance with the facts. In South West Africa Messrs. Mudge and Van Zijl, who are organizing the talks between the peoples place the emphasis on the ethnic division.

On Friday the Prime Minister talked about only the majority parties participating, without being able to say how he would determine a majority party in respect of a national group which has not yet got a representative political institution. The hon. the Minister again, as I have just quoted, told the U.N. that all political parties would have full participation. I should like to have a reply on this from the hon. the Minister in order to know precisely what the position is.

*In regard to the South West question, I just want to add that the Security Council has set the Government an ultimatum on the question of South West Africa, and that ultimatum is due to expire at the end of May this year. We should very much like to know from the Government what its attitude in this regard is and whether it intends to react to this ultimatum. We are in favour of the Government’s keeping a cool head on the question of South West Africa, but the Government will be acting contrary to the vital interests of both South Africa and South West Africa if it does not devote the best planning and give the highest priority to finding a speedy solution to this problem. Sir, we must bear in mind that South West Africa’s whole northern border adjoins Angola and Zambia, and two-thirds of its eastern border adjoin Botswana. Angolan military groups are already active among the Ovambo on the northern border in the south of Angola. We have seen the attitude adopted by President Kaunda in his speech in Washington. We know that Botswana is sympathetically disposed towards attempts to find a peaceful solution, but it is sympathetically disposed towards the “liberation movements” as well. Sir, they all support Swapo, which is already raising a liberation army, as they call it, outside South West, to which various countries and religious organizations are contributing to an increasing degree. I mention this to indicate, as it was recently put by a visitor from abroad, “that we must use the time we have got and not burn it”.

Finally, there is the question of the U.N., which was touched on by the hon. the Minister as well. The question of our relations there is still a matter of uncertainty. Our membership was saved in the Security Council last year by the veto which was exercised by France, Britain and the U.S.A. France and Britain did this because they believe in the principle of universality, i.e. that all countries, no matter what their domestic policy, must be and remain members of the U.N. America did so on the grounds that it saw changes taking place in the domestic policy of South Africa, and on those grounds it pleaded for South Africa to be given another chance. Well, the Government subsequently recalled our ambassador at the U.N., Mr. Botha, to South Africa, and intimated that it was reconsidering our membership of the U.N.

I hope that by this time the hon. the Minister is able to tell us what the Government’s decision in this regard has been. Our standpoint on this side is that we are opposed to the termination of our membership of the U.N. It has been said before in this session, so I do not want to repeat the reasons for it. But we do not consider our membership to be a favour which we receive from another country or from another group of countries. The U.N. does not belong to a specific country or group of countries, and for that reason we regard it as the national right of South Africa to remain a member of that body, a right we should defend just as strongly as we defended our right to be present in South West Africa.

Sir, I believe that if needs be we should appeal to the International Court if possible, and especially if illegal action is taken against us in this connection. Further reason why we believe it to be in the interests of South Africa to retain our membership of the U.N., and in the interests of the West to remain a member of that body, will be dealt with by other speakers. Yet other points from our side will be raised at a later stage in the debate.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised a considerable number of matters this afternoon, most of which will be dealt with during the debate by other hon. members on this side of the House, and also. I believe, by the hon. the Minister himself at a later stage. I want to point out that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout began his speech by pointing out a change in emphasis which had supposedly taken place in the activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs. He stated that South Africa had a defensive foreign policy up to recent times and said that in the initial years, after the National Party had come into office in 1948, internal steps were taken in South Africa without regard to the effect such steps could have on our foreign relations. However, I want to make the statement without any fear of contradiction that since 1948 no single Act has been passed by this Parliament under National Party rule and no single step has been taken by the National Party Government which could not be fully justified at that juncture. In fact, most of the steps which many regard as negative steps today., were essential initial steps which eventually led to the implementation of the policy of separate development to its full consequences. Most of the measures simply ought to eliminate friction between the different population groups of South Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also made the statement that we were not doing enough to prove ourselves part of Africa. That statement I cannot accept either, because the fact is that no other Government has done more than this Government to normalize South Africa’s relations with the other African states. In the debate which took place a few weeks ago in this House on a motion moved by the hon. member for Edenvale, I tried to indicate the various phases through which our country has gone in its relations with other African states. I pointed out then that in the period up to 1950, we were dealing with an Africa composed virtually entirely of colonial territories. In the period from 1950 up to the present time we had to deal with the after-effects of the newly gained freedoms and we are only now entering the stage in which we can confer as an independent country with other independent states of full status in Africa, on an equal basis in a joint endeavour to work out a basis for peace. I believe that in the course of time and as the history of this continent is written, this will be proved correct.

As far as the activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs are concerned, the year 1975 is a key year in my opinion. Attention has already been drawn to the development which has taken place in respect of long outstanding issues, issues such as South West Africa and Rhodesia. These are matters which are probably receiving more intensive attention at the moment than ever before in the past, and we hope that we are now entering the era in which the issues which have been bedevilling our relations with the rest of the world as well as with other African countries for a long time, will be solved and that this will help to normalize our relations with the rest of the world and also with Africa.

At present this department is actually entering an exciting phase of its existence. The department was established in 1927, so in two years’ time it will have been serving South Africa for half a century. Up to now the activities of the department have been generated chiefly by the thinking of the Whites in South Africa, and that represented the phase in which the Whites governed the country on their own. Now, for the first time, we are entering the period in which the very policy of separate development will lead to peoples in South Africa being able to work out their own destinies to an increasing extent and being able to govern themselves. Obviously our foreign relations, too, will be influenced by that, and this being so, the activities of this department will enter a totally new era. I think the first steps were taken here last year when the hon. the Minister announced on 10 September that he would also include three prominent non-White leaders in his delegation to the United Nations, viz. Paramount Chief Kaiser Matanzima of the Transkei, Mr. Daniel R. Ulster, a leading figure in the Coloured community and Dr. M. B. Naidoo, a member of the Executive Council of the Indian Council. That emphasized that there are non-White leaders here in South Africa who can speak on behalf of their peoples and who can take a hand in stating South Africa’s case abroad, that they can be a part of this process of representing and stating South Africa’s case. I think all of us, both sides of this House, will agree that this was a wise decision and that South Africa has already been reaping the fruits of this.

A second announcement which was made here on that same afternoon by the hon. the Minister was that he had already decided in principle to commence the training of non-Whites for service abroad and to place them in the service of the various missions of South Africa abroad in the course of time. On a totally different level this is giving effect to the multi-national character of South Africa, and the fact that each population group is given the opportunity to participate in every sphere of government.

I want to point out this afternoon that this is only a new starting point in the activities of this department, that it is a new era which is being entered, and that it will be necessary to go a great deal further in future. In the first place, I want to advocate here this afternoon that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in particular, should look for opportunities from time to time to hold consultations with the non-White leaders in South Africa about issues which affect South Africa’s foreign relations. It is a fact that the very development of the homelands has led to the emergence of true leaders of the Bantu population in South Africa. The creation of the CRC and the Indian Council and the election of their own people by themselves to those bodies, have given leaders to the non-White national communities here in South Africa for the first time in the history of our country. These are people who have emerged as true leaders and who can really speak on behalf of their own people. Therefore, I think that the time is ripe for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as the mouthpiece of South Africa in the international field, to look for opportunities to hold consultations with the non-White leaders—as the hon. the Prime Minister does on issues affecting South Africa’s internal position and the mutual relations of peoples in South. Africa—even on an ad hoc basis so that he may know when standing on the international stage that he is speaking on behalf of the whole of South Africa. I believe that just like the first step taken by him in connection with the delegation to the U.N., which proved to be a wise step and of which South Africa is reaping the fruit, we shall reap the fruit of this, too, only if it is possible for constant consultation to take place with these leaders, through the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It is also a fact that we are now on the eve of taking one of the final steps in the implementation of the policy of separate development in South Africa. I believe that when the history of South Africa in the 20th century is written one day, the Acts which had to be passed to give independence to the Transkei will be given a status by historians equal to other historic steps in our constitutional development. I believe that history itself will show that they are of as much importance to South Africa as, for example, the Act of 1909—the Act known as the South Africa Act—and as the Statute of Westminister, 1931, which gave South Africa full self-government. I also believe that they will be given a status equal to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, which established South Africa as a sovereign power in the world.

What is important to me, is that in our foreign relations, we—and especially the Department of Foreign Affairs shall have to see to a totally new relationship arising in these foreign relations and to a closer partnership and a closer form of co-operation developing between us and the Transkei than anything existing at present. These relations must be better than anything which has yet been seen in South Africa’s relations with regard to foreign countries. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I start by commending the speech of the hon. member for Vasco, in particular the section of it which refers to the desirability of consultation with the non-Whites or, rather, the Black leaders in South Africa in respect of matters of foreign affairs. I congratulate him for what certainly was a sound suggestion coming from that side of the House.

The foreign service of our country is, of course, a show-case for us. Through that show-case it should become increasingly apparent to the world that the foreign service of South Africa represents not only the White community in South Africa, but the whole of South Africa. As we have heard in some suggestions in the past in regard to enabling people of colour to participate in the foreign service, it seems, with respect, to be a matter of some urgency to be able to portray the foreign service of South Africa on a basis of being fully representative of its peoples in the sense that it will have people of all races participating in it. In this respect it is not enough that there should be mere observers be present at certain occasions. They must be people who have the full status as representatives of our country when they appear in the outside world. This seems to me to be a matter of some urgency and of some importance, that we portray South Africa overseas in the manner which I believe all of us would like to see it represented.

The hon. the Minister indicated that there has already been considerable debate on the subject of South Africa’s place in Africa. There can, of course, never really be enough debate on this subject, but I would like to take the hon. the Minister’s hint and talk about some other subjects this afternoon. In the short time I have available, I would particularly like to speak about the situation concerning international banks and multi-national enterprises in so far as they affect South Africa and in so far as South Africa’s international position is likely to be affected by it. The Apartheid Committee of the United Nations has already on a number of occasions referred to the fact that the so-called collaboration by banks and multi-national companies with South Africa is something which they are concerned about and something they would like to see come to an end. As far as South Africa is concerned the position of international banks and of multi-national enterprises is of fundamental importance to us. If we refer, for example, to international banks and the need to provide finance on the international markets for South Africa’s increasing capital needs and also the need to finance international trade, it will be appreciated how important international banks and their participation are to South Africa. The threats not only come from the United Nations in this regard, but I may, for example, refer to documents issued by the Labour Party who is in power in Britain at the moment and in terms of which the Labour Government is asking, inter alia, to deal with the termination of all export credit, loans and guarantees to South Africa, to the question of whether trade missions should be continued, to the question of ending banking links with South Africa, to the question of trying to prevent further British investment in South Africa and to the ending of cover under the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantee Act in respect of facilities for South Africa. In the United States of America there have also been murmurs in this regard. For example, the Democratic Party platform has on occasions referred to the question of ending United States tax credits for taxes paid to the White minority ruled countries of Africa, as they call it. This is clearly intended to include us. There are many examples of the threats that are made to banks overseas and to companies which have interests in South Africa by the shareholders and by depositors who threaten to withdraw their accounts. In respect of multi-national corporations we have the same situation in that there are multi-national corporations which have subsidiaries here and which carry on trade with South Africa. All this constitutes a real danger if in fact these efforts were to become meaningful in the future.

In the past South Africa has had a movement towards an era of economic and financial independence. There has been a lot of merit in this drive to make sure that South Africa is independent in this field, but in the new situation which exists for South Africa in the world, I believe we should now enter a new age, an age of increasing involvement with overseas concerns. There is a need to widen the concept of diplomacy and to have a form of people’s diplomacy, diplomacy which includes all sorts of people with overseas contact, such as businessmen and bankers, who should be briefed before they go overseas in order to ensure that the case of South Africa is not only put by them, but put by them in the most effective and efficient manner possible. I think we should also look at the situation in regard to investments in South Africa. I believe that the time has come that greater incentives and less disincentives should be given to invest in South Africa. I am unhappy that we should be considering matters at this particular time which will have a restrictive effect on investment of foreign banks in the Republic of South Africa. I also believe that we should offer greater tax incentives in order to encourage people to invest in South Africa. There is another matter which is perhaps the reverse of this but which we should also look at. That is that reference has been made to the following facts by the apartheid committee at the United Nations, and I quote—

I believe that there should be greater encouragement to investment by South African concerns overseas, and that the time has come to look at the exchange control regulations in South Africa in order to permit of the expansion of businesses overseas not merely to earn more foreign exchange for South Africa overseas, but also to look at the long-term interests of South Africa in order to have these connections of which our enemies disapprove. If all in South Africa, whether they are in business or whether they are private individuals, whether they have business connections or whether they have family relations overseas, act as ambassadors for South Africa in order to put South Africa’s case and are briefed in this regard, we would truly have a people’s diplomacy in South Africa, which I believe would be of the greatest assistance to our professional diplomats who are putting our case.

I believe that the world is entering a new phase of foreign relations. The position of the United States in the so-called post-Vietnam era is going to create quite a different position. We are going to have situations of disengagement and of non-intervention. Basically it is going to mean that the countries of the world will have to look after themselves to an ever increasing extent. We have spoken at considerable length about our interests in the Indian Ocean, but in the Indian Ocean we shall find that in so far as the Western powers are concerned, the eastern coast of Africa will become increasingly unfriendly to Western countries and that the West is, in fact, likely to phase out of the Indian Ocean in future. This is, of course, a matter which should concern us in no small measure. There is yet another matter which should concern us and that is our position on the Atlantic side and especially the position of our relations with South America. There we have a continent with over 300 million people and one should, in fact, welcome the endeavours the Government has made to extend our relations and to improve them with the South American States. I believe the time will come when we will have to look increasingly to South America for friendship and trade, for investments in fields such as construction and mining, and for exchanges in the scientific, cultural and other fields. I believe that the efforts the Government is making in South America should not only be commended but should also be accelerated as far as possible. I also believe the time will come when there will have to be a South Atlantic defence pact between the nations of South America, ourselves and other African States. I would like to see South Africa taking an initiative in that regard because I believe that our defences and good relations on the Atlantic side are as important as our position in the Indian Ocean, about which we perhaps talk a little more than we do about the Atlantic. I would like to see our relationship with South America being improved even further and I would like to see us set about the creation of this defence pact which I have referred to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville must excuse me if I do not follow upon the positive contribution he made, because I believe that the hon. the Minister and some of our other speakers will do so.

I should just like to refer to that section of the speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in which he referred to the position of Lesotho in the immediate past as regards its behaviour towards South Africa. We are acquainted with Lesotho because we have been living and working alongside them for a lifetime. I can tell you that we were very disappointed to note that as long ago as the Addis Ababa conference Lesotho was adopting a certain course. It was not pleasant for us to have to learn later that, in co-operation with Kenya, Libya and Guinea, Lesotho played a leading role in making things very difficult for South Africa internationally. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout took only what was negative from this attitude by Lesotho. He even questions the hon. the Minister’s conclusions concerning the reasons for Lesotho’s attitude towards South Africa these days. I must tell the hon. member that he did not do so very convincingly. I want to add that I observed a certain malicious joy on the part of the hon. member, and I trust that this is not really the case.

I rise in this House this afternoon as someone who, as I have said, knows the people of Lesotho, because we have been living and working with them for generations. The history of the South Eastern Free State—in fact, of the entire Free State—has been associated with that of Lesotho for a long time. In the course of many years and generations we have been living together, there have been occasions on which we have fought. I want to refer in particular to the three Lesotho wars of 1858, 1865 and 1868. However, since 23 February 1868, viz. for 107 years, my people and the Basuto have been living alongside each other. Our destinies are indissolubly bound up with each other. If I had the opportunity to relate to this House that history of which, Sir, you, too, are aware, you would be in a position to realize what a pity it is that a situation of this kind should have developed today. We want to co-operate with Kenya, Lybia and other African states, and we are grateful for the progress there has been in this regard. But for most of us these are merely names. On the other hand, Lesotho is a reality to most of us. We deplore this estrangement, if I may call it that, that has developed between our Governments. I want to emphasize here that the two peoples co-operate because we have no alternative but to do so. In the more recent past—I am now just calling to mind what the position is in that part of the world—if we have had a drought, then our neighbours in Lesotho, too, have had a drought, and when we have been doing well, then that has been the case in Lesotho too. They are agriculturists and agronomists and we are agriculturists and agronomists. They are stock farmers and horse lovers and we are stock farmers and horse lovers. We in that part of the world have learnt to live together. When we have been prosperous, we have been prosperous together, and when there have been hard times, we have endured them together. Since I have been in the House, we provided those people, who were starving, with food in 1965. During the recent snow disaster that struck them, the South African Government saved those people from a critical situation, because we were in the vicinity. They were provided with food and rescued from where they had been trapped by the tremendous Snowfalls. I said that these people are agriculturists and the South African wool farmer co-operates actively with these people through the Wool Board, through which they have established that fine wool farm in the Maluti Mountains. The financing there takes place through the S.A. Wool Board plus a contribution from the Lesotho wool farmer himself.

What I am trying to say here, is that our national relationship there is correct and consequently I do not think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was right when he said that it was owing to our policy that minor incidents and disputes have occurred on the border. No, this is so and it is true, but it is not only with my Basuto neighbours that I have difficulties. Sometimes I have difficulties with my own neighbours too. [Interjections.] We give offence to each other within our own small community, and to my sorrow I must say that some of my people, too, give offence sometimes. But, after all, I should not be telling the truth if I were not to add that our Basuto neighbours, too, sometimes give us offence. After all, I have just told you that we are all stock farmers and are fond of our livestock. There was a time when the situation at the border was an almost impossible one. Our hon. Prime Minister met the Prime Minister of Lesotho here in the Mount Nelson Hotel in 1966. I wish I could indicate to you the position as it is now, but stock thefts over the border have dropped to a minimum on both sides. What I am trying to say is that we, the people there, co-operate. We have problems and disputes, because wherever there is a border, one will have disputes. I am dissatisfied because the tails of 40 of the long-tailed hamels—not long-tailed, you know that one does not cut a hamel’s tail off short—belonging to one of my voters were cut off by a little old Basuto, whereupon he released the hamels. This kind of thing will occur, but you must not say now that I want to cut all their throats because one did this, or that all of them must be angry with us because we have difficulties from time to time.

I want to conclude by saying that we appreciate the action taken by the hon. the Prime Minister, our hon. Minister of the Interior and our Government in that they have acted to bring about good relations between our people and the Basuto people again. We want to express our confidence that this good relationship will be restored at Government level, too. Sir, I want to say to all those concerned that if we should allow national relations to deteriorate there, everyone would suffer, and I must emphasize that it would be the people of Lesotho, who have to sell us their most important export product, their labour, and eventually other things, too, who would suffer most. We must sound this warning so that there will not be people who will think that taking their part in this way, if I may call it that, will be to their benefit.

Mr. Chairman, we listened with great interest to the hon. member for Smithfield. At the beginning of his speech he told us that he did not agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; that he did not agree with the summary of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with regard to the dispute with Lesotho. He then told us that he had a particularly close and intimate knowledge of relations with Lesotho, a knowledge which had extended over a long period, and we then looked forward with increasing interest to the solution he would offer us. Unfortunately his time expired before he could do so and we hope that he will get a second chance to speak when he can tell us what the solution is for the problems we have in our relations with Lesotho. We look forward to his second contribution.

The Minister will tell you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very briefly on the question of South Africa’s membership of the United Nations Organization. Sir, it was a cause of very great regret to us that following the difficulties we experienced at the United Nations last year, the Government should have resorted to what we had hoped was a thing of the past, and that is a resumption of threats to leave the United Nations. Sir, if one reads in the local papers the rather sensational accounts that are selectively presented to the South African public about what happens at the United Nations, then it would certainly seem that the verkramptes who desire that we should leave have got a case. They argue that there is nothing to be gained by our membership of the United Nations and very little to lose by our non-participation. There is a large section of people, particularly amongst the supporters of the Government, who believe that this is so. Sir, I think that one needs to look at this much more carefully. While one certainly has the gravest reservations about the kind of thing that has been happening lately in that organization, one needs to look at rather more than the sensational reports that have been made public and look rather more deeply into the advantages and disadvantages of belonging to the United Nations Organization. Sir, in past years we have been encouraged by the very rational view taken by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others about our membership of the United Nations. I remember that some years ago, in response to a private member’s motion, the hon. the Minister himself said in this House—

Sir, while I might have expressed it differently myself, I agree with the sentiments of the hon. the Minister. The question really is what have we to gain by withdrawal. Let us look at the case of Israel, for example. It is sometimes useful to make an objective comparison. Israel has been under extremely heavy attack at the United Nations. Israel is in dire trouble in the Middle East, but it is unthinkable to any objective observer that Israel would try to strengthen its position in the Middle East by abandoning its defences in New York. To anyone who knows the situation and who knows the attitude of the Israeli delegation and the Israeli Government, it is quite unthinkable that they would abandon their New York defences in the hope of strengthening their position in the Middle East. One has only to state the proposition to see how unrealistic it is.

Sir, let me make a second point. It was very clearly stated at Lusaka by those who have little sympathy for South Africa and no particularly good intentions towards South Africa that they would dearly love to see South Africa pushed out of the U.N. At Dar-es-Salaam, while I have not yet received the full and final text of the Dar-es-Salaam Declaration, I believe that attitude was maintained. Now, at Lusaka the Central East African countries declared in their manifesto that—

Now, if this is the attitude, then clearly if South Africa were to leave U.N. it would be doing precisely what our enemies would like. We would in fact be committing a kind of international hara-kiri for the benefit of those who are opposed to us.

Sir, the fundamental principles of U.N. have to do with the promotion of international co-operation and the maintenance of international peace and security. I think if one could sum up briefly what the main aims of the organization are, those are the main aims. If there were no U.N. in the world, we would have to invent one. It is an essential part of the international system. It is something we cannot do without. Sir, U.N. is part of the world and we cannot leave U.N. any more than we can say that we want to leave the world—stop it, we want to get off. It is essential to our own international security that it should be there and that we should remain a member of it.

It is, as the hon. the Minister has himself pointed out, a world centre of diplomacy. It is a platform to justify our policies, to answer our critics; it is the key to our membership of the specialized agencies. Now, the specialized agencies are of course representative of many endeavours and many human activities. They deal with such things as agriculture, food, health, telecommunications, atomic energy and civil aviation. They deal with a wide variety of subjects which are essential in the international field. There was a time when the Nationalist Government—and I think it must be said in their defence that it was in the beginning of their period of gaining experience of international affairs—deliberately left some of these specialized agencies. They regret it to this day because it is much easier to leave a specialized agency than it is to rejoin it, and South Africa has in many respects suffered incalculable harm through leaving these agencies. We still belong to a few and we now go to extreme lengths to defend our membership of those agencies. It is of the utmost importance, for example, that we should remain a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. If we were to leave U.N. our membership of these technical agencies would in fact be placed in jeopardy, because our claim to membership would be greatly weakened by our absence from U.N. I believe it is right to say that U.N. has disappointed many expectations. The conduct of certain countries over such issues as the credentials, for example, last year, was a grave disappointment not only to South Africans but to many responsible countries which looked to that organization as one which should be dealing with the real problems of the world. Sir, the real problems of the world are only too obvious, and for U.N. to abandon its attempts to solve those major problems and to concentrate on the perennial old topics is of course totally unrealistic. One agrees very much with the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations when he spoke some months ago and condemned what he called “the sterile pursuit of empty majorities”. There is, however, I submit a real majority at the United Nations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, any country that values its sovereignty also has a certain amount of self-respect and reverence for what it believes in and what is of cardinal importance to it. Consequently I cannot agree entirely with the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Von Brandis and the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to the effect that because we have the right to do so, we should stay in the U.N. at all costs. If you would allow me, I want to approach the matter from a different angle. I want to approach it as would a representative of a country which has just come into being and which seeks representation abroad, since the country’s people encourage its government also to take part in matters outside its sphere. My first step as a representative would be to read the charter of the U.N. to find out about this organization that offers my country the opportunity of further realizing itself. I want to quote a few extracts from the Charter and in the light thereof you should realize why the Government is justified in stating that it wants to reconsider its continued membership. At the very beginning I read—

I read further—

I read these extracts in the same way as would the representatives of an independent state that has just come into being. Section 1(2) provides further—

The only other extract I want to read is section 2(7) which could influence me, as the representative of a sovereign country, in acquiring membership of U.N. for my country—

Let us take it that the new country applies and is accepted as a member of U.N. as South Africa has been accepted for 29 years. The first problem the new country might come up against is the possibility that its credentials could be rejected, as, after 28 years, South Africa’s were rejected. What are a country’s credentials? They merely constitute a documentary proof that the representative who has taken his seat in the assembly hall of U.N. has been deputed by the legal government of the country in question. I think that those documents are signed either by the Prime Minister, the head of state, or by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They merely constitute documentary evidence that it is not any Tom, Dick or Harry who has taken his seat in the Assembly hall on behalf of that State. If, then, my credentials are rejected, I must surely have the right to reconsider my position. Through, the years South Africa has, without fail, kept faith in that it has acted in accordance with the Charter of the organization to which it belongs. The second matter that would strike a newcomer to that hall would be the fact that he would immediately be confronted by bloc formation. Whichever part of the world he may come from he will be confronted by a bloc of communist countries, Afro-Asiatic countries, African countries, or of the Arab countries. At the moment there is another bloc, called the Third World. They call themselves the unaligned countries that are neither left nor right, but in his first speech at U.N. Mr. Kissinger, nevertheless referred to “the alignment of the unaligned”, the commitment of the uncommitted. Possibly this new member would like to have a part in the fine things mentioned by the hon. member for Von Brands, for example the World Health Organization, Unesco, etc. All of us want to participate in those things, whether we receive something or only give. Another factor which the newcomer has to face is the fact that as the representative of his country he will be faced with enemies. Every country has its enemies, whether at home or abroad. Although such, a member represents his country he may, in the third place, be confronted by other organizations that are admitted there as observers, not to vote, but for whom a platform is created and who can take part in the proceedings by expressing themselves against any country. They may be organizations within or outside a country. That newcomer, if it has an enemy outside its country that is linked to one of these power blocs that are hostile to it, has no chance. Those organizations may be of any kind.

In reading the United Nations’ Charter, nowhere does one come across a reference to the Almighty, to Higher Authority. Nowhere in the entire concept of the United Nations does one find any reference to religious faith. That should lead one to understand why it is so striking that certain clerics make such constant use of it to denigrate various countries, e.g. South. Africa, there. One of them is the Rev. Michael Scott, who is probably one of the biggest anti-South African lobbyists at U.N.

However, there is also a ray of light for that representative who would like to take part in what is worthwhile in the U.N. We are grateful that that ray of light shone brightest, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also put it, when the right of veto was exercised by three Western countries. I am only going to quote passages to prove that there is, in fact, still a ray of light and that there is still an opportunity for a man to put his case. In his reply, the representative of the United States had, inter alia, the following to say—

France states—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brentwood stated the problems surrounding U.N. membership very lucidly and I am not going to follow him in that regard.

When discussing South Africa’s foreign relations, Africa remains an extremely relevant and pertinent subject. In this regard I should like to associate myself, in the course of my speech, with a remark made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon concerning human dignity. In passing, it is perhaps important, and very fitting, that the Foreign Affairs Vote should come up for discussion just after we have discussed the Defence Vote. In point of fact, these two constitute two sides of the same coin. Through the one we seek contact, dialogue and peace—inter alia in Africa—while on the other hand we are preparing ourselves for the alternative, viz. violence and terror, which is threatening everyone in Southern Africa. A situation of this kind is possibly closer to realization than we want to believe.

Fortunately the door to contact and dialogue is now open. The hon. the Minister referred to that as well. He also referred to the major part played by our hon. Prime Minister in this regard. For various reasons it is understandable that in its dialogue with South Africa—to the extent that it is still prepared to want to conduct dialogue— Africa, too, reveals two approaches. In this regard reference is often made to the doves and the hawks. In particular, these approaches are characterized and illustrated by two manifestos, viz. the Lusaka Manifesto of 1969 and the Mogadishu Declaration of 1971. In the same way, African leaders regard this manifesto and declaration as two sides of the same coin. In an interview with the periodical Africa, published in the February, 1975, edition, the President Kaunda said, inter alia, in this regard—

President Kaunda then goes on to say—

The question must therefore be asked whether this so-called offer of peace as contained in the Lusaka Manifesto does, in fact, offer us a basis of contact and dialogue. We can reply to that in the affirmative, on certain very definite conditions. Apart from the fact that it must be clearly stated that there is a great deal in this Manifesto which is totally unacceptable to us because it rests on incorrect interpretation and on incorrect facts in regard to South Africa, on the other hand we can confirm that there is sufficient in the Lusaka manifesto to serve as a sound basis for further discussion. It is impossible to deal with all the aspects of this Manifesto in the short time at my disposal. However, the essence of this Manifesto is that justice must be done to the principles of human dignity and equality. The Manifesto itself puts it as follows—

Fundamentally, therefore, what is at issue is human dignity and equality. The Manifesto also provides that these ideals must, in time, be realized in the realities of the specific circumstances of the various countries. They accept that this will not occur overnight and for that reason the Manifesto also states—

Then the drafters of this Manifesto add—

To come back to South Africa’s position: It is the aim and the ideal of this Government, too, to promote human dignity and give meaning to the concept of equality. Let us take a brief look at these ideals in terms of our present policy in South Africa. As far as the first, viz. human dignity, is concerned, it means that a person’s value must be respected and developed. Human dignity means that sufficient living space must be created to enable a person to conduct his life as, in fact, a dignified human being would. Then, too, human dignity has much to do with the wage that is paid, with the house in which the person lives and with his education and standard of living. Nevertheless, the recognition of human dignity is based on a condition which, if not respected, may over the long term threaten to send all human dignity in South Africa and, in fact, in Africa too, up in flames. The condition for true human dignity is simple, and yet it cuts deep into the being of man. This condition is that an individual, a community or a people can only recognize the dignity of another if he or it accepts and respects his or its own dignity. One can only respect and honour another if one honours and respects oneself as an individual or a people, one can only honour and respect the language, culture, freedom or rights of another if one has sufficient honour and respect for a language, culture, freedom and rights of one’s own. Taken together, this means that separate development as developed by the Government over the long term is the only sound basis on which the greatest degree of human dignity in South Africa, and possibly in Africa, too, can be effected.

The second aspect is that of equality. Equality per se is a meaningless word. People are not equal in abstracto and we in this House—thank goodness—are not all equal, either. Equality has, therefore, to be qualified. Today equality is generally considered to mean equal opportunities, and people should achieve what they are entitled to. By means of those equal opportunities, people, even in competition with others, should achieve what they regard as their rightful share. As far as equal opportunities are concerned, therefore, this Government, to a greater extent, perhaps, than any other Government in Africa and in the world may express an opinion. In fact, in our efforts to create equal opportunities, we have gone so far that many people in South Africa—I say this with all respect—have been placed in posts which are beyond their capabilities and which, in a different dispensation, they would possibly never have occupied.

Of course, as far as human dignity and equal opportunities are concerned, we still have a long way to go. Along the way we shall continue to strive to get away from discrimination and to promote sound and normal relationships between people. That, surely, is the declared policy of this Government and has been stated repeatedly by the hon. the Prime Minister. The fact remains that in terms of our policy and in terms of the ideals of this policy, as far as human dignity and equality, too, are concerned, a just case can be made for South Africa in the forums of Africa and, in fact, in any forum anywhere in the world.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg West indicated that he thought it was appropriate that this debate should follow the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Defence. I think he and I are in agreement on one issue, namely that it is a good thing for South Africa—we have to thank the Prime Minister for this—that the person holding the high and important office of Minister of Foreign Affairs is the member for Beaufort West and not the member for George.

The hon. member also referred to the Lusaka Manifesto, as was done previously outside of this House by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I am pleased that there is an increasing interest in the meaning and importance of this document. It has been my view and I have stated it in this House before that the Government of South Africa made a tragic mistake in not assessing the importance of the document when it was issued way back in July 1969. There is a dichotomy in that document between the arguments advanced for peaceful change and for those justifying violence. I think the Government at that time concentrated too much on the rationale for violence rather than seeing this document as the hon. member and the Government are seeing it now—as basis for reconciliation in South Africa and in Africa and as a basis for South Africa understanding Africa and reaching out its hand towards Africa.

I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. the Minister in his analysis of what is perhaps the changing attitude of the West because there is no doubt that the West in particular is going through a phase of re-examining its global strategy. I agree with him that perhaps the key date which triggered off the reassessment of the West’s total global strategy was 15 October 1973 when the oil-producing nations not only pushed up the price of oil but also cut back the level of production and for the first time applied an embargo on certain countries because of their political views. This has had a profound impact on the whole of the Western world. It has caused the Western world to re-examine a strategy in international affairs, a strategy which, had been applied for some 30 years since the end of the last World War. Its financial strategy flowed from the deliberations at Dumbarton Oaks, its economic strategy flowed from the extension of the Marshall Aid Plan to the rapid industrial development in West European nations and its military strategy rested very heavily on multilateral treates such as Nato and Seato. This had been going on for some 30 years until the fuel crisis virtually shattered the foundations of that strategy. The West has now started to restructure a strategy for the next few years. The fuel crisis has imposed a severe strain on Western fiscal strategy. As has been said it has resulted in billions of dollars sloshing around in the bottom of the money buckets of the world waiting for recycling and re-investment and creating instability and insecurity. At the same time the West can no longer be assured of unlimited supplies of cheap energy on which to base its future economic expansion. In the simple equation, of East versus West in military terms, of a West centring around the United States of America and an East, the communist countries, centring around the USSR, of the situation in the Middle East has caused the Third World, backed by the wealth of the Arabs, to become a growing military factor. This has changed the power equation which operated for some 30 years. In these circumstances of rethinking and relative uncertainty it is quite natural that a country like South Africa could be in a position to use opportunities, to see whether it can be slotted into the Western strategy, to see whether there is a place for it in the strategy of the Western world which is now being reformulated. I am pleased to note that there is a realization on the part of the hon. the Minister and his department that this is the time to take the initiative. The past year has been a year of considerable initiative in the field of Government diplomacy. There have been initiatives in relation to contacts with the West and with, Latin America. One hears initatives in the Middle East and in Africa. We believe that it is appropriate that these initatives should be being taken at a time when the West is formulating a strategy for the future.

When one looks in greater detail at what that hon. the Minister and his officials have accepted one finds, in the first instance, that it was important as part of the strategy to Stop defending policies of discrimination; to say: “We have these policies, we admit we have these policies but these policies are wrong and we are going to get rid of them.” This is the burden of the speech made by our ambassador before the Security Council. He said: “We admit that we do discriminate, we believe that this is indefensible and we are going to do all in our power to get away from it”. I want to congratulate the hon. Minister and his department on having adopted this attitude. This is a far cry from the attitude of his predecessor, Mr. Eric Louw, who used to think that one could score points in the defence of discrimination by saying that because the Swedes discriminated against the Lapps or because the Canadians discriminated against the Eskimos, we had a precedent for what we might be doing in South Africa. I hope that by the time our ambassador returns to the United Nations he will be able to present to them a document showing the fields in which we have removed discrimination since he gave that undertaking to the Security Council a year previously. We look forward to seeing this document. We hone that it will be positive and that it will be long.

In the second place, the Government has realized that the route back to the world community, for South Africa at least, is via Africa, and that reconciliation with Africa is a prerequisite for reconciliation with the rest of the civilized world. This has been one of the reasons for the initiative that has been taken. It has been a long time in coming but nevertheless it was taken in October of last year and it continues to be taken.

The third fact which I believe the Government has accented but which it has not as vet acted upon is that the route back to reconciliation with Africa includes reconciliation among the Black and White and Brown people in South Africa, and that this involves making substantial changes to internal policies. In the course of his speech the hon. the Minister indicated that he accepted the fact that there was a correlation between internal and external policy. What concerns me is that all these initiatives that he could be taking may be shipwrecked either by rightwingers within South Africa who want to prejudice this detente move or even by hon. members on that side of the House who do not understand what has happened and who do not appreciate the subtleties of the situation.

I should like to refer to certain reports that have appeared about mercenaries who have been recruited and about mercenaries who have been quizzed by security men. Only last weekend in one of the weekend newspapers we read the reports of the recruitment of mercenaries to fight in neighbouring African States and also that the hon. the Minister had been given information in this regard. We hope that the hon. the Minister will not only tell us what has been the result of the inquiry but that he will also, as he did last year, and perhaps in more emphatic terms, tell us that the Government will not permit this sort of thing and that it will take action against people who use South Africa as a happy recruiting ground to obtain the services of mercenaries to fight against other countries. Secondly, there is a growing right-wing organization within South Africa, a growing association between certain right-wing elements in South Africa and elements within Rhodesia. It is disturbing to see that Rhodesian radio and television appears to be making increasing use of right-wingers from the HNP like Mr. Ivor Benson and Prof. Adrian Pont to speak to Rhodesians on television to explain to them that the solidarity between White South Africans and Rhodesians in this situation still exists. It was also distressing to find that the brother of the hon. the Prime Minister in addressing the Rhodesian People over Rhodesian television in February of this year had this to say—

We believe that this kind of phraseology used by prominent South Africans in Rhodesia at this particular time can only be damaging to what the Prime Minister is trying to achieve. Thirdly, Sir, there is the existence of a new organization known as Saskon, an organization established in Pretoria towards the end of last year. Last week another branch of this organization was established in Salisbury, and next month another branch is going to be established in Windhoek. We believe that all this is evidence of growing right-wing activities, of racialist activities, which are linking across the borders of Rhodesia, and we believe that they are going to bedevil the activities of this Government in the field of détente. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Sea Point began his speech by discussing the Lusaka Manifesto. Inter alia, he blamed the Government for not having given attention to this matter previously. Sir, I challenge the Progressive Party to go and submit their own policy to the Lusaka Conference or the Dar-es-Salaam conference, and they will then find out whether their own policy carries the blessing of Africa. Sir, m strong contrast to the positive policy adopted by this Government in regard to the upliftment of the peoples of South Africa and in Africa, we have this negative approach on the part of these people who, from morning to night, and in co-operation with the Progressive Press, only want to emphasize all the negative aspects. Looking at the Press, and listening to hon. members on that side of the House, one finds that the poor wages paid to our Bantu population are repeatedly emphasized. What are the true facts, the positive aspects in this regard? The average wage in South Africa is, in fact R71, according to the survey carried out by the World Labour Organization. What is the position in the rest of Africa? The average wage in the rest of Africa is as follows: Egypt, R15, Mauritius R17, Morocco R24, Sierra Leone R32 and Ghana R45. What is more, Sir, it is that same party that is constantly pleading for the release of communists in South Africa. They hardly let a session go past without making this plea here. Sir, perhaps hon. members regard the subject of Communism as rather a stale one; perhaps we have discussed it too much. It is noteworthy that thus far in the debate, very little has been said about it. But we can never overlook the role of communism, particularly when discussing African affairs. The ideological struggle of the Third World against Communism has again suffered a severe jolt, owing to the collapse of Cambodia and Vietnam, events which have, in fact, shaken the Western world. They have shown us that it is not merely an ideological struggle, but that it is, in fact, a life and death struggle. Since the West gave virtually half of Europe do Communism at Yalta and Potsdam, the communists have simply gone from strength to strength in the Third World. They have gradually spread their antennae across the whole of Africa and are constantly engulfing more of the world. Here in Africa, too, and in the Indian Ocean, they have moved closer to reality as far as South Africa is concerned. This efficient onslaught on the spirit of the West, as well as the physical presence of Communism in Europe, in the East and here in Africa, too, is no longer a theoretical concept but a hard fact which we have to take fully into account in our view of politics.

The question arises as to the nature of the secret of this phenomenal success, particularly in regard to Africa. There are a few definite reasons for this. In the first place, there is the fanatical driving force and imaginativeness that is closely linked to the needs of the less-developed people in Africa in particular; secondly, through the exploitation of the lack of economic means and the educational background of the peoples of Africa; in the third instance, the creation of a common enemy, in this particular instance, South Africa and Southern Africa and in the Middle East, Israel. In contrast to this communist onslaught on the Third World, the West’s counterattack, which has failed pitifully, is based on the handing out of alms, shipments of dollars and other aids to Africa, without the recipient having the necessary skill to utilize them. How the West could think that they could buy the goodwill of Africa, or that this assistance would constitute an effective counter to Communism, is quite beyond me, because no one that I know of loves his creditors. The key to Africa, and an effective counter to communism, is to be found in a new vision, a new diplomacy, and fortunately our Government discovered this before it was too late. For many years, owing to historical reasons, we were linked to the old British diplomacy, but today we are letting cur own diplomacy develop in Africa since, of all the peoples in the world, we are the best equipped to conduct a diplomacy, specifically in Africa, which is not only to our benefit, but to their benefit too, because we are, in fact, aware of the situation here and grew up with it. This new diplomacy is based on entirely new principles. In the first instance, it is based on our absolute honesty in order to establish unequalled confidence and eradicate mistaken impressions—in strong contrast to the diplomacy of old in which one had to read between the lines to detect the true facts. In the second instance, it is based on a fixed intention to eradicate these mistaken impressions by means of dialogue. As far as technical assistance to the developing countries is concerned, our policy is not based on the policy of handing out alms, but on a policy of industrial partnership, which affords those people, too, a share in the development with an accompanying responsibility of their own, something that is absolutely essential. In the fourth instance, this new diplomacy requires an effective propaganda machine, and this is undoubtedly attended to by our Department of Information. Just consider this Government’s outstanding achievement in having spent R57 million per annum on homeland development between 1960 and 1970, in strong contrast to the total effort by U.N. viz. R27,6 million to 38 countries with a total population of 190 million people. It is information of this kind which, in our new diplomacy, must be positively communicated to the world. The Western ideology badly needs an ideal which the masses of Africa can seize on and strive towards. That is where we fail. Capitalism in its present form symbolizes, to them, only the exploitation of the labour force for the enrichment of a few moneyed people. I am no champion of socialism, but there is one thing that is certain, viz. that in the future we shall have to make adjustments to our capitalist system. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the north wind of change over Africa has changed and is now blowing from the south. Even the leftist Daily Mirror of Britain cannot help but write: “The winds of change are blowing across Africa again and this time, unbelievably, it is John Vorster who is fanning them.” How true that is! Despite the negative decisions taken in Dar-es-Salaam recently, nobody can dispute the fact that South Africa’s peace offensive in Southern Africa has so far had a very meaningful effect. No other subject was more extensively discussed at the conference of Black leaders than South Africa’s endeavours to bring about peace. That was the crux of their discussions; South Africa was the centre of interest there. What is important is that African leaders decided at that conference to continue talking to South Africa about the key questions, i.e. about Rhodesia and South West Africa, and that they also decided to give peaceful negotiation a chance. This is a victory for South Africa’s endeavours.

The détente policy which was initiated by South Africa, is the catalyst of this new way of thinking, this new dialogue, and it holds the key to breathtaking new possibilities. It really seems as if Southern Africa is shaking off the after-effects of the Uhuru orgy and is considering the problems of Africa with greater realism and pragmatism. A chain reaction of goodwill has been initiated by the endeavours of South Africa, not only in Africa, but throughout the entire Western world. Progress has undoubtedly been made and it has been made in spite of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister did not try to achieve understanding and improved relations by means of sentimental talk and promises of concessions. We are able to negotiate from a position of strength because we have not yielded as far as our policy is concerned. We did not humiliate ourselves, because we did not crawl and we have no intention of crawling before Africa.

A new spirit of understanding and goodwill towards our hon. Prime Minister has started to manifest itself throughout the world. The world approves of his positive message of co-operation and peace, and the world wants us to continue in that vein. This is proved to us every day. We have stretched out the hand of friendship to Black Africa and it has not been refused. There is more than one who is prepared to accept this hand of friendship in spite of communist inspired pressure that this should not be done.

The message which we have transmitted to Africa so often recently, spelt out only one thing, i.e. “peace, peace for all in Southern Africa”. We are seeking peace and we seek it sincerely, although not at any price. Peace can transform Southern Africa into an economic giant, but what is the alternative to peace in Southern Africa? The alternative is a cruel, hard reality.

If this desire for peace is not of a reciprocal nature, it can only lead to conflict and then the shocking choice we will be faced with is peace or annihilation. If peace were to fail. South Africa could become a cauldron of terror. This is what the British Institute for the Study of Conflict predicts —“If the present endeavours to bring about peace in Southern Africa fail, a new escalation of violence may be expected.” One shudders at the thought of what would happen if a full-scale armed conflict were to break out in Southern Africa. It could bring Southern Africa to its knees. That is why Western countries and responsible leaders have so much appreciation for the peace endeavours of South Africa. They realize only too well that South African cannot afford armed violence. Whereas Africa is emerging from its poverty, confrontation would only bring about increased poverty and misery. Fortunately there are Black leaders who appreciate this and have also warned against it. We heard their voices, too, at the conference in Dar-es-Salaam. I want to quote a few examples of what they had to say there. President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania referred to “peaceful means” and said—

The Zambian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Vernon Mwaanga, said (translation)—

What is more important, at this conference of the OAU, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ivory Coast, Mr. Assouan, had the following to say to his colleagues there—

It seems as if reason is prevailing again.

There is, however, another danger we have to warn Southern Africa against. Black States which accept communist aid and which collaborate with the communists of Peking and Moscow, should know that they cannot do so without dire consequences. There are countries in Africa which are paving the way for Peking and Moscow in their major onslaught on Africa. The consequences of that may be disastrous for these countries. It could give rise to a deadly stranglehold of communist imperialism, of slavery and an economic enslavement. Some countries are already paying an astonishing price for aid they receive. It took these African countries many years to throw off the colonial yoke. Let us tell them, however, that they will find it more difficult to throw off the communist yoke, if they are ever able to throw it off. The communist weapons which African countries accept, are more dangerous to them than they are to South Africa. This is going to boomerang on them and those weapons are going to explode in their hands. It creates a real danger for those countries and could push them into the line of fire, If the communists turn South Africa into a powder keg it will be these nations that will be hardest hit. The National Government has broken the back of Communism in South. Africa through determined and firm action. If the countries of Southern Africa want to stop communist infiltration and domination they will have to form a united front against the communists, and in such a united front South Africa can play a very important part.

Mr. Chairman, I think that all of us have noted with appreciation the steps taken by the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister in recent times to bring about a degree of detente in Africa. Undoubtedly there is great appreciation on this side of the House for what the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and in particular the officials, too, have done. Here I refer to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary for Information, who have already achieved so much for us in this regard so selflessly and enthusiastically. Consequently I, too, want to associate myself with the appeal the hon. the Minister made this afternoon, viz. that we should approach this matter with the greatest circumspection and responsibility. This is certainly a matter which intimately affects all of us in this country and on which the future of all of us very largely depends.

Is this for Japie’s edification?

On a previous occasion I suggested possible constructive steps which we could consider as part of the overall policy of closer contact with Africa and I do not want to dwell on that any further today. When we consider what has occurred in the last few years, then we see that the problem that has developed for South Africa has been the danger of a growing isolation. The problem, which has in fact developed in this way in the last few decades, is associated with the efforts made by bodies and powers of all kinds to isolate South Africa in as many spheres as possible. Consequently I want to associate myself in this regard with the appeal made by the hon. member for Von Brandis, viz. that we should not take steps to isolate ourselves as regards membership of the United Nations.

It is clear that there have been four elements in particular which have attempted through the years to isolate South Africa in as many spheres as possible. There are the communists—and in this regard I want to associate myself at once with the hon. member for Bloemfontein North—communist influences and communist forces, but communists, too, who operate in other countries and who have made use of every possible opportunity to isolate South Africa in all these spheres. In the second place there are the various non-White peoples—here I am, of course, referring to the colonial peoples of earlier times—who have judged the South African situation and our treatment of our own non-Whites on the basis of their own colonial background and history. There are the Western powers who, owing to the new power situation that has developed in the world owing to the liberation of former colonial powers, the rise of the new power and the factors to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred, in fact found it difficult not to associate themselves particularly with the third force, the non-White parts of the world, in their opposition to South Africa. In the fourth place there are those who, through their opposition to South Africa, have created vested interests—the hon. the Minister referred to this earlier today—and what this amounts to is that they will stiffen their opposition in relation as a we succeed in bringing about détente. It seems to me that it is these four forces in particular that have succeeded in isolating South Africa to the extent that we are in fact isolated. That each of these four has been motivated by its own considerations surely goes without saying. It is also clear that there has been one cohesive factor running through everything like a thread and which has unwittingly assisted all four powers in acting jointly against South Africa and bringing about this isolation. That single factor is our domestic policy. Consequently it seems to me that if we want to practise a strategy to improve the situation for ourselves, then we must attempt to breach that unity. It is very clear that the communists only use our domestic policy, our colour policy, as an instrument. They are not interested in the furtherance of the interests of our non-Whites, they are only interested in the furtherance of their own interests and the establishment of communist power in as many parts of the world as possible. It is very clear, too, that the non-White peoples, particularly the Black peoples of Africa, owing to the common awareness of the degree to which they as Blacks suffered, are very frequently incapable of judging what we are doing in Africa and the problems with which we are faced here. If, then, we really want to make progress, it seems to me that we must, and in fact we can, get the Black countries of Africa and the Western powers on our side and isolate the communist elements and the irresponsible elements in the Third World, by furnishing proof that we do in fact, in our domestic policy, uphold principles that are acceptable in terms of the ideals for which the Western world and Western civilization stand.

That is in fact what we are doing.

It has already been conceded that we want to move away from discrimination and—this is the point I want to make—we can already see the positive results of our efforts thus far to get Black and White in Rhodesia to reach the point of seeking a political and peaceful solution. The positive results of the undertaking given by our ambassador at U.N. in regard to breaking away from discrimination are already visible. The degree to which a better understanding of South Africa already exists, is directly linked to the degree to which we have shown that we do in fact want to adapt our domestic policy to those higher ethical norms in which we as Westerners believe.

In this connection it is very clear to me that we cannot get away from this merely by falling back on what we want to bring about when territories such as the homelands are independent. I want to tell the hon. member for Vasco that although, it is true that when the Transkei is independent we are going to furnish those people with opportunities for political expression, we cannot get away from the question: In what respect will the position of one individual Transkeian citizen, after the independence of the Transkei, be different to what it is today? Hon. members must not misunderstand me. I am not interested in blaming the Government for everything that is wrong in South Africa for the sake of petty party-political gain. What we have here is a historical situation and forces that developed here long before this Government came to power, but we must also admit—and it is admitted—that there are, in fact, many things that need to be rectified. If we want to continue to consolidate our position in the world in regard to those elements that are of importance to us— the Western world and the rest of Africa —the real problem lies in the fact that as far as the nature and the tempo of the change is concerned we are still incapable of providing an answer. What I advocate is that we should capitalize on the goodwill we have already achieved by means of the steps that have been taken. We can only capitalize when we furnish evidence as regards the nature and tempo of the change so that our Western friends and other Western countries and the countries in Africa, too, may have something on which to base their hope. It seems to me that this can be achieved easily enough when we all strive for that together. This side of the House is certainly not interested in undermining or subverting the real efforts being made to bring about détente. This side of the House would like to make its contribution to determine what the nature and tempo of change should be so as to move further in this direction without endangering the interests of anyone and in this way, to stabilize and develop further these efforts that have already proved so fruitful.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edenvale began by praising the Department of Foreign Affairs and also the Department of Information for the fine contribution made by them to recent events which took place in Africa. As far as that is concerned, I want to agree with, him wholeheartedly and I shall elaborate on that later in my speech. In a later stage of this speech, when he mentioned the elements which bring about isolation and the factor which is actually the chief contributor to our isolation, namely the internal policy of this Government, he was plucking at the old strings again. Strangely enough, he is a man who for many years believed passionately in those things which this Government is implementing in practice at this stage. I want to submit this to his consideration, i.e. that it is not our internal policy which creates the problem because, as has been said repeatedly, it is at this very moment that the African countries are beginning to show understanding of our internal policy and are beginning to appreciate our internal policy. The great success of the negotiations is actually to be found in the fact that we have made a breakthrough, to other states, as far as our policy is concerned.

To come back to the good work which this department is doing with regard to détente, it is interesting to note that, as the hon. member for Vasco mentioned, this department was only established on 1 June 1927. It was actually the Balfour Declaration which preceded the establishment of the Department of Foreign Affairs. When thinking of the Balfour Declaration, we cannot fail to call to mind once again the mighty and tireless contribution which Gen. Hertzog made in this connection. He insisted that it should be understood very clearly, that there should be no misunderstanding about the fact that the different countries would be autonomous communities with equal status and subordinated to one another in no way in their domestic or foreign affairs, but freely associated in the British Commonwealth of Nations. In other words, our status as an independent power was actually given shape with the establishment of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is a department which is actually still so young that the present hon. Minister is only the second Minister who has been charged with, this portfolio as a separate Government department of full status. Before 1927, the Government of the United Kingdom was chiefly responsible for our foreign relations except for a few trade agreements, inter alia, that of 1923 with East Africa. In 1929, the Netherlands sent the first diplomatic mission to the then Union.

The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned that earlier South African Governments only had tentative contact with Africa. We only had a consulate in the Belgian Congo of that time. Whereas in 1934 we only maintained or began direct diplomatic relations in a humble way with Germany, Belgium and other countries, the Republic maintains more than 80 offices overseas at the moment while more than 45 countries have representatives here in South Africa. South Africa is a member of more than 500 organizations. This is how we have grown.

As we are now entering a period of détente, and while pressure is being brought to bear on us to change our policy to allow détente to succeed, the correctness of our foreign policy should be emphasized anew. We demand only that there should be no interference in our domestic policy, and we plainly refrain from interference in the domestic policy of others. The fundamental idea of our foreign policy, is, therefore, logical and correct and in agreement with jurisprudence, with the laws of nature, and with the idea of the territorial imperative. After all, I do not interfere with the personal affairs of my neighbour. I respect what is the property of my neighbour, even if he is weaker than I am. I shall not challenge him on his territory.

While there is such talk about our relations with Lesotho, it is interesting to recall again what Chief Jonathan said a few years ago in this connection. I recommend this book to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It is Douglas Reed’s The Siege of Southern Africa, where Chief Jonathan then said the following, according to the author—

I think a few of these things should be submitted to the consideration of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who mentioned that we did not really have very cordial relations with other countries in Africa and in the world. I want to submit to his consideration the technical and scientific co-operation which South Africa offers Africa and other countries in the world. It is actually ironic to realize that the OAU in point of fact grew from ideas and from organizations initiated by South. Africa itself.

I think, for example, of the Scientific Council for Africa South of the Sahara and the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara. I want to submit to the consideration of the hon. member the work done by Sarccus—the Southern Africa Regional Commission for the Conservation and Utilization of the Soil —an organization which is described as one of the most successful undertakings in bringing about inter-state co-operation in Africa on a technical basis. We think of Onderstepoort. As you know, Sir, in earlier years, reference was made to a city such as Pretoria as a small place near Onderstepoort. Onderstepoort produces 100 million doses of vaccine against 28 different diseases annually and makes these available to the whole world. Are these not attempts at cordial co-operation? Are these not attempts at entente in Africa and in the rest of the world? I am not even speaking of the guidance, the advice and the diagnoses and research which are made available to the whole world by Onderstepoort. We think of the assistance and knowledge made available, especially to African countries, with regard to agriculture.

There are veterinary services and services by our Wool Board—and in this connection I want to refer to Lesotho once again—by our wool industry which diffuses our knowledge and makes the results of our extensive and sophisticated research on sheep breeding and the classification of wool available to other countries. We think of the stud farm, 1 300 ha in extent, at Mokhotlong in Lesotho which was established by the South African Wool Board. We think of the work of the CSIR, which the hon. the Minister mentioned, and of the South African Bureau of Standards, with its 600 scientists and technicians, which offers cordial co-operation to the rest of Africa and to the rest of the world. There is also the co-operation and guidance given in respect of water supplies; there is the provision of employment opportunities to more than 600 000 workers of other countries in Africa; the trade with Africa which amounts to approximately R300 million per year, according to the 1974 Year Book; the tremendous contribution in respect of health services through the Institute for Medical Research; the seconding of staff; medical assistance; the financial aid from the loan fund for economic co-operation and promotion. These are tremendous and concrete examples which give wings to the ideas of the hon. the Minister in this connection. I want to repeat this idea: We do not only demand for ourselves our continued existence in Africa; we also accept the responsibilities which go together with that. Our whole Africa policy is continually seen in the light of our responsibility towards ourself as a nation of Africa and towards other nations on this continent. We are co-operating here in the interests of other nations and in the interests of ourselves. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Brakpan paid tribute to the Department of Foreign Affairs and to the hon. the Minister. I should like to underline and endorse his words in this regard. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in the front line of the whole movement of détente and peace in Southern Africa. The Department of Foreign Affairs was described by the then hon. member for Wonderboom in his maiden speech as the shock-absorber of South Africa. This is apt and true in many ways. Particularly in recent months the hon. the Minister together with his department and many others certainly have had to endure a great number of shocks and to withstand enormous pressure in trying to bring about the necessary détente, the necessary movement towards peace in Southern Africa and in Africa itself. I want to try to suggest several ways in which this movement towards peace can be enhanced and encouraged.

In the first instance, it is absolutely essential in our view that membership of the United Nations should be continued. We are only too aware of the difficulties and of the stresses and strains, of the insults and of the double standards, but we believe it to be absolutely imperative that South Africa continue to maintain her membership of that organization. In this connection we would do well to remember that three major countries put themselves out on a limb on behalf of South Africa during the most recent session of that organization. I am, of course, referring to the United States, France and Great Britain. It is therefore not only as far as our links with the United Nations are concerned—I also want to refer to the remarks of the hon. the Minister in regard to our relationship with Western Europe—that it is essential for us to try to remember that they went in, as it were, on our behalf. They had, of course, their own criticisms to offer. They had, of course, to talk about a test of the new voices emanating from South Africa. Nevertheless, they did go in to support us and we would do well to remember it.

Last year the hon. the Prime Minister also reported that he was recalling our ambassador to the United Nations and that he was going to withdraw the contributions which, I think, were due on 30 December 1974. I hope that in his reply the hon. the Minister will inform this House whether in fact these contributions have been withheld or whether in fact we are going to pay our contributions in order to maintain our membership of that organization. In this connection too, in regard to the hon. the Minister’s reference in his speech last year in this House to the Leader of the Transkei, Dr. Naidoo and Mr. Ulster accompanying South Africa’s delegation to the United Nations as observers, I should like to know whether there is any new thinking or development in this regard. It seems to us at least that we could only gain a great deal from elevating the observer status to actual delegate status. We realize again that there are enormous problems here, but we believe that it could only be to South Africa’s advantage if a fully representative delegation attended the United Nations on our behalf.

The second point that I would like to make is that we need to hear the voice that we heard here this afternoon of the hon. member for Vasco, who suggested that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should meet at regular intervals with prominent Black leaders in South Africa to discuss matters of interest in foreign affairs. I would like to support that suggestion as strongly as I can and say that if possible one should not only begin there but also go beyond that. To give an example of what I have in mind, one remembers a recent trip by a prominent businessman from South Africa, who went with Mr. Sam Motsenyane, and met a great number of people in different parts of Europe and talked about the problems and the needs of South Africa and the developments which were taking place in South Africa. The very fact that there was a representative, in the eyes of the people of Europe and Great Britain, from Black South Africa gave enormous credibility to what they were trying to do. This was not a kind of white-washing of the situation, but a simple factual account of the situation here, but I believe that the fact that there was a more representative voice there, a Black voice and a White voice, gave them a far better hearing. Sir, recently I was attending a conference on investment in London, where once again there were Blacks as well as Whites from South Africa, and the fact that this was possible meant that those of us who were arguing against disinvestment in South Africa were given a far better hearing because our plea was coming from a more representative voice. I would plead that this development should be borne in mind in this whole movement towards détente.

Thirdly, Sir, I want to refer to the diplomatic service. Last year the hon. the Minister told us of the training that was being started for certain Black people in South Africa—I think for Coloureds and Whites and citizens of the Transkei. I hope that we will hear a little more about this from the hon. the Minister in his reply, and I want to suggest that we should develop beyond that as well so that there can be a truly representative force in our diplomatic corps. Then there is a fourth suggestion that I would like to make. None of these suggestions is original, but I do think that they ought to be underlined and stressed. It seems to me that in the question of détente, in the whole forward movement towards peace, it would be far better if we had contacts on a more normal, natural basis, as well as the obviously necessary official contacts. By that I mean more emphasis on exchanges between universities here and in Africa and more opportunities for people of all races to move from South Africa to other countries and for people from other countries to come here to us. I know that this is happening to a certain extent, but I want to express the hope that it will take place on a larger scale.

Mr. Chairman, when our ambassador to the United Nations first came to this House, he referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and made the point that South Africa was not a signatory at that time, but that we ought to become more closely identified with this declaration. I believe, Sir, that the time has come for us to do exactly that. When we read the terms and conditions of this Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is quite obvious that is going to mean if we identify ourselves with this declaration in setting certain goals and standards for ourselves. Perhaps in our common desire to get rid of discrimination, to do the very thing that we have told the world we will do, we could adopt those standards as our goal because I think this, too, would enhance our credibility in the eyes of the world.

Mr. Chairman, it has certainly been some time since a debate has been conducted in this House on such a high level as that on which this debate has been conducted, here this afternoon, and the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands was in the spirit of this debate. Sir, in many of the debates in this House during this session, there was one subject which dominated, and that was the subject of détente in Africa. It was also the main course in the debate last week on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. It was also the subject of a lively discussion in the debate on the Defence Vote and, as could be expected, it has also been in the foreground in this debate. So who am I, Sir, to speak about something else? Without making myself guilty of repetition and incurring your displeasure, I want to speak about the same subject, but I want to approach it from a slightly different angle. I want to speak about détente and missionary work. A few weeks ago, the hon. the Prime Minister referred in a speech at Stellenbosch to the contribution made by missionaries in Africa, and on that occasion he quoted the Biblical instruction, “cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days”. In this connection, there is a very good story which appeared in a newspaper recently. Two reporters from Rapport met a Zambian journalist in Zambia with the classical name of Frank Vorster Tembu, His father, Tembu senior, was impressed by a missionary Vorster who worked there many years ago and consequently gave his young offspring this name. I think most of us who are sitting here have relations or friends who have served in the mission fields in Africa at some stage. This afternoon I only want to deal with the church of which I am a member, because that is the work with which I am familiar. Sir, the foreign mission of the Dutch Reformed Church dates from the year 1857 when the Cape Synod passed the historical resolution that foreign missionary work should be done in addition to the existing internal missionary work. The motivation for this resolution was the previous responsibility of the Church and its high calling. I think the motivation was summarized in these words, “Thy Kingdome come”. Sir, that and that alone gave rise to this resolution of the Synod that missionary work should be done abroad and that in addition to the annual collection for the domestic mission, there would be a collection for the missionary work abroad. The people of 1857 did not know the word “détente”. They did not see themselves as the pioneers of détente which would come later. If they had seen in the distance how storm clouds would gather over Africa, then they did not see themselves in a political role of averting those storms. They had no ulterior motives of a political nature. It was not an upsurge of patriotism which sent them to the mission fields, perhaps to expand the border of the fatherland and even to plant our flag on foreign soil. These people went purely and simply because they saw the need of others. They went because they saw people there who were living without hope and without God. They went, in the words of Paul, because they were constrained to and woe betide them if they did not preach the Gospel. They went to serve the Lord God, and for this those people laid everything on the altar of service and of dedication. I know of acquaintances of mine who served in the mission fields in the fifties, people who had had seven years’ training and who earned a salary of £200 per year. I understand the medical doctors earned considerably more. They earned up to £30 per month in the mission field. Sir, there is another remarkable fact about these missionaries, and I am referring specifically to the missionaries of our Church who went out at the beginning of this century. You know, Sir, a large number of Boer prisoners of war in Bermuda and Ceylon and elsewhere came to the conviction there that they wanted to offer themselves for the mission. Those were people who had lost everything. They had lost their possessions, many of them had lost their loved ones in the concentration camps. They had lost their liberty. Nonetheless, they knew at that time that they had something to give, and some of them, already at advanced ages, went to the mission institute at Wellington to be trained there. The first pioneer missionaries in our church abroad were the Rev. Henri Gonin, who worked in Saulspoort, in the Transvaal, and the Rev. Alexander McKidd, who began in the Soutpansberg. From Saulspoort the work spread over the border to Moshudi in the present Botswana while the work in the Soutpansberg spread over the Limpopo to Banjaland, now Mashonaland in the present Rhodesia. Together with the Church came the school and the hospital and Christian civilization and the translation of the Bible into the indigenous language. The greatest mission work of our Church was in Nyasaland, the present Malawi. When I heard over the radio this morning that President Banda had also sent his good wishes to our State President and had expressed the hope that the good relations between our two countries would continue, I thought of the Rev. Attie Vlok, who began with, that work in Nyasaland at the beginning of this century and the dozens of missionaries who came after him, and I wondered whether the contributions which those people had made had not perhaps made the good relations between our countries possible today. But what is most surprising is that they did not go with that aim. That was only a by-product of the work which they did. Our church did mission work in Nigeria, among the Tiv people there. We began a missionary action there. Gen. Gowon is also a member of the Tiv tribe and happens to be the son of a minister of religion. He undoubtedly would have come into contact with the church’s mission there. We also did missionary work in East Africa. The first minister of the Afrikaners who settled in East Africa, ds. Loubser, told his congregants that every Afrikaner family was a mission station. Do you know, Sir, that during the Mau-Mau riots, when hundreds of people were killed, they did not lay a hand to a single Afrikaans family? There was one of the farmers who told this story, that when the disturbances had reached their peak, his servants called him one evening and asked him to eat with them that evening because they had slaughtered an ox. In this way they thanked him for what he had done for them. Our Church also worked in Zambia and in Mozambique, but in 1922 the Portuguese forbade the Church to continue with the work. When our Church obtained permission again a few months ago from the Mozambique authorities to continue with the missionary work, there were more members there than had been left behind in 1922. We do work in Botswana and Swaziland as well and for the past few years in Lesotho too. The great missionary scientist, Prof. G. B. A. Gerdener, said several years ago that the two biggest mistakes which our Church made in their mission policy, was that it had left Mozambique and that it had entered the field in Lesotho at such a late stage.

Sir, if détente is going to succeed in Africa—and in our hearts there is the unconquerable belief that it will succeed—the greatest contribution which one can make to its success, is this indestructible belief, a positive approach and a determined will. I say if it is going to succeed, then we know who have helped to make it possible. These men and women were unknowingly the pioneers of a new dispensation in Africa. They were the first and for many years our only contact with Africa, the pioneers of a new dispensation who paved the way to better international relations.

I must say that the peroration of the hon. member who has just sat down certainly struck, I think, the correct and a sound note in this debate, and that is the question of a positive approach. It is against this background that I myself would like to discuss the Vote today and to say that during the course of the debate I detected what I thought was a rather plaintive air from the members on the Government side, which somehow suggested that they were still to some extent on the defensive with regard to foreign policy and the approach of South Africa to its problems. Some years ago when the hon. the Prime Minister took what was then regarded as an entirely new approach in South Africa’s affairs, a forward policy, it did not take very long before he was chopped down, and unfortunately his efforts which, we felt were a move in the right direction, came to a standstill. But of recent date, when the hon. the Prime Minister, very ably assisted by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, took positive steps in the direction of détente, he opened up an entirely new picture in the affairs of South Africa. I want to say further that it is this positive approach which is the only manner in which we can deal with South, Africa’s affairs, at the crossroads at which we stand today.

It is in this sense that I would like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and more particularly to our representative at U.N. for his magnificent address before the Security Council which appeared in the recent issue to us of the report on the United Nations. I think it is this type of talk which can do us a lot of good and which I think we must pursue, because I believe that we should today, in the climate of today, launch a new offensive in the form of factual and objective publicity, in the form of factual and positive information which should be spread with the assistance of experts in this field and be brought to the notice of the communities of other countries of the world, more particularly those who are contiguous to our borders and in the regions of Southern Africa in which we can play—an important and vital role. At the same time we should also launch an all-out offensive in the Republic itself, at home amongst our own people, to re-educate them to new attitudes in their approach to their relationship with the various races in South. Africa. I think it is in this direction that we can play a positive part and ensure a better understanding within which will strengthen our hands in our problems from abroad.

I believe that we should play a much more positive part in assisting to combat poverty and disease amongst our neighbouring States, as well as further north in the heart of Africa, not only as a neighbour, but as a friendly African State ourselves. I think we should make a contribution, if we can, to the economic viability, which, we can do in the form of capital loans and in many other ways for the purpose of building up infrastructure and the important developments which are so necessary for people who are seeking it. I want to say that the very fact that we were able, as has been quoted in this House before, to provide wheat and other food to Mozambique while other nations had promised but had not carried out their promise, made a very deep impression. This is only one incident in a situation which created so much responsive goodwill and friendship towards us. One of the greatest enemies we have to fight, one of the causes of aggression in the world generally, more particularly in the field of Africa, is that the “have nots” stand by on the touch-lines looking particularly at our land which, we ourselves can literally describe as a land flowing with milk and honey. I believe sincerely that despite the gestures and activities of Moscow and Peking in Africa, particularly in Southern Africa, an issue which was so well described by one of the Government speakers the other day during another debate, South Africa has very much more to offer in a tangible and consistent form to the States in Africa. We should take the initiative in this field, not only to keep them, but also to convince them of the value which we, on the southern tip of Africa, with our tremendous storehouse and our tremendous powerhouse can provide for the benefit of Africa itself.

Our efforts in the field of detente receive very favourable comment from most of the Western countries, but our efforts are only the beginning of this new attitude, this new effort, this positive approach to the problem. We could have started these efforts many years ago. However, like President Ford of the United States I should like to say that we should not look at what we might have done before and we should not look back at the things which we feel have been done to the disadvantage of South Africa. We should leave the past behind and go forward positively and I think we have an opportunity to make a breakthrough. That is the way in which I believe we should approach our problems and not, as unfortunately we have heard today, continuously to harp on the question of armaments for the defence of South Africa, even though the procurement of armaments is necessary for every nation, as indeed it is stated in the statement of foreign policy by the President of the USA when he said that armament defence was important. Equally important as the offensive of which I have spoken and our efforts to bring it about, is the necessity for us to restore harmonious relations in Black Africa. At the same time we must turn our attention, as I have said, to our affairs at home, because the harmonious relations amongst our various races will play an important and vital part in the eventual success of our efforts to attain understanding abroad.

Here we have many opportunities of exhibiting evidence of our sincerity and honesty of purpose to bring about changes in South Africa. There have, in fact, been changes. As far as we in the Republic are concerned, the changes have been momentus, marking, as they do, a mature approach to what I believe is our inevitable destiny. Yet, to the outside world it has only been a small effort. I myself discussed our efforts with regard to the Nico Malan Theatre with some educationalists from countries in Europe very recently. Those people were visiting our country and called on some of us in the House. I pointed out what we were doing and I referred to the understanding which was taking place in our country. I told them that we were moving in the direction set out in our statements at U.N. One of the visitors said to me: “If you regard that as a very big step, it may be so from your point of view; in fact it is just something in passing as far as the rest of the world is concerned in its attitude towards you”. So I believe that we have to take more positive steps and give practical effect to statements which have been repeated on many an occasion in the House, that the colour of skin cannot and should not be reason for discrimination and we should, where we can, maintain the principle that only merit and a reasonable and fair civilized standard should be our basic criteria in human relations within South Africa. In our struggle to win the hearts and minds of others, we must succeed in our country so that we can enjoy the loyalty of all South Africans loyal to a common fatherland. In such a way we shall present a common front to those who, for reasons completely unjustified and illogical, seek to interfere in or attempt to impose themselves on our own domestic affairs.

Africa, because of its freedom from colonial control and dominance and because of its emergent nations still in many stages of development, has become the focus of world attention. The United States Government has stated recently that Africa must now become the focus of the United States’ new foreign policy efforts. The United States have the whole of Africa in mind and obviously included us as well. Recently a committee of U.N. met in Paris in order to prepare a new onslaught on us with, regard to apartheid. I think the hon. the Minister may have seen this in the Press. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react fully to what the hon. member for Jeppe had to say. In his opening remarks, however, the hon. member said that this side of the House was “somewhat on the defensive”. If ever there was a misnomer, I think that a statement of that nature is one. To suggest something like this in the year 1975 is totally unfounded and unjust in the light of the fact that the positive breakthrough which has been achieved in the field of foreign relations has in fact been achieved by this side of the House in these times in which we are living. It has been achieved in spite of the sometimes very negative and destructive contribution which has come from the side of the Opposition.

In the same light and context I would like to say with all praise to the department and all praise and respect and understanding for what the hon. the Prime Minister said, that I think the whole of South Africa is reassured in the knowledge that this important department is being handled by the hon. the Minister whose responsibility it is at the moment. All over South Africa, amongst all communities and sections, there is great understanding and great appreciation for the unobtrusive but constructive way in which this hon. Minister and his department have been performing this task so successfully in recent years.

I do not want to venture into the broad sphere, because I am too uninformed for that, but I want to make a few remarks in connection with the purity of our domestic policy. In my view, and as the hon. the Prime Minister has also told us, his dialogue with Africa is taking place in terms of the policy of separate development in South Africa. I think it is quite a logical standpoint, because a country’s foreign policy is after all based on the foundation of its domestic policy. Foreign policy is approached in accordance with the progress which has been made in domestic policy and not the other way round, as the Opposition sometimes argues. For this reason I believe that good and sound domestic policy will also promote good foreign policy and relations. When I say this, I confirm once again that the essence, the sine qua non, of domestic policy in South Africa is in fact the clearly formulated policy of separate development. I want to stress once again the moral aspects which characterize it, namely the human dignity referred to by the hon. member for Johannesburg West, the right to self-determination, the preservation of identity, differentiation, independence, and very important in the multi-national framework in which we live and in the application of this policy, the absolute minimum of racial mixing. For this reason I think that our foreign relations, too, should be seen in this context. Furthermore I say that this crystallized policy as it has developed in South Africa is not the creation or the special patent of the National Party. It is a scientifically founded philosophy which today is not only understood and accepted in South Africa, but is also being established and gaining acceptance all over the world. A well-known American author recently said the following—

The author said, however, that man cannot escape from his ethnic context; this is permanent and inherent. This is an ancient truth which is now gaining acceptance in the world, namely that one’s ethnic context is lasting and permanent. It is being accepted by the world, especially by Africa. Africa in particular is accepting it, because the African states have learnt from bitter experience, in this process of development and evolution, that with the establishment of the Western-type republics in Africa, which were simply an imitation, an imitation of Western norms, some of these States collapsed even before they had got off the ground. Therefore it remains true that peoples and nations in the world survive, are able to survive, and are able to preserve their identity, if they preserve their ethnic identities separately as nations. The same author says—

This is a profound truth. It sometimes reminds me of the United Party’s politics of race federation. Lastly I would like to say what this respected American author said and what his final conclusion is—

This is what is being said, not in South Africa, but in America. This philosophy is already being applied in South Africa. It was developed here and is impressing Africa, Africa which in its set-up, evolution and development probably has a dislike and an allergy in regard to the Western world and its democracy.

For this reason I say that in this connection a change is already taking place in the United Party … [Interjections.] I beg your pardon. It was a slip of the tongue on my part. In the United Party there is only disintegration; there is still no change. In the United States, however, there has been a noticeable change in its statements to and in connection with South Africa. Our correct attitude in connection with Mozambique made a great impression there. Understanding for our problems is gaining ground. The double standards of the U.N. are being exposed. I am referring to Dr. Jan Marais’s statement regarding the National Government in a publication of the S.A. Foundation which was published recently (translation)—

This is the breakthrough which was made in terms of our political philosophy in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I was speaking earlier this afternoon I mentioned that apart from what the American ambassador to the United Nations called the participants in the sterile pursuit of empty majorities, there is a real majority in existence at the United Nations. That real majority consists of those countries with the capacity to make a real contribution to the true purpose of the United Nations and who have the means and the strength to enforce those things which are worthwhile at the United Nations. These are the countries which are aware of the United Nations’ duties in connection with matters such as the present threatening world depression, mass famine, overpopulation, environmental destruction and the possibility of nuclear disaster. There is a real majority that has the means and the power to do something constructive, or to try to do something constructive, about such things. I believe that South Africa’s task lies side by side with countries of this kind. I believe that South Africa has a contribution to make and that its obligation to make that contribution will increase as South Africa’s own position grows in the world. I believe that when the United Party first heard of the possible intention of the Government to withdraw from the United Nations it was right in saying—

That means in simple words that South Africa should never resign from the United Nations because it is virtually impossible to conceive of a present or temporary situation so grave that it would outweigh all South Africa’s future potential within the world community. I believe that South Africa as a country in Africa has an enormous and an increasingly important role to play in the international community. I believe the time will come when South Africa will no longer be pilloried at the United Nations and will no longer be the scapegoat of the African countries at the United Nations. The time will come when South Africa, because of its stature in this continent, will become the mediator, the catalyst and the great contributor on behalf of Africa in its relations with the United Nations. This is something to look forward to. Sir it is an ideal which we must follow. I believe that capricious threats to resign because we have had a bad year at the United Nations are out of order. I think they are undignified and not in accordance with the kind of future which we hold out for ourselves.

I want to turn briefly to another subject and before I do this, I also want to pay tribute to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I believe that they have not only been a shockabsorber for South Africa, as was said earlier, but in some ways they have also been a spearhead. I believe there is a degree of talent, of intellectual thrust which has stood South Africa in very good stead in its relations with the outside world. I believe that, despite the great difficulties under which the department operates abroad and despite the pressures of time under which they sometimes operate at home, the department has in fact made a great contribution to South Africa which deserves to be recognized. I want to suggest one field to which the department could possibly begin to devote its attention. It is perhaps a little fanciful to say that it can achieve success because it is a very difficult task which I propose, but I want to draw attention to the problems arising in and around the Indian Ocean. No one can say that the Indian Ocean is not close to South Africa and is not of importance to South Africa. It has been said on previous occasions, not in this House but elsewhere, that war is too serious a matter to be left to generals. I believe it is also right to say that the Indian Ocean is too serious a matter to be left just to the admirals. I believe that is a field which calls for the most constructive diplomacy, the most careful and inspired diplomacy, because we have here an area of growing importance and of growing danger. The Indian Ocean is an area of the world surrounded by 26 littoral States; on the shores of the Indian Ocean are 26 nations. Here, indeed, bristling with difficulties and anomalies, is a field which could well be exploited by South African diplomacy or one in which South Africa could set its diplomacy the enormous task of securing in this area a measure of agreement or some degree of détente, if you wish me again to use that word, which will somehow lessen the growing tensions in this part of the world. This task is more easily described than done. It is a colossal task of diplomacy because there are many conflicting interests in the Indian Ocean.

The Indian Ocean used to be described as a British lake. From about 1783 Britain has had a presence in the Indian Ocean. It has gradually reduced this presence. Apart from a naval base and some small naval presence in the Persian Gulf and in South East Asia, it has virtually disappeared from the Indian Ocean as the keeper of the peace in that area. Nevertheless it is still true that of the £15 000 million of British foreign trade or British investment, £4 000 million is still invested around the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean is for Britain still the supply-line of 60% of its oil, 50% of its food and most of its raw materials. We are aware of the British withdrawal, the temporary or partial replacement of British influence and of course, the enormous growth of Russian influence in the Indian Ocean which went step by step with the withdrawal of the British influence there. According to Jane’s Fighting Ships, 1972 the authoritative handbook on naval power, there were 100 Russian naval vessels operating in the Indian Ocean at that time. This is a colossal number of naval vessels. The Russian presence in the Indian Ocean is as great as its presence in the South Pacific. In 1970 an attempt was made to reach some kind of agreement in the Indian Ocean. The Conservative Government which was then in power in Britain, approached the governments of Mauritius, India and Sri Lanka in order to see if some kind of agreement could be reached which would act as a foundation and basis for a collective security system in that area. These attempts did not succeed. We also have a partial or a limited American presence in that area and there has been some sign that the French will be willing to co-operate in this area. There is also the possibility that as the European Community expands into defence areas, there may be a willingness to play a greater part in the Indian Ocean. These things are in many cases still in an incipient stage; they need to be developed. What field for diplomatic participation could be more productive for South Africa than precisely a field of this kind? It is true to say of our diplomacy that while it look for opportunities to advance South Africa’s interests, it is often rejected. It is not accepted as a partner in some of the international initiatives for reasons which are well known. South Africa is not seen as a useful adjunct in certain initiatives, but nevertheless, where South Africa’s presence can truly be valuable, it is less easy to reject South Africa’s initiatives. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member for Von Brandis that I agree with him wholeheartedly that we should not sacrifice our international relations deliberately. I think he, in turn, will agree with me that it never was the intention of either the Government or the role of any other organization with international relations in South Africa to sacrifice their international roles. Where we were frustrated in the past, it was not as a result of our own unwillingness to take part in international conferences or in international action, but it was as a result of the opposition, the antipathy or the prejudice of the host country concerned and as a result of the fact that our delegates were, for instance, not able to obtain visas to visit the country concerned. Recently we had a case of this nature with regard to an international conference on the environment which was held in Nairobi.

I also want to refer briefly to the second point which the hon. member made, viz. about the importance of the Indian Ocean. By way of introduction I first want to say that there are two events in the Western world which are giving rise to a complete reappraisal of the view taken of communist expansion in the world. These two events are definitely the bloody tragedy of Vietnam and the present developments in Portugal. I may add in passing that in a certain sense the two events in the world have redounded to South Africa’s good in that the strategic role which South Africa will have to play in this regard in future is being looked at with renewed interest. As far as these two events are concerned, viz. the tragedy of Vietnam and the developments in Portugal, where it seems as if leftist elements want to assume the reins of government, this is usually linked, at the same time to the obvious inability of the once powerful United States of America or the unwillingness of the United States of America to intervene and to enforce her will in this regard. Countries which boastfully toyed with the idea in the past that they were standing alone and that they would make their way through the world on their own—and I am more particularly referring to certain Western countries—suddenly find themselves confronted by the position of indeed having to start doing so. Then they look around them for possible allies who, like themselves, are intent on counteracting communist expansion. The events in Vietnam are of special importance to us here in South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.