Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour. It must be obvious to everyone that a grave situation is developing in southern Africa. The escalation of the politics of violence in South West Africa and in Rhodesia, and the many declarations of intent to fight by African leaders who command the scene around us, makes it clear that the political barometer points in the direction of armed conflict against what is commonly called the White South of Africa. We already know what countries are likely to become involved in any conflict of this kind. We also know what kind of powers will be the main suppliers of arms to the revolutionary movements. And, Sir, there is little doubt that the Western world as a whole will stand aloof and far from supporting us, tend to sympathize with what is generally called “the forces of liberation ”. This brings one to the heart of the problem that we are facing. What we see as terrorism, however correctly this describes the military methods employed, the revolutionaries and their supporters regard as a holy war of liberation. Whatever confidence we may have, as we do have, in our ability to defend ourselves indefinitely, the confidence of the revolutionaries springs from the fact, firstly, that they believe that they have little to lose as things are, and, secondly, that they have the active backing of one or more superpowers and of a host of smaller countries and of organizations such as the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. Unfortunately too, for us, their confidence was immensely strengthened by what happened in the Portuguese territories, particularly in Angola recently, and by the knowledge that in situations of colonialism and of racial dominance the application of force in the form of guerrilla warfare or terrorism has had success after success.

In the face of all this it is natural that we, too, should turn to arms and strengthen our military preparedness. It would be foolish of us not to increase our defence ability to the maximum of what is possible for us. But the question remains: Is there nothing positive that we can do? Is there nothing far-reaching that we can do about the position? Must we accept the dismal fact that there is no way out for southern Africa but that of armed conflict, an armed conflict which we know must, in the nature of the situation, become long and protracted and cause untold destruction? Or, Mr. Chairman, is there an alternative? As far as Rhodesia is concerned I am sorry to say—and this is my personal opinion—that it is optimistic, or rather, unrealistic, to believe that a solution can now still be achieved by way of political negotiation between Mr. Ian Smith and the ANC. Of course, I hope I am wrong. Everybody would like to see a solution there. [Interjections.] I hope I am wrong in holding this view, but as I see it, the opposing aspirations seem to be totally irreconcilable. Hon. members opposite are making a noise now, but obviously Mr. Smith—and I say this objectively, without taking sides in the matter—has as little intention of handing Rhodesia over to the ANC as our Government has of handing South West Africa over to the United Nations or to Swapo. As far as South West Africa is concerned, few people abroad and in Africa believe that the South African Government will hand over South West Africa to a central Government, representative of all South West Africa’s peoples, and therefore predominantly Black. Only a week ago one of our neighbouring leaders, Sir Seretse Khama, was the latest to reject South Africa’s credibility over the question of real self-determination and independence for South West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, if we analyse the problem which lies at the root of the conflict in the Republic, in South West Africa and in Rhodesia, one comes to more or less the same result everywhere. It is a case, on the one hand, of the Black African demanding his rights to full citizenship, which is quite natural, and on the other hand, of the White African seeking a safe place for himself and for the system of government to which he is accustomed, which is also understandable. In other words, while we tend to be terribly preoccupied with the concept of Black homelands, basically the struggle revolves around the question: Where in southern Africa can 4V2 million White Africans find a recognized homeland for themselves wherein they will feel safe and secure and be free to govern themselves according to their own ideas and institutions? That, in my view, and objectively, is the crux of the matter as far as the problem of southern Africa is concerned. One is entitled to wonder therefore whether the time has not come for us no longer to look upon the questions of Rhodesia, South West Africa and human rights in the Republic as unrelated questions requiring separate answers, but rather as ramifications of the same problem which should be tackled and dealt with on a southern African basis. As it is, we are still directly responsible for South West Africa and for everything that happens there. This does not apply, of course, in the case of Rhodesia, but our mutual relations are of such a nature that it would be difficult for South Africa to escape unaffected by what takes place there or will take place there. Therefore I want to suggest that South Africa take the initiative. Of the three countries, South Africa is the only one that can take an initiative of this kind. We should take the initiative and invite the leaders in power in the BLS countries, i.e. Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, and in Rhodesia, Zambia, Mozambique, Angola and Tanzania to a conference in Pretoria. The purpose should be to discuss southern Africa as a whole and to see whether a peaceful solution could not be found which would do justice to the legitimate aspirations of the Black Africans and would also provide the White African of southern Africa with the political home and security which he is seeking and to which he is also entitled. I do not believe that the suggestion is in any way an impractical one, and we can lose nothing by making the effort. I think it is essential that we do make the effort. Of course, to find a way out of the impasse would require a super brand of statesmanship and the White Africans, who happen to hold the strings in the Republic, in South West Africa and in Rhodesia, may have to consider making sacrifices on a broad front.

I have no doubt, however, that in the long term any such sacrifices would be small in comparison with the process of destruction which lies ahead if southern Africa were to become involved in a protracted war on a front stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. I have indicated that it must be South Africa that takes the initiative because if a change-over to Black rule were to come in Rhodesia and South West Africa by way of violence and force of arms, one could imagine how much weaker and more vulnerable the position of our country, and our position in our country, would be. There are people in our country who believe that what we are dealing with in southern Africa is an uncomplicated case of a communist imperialist onslaught which all Western countries are almost in duty bound to help us resist. Looking at Africa, particularly after the demise of the Portuguese empire, one finds that conditions do not actually favour communist imperialism. On the whole, the countries of Africa are not willing to exchange the old dominance of the West for a new imperialism of the East. Only a short while ago a country like Egypt abrogated its treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. One of the basic doctrines of the OAU is that Africa should be run by Africans and that others should keep out, and that is why, at the height of the struggle in Angola, half the African countries were strongly opposed to Russian, Cuban and South African participation in Angola. Of the other half most were not so much pro-Russian or pro-Cuban as unfortunately they were anti-South African, to such an extent as to tolerate Russian and Cuban support for the MPLA. Basically the doctrine of African States, however, is that Africa’s affairs should be run by Africans. This, of course, remains the essence of our foreign relations problems, particularly in Africa. Our Government is regarded, whether we like it or not, as a racist régime, and the political system we apply is seen as one that is repressive of legitimate Black aspirations. That is the image, and it is the existence of that image which at present makes southern Africa the only part of Africa where conditions are really favourable for communist intervention.

The fact which we have to face is that if we cannot destroy this image, and do it soon and successfully, it may lead to our destruction in a matter of time.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will agree that he and his department, and the Government as a whole, are achieving precious little in this direction in quarters where it really matters. Nobody will deny that there have in fact been a few limited successes in the field of making friends and influencing people. The new understanding with Israel is a case in point and one which we have already welcomed. However, Israel, does not fall within the sphere of African relations, relations which are of such vital importance to us in South Africa. We know that the road to a better understanding with Europe, America and with organizations such as UNO and the OAU now lies for us through Africa, and through Africa alone. Unless we can achieve an understanding with the countries of Africa, we cannot hope to improve our overall position.

The hon. the Prime Minister has told us that the setbacks of the last six months and more were temporary and that they had been foreseen. Naturally we hope that he is right in this respect, but we have seen little to encourage us in this belief and we are even less encouraged after his performance last week on his Vote and the way he spoke in favour of the status quo.

Eighteen months ago the Government took a major initiative. The hon. the Prime Minister made an important speech in the Senate and this was followed up by a strong declaration by our Government in the Security Council. The New York declaration amounted to a courageous admission that race and colour discrimination was being practised in South Africa, and an equally courageous promise that the Government would do everything within its power to put an end to it.

Thereafter doors started to open for South Africa and the Prime Minister was welcomed in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Zambia and Rhodesia, and everywhere people were keen to hear about the prospects for a new, fair deal for all in South Africa. In the United Nations the U.S.A., Britain and France openly applied a veto in our favour on the question of South West Africa. They believed that things were on the march in South Africa and that we should be given the benefit of any doubt.

We on this side told the Government at the time that they should be aware that disappointment and disillusionment would lead to a strong reaction outside. What have we in fact seen during the last six months? To our sincere regret Liberia has become disillusioned and has lost interest in dialogue. In Senegal, President Leopold Senghor has turned sour and has accused our Government of not responding to his interest in our affairs when he wanted to send a team of observers to South Africa. Zambia has rejoined the militants and from Lusaka the most bitter attacks are now being made on the Government. In the Security Council we have recently been identified as an aggressor, with no Western power willing to cast a veto in our favour. The bitterest moment of all came in Angola, because when we waited for friends to turn up, no one responded; not a single White one and not one Black one. What greater evidence of isolation could there have been than that? When in a crucial situation you stand alone, that is isolation.

Fortunately for us we are now out of Angola. But Angola has become a chapter which we cannot erase. Those who oppose South Africa in Africa and elsewhere are leaving no stone unturned to attack us because of our role in Angola. They have taken every advantage of the fact that we used South West Africa as a base for military operations into another African State and that the Western world continue to deny that they condoned or supported our efforts in Angola. If there was more to our participation in Angola than we were given to understand, then the Government should say so. Or, if a miscalculation has been made, it would be better to say so and to recognize the Government of Angola and seek workable relations with it now. Unhappily, Angola has become a powerful propaganda weapon against us. We think it is terribly unfair to South Africa for the Government simply to try to forget about it.

We should like to know from the hon. the Minister what kind of relations we may expect to achieve with Angola in the near future. South African soldiers are still being kept captive in Luanda. Is there any hope of getting them released? We should also like to know from the hon. the Minister where we stand with Mozambique. What has happened? Why has Lusaka now become so bitterly anti-South African again? Furthermore, why have we made no progress in our relations with Botswana?

As far as Europe is concerned, reports show that the anti-South African element has gained ground in Germany. Why is that? To illustrate the feelings that exist towards South Africa, let me refer to a recent survey from Frankfurt. The survey states—

That is the spirit we are dealing with there.

A similar attitude seems to prevail in America. It is no secret that official relations with the United States are at a very low ebb and negative—to put it mildly. What significance, for instance, must be attached to the fact that Dr. Kissinger is not including South Africa in his visit to central and southern Africa? Would the hon. the Minister tell us whether we invited him to come to South Africa? It is, of course, too early to judge what the full outcome of Dr. Kissinger’s visit will be but, as far as one can see, he is certainly leaving no doubt as to where America’s sympathies will lie in any armed conflict in southern Africa which involves revolutionary forces. In view of the difficult circumstances we are experiencing in respect of the United States, is it wise for the post of ambassador to Washington and that of ambassador to the United Nations to be filled by one and the same individual? The public battles which our ambassador to the United Nations has to wage can certainly not always be helpful in his work as our ambassador to Washington. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Are we then short of qualified men?

I must say that we on this side were far from happy when a man with no diplomatic experience whatsoever was sent to fill a post of such vital importance to us as that of our ambassador in Paris. Why was that done? Paris is of cardinal importance to us, not only in respect of our relations with France, but also in respect of our contact with Africa.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Japie.

It was not good news at all to learn from President Giscard d’Estaing towards the end of last year that France would no longer sell military aircraft and tanks to South Africa. We know how absolutely France condemns the policy of apartheid, as the President himself put it, and how much pressure France has lately been applying over the question of South West Africa. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister where we stand with France as far as the situation in southern Africa is concerned.

We also hope the hon. the Minister will give us a full report as to where we are going in respect of the United Nations. Is it the Government’s policy to drift out of the United Nations or is the Government going to do everything possible to maintain our membership of the United Nations despite the present weakness of that organization? I am pleased to see that at least one member of the Government is trying to get South Africa into organizations and not out of them. I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Information, who on various occasions has expressed the belief that we should become a member of the OAU. Sometimes I get the impression that there are more differences between the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Information than merely an “l” in the surname of the one and a “d” in the surname of the other. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs shares the view of his colleague that we should become a member of the OAU.

Certainly, if we could manage to become a member of the OAU, it would mean a final break-through for South Africa leading to normal relations with Africa and Europe and the United Nations. We are 100% in favour of that. In fact, we have been pleading for that for many years. It is undoubtedly a worthwhile aim to pursue. However, we would certainly be bluffing ourselves if we did not recognize that the charter of the OAU draws its main inspirations from, and is firmly based on, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The hon. the Minister of Information must surely be aware of this. He should know. I wonder if the Government is not at last thinking of making South Africa a party—as they should—to the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be able to enlighten us on this matter and give us an answer.

*Mr. Chairman, there are still many matters within the field of international relations which ought to enjoy attention, but in this debate we once again have the old question of a time limit. There is, in particular, still the question of South West Africa, on which we should by rights hold a special debate in this House. The question of South West Africa is a matter which affects every South African and every inhabitant of South West Africa very closely, because it may be a matter of life and death for everyone. We, on this side of the House, give our full support to the constitutional conference in Windhoek and to the attempt which is being made there to find an answer to the South West Africa question. We are not criticizing what is being done there. However, there are deficiencies which must be supplied, deficiencies which should certainly be discussed here.

On 30 April 1973 the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a statement to the Secretary-General of the UNO. I shall quote from the official text of the statement. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave the undertaking to the UNO “that all political parties of South West Africa will have full and free participation in the process leading to self-determination and independence ”. Mr. Chairman, there was no question of ethnic parties only. The matter has not yet been solved satisfactorily by any means, because all political parties do not have access to the process of self-determination and of independence, as stated here. This is a matter to which attention must be given. Mr. Chairman, I do not agree that the Government should stand on the sidelines and adopt a passive attitude towards the position in South West Africa. No one is asking the Government to dictate. We would be opposed to that.

The Government will have to give guidance, however, especially to its own people, people who support its political ideas. There are as many irreconcilable aspirations amongst White, Brown and Black in that multi-national community as there are elsewhere in southern Africa, if not more. We cannot afford to have a Rhodesian situation arising in South West Africa. The time factor is extremely important as well. It is true that five or ten years ago there was still much time for inter-national discussions, but unfortunately the present position is that there is a terrorist army on the opposite side of the border, which enjoys the widest support from outside and which also has militant support within South West Africa. The politics of violence—we see this every day—is also escalating within South West Africa. Sir, Swapo opened an office in Lagos recently. Nigeria has the largest standing army in Africa—allegedly of a quarter of a million men—who have had no work for their hands since the war against Biafra, and the Government of Nigeria—to mention only one—has already offered active assistance to Mozambique against Rhodesia and to Swapo against South West. So there are indications that Nigeria wants to take over the role of Cuba as vanguard and this changes the entire situation. What applied five years ago, applies no longer, on account of the situation which has developed across the border. Therefore the Government cannot stand aloof and wash its hands, as it were, and say, “They must do there what they want; we shall wait until they have taken a final decision.” The Government must give guidance, not interference. We do not expect it to dictate there, but to give guidance. [Time expired.]

Order! Before calling on the next hon. member to speak, I want to say that the loudspeaker system, and consequently the translation service as well, is out of order. I therefore appeal to hon. members, especially in the back benches, please to be very quiet, otherwise we shall find it very difficult to follow the debate. Technicians are trying to trace the fault.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout covered a wide field and put many questions to the hon. the Minister. I have not the slightest intention of simply trying to answer all these questions.

There are two things which one ought not to do in a debate like this. The first is to drag in personalities when we are talking about relations between South Africa and other nations. I think that it has never been more necessary than it is now, that when our case is put by our representatives, in whatever capital of the world, they must know that the whole of South Africa is behind them while they are putting South Africa’s case there. I do not think that coupling an ambassador, or whoever may fill that post, to anything said by the head of state of the country in which he is ambassador, serves any good purpose. I think that we must accept that our ambassadors, whoever they may be—whether they come from the ranks of the officials or whether they are career diplomats, or whether they are appointed from this House—go abroad with only one aim and that is to present South Africa’s standpoint there in an unbiased manner. I think they are entitled to our wholehearted support, whatever party we belong to in this House. The second standpoint which all of us who are present here this afternoon ought to adopt, is that in the extremely delicate situation which prevails in southern Africa at present, we in this House ought to set an example by not criticizing any population group in any country, because there is a place for everyone in the countries of southern Africa, and as far as foreign policy is concerned, the various parties in this House should, especially at this stage, present a united front on South Africa’s behalf.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the situation which has developed in Rhodesia, and also to statements made by leaders of neighbouring countries. I think it is fitting at this stage for us to say to those leaders what Langenhoven once said to his nation, namely that it is very easy to die, and the worst people manage to do so, but that it is difficult to live and the very best people do not always quite manage it. The worst leader in the world can make and incite war with the greatest ease, but even the very finest leader does not always succeed in making true peaceful co-existence work in practice, especially not here in southern Africa. Therefore it is fitting that whoever wants to act as leader, whatever his nation, must keep a cool head in these circumstances, and should do so when the flame is near the powder barrel too. Sir, from what I myself have seen over the past year in countries which I visited and from conversations I have had with people, it is clear that should a peace prize be given on merit today, the Nobel Prize for peace, I think that one of those who could lay the strongest claim to it, would be Balthazar Johannes Vorster. The fact that he not only tried to rally the leaders in southern Africa and bring them together with regard to Rhodesia, but remained calm even under the utmost provocation, is proof of the fact that he has only one great aim, namely to have the problems which may arise in South Africa as well as the problems in connection with the relationship between South Africa and other nations, settled in a peaceful way. Therefore I think it would be extremely unfitting for South Africa, in view of its particular racial compositions to become involved in what is happening today in Rhodesia or South West Africa. Obviously we shall always be closely involved in this and what happens there will eventually have its influence here in South Africa, too, but I think that we, of all nations, should see to it that South Africa is not bound to any standpoint which may eventually be adopted in any of those two countries. I think that our duty is just this: to see that this extremely difficult situation is settled in only one way, namely, around the peace table. That is why I am of the opinion that all countries of the world, our large trading partners included, must realize that when South Africa says it is not prepared to break off ties with any country, whether we agree with what goes on in that country or not, it does so because we believe that we can live together in peace with all nations, no matter what the political set-up in that country is. Just as we are prepared to act normally towards Rhodesia and carry on calmly, so we shall act towards every country, towards Mozambique too, in spite of the fact that it often makes warlike noises against us. Our standpoint is therefore that we shall do everything from our side to prevent extremely difficult situations from becoming even more difficult. Our one great task is to see to it that a flame never reaches the powder barrel.

But, as the hon. member said, what happens in South Africa will determine what our relations with Africa will be and through this will also determine what our relations with the rest of the world will be. In this connection I think that we should see 1976 as the key year in the political development of South Africa. We can point to many great peaks in our history. However, in October this year we will be faced with a fundamental choice, a choice which, I believe, will not only irrevocably determine relations within South Africa itself but will eventually determine our relations with the rest of the world.

Up to now it has been the aim of our enemies to get their hands on the great potential which South Africa has at its disposal—not only due to its resources, but also due to its key position on the world routes and its immense potential to act as a catalyst as regards development in Africa. Our enemies have begun to realize that power can be attained in two ways. The first way was to alienate South Africa from the rest of the world, especially from its natural allies. The second way was to see to it that a difficult race situation was incited in South Africa, to the point at which an explosion between Black and White would take place. In other words, the tactics were, on the one hand, to isolate South Africa, and on the other hand, to try and upset internal stability. As a result it was necessary for us, as the responsible government, to decide whether to get the world on our side by means of minor gestures, although these minor gestures did not rest on a sound foundation. But the Government decided that these small gestures would never get us anywhere in the world and then made the fundamental decision that really good internal relationships in South Africa could only be brought about if every race was guaranteed a secure future.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to ask you to give the hon. member for Vasco the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for his kind gesture. The year 1976 may therefore become the most important year in the political development of South Africa, not only as far as the position within South Africa itself is concerned, but also as far as our relationships with the rest of Africa and indeed with the rest of the world are concerned. In October this year South Africa makes the choice of giving the Transkeian nation its independence, in the fullest sense of the word, and in this way the foundation is being laid for the elimination, for once and for all, of the fear of domination which existed mutually between Black and White. The question we must now ask ourselves is: How is it possible that we can be optimistic about our future in such an extremely difficult situation? The answer rests upon three truths. The first is that we in South Africa, and indeed in Southern Africa, have sufficient land, so that it ought never to be necessary to have a struggle between different countries in connection with land. In contrast to those parts of the world where nations perhaps have to look around for more hinterland for expansion, no nation in South Africa needs to look beyond its borders, because Providence has indeed given us more land than we can fully exploit of at this stage. Therefore in South Africa and in Southern Africa there ought never to be a struggle about land. This is one of the major plus factors in our favour.

The second important foundation upon which our policy rests, is that every nation will have the choice of free association. If we were to come together around a conference table, as a certain political party suggests, it would mean that the majority group would simply force its will upon the minority groups. This would offer no future for the minority groups in South Africa, and indeed in the long term, for the whole of Southern Africa. It is on this basis alone, viz. of their own free will and while maintaining their own political freedom, that small independent nations in Europe have taken their place alongside larger countries in order to create a European community to further co-operation in the economic sphere. I believe that in the long run, the formula of separate freedoms in South Africa is the only basis on which the nations of South Africa will be able to get anywhere and, if at all possible, may perhaps even go further than Europe has been able to go.

We as Whites and all the smaller Bantu nations in South Africa will never be able to join those who are stronger in numbers, and reach an agreement, a true basis for cooperation. Only after every population group has been given full political freedom is that nation given the opportunity to associate further of their own free will with others in any form of co-operation upon which they may decide. I also believe that the pattern of development which we have seen thus far, namely the establishment of a customs union between the Republic on the one hand and the three former protectorates on the other hand, has led to the closest form of economic co-operation between free nations in the world and that this co-operation can be taken further by the step to be taken in October this year. Indeed, we may find that when the territory, the Transkei, becomes independent from November this year, that a closer relationship will develop between South Africa on the one hand and the Transkei on the other, closer than anything which we have yet seen here in southern Africa, including the customs union which has been established thus far. I therefore believe that the basis of political freedom which leads to economic co-operation, to whatever extent it may develop, guarantees sound future relations between us and the Black nations of South Africa. Every one of us in this House must ask ourselves the question: While these things are unavoidable and this historical step is going to be taken this year, why can we not use this as the foundation for our relations with Africa, as proof that South Africa is not racist and as proof that South Africa is not a relic of the colonial period, but that South Africa wants to show the world that White and Black can co-operate as brothers in future? Why should we, as the political leaders, not call upon the rest of South Africa to determine each in his own sphere, how we can make these ties between the Transkei on the one hand, and South Africa on the other, as close as possible? Why should we not be able to consider this as the foundation of a building and believe that it may become a building of peace in southern Africa which will serve as a model for the rest of the world? I believe that this year will indeed herald the start of a period of true peace in southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the thoughtful contribution which has been made to the debate thus far by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Vasco reflect …

You are horses from the same stable.

… the seriousness of the whole situation relating to foreign affairs and South Africa. I enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Vasco. He made some valid points, although I think he tended to gild the lily a little. The sufficiency of land within an area is not necessarily something which does not lead to conflict. Take the conflict between Algeria and Morocco, or between Eritrea and Ethiopia, or between Somaliland and Kenya. These conflicts are all going over land, although there are vast tracts of land available to each country. It is the distribution of that land which becomes the critical factor. There is, likewise, the question of rich and poor nations living together within one entity. This can be achieved, but I think it can best be achieved where there is a healthy economic balance between the various nations in one region. However, where you get a number of smaller, impoverished nations feeling that they have been done out of their slice of the cake, it is more than likely that tensions will exist.

Nevertheless, I want to leave that aspect because I do believe that all of us in this House are aware of the serious situation which is developing in foreign relationships. The whole issue of violence, which has not been part of southern Africa until recent years, is now a factor which is colouring our politics. We had, during the Angolan escapade, endured a degree of isolation which brought home certain truths to us, and we are aware of the tremendous interest which the rest of the world is showing in southern Africa. Never before has the spotlight of international attention been focused on southern Africa to the extent it is today. After all, we are the most powerful and the leading industrial country in the southern African complex. Dr. Henry Kissinger is winging his way around Africa and is due to make an important announcement in Lusaka this evening. I am surprised that Dr. Henry Kissinger, in a fact-finding mission round Africa, did not decide to include South Africa as one of the countries he should visit. I should have thought that to get a balanced picture of southern Africa and to see the African problem in its true context and from all vantage points, it would have been of benefit to the United States for Dr. Kissinger to have included South Africa in his itinerary. The elation which greeted the pact with Israel, reflected the fact that South Africans, White South Africans, have sensed that there was a feeling of isolation and here, amidst that feeling of isolation, a hand of friendship and of cooperation has been extended to us. I was pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned that he hoped it would be the start of a wider alliance. I am disappointed that some people see this alliance, the prospect of this alliance, in merely negative terms, as an alliance of outcasts thus, in my view, a very negative approach to adopt towards a positive factor in international politics. I hope we shall approach this whole question of extending links with other countries more positively.

During the course of the debate on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote I mentioned countries like Iran and the Ivory Coast, countries which have economies complementary to that of South Africa, are strategically placed and find themselves outside the orbit of the big power blocs. I expressed the hope that it would be possible for South Africa to extend and improve its relationships with countries like these. I believe now is the time where it is appropriate for new groupings to take place in international affairs. It is quite clear that the big power blocs, which have been functioning ever since the end of the last world war, are starting to lose some of their cohesiveness. One sees this on a number of fronts. There is, quite understandably, a tremendous amount of disillusion with the cynicism with which the big powers have manipulated the blocs over which they have control. More and more small nations in the world are becoming irritated at the manipulation that is taking place. Because of the higher price structures, especially in the labour field, there has been a decentralization of industrial development away from the major industrial areas of the world, which has accelerated the movement of certain countries away from the established industrial blocs, into new positions of importance. I think of Brazil, South Africa, Iran, Taiwan and South Korea: All these countries have, in recent times, become important in the field of manufacturing.

With the demise of European colonialism and with that the end of gunboat diplomacy, such as one knew in times gone by, the economically active industrial nations no longer have control over the world’s raw material. This means that those countries who are the suppliers of raw material and of base metals have an important leverage in the field of international affairs. So there has been the loosening of bonds within the big power blocs. The unity of the Western bloc, for instance, was shattered very severely by the events at the end of 1973, with the Yom Kippur War on the one hand and the oil crisis on the other. Quite clearly, with changes that are taking place in Europe and the prospect of leftist control in so important a country as Italy, a question mark hangs over the unity of the Western power bloc. When one looks at the communist bloc, the same thing has happened. It has been split right down the middle by the rise and the official recognition of China, which now stands in the world as a rival, within the communist bloc, with the Soviet Union. So the beginning, the unity, of the communist bloc has been shattered by the rise of China. When one thinks of the Third World, one sees that it has become an uneasy coalition of nations which have little in common, other than the lack of economic development. And so I believe that the stage is well set on an international scene for some regrouping and for a country like South Africa, if it can overcome certain problems, to play an important part in international affairs in the future.

Perhaps it is more important that we should look at Africa, because it is in Africa that important regroupings are taking place. Once colonialism was ended—and it has practically ended in Africa—the cementing factor of anti-colonialism is no longer there to keep the States of Africa together. The term “Organization of African Unity” is becoming merely a title for an organization of countries which show many degrees of disunity. The fact is that for a number of reasons disunity is developing and regroupings are taking place. There is no doubt that the oil crisis of 1973 placed a tremendous strain on the relationship between the Arab States on the one hand and the Black African States on the other. It is quite clear that personalities are becoming important, especially in the case of the present President of the Organization of African Unity, President Idi Amin, and his relationship with individuals, such as President Julius Nyerere and President Kenneth Kaunda. There are border disputes taking place between countries on the African continent. Regional interests are developing. Perhaps one of the most striking examples of regional interest is the fact that last year, in spite of their rejection of separate development and of apartheid in South Africa, it was possible, on the initiative of the South African Government, to get a number of States in South and Central Africa, namely Botswana, Mozambique and Tanzania and Zambia to co-operate with South Africa in trying to create the conditions in which a peaceful settlement for the Rhodesian problem could be found. What has become more manifest in recent times is a clear ideological difference between various African States. One had the situation of the OAU splitting down the middle, in a ratio of 22 to 22, on the question whether they should recognize the pro-Marxist MPLA as the Government of Angola or whether they should recognize a government of national unity. Therefore, in the African field as in the world field, there is less rigidity and greater fluidity.

Up until September 1975, perhaps even going into October 1975, South Africa was making distinct progress in its general relationships with the other States on the African continent. To me this was evident from reading statements in the press of Africa and from my visits to various countries in Africa.

There were certain reasons, certain plus factors, which helped. The hon. the Prime Minister’s initiative on Rhodesia, added to the withdrawal of South African Police from Rhodesia, was a critical factor in improving relationships between South Africa and a number of African states. Then the Government’s handling of the Mozambique independence, in spite of the turmoil in what was then Lourenço Marques and in spite of the desire of some people to set up private mercenary armies, and the South African Government’s attitude of non-intervention made an important impact on a number of States outside of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member for Sea Point an opportunity to finish his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank hon. member and the hon. members on my right for their co-operation in this matter. The statements made by Mr. Pik Botha in the United Nations and the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the Senate, were, to my mind, very important because they made commitments to get rid of discrimination in South Africa. From personal conversations I know that Black leaders around Africa heard that and were full of expectancy. They have been waiting to see what was going to happen. There has also been a general concern in Africa about the threat of Russian imperialism. All these factors have been plus factors working in our direction when it comes to improving relationships between ourselves and the rest of Africa.

However, there has been a number of minus factors, over some of which we had no control. In the Rhodesian situation, where the negotiations, through no fault of the South African Government, have gone sour, one has the situation that there is not only tremendous disappointment, but also the threat that violence is the only way of resolving the problem. Nevertheless, it has had a detrimental effect on South Africa/African relationships. The South West African talks are proceeding. There have been encouraging moves away from discrimination within South West Africa, but the thought still lingers on—and it has been expressed time and time again by African leaders outside of South Africa—that those talks are still too closely structured on the ethnic lines involved in the Government’s separate development policy. There is no use in our arguing about this. This is in fact the case. Sir Seretse Khama only a few days ago drew attention to this point. I believe that somehow or other the South African Government will have to find its way out of this particular dilemma, because it is a factor that is troubling relationships between ourselves and other countries.

What dilemma are you referring to?

I shall reply in due course. The hon. member will appreciate that at this moment my time is limited. Sir, I want to say, too, that there is a disillusionment setting in that the promise or undertaking given by ambassador Pik Botha and in the subsequent speech by the Prime Minister that we would do everything in our power to get rid of race discrimination, has not been fulfilled in the spirit in which it was given or to the letter of the word. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned President Tolbert, who said that he is not seeing sufficient progress and that he does therefore not want to enter into any more dialogue. Then there is President Senghor, who is also adopting the approach that until there is a change in the direction in which a commitment was given, he does not want to have any more communication with us. I agree; I believe that the African States must have been sorely disappointed at the lack of drive, thrust, purpose and direction in the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister dealing with this question during the course of his Vote.

But, Mr. Chairman, when I have said all these things, we must also face up to one other fact, whether we like it or not, and that is that none of these things has been as damaging to détente in recent times as South Africa’s involvement in the Angolan civil war. One can argue the pros and cons of that involvement. We believe it was an error of judgment and we believe that it has had a detrimental effect on relationships between South Africa and the rest of the African continent. Granted, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was speaking at an election meeting in Durban, but he put the contrary point of view. I quote from the following report—

Now, Mr. Chairman, one can make allowances for the fact that this was an election meeting, and the hon. the Minister can reply to this in due course, but I want to know from him whether he can tell us which countries in Africa he was referring to when he said that our contacts with those countries have been consolidated. Will he tell us with which country our contacts have been consolidated, and will he tell us in which countries we have developed new contacts? I would hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to persuade us that our relationships with Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Senegal and Liberia have all been improved as a result of our involvement in that civil war. I do not say it has destroyed détente, because I do not believe that something which is worthwhile can ever be completely destroyed, but I believe that it has been a serious setback and that it has lost South Africa a number of valuable years. At the United Nations, too, there have been events which were referred to by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, where, I think most regrettably, South Africa has now been accused of being an aggressor in respect of Angola. There was the 9 : 0 vote against us. I am not surprised that the nine countries which voted that way, voted the way in which they did. Many of them have been traditionally hostile to South Africa. It was interesting also to note that communist China declined to vote. Perhaps it was because that country found itself with South Africa, supporting one of the so-called liberation movements. What is, however, a matter of concern for me and, I would hope, for hon. members opposite, is that five Western countries, virtually our biggest trading nations, declined to vote against the accusation that was made. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is good enough to say, “Hulle was bang.” I think we have to argue this out. There may have been all kinds of political factors, but it becomes very difficult to believe that five countries like that would all stand back and allow South Africa to be condemned. A year ago they used their veto to protect us from actions mandated to be taken against us by the Security Council.

On this occasion, not only did France, the United Kingdom and America not protect us with their veto, but they proceeded to criticize us openly for our activities in that particular war. What they did there prompted a statement by the hon. the Minister of Defence to the effect that perhaps the time had come to tell the whole story. I would suggest very seriously to this hon. Minister or to the hon. the Minister of Defence that I believe the time has come to tell the whole story, because as matters stand at the moment there is confusion and contradiction. There are conflicting stories coming from within the Cabinet itself and there are very conflicting stories coming from Government spokesmen within this House and our ambassador, Mr. Pik Botha, who is, in my opinion, doing a spirited job on behalf of South Africa in New York. I think this conflict situation and these contradictions are leading to a lack of credibility on the part of the Government. Nobody knows who to believe or what to believe in this matter.

I want to refer very briefly to the statement made by our ambassador, Mr. Pik Botha, before the Security Council. He made two revelations on behalf of South Africa, revelations which seemed to be—and I use this phrase advisedly—in conflict with what has been officially stated before. One of the revelations was to the effect that the villains of the piece at the Calueque Dam and Ruacana were not the MPLA but, in effect, Unita. He says very clearly—

Furthermore Unita elements hold meetings in the joint project and propagate the taking over of the project by Unita. That was in April. There were then messages to the then Portuguese administration. He continued by saying—

It is important to know whether we were, in fact, chasing the MPLA and the Cubans away from the dam or whether the people referred to by the ambassador at the United Nations were in fact Unita supporters. This is tremendously important, because here is a clear conflict between what ambassador Botha said at the United Nations and what we were told in this House.

Secondly, we were told that there was a risk of a communist take-over because of the incursion of Cuban and Russian forces. This may well have been the case, but what disturbs me is what ambassador Pik Botha had to say. He said that the South African Government, way back in September, got the very clear impression that the Portuguese were going to hand over to the MPLA. In other words, what he was saying was that the arrangement, as far as we could ascertain, was that the Portuguese administration intended handing over to the MPLA. I could quote the relevant passage, but I think the hon. the Minister is aware of this. He said that it was quite clear that we were asked to stay there at the dam until there was a take-over by the new Government of Angola and, referring to the Portuguese High Commissioner, he implied that that would be the MPLA. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have had a rare experience in the sense that this is the first time we know of that the PRP has been nearly out-progressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. However, fortunately for him, the hon. member for Sea Point realized that and in the last furlong won by a short head. I just want to tell them both that it is not a question of throwing stones. It is not a question of who is throwing the stones; it is a question of who is starting to build with them, and that is what this Government is trying to do all the time. It is trying to use every possible stone to build for South Africa.

*I think it is essential that we should pay a brief tribute to our hon. the Minister and his department in this debate. I think that there are few nations who are as privileged as we are, in the sense that so few people achieved so much in such a short time and under such difficult circumstances. I think we can really say a little more than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who spoke of a “few limited successes’. I believe that I am speaking on behalf of South Africa when I say that we are highly appreciative of the work done by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs together with his head of department and other officials both inside and outside South Africa. [Interjections.]

Over the past 25 years, a large group of nations in Africa have received total independence. On the one hand they have been freed from the yoke of colonialism and imperialism and, on the other hand, their nationalism has once again developed. These countries felt a need to hold their own against their previous masters as well as against one another and against the super powers. As a result of that need they turned to UNO. In order to win their voting power, these nations were singled out in the most reckless political manipulation in history. They were manipulated to the ideological and material benefits of certain super nations. In the chaotic conditions of violence, tyranny, terrorism and instability in Africa, however, a voice was often heard from the southernmost tip of Africa. That voice could not have been clearer than on 23 October 1974 on the occasion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the Other Place. Therefore I should like to return to that speech and once again emphasize the positive and not only display the negative, fatalistic approach displayed by the hon. members on the other side who have already participated in the debate.

I begin with the hon. the Prime Minister’s final paragraph which reads as follows (Senate Hansard, 1974, Vol. II, col. 3345)—

As against that we have the alternative, the alternative which means “humiliation, destruction and suppression”. In that speech the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the realities of Africa in which the Africa States must find themselves and which they have to face. The first reality he mentioned, is that Africa’s population is increasing constantly at a rate of 2,9% per year. He went on to say that more employment opportunities must be created for the constantly increasing population of the continent. If increased employment opportunities are not created in a country while the population is continually increasing, such a country will have to be provided with food. The best food any country can obtain, is that which it cultivates itself. While the population of Africa increases by approximately 3% per year, its food production has only increased by 2,3% per year over the past few years. I read in an article recently that Tanzania, which is an agricultural country, had to import approximately 10 million tons of food for its 7,5 million people last year.

Capital is necessary in order for the Africa States to be able to develop so that they can utilize their natural resources. Such capital can only be spent if the required know-how exists concerning the utilization of Africa’s unknown natural resources. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly pointed out that we who are grateful for what Africa has given us, are prepared to plough back into Africa a certain portion of what we have received over the years. For us it is not only a question of giving, because there are so many things which Africa can give to us. One thinks of the employment opportunities which we create in our country for citizens of the other Africa States. At the moment, approximately 0,5 million citizens of other African countries are employed in our country. There is also the question of trade. Since 1970 our imports from Africa have increased from R131 million to R254 million per year. Our exports to African countries increased from R263 million in 1970 to R429 million in 1975. This testifies to the cooperation which exists. South Africa, which is not a wealthy country, cannot afford to get from a strange country thousands of kilometres away from us that which is able to obtain from a neighbouring state. It is all very well helping one’s neighbour to make a plough to grow wheat with, but I do not know of any gun which has ever been able to plant maize. Nor have I ever heard of a terrorist who left his fellow-man in peace and helped him plant a tree. We have recently adopted legislation in principle here in terms of which a medical university for southern Africa will be established. In this connection too we are prepared to help other countries and not only the countries within our borders. Therefore I believe that Africa will understand.

The hon. the Prime Minister also made it quite clear in his speech in October that all these things would mean nothing unless there was a stable government in our neighbouring states and other Africa States. This is not asking too much. The countries in southern Africa know what the consequences of stability are, on the one hand, and what they can expect from Marxist imperialism, on the other hand. Many people have expressed their opinions in this regard. Solzhenitsyn spoke from Russia itself. In the case of Hungary there were thousands of refugees and in the case of Yugoslavia two million of the 4½ million Croats fled. Those who remained, have been brought down to the lowest level of humanity. Over the weekend there was also a report that the President of the Ivory Coast had spoken out on this matter. If one takes these things into consideration, if Africa considers the future and the progress and development of Marxist Russia, I am convinced that only human corpses, chaos and suppression will remain and that the only country who will be laughing, will be Marxist Russia. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, our position and continued existence in Southern Africa has been dramatically and inexorably placed in the international limelight by certain changes in the form of government in our neighbouring states, by tension in other neighbouring states, by a build-up of Russian arms, by the presence of between 12 000 and 15 000 Cuban troops near our borders and by other factors. Further spectacular developments on our sub-continent, developments in which these arms and troops will probably play a role, must certainly be expected if one can take the communists at their word. A few weeks ago Isvestia, a Russian Government newspaper, reported that the Soviet Union would actively and purposefully support the growing anti-imperialistic unit of freedom-loving African States. In Cuba’s new Constitution too, special reference is made to Cuba’s international duty to assist people who are fighting for their freedom.

We learned important lessons from the Angola episode. These lessons have already been pointed out. Firstly we saw in this a demonstration of the pathetic inability or unwillingness of the Western world to take steps against Russian aggression. Furthermore, the truth was once again confirmed that South Africa cannot and must not rely on other countries in a moment of crisis, but that we have to stand upon our own feet. While we must accept this state of affairs as a reality— after all we have no moral right to demand military help from another nation—there is also another reality of which the Western world and particularly the USA must take cognizance, namely that the Russian arms build-up in Southern Africa is aimed at bringing about a red corridor across the African continent from the Indian ocean to the Atlantic ocean so that Russia can isolate South Africa and eventually dominate it. In this way, indispensable raw materials and strategic advantages would be lost to the West. A truth which the USA in particular must realize, is that not one of these threatened countries in Southern Africa has the ability effectively to oppose on the long term the practically unlimited military resources and the power of the Soviet Union. Therefore, Russian enslavement of southern Africa can only be effectively combated and prevented on the long term by another superpower, i.e. either the USA or Red China. Therefore it is important for South Africa to know what the policy of the USA is as far as this country is concerned, so that we can make our plans accordingly.

Since time is a valuable factor, we would like to know where we stand in respect of the new tendency towards isolationism which is again manifesting itself in the USA. After Korea and Vietnam it seems as if the USA has suddenly become tired of playing the policeman of the world—“to make the world safe for democracy”. It seems as if the USA now wants to go back to a new isolationism like that of the Monroe era.

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what, in his opinion, the implications of such a tendency will be for South Africa, as well as for southern Africa. I would also like to know how this would affect our foreign policy and our relationship with the USA. Surely, the USA must realize that South Africa offers certain strategic advantages to it, that the Cape sea route is important to it and that the strategic raw materials which it will need to an increasing extent in the future, are worthwhile for it. If the USA does not realize this, there will be other states who will appreciate the advantages of this. Therefore it is inexplicable to me that the USA can exercise a weapon boycott against South Africa—a trusted ally in two world wars, and the same trusted ally today—and in this way place unnecessary arbitrary obstacles in our way, while we are trying to defend ourselves against communist aggressors in Africa. By this inexplicable refusal to provide us with the necessary weapons for our defence against aggressors from outside, the USA is, as it were, tying our hands behind our back and playing into the hands of communism.

The hon. the Prime Minister repeated in this House a week ago that 1976 would be a watershed year for southern Africa.

†Mr. Chairman, I believe it is necessary to point out that 1976 will also be a most crucial year, a watershed, for the Western world. The West should realize that South Africa is today by far the most important stronghold of Western culture on the continent of Africa, and therefore, the most important stronghold against Russian imperialism in Africa. If the Western way of life should disappear, as will happen if South African is conquered by the Russians, the strategic value of the Cape sea route and the vast quantities of raw materials and mineral wealth, which the West so badly needs, will be irreparably lost to them. If the West should lose South Africa it will lose the whole of Africa, and after that it will only be a matter of time before Western European countries will fall to Russian aggression, because Western Europe is dependent on the Cape sea route for more than 70% of its raw materials and other commodities.

Of course, the West had a golden opportunity to counter Russian expansion in Africa and to gain the respect and the admiration of African states, if it had the courage to fight on the side of the majority of Angolans against Russian and Cuban aggression. A Western victory in Angola would have badly harmed Russian prestige in Africa, and would have boosted the image of the West. It would, indeed, have won Africa for the West. Unfortunately, the West seems to have lost the will to fight, the will to survive, the will to counter Russian expansionism, and resultingly it has sacrificed the Black people of Angola to Russian colonialism and has delivered one of the richest countries—rich in minerals and other wealth—on a plate to Russia and Cuba.

Now, Sir, Western statesmen console themselves by arguing that African socialism would never accept communism, and that therefore the Russians would never really gain any ground in Africa. What a naïve argument! It is, for instance, a fact that 85% of the population of Eastern European countries who have been under Russian domination for upwards of 30 years, are still today strongly opposed to communism. What can they do, however? The first sign of protest leads one to a Siberian labour camp or before a firing squad. This will happen in Africa, too, whether they accept communism or not. Angola, I wish to repeat, was a golden opportunity lost, not only in the struggle for Africa, but also in the struggle against Russian world domination. Western reliability and moral courage in international affairs must surely have reached a sad new ebb during the subsequent proceedings in the Security Council, where the three major Western powers not only left South Africa in the lurch, by their decision not to vote against the motion against us, and not only condoned Russian and Cuban aggression in Angola by their silence, but also gave their blessing to hypocrisy, lies and double standards. If the U.S.A. had hoped that by sacrificing South Africa she would be able to cover up her own involvement and could salvage some credit in the eyes of Black Africa, then I think it was a bad miscalculation, as Dr. Henry Kissinger may find out on his current African safari. In his efforts to outbid the communists for the favour of African leaders, Dr. Kissinger will most probably find that whatever he is prepared to offer in material aid and financial aid will be willingly accepted because Africa needs everything it can get, but he must also know that in the final instance Africa is only impressed by positive action, by military success, by force and strength. Unless he is prepared to measure up to Soviet military power in Africa, unless he can convince African States that the U.S.A. will give them an undertaking to protect them effectively against Russian military aggression, he will have little success. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Brentwood and Algoa have expressed their views on a variety of matters which I shall not reply to immediately, but with some of which I shall deal in the course of my speech now, and perhaps again later in the afternoon if I have another opportunity. The hon. member for Brentwood, however, reproached the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for not expressing sufficient thanks and appreciation to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Now, we are very ready to express our thanks and appreciation to the Department of Foreign Affairs. We are aware of the dedication and skill which they apply to their work, and I want to say to the hon. member for Brentwood that when we criticize policy, when we criticize shortcomings, we do not intend thereby to reflect on particular people. A good part of the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs, in the nature of things, consist of a sort of compensation for weaknesses in Government policy and other difficulties which arise, and it is by no means their fault or a reflection on them if they are not in every case successful in fully compensating for those difficulties.

I turn now to what I believe has been a theme accepted broadly on both sides of this House, and that is the theme of interdependence in southern Africa. This, we have argued over the years, is the real base of our security and a springboard of diplomatic progress in Africa and, through Africa, outward to other countries. I believe that this theme can hardly be exaggerated or overemphasized, because it is this region in which we live, it is this region in which we will have to find our future, and it is this region and the attitude of its members towards us that make a difference to us in the first instance between peace and war, and I believe that with their goodwill and co-operation on the basis of a common prosperity and a common interdependence, we can in fact establish the base for a new deal, a new look, a new status in the international community. There is a logical progression in these things, Sir. We must move from our own local region outward into Africa and through Africa into the world.

Government spokesmen have indeed paid lip service to this concept. We have on the occasion of previous debates in this House agreed that this is a logical way to proceed. But we must say, to our regret, that in recent times there has been little evidence of systematic progress in the planning of constructive development in this direction. We believe that the matter is so urgent that at every opportunity and on every occasion where it is possible to lay a brick in the building of southern African interdependence, that opportunity should not be lost; and if the opportunity has been found, that opportunity should be made known. It should be advertised; it should be put out as a positive achievement, because on that basis will we build confidence and security and will we build the type of prestige and status which are absolutely essential to South Africa in the present state of our international relations.

Sir, there may well be merit in other pacts and other agreements. The pact with Israel obviously has very considerable merit, and I would be the last to underrate it in any way. There may even be merit in a pact with a country such as Paraguay; less discernible, perhaps, but let us accept it as having some content. There is merit in talks with the Ivory Coast, and we would be the first to recognize that, and perhaps a little less obviously in the case of the Central African Republic. But it takes many bricks to make a building, and we do not wish to be unduly critical of these particular pacts which tend not to follow precisely the logical pattern we have in mind. They are part of a wider and more scattered diplomatic pattern. We cannot always see the precise logic of such alliances and their value to each other. There was talk recently in this House of an alliance of middle powers, as though we were moving towards a new kind of deal in international relations which would exclude the great powers and exclude the Third World and create a new force consisting of the middle powers. Now, this is a very romantic idea, but I think that in its application we would find it was too widely dispersed. It would be too vague and impracticable and too theoretical in concept, and in fact most of the countries concerned for one or other reason would not fit the bill. We should in fact be hearing more about what is happening closer to home. What, in fact, is going on in our relations with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, with Angola, with Mozambique, with Rhodesia, with Malawi, and with Zambia? These are the countries closest to us and we hear with regret that things are not going very well. We have disquieting news and we read disquieting reports. Angola was something of a test case. Angola, or the aftermath of Angola, brought home very sharply to us that these countries with whom we have been practising détente, with whom we have undertaken to build interdependence, are in fact extremely critical of us. I have personally heard remarks made both in Botswana and in Swaziland which I find very disquieting indeed in the degree of hostility and criticism expressed towards South Africa and its policies. There recently have been speeches in UNO, in the Security Council, by Zambia, which was alleged or believed to have asked for our support in respect of Angola, criticizing us very severely for our aggression in that territory. There was a remark by Sir Seretse Khama very recently to the effect that South Africa does not practise what she preaches; that she is constantly trying to organize conferences but will not put her own domestic affairs right.

This is the voice of our neighbours, our partners in southern Africa. I believe that if these are the noises they are making, something is very seriously wrong. Therefore we ask the hon. the Minister what real progress and what constructive steps are being taken towards implementing this ideal and necessity of a greater interdependence. These things are the basic elements of our defence and security in southern Africa. The South African economy, South African economists, entrepreneurs and investors, need positive evidence in order to plan ahead and to invest confidently for the good of South Africa and for the region. Africa and the world also need positive evidence so that they may better respect our potential, pay more attention to what we say and give greater credence to our claims. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs murmurs discreetly about secret talks in secret places. We have heard him in similar debates in this House before, but his murmurs do not serve the purpose I have mentioned. We need to hear more clearly and more firmly what is going on because there is a need for confidence and for a degree of open diplomacy in order to establish our place in the world. The murmurs of the hon. the Minister do not serve this purpose any more than the bombast we have heard from some others, hon. Ministers included, who clearly do not know the full implications of what they are saying. Angola, in retrospect, is evidence of South Africa’s ad hoc reactions to a series of events. In retrospect, admittedly with hind-sight, we can say that some of the events which took place were unexpected, some were probably wrongly evaluated, but very few were fully consistent with a systematic long-term plan for southern Africa. The hon. the Minister of the Interior spoke the other day about a balance of benefits which arose from the Angolan situation. What hidden proof has he of a balance of benefits when nearly all the available evidence is in the negative? All the countries which are most directly concerned, who should be our partners in interdependence, are speaking extremely critically of us. They did not come to our aid when the business had to be done. When the business had been done, they repudiated us in public. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to refer in detail to the remarks made by the hon. member who resumed his seat a moment ago. However, I should like to refer to his remark from which I gathered that he is sceptical about the fact that consideration be given to particular medium-sized countries in the world to form themselves into a group. I shall come to that later. The hon. member is sceptical about this idea and he is of the opinion that South Africa should give more attention to her immediate neighbours. As far as I am concerned, I believe that South Africa should give a great deal of attention to her immediate neighbours. It is a fact that unpleasant voices are heard on their part from time to time, but as against that we have just had the situation that the son of the President of Botswana was hospitalized in South Africa. I think he is still here at the moment. These countries use South Africa’s facilities. Quite recently we noted in the Press that a ministerial deputation from Swaziland visited the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It seems to me as if our relations with Lesotho are better than they used to be some time ago. What more does the hon. member want done? Does he want one to sit with one’s arm around the neck of one’s immediate neighbours from morning till night and stare one blind on them? Should one not look further than merely one’s immediate neighbours? As in other spheres, we have also seen that fine progress has been made recently by the Department of this hon. the Minister as far as South Africa’s foreign relations are concerned. South Africa’s foreign relations figured quite prominently, locally as well as overseas, since the last discussion of this Vote. There were occasions on which our hon. the Prime Minister himself had a share in this, but he always had the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs at his side.

Apart from that we are aware of the earnestness and devotion with which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is fulfilling his task. I want to associate myself with what was said by one of my colleagues by saying that I also believe that we should really congratulate the hon. the Minister on the manner in which he, to a large extent, normalizes South Africa’s relations in Africa as well as in the rest of the world, and on the progress he is making in this regard. We have a long and difficult road behind us since Gen. Smuts referred to the walls of prejudice he came up against at UNO. I believe that the road we have to travel in future will be long and difficult, because the walls of prejudice have been built up over many years and are based on intense feelings people have against South Africa. I do not think we shall make the road that lies ahead any easier by constantly harping on what we, through petty political eyes, regard as shortcomings in the policy of the NP Government. I do not think that specific groups, parties and newspapers make it any easier. On the contrary; they often place obstacles in the way of the attempts made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department.

In the first half of his speech the hon. member for Sea Point dealt, in a very positive manner, with the activities of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately he had to return to the favourite tune he and his party like to sing at the moment, i.e. the Angolan question. Of course, they burnt their fingers initially by taking sides against the Government from the outset concerning the Government’s actions in Angola. They now feel themselves compelled to justify their standpoint. I do not think it was just and fair of them to ask the hon. the Minister—and I do not want to reply now on behalf of the hon. the Minister—to declare publicly with which countries South Africa has consolidated its position as a result of the Angola question and with which new countries contacts were made. To my mind this is a very unreasonable question to ask at this stage.

For the remainder of my speech I want to deal with what I regard as certain consequences as the result of the visit of the hon. the Prime Minister to Israel. The visit to Israel was really a historic visit in more than one respect. What struck me, was the spirit of friendliness, cordiality and particularly frankness in which the visit took place. Both our hon. the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Israel must have given thought to the fact that they were going to incur the disfavour of others by, on the one hand, inviting and accepting the invitation on the other. Nevertheless, the visit was proceeded with. To me a particular aspect of the visit was the fact that non-communist countries—although the governing party of the one is socialist and that of the other non-socialist—were able to improve relations between them in this spirit and in this manner. Both Prime Ministers referred to this aspect. According to Die Burger of 8 April 1976 Prime Minister Rabin had the following to say at a Cabinet meeting—

Our Prime Minister also referred to this aspect last week. He said, inter alia—

What do we find here? After all, we find the most elementary rule of neighbourliness and friendship, i.e. that a country’s domestic affairs are its own concern. It ought not disturb relations between States. As a matter of fact, such relations could, notwithstanding different isms, be of such an open and cordial nature as has just been illustrated between Israel and South Africa. South Africa has never regarded herself as an opposite pole for a non-communist country with a socialist government. As a matter of fact, the present South African Government has relations with several socialist governments and this should not prevent our relations with those governments from being placed on the same basis as our relationship with Israel.

I also believe that this has always been South Africa’s attitude against African countries. South Africa has never told Africa: “Because you do not have a Westminster-type of Parliament, or because you are one-party States, or because you are military dictatorships, we want to have nothing to do with you.” On the contrary. South Africa knew and accepted from the outset that Western democracy would probably not be practical for Africa, and she also accepts that it is not necessarily practical for all countries in the world.

I also believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should be heartily congratulated on his idea that attempts should be made to bring together the medium-sized countries of the world in order to enable them to consider matters of common interest. There are many such medium-sized countries, and there are many spheres in respect of which they can consult one another and conclude sound agreements. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw attention for a moment to South Africa’s relationship with the countries in the Far East. On this occasion one would have like to deal with more than one of these countries, but since time does not allow this, I should like to confine myself to the ties which exist between South Africa and the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan and, earlier, Formosa. As long ago as during the years 1904 to 1906, when China was still on the continent, South Africa had trade and diplomatic relations with China. However, this only applied for two years. South Africa herself was never represented in Peking, but since 1952 Taiwan has been represented in South Africa and, since September 1967, South Africa has been represented in Taipeh.

Taiwan is but a small country, it is approximately 36 000 square kilometres in extent. It is approximately only half the size of the Orange Free State. However, what is important, is that 16 million people are living in such a small territory. From the nature of the case Taiwan has to be very densely populated. One may probably explain this by way of an example. Australia is 200 times the size of Taiwan and Australia has only 13,5 million people. Nevertheless, Taiwan is growing very fast economically, particularly over the last two decades. One can attribute this mainly to the fact that these people have to work awfully hard. One can appreciate that where 16 million people are living in such a small territory, they have to work very hard. In this case and in this sphere the Chinese of Taiwan serve as a very positive example to us in South Africa. As far as agriculture is concerned, farming has to take place on a very intensive scale because there is not much land, and they mainly grow rice, sugar and potatoes, which are the staple food. As far as field husbandry is concerned, we do not find any cattle or sheep there as we have here, but they are farming with pigs and poultry on an intensive scale. Hon. members who want to visit Taipeh and do not eat pork, will have to be prepared to pay very dearly for imported portions from South America and Australasia.

The country has what we call in South Africa a democratic republic and although a Prime Minister is in charge of the Cabinet, the President, the late President Chiang Kai Shek, was really the Chief of State for many years. Until his death last year, this man sacrificed everything for the freedom—and here I mean freedom from communism—of his people and his fatherland. For that reason Taiwan is one of the strongest anti-communist bastions in the Free World. We regard it as a privilege for the previous speaker to have been able to attend the funeral of this great leader of Taiwan.

Taiwan is indeed one of South Africa’s fastest growing trade partners when one considers that, in 1965, the trade between Taiwan and South Africa amounted to approximately R1,5 million as far as exports to Taiwan were concerned, while imports to South Africa amounted to R1,3 million. Recently South Africa concluded a trade treaty with Taiwan, after which the figures increased phenomenally so that we exported goods to the value of R24,8 million to Taiwan in 1974 while importing goods to the value of R15,4 million from Taiwan. Probably these figures are not as spectacular as the increase we experienced between 1974 and 1975. Whereas South Africa’s exports to Taiwan amounted to R24,8 million at the end of 1974, it amounted to R50,6 million at the end of 1975, as against Taiwan’s exports to South Africa which increased from R15,4 million to R19 million. Therefore, it is quite clear that Taiwan is a very favourable trade partner. One can imagine what can be achieved in future as far as better relations with Taiwan are concerned, should it be possible for this trade to be stimulated and expanded even further.

While I am speaking about the Far East, the question may be posed as to why I am referring to Taiwan and not, for example, to Japan or Thailand. We already have diplomatic relations on consul-general level with Japan, while we have virtually no relations with Thailand, in respect of which I should have liked to say something more had my time not been so limited. Maybe it will be possible to give attention to these matters at a later stage. Why I am concentrating on Taiwan today, is that I want to make a plea and want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Has the time not arrived that we and the Republic of China should exchange diplomats on ambassador’s level? This may sound to be a far-reaching step, but I should like to support my plea on the basis of the following six points. Firstly, Taiwan has a strong pro-Western government which is fully aware of the communist threat and which, we believe, is also capable of defending itself militarily. One should not go into the military strength of other countries, but Thailand has quite a significant Defence Force as far as manpower and sophisticated weapons are concerned. Secondly, Taiwan has one of the highest growth rates in the world and mention is already being made of Japan in miniature. At present Taiwan is concentrating particularly on electronics sphere and precision engineering. Thirdly, Taiwan is a natural trade partner for South Africa, because Taiwan needs our raw materials while we in turn provide them with a market for selectively manufactured goods. In other words, our economies are complementary in many spheres.

Fourthly, as far as its foreign policy is concerned, South Africa has begun to adopt a completely Afro-centric attitude in recent times. As such she made available unconditionally her knowledge and research results and experience to all African States prepared to make use of it. One need only think of institutions such as the Bureau of Standards, and the assistance it renders in the sphere of standardization in Africa; the CSIR and its research results which are freely available to African States, and the other classic example, medicines and vaccines manufactured at Onderstepoort. Likewise, Taiwan tries to make a positive contribution in Africa as far as technical assistance is concerned. Particularly in countries such as Lesotho and Malawi, and even Senegal, general use is made of the intensive agricultural methods practised in Taiwan.

Fifthly, both South Africa and Taiwan are to a certain extent experiencing problems with the organized international community. For that reason I believe greater understanding exists for one anothers problems. It is probably quite by chance that in both Parliaments three political parties are represented, but it is probably not quite a coincidence that the National Party forms the Government in both countries.

Sir, I should like to conclude by dealing with my sixth point. To my mind this is the most important reason why there can be better understanding between us and Taiwan. I am referring to the fact that we have our own Chinese community in South Africa. In other words, Sir, we already have a historic link with Taiwan, the Republic of China. There are approximately 12 000 Chinese in South Africa. The majority of them are concentrated in the Eastern Cape, but large numbers are spread throughout South Africa. We know these people as a dignified, stable component of our community. They are a group of people leading a quiet and dignified life, people who are seldom, if ever, in the limelight. They are people with a civilization of their own. Mr. Chairman, the question I want to pose is the following: Has the time not arrived that we, in the interest of improved relations with the East, should introduce a new dispensation for our own Chinese in South Africa? In saying this, I mean that we should de jure perpetuate that which we already accept de facto in South Africa so that the Chinese of South Africa may play a more important and more meaningful role in institutions such as our Public Service and even in our Defence Force. Sir, I believe if we were to do this, it would have positive advantages for us in future in developing our foreign relations with the East even further.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East should be congratulated on a particularly interesting and positive contribution. We most strongly support his request. The hon. member for Waterkloof put a question to me, and asked what more could be done to develop our relations in southern Africa. I should like to comply with his request.

†Mr. Chairman, the most obvious way in which we can improve our relations in southern Africa is clearly to improve the pace of development and the rate of progress in South West Africa. It is so obviously the key to our progress everywhere else that this is a topic which should enjoy the highest priority in the conduct of our foreign affairs. The Territory’s importance and its vulnerability have been accentuated and emphasized by what has happened in Angola. If ever there were any doubt as to the vulnerability of the situation in South West Africa, the vulnerability of our own claim to administer South West Africa, the importance of being able to maintain a rate of momentum and progress there which will in fact disembarrass us of the eventual consequences of not moving towards self-determination and independence, then the events in Angola have served to emphasize precisely those points.

The importance and urgency of the matter have been further accentuated by the continued presence of foreign communists in Angola. Never in the history of South Africa since the Act of Union has there, in my belief, been so critical a situation on our northern frontiers as has been brought about by the presence of communists in Angola. To what extent is the line of planning and development in respect of South West Africa being determined by our overriding security and long-term interests in southern Africa as a whole, and to what extent are they still bound up with considerations and expediencies of a purely local nature? The potential impact of a successful solution is so obvious in relation to the United Nations, in determining our relations with our main Western trading partners, in relation to southern Africa, Africa, Rhodesia and the Rhodesian situation. In all these various spheres the position in regard to South West Africa plays a highly influential and important part, and therefore I believe that for all these reasons we should see quick progress towards a solution of the South West African issue as being of the utmost priority. It is not a matter that should be determined in terms of local political issues, either here in South Africa or in South West Africa. The major objective should be none other than the long-term common good to us in southern Africa.

We welcome the constitutional talks, even if we think they are too slow. We wish, however, we could see a little more evidence of the fact that a speedy solution is not merely being treated as a local matter to be achieved within the local exigencies of the situation, but rather as a keystone to the further construction of our policy of interdependence and mutual support in southern Africa. It is along this essential route that we will find our way through the maze of difficulties surrounding us at the present time.

The hon. member for Waterkloof has asked me to furnish examples of what we can do in southern Africa. Although I think South West Africa is important, I want to mention something else that I also think is important. I have spoken during other debates on this Vote of the structural elements of southern African interdependence. We have spoken here of water, power, transport, investment, technical aid, mutual security agreements against communist intervention and so forth. On Friday the hon. the Prime Minister raised this matter to which I now wish to refer. He said, and I quote—

We agree entirely that Walvis Bay does belong to South Africa. As far as I am aware there is no dispute in South Africa about that situation.

When we come to consider how we are going to handle this situation, however, we should again, as I have suggested throughout my remarks today, have regard to the broader southern African context which I believe is the framework of our diplomatic policy. Would it not be wise to consider altering the status of Walvis Bay into that of a free port under South African control, a free port for the use of all the landlocked countries of southern Africa?

I have in mind a free port such as we have seen in other parts of the world. The concept is familiar because we have Hong Kong, Tangiers and other places. Free ports are of tremendous trading value and are enormously enriching the countries to which they belong. However, their duty is to provide special transit—entrepots—and trading rights to the various countries which have no ports or inadequate ports of their own. They should provide those services with immunity from local customs and with special international status for the business community that lives there. There should also be long-term guarantees of that status in order to justify the considerable development, investment, growth of transport routes and so forth which will be directed to such a port. We are aware of the lack of harbours in southern Africa. We know the precarious position of countries like Botswana, Zambia and Rhodesia which are deprived of direct access to the sea. They depend on other people’s harbours and other people’s railways.

My suggestion for the consideration of the hon. the Minister is that serious attention should be given to the possibility of turning Walvis Bay into an international free port as a special contribution to solving the problems of the land-locked countries of southern Africa, as a special contribution to the economy of southern Africa and as a special gesture which will give some stimulus to the concept of interdependence which I believe is so important.

If one looks at the map, one finds that from Walvis Bay there are railways which run as far as Tsumeb, Gobabis and Grootfontein. These rail-spurs point towards Central Africa; they point towards the Caprivi Strip, Botswana, Zambia and Rhodesia, the very countries which we have in mind as the land-locked areas. The distance between these rail-heads and the point of connection to the north/south Rhodesia/Zambia railway line is a matter of some 500 miles. I am assured by railway experts that there are no great technical or physical difficulties in the way of building such lines; it is a matter of economics, politics and a desire to create something which can be of benefit to southern Africa, and through southern Africa to benefit us reciprocally once again. Five hundred miles is shorter than most of the major rail links in Africa; it is no great distance in comparison, for example, with the Benguela railway which some land-locked countries are in fact obliged to use—if and when it is open.

I believe that this is a further example of the kind of constructive development which could build up in southern Africa: an interdependence which will obviate the kind of hostility which to some extent was removed but which is now beginning to spring up again and which I believe must again be obviated in order to re-establish in southern Africa the kind of springboard from which we can launch a positive diplomatic offensive from southern Africa through Africa into the world. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the criticism which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed in regard to the appointment of a former member of this House as Ambassador in Paris reminded me involuntarily of the objection which he raised at the time when we also appointed another member of the House of Assembly as Ambassador to the USA, as well as our Permanent Representative to the UNO. That appointment has since proved to be a very good one, i.e. the appointment in Washington and in New York and there are, incidentally, precedents from the past for one and the same person occupying both those positions. The circumstances vary from time to time, and under the present circumstances the appointment of Mr. Botha as Ambassador and Permanent Representative is working very well indeed. For the present the reason is not that we do not have other staff. We are simply adopting what we find to be the best method. I am convinced that, as in the case of Washington, the Paris appointment will also prove to be one of the best we have ever made.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout suggested that we should invite leaders in southern Africa to a conference at which we would be able to discuss matters of general importance, particularly the preservation of peace in southern Africa. I must admit at once that it would be a good thing if such a thing were possible. However, I do not know whether it is possible, but I can tell the hon. member that we are concentrating at this stage on promoting our relations with all our neighbouring states on a bilateral basis. Relations on a bilateral basis naturally form the only firm foundation for relations on a regional basis.

The hon. member asked me what progress we were making with Angola and Mozambique. He ought to know in general outline what has already taken place, in view of statements that have already been made and replies that have already been given to questions in this House. The hon. member ought also to know that if we were to give wide publicity to all the details of what is in progress, we would run the risk that our efforts, which are progressing well, could fall through. I want to leave it at that.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout painted a very sombre picture of South Africa’s position in the world, I do not take it amiss of him. We are living in a very dangerous time, and I shall have more to say about this later. However, he did something to which I have to lodge the strongest objection. He painted a picture in terms of which South Africa’s position is equated with situations which the world regards as being colonialism and mandate matters. He did this by putting South Africa, Rhodesia and South West Africa on a par with one another, by mentioning those three countries in the same breath.

All three are part of southern Africa.

Yes, but there is also a very considerable difference between them. That the hon. member should put them on a par with one another or see them in the same light, is absolutely baffling.

The hon. member asked where we were going as far as the UNO was concerned. I shall elaborate on that at a later stage. He also broached the question of possible membership of the OAU. In principle, the Government and I are in favour of that. In fact, I think that all of us are in favour of it in principle. This was very clearly apparent from a reply which I furnished in this House not long ago to a question put by the hon. member for Sea Point. In reply to that question I said that I did not believe that it was possible at this stage. However, I hope that it will become possible in the future. I think it is really petty to suggest that there is a difference of opinion on this matter between my colleague and me because my colleague happened to say it in public while I said it after him in this House. It is absolute nonsense to insinuate that there is a difference of opinion between us on this matter. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that no progress had been made with regard to our relations with Botswana. Mr. Chairman, has the hon. member never heard of the customs union of which Botswana is also a member, the customs union which is functioning very smoothly? Is he not aware …

That is as old as the hills by now.

Yes, but it is in fact proof that we have been co-operating with our neighbours for a long time. We co-operate with them more intimately than the countries of the European Economic Community cooperate with one another. We have been doing so all along. This is what is happening between us and Botswana.

In any event, there is no political co-operation.

Apparently the hon. member is also not aware of the friendly atmosphere in which we, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are constantly solving mutual problems. Apparently it does not suit the purpose of the hon. member to take cognizance of this kind of thing.

As far as South West Africa is concerned, the hon. member drew attention to the assurance that had been given, that all political parties would have access to the constitutional conference. Was the hon. member not listening when the hon. the Prime Minister discussed this conference in this House last week? I should like to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said on that occasion, namely—

Surely this is crystal clear. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

Did the hon. member not take cognizance either of the declaration which was issued some time ago by the conference? In that declaration minority groups were invited to come and give evidence. Surely all political parties—the party of the hon. member as well—are at liberty to accept that invitation and to make their contribution there. They are at liberty to do so, just as the United Party was at liberty to participate in the election of the Whites who designated their delegates to the conference, just as it was possible for Swapo to participate in the election in Owambo, and just as it is possible for Swapo today to accept the invitation of the conference if they are interested in a peaceful solution to the problems of South West Africa.

The hon. member said that the Government should give guidance at the conference. Mr. Chairman, the Government has for many years—from as far back as 1920—been giving guidance and actively engaged in that territory. Today we are reaping the benefits of that. Today matters are in the hands of the representatives of the various national groups there. Give them a chance. Let us not interfere there now. That is what we are advocating. That is our standpoint towards the entire world. Today we are reaping the benefit of the guidance we have been providing over the years.

As the hon. member for Waterkloof said, the hon. member for Sea Point in general made a positive contribution, something which one has to welcome.

Harry had a word with him.

Naturally the hon. member also expressed criticism, but that is his prerogative.

†He pleaded for the forming of blocs in southern Africa, in Africa and in the world, blocs to which South Africa should belong. I am also in favour of blocs but in this regard, we, in view of our special position in the world—which is improving, and I will elaborate on that just now—are compelled to hasten slowly. The only sound basis for the forming of blocs is strong bilateral relations, and here we are making very good progress, as I shall indicate. We already have such groupings. It is no use trying to ridicule the customs union. I think the customs union between ourselves and the BLS countries has great potential. I am hopeful that this customs union could form the nucleus for a bigger group, that it could snowball, could escalate, as it will if the Transkei and other independent homelands should also join it. It could then form a very important nucleus which could lead to greater things.

The hon. member for Sea Point is under the impression that our progress with regard to Africa, the establishing of good relations with Africa, has slowed down considerably, if it has not come to a complete standstill. I am sure the hon. member will be pleased if in the course of my speech I can convince him, as I am sure I will be able to do, that he is wrong. He referred to statements by our ambassador in the Security Council. I will go into that and reply to it tomorrow.

*I am glad the hon. member for Pretoria East—a fine constituency which in the past also produced good MPs—discussed our relations with the Republic of China, relations which are constantly improving, in our interest as well as theirs. The hon. member pointed out that the economy of that small country is exceptionally strong, but I doubt whether it is general knowledge, as I was told only recently, that the foreign trade of Taiwan exceeds that of the foreign trade of Red China. This is astonishing, but recently it was still the case. I am not sure whether this is still the case at present. Our relations with this country have expanded very satisfactorily. Over the past few years very good contacts have been made. Trade missions have gone to that country and trade missions from there have come to this country, and the year before last I paid a personal visit to Taiwan. Last year my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, was an official guest there, apart from the visit by our previous Speaker. I must also add that the Deputy Foreign Minister of Taiwan was our guest this year and, just as in the case of other visiting dignitaries from his country in the past, we held very important and fruitful talks with him during his stay in South Africa, talks at the very highest level. The plea which the hon. member made and the question which he put, i.e. that we should elevate the status of our mission there to that of an embassy, had indeed not been “planted”. I can now inform the hon. member—and I am certain the House will welcome this—that it so happens that such a step has already been taken, and as far as I know it has already been announced in Taipeh, where their time is seven hours ahead of ours. Therefore I can now officially announce that the status of our mission there is being elevated from that of a consulate-general to that of an embassy. I am very pleased that it is possible for this to happen. The hon. member for Von Brandis touched upon quite a number of subjects. Some of them I shall deal with at a later stage. I want to refer to only one now, viz. the question of Walvis Bay as a free harbour. That is an interesting idea with many implications but, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, it is a matter which we still want to think about, and we shall definitely keep in mind what the hon. member said and see whether it is desirable and practicable.

Sir, as I have indicated, I agree with other hon. members—and most of them pointed out the seriousness of the situation in southern Africa—that we are living in a very dangerous world. I have stated this repeatedly, and perhaps even to the point of tedium, in this House during the past 13 years. Unfortunately, the world, and southern Africa as well, are not becoming less dangerous. The threats are mounting. If we consider the world in general we see that the efforts during the past six years to achieve détente between East and West have not produced the expected results. On the contrary. The general world scene appears instead to be one in which the West is backing away in the face of a build-up of communist power and of increasing communist domination over the face of the globe. The key objective of this advance appears to be Western Europe. The domination of Western Europe would enable Russia to achieve her aims, in the first place in respect of China, but also on a world-wide scale. It is not difficult to perceive that Russia and its allies under the Warsaw treaty today possess an overwhelming power advantage vis-à-vis the Nato countries as far as the means for conventional warfare are concerned. The only deterrent to the overwhelming of Western Europe is the presence there of American occupying forces, and the fact that they have nuclear weapons at their disposal. Although Russia has up to now perhaps been unsuccessful in the achievement of all her objectives by means of international military intimidation, the Russians are engaged in subversion wherever they can, and one of the consequences of this is the noticeable expansion of the communist parties in some Western countries. In view of the Russian strategy, the weakening which is setting in in the ranks of the Nato countries is alarming. If the fear of an American withdrawal from Nato is added to that, and if this were actually to happen, Western Europe could fall into the lap of the Soviety Union like an overripe fruit. One may well wonder what the consequences to Nato would be if the communists were to gain access to some of the Western Governments, and it is no longer as far-fetched as it used to be in the past to imagine anything like this happening. The neglect of the Indian Ocean by the West, and the consolidation of the position of the Russians there, is a further development which does not bode well for the security of the Western world. One is hopeful that this state of affairs will not continue. There are signs that the Americans, the French and others, are becoming aware of this major threat. In the strategy of Russia, which is aimed at the ultimate domination of Western Europe, the sea route around southern Africa naturally plays an important role since the oil supply to Europe is dependent on the unrestricted movement of ocean-going traffic along this route. In view of this the additional foothold which the Russians have gained in Angola is of very great importance to them. Consequently it is no wonder that President Ford is so disillusioned and disappointed that he has formally announced that he will in future refuse to use the word “détente”. The reason for this is obvious. It is becoming increasingly clear that for America détente holds little or no advantage, while on the other hand it is being exploited by the Russians to strengthen their own position. Brezhnev himself, for example, did not even try to disguise this when he recently addressed the 25th congress of the Communist Party, at which he spoke the following almost provocative words—

Hon. members will realize that the West is being misled by Russia. This has led to a very sharp reaction against détente in the United States and elsewhere in the Free World as well. It is being thought to an increasing extent that Russia’s strategy has been successful and that consequently the Western attitude is one of uncertainty, indecision, powerlessness, if not one of defeatism. Prominent members of both major parties in the United States complain that the United States is falling behind the Soviet Union and that the USA is getting nothing out of these détente initiatives, for Russia is proceeding with her military adventures without let or hindrance. In brief, what it amounts to is that the critics of President Ford and Dr. Kissinger are demanding that stronger action be taken by the United States instead of trying to appease the Russian bear.

Although the South African Government is striving to promote détente in Africa, its actions throughout have nevertheless been such—I think all objective critics will agree with me—that it has not exposed itself to the accusation that it is trying to gain the favour of Africa at any price, in other words, that the Government is following a policy of appeasement. When strong action had to be taken, the Government did not hesitate to do so. We think, for example, of the sharp contrast between our action after Mozambique became independent, to which the hon. member referred, and our action when a situation arose in another neighbouring state, Angola, which, according to the Government, constituted a danger and a threat to us. This field has, however, been covered so thoroughly that I do not want to deal with it now.

I want to deal briefly with our relations with the rest of Africa in this regard, and point out in the first place that in our negotiations with African leaders we do not mince matters and try to conceal the reality with fine words so that it is not consistent with the truth, simply to win the favour of others. Nor do we try to buy the friendship of others. The best example of this—I have mentioned it before—is the relatively complete report on the talks the hon. the Prime Minister and I had with President Tolbert of Liberia. This report appeared in full in the Press as a result of a leak for which we were not responsible. It was nevertheless an important report, because it demonstrated to South Africa and to the world how we act when we talk to African leaders. The same also applies to the Government’s actions in regard to our relations problem, to the talks and negotiations with the leaders of the non-Whites in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has the reputation of speaking frankly, and this could also be said of the other hon. Ministers who deal with these problems. Although the non-Whites do not always agree with the Government, this attitude, the honesty and frankness, nevertheless compels respect. It inspires confidence and produces results. This has also been the case with South West Africa. The Government has, throughout, been striving to achieve self-determination by preparing the various population groups for it in various ways and by promoting the general development of the country and of its people in all possible spheres. In spite of criticism and opposition, both internal and external, we have stuck to our guns. We have stood firm, and today we are reaping the benefits of that. What is happening in South West Africa, in the Turnhalle in Windhoek, is the result of years of systematic preparation for the achievement of a specific object, i.e. self-determination. It is definitely not the result of concessions or as a result of pressure. Nor is it aimed at winning the favour of the UNO or of any other person by making minor concessions in respect of unimportant things which have nothing to do with the principle of the matter.

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the question of South West Africa in full last week. There is only one aspect on which I now wish to add something, i.e. the insistence of friend and foe alike, and of hon. members on the opposite side of the House, that more rapid progress should be made, that it is necessary to work according to a fixed timetable, and that the timetable should be announced. Why are we not able to announce such a timetable? In the first place it is a matter which rests with the people of South West Africa themselves. We are encouraging them, and we are doing what we can to expedite matters. However, the Government cannot at this stage determine the pace of the talks. Apart from the conference, considerable and encouraging progress has nevertheless been made in recent years with regard to the timetable for the achievement of self-determination in South West Africa. At our first meeting with Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary-General of the UNO, in 1973, I was able to inform him that the Government foresaw that it would not take longer than ten years to reach a stage where the right of self-determination could be exercised. As a result of subsequent developments—and I am thinking in particular here of the actions of the Advisory Council of the Prime Minister—and as a result of contact between various White and non-White leaders in South West Africa, we were able to announce at the end of 1974 that it would be possible to reach that stage in a considerably shorter period than the ten years we had mentioned the previous year. Hon. members will recall that on 12 September 1975 the conference set itself the goal of drawing up a constitution as soon as was feasible—if in any way possible within the ensuing three years. Since September 1975 a great deal of progress has already been made. Of the three years, less than two and a half now remain. I agree that the sooner the conference succeeds in drawing up a constitution, the better it will be for all concerned. As soon as they produce a constitution which is acceptable to all concerned, the Government of South Africa will not, for its part, delay matters or stand in their way, but will immediately proceed, in conjunction with them, to the implementation of their wishes. Those people and those Governments that are continually insisting on more rapid progress, according to a specific timetable, would do well to take cognizance of this. Everyone would also do well to take cognizance of the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister and the South African Government in this regard, and keep their noses out of the affairs of the conference at this stage, whether they like the conference or not, or whether they are satisfied with its composition or not. These are matters we can discuss, but they must first give the conference a chance to show what it can do. The conference has a very difficult task indeed, and sowing suspicion and undermining the authority of the conference can only have a hampering effect which could cause delays and, in fact, could wreck the entire conference. There is nothing which would give the Russians and the Cubans greater pleasure than that the conference should fail.

I find it a great pity that the President of Botswana, according to Press reports, made a vehement attack on the Government and the conference a few days ago.

That is what I referred to.

Yes, I want to comment on that. So just give me a chance. I find it a great pity that the President of Botswana did that. I do not mind that he gave the hon. member an argument, but I find it a pity that he made the allegation and said that he considered the conference to be illegitimate and devoid of legal force. He also rejected the bona fides of the South African Government.

I have newspaper reports from which this is quite clear and other hon. members have also referred to it. It is a very unreasonable and unrealistic standpoint. If he had been realistic he would not have argued that the people of South West Africa should be left alone to determine their future in their own way. For that is what he is advocating, that the people of South West Africa should be left alone. But that is precisely what is happening, and if the President of Botswana had wanted to make a contribution, he should have presented his plea to the UNO, which is constantly threatening to interfere and does not want to leave these people alone to determine their future in their own way. This statement astonishes me and is disappointing. As the head of a neighbouring State of South West Africa he should rather welcome the events there. President Khama, and everyone else who desires a peaceful solution to the problems of South West Africa, must remember that appreciation and encouragement instead of disparagement and condemnation will encourage the people of South West Africa and the delegates to the conference to perform the task in which they are engaged with greater zeal and with greater haste, and to find a satisfactory solution. That is, after all, what all of us desire.

However, I want to return to the Government’s détente policy in Africa. In contrast to the efforts to achieve détente between the West and the communist States, the détente policy of the Government is enjoying growing appreciation and support, not only on the part of the general public, but also in the outside world. When I say “on the part of the general public” I have to remind hon. members of the result of the 1974 general election and of virtually all the by-elections which have been held since. That this favourable reaction is having a ripple effect, is evident, inter alia, from the abortive attempts at the UNO towards the end of last year, and in the OAU in January of this year, to single out South Africa, as they had always done in the past, for censure in regard to Angola. Further evidence that our détente policy is being welcomed, is the considerable increase in contracts and cooperation with States in Africa and elsewhere.

Sir, you can take it from me that progress in this sphere is considerable, and I am certain my hon. friend for Sea Point will listen to this with interest, for I have asked my department to compile statistics of our contacts with Africa since 1 December last year. I think the hon. member said that we had made progress until October and that the progress had terminated after that date. From 1 December until the present—a period of less than five months after we had already become involved in Angola—South African Ministers paid five visits to African States. My colleague, the hon. the Minister of Information, paid an official visit, inter alia, to the Ivory Coast, a visit to which great publicity was given in South Africa. The head of the Africa Division of my department accompanied him on that important visit. I myself, accompanied by senior officials, paid two visits to distant African States earlier this year. One of the visits was confidential, and therefore I cannot say anything about it at this stage. The other was an official visit, by invitation, to the Central African Republic. During this visit the ties of friendship between South Africa and that country were re-confirmed. My party and I were very cordially welcomed by the President of that country at a public function at which the diplomatic corps was also present. On that occasion the President also addressed a special word of welcome to Minister George Matanzima, Minister of Justice of the Transkei, who accompanied me on the visit. Discussions took place on a very high level and in a positive spirit, and while I was still there the President expressed strong criticism in public of communist activities in Africa. Such visits are very valuable, and I can give hon. members the assurance that more of them will take place. I myself, for example, hope in the near future to pay another visit by invitation to one of our neighbouring States. In the same period since December …

That ought to be normal.

I want in fact to demonstrate to the hon. member that our relations are normal and that we are not as isolated as the hon. member thinks. In the same period, since 1 December, visits have been paid to South Africa by no fewer than 24 Ministers from African States, 17 of whom were from the BLS countries—our neighbouring countries. We receive visits from their Ministers or our Ministers pay visits to them almost every week; it is perfectly natural and normal. This is what is happening between them and us. Seventeen of these visits were from the BLS countries, five from Rhodesia and two from the rest of Africa—all of them within a period of five months. But that is not all, for as far as senior officials are concerned, the figures are even more impressive. There were no less than 64 visits by South African officials to African States, and 89 visits from African States to the Republic. That, too, is normal. A total of 17 countries were involved in these visits, and in the case of ten countries they were on ministerial level. To allege, therefore, that our détente policy has ground to a halt, or to think that our involvement in Angola has had an adverse effect on our policy, is completely unrealistic.

Mr. Chairman, I would be the last person to deny that there will be disappointments and setbacks. None of us have any illusions about that, because we have been in Africa for 300 years. One of the setbacks—and it was a severe setback—was the breakdown of the talks between Messrs. Smith and Nkomo. Although these two gentlemen were unable to see eye to eye, there is so much at stake that no one can afford to give up. This includes all the leaders and all the people of Rhodesia, White and Black, for it is their future that is at stake. But the same applies to all of us in Africa, and to the free world, to all of us who have an interest in peace in southern Africa, and who would not like to see Rhodesia become the flash-point that could set the entire subcontinent on fire.

†It is imperative for all to realize that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to confine violence to clashes with terrorists in Rhodesia, to limit and to localize such clashes, and to prevent them from escalating into a much more dangerous situation. If the situation in Rhodesia should escalate, it will be as usual the innocent people, Black and White, who will suffer most. The economic and social structures of all the countries involved will be destroyed. What has been built up and achieved over many years will be wiped out. I therefore associate myself very strongly with the Prime Minister’s urgent appeal for peace, and at this late hour I want to appeal once again to all leaders and Governments in Rhodesia, in Africa and elsewhere, to do whatever is possible to prevent the escalation of violence.

*I cannot agree with President Kaunda and others, and with my hon. friend opposite, that a peaceful solution for Rhodesia is no longer possible. I think the hon. member qualified this to a certain extent. I want to say that, as far as South Africa is concerned we are still prepared and shall continue, to assist wherever we can in the peace offensive, and to co-operate with others in this regard as we have done in the past.

But irrespective of what happens in Rhodesia, the South African Government will continue on the course of peace on which we have embarked. We shall continue to strive for peaceful solutions to our own internal problems and to normalize our relations with Africa. By this time it ought to be clear to everyone, as several hon. members also indicated today, that we shall have to do this ourselves, that we shall have to depend on ourselves to accomplish this. It would be foolish and completely unrealistic to proceed on the assumption that the West will help us to ensure our survival, to maintain our position in Africa and play our role here. The events in Angola have demonstrated how defenceless and powerless the West is against the subtle strategy of the Russians. Not only has the Soviet Union succeeded, by means of Cuba, in getting away with military intervention in an independent country of Africa, thousands of miles away, but it has also tried, at the same time to single out South Africa as being the only aggressor. The Free World did in fact see through this, but they simply did not have the courage and determination to challenge the Soviet Union and confront them in this regard.

There is no doubt that public opinion throughout the Free World was shocked by this act of aggression in Angola. Many Western leaders and others roundly condemned it, but that was as far as it went. The cardinal question is, and will remain: What would the reaction be if Russia, with the aid of Cuban troops, or with the aid of troops from other States on which it already has a stranglehold, were to try to continue their military intervention elsewhere in Africa or even on other continents, such as South America? Such a step is by no means unlikely, for as Dr. Kissinger rightly said: “If the USA looks and acts weak, the Soviet Union is going to take advantage of it.” Experience has shown that it would be unwise to expect a strong reaction to such a step from the West. In any event the South African Government cannot, and will not, rely on that. In view of this, and because we know that our détente policy can only succeed as long as we are acting from a position of strength, we are continuing to expand our Defence Force to achieve greater preparedness and greater striking power. I think it was also Dr. Kissinger who once said: “Without adequate military strength in all relevant categories, no diplomacy, however skilful, can help us.” This does not apply to the USA only, it applies to the Republic of South Africa as well. In the life of every nation there comes a time when a choice has to be made between throwing in the towel and taking positive action for the sake of self-preservation and survival. Just like the State of Israel and other States in the world, South Africa made its choice a long time ago. We shall not allow anything to stop us from ensuring our own survival. We have no illusions about the fact that the onslaughts against us will be intensified, for the credit we have gained through our peace offensives is an incitement to our enemies and because the knowledge of our unshakable attitude towards communism is a thorn in the flesh of the enemies of South Africa.

In the previous century—I think the hon. member for Sea Point referred to it—so-called “gunboat diplomacy” was frequently used. Sir, that is not what we are contemplating. We have never advocated or practised that. On the contrary. As far as military strength is concerned, the emphasis in South Africa’s case falls on our defence. We speak of a Minister of Defence and a Department of Defence and of a Defence Force, the object of which is to repel attacks and to serve as a deterrent. While I agree with Dr. Kissinger, I must add that as far as our relations with Africa are concerned, South Africa puts the emphasis on diplomacy and not on military force, diplomacy in the sense of contact and communication. Our objective is in fact to get away from military confrontation. We want peace in Africa, peace which promotes development, in contrast to war, which is aimed at destruction, if not at annihilation. We know that there are several other African leaders who share our approach. I am thinking inter alia, of the president of the Ivory Coast, Dr. Houphouet-Boigny, the so-called father of dialogue, who has for years been pleading that all of us in Africa should settle our differences, that we should stand together and should offer a united front to the communist threats from beyond our borders. By the way, I see in this morning’s newspaper that he made a statement in which he warned the countries of the West that if they were not careful, they would lose Africa as well, as they lost Asia to the communists. Other African leaders share our view on the possibility of peaceful co-existence in southern Africa, inter alia, our three Black neighbours, the BLS countries. They are not spending large sums of money on building up defence forces. They consider it to be unnecessary because their security is not being threatened. There are also other States further away. Not very long ago a head of State in Africa told me personally that he desired peace in Southern Africa, for if there were a war he knew that everything he and his people had built up since independence could be wiped out in a very short time.

Because South Africa is an African state, and because we believe that our salvation must be sought in Africa, we shall persist in our efforts to normalize our relations with those African states whose leaders, like ourselves, desire peace. We shall leave no stone unturned to attain this ideal, and we shall do so with or without the support of the West. If we are able to obtain the support of the West to this end we shall of course welcome it. They can indeed make a great contribution to peaceful co-existence in Africa, with all the benefits to themselves which go with it. They can do so by ceasing, in season and out of season to condemn South Africa in public and in private or to try to exert pressure on us to make dangerous concessions. Most of the friendly States of the Free World that mean well toward South Africa, as well as those that are less well-disposed towards us but still have the interests of Africa at heart, would do well for a change to examine their own conscience as far as Africa is concerned, instead of concentrating their criticism on South Africa only and closing their eyes to the real problems, needs and shortcomings of Africa, and make an attempt to act in a more positive way.

They could for example express appreciation more openly for South Africa’s contribution to peace in Africa and encourage it, for there are some of them that have appreciation for our efforts. If they have appreciation for this, and also for the progress South Africa is making in other spheres, they should demonstrate it in practice through their action towards us. This would, after all, spur us on to greater efforts. They could, for example, help us to make contact with African states, as some of them have already done in the past. They could, in their talks with African leaders, emphasize the advantages for Africa inherent in co-operation with us. They could point out the contributions to development we have already made, contributions which we are pre-eminently capable of making and are prepared to keep on making. They could give us more credit for the progress we are making with the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of race and colour. Everyone, including our political opponents, has to admit that considerable progress has been made in this regard. We are receiving credit for this even from abroad. In this regard I want to quote briefly from a leading article which appeared on 24 March in a newspaper in the Ivory Coast—not in Die Burger, Die Transvaler or in Pro-Nat, but in the newspaper Fraternité Matin of the Ivory Coast. After the editor had referred to certain changes, for example the elimination of colour discrimination or race discrimination in certain spheres and legislation in regard to hotels, sport, etc., he said the following—

What a fine testimonial, not from the opposite side, from our political opponents, but from a newspaper in an African country! We could really receive more credit as well for the progress we are making with the constitutional development of the homelands and with the general improvement of the position of the non-Whites, particularly in the economic and social spheres, and in education. By acting in a more positive way than it has in the past, the West would not only be conferring a benefit upon Africa, but would also be helping to acquire prestige and influence for itself in Africa. Believe me, after Angola, the prestige of the West in Africa is probably lower than ever before. The first task of the Free World, if they wish to improve their prestige in Africa and if they are worth their salt, is to ensure that the Russians and Cubans leave Angola. It is indeed being maintained by some in Africa—this was said to me personally—that we, the South Africans, are in fact the only Whites who can be relied upon in times of crisis. The climate in Africa is changing. There are growing numbers in Africa who are no longer afraid to be seen in the company of South Africa.

The West must realize that it is no longer sound tactics to try to win the favour of Africa and of the Third World by singling out South Africa for censure, as the Russians experienced last year in the General Assembly, and as the militants experienced earlier this year in Addis Ababa at the OAU summit. The countries of the Free World will have to devote serious consideration to this. They will also have to decide what South Africa’s unshakable loyalty to the Free World is worth to them as a Free World; what Simonstown, our other harbours, our airfields and the safeguarding of the sea route around the Cape mean to them. They will have to give serious thought to how indispensable South Africa’s natural resources and its wealth of so many strategic raw materials are to them, how profitable and safe their investments in our country are, safe not only from destruction by violence, but also free from the risk of nationalization. The West simply cannot afford to forget that there are others who are looking at South Africa with covetous eyes.

What I have said about the West in general, applies in particular to the USA. An encouraging turn of events as far as America is concerned, is the fact that America has since the last session of the General Assembly of UNO adopted a stronger line towards the irresponsible elements in the world organization. That is something we welcome. At the same time, however, a new spirit of isolationism is developing in the United States, and this could have far-reaching consequences. The hon. member for Algoa put questions to me in this regard. According to a recent opinion poll the majority of Americans are not prepared to confront Russia outside the borders of the United States and Canada. The question is not so much whether isolationism in the United States is increasing, but rather to what lengths it will be taken. I agree with the hon. member for Algoa that Angola has demonstrated that in times of crisis we cannot rely on the West in general, and on the United States in particular, and that at least we know where we stand now. I can also tell the hon. member that he is not the only member of Parliament who is concerned about our relations with the United States. Nor is it parliamentarians alone who are concerned about this. His own feelings reflect the feelings of many South Africans both inside and outside Parliament.

During a meeting on 19 March of the Africa Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the American Senate, Senator Dick Clark, the chairman, had this to say—

I need not really comment on this, except to say that it is beyond comprehension that a member of the Senate of a country which is the leader of the Free World in the titanic struggle against the communist world could render himself guilty of such a short-sighted and dangerous statement. If the United States were to accept this advice of Senator Clark as policy—I do not know how much influence he has, but he must be influential if he is chairman of such an important committee— one could imagine that America would not gain the appreciation and friendship of the increasing number of leaders in Africa who, after Angola, are gravely concerned about Russian imperialism in Africa. If they were to follow his advice, Dr. Kissinger might as well stay out of Africa.

How do you feel about the statements made by Senator Percy?

I shall come to him later. Let us see what the attitude of the State Department is, as it appears from the evidence of the Assistant Secretary of State before Senator Clark’s committee. Mr. Schaufele stated that the policy of the USA in respect of southern Africa is based on four fundamental tenets. Two of those four tenets deal with the principle of majority rule, and are the following—

One wonders for what States in southern Africa Mr. Schaufele is advocating majority rule? Is he not aware of what is happening in Africa? Is he not aware that majority rule in Africa is the rare exception to the rule? One of the few Black States that approximates most closely to majority rule in the sense in which the West understands it, will be the Transkei when it becomes independent in October, an event which is the direct outcome of South Africa’s policy of separate development. I do not know whether Mr. Schaufele and his State Department realize this. If Mr. Schaufele had South Africa in mind when he insisted on majority rule—quite possibly this is not the case—it would be my duty to point out that he does not understand the policy of our Government at all. Let us examine his statement again—

Surely we are also striving for the peaceful realization of self-determination and majority rule. But we are going further and we are acting in the spirit of the UNO Charter which refers so pointedly to “self-determination of peoples ”. Our objective is self-determination for all the peoples in southern Africa. The majority of every nation or population group should be enabled to elect their own Government, as is the case in the Transkei and in other homelands which are on their way to independence.

We cannot reconcile ourselves to the idea that one nation should dominate another, merely on the ground of its numerical superiority.

We have no misgivings about the other two cornerstones of the policy of the United States as stated by Mr. Schaufele. We are also-opposed to what he calls “the perpetuation of political and economic inequality on the basis of race”.

†We also share his determination that southern Africa should not become the arena for super power rivalries. However, the difference between us is that we in South Africa can do very little to prevent this, while he, the Assistant Secretary of State, represents perhaps the only government in the free world which is in a position to prevent the area from becoming the arena for super power rivalries. We sincerely hope that the United States will not let southern Africa down, or the entire Free World for that matter. I therefore hope that they will not allow a second Angola in Africa or anywhere else.

Mr. Chairman, it has been very pleasant and inspiring again today to listen to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as it has so often been in the past. It was particularly interesting to listen to his view of the part played by Russia and communism in the world. Particularly interesting was the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the policy of the Republic of South Africa towards the rest of Africa and towards the Third World. Very few people realize that the Third World, which represents 70% of the world population, as yet produces only 17% of world production. This means that 30% of the world population produces approximately 85% of world production. In addition, we must realize that approximately 800 million of the people living in the Third World are completely illiterate.

As had happened so often in the past, however, the wheel has turned. History has taught us this. Gradually the Third World started to gain a foothold in the economic and the political fields of the world. I should like to express a few thoughts on the role which the Third World plays in the international political set-up today. The stimulus for the upsurge in the Third World was provided mainly by five factors. In the first place I refer to the independence which the African States, which form a part of the Third World, have obtained since the fifties. In the second place there is the oil crisis which has existed since October 1973, when the Opec countries decided to increase the price of oil. Thirdly there is the mineral wealth of Africa, a wealth which will be a powerful weapon in the hands of the Third World in the future as well. In the fourth place the Third World has given us an illustration of destination of its own and an identity of its own. In the fifth place—there are many more factors, of course—there is the labour force which has obtained a foothold in and a hold on the West and which has strengthened its position in the West considerably.

Until a few years ago—this is something one cannot deny—the Third World had no say in international politics. Their thinking was done by the West. The West acted on their behalf. The northern countries, especially those in Europe, arranged and controlled practically everything. However, as a result of communist action, which was referred to by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well, a passivity and a lack of vigour have arisen in the Western world. As against this, the Third Worldnhas made progress.

Dwelling for a moment on the five factors which I have mentioned, we notice that as far as the attainment of independence since the fifties is concerned, there have been a few other factors by which the Third World and especially Africa have been welded into a close unit. First among those other factors have been the hatred and the aversion felt by the Third World towards colonialism. The poverty and the under-development of the Third World further contributed to this. Furthermore, there was the exploitation by certain colonial powers, as well as the illiteracy of the people of the Third World. All these things helped to unify the African states. The result was that Africa in particular, as a part of the Third World, developed its own characteristic form of socialism and moved away from the democratic system of Westminster. Nationalization took place everywhere. However, nationalization is part of their socialism and should not be con-Africa is just as strongly opposed to Red imperialism as to the neo-colonialism of the Western world. In spite of the threat of communism and in spite of all the turmoil in Africa, with its 19 military dictatorships and its 17 one-party states, there is still no legal and recognized communist party on this continent after all these years.

When we consider the oil crisis, we find that the Arabian countries, which are also part of the Third World, joined forces in October 1973 to force the world to change its views concerning the economic power which the Third World could muster, owing to the oil riches of the Arabian world in particular. In December 1973 the Opec countries announced a fourfold increase in the price of petrol. This resulted in a redistribution of income and expenditure in the world. We on the southern tip of Africa, which is also a part of the Third World, should take note of these events. In this way the Third World has gained a direct say in world politics and in world economies.

Furthermore I want to refer to the mineral riches which I mentioned earlier on. This is another powerful weapon which the Third World may employ in future to obtain for itself a say in world politics.

In December of last year the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Tindemands, pointed out to Europe that more attention would have to be given to, and that ties would have to be strengthened in, the international economy, especially as far as the USA and the Third World are concerned. With reference to the destination and the identity of the Third World we notice that the international political situation has changed considerably during the past two or three decades. UNO has in all respects become an instrument in the hands of the Third World. The will of the Third World is enforced in everything. This is clearly revealed again by the latest debates in UNO. In all the most important matters which were debated there, matters like colonialism, the Middle East and development, the Third World enforced its will. The resistance of the West was actually quite feeble. In spite of differences amongst themselves about leadership, etc., the Third World countries form a close unit.

Countries of the Third World stick together and support one another. The Third World is seeking a system of its own for strengthening its political independence as well as its economic independence. However, African socialism is not only politically motivated, but is also seen as a solution to the type of economic problems which Africa has to contend with. This is why I say that we should not be too quick to condemn African socialism, especially not the fact that they nationalize so many industries and other plants. It would be unwise to condemn the process of socialization or nationalization out of hand as constituting proof of Red victories in Africa. The Third World has tremendous manpower and we all know that their population is growing much more rapidly than that of the old world. Europe or the West has come to resemble an old, worked-out mine and this will increasingly be the case in future. It is for this reason that South Africa, which is also a part of the Third World, must act positively towards the Third World, as the hon. the Minister has just pointed out. I think the Government’s policy and behaviour towards Africa and the Third World are correct. We must always remember that the emphasis has shifted from a struggle between the East and the West and that the present struggle is actually between the North and the South. By “North” I mean the old world and by “South” I mean the Third World of which South Africa is a part. For that reason I say that we must bear in mind in the future that the old saying “example is better than precept” is still valid. South Africa has proved its goodwill towards Africa and the Third World and I believe—as the hon. the Minister has stated—that we shall continue to do so in future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Potgietersrus by saying that we like to speak of the fabulous riches of our underground minerals in southern Africa in particular. In speaking of southern Africa, I think of South Africa, Rhodesia, Zambia and Angola. It is very important for South Africa and the other countries in which this mineral wealth is found to realize that this wealth will be of no use to the world if we do not use our energy or capacity for work and our brainpower to bring about the development required for making the mineral wealth available to the world. The great problem in the world today is that the world wants to use less and less personal energy and brainpower and consequently wants to work less. I want to warn against this philosophy which seems to be emerging in the Third World in particular, because they want everything which is beautiful and which the White man worked for to become theirs for nothing. In this respect I think of the philosophy of Samora Machel in Mozambique.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to complicate your task as Chairman, but I must refer again to the wishful thinking and the suspicion-mongering which one always finds in the speeches of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. His last speech in which he referred to South West Africa was similar to the one he made in Munich last year, in which suspicion was sown as to the internal human relations here in South Africa. The hon. member for Von Brandis was also guilty of touching on that facet when he referred to the comment made by Sir Seretse Khama. We do not impose any restrictions on visits to South Africa by these people, after all, and certainly not when they want to visit our hospitals. I am aware of the fact that a man such as Sir Seretse Khama has made use of South Africa’s hospitality, as the hon. member for Waterkloof said only today. If I remember correctly, there was a report in the newspaper yesterday or today about one of Mozambique’s ministers who is in one of the hospitals somewhere in the Eastern Transvaal. We have even had one of the leaders in Angola in a hospital in Windhoek. This goes to prove how humane our policy is, and then certain people sow suspicion and create the impression that it is objectionable.

The attitude of the world that a Black leader is always right in criticizing the government under the present dispensation in South Africa is gradually creating a feeling of resistance among the Whites of South West Africa. If Opposition leaders such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his kindred souls in the PRP continue along these lines, that resistance will grow stronger and stronger. I can assure hon. members that the behaviour of such people is nothing but a challenge to the people of South West Africa. In the company of Swapo, these people always create the impression that the White man is to blame. The Swapo leaders in South West Africa always say that the position in which the non-Whites find themselves in South West Africa must be blamed on the activities of the Whites in South West Africa. Most non-Whites do not believe this story, but this is the propaganda they are fed on and it is similar to the propaganda emanating from that side of the House. The philosophy of these people is that everything will be all right if the White man gets out of southern Africa. However, I want to tell hon. members that to the average inhabitant of South West who is bound to the soil in South West Africa, the cowardly acts of gangs of murderers present a great challenge to offer resistance and to see the problems of the time through.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred again today to the great uncertainty prevailing in South West Africa, as he has done in every one of his speeches. I want to challenge the hon. member to say whether this is the first time in history that there has been so-called uncertainty in South West Africa. Is uncertainty not part of the history of South West Africa? Has there not always been uncertainty over the years—ever since the German occupation? Before the German occupation, there was even greater uncertainty in South West Africa than there is now. Anyone who knows anything about the background and history of South West Africa will immediately say that there has always been greater uncertainty than there is at the moment, especially in its pre-history. Since the White occupation of South West Africa, there has been less uncertainty about the future than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would like to give out in his speeches here in the House and elsewhere in the world, wherever he may travel. Frightened and cowardly people are the only ones who leave South West Africa and then muster the courage now and then to hold symposiums there. We have not had any reply to the accusation made by the hon. member for Mariental to the effect that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had made propagande at the symposium in speaking of the revolutionary tendency which he alleged to exist in South West Africa.

You are talking rubbish.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the last member who should talk about South West Africa’s affairs, for he does not have the faintest idea of what is going on in South West Africa. It would be best if the hon. member kept out of South West Africa, because only cowardly people go there for a day and then leave again. Only frightened people do so. My blood pressure really goes up when I deal with that hon. member, so I would rather refer to another matter arising from the Swapo tendency and the problems experienced by our people in the operational area on the border. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to make an attempt, in negotiating with the MPLA or with the present Government of Angola, to bring about an international agreement with regard to the problems created by Swapo. Swapo does create problems; no one would deny that. It is proved by the actions of gangs of Swapo murderers who operate in Owambo from Angola, and who are even moving further south and killing innocent people everywhere. We also know that a large number of Ovambo are living on the other side of the border, more than 200 000, it seems. Where one part of a people lives on one side of an international border and another part lives on the other side, one would naturally expect these people to unite. After all, people of the same kind like to be together. If they have the same view of certain matters, it goes without saying that at some stage they will get together in a natural way so that the matters that are causing friction on the border will be eliminated. That would be so much easier.

There is another aspect I want to refer to. We have spoken of better international relations, especially in regard to the rest of Africa. Hon. members know that South West Africa is the bridge to better relations in Central Africa. As far as better economic relations are concerned, there is no doubt about the fact that South West Africa has a major part to play. After all, southern Africa is the factory of Africa which is able to supply food to the rest of Africa. For this reason, bigger transport routes to Central Africa will be required in the future. Consequently it seems to me to be a natural tendency—it was the tendency even during the German occupation of South West Africa—to connect South West Africa with Central Africa through the Caprivi, for example, by means of communication routes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are really getting tired of the way in which the blood temperature of hon. members opposite rises when they refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. There is only one reason for this. It is because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the only man who has gone through the mill of South African politics and who was not prepared to sell his soul to the NP. He is still sitting in the House of Assembly. The NP hates him, because he walked out of the party’s caucus. He is the only man who was not crucified by the millstone sitting on the opposite side of the House.

†There have been various references to the Dick Clark Committee on Angola. On 29 January the Secretary of State in America, Dr. Kissinger, who is at the moment in our continent, made the following statement—

According to him this happened without South Africa having consulted with the United States. He continued—

He goes on to say—

Which is what had happened. He continues—

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the same thing, but in a different context—

That is precisely what was introduced into Angola by the Unita forces and their allies. They could possibly have done a great deal more. However, we have sadly learnt that the United States is unreliable, not because there are no concerned people there, but because their democratic system lends itself to indecision, reneging on undertakings and vacillation, especially after the Kennedy era when a mood of libertarianism, permissiveness, relative standards and pragmatism influenced its political life through its culture, media, universities and literature. It also has a tradition of waxing and waning isolationism which makes it a dangerous leader of the Free World. The West and the United States have, for the time being, apparently lost any moral purpose in their exclusive worship of the golden calf, and tolerance, even in the face of evil, has become the one narcissistic virtue. The Western world has become a fat cat incapable of dealing with the ideologically motivated and tyrannically decisive lean and hungry feline of the communist world. As its claws dig into Africa we rightly feel a deep sense of concern.

What should South Africa as a small country do? I would like to quote once again from Dr. Kissinger’s statement before the Dick Clark Committee. He says—

It is important that we in South Africa should both resist and adjust. Those gentlemen on the opposite side of the House are going to have to do a lot of adjusting. I believe that our foreign policy must rest on four fundamental pillars. The first one is good relations with Africa. Africa does not demand that we should have no detention without trial, it does not demand democracy, it does not demand balanced budgets, it does not demand a free Press, it does not demand that we allow a Helen Suzman and a Jaap Marais to exist in our political milieu. Black Africa does not have these things. However, what it does demand is human dignity for a Black man. In this regard I would like to say that I endorse everything my hon. leader said in the Prime Minister’s Vote. We must get into the OAU as soon as possible. Our warm acceptance in the capitals of the non-African world will depend on our acceptance in Lusaka, Accra and Nairobi. The Lusaka Manifesto is the most acceptable basis for our entry into Africa. I venture to suggest and hope that the Lusaka Manifesto will become better known to our children than the articles of the Sandrivier Convention or Piet Retief’s reasons for embarking on the Great Trek.

In the second place we must become neutral in terms of our relations with Nato and the Warsaw Pact countries. A motion, which I have slightly altered, was put in the House of Assembly in this very Chamber in September 1939. I quote—

I believe that Gen. Hertzog’s ideas at that stage can mutatis mutandis be applied in our situation. I believe that we have got to take a strong stand on neutrality. I could quote from the American Deputy Secretary of State, who points out that all America asks of Angola is the use of their ships and the right to overfly. Why should we not give that to the Russian Navy and to the communist Chinese? We should maintain strong links with the West, but if we are going to get into Africa we must be non-aligned. We must discontinue the “sucking up ” to the United States and the Nato countries, which is constantly done by this Government.

Thirdly, we must positively pursue, as I believe the Government is sensibly doing, our relations with smaller countries who give development, stability and economic interdependence a correct order of priorities.