Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House I wish to announce that the business of the House for next week will be as it appears in the Order Paper for today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Over the past few years we have frequently debated the deterioration in South Africa’s international relations in this House. The Government has usually reacted to this in two ways. It has denied that we are headed for a situation in which our country will stand isolated, and it has tried to reassure us by suggesting that important break-throughs were taking place behind the scenes, but that these could not be discussed prematurely. I must say, with respect, that personally I have long since come to the conclusion that in actual fact there was nothing taking place either in front of or behind the scenes which could have carried enough weight to improve our position.

In his New Year’s message a few weeks ago, the hon. the Prime Minister put an end to all further pretence and admitted for the first time where we were standing: in the final analysis, completely alone. I should like to remind hon. members of the heart of his message. He said—

I wish the hon. the Prime Minister had told us which countries pretend to be anti-communist, while in fact they are not. I cannot imagine that he was thinking of America, for we ought to remember that the Americans fought communism for several years in Vietnam, that they lost 56 000 men there, that 300 000 were wounded, that it cost them 160 billion dollars, and that, as an observer said, “It nearly tore their society apart”. I should like to know whether France is the country that is meant. The French Prime Minister did say last year—

One would like to know which countries are the ones that pretend to be anti-communist, while in fact they are not.

Frankness in politics is mostly a good thing, but I must admit that it surprised me that the hon. the Prime Minister should have thought fit to inform our enemies so officially that if they were to come, they would find us isolated. It surprised me just as much, of course, that the hon. the Prime Minister should only now, after having been in office for 10 years, have discovered how much South Africa’s position has actually deteriorated. The question occurred to me whether the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Information had failed for all these years to inform the hon. the Prime Minister, or had not realized themselves what was going on. Most of all, however, I wondered whether the hon. the Prime Minister realized the full tragedy of his statement. With the possible exception of Rhodesia, there is no country in the world today which is not in some way integrated into a power bloc or a defence treaty of some kind—only we are not. We are the only country in the world whose leader has to rise and state that in the final analysis, his country stands alone.

Surely it must be clear to any reasonable person that if we are the only country in the international community which finds itself in such a position, there must be something wrong somewhere, and that, on a balance of probabilities, the fault, or at least the major part of it, must lie with us.

†The root cause of our troubles has often been identified in debates in this House as the race policies of the Government. However, it is more than that. The Government is today spending millions and millions of rands of the taxpayers’ money abroad to convince the world that it does not condone race or colour discrimination and that it stands for the abolition of all discrimination. Their terminology comes straight from the liberal textbooks. We raised no objection to this liberal posture abroad, but it had not helped, for the very simple reason that there is a stark contradiction between the Government’s foreign policy posture and its internal policy posture. It is this contradiction which lies at the root of our present position.

This, of course, goes back a long time and has now led abroad to a full-scale collapse of credibility in the Government. The first significant effect of the contradiction between the Government’s foreign policy stand and its domestic policy became apparent in 1961. There are many other cases, but I want to quote a classic one. In 1961 the late Dr. Verwoerd applied for South Africa to remain within the Commonwealth after our country became a Republic. Several prime ministers were present with Dr. Verwoerd at the Commonwealth conference in London and they and other leaders who were involved have now recounted what happened there. As we know, Dr. Verwoerd was heavily criticized because of his Government’s internal policies, but the general consensus was that South Africa should be allowed to remain a member. Nigel Fisher, the biographer of Mr. Iain Macleod, the then British Secretary of State for the Colonies, records the following—

Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Diefenbaker and others have all confirmed these facts in their writings.

Here was a Government who, as an exercise in foreign policy, applied to remain a member of a multi-racial international club— it wanted to enjoy the privileges of the club—but at the time refused, in terms of its internal policy, to accommodate In Pretoria the accredited representatives of some of the members of the club because of their colour. The result was our first exclusion and isolation from an international community of nations because of the conflict between the Government’s internal policy posture and its external policy posture.

I should like to quote a second case. The Government’s handling of the problem of South West Africa is perhaps the most glaring case of all when it comes to the question of conflict between two policies of the same Government. In 1968 the Government officially conceded for the first time that South West Africa was “a territory with a separate international status”—not a separate international character, but a separate international status. Those who know the background will remember that there was a long international dispute on this very matter and that South Africa’s eventual recognition of South West Africa as a territory with a separate international status, was a major step forward in its foreign policy. However, no sooner had the Government announced this new foreign policy posture than it proceeded at home to incorporate South West Africa administratively in terms of Dr. Verwoerd’s domestic Odendaal plan and to transfer all the most important powers of the Legislative Assembly from Windhoek to Pretoria. Had the Government, at that time, before there was a terrorist organization on the border as now, and long before our problems became as complicated as they are at present, followed the line of its foreign policy, i.e. that South West Africa is a territory with an international status, and then started with a Turnhalle conference, the matter would by today have been solved in peace. It can now no longer be solved in peace. We passed numerous Bills in this House to complete the integration process, which was conducted under the soft name, not of incorporation, but of rearrangement. We on this side opposed these measures. We pointed out the dangers of the new policy contradiction and warned that it was only a matter of time before Parliament would laboriously have to undo the whole political side of the Odendaal plan, because we saw self-determination and independence as the only solution for the territory, which had an international status and therefore could not become a constitutional part of South Africa.

The Government, however, continued to maintain the contradiction, until only recently it was faced with the inevitable. At this late stage we are faced with a great disadvantage, that a Namibian liberation army—as they call themselves—has come into being and has gained the support of the United Nations, the OAU and several Western powers, as well as military support from the Soviet Union, Cuba and other Commonwealth countries. This was not applicable in 1968.

*Since then, the formation and development of a terrorist army across the border in Angola has also had the by-product of causing us to get involved in Angola. I shall leave aside the question of how unforgivable it is that the public of South Africa is only now being informed of what happened. No matter how ably and honourably our men conducted themselves during the battles, I cannot see that any balance of advantages has been derived by our country from its participation there as far as our international relations are concerned. If there are any advantages, I should be glad if the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs would spell them out to us.

It is gratifying to see that progress is being made with the agreement in the Turnhalle conference in Windhoek. What is regrettable, as I have said, is that this solution was not begun 10 years ago. Now the position is such that even if the representatives there were to carry their task to a successful conclusion, they would still be faced with the serious problem of the military threat from outside, which will not easily disappear and which would not have been there if there had not been a contradiction between the internal policy posture and the foreign policy posture of the Government in the past. In a year or so this territory is to become independent. Nothing can prevent this any more. We should have begun to take steps a long time ago to ensure that the day when South West Africa becomes independent, it will be friendly towards South Africa and that the closest bonds of good neighbourship will be maintained between us. Otherwise it could become a dagger reaching right into the heart of South Africa.

What vision is the Government showing in regard to an independent South West Africa? To mention only one example, thousands of non-White officials are going to be required to take over the various Government services. They will have to fill some of the most senior positions in South West Africa. It is going to be of vital importance to us that there should be people in those positions who are favourably disposed towards South Africa. Where is the Government, a year before independence, engaged in any organized attempt to train the non-White of South West Africa for the important new tasks in the administration? We should have brought them here in their hundreds to be trained in our advanced public service. But this is yet another example of an internal policy thwarting the foreign requirements. What is happening now? The UNO has established an institute across the border, in Lusaka, and has for several years been encouraging young non-Whites to cross the border of South West to be trained there as administrative leaders with a view to the day when South West Africa will become independent. It is most probable that the people who will eventually occupy those posts and who should have been our friends will be friends of Swapo, while the friends of South Africa will be absent.

Time will not allow me on this occasion to deal with the dangerous deterioration in the relations between us and the three LBS countries—not to mention Zambia and other neighbouring states even closer to us. The obduracy of the Prime Minister of Lesotho seems to know no bounds. No one will deny, but it is obvious, that between us and Lesotho—to mention one example—relations have deteriorated badly. Here again we have the situation that 10 to 13 years ago, when these countries became independent, they offered, one after another, to establish official diplomatic and friendly relations with South Africa. In 1964, 13 years ago, President Kaunda offered to establish diplomatic relations with South Africa.

This was yet another example of the conflict between foreign policy and the requirements of internal policy. We tell the outside world that we want to be friends with Africa, but on the domestic front, the Government was for many years prevented by its internal policy of apartheid from allowing Black diplomats here, until we have now come to the point where it is too late. Countries which could have become friends long ago have now ranged themselves with others and become open opponents of South Africa. Today each of these neighbouring territories is visibly becoming a basis for political and, in some cases, military action against us.

The clearest proof of how the Government has been paralysed by the contradiction between its foreign and its domestic policy postures lies in the history of what is known as détente. This word has now disappeared completely from our political vocabulary because the concept has disappeared. Why has this happened? The message delivered by our ambassador to the Security Council on 24 October 1974, only two years and four months ago, was no ordinary speech by Pik Botha; it was a carefully approved Cabinet speech. The message was clear and unequivocal. I have the official text here, but I shall read only the essence of the message. The essence was—

This clear message immediately changed and improved the climate abroad for us. For the first time in years, there was a smile for us on the face of Africa, as well as the belief that we meant what we were saying. The hon. the Prime Minister was invited everywhere and doors began to open for us in Africa. On the bridge of the Victoria Falls, the hon. the Prime Minister and President Kaunda beamed with friendship, like two brothers, as it were. In the Security Council, countries such as America, France and England exercised vetoes in our favour.

†We on this side welcomed the development, but we warned the Government to guard against reaction and we said that a bitter and dangerous reaction would set in if the hopes raised by the Government in respect of internal reform, were not speedily fulfilled. What happened? It is now recent history. Once again, internal policy postures came into conflict with foreign policy postures. We are now in the third parliamentary session since the heyday of détente and yet there is no sign that the Government is planning to remove any of the basic bricks of its system of discrimination. The same ritual occurs time and time again; a thrust in the right direction abroad, a reverse in the direction at home.

I want to give another example of how one policy of the same Government defeats another. A couple of years ago the Government started a new campaign to win friends for us in Latin America. The going was quite good; a President came to visit us and our Prime Minister went to visit there. At that time the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had much to tell us about our developing relations with Catholic America and the great significance of those relations. Government members can argue as much as they like that the Catholic Church in South Africa broke the law when they enrolled non-White students in their private church schools. Technically that may be true, but in the light of the Government’s assurance that it does not condone race discrimination, was it sensible for Government leaders to explode and to threaten to close the Catholic schools so loudly that it reverberated around the world and even brought His Holiness, the Pope, out against South Africa. That had the worst possible effect in every Catholic country in the world, including Latin America.

The matter was further aggravated a few days ago when the Nationalist administration in South West Africa, of all places, of which the top leadership vests here in the Republic, promptly went so far as to cancel their subsidy of R24 000 to the two Catholic schools in South West Africa. Only help from abroad, from Western Germany, made it possible for the schools to continue their services. Can hon. members imagine how many times R24 000 of our taxpayers’ money the Department of Information will next have to waste to explain the howling contradiction between the Government’s policy statements abroad and its policy actions at home?

A most depressing situation has developed for us in Southern Africa. The endless conflict between the Government’s foreign policy and its domestic policy has now finally led to the fact that the Government has lost all its credibility abroad in respect of every one of the issues that face us. Leadership in Africa is now in the hands of those who say that dialogue has brought no results and that the only practical answer is the application of force. Here is some of the evidence. President Kaunda, speaking in Lusaka, said the following—and consider what the position was two years ago and what it could have been today—

According to a report from Paris, the President of the Ivory Coast, Felix Houphouet-Boigny, who was the greatest promoter of dialogue, was “disillusioned over dialogue with South Africa and has started diplomatic moves towards establishing relations with Moscow and Peking”. This is the kind of reaction we are getting. President William Tolbert of Liberia, whom the Prime Minister visited, says he is “disillusioned with dialogue with South Africa and will take no further initiative to promote it”. This president, once one of the leading proponents in West Africa of dialogue, told The Argus Africa News Service the following—

Once this kind of reaction sets in, it is terribly difficult to reverse it when people are disillusioned over promises that have been made. The initiative—and that is the disastrous position—is being taken over by the Soviet Union and by its Podgornys. Can one believe that we are a party to a situation where the communists, of all people, are now emerging in Africa as the champions of freedom, the champions of Black freedom against White supremacy? They are busy establishing themselves right across central Africa, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean.

*Surely the dangers which this holds for us must be clear to anyone. I need not say here what terrible dangers this position holds for South Africa. The one chance we had to establish ourselves in Africa has perished. It is doubtful whether this Government is still able to do anything about the matter at this stage, for once any government has lost its credibility …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied that we shall achieve any of these things without Black majority government?

Yes, definitely. If there is a situation here in which all co-operate, if a dispensation can be created here which White, Black and Brown in South Africa can accept together, foreign opposition will fall away. This is what one needs: A dispensation in South Africa which is supported and accepted by White, Black and Brown; and this can be achieved. However, that side is not even trying; they have simply given up hope.

They have thrown in the towel.

Although I do not think that the Government could do anything about the matter, this does not prevent it from fulfilling its patriotic duty towards South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

It should stop repeating that nonsensical story about refusing to yield before pressure from outside. We are constantly being told this. This is not the issue. Not even the most powerful country in the world today could afford not to take into consideration the realities of world circumstances and of its own circumstances. Forget about the so-called pressure from outside. We should examine the true circumstances in which we find ourselves and how we may direct the course of events so as to ensure the security of South Africa. Surely we cannot ignore the realities surrounding us, the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

What is urgently necessary is for the Government to bring its domestic policy posture into line with its foreign policy posture without delay. If it cannot do this very soon, it does not have the moral right to stay in power.

I want to conclude by saying that the struggle that lies ahead for us is mainly a political struggle, although some people think it is a military one. If one studies communist imperialism all over the world, in all the countries in which it has made progress and succeeded …

And there was apartheid everywhere! It was all because of apartheid!

… there is one point which strikes one, and that is that politics play an important part in its offensives. The political struggle almost predominates over the military one. It gives its support to a popular movement, anyone that suits it. It supports a popular political movement and then it supplies arms to that political movement, and then political and military action are combined. I recently studied the history of Mao in China. His success in China was remarkable. It took him 20 years to achieve success and the essence of his success lies in the fact that it combined political with military action. Right up to the end he fought a losing battle on the military side, because Chiang Kai-shek had the support of the mighty America behind him. His army was considerably stronger and better equipped than Mao’s. Chiang had greatly superior military forces. Ultimately, however, it was the combination of Mao’s popular political plan, which influenced to the masses, and his military plan which brought him success. This is the way it has been in every country which the communists have taken over. Our only hope in South Africa, if we are to win the struggle that lies ahead, is to combine our military plans with political plans which will win us the support of the broad masses—and here I am speaking of White, Black and Brown—and to remove at once the contradiction between the Government’s foreign and domestic postures. Then there will be hope again that the Government may regain its credibility and then we shall be able to return to the road of peace in Southern Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying to the effect that there is always something new from Africa. I think it would indeed have been something new if we in this Parliament could have experienced from the lips of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout an acknowledgment of the things which this Government is doing and not merely reproaches. I am afraid that Africa will still have to wait a long time for that day to arrive.

The motion introduced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout implies that the Government is responsible for the deteriorating international relations between South Africa and other countries, and for that reason alone, we on this side of the House are unable to accept his motion. I just want to react to one or two matters which he raised. He referred to the attitude of a country like Lesotho, one of the BSL countries. I want to ask him this: Can the reproach be levelled at South Africa that it has done anything incorrect with regard to the BSL countries? Has not South Africa, for her part, acted absolutely correctly in every respect in her attitude towards these countries?

The hon. member also said that South Africa’s credibility had been shattered in all parts of the world. I want to ask him whether he has taken cognizance of the actions of a man such as Prof. Kerina, one of the people who has been one of the greatest critics of South Africa down the years. Prof. Kerina has now realized that he can accept South Africa’s credibility and that he can accept that South Africa does indeed have the intention of establishing a free South West Africa. This man has returned to South West Africa and is now travelling the world as a self-appointed ambassador for what is happening at the Turnhalle. The actions of someone like Prof. Kerina belie the statement that South Africa’s credibility has been shattered throughout the world.

Thirdly, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made the statement that the Government should recognize the realities of the situation. In truth, the hon. the Prime Minister’s New Year message shows that the Government is fully aware of the realities, viz. that the enemies of South Africa, those who are attempting to isolate South Africa particularly in its relationships with other countries in Africa, will only be satisfied if a Black majority government takes over in South Africa. It is because we know what the realities of the situation are that this party is following the policy which it is implementing in practice today.

As I have said, the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is unacceptable to us. We on this side of the House want to contend that inasmuch as there is a deterioration in international relations, this is mainly due to misrepresentations made by the enemies of South Africa or to misconceptions on the part of those who ought normally to co-operate with us. We also want to contend that this situation has been brought about mainly because the communist bloc is using the misconceptions which prevail to drive a wedge between South Africa and her potential friends in Africa. They are doing this with one objective only, and that is to bring South Africa, with her strategic position and vast natural resources, under their control. Consequently, we on this side of the House want to approach this debate in a far more positive spirit and for that reason, on behalf of this side of the House, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the question we must ask ourselves is to what extent there is a deterioration in South Africa’s international relations. To begin with, I must point out that international relations cover such a tremendously wide field that we shall not be able to deal with it comprehensively in a debate of this nature. I just want to point out one or two aspects of our relations with the outside world and I am going to limit myself chiefly to our economic ties. If we take a look at what the actual position is, we find that in regard to this key sector of our foreign relations, South Africa’s position is by no means an isolated one in the world. We find that during the past two years, 1975 and 1976, our imports of goods, which in 1975 had already reached the high figure of R5,5 billion, rose to R5,8 billion and that our exports, excluding gold, which in 1975 had already amounted to the high figure of R3,9 billion, rose to R4,5 billion in 1976. This shows us that in her trade with the outside world, South Africa is strengthening her bonds with the rest of the world.

Then we may ask ourselves the question: What is our position in relation to Africa, the continent which is attempting to isolate itself from South Africa? Then we find that South Africa is at present trading with no less than 50 independent countries in Africa. The position in regard to our imports from and exports to these 50 countries in 1976 as compared to 1975, is that our imports from these 50 countries rose by no less than 23,1% and that our exports to these 50 countries rose by 7% over the past year. If we take a look at what the traffic in the official and private sectors was, i.e. trade and economic missions, we see that in 1975 and 1976 there were 61 official missions and 57 private missions from South Africa to countries abroad and to South Africa from countries abroad. Therefore, during these two years we had more than 50 missions per year, i.e. economic missions from South Africa to countries abroad and from countries abroad to South Africa.

If we look at the number of countries in the world with which we are still trading at this stage, we find that in 1974 they numbered 167 and in 1975 164. So by far the larger proportion of the nations of the world are still trading with South Africa. South Africa has reached the position today where she features as the 17th most important country in regard to the value of her exports and imports.

If we want to take a look at the confidence which the outside world still has in South Africa, we should measure this in terms of the investments made by other countries in South Africa. I shall give the figures for the past four years only. In 1972 foreign investments in South Africa amounted to R7 787 million; in 1973 they totalled R10 380 million, a rise of 33,3% in one year; in 1974 they were R12 757 million, a further rise of 22,9%; and in 1975 foreign investments amounted to R16 450 million, a further rise of 28,9%. This gives us a picture of how the world’s investors, who have the opportunity of investing anywhere in the world, have confidence in the future of South Africa and wish to maintain their ties with South Africa to such an extent that over the past four years we have had an annual rise of more than 20% in investments in this country.

If we also take note of the private individual and of the impression he has of South Africa’s future, we find that South Africa has maintained a net immigration rate of almost 30 000 per year over the past four years. Even during the past year, up to the end of November 1976, South Africa’s net immigration figure was 30 290. This shows that, under circumstances of the fiercest propaganda against South Africa, even after certain urban areas here had been afflicted by rioting, the picture of South Africa was still one which reflected a country with a future. It is for this reason that so many thousands of immigrants settle in South Africa every year.

I could go on demonstrating that South Africa still has firm bonds with the rest of the world in many fields and that the picture which the world has of South Africa is a different picture to the one which was painted for us here this morning.

Last but not least, I want to point out briefly that the Government believes that the basis of sound relations with peace-loving peoples of the world is in our establishing a body politic in South Africa in which there is an opportunity for all population groups to attain self-realization in all fields. This is the objective of the Government. Not only is this stated in speeches by ambassadors at the UNO and elsewhere, but also implemented in practice in this way. Other hon. members on this side of the House will indicate how the Government is going about attaining that situation. I myself want to indicate briefly what progress has been made in the material sphere only, progress in regard to the standard of living of South Africa’s non-Whites during the past year. Consequently, I should like to quote in brief the figures which I have been able to obtain from Pretoria during the past few days. The average increase in salaries and wages of all wage-earners during the period 1971 to 1976, excluding domestic servants and those employed in agriculture, was 62,4% in the case of Whites, 74,3% in the case of Coloureds, 94,4% in the case of Asians and 150,9% in the case of Bantu. And this is the country where oppression is supposedly the fate of the non-White, the country whose policy is paraded before the outside world as one of oppression.

If, however, we take cognizance specifically of what the central Government is doing, if we take cognizance of the average increase in salaries and wages of people in the Government’s service, and contrast only the White man to the Black man, we find that between 1971 and 1976, the White man’s wages increased by 46,4% and those of the Black man by 152,9%. I could continute to indicate in this way how the standard of living of the non-White in South Africa has advanced in every sphere of life. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into this in detail. I just want to make the statement that the Government’s objective remains unaltered, viz. that the Government is attempting to give also political rights to everyone in this country. The Government believes, however, that political rights can be enduring and can create a basis for peaceful co-existence only if such rights are placed next to one another and not one above the other, so that the stronger is on top and the smaller and weaker is oppressed underneath.

Mr. Speaker, the Government believes that eventually, and after arduous labour, it will be able to bring about a peaceful body politic in South Africa and that this will lay the foundations for better relations with our neighbouring states as well as with other countries in Africa and eventually with the whole wide world.

If the hon. members could have been at Mecklenburg, the official residence of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, yesterday evening, and could have witnessed the way in which the leaders of Transkei were associating with the leaders of this country, if the hon. members could have experienced that peaceful atmosphere, they would have been able to gain an impression of the way things in South Africa and indeed in Southern Africa could be in future.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to question the figures furnished by the hon. member for Vasco on the foreign trade with South Africa, the number of formal and informal missions taking place or even the question of foreign investment in South Africa. However, as far as this last aspect is concerned, I should like the hon. member for Vasco to discuss this with the hon. the Minister of Finance and find out whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied with the present situation regarding foreign investment in South Africa. It seems to us that the hon. member does not realize the seriousness of the situation regarding our foreign policy. The message of the hon. the Prime Minister was a serious one. However, a certain aspect of the Government’s policy, viz. its strategic policy as far as it concerns defence, was affected by the collapse of our foreign policy. The hon. member does not want to admit, either, that our internal policy is contributing to the collapse of our foreign policy. The hon. member says the fault cannot lie with our internal policy, but I wish to refer him to what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say about this. The hon. the Minister’s words are much better suited to this argument than those of the hon. member. Last year the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said at a NP congres in Durban—

The hon. the Minister therefore says that the application of our policy, the way in which we apply our internal policy, provides our enemies with ammunition to shoot down that policy, and this does not make South Africa’s position in the world any easier. This is a fact. This is what the hon. the Minister said, but nevertheless the hon. members on the other side do not want to admit that it is indeed the internal policy of South Africa which has this tremendously detrimental effect on South Africa’s foreign relations.

†It will come as no surprise if I say that we on these benches will certainly support the motion moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

May I ask the hon. member whether he is opposed to the policy or to the application of the policy?

There are two aspects. The Minister says that until such time as the Government can prove that this policy will provide and answer to our problem of relations between peoples, our position in the world will not improve. Up to now the Government has not furnished that proof. Has proof been furnished with regard to the Coloureds and with regard to the urban Blacks? Is the proof in the small pieces of land available to the homelands? Therefore that proof has not yet been furnished and even in the application of that policy, there are many points of friction which provide the enemies of South Africa with ammunition with which they can shoot down that policy so that our position in the world is not made any easier. The Minister made this admission himself.

†We support the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and reject the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Vasco. [Interjections.] We in this House should not underestimate the seriousness of South Africa’s position in the international scene. I do not say that we are completely isolated, but if one takes two statements, not only the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement, but also the statement of the hon. the Minister of Defence made on 31 December 1976, then one will realize that, as far as foreign policy relates to defence policy—the strategic defence of South Africa—foreign policy has collapsed. We are today in a completely vulnerable position as far as international aggression is concerned. The hon. the Minister of Defence said—

He continued—

Has the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs tried too hard to assure the West of our support? To whom was the hon. the Minister of Defence referring when he said: “Perhaps we in South Africa have tried too hard to assure the West of our support”? Can he suggest who it is? Has he and his department been trying too hard? Has the hon. the Prime Minister been trying too hard? Has the hon. the shadow-Prime Minister or the hon. shadow-Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. the Minister of the Interior and of Information, perhaps been trying too hard to persuade the West of our support? This is a remarkable statement and it becomes more remarkable when one thinks of the very warm and apparently cordial discussions which have taken place between the hon. the Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State of the United States, Dr. Kissinger, in Bavaria, Zürich and Pretoria. There were warm intimate discussions on the problem of Rhodesia, but nevertheless—seen in a regional context—also the problems of Southern Africa. Yet the hon. the Minister of Defence now says that South Africa perhaps has tried too hard. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to this House to whom the hon. the Minister of Defence was referring, and whether South Africa has in fact tried too hard to assure the West of its support.

What has happened? Let us just have a look at what the hon. the Prime Minister could say in this House as recently as 21 April of last year. When dealing with the question of Western attitudes to South Africa he said that there were problems, and then added (Hansard, col. 5135)—

Can the hon. the Minister tell us if there has been a change, and if so, has it been a change for the better or a change for the worse? I ask this, because now the Prime Minister says that even in the face of a communist onslaught, we in South Africa are going to have to stand alone. On 22 April last year the Prime Minister also dealt with the détente policy, because there were formal missions to Africa in previous years. I quote from last year’s Hansard, at col. 5203—

Is the tendency of our relationship with Africa still an upward one? Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether we are developing more intimate relationships with African nations or not? When one looks at the total impact of this, it is clear that South Africa has become tragically isolated not only from Africa, but also from the Western World.

I want to refer to another statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister, because it is tremendously important when it comes to the question of defence. On 13 September the hon. the Prime Minister used these words at a big NP rally in Pretoria—

*The hon. the Prime Minister says that South Africa will not be able to ward off the onslaughts of the communists without the support of America. However, three months later he said that if there should indeed be an onslaught on South Africa, the country cannot rely on any country in the West. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Defence how this statement is to be reconciled with his statement 2½ months later, that we stand alone. Listen to what the hon. the Prime Minister says—

Is this still the Government’s approach, or is this a new approach of surrender that we want nothing to do with the West and Africa and that we are following our own course, even though we cannot ward off the onslaughts of the communists?

†I think that it is appropriate to look at certain areas relevant to our foreign policy which we cannot ignore and to try and diagnose what has taken place in each of them. There are three with which I want to deal very briefly. One is the communist block. We in these benches believe that when it comes to communist intervention in Southern Africa—represented primarily in the form of Russian Soviet imperialism, because that is the way in which it has manifested itself during recent times—we in South Africa can do nothing by way of changing our policy to appease Soviet imperialism. There is nothing we can do to appease the demands of Soviet imperialism in Southern Africa, but there is a difference between not appeasing and helping. I believe that the way in which we are conducting our policies inside South Africa has caused apartheid to become the greatest ally of Soviet imperialism in Africa. I can imagine the little old men of the Kremlin going down on their knees every night and saying: “Thank Lenin for the NP Government and the policy of apartheid in South Africa.” It is not only embarrassing the West in its attempts to try to counter Soviet imperialism, but within South Africa we are creating, with the policies the Government is applying, the seed beds for the nurturing of Marxist revolutionary activity.

When one comes to the African States there is quite understandably a significant degree of disappointment that there has not yet been a settlement in Rhodesia, and to the extent that South Africa is seen as part of that totality, there is a disappointment. I want to make it quite clear that in spite of that I do not believe that there are specific recriminations against South Africa or against the hon. the Prime Minister for his efforts in this regard. I believe that there is a high regard for the efforts the hon. the Prime Minister had made in relation to encouraging Rhodesia to accept the concept of majority rule. There was a very high regard last year for the contribution the hon. the Prime Minister made to the release of terrorist leaders from detention so that they could participate in discussions elsewhere in Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister stated what he could and what he could not do in relation to Rhodesia, and all the evidence I have indicates that there is acceptance—whether they agree with it or not—of the good faith in which the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa has acted. Nevertheless, we are caught up in the slipstream of disappointment over the fact that there has not yet been a satisfactory settlement.

A second reason why Africa has become cooler towards us is that despite the efforts of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his secretary there is a real disillusionment. The year 1974/75 was the heyday of expectation. There was Pik Botha’s speech, the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the Senate, the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech at Nigel— “Give us six months”—and the answering echo by President Kaunda: “These are the words of reason for which Africa has been waiting.” There was a tremendous expectancy and it is the abject failure of the Government to implement the promises in a meaningful way that has created an utter disillusionment amongst the Black leaders of Africa. I wonder how they would have reacted had they listened in to the way in which hon. Ministers answered questions as to how they had got rid of discrimination in their own departments. These hon. Ministers should have stood up and proudly told us what they had done in this regard, but every one of them ran away and ducked the issue. This Government must come out boldly on this issue; it must not make changes away from discrimination merely under the pressure of the mobs or under pressure of international forces. This Government must take the initiative; they must announce that they are proud to get rid of race discrimination; they should not do it ungraciously, secretively and surreptitiously.

Thirdly, we should not underestimate the fact that Black Africans, whether we like it or not, see in the application of the policy of apartheid on a day-to-day basis gross offences against the dignity of Black people and, because they are also Black people, gross offences against their dignity as citizens. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave us various examples of things which are offensive to Black people in South Africa and so also to Black people elsewhere. [Interjections.] We can say that they are wrong, that they are over-reacting to the situation, but however irrational that behaviour might seem to us, let us not underestimate the intensity of the feeling there is every time a Black man is crudely humiliated as a result of the application of Government policies in South Africa. Until we in South Africa and that Government can treat Black Africans in South Africa with the same amount of dignity as we willingly treat White Europeans in this part of Africa, we shall not be able to come to terms with the rest of Africa.

Obviously, the worst and most dramatic set-back in our foreign policy has been in relation to the West. Only a short while ago the hon. the Prime Minister was talking about the West being our leader. The hon. the Minister was working hard at improving relationships with the United States of America. He has himself admitted that it was “die toepassing van die beleid” which gave the rest of the world ammunition. I do not believe that the final reason why the Western world has moved away from us is the detailed “toepassing van hierdie beleid”. It is because, in the attempts of the West either to defeat, neutralize or contain Russian imperialism, we have become an acute embarrassment to them in Africa. For this reason they want nothing to do with us. One can read speeches by people like Sen. Dick Clark and others on this matter. These are sympathetic, understanding speeches about our position, but they nevertheless say they can have nothing to do with us.

Finally, we have lost in the eyes of the West one key factor which we possessed before, and that is that amidst all the turmoil in Africa we appeared in South Africa to offer a haven of stability. Stability was tremendously important. I have no time to read it, but the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will recall that in his speech in Durban he said that internal stability has a direct impact on foreign relations and a lack of internal stability has an adverse effect on foreign relations. We lost this not just as a result of the unrest situation, not just because of the shooting, but as a result of the Government’s response. They realize that one can use weapons, the police and even armies to suppress unrest in South Africa, but there will be no basic stability in South Africa until we can resolve the political equation and until Black and Brown and White people can sit down together and can come to some kind of accord. Therefore no solution which is imposed by this White House on the Black people of South Africa is going to improve our relationships. The only thing that will improve our relationships and the only thing that will enable us to sell South Africa on our terms to the Western World is if we do have a Turnhalle type of conference, a meeting of the leaders of the various communities and if, out of that meeting, there is a common voice, a South African voice which says: “We South Africans, whatever colour we may be, are united on the basic dispensation for our political future.” Until the Government can produce an agreement between Blacks and Whites and Browns, we are going to be in a position where even in the face of a communist onslaught, as the hon. the Prime Minister said—

Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout have now reached consensus, on behalf of two parties, on one point, viz. foreign affairs. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that Marxist imperialism, wherever there is a popular movement, ranges itself on the side of such popular movement and that it then provides that movement with arms.

It selects one and then provides it with arms.

Yes, it does in fact find such a popular movement. However, I want to ask the hon. member whether or not Swapo is a popular movement.

Of course, the communists see it as a popular movement.

In any case, the MPLA is likewise a popular movement. Has no one gone into the history of Swapo and the history of the MPLA to establish for how long prior to their becoming a movement they had been indoctrinated and influenced by Russian imperialist communism?

This motion mainly concerns the question as to why the outside world is against us. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was furnished with a clear reply by the hon. the Prime Minister during the no-confidence debate when the Prime Minister said they were demanding certain things from us which we were not prepared to concede. He referred to the UNO, which demanded, on behalf of South West Africa, that South Africa should have discussions with Swapo under the auspices of the UNO. That was the demand that was made. They demanded that South Africa should bring pressure to bear upon and apply sanctions to Rhodesia. That was a second demand that was made, and the third demand is the one we have now had from hon. members, i.e. that a majority government should be established in this country. The amendment which we moved is in complete agreement with the Charter of the UNO, and I quote from Chapter 1, article 1(2)—

Where do we get the idea from that one has to advocate violence and even more violence to promote a hierarchy? The hon. member says that if we do not oust this Government in time and take the lead towards the establishment of a new corporate Republic, the entire White civilization will be destroyed. That is the fear that is being expressed. The only way they suggest this fear can be overcome, is that we should try to convince the Western nations. This was the complaint of the hon. member for Sea Point throughout. We should convince the Western nations! Not one of us who has made a study of the tendencies of world conflict will deny that the ultimate goal of communism, as interpreted by the Marxist hierarchy of the Kremlin, is world domination. This was clearly indicated by events over the past 20 years. This recipe is quite clear, particularly in Africa where, after colonization, a desire for freedom manifested itself when the Black peoples suddenly realized that freedom was within their reach and resorted to imperialist communism. However, I want to concentrate of the driving force behind this liberation, the driving force which is being exploited to establish an ideology of world domination.

We are familiar with the Marxist tyranny of Moscow, because we know the history of Russia. We know their attempts to liberate themselves from the Czarist control and the way in which the communists gained control over a number of States and established the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That was done under the guise of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout likes to call a principle of freedom. However, I am not concerned with the slogans or methods that were used. What is important to me—and I am convinced that the hon. the Prime Minister also thought of this—is the way in which those States retained their powers and which methods are being applied to achieve the ultimate goal of world domination. For that reason I also want to tell the world what the position is in Russia itself. What is the position of religion, which should be the driving force behind any people and nation? We find that in Russia the Bible is replaced by the State and the party, and that the KGB constantly keeps a watchful eye on anyone wishing to practise religion. People are constantly watched to see whether they do not say anything against the State. What has become of the individual freedom of the people of Russia? I want to quote a piece from a book written on the KGB by John Barron. The following is stated there—

These are the people, this is the hierarchy, the tyranny, which not only control Russia itself, but also its satellite states. What has become of family life in Russia? What has become of the freedom of movement in Russia? What has become of the half million Jews who want to emigrate? Only a few are afforded the opportunity to emigrate. What have become of those who, according to the State, have transgressed? Are the camps in Siberia full or are they not full? There are even mental institutions to which people who have for some reason or other, been declared mentally ill, are committed without their ever being able to get out again.

What about their diplomatic service? It is said that more than 40% of their foreign diplomats are active agents of the KGB. It is also known that relatively speaking Russia has twice as many foreign diplomats than any other country. In this way these tyrants, this Kremlin power, retains control over its own 260 million people. It also projects that control over its satellites. One asks oneself: Why is Russia specifically interested in countries such as Mozambique, Angola and Somalia? Is it not part of their pattern of world domination to take over these strategic places? What is their first request after having taken over such a country? The first they ask for is bases. They do not supply food; they supply guns and ammunition and immediately ask for a basis, and for that reason the hon. the Prime Minister was quite right when he said that a difficult time lies ahead, because South Africa, with its mineral wealth and its strategic situation, is one of the goals of this Kremlin hierarchy.

I want to conclude by saying that I believe sincerely that Africa is going to be the Vietnam of Russia. Africa is going to be the Vietnam of the Kremlin because they do not know Africa nationalism and, in the second place, because they are unable to provide these oppressed people with food since they do not have sufficient food for their own people. I think if ever there was a cowardly country, it is Russia with its Kremlin hierarchy which has not fought one single battle itself. They use the Cubans and any other nation, because they cannot risk using their own people in that struggle, because that will cause their own downfall.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the contribution of the hon. member for Brentwood. What he said about Russia and the communist threat, one can, of course accept at once. One may differ from him as regards some minor point, but on the whole one has to concede that the dangers which he described so well, do exist. I do not really have any objection to what he said; my objection is that he did not say it in a way which will help us to solve the problems we are experiencing in our foreign relations. The motion before us, as well as the amendment to the motion which I shall discuss later on, deals with the present state of our foreign relations. To attack the Russians, is of no avail to us. It is of no avail to us to criticize our opponents only. If we want to solve our own problems, we should actually take a look at what is going on in our own midst. We should determine where the shortcomings are in our own policy. We cannot solve problems simply by reproaching the opponents or enemies of South Africa.

†Mr. Speaker, I think the motion moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout serves a very valuable purpose. It serves a very valuable purpose in the sense that it is time we in this House had a good, hard look at the state of our foreign policy and made up our minds exactly where we are and where we are going from here. It is very necessary for a number of reasons. There has clearly been a massive change in the dimensions, nature and shape of foreign relations between South Africa and the rest of the world. This is clear to everybody; everybody knows that these changes have taken place, but there has been no clear indication from the Government as yet as to what our new policies are and how we have adapted to meet these very significant and clear changes that have taken place. Indeed, the opposite has taken place, because far from redrawing, redefining, reclarifying our foreign policy, we have had over recent months a series of statements which have only made confusion worse.

The hon. member for Sea Point has produced a number of quotations which I have here as well and which I shall not repeat. They show only too clearly that we do not know which way we are going. We appear to be running off in one direction, we appear to acknowledge the leadership of the West, we say they are our leaders, we rely upon them to see us through these difficult times and a month or two later we repudiate them and say they can do us no good; we stand alone and we will face the onslaught by ourselves. What is this all about? It is all words. Let us at least in our foreign relations be realistic. It is no good deceiving ourselves when we deal with something as important to our existence, to our survival, as foreign affairs. There are other fields, maybe, in which propaganda, even self-deceptions, can be helpful in sustaining morals. However, when one deals with foreign affairs, one is dealing with a matter which is not amenable to that kind of treatment. In dealing with foreign affairs one must get down to the realities of the situation. That is my objection to the approach of the hon. member for Brentwood, because while he described certain aspects of events in Africa, he did not get down to true cases. What are we going to do about it? This question is what the debate is about and not about what is happening.

Tell us.

The hon. member for Brakpan should have a little more patience; we shall come to it. But before one can come to the remedies, one must define the weaknesses.

We discovered in the no-confidence debate, as I said, that there is no clear theme which appears to guide our foreign policy. Let us go back to realities. What are they? We are threatened with a breakdown, or at least a steady deterioration, in our relations with Africa. We see no hopeful signs, no positive, and certainly no public signs, of a continuation of that progress which used to go under the name of détente. Undoubtedly, there must still be contacts. One finds that there are people who are still interested, occasionally throwing out some hope, throwing out a word and asking for a new approach. No doubt, as the hon. member for Vasco said, trade is still going on. These things are happening. But we are looking for something much more positive to reverse the disastrous trend of events which has been quite plain and obvious in recent months. Who are these African States? By and large these African States are individually impotent. They are economically weak and individually impotent. They are not by themselves able to muster the kind of strength which can provide a real threat to South Africa. We have recently read with interest and with some pride the story of what happened in Angola, the achievements of a very small body of South African troops in quite a large African area. The picture painted—and we are glad that at last the facts are coming through; we cannot think why they were concealed for so long—of what happened in Angola shows in effect that South Africa has nothing to fear by means of conventional warfare against any of the countries of Africa. We are able to face this with confidence. However, what we cannot face with confidence, is the political effects when these countries act in concert.

Now, through the OAU, these countries are sometimes able to concert their voices to bring pressures to bear on world councils, to bring pressures to bear on the West, which lead the West to take action, to adopt attitudes, to perform their diplomatic tasks, in a manner which is highly inconvenient or highly detrimental to the interests of South Africa. Why is this, Sir? It is possible to identify those things which enable the African States to concert their attitude, to agree to protest, to agree to convince and to influence the West in its attitude towards South Africa. We know what these things are, Sir. They have a great deal to do with our domestic policies. They have to do with the things which have been spoken of in this House today. They have to deal, very often, with the implementation of the policy. Even where the policy can be justified, the manner of implementing it sometimes is so disastrous in its consequences that whatever gains we have made, are wiped out overnight by these clumsy efforts which occur with monotonous regularity.

Mr. Speaker, to anybody who is deeply concerned about the interests of South Africa, it is most discouraging, it is most disheartening, it fills one with a mood of gloom and impending disaster that, in the difficult situation in which we find ourselves in foreign relations, these things should be done with so little regard for South Africa’s true interests. What is the attitude of the West to us? Without wishing to be personal, I have managed to maintain contact myself over many years, and I do have access to people who, in the course of years, now occupy senior places in America and in Europe, and I try to maintain contact with them. I believe, Sir, that when they speak on a private and informal basis, they tend to speak the truth. These people do not wish the downfall of South Africa. These people realize the strategic importance of South Africa. These people realize that their interests are linked with those of South Africa. It is entirely wrong to say, as hon. members on that side of the House frequently say, that all they want for us is our downfall, that they want nothing less than Black majority rule for South Africa. They are not asking for these things. I believe these arguments are put, or the extremists are quoted, merely in order to defend this Government’s reluctance to make any reasonable changes at all. I believe that the West—and I am now speaking of the responsible West—desires things for South Africa which would surprise us if we knew how well disposed they were. These people do not want to see South Africa brought to a position of chaos. They do not want to see South Africa in the hands of an irresponsible Government. Why is it the habit so often on that side of the House to quote the irresponsibles, to quote the extremists, as indicative of what the West really wants?

Mr. Speaker, two or three months ago I happened to speak to a person who has held a very high position in the Council of Europe and in other important inter-European organizations. This man reproached me for our failure to state a case in the Council of Europe. He believes that there is much more goodwill in those councils than we realize, much more of a realistic appreciation of the importance of South Africa to the West. However, he said this to me: “You know who is stating the case about Southern Africa there? Constantly the communist countries. Constantly the socialist countries are taking the opportunity in these councils to attack South Africa, to blacken your name, to attribute wrong motives, to speak ill of you, and to lead resolutions and motions to your great detriment. Where are you? Why do you not do something? Send me something. Let me speak on your behalf.” Actually, on one occasion, without help from us, he said that he had made up his own case and had managed to defeat a motion against South Africa asking for the cutting of trade links with South Africa in the Council of Europe.

I am saying this not to reproach anybody; I am saying merely that it is wrong to accuse the responsible West, the people who know what is really going on, the people who understand the significance of South Africa, of only wanting us to write off responsible government in this country, to yield to uncivilized majorities and all such statements that get made from time to time. It is not so. What they are looking for from us, is that we should create a climate here, a situation here so that Black people and Brown people will see in South Africa a reasonable opportunity for a good life within a just society. They do not put it much higher than that; this is what they want to see. They will look to the people of Africa, the people of South Africa and their reactions to what we do, as their guide-line. If we can keep our own people in South Africa happy, if we can keep them prosperous and moving forward with reasonable expectations for the future, they will not be saying and doing things which lead the rest of Black Africa to stand up as their champions. The situation will no longer be created where the Russians and communists can come into Africa and find here a very fertile field in which they can put forward their imperialistic designs. They do not come here because they care about apartheid, they do not come here because they care about South Africa in particular and about other nations, but they come to this subcontinent because they can see trouble brewing here and trouble is to their advantage. The West is asking us to create a situation where Russian imperialism cannot find an easy batting wicket, where they cannot come here and score so many runs against the West. They say: “Please help us create a situation.” This is what Western pressure is about and it is no good talking about the extremists and what they ask. Let us talk and think about what responsible opinion is demanding of us.

It is all very well to refer to the UNO where invariably, * monotonously, year after year, resolutions are passed against us by majority. If we can gain the support and understanding of the West—I speak of the North Americans and the Europeans—then we can laugh at these resolutions at the UNO. However, the Western countries despair when we comport ourselves in such a way in this country that they, the responsible West, the North Americans and the Europeans, no longer find it possible to defend us, no longer find it possible to object to and resist the resolutions of our opponents and enemies and no longer find it possible to exercise influence in Africa on people to seek détente or understanding with us or peaceful solutions.

That is what we feel needs to be clarified and put right in our foreign relations. That is the cause of the motion which we have before us today. We have seen before us a foreign policy which on the surface anyway—we would be happy to receive assurances to the contrary from the hon. the Minister—looks as though it has descended to negativism, to immobilism and, in fact, to little more than passive spectatorship. This is how it looks and I believe the time has come to restate our foreign policy, to restate our objectives, to tell South Africa, in the first place, and then to tell the world where we are really going to be done with this confusion, this uncertainty and the dismal picture of constant retrogression in our foreign relations.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity of participating in what I believe is a very important debate today and very glad also to be able to support the original motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Was that your elder that has spoken? [Interjections.]

In the short time that I have at my disposal, I want to focus entirely on the relationship between South Africa and the United States. The first point that I simply want to underline is the importance of the relationship in terms of the very power that the United States does have in the world and the acknowledgement by the hon. the Prime Minister, as referred to by the hon. member for Sea Point earlier in the debate, as to our own readiness to see the United States as being the leader of the West and therefore our leader as well. Dr. Kissinger’s now famous Lusaka speech marked an obvious change in United States policy towards South Africa. In that speech, which was made on 27 April 1976 in Lusaka, he said a number of important things, which I think this House ought to be aware of. We must bear in mind the timing of this speech. His trip was obviously designed to repair the somewhat tattered position of the United States in South Africa after the debacle in Angola. From the fall of the Portuguese territories came a new wave of Black insurgency, which held a direct threat to Rhodesia in the first instance and, indeed, for South Africa as well. The relentless process was armed and exploited by the Soviet Union. While they were doing that it seemed that the United States was sitting back and achieving nothing. That is why the then Secretary of State delivered his ringing speech in Lusaka on 27 April last year. He warned against a number of things. He firstly warned the Rhodesian Government to negotiate for a majority rule settlement within two years and that there was a very considerable prospect of United States assistance if that was a possibility but that if there was not, they could not look to the United States for assistance. With regard to South Africa, Dr. Kissinger urged for a definite timetable—to use his exact phrase—“to end the long and outlawed occupation of Namibia”. He promised that the United States would “exercise all her efforts” to persuade South Africa peacefully to end apartheid and to move towards “equality of opportunity and basic human rights”. I believe that this is a phrase which has not always registered as strongly as it ought to have.

Many people living in South Africa immediately assume that the official policy of the United States is either so anti-communistic that it will come to the aid of South Africa no matter what, or on the other hand, so anti-South Africa that no matter what we attempt to do in this country, we shall receive no support at all. I believe that both these positions are palpably untrue. I believe that Dr. Kissinger’s stress on equal opportunity, minority rights and basic human rights, is the major thrust of American policy, if one is to read and understand the speeches that have been made both before Mr. Carter became President and subsequent to that time. Dr. Kissinger made many other speeches during his shuttle diplomacy, but I believe that he was consistent in what he was saying there, that in terms of basic fundamental human rights, the United States had a certain responsibility in Southern Africa. I was in Boston when Senator Clark made his speech to the African Studies Association. It was a very interesting speech. The timing was also very important because it came one day after the American election. Mr. Carter was the President and a Democratic regime was coming into power. Amongst other things, Senator Clark said at that time—

He then went on to list about nine points which he believed should make up the policy of the United States towards South Africa, and no one can deny that there is a fundamental shift, beginning in the Lusaka speech made by the then Secretary of State, until the present situation where we find these words by the very influential Senator Clark of the sub-committee on Africa. We then had the appointment of Congressman Andrew Young as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Already there has been a great deal of controversy both in his own country and in the Press of our country about Mr. Young. It has been my privilege to have known Ambassador Young for about 10 years. I knew him first when he was a minister of the church in the United States, as a civil rights leader, and almost as a kind of personal assistant to Martin Luther King. I knew him when he was in Europe on conferences on racism, I have known him in this country as a visiting congressman, I have spoken to him on many occasions in the United States both prior and subsequent to the election, and there is no question that if anyone embodies the basic persistent theme of Pres. Carter’s own words regarding foreign policy, it is Andrew Young. That is his basic commitment to human rights within his own country and, therefore, as an integral part of the United States’ policy, in relation to the rest of the world.

The interesting thing about Ambassador Young is that I do not think I have talked to another Black American—particularly to one with such possible influence—who has a better understanding of the problem of minority groups in South Africa. He speaks out of his own experience, because he is part of a minority group in his own country. That does not mean to say that I agree with every word he says, or that South Africa ought to, or that what he says is always absolutely true, right and good policy. It is, however, a good thing to remember, before we castigate Ambassador Young and before we criticize everything he does and says, that in the first place he acknowledges personally, privately and publicly that because he is Black it does not follow that he knows and understands Africa. He is willing to learn, to listen and to talk and I think we should take advantage of that. In the second place, he is a member of a minority group within his own country and, therefore, he has a deep sympathy for the problem of the minority groups in South Africa as they seek to find their way through to a new dimension.

Unfortunately, my time is very limited, but I want to make two more points. In the first place there are enormous pressures on decision-makers in the United States; there are very strong anti-South African lobbies. I have met them and many hon. members in this House have probably met them and know who they are. That lobby is growing in strength; there is no question about it that there are more and strong groups urging very radical action by the United States in relation to Southern Africa. Coupled with that is the very real dilemma which faces the United States as it seeks to forge out a new foreign policy in relation to Africa and in particular to Southern Africa. The dilemma is that Africa has a very strong view in relation to Southern Africa and that Soviet Russia is now beginning to emerge—I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to it earlier on—as the champion of the oppressed, and the United States simply cannot sit back. It does not want to become involved in the war; it does not want to arm guerrillas and terrorists, but at the same time it wants to have some influence in Southern Africa to bring about what they describe as peaceful change. I believe that every time we take an action which suggests to the outside world that we will not move away from our basic policy of apartheid or separate development, we make the task of the United Stated that much more difficult. Let me just mention three examples, one of which is the schools and which has already been mentioned. That does not stop here in South Africa; it reverberates right through the world, because the Catholic community is a world-wide body and therefore it is newsworthy. Secondly, when one moves people in large numbers, even though one does it, as it were, with kid gloves and does not use bulldozers, that also goes right around the world and is a negative factor in our whole foreign policy. Lastly, when one bans 27 people who were working amongst Black trade unions, one has every trade union movement throughout the whole world beginning to sit up and say: “We must take firmer action against South Africa.” So often the policy of the Government makes the job of that hon. Minister so difficult that I urge that we think carefully about our role, particularly vis-à-vis the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands spoke in defence of Mr. Andrew Young. As one parson to another, I do not want to comment on that, but I hope that Mr. Young will realize that he is not representing a minority group at the United Nations, but a country, the leading country in the Western world. The hon. member for Von Brandis remarked that the West would not like to see the downfall of South Africa. I would agree with him there. However, he said that it was our policy that made it extremely difficult for the Western world to support us. It is not only our policies. I believe it is also the impression of what our policies are really all about that is created in the outside world that makes it difficult for the West to support us.

*The hon. members of the Opposition are also at fault in this regard, because it is remarkable how, in recent times, members on that side of the House, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular, have deliberately used the concept of apartheid when referring to the policy of the Government. They do this because they know that, to the audience they are addressing outside this House, the word “apartheid” has become a caricature of the actual policy of the Government. Over the years, the word “apartheid” has wrongly begun to assume a negative meaning, a meaning of absolute separation and blatant discrimination merely on the basis of colour. However, this is a false representation of our policy, because our policy is not a policy of colour; it is an ethnic policy. Where apartheid exclusively concerns discrimination and separation on the basis of colour, apartheid is not the policy of this Government.

Now you are wide off the mark.

Of course there are still discriminatory measures and discriminatory practices, but everything cannot be rectified overnight. Even the Lusaka Manifesto of 1969 indicates quite clearly that there can be a transitional phase in any country. The Lusaka Manifesto reads—

Where discrimination still exists on the basis of colour alone, our declared policy—which was once again confirmed by the hon. the Prime Minister in the quotation he made from Ambassador Botha’s speech and our intention is to move away from such discrimination. During his speech in the no-confidence debate the hon. the Prime Minister stated the policy once again when he said—(Hansard, 28 January 1977, col. 404)—

When discussing … [Interjections.]

Order! The supporting speakers on these motions have very little time at their disposal. I therefore want as few interjections as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When discussing foreign relations, we on this side of the House do not deny that our domestic policy exerts a great influence upon our foreign relations. We do not deny it, but we object when the Opposition wants to allege that everything is merely the result of the colour policy of this side of the House. It is not that straightforward or simple. As I pointed out, the fact is that we are moving away from discrimination on grounds of colour. One can argue about the question of whether the rate at which this is being done is fast enough, but that it is being done and that it will continue to be done far more quickly and in a wider sphere, cannot be questioned. This is our policy, and it is essential for our continued existence. The struggle in which we find ourselves in South Africa today, is a struggle for the preservation of a free Christian civilization against the Marxist and communist powers of enslavement; it is this polarization which we must fear, and this polarization does not take any account of colour. Therefore, our allies in this struggle in Southern Africa will be Coloureds, Blacks and Indians. Therefore, in the first place, we should not judge ourselves according to the criteria which the world prescribes to us, no matter how sound their intentions may be. We must judge ourselves according to what, in our situation, is reasonable, fair and humanitarian towards our people and our potential allies. In our honest search for solutions to the problems confronting us, we shall have to be led by our own beliefs and principles and not by the dictations from outside. The outside world may advise us, encourage us and even urge us to make peaceful changes in our internal relations policy, but the outside world cannot demand that we destroy ourselves in the process. Of course, it would be naive and irresponsible of me not to say that we must take into consideration foreign attitude towards South Africa. However, we must realize that in the present international climate, South Africa will hardly be able to comply with the demands made on us. We should like to take our rightful place in the array of nations and in the community of nations, but this is being made increasingly difficult for us. It is like taking part in a race where the finishing line is moved further and further away. We are trying to play according to the rules of the game, but the rules are continually being changed while the game is on. The latest demand which is being made, is that of majority rule.

By whom?

Of course, we on this side of the House can say that majority rule is our policy too. However, the PRP cannot say this. If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Florida indicated yesterday that the policy of that party ultimately amounts to a disguised White minority dictatorship. However, we on this side of the House can say that our policy involves majority rule, but not majority rule as is found in Angola, Mozambique or elsewhere in Africa. We mean majority rule where the majority of the people have a say in the weal and woe and the future of that people, in a democratic way. It is ironic that many countries in the world which protest so much against the so-called lack of freedoms and the injustice in South Africa, are remarkably silent about the large majority of countries where military dictators or one-party States have no respect for freedom of speech, protection of property, for free elections or other basic human rights. A very authoritative American institution, Freedom House, which is continually involved in a world-wide investigation concerning the degree of political and human rights in the world, indicated in its latest publication—that of January /February 1977, entitled “The Comparative Survey of Freedom No. 7”—that there are only two countries in Africa, namely Gambia and Botswana, where the inhabitants have a greater degree of political freedom and right than in South Africa. When considering the political rights enjoyed by inhabitants of all the countries of the world, we find that the inhabitants of 62% of those countries enjoy less political rights than all the inhabitants in South Africa. But that is not all.

South Africa is one of the 19 countries in the world in which the degree of freedom is increasing. We are one of the 19 countries “where there is a positive outlook for freedom”, as they put it. This has been said by a liberal but objective institution like Freedom House! One would like to see a greater degree of objectivity prevailing on the side of the Opposition, too, concerning the situation in South Africa and the complexity of it. If one listens to them, one gains the impression that there is no freedom at all in South Africa. One is forever hearing the refrain, as we heard once again from the hon. member for Sea Point this morning, that we should merely undo everything and have a Turnhalle conference in South Africa. This will supposedly solve all our problems.

The circumstances of South Africa and South West Africa differ immensely. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into this. I just want to say in conclusion that the Turnhalle conference came into being as an instrument for obtaining consensus between the various population groups. It was a consensus model. The Turnhalle conference was not an objective in itself. It was a means of bringing about consensus politics. In South Africa we do not need a conference like this, because we have other consulting machinery which has developed over the years and which apparently works well. Through that we practise our consensus politics. The independence of the Transkei is an excellent example of it. The Government believes in consensus politics and will continue to practise it in South Africa. Indeed, I am convinced that the social and political patterns of the future of South Africa will be determined by consensus politics to an increasing extent. This Government will seek consensus with all the population groups in South Africa in order to ensure a free Christian civilization for all its inhabitants.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg West and in the course of my own speech I shall return to some of the points he made. For the time being, allow me just to express the hope that he will indeed, in the circles in which he has influence, and in line with his own way of thinking, be prepared to support some of the concrete proposals I want to make.

Firstly, I just want to comment on two points he made. He said that the struggle was between the preservation of a free Christian culture and communism. I want to say that in fact, the problem is how we can possibly condone the situation in which, for example, a White person in South Africa may choose a non-Christian or even a Christian of any cultural identity, be it Greek, Italian or whatever, as a partner in marriage, but not a fellow Christian who happens to belong to a different colour group because this is forbidden by legislation. In other words, to what extent can the hon. member for Johannesburg West say, in all honesty, that this, as it has been formulated here, is the point of conflict in South Africa? Secondly, I want to refer to his concept of majority rule. In this regard, I should really like to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg West: If he says that it is the policy of the Government to implement majority rule, how, in all honesty, does he want to implement that principle, not in the case of the potential, possible independence of the homelands, but in respect of the Coloureds, the Indians and the urban Bantu?

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This motion comprises three elements: In the first place, the statement that a progressive deterioration has taken place in our foreign relations and international position; secondly, the statement that that deterioration is leading to a growing threat to South Africa; and thirdly, a demand that the Government take appropriate steps to bring about the changes necessary to deal with that situation.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that there are few thinking South Africans today who will deny that we are indeed isolated from the rest of the world to a far greater extent. If there was any doubt on this score, that doubt was removed by the New Year’s message of the hon. the Prime Minister himself. In other words, I think we can speak without fear of contradiction when we say that our international position has certainly deteriorated seriously over the past year. I do not want to insinuate—this is also my reply to the speech of the hon. member for Vasco—that we have necessarily had a deteriorating situation in respect of our existing diplomatic representation in other countries or in respect of our trade relations. As a matter of fact, I think we have all noted with gratitude the growing commercial and technical co-operation between South Africa and Israel and between South Africa and Iran for example. But with regard to the international political scene, it is surely very clear that during the past 12 months a grave deterioration in our position has occurred. A few of the manifestations of this are the Angolan war and the reaction it aroused in respect of our participation in it, the reaction of the UNO and the Security Council, the statements which followed the change of government in the USA, the increasing enmity at the OAU and the growing estrangement between the states on our borders and ourselves.

In regard to Rhodesia, too, the situation is becoming more and more difficult for us. Whilst on the one hand we can say with pride, as has been done here, that South Africa’s importance in Southern Africa is being acknowledged, and this goes for Rhodesia as well, it is also very clear that there is an increasing tendency to hold South Africa responsible for what is claimed to be an unyielding attitude on the part of the Rhodesian Government. The hon. the Prime Minister touched on this point and I think that the overall standpoint he put forward, that it is not our duty or responsibility to interfere in Rhodesia, will probably have the support of the vast majority of Whites in South Africa. But the pressure on South Africa in respect of Rhodesia will increase; it seems to me that we need have no illusions about that.

The internal disorder since June last year has further reinforced our isolation. It has caused growing enmity towards South Africa. Furthermore it has also, for the time being at least, put paid to the claim we made so often in the past, that South Africa was a model of internal political harmony and stability. It is equally certain that that deterioration in our international position has indeed given rise to a serious threat to us. This has been spelt out here, too, by what the hon. the Prime Minister himself said, namely that even if South Africa were to experience a terrorist onslaught today, with the direct and indirect support of the communist states, there would be little hope that South Africa could be supported in this regard by her friends in the West. The Western powers, our Western friends, cannot be viewed today as the champions or the patrons of the White man and White rule in South Africa.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before lunch I concluded with the statement that not one of our Western friends—and this is not a statement which any of us relishes— can afford to act as patron or champion of the White man and White rule in South Africa. Not even the very valid reasons we can advance, viz. that we are a supplier of essential raw materials to the world, that we are also of military importance to the West and that we are a steadfast anti-communist bulwark in Southern Africa, help us one jot. There is a network of factors to which this isolation may be attributed. We would obviously be wrong to place the blame on a single aspect. We could, for example, put forward the argument that the West’s unwillingness to take effective action against the expansionist imperialism of Soviet communism was one reason for that situation. However, it is not my task today to analyse all those factors. I think it is very clear to me and to all of us, to each and every thinking South African— whether we like it or not—that there is a direct relationship between our internal political policy and this attitude towards us adopted by the outside world. Everyone concedes this. There is no thinking South African who would dispute this statement today.

Mr. Speaker, the connection is clear. Now, if we were to ask what it was exactly in our internal policy that elicited such objections, it is very clear that it was simply because we elevated race or colour to the status of the discriminatory element between persons in South Africa.

As in Rhodesia!

Mr. Speaker, we have made colour and race the yardstick whereby we enforce separation between persons in South Africa.

What about the Portuguese in Mozambique?

Colour and race have become the factors on the basis of which we discriminate between one person and another. I shall refer at a later stage to the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg West. Colour and race have become the yardstick by which the worth and dignity of the individual in South Africa are determined.

That is not true.

Mr. Speaker, it is true. I shall come back to it.

It is not true.

Mr. Speaker, it is no good … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my friends opposite in all honesty that it is no good telling me that it is not a matter of discrimination, that the issue is not race and colour, but peoples or differentiation, that the issue is not apartheid but plural democracy and multi-nationalism. Mr. Speaker, we can say those things till the cows come home but it will make no difference. In other words, what people are interested in is not the shadow but the substance, and the substance is what I have indicated here to the hon. members. Mr. Speaker, surely it is very clear what our Western friends want of us and what our own secure and continued existence demands of us. Our own survival, in the first place, demands that we move away from race or colour as discriminatory elements between persons in South Africa.

This brings me to the third point in the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, viz. what must be done, what steps ought to be taken by the Government in regard to policy to help save this situation. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that the first thing we must do is determine our priorities. In other words, we must first determine the fundamental minima, the unnegotiable prerequisite for the survival of the White man in South Africa. This is our first duty. Mr. Speaker, those priorities will probably concern two matters: in the first place, the question of the political rights of the White man and preventing the domination of the White man in the political sphere by the more numerous non-Whites. This is one of the prerequisites. The second prerequisite concerns the survival, in the biological and cultural sense, of the White man in South Africa. Those are the two fundamental prerequisites for the White man in South Africa. I believe that it will indeed be possible to reach consensus with the non-Whites on those two principles. I myself believe this. That which is not covered by those two fundamental principles, is irrelevant and ought to be eliminated. Consequently, I say that it is only through close consultation with the non-White himself that we shall be able to determine what it is in this dispensation that is unacceptable to him. Separate entrances, taxis, buses, restaurants, hotels and other separate amenities obviously have nothing to do with the fundamental requirements for our survival and these must be done away with. [Interjections.]

In plain language, I want to suggest, firstly, that machinery be created for proper consultation between White and non-White on these principles. With due deference, I want to say that I do not think that the Cabinet Council will represent that machinery. In the second place, I want to suggest that precise stages, linked to a timetable, on how discrimination may be eliminated be published by this Government. In this regard, I want to suggest that the very appointment of an advisory multi-racial committee—I do not even want to commit the Government, hence the word “advisory”—which could advise the Government on how and at what pace discrimination might be eliminated, would immediately bring about a change in the whole international climate. In the third place, I want to ask that the Government should now give us an indication of a timetable, programme or plan for the future, as regards the improvement of the quality of life of our non-Whites. The Erika Theron report could provide us with a sound point of departure, as far as the Coloureds are concerned. When we have done all these things, I think we shall be able to make a start with a new diplomatic offensive in the world and in Africa too. With all deference, I want to express the hope that the concrete proposals I have made will, in fact, be given a positive hearing on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem this afternoon because as hon. members know, my time is limited. However, I shall try to deal with all the important points that were raised in this debate, but if some of them have to stand over until the debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote, I hope hon. members will forgive me.

*Unfortunately we on this side cannot associate ourselves with the motion moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and we confidently support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vasco. There are quite a number of the statements of fact made by hon. members opposite with which there is no fault to find. We agree with them and share their concern at the hostility of the outside world towards South Africa, as well as at many other matters which they touched upon. We have never tried to gloss over that hostile attitude of the outside world towards South Africa. The general tenor and spirit of the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is completely unacceptable to us on this side. The motion and speeches from the opposite side left one with the impression that South Africa was totally isolated and was the only country, or if not the only then one of very few countries in the world, which was experiencing difficult foreign problems and that the only solution was a complete change in the policy of the Government. This change has to be such that it would satisfy the outside world. Surely this is not the case. When one analyses South Africa’s foreign relations, one must see and analyse them in the correct perspective. This, unfortunately, the hon. members opposite do not do. I concede that our foreign relations are not satisfactory. Inherent in that are dangers to our country. But is South Africa an exception to the rule? What country’s foreign relations are satisfactory today and do not have inherent dangers? This cannot even be said of the powerful United States of America or of the West, seen in the light of the fact that Russia and its satellites are gaining ground in the armaments race with the West. There is virtually no part of the globe today in which States do not have to contend with external threats.

Let us consider Southern Africa. What is the position here? Apparently the hon. members do not realize that in these dangerous times in which the entire world finds itself, neither South Africa, nor any of our adjacent neigbouring states, find it necessary to use military forces to defend our common borders. I do not in any way want to imply that the Government is underestimating our problems with the outside world, or that we should do nothing to avert the dangers. On the contrary. These are matters which are constantly receiving serious consideration from, and are a priority to, the Government. I myself, and my department, have devoted ourselves to this continuously during the past 13 years, and believe me, it was no easy task, for South Africa has become the scapegoat of almost the entire world. Why was this the case? It was to a very large extent the result of developments in the international sphere, developments which were entirely beyond our control. I am thinking here of the power struggle between the Free World and Russia and its satellites, a struggle in which the strategic importance of Southern Africa resulted in its becoming a target. Secondly there was the liberation of Africa and the establishment of the OAU, which is used by the majority of its members as a pressure group against South Africa. Thirdly there was the Second World War, which led to a distortion and an emotional misuse of the concept of human rights. The international fashion in this sphere changed, as it were, and according to world opinion the earlier spectre of communism had to make way for racism and discrimination as the two most pernicious evils in the world. As is typical of the application of double standards, which one could also call selective morality, racism and discrimination on a large scale are ignored almost everywhere in the world, except in South Africa.

All these currents and developments made their influence felt on the UNO, which, in spite of its lofty ideals, rapidly degenerated into a purely international political organization in which power blocs and pressure groups tried to promote their own interests with their preponderance of votes. South Africa was simply not in a position to influence this historic process or to steer it in some or other direction. Nor would we have been able to do so, regardless of what our internal policy happened to be. Take our relations policy, for example, which is based on the internationally accepted principle of self-determination. However, we receive little or no credit for adjustments, for changes and adjustments in respect of the application of that policy, changes which flow from the policy. The best example of this Government’s sincerity is the independence of Transkei. But it is not recognized by the international community. Many Western powers make no secret of the fact that if a few African States would recognize Transkei, they would follow suit. What is involved here, therefore, is not the question of whether it is right or wrong, but of what is advantageous.

In spite of difficult circumstances the Government cannot be accused of not having done everything possible—and of not still doing this—to rectify and uphold South Africa’s position in the world. Think, for example, of the dozens of penetrating talks conducted by our hon. Prime Minister, by myself, my colleagues, high-ranking officials such as Mr. Brand Fourie and others, with leaders of the West, the Middle East, the East and Africa over a period of many years. Think of the valuable work done by our foreign missions, the reciprocal visits by Parliamentarians, by official missions, other groups and individuals from the public and private sectors, from which a wide-ranging exchange of ideas has resulted. Nor have these contacts been in vain; otherwise there would not have been international recognition today that South Africa has a key role to play in Africa, and Mr. Cyrus Vance would not have said on 31 January that—

Apart from the international events since the Second World War, there are many other factors which influence our foreign relations. One of these is our internal policy. We do not argue the matter with hon. members on that side of the House. I myself, and others have stated repeatedly here and elsewhere that there is a direct relationship between internal policy and our position in the world. At the same time other factors may not be overlooked, and economic and strategic considerations may not be underestimated, as other speakers on this side of the House have already indicated. Of far greater importance to our foreign relations are two vital issues: i.e. South West Africa and Rhodesia. These two issues are at present of the utmost importance in the determination of South Africa’s relations with a whole series of countries in the Free World, but particularly in respect of our relations with countries in Africa. These two factors weigh more heavily than all the other factors on which hon. members on that side of the House placed so much emphasis. I shall return to this again later.

Although South Africa’s internal policy is not acceptable to the outside world and in spite of the deliberate attempts of our enemies to isolate South Africa in the diplomatic and every other possible sphere, South Africa’s official representation, in all parts of the world, has expanded considerably during the past 13 years. This also applies to South Africa’s foreign trade, including our trade with Africa. The hon. member for Vasco quoted illuminating statistics in this regard, and I want to add only one example, viz. our trade with Latin America, since the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to South America. Our total trade with Latin America has increased almost five-fold during the past 13 years; in other words, it increased by 500%, in spite of the fact that the Latin American countries do not approve of our internal policy.

As far as the Republic’s diplomatic representation in Africa is concerned, I admit that the position is by no means satisfactory. Nevertheless a considerable number of contracts have been made in Africa in recent years, many on the very highest level. Many of those contacts are still being maintained today, in many cases with good results. Hon. members opposite want us to display more initiative. In this regard I want to remind them of the joint effort by South Africa and a number of Black States to find a peaceful solution to very difficult, probably the most difficult political problem in Southern Africa, viz. Rhodesia, and to encourage and promote a peaceful solution to that problem. This led to the bridge conference in 1975. This conference did not lead to a final solution, but as a result of that conference and what preceded it, firm foundations were laid for future talks, which did in fact take place. This also led directly to a far more active interest on the part of the United States and other Western Governments in the problems of Southern Africa and particularly in the Rhodesian question. It resulted in what I could call the Kissinger initiative, in which we and other African States also played an important part. The United States also succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of Great Britain and other important Western European States. The Kissinger initiative—and I admit this—did not bring a solution to the Rhodesian question either, but it was by no means a failure. On the contrary. It was highly successful in so far that it eliminated the crux of the Rhodesian question which is therefore no longer in dispute now. The acceptance by Mr. Ian Smith, his Government and the caucus of his party, of the principle of majority rule within two years, put an end to that important aspect of the Rhodesian question. In the meantime there was change of Government in the United States and the British Government continued the initiative. They came forward with new proposals in regard to interim arrangements until it was possible to proceed to the establishment of a majority government. I may mention in passing that Mr. Ivor Richard and his team were intent on getting certain important assurances. In the first place they wanted to give the Black Rhodesians a guarantee that Mr. Smith would not go back on the principle of majority rule—in other words that there should be no reversal of the acceptance of majority rule within two years. In the second place, Mr. Richard tried to give the Whites in Rhodesia a guarantee that there would be a future for them in Rhodesia, and in the third place they wanted to try to ensure that an immediate halt was called to the terrorist war. No one in the world can find any fault with these three objectives, but, as we all know, Mr. Richard and his colleagues did not achieve their object and afterwards the situation deteriorated. Although a deadlock has been reached, we know—in fact it is general knowledge—that Great Britain and the U.S.A. are determined to continue their peace offensive in regard to Rhodesia. We, the South African Government, welcome this of course. Personally I remain convinced that the vast majority of Rhodesians, White and non-White, desire a peaceful solution to their problem.

†In fact, two days ago Mr. Ian Smith informed us of his Government’s determination to explore further avenues for a settlement. We naturally welcome this as well.

*In addition I believe that the front-line presidents also desire a peaceful solution, in spite of what many of them say in public. As far as South Africa is concerned, the Government remains prepared to assist wherever it can to promote and guarantee peace in Southern Africa. What is important in this debate, however, is that if a solution to the Rhodesian question is achieved by negotiation—which I personally believe is still possible—it will affect our position very closely for it will promote friendly relations between States in Southern Africa and will make it easier for us to normalize our position in Africa. I firmly believe that what is happening in South West Africa and what is possible there, can also happen in Rhodesia.

Unfortunately I cannot reconcile myself to the second statement in the motion either, viz. that the deterioration in our internal relations is responsible for the escalating threat, which, according to the motion, is developing for South Africa. The greatest immediate threat to South Africa—in fact, to the entire free world—is the Russian endeavour to achieve world domination. The strategy of the Russians and their allies is the systematic and piecemeal elimination of all resistance and all obstacles in their path. The Republic of South Africa—in fact, the entire sub-continent—is such a stumbling block to them. The Russian/Cuban involvement in the sub-continent must therefore be seen as a threat to all of us in Southern Africa, White and non-White, to all who attach any value to their freedom. That threat to us exists, not because we are Whites or non-Whites or because our policy is not acceptable to the world, but because we are making the task of the Russians and Cubans and their allies to control Southern Africa a difficult one. As usual the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and his colleagues opposite too, believe that they have an instant solution to South Africa’s international problems. This time he calls it “appropriate policy steps”. What does that mean in political language? It simply means that we must satisfy the outside world by accepting the principle of majority rule in South Africa. [Interjections.] For years now that hon. member has been harping on petty apartheid.

And that has had good results …

I get the impression that he and some of his colleagues are now going much further. But whatever their attitude may be, if they believe that the Russians and Cubans will cease to be a threat to South Africa if the Government were to abolish all petty apartheid tomorrow—and we are eliminating unnecessary discrimination—if they believe that it would be very naïve and unrealistic. Even majority rule in South Africa will not satisfy the Russian imperialists, unless such a Government becomes the lackey of the Russians and dances to their tune in all respects.

Not even Gen. Smuts could satisfy them.

If this does not happen, the same fate will await such a majority government in South Africa as that which befell Hungary in 1965 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, in spite of the fact that the countries in question already had Communist governments at that juncture. Why should the Russians abandon their imperialistic aims as a result of a change of Government policy in South Africa, or as a result of the National Party Government being replaced by an Opposition party or Opposition parties?

No, Sir. There are no instant solutions to our international problems. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his colleagues do not have any—in fact, no one has. The NP does not have instant solutions to our problems either. We do have other solutions, internally as well as externally. These are no new solutions. We have had them for many years. We do not have a short cut either. Our solution extends over a very long road, a road we have been following for almost 30 years now, and we have already made a great deal of progress, as hon. members on this side indicated. I am referring to the road of self-determination of peoples and national groups, a principle which is accepted all over the world. In the case of South West Africa as well, which has for so many years been marring and complicating our relations with the outside world, we have walked the road of self-determination consistently and with good results. The result is that there are good prospects for a speedy solution through negotiation, a solution which will be acceptable to all the population groups and will not be forced upon anyone.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the policy of separate development recognizes and accepts as its point of departure the existence of different peoples in South Africa, all of which possess a language of their own, a culture of their own, a history of their own as well as a traditional homeland of their own. The basic point of departure of this policy is in no way based on colour. On the contrary. It is a recognition of the diversity of peoples which exists in South Africa. It is true that sharp and clearly defined national differences exist between the Black people of this country, differences which, in essence, are perhaps greater sometimes than the differences between White and Black. One asks oneself whether the struggle in Angola is not evidence of the sharp differences which can and in reality do exist between Black and Black.

Consequently, the development of the different homelands does not seek to create differences between people. On the contrary, it is an attempt to guide individual groups who already have an identity of their own, towards greater autonomy and self-determination. The development of these different national groups and their homelands, should not be seen, however, as an attempt to isolate these people from each other in every sphere. The homelands must be seen as separate units and eventually as new states, which, whilst maintaining their own sovereignty, will form part of an ultimately strong and economic whole which will lead to political stability and from which everyone will benefit. The policy, therefore, is founded on the firm basic principle that every people has a sovereign right to govern itself according to its own system of values, its own capabilities and its own needs; in other words, to be able to retain for itself that which has value to it as a people and to pursue objectives which it formulates for itself.

In a unitary state, on the other hand, the interests of a variety of peoples, such as one finds in South Africa, would clash with one another. Because of the conflict potential which this has the unitary state is not a suitable system for the Republic of South Africa. The realities of the situation in South Africa, where there is a variety of peoples, really lend themselves to only three alternatives for us. These are, to be specific, integration, isolation or co-operation. Let me say once that the NP rejects integration in a heterogeneous country such as South Africa. Nor do we believe that it offers any solution whatsoever, because integration would lead to an eternal power struggle. The principle of “one man, one vote” in a unitary state would lead to one thing only, because integration can lead to one thing only. This would not eliminate discrimination but would lead to discrimination against minority groups unable to maintain themselves in such a unitary state. Let us not forget that constitutions and declarations, those paper guarantees, have never guaranteed the rights of minorities anywhere in Africa; indeed, in every part of Africa, they have not been worth the paper they were written on. One can say the following about this whole concept of “one man one vote”; “one man, one vote, once”.

The problem in a unitary state with a heterogeneous population such as we have here, is that it is virtually impossible for central overall government to meet, without discrimination, the social, cultural and economic needs of each group. These needs can simply not be satisfactorily accommodated if the differences which exist between the population groups are not recognized and respected. All over the world the experience has been that some form of decentralization of functions is essential for political stability, which, in turn, is a prerequisite for economic development. There are many examples which serve to illustrate that regional interests, group interests and ethnic differences cannot simply be ignored. Firstly, I refer briefly to the power struggles which arose in virtually all the African states after decolonization and which, in many cases, continue to this day. These are power struggles stemming from ethnic differences existing between the people concerned. Every African state is governed by some tribe and not by a representative government chosen from the people for the peoplé.

In the United States of America, which is already practising a form of decentralized government on a regional basis, voices are often raised for further differentiation on a basis of race. I could quote many examples of this. In Quebec, for example, the language question is a serious point of difference. A very interesting article appeared in the magazine Time during 1975, very interesting because it emanated from a source which has very little understanding of ethnic differences and of differences between people. In that article the argument was advanced—in fact the confession made—that now, more than ever before, movements fighting for separateness and for regional interests were emerging. Then the following examples were mentioned. Firstly, Spain was mentioned where one finds the Basque separatists who literally shook the Franco régime to its foundations. Then there is also the case of France, where problems with the Corsicans exist. The separatist movement in Corsica led to a clash between the police and the separatists. There is also the generally known example of Northern Ireland, where more than 1 300 people have died. There is also the example of Scotland, where the Scottish nationalist movement continues to grow and is emerging as a political power group. Then there is the case of Belgium, where the feuding French-speaking Walloons and Dutch-speaking Flemish are engaged in an eternal struggle. In this case, the respective languages are the dividing line between the two factions. Quite a few more examples of islands, etc. were mentioned but the point has been illustrated adequately. The article went on to try and give an analysis of the causes of the struggle. It said that one of the reasons for the struggle, was that the government machinery had become too large and too bureaucratic to be sufficiently sensitive to local interests. It also said that mother states were no longer able to inspire broad cultural realities and to effect a feeling of solidarity amongst the population. It summarized this by saying (translation):

And, according to the article, this applied throughout the world—

It continued by saying—

Mr. Speaker, it stressed that this trend of the need for the recognition of individual identities was emerging more and more and that it could not simply be ignored.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have now demonstrated adequately that political integration would have disastrous consequences for South Africa. However, I also want to state that a complete economic integration would likewise have serious consequences for all our homelands. By complete economic integration is meant the total release of the market mechanism so that production factors may move across political boundaries at will. Such a situation in South Africa, in which these powers had been released altogether, would give rise to the already existing industrial concentrations in the Republic continuing to be strengthened and to very little development taking place in the homelands and in the lagging areas. If one takes note of the figures, one sees that in 1969 the Witwatersrand, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban by themselves supplied as much as 81% of the Republic’s total industrial production, whilst those areas together comprise only 3% of the total surface area of the Republic. This gives us a clear indication of the concentrated attraction of the metropolises. These centres, of course, came into being for different reasons. The Witwatersrand developed due to the discovery of gold and the harbours came into being as a consequence of the economic activity which was taking place on the Witwatersrand. However, it is a fact that once development has taken place, many external economies arise in such an area. A strong attraction arises, too, an attraction which gives rise to further concentration. Economic development in the homelands would be rendered impossible in more than one respect if the Government were to allow the free operation of the market mechanism to be the only regulator of economic activity.

However, the NP’s policy makes provision for the deliberate counteraction of the market mechanism so as to avoid complete economic integration and to render homeland development and industrial decentralization possible in that way. I want to make it quite clear, however, that in making the statement that the Government rejects complete economic integration as an alternative, I am stressing that it is not the objective of the Government to balkanize South Africa economically. This is not the case at all. The economic whole of South Africa must remain intact. The policy of economic and industrial decentralization to the homelands and to other lagging areas is based on sound economic principles, principles which will strengthen the entire South African economy.

What has just been said leads unambiguously to the conclusion that integration, be it political or economic, cannot work in South Africa. This country of ours, which has already been described as “a pocket edition of world problems”, is a country in which one comes across what is probably the greatest variety and heterogeneity in the world. Our history throughout testifies to stability and phenomenal economic growth. This can only be seen as the consequences of the recognition of these basic principles.

Mr. Speaker, the other alternative with which we are faced in South Africa, viz. isolation in the sense of complete national self-sufficiency, is something, however, which is not feasible in practice either. The oil crisis, for example, has shown that even mighty America experiences problems when she has to do without the co-operation of other countries. Neither this nor a movement in the direction of total isolation or national self-sufficiency offers any solution to the problems of our country.

The rejection of the first two alternatives brings us to the third alternative, viz. interdependence and economic co-operation in South Africa. I honestly believe that there is a growing realization amongst all the population groups of South Africa that we are interdependent on one another, that we need one another and that we would be much worse off without one another than with one another. In passing, I want to point out that the BSL countries, for example, benefit greatly from their proximity to South Africa and from the advantages which they receive from the South African economy.

This brings me to the first point in connection with interdependence, and that is that the White economy relies very heavily on the production factor of Black labour. During 1970 the Black labour force constituted approximately 69% of the total labour force in service of the White South African economy. A continuation of this clearly emerges from the economic development programme for 1974-’79. There it is stated that if we grow at a target rate of 6,4%, the demand for labour during 1974-’79 will increase by an additional 1,3 million Blacks, which will bring the total employment of Black labour in 1979 to 7,446 million. At that stage, Black labour will represent approximately 71% of the total labour force.

Apart from the homelands’ rich labour potential, they also have at their disposal the inherent ability to make a mighty contribution towards food production in Southern Africa, particularly in the light of the rapidly increasing population in Africa. If we regard an annual rainfall of 500 mm as the dividing line between successful and unsuccessful dry-land crop production, we see that 76% of the total surface area of the homelands satisfies this criterion. 76% of the total surface area of the homelands receives more than 500 mm per annum, while only 35% of the Republic’s surface area receives more than 500 mm per annum. It is interesting to take cognizance of the fact that the Tomlinson Commission made the comparison and estimated that 100 ha of land in the homelands equalled 147 ha in the White area. The potential of the homeland land therefore exceeds land in the White area in the ratio 147:100. Prof Tomlinson also estimated that the present homelands, because of their production potential, were able to supply food to between 30 million and 35 million people. Consequently, it is very clear that in future the homelands will be able to make a substantial contribution, particularly towards food production in South Africa as well as in Africa.

The homeland areas in the eastern part of the country have at their disposal a considerable water potential in the form of perennial rivers and possible dam sites. Since water for human consumption and for industrial and agricultural use will be a limiting factor in South Africa in future, we find in this sphere, too, an area for interdependence.

As far as mining is concerned, it is important to note that the rock formations of the Bushveld igneous complex, which are to be found chiefly in Bophuthatswana and Lebowa, are of the major parent rocks of minerals in South Africa. Deposits of tin, platinum, chrome, vanadium-bearing ore and magnesite are found here. Moreover, there are 59 working mines in the homelands but there is every indication that this number will be increased considerably in the future. It has already been established—this is an important figure—that approximately 50% of the world’s known chrome deposits are found in the homelands, the vast majority being in Lebowa. However, this tremendous potential which the homelands have can only be utilized and exploited with the aid of the Republic’s knowledge, capital and entrepreneurship. The Republic’s infrastructure, too, is necessary for these exploitations, for example, power, transport and so on. The beneficiation of many of the minerals which are mined in the homelands, takes place in the Republic. These are further examples of interdependence and co-operation in the economic sphere.

On the other hand the high population growth rates of the homelands make them particularly dependent on the White economy for employment opportunities. In order to avoid unemployment, approximately 69% of the economically active Black population is found in White areas. Up to now labour has been the most important single export product of the homelands. The earnings of commuters and migrant labourers alone during 1973-’74 represented approximately 73% of the gross national revenue of the homelands. This state of affairs is not unique to our homelands, nor must the homelands be seen as the only places where this happens.

I just want to refer to this interesting statistic. During 1973-’74, according to a report of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, migrant labourers from Lesotho earned 75 million American dollars, the equivalent of R52 million, here in South Africa. In contradistinction to that the gross domestic product of Lesotho during the same period was only R64 million, which indicates how absolutely dependent on the Republic Lesotho is. This amount of R52 million is almost as much as the country’s total domestic revenue. If one looks at Lesotho, one sees that it is estimated that approximately 80% of the net number of entrants into the labour market in Lesotho will eventually have to come and work in South Africa in future as Lesotho does not have that potential. To give a further illustration of the point of interdependence, I should just like to point out, that Lesotho, for example, will receive R14 million from the Republic out of the common customs and revenue fund in the period 1976-’77. On 30 June 1976 as many as 160 630 citizens of Lesotho were employed here in the Republic. When one considers the absolute interdependence which exists here, the dependence of Lesotho on the Republic, one finds it strange that such unfriendly sounds are issuing from that quarter. With an eye to the long term, it would perhaps be in Lesotho’s own interests not to cloud relations with the Republic because we cannot deny the interdependence which exists in Southern Africa. The best we can do is to tolerate one another and to develop to our mutual advantage.

Apart from employment opportunities, the homelands are also sadly lacking in entrepreneurship, capital and technological knowledge. In this regard, the already far advanced White South Africa can make an essential contribution towards the exploitation of the natural potential of these areas, but always in a sovereign political context.

Isolation in the economic field, therefore, is not in the interest of either the Republic or the homelands. It was for this reason that, as far back as January 1955, Dr. Verwoerd pointed out the road of co-operation when he spoke in this House about a constellation of states. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said in a statement as recently as 20 October 1976 that one must bear in mind that our Government had always said that as the Black people became independent, a sort of commonwealth association, a constellation or power bloc of peoples, could come about, a large set-up without authority over all the peoples.

In the first instance, this co-operation between us and the homelands seeks to ensure for all participating parties complete political sovereignty. This is important. However, there would be co-operation in the economic sphere and joint efforts in the technological field. The sovereignty of the participants, however, would remain unaffected by the joint efforts in the economic and technological spheres because each one of them would still have individual control over the nature and scope of its participation in such systems.

As will become apparent from the speeches which my colleagues will make, the NP has already laid the solid foundations on which this co-operation will rest and in years to come as more and more homelands become independent, it will continue to build upon it in an evolutionary manner. Meanwhile, the economic development programmes in the homelands are leading to a progressively more rapid opening up of the undisputed potential which they have. In this way, the bottlenecks of capital and entrepreneurship are being diminished and the road towards more numerous and better employment opportunities, greater production and an increase in revenue, is being paid.

By way of illustration, I just want to mention that co-operation with the Republic as a result of the existing interdependence, has tremendous advantages for our homelands. We need not be ashamed of the achievements of our homelands. If we take a look at the gross national revenue of our homelands, we see that in the year 1973— these are latest available figures—it stood at R175 per capita. We may compare this to those of many African states, whose gross national revenue per capita varies from R63 to R102. The most important thing is for us to look at the prevailing growth rates in our homelands. It is remarkable that the annual growth rate of our homelands, in terms of the annual gross national income per capita, averaged 9% over the period 1960 to 1973. The highest growth rate in Africa which I could find for the same period was 4,2%. This shows that the rate of growth of our homelands is at least twice that of the rest of Africa. This is an achievement we need not be ashamed of.

Mr. Speaker, when I read the motion which the hon. member for Lydenburg moved, I was troubled as to what was intended, because as one can see …

Are you not puzzled any more?

I am even more puzzled, having heard the hon. gentleman, than I was before. The motion that we are debating expresses its appreciation for the way in which the Government acknowledges the interdependence between the Republic of South Africa on the one hand, which includes the majority of the homelands, and the Bantu homelands on the other hand. It puzzled me to understand how we could have a relationship between the Republic—which includes all the homelands—and the other homelands, unless one is referring to the independent States of Basutoland, the Transkei and the others as homelands. This, to my mind, is not the norm today. What has puzzled me more, having listened to the hon. gentleman, is the fact that he spent the first 20 minutes of his speech, which lasted 30 minutes, not dealing with interdependence at all—I can understand it, as I shall show in a minute—but dealing with matters upon which I should have thought there was little argument. The hon. member indicated that one must deal with South Africa on the basis of the differences of the various “volke”, in other words, one must deal with South Africa as though it were a plural society which, to my mind, everybody accepts. He decried the validity of a unitary State as a solution for South Africa’s problems. I would have thought that everybody in this House agreed long ago that one could not solve South Africa’s problems on the basis of a unitary State. It is interesting, in passing, to note that the only party which seeks to administer a large part of South Africa on the basis of a highly centralized unitary State, is the National Party, because it is daily overriding those federal elements in our constitution dealing with the White part of South Africa, namely the provinces, in favour of a centralized unitary State. This is contrary to everything the hon. gentleman pleaded for in his speech.

He then went on to say that every “volk” in South Africa had a right to sovereignty. If that could be achieved, I think many would agree with him, but I have yet to hear how the Coloured people and the Indians are to achieve their sovereignty in South Africa. Then he went on to say that integration would lead to a total discrimination against minorities, but he did not indicate how the policy of his Government in respect of the Coloured and Indian people overcomes that difficulty which he pointed out. He went on to deal with the necessity of the decentralization of functions and power. I would have thought that everybody in the House agreed with that. Finally, he stated some of the factual positions we have in South Africa where one has an interdependence between the areas we know as the homelands and the rest of South Africa, which nobody denies. What he has not dealt with, however, is—and I now read from his motion—“… the way in which the Government acknowledges the interdependence …” I heard nothing about the manner in which “the Government … is developing such interdependence to the benefit of both”. The hon. gentleman gave a catalogue of some of the things which are to be found in the homelands such as mines, land which has good agricultural potential, areas of good rainfall and areas which have mineral resources. However, what he did not indicate was that most of the mining rights have been given to Whites. These things we know. Consequently I think it is fair to say that I am as puzzled, having heard the hon. gentleman, as I was when I first read this motion. [Interjections.]

Let us analyse briefly the situation so far as interdependence between the various regions of the Republic of South Africa is concerned, which is the way it should be put. What interdependence is there between the various regions of the Republic of South Africa, because that is what we are talking about, apparently, i.e. those areas which are called homelands or reserves in the legislation, and the White areas of South Africa. There is an interdependence and it is known to everybody, but apparently I must recite it. There is interdependence because one has regional self-government in the White areas of South Africa in the nature of the provinces and one has regional self-government in the Black areas with a regional government for KwaZulu and those other areas, the homelands, which have not yet achieved their independence.

The Bantu homelands which have reached the stage of self-government have the control of their education and roads, to name but a few aspects. They also control certain aspects of their agriculture, public works, community affairs and local government, all of which is largely paid for by the Republic of South Africa by way of subsidies. There is no greater interdependence at the level of government between the homelands and the Republican Government than there is between the provinces, the White provinces, and the Republican Government. It is nothing novel and I have yet to hear a motion introduced into this House complimenting the Government for the interdependence which exists between the province of Natal and the Republic of South Africa, or the province of the Cape and the Republic of South Africa. To do such a thing would be regarded as absurd because it is seen as a normal incidence of regional government in this country. It is no more novel here than it is in France, Spain or anywhere else. I believe that regional self-government for any area which has a quality of its own—and the Bantu homelands, for historical reasons, have a quality of their own—is a sensible thing. Regional government should be given to areas such as those. In all countries where there is regional self-government, there is interdependence between governmental levels. Where there is local self-government, in the form of municipalities, there is interdependence between communities. No one has to be thanked or complimented for bringing that about. In other words, interdependence between governments and communities within one State is automatic and in the nature of things. It is like night and day or morning and afternoon, and one does not have to thank the Government for that or compliment the Government for bringing it about.

They would like one to.

I think that what we should be looking at in this debate is the true interdependence that exists in South Africa as far as racial groups are concerned, and that true interdependence is not merely between those areas that are called the homelands and what is thought of as White South Africa. The interdependence that we are concerned with in South Africa is between people— Black people and White people. That is the interdependence which is real. And where does it occur?

It occurs at almost every level of life imaginable. It occurs at the level of capital and labour which, at this moment of time, for historical reasons, means largely White capital and Black labour. It occurs at the level of industry, which is largely directed by Whites and has a largely Black labour force. It occurs at the level of commerce where much the same applies. It occurs in the Government Service where the direction of affairs is largely in the hands of Whites and the manpower is, to an overwhelming extent, Black, and I use the term Black in the broad sense to include Brown as well. There is also not a farm I know of in South Africa that has not a labour force of Black people, some of the labour forces running into many hundreds. One can also mention transport. Even in the Government transport services the same criterion applies. The same can be said for the service industries and the majority of homes in South Africa. There is interdependence at every level, not between the homelands and the Republic of South Africa, but between people, Black and White. These are levels of interdependence that have nothing to do with Government endeavour. These levels involve private people going about their own affairs in a natural way. This interdependence has arisen, as I have said, from the normal activities of businessmen, industrialists, farmers and housewives. What I found paradoxical-ironic indeed to the point of amusement—was that we should have a motion praising the Government for this interdependence. However, when one examines the issue at any depth at all, one finds that the principle areas of interdependence between Blacks and Whites in South Africa are in those fields of endeavour where the Government has done its utmost to stop that interdependence. This is the irony of the whole situation when one is dealing with a motion of this kind. That is one of the main reasons why I had the utmost difficulty in deciding what was intended to be conveyed. Anybody who has been a member of this House for the last ten or 20 years will know that in almost every field I have indicated—I shall go through them in more detail in a moment—the NP has spent year after year, and we have spent hour after hour of debate in this House, not in order to bring about interdependence between Black and White, but to avoid interdependence between Black and White.

Let us look at the question of industry. We have had legislation relating to job reservation, we have had endless debates on influx control and there has been the Physical Planning Act, to name just three matters regarding industry. What are these designed to do? They are designed to prevent interdependence between Black and White in the field of industry. So far as farming is concerned, there are the enormous Bantu Control Boards designed to prevent exactly that interdependence. Then there is the limitation on the number of servants people can employ in their homes in the urban areas. That is also designed to avoid interdependence. In the field of transport, we have had situations where the non-White is not allowed to drive a bus or a taxi, or if a non-White possesses a taxi, he may take only passengers of a certain colour, again in order to avoid the very interdependence which, apparently, we are now to praise.

What is there for which the House must thank the Government in this regard? All it indicates to me is that, regardless of the policy being advocated by the Government of the day, like every other country in the world, we have a total interdependence between those classes of society that make up the population of this country, and interdependence which the policy of this Government, as I have said, was designed to prevent. To put it in a nutshell, the degree of the interdependence between Black and White in South Africa stands in direct relation to the failure of Government policy in that regard. Indeed, with this motion we come perilously close to thanking the Government and praising it for the failure of its policy. Perhaps, Sir, you will understand my surprise and my puzzlement at reading this motion, as I have indicated earlier.

You have repeated that about 20 times now! When are you going to say something else?

Sir, I should like somebody in the benches opposite to stand up and demonstrate that I am wrong in what I have said.

Let me proceed to demonstrate the correctness of my accusation. What was Government policy designed to do? It was designed, firstly, to consolidate the homelands. That has not happened yet. Why was it necessary to consolidate the homelands? In order that the majority of Blacks could live and work in their homeland areas. And why was it necessary that the majority should live and work there? In order to get rid of them in the White areas. And why was that necessary? So as to reduce the preponderance of Black people living and working in the White areas because it was said that if they got economic power they would subsequently inevitably get political power.

That has got nothing to do with the motion.

How often have I not heard it said in this House, how often have I not heard Ministers of Labour of the Nationalist Government plead that we must do our own work because to rely on the Black man would ultimately give him political power in White South Africa? Why was it necessary to introduce all these limitations, which we have had, so far as the employment of Black labour by commerce and industry is concerned? In order to reduce numbers. As somebody said, it is a game of numbers. First of all, what was to be done? As I have indicated, they were to be moved out. When it became apparent that they could not be moved out, the game changed to what I might call the shuttle game. In other words, provided the Black workers were moved quickly enough between the homelands and the White areas, it was all right because they were not permanently in the White areas. When that did not work, the game changed once again to what one might call the remote control vote, which is the stage in which we are at the present time. In other words, we have moved from the necessity of getting rid of them from White South Africa to the position today where one can praise the Government for allowing them here, provided they vote elsewhere. It is a question of time before that one is moved out, and we can all wonder for a moment what the next game will be.

I have an idea, Mr. Speaker, that it may well be the federal game because it is my thinking—and that is why I said so to the hon. gentleman earlier that to talk about ethnicity, the existence of different racial groups in South Africa as being a fact of life, is simply to state something we all accept. We are a plural society. We have identifiable racial groups in South Africa with a community of interest of their own. It is that community of interest of our racial groups which cuts across the ordinary class relationships in an industrialized society which they have in Europe, and which gives to racial groups a community of interest of their own. As the hon. gentleman has said over and over again—and we all agree with him—there is an interdependence to an ever-increasing extent, not only between the areas in which the non-White peoples live and the areas in which we live, and the authorities which administer them, but between individuals. Wherever they may be living or working, there is that interdependence to an ever-increasing extent. One will be driven to the situation, eventually where one has to have an economic, political and constitutional framework which reflects that interdependence. And what are the elements of it? Identifiable communities, which suggests separation; yet at the same time, the very interdependence which the hon. gentleman is speaking to in this motion, suggests a coming together. I can think of no other way by means of which those two situations can be accommodated in a heterogeneous society such as we have in South Africa than a federal system which has ethnic bases, which are brought together at higher levels in some sort of federal arrangement.

I should therefore like to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I am being very honest when I tell you that I have a great deal of respect and esteem for the hon. member who has just spoken. I have a great respect for his intellect and his ability as orator, but I really did not hear him at his best today. He lacked the fluency with which he usually puts his case and this was an indication to me that he was not sure of his subject. That was why he pointed out to us that he did not understand the motion of the hon. member for Lydenburg properly and correctly.

Before I am tempted to reply to the hon. member’s speech argument for argument, I want to come to my own speech, for this is a fine, an excellent subject. I trust that I shall be able to refute some of his statements during the course of my speech.

The concept of interdependence between our country and the Bantu homelands is subject to the addition of two words or an action which precedes interdependence, and this is good neighbourliness. Without good neighbourliness, good co-operation and interdependence are impossible. With good neighbourliness the horizons are open and there is no limit at all to the possibilities of interdependence and mutual co-operation. Since interdependence between States and between people are so closely related and the concept of good neighbourliness is in turn closely allied to this, I should briefly like to mention two examples of how bad neighbourliness can cause interdependence or co-operation to miscarry, and how good neighbourliness can promote it.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a boy, there was an old man who hired a farm in our district. What happened there, made an indelible impression on my young mind. That old man was not a very popular neighbour among our parents. One of the reasons for his unpopularity was his ability to have the cattle of his fellow-farmers sent to the pound time and time again. After a while this became so bad that the farmers in the district had to make sure that their gates were properly secured at night, but even so it still happened from time to time that their cattle would be in Uncle Salt-Salt’s camp the next morning, or in his lands, or in the pound already. Then, some of the wise old men of our district told a few of us young boys to stand guard for a few nights. We did so, and after the fourth or fifth night Uncle Salt-Salt arrived—he only got that name later on. We saw him coming along with a packet in his hand. It was late at night. He came to a neighbour’s camp and opened the gate. He took something from the packet in his hand and threw it on the ground, something which we later learnt was salt. He called the cattle by crying: “Salt! Salt!” The cattle drew near. He threw the salt all along the road and the cattle licked it up. The cattle followed him as far as the gate of his camp. He opened the gate and threw the salt on his own land. In this way he led the cattle to his camps, and sent his neighbours’ cattle to the pound.

Mr. Speaker, the farm which he rented came on to the market, and had to be sold at a public auction. Then the wise old men came together and decided that they would not under any circumstances allow Uncle Salt-Salt to buy that farm. They decided that the most well-to-do farmer among them would buy that farm in order to get rid of that unwelcome neighbour. And this is what happened.

Mr. Speaker, now you can understand why, in recent times, often when I read or hear about statements which our neighbouring State Lesotho is making, I think of that time in my childhood. I make bold to say that Lesotho is rapidly becoming an undesirable neighbour, as Uncle Salt-Salt was in our area in those years.

Mr. Speaker, we had another case, one of good neighbourliness. There was also a young farmer who rented a farm in our district. He was exemplary and hard-working. His dedication and hard word knew no bounds. His farming methods and techniques were such that the older farmers often had to go to him for advice. The farm which he hired also had to be sold at public auction. Once again the wise old men came together and decided, however keen some of them were to have that farm not to bid against that young farmer so that he could obtain the farm at a fair price. They decided to give him the chance. On the morning of the auction two strange buyers from Johannesburg arrived, and according to all visible evidence they were able to make a very high offer for the farm. However, the old men quickly made another plan. I shall not reveal the method which they decided upon here, but that afternoon they eliminated those two possible buyers in a certain way and that young farmer bought the farm. He was worth a great deal to his district. He was worth a great deal for co-operation between farmers, and although he is already an old man today, he is still one of the best farmers in the south-eastern Transvaal.

Mr. Speaker, a good, mature neighbour is stable, secure and has his own identity and although the Government helped to give stability, identity and security to the Bantu homelands, the recognition of the identity of the homelands and of their full constitutional status is not yet the end of the road for them and for the Republic as far as interdependence is concerned. The work still lies ahead. Indeed, we are already engaged in that work. What are we involved in? We are involved in development in all spheres, development in the interests of the homelands, in the interest of the Republic of South Africa, and in the interest of the whole of Southern Africa. What did a prophet like the late Dr. Verwoerd say in connection with interdependence between various States in South Africa? On 27 January 1959 he said—the hon. member for Lydenburg has already referred to this in passing (Hansard, Vol. 99, col. 65)—

The present Prime Minister concluded his speech during the no-confidence debate this year with similar ideas and viewpoints. However, this is what two White leaders say. What does a recognized Bantu leader say? Dr. Phatudi, Chief Minister of his homeland says—

This is interdependence. He goes on to say—

Then these last five words from a Black leader who sees the prospect of independence ahead—

There is the proof. We are proving that interdependence is already taking place on a large and commendable scale between ourselves and the homelands. Provision of capital and the creation of infrastructure by the Government of the Republic indicates unselfish, disinterested service in many spheres on our part to the people of the homelands. The Republic of South Africa has a network of communications facilities such as roads, railway lines, telephones, electricity, etc. at its disposal, and these services and facilities extend to the furthest corners of the Republic where they border on, and often enter the homelands. What is more: The Government of the Republic is, at this stage, making enormous amounts of money available in order to make similar communications services possible for the homelands. Under the auspices of the BIC the homeland transport services are at present conveying 121 000 workers from their homes to their work and back every day. Annually these people earn R153 million for themselves and their homelands. The Bantu homeland transport services employ 3 400 homeland inhabitants every day. Expertise is a very great and immeasurable service which we provide to the homelands, skill which is gained through years of experience, civilization and study. We are making that skill available to the people of the Bantu homelands on a large scale. Highly trained staff is being seconded to help these people with veterinary services, medical services, forestry, agriculture, water affairs etc. We are helping these people in the military sphere. At the moment we are helping the Ciskei to create their own police force and on 1 February we began to train the Tswanas’ own soldiers under the supervision of one of the Republic’s officers. When these people become independent later this year, they will already have 221 well-trained soldiers at their disposal. The previous speaker asked what private individuals are doing to further interdependence. One of the examples which I can mention, is that 70 farmers helped Bantu homeland farmers to plough and cultivate their lands at the beginning of this agricultural season. They assisted in everything that was necessary. Food is the fountain of life for a country and its people. We should like to ensure that the homelands do not in later years, become the victims of famine, as many Africa States do, for we are concerned about their weal and woe and their prosperity. In order to guard against this the State is also giving the Bantu homeland farmers agricultural training. This is still not enough, and therefore I should like to address a request to homeland leaders, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Commissioners-General in the various homelands to help the homeland farmers to produce sufficient food for their own people in future. Today I should like to make an appeal, i.e. that an attempt be made in future to encourage young Black homeland farmers to seek employment with White farmers in the Republic of South Africa. I do not doubt for a moment that if those farmers are carefully selected and have the prospect of this task held out to them, they will not hesitate to pay a good salary to those young Black homeland farmers. While those homeland farmers are earning a good salary, they will master the skills, techniques and methods of farming. Then they will be able to go and apply these in their own homelands to the benefit of their own people.

In this way we, the Republic of South Africa, are performing a task here. In this way we, the Whites of the Repùblic of South Africa, will prove to the world that we did not come to this part of Africa to suppress, to rule or to enrich ourselves at the expense of others, but that we came to have our own country, our own identity and our own independence. Mr. Speaker, because we know and can remember the desire that preceded independence, we understand the aims and desire of these people of the homelands. We want to say to them this afternoon, that in future they must guard against the possibility of those things which the so-called well-disposed world holds out to them turning out to be a case of all that glitter is not gold, for those things can lose their lustre with time and ultimately they may find themselves plunged into utter darkness.

We want to warn them not to pay too much heed to the words of a so-called well-disposed world, because those words may deafen their ears later on to the detriment of themselves and of their people. We ask them to look at, to see and to listen to what the White Government of the Republic of South Africa is doing for them and will do for them in future. On our part we want to say—the hon. member for Lydenburg made this point—that we also appreciate what they are doing for us. In many respects they provide us with labour and they are favourably disposed towards us in many respects. Today we want to ask them to consider these things and to believe the facts which they see and hear every day. We and they must continue hand in hand in order to build a good South Africa, a South Africa which in Africa ought to be the most progressive, prosperous and fortunate part of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Meyerton will forgive me if I do not react to his speech directly. He spoke a great deal about bad neighbourliness and the need for good neighbourliness. I agree to a great extent with the criticism of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in regard to the introductory speech of the hon. member for Lydenburg, which sounded more like a statistical dissertation than a speech introducing a motion before the House. Furthermore, it did appear to me at times as though he was verging on being out of order, because he dealt at great length with the relationships between Lesotho and the Republic of South Africa. We all realize that Lesotho is not a homeland, but an independent State and therefore beyond the scope of the motion before the House. I may say, however, that I do understand the hon. member for Lydenburg when he speaks about the interdependence between the homelands and the Republic. I believe that he was probably referring to those homelands which are about to become independent and to the future development of interdependence in order to ensure our future security through better understanding between White and Black. However, I cannot accept the motion of the hon. member for Lydenburg as it stands, because it expresses appreciation to the Government for something it has only recently woken up to and only recently begun to act on. Therefore—I feel I have to do it—I move the following amendment which, I believe, is far more positive than the motion of the hon. member for Lydenburg and also brings the whole House of Assembly into the picture—

*The maintenance and development of interdependence between the homelands and the Republic is a most essential factor in respect of the future security and progress of both the homelands and the Republic. This interdependence is, in the first place, of historic nature. In the second place, it has to be developed upon services shared by the homelands as well as the Republic. In the third place, it has to be based upon a growing economy with mutual benefits for the partners concerned. In the fourth place, a political interdependence has to be developed in which one group does not dominate another and which fosters mutual trust in the hearts of all our peoples.

I first want to discuss briefly the historic heritage of interdependence. This was largely caused by the fact that the Bantu tribes moved southwards from Central Africa, by the colonial policy of Britain, the discovery of diamonds and gold at the end of the 19th century, and the industrial development which took place during and after the two world wars. The Whites have become increasingly dependent on the labour provided by the Bantu, and the Bantu of the homelands, indeed of Southern Africa, have become increasingly dependent on the money which can be earned in the White parts of South Africa. Therefore, with the growth of mining and the development of industry, this interdependence became a real factor in the community of Southern Africa.

Let us now deal with the second point, viz. services such as railways, roads, harbours, airways, telephone and telegraph communications, radio, the provision of electric power, water schemes, security services, technological services, and so on. These services constitute a very important factor in the development of all our peoples. These services are a most important factor in the provision of higher standards of living and form the real basis of interdependence. In order to be able to develop and strengthen this, all of us have to believe that they are partners in the owning and maintenance of these services which contribute such a great deal to the welfare of all of us.

Together with my second point, the third point also plays an important role. This is the growing economy within and outside the homelands. If only the Government had paid heed earlier, the growth of the economy within the homelands would have made far greater progress than is the case today. I do not gainsay the fact that major endeavours were made in the seventies, but a great deal remains to be done to afford the Bantu businessman and industrialist a significant place in the economy and to provide the required employment opportunities. It is particularly for this reason that I have moved my amendment. The Government should be prompted and encouraged and, in fact, urged to take further steps in the direction of economic independence for the homelands and thereby bring about increased and firmer interdependence between the homelands and the Republic.

In conclusion, I want to express a few thoughts about political interdependence. This is perhaps the most important as well as most delicate of all things relating to interdependence. It is important that we should place this matter on a higher level than the vicious politics of exploitation. We should discuss this matter frankly as adults. People talk about change, but change is in fact the art of politics and the politician who denies this is not worth his salt. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in an earlier debate referred to instant solutions and said there was no such thing; that is true, because politics means adjustment. How then do we achieve political interdependence? I shall begin by making a few suggestions. We have the homeland Governments, which can be developed fully. We have interdependence with regard to the services which can be utilized to the benefit of all of us. We are constantly developing interdependence in economy. I put the following questions to this House: Why not establish something such as the European Common Market, which statutorily binds every nation with a single economy, and the utilization of common services? Why not establish something such as the European Council in which consensus can be reached on matters of common interest? Why not establish something such as the Nato Alliance between us and the homelands and, perhaps, other independent countries in Africa? I put these points as a basis upon which one may start in order to achieve political interdependence. From that a federation or a confederation may develop, but everyone will be master of his own affairs. The time to begin is now.

Mr. Speaker, because of the limited time at my disposal I am not going to reply to what the hon. member for Albany has said, except to say that his was a very positive contribution. I wish he was quite right in his idealistic view that we can guide the homelands to economic independence. Not even the great America succeeds in being economically independent. The hon. member for Lydenburg has told us that isolation for the Republic and the homelands will not do, that integration will not be politically acceptable and that the only possibility will have to be economic co-operation with a view to political independence and economic interdependence. While he was talking thus about isolation and economic co-operation, I thought about the famous words of John Donne—

And then Donne uttered these winged words—

And that is exactly what this motion tells us—that the fate of the White man and the Black man in this country is linked. I want to talk very shortly about how economic interdependence can be effected with the aid of political independence. In doing so I hope I shall be able to reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He started his speech by giving us a long list of all the points on which he agreed with the hon. member for Lydenburg. However, he added that the hon. member for Lydenburg had at no stage said how interdependence could be developed. I trust that I shall be able to reply to this question of his and that he will see the light.

I also want to discuss homeland consolidation, the decentralization of economic activities and about channelling and training of labour. If there is any time left when the 20 minutes are up, I should also like to discuss the correct spatial establishment of economic activity. I want to begin with the subject of economic interdependence and political independence. Last year B.E.R.B.D. published a beautiful piece of work entitled “Swart Ontwikkeling in Suid-Afrika”, a work in which an exposition is given of a strategy we should adopt for homeland development, and I quote—

1. (a) Dat die verskillende bevolkings in Suid-Afrika sover prakties moontlik maksimaal in hul eie gebiede sal woon en werk;
2. (b) Waar dit tans nog nie moontlik is nie, moet die Swart bevolkings in hul eie onderskeie lande woon, en op ’n daaglikse pendelbasis in Blanke-gebied werk.

This is the idea which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana made such fun of. I quote further—

1. (c) In gevalle waar (a) en (b) hierbo nie moontlik is nie, kan surplus-arbeid vanuit die Swart tuislande ingevolge die trekar-beidstelsel as derde alternatief en laagste prioriteit op enkellopende basis in Blankegebied werk.

The implementation of this strategy affords the Black nations an opportunity to give expression to their political, economic and social aspirations. Now, the Government proceeded as follows in order to implement this strategy. In the first place, there is the delimitation of land and a programme of homeland consolidation. Not only is this an essential basis for peaceful co-existence between White and Black in this country, but between Black and Black as well. Through, for example, the setting aside of land, the supplementing of that land in accordance with the Act of 1936 and the evolutionary process of ever-increasing political control, the Transkei became a sovereign independent State in October last year, and is today moving inexorably towards a greater future. The delimitation of land has contributed towards allowing the inhabitants of the homelands to realize their political aspirations and by so doing to develop their own national structure.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked: What about the Bantu in the urban areas? Is he not aware of the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act, Act No. 46 of 1959, which enables the Bantu outside the borders of the homelands to be linked, politically and administratively, with the homelands with which they have an ethnic bond? With regard to the consolidation before the latest consolidation programme of 1975, there were no fewer than 112 separate blocks in which the Bantu lived. Due to the consolidation efforts of 1975 they were reduced to 24 and the hon. the Prime Minister has already held out the prospect that those 24 could be reduced through a process of exchange.

In the second place, I want to speak about the decentralization of economic activities and about establishment of industries, firstly in the homelands in accordance with our strategy and secondly in the border areas. We initiated a programme of industrial decentralization as far back as 1960 in order to afford the political aspect of separate development greater economic substance. The Government’s decentralization programme has a positive and a negative aspect. But in this case the negative aspect promotes the positive aspect. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana alleged that we were working against economic interdependence and referred specifically to section 3 of the Environment Planning Act as an example. He also referred to job reservation and influx control. I maintain that in this case the negative promotes the positive. On the one hand we are promoting industrial development in some areas and on the other hand it is necessary to cut down on an over-concentration of people and the establishment of industries in certain areas. Hence section 3 of the Environment Planning Act! The hon. member asked what that had to do with economic interdependence. Only this, that it was necessary to limit the influx of Bantu to the White metropolitan areas by means of the negative provision in section 3, because those Bantu are needed for the economic development in their own homelands.

What is the annual supply of labour from the homelands? A very interesting survey was carried out in the homelands between 1973 and 1975. It was found that on average, during those three years just over 100 000— the exact figure is 100 100—Bantu have entered the labour market. More than 65 000 of these 100 100 found employment in or near the homelands. An average of 28 428 found employment in the homelands themselves. 1 400 found employment in the primary sector, i.e. in mining and agriculture. I am not referring to ordinary agriculture here, but to certain agricultural projects undertaken by the BIC and others. 5 000 found employment in the secondary sector and 22 000 in the tertiary sector. Sir, 36 858 found employment in the border areas just outside the homelands and the balance of 34 814 which could not find employment in or near the homelands, are the potential migrant labourers.

In other words, just less than one-third found employment in the homelands, just over one-third found employment just outside the homelands in the border areas, and the other third are potential migrant labourers. This is a tremendous improvement on what the situation was years ago, but is still not good enough. One remembers that it was only in 1970, as the hon. member for Albany mentioned, that this process of industrial development in the homelands really gained momentum and it is unfortunate that this had to take place in these years when there has been no major economic growth.

What is the Government doing to promote industrial development? It is doing so by means of fiscal concessions and other incentives. Growth points have been established in the decentralized areas and we are revising these concessions from time to time. The infrastructure has been built up. The private sector has been encouraged to supply capital, entrepreneurship and know-how. In this regard I also want to break a lance for the officials, the people of the BIC, the XDC, BERBD and the officials who have been seconded to the homeland governments. It is unnecessary to erect a monument for those people. We have only to look at what has been done within a few years in the homelands, namely the factories that have been constructed, the towns that have been built on the empty plains, agricultural projects, job opportunities that have been created and the standard of living which has risen. The hon. member for Lydenburg pointed this out. A more sophiscated economy has been created for those people. I know of no one else who has made a greater contribution to a prosperous and more peaceful South Africa.

This motion refers to interdependence. I think we have here the finest example of interdependence between the homelands and the White areas. The homelands have a need for development aid, not only money, but also know-how. We have a need for peaceful and continued existence and now the one hand is washing the other. We cast our bread on the waters and after many years it comes back to us. But for economic activity we need more than capital, entrepreneurship and knowledge. We also need labour as the most important component, and this is where the homelands are the providers and where we complement one another.

I should like to speak very briefly about the channelling of labour. For economic activity and growth in and near the homelands we must not only check the quantitative exodus of workers, but also the qualitative exodus of their best-equipped people. There is a growing number of high-school, trade-school and university students who complete their studies in the homelands every year. These are the leaders on whose shoulders the task of building a nation rests. They have a task to perform in those homelands which is too great for them to accomplish in their lifetimes. Now it is true that we find that the majority of Black people go to the White areas during the high-productivity years of 20 to 24. Among them are some of their best-trained people. This constitutes national erosion. I think it should give White employers a guilty conscience to employ people whose services have become indispensable in their own country. Their training programme in the homelands should be in the first place be focused on service to the homeland and then on the needs of the White economy near the homeland. For years to come the most important “export article” of our homelands and the most important “earner of currency” will continue to be their manpower. But this export should take place in such a way and this currency must be earned in such a way as to promote homeland development to the fullest extent. I think we should seriously consider doing away with restrictions on the vertical upgrading of Black workers in the deconcentrated border areas. In the metropolitan areas there are certain restrictions on the vertical mobilization of the Black worker, but these restrictions are there not only for the protection of the White worker, but also in the interests of nation-building in the homelands. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke about job reservation. Surely he knows that job reservation affects a mere 2% of our labour force.

Then why do you not want to abolish it if it is only 2 %?

Can the hon. member persuade the trade unions to do that? He knows that the trade unions can impose restrictions, and surely the hon. member does not want industrial unrest. There are employers in the hon. member’s constituency who impose restrictions on those Black workers. There is the deficient training of those Black workers, which imposes a restriction on them. There are few restrictions in the border areas, but there are still restrictions and in the homelands, of course, there is no restriction whatsoever on the vertical mobilization of the Black worker. If we can relax the restriction in the border area, we can offer the Black worker of Johannesburg an incentive to better his position by training and by holding a more senior position in the border area. The man who earns R100 per month in Johannesburg can earn, with training, R200 per month in the border areas because he occupies a more senior post. Furthermore the difference is bigger than the difference between an income of R100 and an income of R200. Due to his bigger income as a commuter in the border area, he is also a consumer in his homeland and because he is a consumer there, he promotes the economy of the homeland. This in turn creates more job opportunities.

In order to implement our strategy, there should be a restriction on the horizontal mobility of Black workers, and that is why we have influx control, something which does not suit the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Coupled with that, the vertical mobility of the Black workers near the homelands should be promoted. To achieve all this, the correct spatial establishment of economic activities is necessary. Within the framework of such a dispensation the Black worker as commuter can realize himself politically, economically and socially. In fact, apart from the provision of employment within the homeland—and this should always enjoy the highest priority—I believe that this is the only way in which we can achieve political independence and economic interdependence. I gladly support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying “look before you leap”! The hon. member who has introduced this motion, still has to learn that many hon. members who aspire to the Cabinet may spoil those chances by displaying impetuous and rash ambition.

I have listened attentively to what the hon. member for Port Natal had to say. Of course he never got round to dealing with the question of interdependence between the homelands and the Republic of South Africa. One would have liked to think that a printing error crept into the Order Paper, but once again, in the style of NP members, he tried to encourage the other hon. members in this House and their supporters outside that the policy is succeeding, that the policy is working, that there is no crisis, that there are no problems, and that everything is going well, but, of course, the facts prove the opposite. The facts prove that the policy of separate development is an utter failure, a sorry failure, and that the NP, under these circumstances, does not seem to be able to come forward with an alternative which might solve the racial problems of South Africa.

I am going to be very friendly and positive today and I am going to try to help the Government. [Interjections.] The hon. member must keep quiet now. I listened attentively while he was speaking. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was asleep. I think the hon. member had better keep quiet now, so that we can discuss and go into these matters. Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the policy of the NP, not the policy of the Opposition parties in this House.

You do not have a policy; therefore we cannot discuss it!

The first matter we should consider is the question: What is the basis for sound interdependence between the Republic of South Africa and the homelands—Transkei, Lesotho, Botswana, those countries which border on our country, those countries in respect of which interdependence with South Africa exists and with which interdependence must be maintained, developed and strengthened? Mr. Speaker, it means that there must be co-operation, co-operation on an economic level. Trade should be carried on with and assistance granted to the homelands in order to develop their economy and to solve their unemployment problems. When we consider the facts, not the clever talk we had from the hon. members of the NP here, we see for instance—these are replies which were furnished last year—that altogether 69 729 Blacks were employed in the mining industry in five of the major homelands. That is a small percentage of the available labour in those areas, and not nearly enough to employ the new employees coming into the market. If we consider another sector, for instance the industries, we notice that the total employment of Blacks in all the homelands last year amounted to 24 025.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, all this clever talk is of no avail. We should rather consider the facts. We should rather try to do something about the situation, something which will improve the situation and is likely to make for progress. If one wants to give substance to interdependence, it means that one will have to think in terms of the elimination of tension, the elimination of unfinished business on the agenda, the elimination of prejudice, the creation of equilibrium. This means that the Government will have to negotiate with the leaders of those people with a view to solving the existing problems. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, let us consider the economic problems of these areas. Take KwaZulu as an example. KwaZulu is one of the largest Bantu homelands. Between the years 1960 to 1973 …

Did Gatsha write your speech?

No, Mr. Speaker, he did not write it. [Interjections.] I hope, however, that the day will come when Gatsha Buthelezi will have the opportunity in this House to address … [Interjections.] … these people and to point out to them their rashness and the danger to which they expose South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to request hon. members not to make so many interjections.

Mr. Speaker, in 1960 the income in respect of KwaZulu’s domestic product was 44% of the income of the total population. Thirteen years later—after the NP came along with its policy and all its thoughts and ideas—it dropped to 22%. That is the percentage of the income in respect of the domestic product of KwaZulu, which was earned in KwaZulu, compared with the total domestic product of that country. Mr. Speaker, let us consider the facts once more. The facts prove that the policy of the NP was a complete failure. When referring to interdependence between States, one need only think of Lesotho. This is a good example of where the basis for interdependence has failed, where it was a failure. What were the reasons for that? I think it is important to consider the reasons for that. There are historical reasons. There are economic reasons. Lesotho is impoverished and completely dependent on South Africa. [Interjections.] Lesotho is isolated. Lesotho is frustrated, and as a result of that … [Interjections.] … it reacts in this way to South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I said that we should consider Lesotho so that we do not make the same mistakes here in South Africa with regard to the homelands. However, what is happening in Bophuthatswana? Now Bophuthatswana’s leader has said that, as a result of his disillusionment and his frustration because the NP is not prepared to satisfy his legitimate and just demands, that he would accept independence, but that he would use it as a lever to obtain equal rights for himself and for the Blacks in South Africa. This happened because the Government did not satisfy his legitimate demands. He also said that, if the Government is not prepared to comply with his legitimate demands for land—in other words, if the Government of South Africa does not consolidate Bophuthatswana in a just and rational way—it may lead to bloodshed. This is not extortion. That is a timely warning from a friend of South Africa to the South African Government. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, what does the NP want to achieve? What are the National Party’s ideas about interdependence? Is it their idea to get rid of their responsibilities towards Black South Africans and of their responsibility to satisfy the legitimate political aspirations of the Blacks? Is it their idea to dodge and evade their political responsibilities towards the Black man? Is it their idea to shirk the responsibility they have towards the Black man with regard to his political and his constitutional rights? Do they want to replace the political imperialism or the white colonialism which was practised with regard to the Black man with economic imperialism and with economic colonialism with regard to the Bantu homelands? [Interjections.] Do they want to replace the political oppression with economical oppression?

Mr. Speaker, there is an answer to all these problems, but it will depend on the intelligence and the insight of the Government and its leaders. Will the Government be bold enough to negotiate at this stage with the Black leaders of South Africa with regard to the rational consolidation of the homelands, after their policy has collapsed? Will the Government have the insight to realize that, if they want to create homelands which are economically, politically and geographically viable and acceptable to the inhabitants of those homelands, it is absolutely essential for them to consolidate the homelands rationally? Will the Government realize that it has to do this?

The Government must forget about the 1936 legislation. It can in no way satisfy the real requirements of those people. Will the Government realize that it will have to do so on a basis of negotiation with the leaders of the homelands, and also with due regard for the viewpoints of the Blacks in the urban areas? [Interjections.] Will the Government realize that the basis on which this has to be done, should be a basis on which the boundaries of the homelands should be determined afresh by means of negotiation and that far more land will have to ge granted to those homelands?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time for that now. If it is an intelligent question, I shall reply to it afterwards outside the House. [Interjections.] The Government have to negotiate with the homelands leaders and the urban Black leaders concerned to consolidate the homelands rationally now. The Government must not do this by buying out the land of White landowners and handing it over to the homelands. In this way millions of rands are wasted. It must be done by drawing new boundaries and by affording the White population and owners of land and business enterprises the opportunity to become citizens of those areas. In this way their skill, capital and leadership will be retained in those areas for the benefit of the Blacks. What the Government should do is to spend the funds they would have spent on the buying out of land for the homelands, on education, economic infrastructures and administrative infrastructures. If the Government were prepared to take that step and to make that change in their policy, they would have the support of the homelands, of the White groups, the industries and probably also of countries outside South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

This will be a real step in the right direction and it will mean that it will be possible to consolidate the homelands realistically within a few years and make them economically and politically viable. The interdependence between South Africa and the homelands, whether independent or not, will then rest on a sound basis which will bring about progress and peace for South Africa as well as the homelands.

Mr. Speaker, because all the other parties in the House moved amendments, I also want to move an amendment. It reads as follows—

1. (1) the rational consolidation of homeland areas into viable geo-political states as distinct from purely ethnic homelands; and
2. (2) the right of all South African citizens who, in terms of Government classification, are related to a homeland seeking independence, to retain South African citizenship, if they so wish. ’

†Mr. Speaker, paragraph (2) of the amendment is essential, because if you want good relations between South Africa and the homelands it is absolutely essential that in addition to the rational consolidation of the homelands, and economic, political and geographic viability which can only, in the first instance, be brought about by consolidation and, in the second instance, by massive investment, leadership and assistance, you must also have trust and co-operation. There are many things that must be considered, but one of the most important questions that must be sorted out by way of negotiation between the Government and the leaders concerned is the question of the citizenship of people who are South Africans, whether they are related to the homelands or not.

The message for peace and prosperity is this: Negotiation now between the Government and the leaders concerned. Then this Government can start talking about the possibility of their policy being a success. If they do not do so, then I am afraid the hon. member for Lydenburg is quite correct in the implication of his motion today that the policy of the Government has proved itself in its performance to date to be a sorry and complete failure.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Bryanston will pardon me if I come back to the mover of the motion immediately. I should like to know from the hon. member for Lydenburg—I do not know whether I perhaps heard incorrectly—whether he said that the potential carrying capacity of the homelands is between 30 million and 35 million people.

Yes.

I should like to point out to the hon. member—I did not hear precisely which particulars he quoted—that on page 179 of the report of the Tomlinson Commission mention is made of a carrying capacity of eight million, and a residential capacity of nine and a half million. Therefore there is a considerable difference between these figures and those mentioned by the hon. member, but I do not know precisely what he quoted from.

May I give you the source?

I leave it at that. The hon. member can give it later if he wants to. I only wish to mention that the Tomlinson Commission apparently differed completely on this matter. Another point that I wish to draw attention to, is that although the hon. member stated quite correctly that, according to the report of the Tomlinson Commission, 100 morgen of agricultural land in the homelands are equal to 147 morgen of agricultural land in White areas, one should always, to put it in its true perspective, take into account the percentage of land owned by the Bantu as against the land owned by the Whites, as well as the density of population, and so on. Therefore, this is not a figure one can mention without qualification. [Interjections.]

May I put a question?

No, you had half an hour at your disposal, while I am only allowed to speak for 10 minutes.

†I think that when the post-1948 history is eventually written, it will be known as the era of lost opportunities. This Government will have the dubious privilege of having enjoyed a comfortable majority throughout that period. The Government also had the advantage of a very subservient Press. It is only recently that we find some of the Afrikaans Press querying some of the policies of the Nationalist Party. During this time the Government failed miserably to really lay the foundation for the economic and political development of South Africa, based on the conditions as they exist in the country. One of the reasons why it wasted so much time and opportunity is that the Government and the people who designed the policy only came up with theoretical solutions to South Africa’s problems and then tried to implement those theoretical solutions with a total disregard for the real situation as it exists in the country. I, too, had difficulty in listening to the hon. member for Lydenburg and in deciding exactly what he was getting at with this motion. The only conclusion I can arrive at as far as the motivation for this motion is concerned, is that deep down he too is suffering from a guilt complex, because his party has been wasting so much time in this country. [Interjections.]

*Today the Government realizes that it has wasted opportunities, and it is utter nonsense to try to pretend now that everything has developed as originally contemplated.

But no one said so.

We all know that it was the original intention for homelands to be developed where, according to the theories of the Nationalist Party, the Blacks would be really independent. As a result of the benefit reserved for the Whites, the Whites would also be independent the Blacks in such a dispensation.

Nobody ever said so.

For example, how many times in the past have we not been told why White capital and White initiative should not be used for homeland development? The reason that was always put forward, was that if this were to be done, the Black man would also want to spend Black capital in so-called White South Africa, and we were told that this would mean the end of the White man in South Africa.

That is not true.

Now they say that this is not true. Did I not say that they feel guilty and a little ashamed of their past and their approach to life?

†You know, Sir, it is a matter of suffering from acute mental rigidity. They made up their minds and decided that this was the way it had to be. Therefore we wasted 25 to 30 years in South Africa. Why is this so? The problem is—this is very important—that basically the NP rationalized the South African situation along the lines of the European example. One finds countries in Europe that are politically independent, but economically interdependent. I would be the first to agree that certainly there are certain similarities between the South African situation and that which one finds in certain European countries. There are, however, certain significant differences which compel us in South Africa to develop along different lines to those along which we have been developing over the past three decades.

Let us for instance look at some of these important differences. If one looks at the problem of the supply of labour, one finds that in Europe, for instance, only a degree of interdependence exists. The German economy depends only for 5% or 10% of its labour force on guest labourers, “gaste-arbeiders”. On the other hand one finds that countries such as Spain and Italy generate capital and provide job opportunities for approximately 90% of their people, whilst only 10% of the people have to sell their labour on the market. Let us for instance look at the position of trade in Britain. As a member country of the European Economic Market, Britian markets only a certain percentage of its total exports in the countries within the European Economic Community.

What is however the situation in South Africa? To start off, South Africa depends entirely for its supply of unskilled labour on imported labour from the homelands. In the case of semi-skilled labour the figure may be 90% or more. One must realize that, ultimately, if the NP policy is to be successful, the situation will arise that we shall have to rely completely on imported labour. It is therefore not just a matter of being interdependent, but of being totally dependent. What is more, the homelands generate very little wealth. They provide very few job opportunities for their people. They rely for about 90% on South Africa to provide those job opportunities. This is the situation which we face, viz. that here we have an unparalleled interdependence. The hon. members mentioned interdependence between the homelands, but just think for one moment what the degree of interdependence is between Soweto and Johannesburg. It is far greater than that between the Republic of South Africa and, say, Vendaland or any of the homelands. Because of these conditions, because of the fact that nowhere else in the world is there such a high degree of dependence of one on another, it is absolutely imperative that a new economic structure must be found, as well as a new political and constitutional structure.

I know that hon. members always come along and quote the example of the three ex-Protectorates. Let us consider a few aspects of the ex-Protectorates. They have, in the first place, never been part of the Union or of the Republic of South Africa. Secondly, although those ex-Protectorates provide a great part of our labour force, the situation only becomes clear once the stage has been reached that the NP policy is fully developed—“ten voile ontplooi, soos hulle sê”—because at that stage one will have a situation where the labour force will be entirely foreign.

*Another matter was raised by an hon. member—I think it was the hon. member for Lydenburg—when he said that total economic integration is dangerous.

Yes, of course.

There he says again that it is dangerous. The process of economic integration brought us to our present situation. That process started long ago. It made South Africa strong, and also safe in the sense that both were so dependent upon one another that they simply had to co-operate.

†Economic integration is a fact in South Africa. One cannot dispute that. It is not a danger, but a safeguard. One cannot divide the wealth of South Africa. Nowhere else in the worlds does one find exactly the same conditions. The wealth of South Africa has been created through the mutual efforts of both Black and White and all of us have a legitimate share in it. One cannot come with a political design or structure which aims to deprive people of their legitimate share in the wealth of South Africa. [Interjections.] Do those hon. members want to-encourage people to forfeit their legitimate share in the wealth of South Africa? Of course not! This is the danger of the policy of the Government.

The economy in Germany has only for a small part been built up with the help of guest labourers from a foreign country, but in South Africa one has a situation that everything one sees, the gold mines, the clothes one wears, the wood in this building, everything contains a Black and White factor. Because of that situation, because we have such a tremendous total dependence on each other, we have to find another political solution. As regards the homelands, quite frankly they should have been developed many years ago along the lines of private initiative and with White capital. If we had done it that way, perhaps those areas would have been less dependent upon South Africa. I agree completely with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that here we are dealing with an interdependence, not just between areas of South Africa, but between the very people of all races in South Africa. Because of that sort of situation which one finds in South Africa, one must move towards the establishment of a new political and economic structure, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has quite clearly stated.

What has been happening to the economic structure which the NP has been trying to build up? Because the Government has made it difficult for private enterprise to play its full role in the development of South Africa, it has adopted in the development of the homelands certain socialistic principles. Let us face it. The Government has been trying to develop the homelands along socialistic lines. The result of that was a very slow, retarded growth. If 10 or 20 years ago we made the best use of opportunities and allowed White capital and enterprise to enter the homelands, perhaps those areas would have been less dependent on South Africa and it would have been more in line with what they think their policy should be. As a result of their neglect, they are faced with the situation that their policy is failing. The only alternative in this country is to have—and let us be quite frank about it—a situation in which you have a sharing of political power and no problems concerning the maintenance of identities of people. Ultimately, whether one likes it or not, one will have to accept a federal concept and develop South Africa along those lines.

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate which has taken place here this afternoon has furnished incontrovertible proof of the resounding success the NP has had during the 30 years it has been engaged in this immense undertaking. If I have to examine briefly what the three parties on that side of the House have said today, it is a fact that the members of the Independent UP have adopted a positive and a more patriotic attitude now that they have left the labyrinth of the UP. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany might as well have been omitted, for that is precisely what we are doing. In actual fact, it was not an amendment, but only a confirmation of the motion moved by the hon. member for Lydenburg. The Independent UP alleges that we could have made greater progress with the policy of separate development and with the granting of independence to the various States within South Africa. I agree that this could have happened, but then the NP should have been in power since before 1948 and the UP should not have wasted so much time in the meanwhile.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that he recognized the regional governments and also recognized that there was interdependence. He alleged that it could not be otherwise, since there are Governments which exercise meaningful powers. But those Governments have not always been there; there have not always been political structures in those homelands and there have not been matters entrusted to them to deal with, because everything was dealt with on their behalf by this Parliament. The powers they have now received, powers which the hon. member recognizes and which he finds satisfactory, were brought into being by the NP in the face of UP opposition. The states they recognize today, they used to call Bantustans, and they ridiculed them. Did they not go about in 1953, when all these people were still in the same party with them, telling everyone to vote for the right to vote again, because the division caused by the NP was going to result in hot-beds of communism which would destroy South Africa? Surely that is so. [Interjections.] They fought the creation of those states tooth and nail, because they were opposed to them. Then the hon. member for Edenvale was still fighting for them, but nowadays he is fighting against them.

At that time, when the NP was laying the foundation for the great step which, in the opinion of the NP, would improve South Africa’s situation, the UP failed to appreciate it and ridiculed it. Now, however, they are forced to recognize it, for it is written into their policy. It is also written into the policy of the PRP that they will form a federation with those States. The UP and the PRP have both demonstrated today that they accept as facts the homelands, the interdependence between South Africa and the Homelands and the co-operation, not because they want to accept these things, but because they are facts.

Mr. Speaker, is it true that in spite of the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, the Government refused to allow private capital and initiative in the development of the homelands?

I shall explain if the hon. member wants to know why this was done. The Government took the right step at that stage. [Interjections.] Because South Africa is governed by the NP with its creative powers and strength, it was the only country in the world which was engaged in such an undertaking at that moment. There was no precedent in the world which we could examine to see what mistakes they made that we could learn from. The only example we had was White South Africa’s own history. This showed us how South Africa had been economically exploited and colonialized. The Government of the first decade after 1948 said that it would not allow White capital to operate freely in the homelands because it wanted to protect the Black man from the exploitation to which the White people of South Africa had been subjected. In the second place, the Government did this because it did not want to allow the homelands to be colonialized in the economic sphere, and the third reason was that it wanted to reserve the opportunities in the homelands primarily for the Black man.

Mr. Speaker, is the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, that the Tomlinson Commission recommended a free application of capital, not correct, then?

The hon. member for Edenvale knows exactly what the Tomlinson Commission recommended. The Government decided at the time that it could be done by means of corporations working on behalf of the Black people. Subsequently, however, the African States became independent, and it became clear that people all over the world, who had alleged that they would invest in those countries, did not invest there. Money did not flow into those countries as had been expected; other examples came to light subsequently, and the Black people came to realize that the National Government was working in their interests in the homelands. Because that confidence had been created, Whites could subsequently be allowed in on the agency basis, and later still—as the homeland governments developed—they themselves could lay down the conditions on which the Whites would be allowed there. The hon. member for Edenvale, who pretends to be an expert in this field, ought to know that the introduction of Whites in the sphere of agriculture, for example, is still a very delicate matter today, because the Black people attach tremendous importance to their land and because they still fear that they will lose their land and that it will fall into the hands of Whites. Even today, when Whites are brought in, care must be taken to make quite sure that it is done in such a way that the Black man does not lose any land, but that it is preserved for him. The White initiative entering the country in this way must be aimed at promoting the development of the homelands.

The PRP gave me the best example in this connection when the hon. member for Bryanston said that he hoped Chief Gatsha Buthelezi would sit in this House one day. I shall indicate in a moment that this is a symptom of the fact that that hon. member does not believe in homelands, that he does not want them and that he only accepts them because he has to. The NP and the nationalism and leaders of the Black peoples have made them a fact and that hon. member cannot stop them. The hon. member made an important statement today, a statement contradicting his own policy. He said that if he could draw the homeland borders, it would be a success, but if we draw them, it will not be successful.

I did not say that.

Here it says so in the hon. member’s amendment, that the borders should be redrawn. The hon. member went further and accused the White man of South Africa of refusing to give Bophuthatswana land which rightfully belongs to it. I now want to ask the hon. member where the land is which rightfully belongs to Bophuthatswana and which we refuse to give to them. Surely this is a false accusation he has made against the White people of South Africa. Bophuthatswana has all the land to which it is entitled and the Whites have given it some of their land in addition. What is the hon. member doing in making such an allegation which is completely unfounded? Surely he is trying to destroy racial harmony in South Africa. That hon. member is not serving the interests of South Africa.

The whole discussion which has taken place today has served to prove that there is in fact interdependence and co-operation between the Republic and the homelands. I briefly want to quote a number of great experts in the economic field. I quote what a certain Gierch says in Economic Union between Nations and the Location of Industries—

In other words, if the economies of different countries, for example those of South Africa and the homelands, were incorporated into one great economy, as those hon. members would like, it would cause production factors such as labour and capital to be diverted from the less developed areas to the more highly developed areas. That is what they are all advocating today. They say that job reservation should be abolished, that decentralization should be abandoned and that the market mechanism should continue.

That is because you meddle with economic laws.

They say that the economic laws should apply. However, I say that they are making further attempts to throw dust in the eyes of the homelands and the people of South Africa, the Whites, by saying that they accept the homelands, while in fact they want to strangle the homelands economically. They want to use the economy as a weapon for destroying the homelands.

A Frenchman, Francois Perroux, says the following—

What they want to do is to destroy development in the homelands.

You do not even understand …

No, Mr. Speaker, this hon. member is the one who does not understand. How do they mean to develop the homelands if they want the people to leave the homelands? With what means do they want to develop the homelands? How can they develop the homelands if no capital enters the homelands, channelled in that direction by this Government in terms of section 3 of the Environment Planning Act, 1967? I should like to read to the hon. member an article from a newspaper dealing with events in Gazankulu. The report reads—

How do they think the homelands can be developed if they want to entice away the productive men?

Why is there no work for them in the homelands?

For this reason I want to deal with the question of interdependence and I maintain that there can only be interdependence if the various Governments have meaningful powers and if they have economic strength. Because these things have been achieved and because they will be achieved to an increasing extent in the future, the interdependence and the co-operation will have to grow. For this reason I want to tell the hon. members that interdependence is determined by a number of factors, and these are the assets which each of these countries possesses. This is the one factor which determines whether or not there can be interdependence and whether there can be co-operation. The second factor is the interests of the various countries and the third factor which determines interdependence is the various objectives of the countries. When one comes to the basis, I want to tell those hon. members that as far as the economic production factors are concerned, namely land, labour, capital and management, South Africa is better endowed in respect of two of these, i.e. management and capital. However, in respect of the other two, i.e. labour and a potential which is as yet unexploited, but which may be exploited, the homelands are better endowed, relatively speaking. This provides the basis for interdependence, and hon. members on this side of the House have repeatedly pointed out the number of people who come from the homelands to work here and who invest in the homelands the money they earn here. Capital is required in the homelands for developing the territories, but those hon. members do not want the people to live in the homelands. They want as many as possible of them to come hère so that they may spend their money here and not in the homelands. Not only do they want to remove the labour from the homelands; they also want to remove the capital. Now I ask the hon. members why they say that they want to develop the homelands. Why not be honest and say that they do not want to develop them? They are in favour of a unitary state. The only reason why they say there must be homelands and why they accept them is that they are a fact, but they want to use the economic axe to kill the homelands.

This, then, is the basis which determines interdependence. The first and most important asset which any country has is its people. The people from the homelands earn that money, but some of South Africa’s people are also working in the homelands, providing what the homelands need so urgently, namely managerial skill. In the same way as they provide us with labour, South Africa provides them with that production factor, namely management. It is true that we should have liked to do much more than we are doing at the moment, but because of the shortage of manpower, we can only do what we can.

According to the 1970 census, there were 8 866 Whites economically active within the homelands. Those Whites had better academic qualifications than the average economically active White person of South Africa. In other words, those people of South Africa who find themselves in the homelands are the people best qualified to help the homelands perform that very managerial function. I should like to give hon. members a few statistics. Of those 8 866 persons, 4 227 had a Std. 10 certificate or higher qualification. If they did not have a Std. 10 certificate, they had a diploma. That represents 47% of them. Of the economically active people of South Africa, only 41% had those qualifications. Of the 8 866 economically active Whites in the homelands, 8,6% are graduates, while only 5,6% of the economically active people in South Africa have degrees. This is a typical example of interdependence in one field. One man has a surplus of one thing and another man has a surplus of something else. These are exchanged to everyone’s advantage and in the interests of all.

However, there are many other assets. There are minerals in the homelands, and some of those minerals lie on either side of our common borders, on the other side of the border, inside the homeland, and on this side, inside South Africa. Those minerals must be exploited to the advantage of both, and for that reason there must be co-operation in order to exploit that wealth to everyone’s advantage, because there is interdependence. The same applies to water, for there are rivers forming the border between South Africa and the homelands. In order to exploit that source of life to the advantage of both, there must be co-operation, understanding and the will to develop, to make progress and to exploit. In this way, there are many other things as well, but I shall leave it at that.

I should like to come to the question of common interests which influence these matters. The homelands of South Africa have already, by way of legislation, been placed in exactly the same position in respect of the marketing of agricultural products as the one in which the independent States of Southern Africa have been placed. Legally speaking, they are in exactly the same position, because agriculture and agricultural marketing have been entrusted exclusively to the homeland governments and are dealt with by them. We advise them when they ask us for advice or when they desire this, but that function is completely in their hands. In respect of that matter, therefore, they already find themselves in exactly the same position as that of Lesotho, Botswana, Malawi and any other State. This also applies in respect of certain financial and monetary matters, including customs. In this connection they are in the same position as other independent States. Arrangements are made with them in the same way as they are made with other States.

There are many matters of common interest between us and the homelands, matters in respect of which we are dependent on one another and in respect of which there is co-operation. One thinks, for example, of the problem of stock diseases. South Africa is a stock-importing country, and South Africa makes veterinary services available to the homelands and to the countries of Africa as well, in order to promote the production of beef. Because these services are made available, the animals come to our markets and they fulfil a need in South Africa. Mutual arrangements have to be made for the transportation of cattle and for the treatment they are to receive before crossing a border, in order to combat the spreading of stock diseases. In regard to all these and similar matters—I cannot refer to all the matters concerned, for my time has almost expired—there is one hundred per cent co-operation between us and the homelands. This also applies, for example, in respect of plant diseases, public health, etc.—there are a great number of these matters. I have a list here of more than 30 matters of this kind, in respect of which co-operation is already taking place between us and the homelands at this stage. As the homelands continue to develop constitutionally, economically and in many other fields, they will enter an increasing number of spheres and the scope of their undertakings will grow. For this reason, the co-operation will have to increase in the future, in the interests of everyone.

There are still other matters of common interest. We all have ideals. Each of these peoples shows unmistakable signs of wanting to become great, of wanting to become strong and to grow. The Whites show these signs and the Black peoples show them as well. These peoples and their responsible Governments all show that in order to realize the ideal cherished by each of them, they must have authority over themselves and they must have political independence, and that there must be co-operation in many fields. In this way, too, there must be co-operation in the field of security. One of the greatest safeguards we have in respect of our security is the fact that we find ourselves in precisely this situation. Each one has authority over itself and a course which it pursues by itself, but our interests, including our security interests, are so interwoven that the fact that we are placed as we are is in itself a safeguard. Our own interests compel us to co-operate with one another and to bear with one another if we are not all to end up under communist domination.

Hon. members on the other side said that the policy of the NP had failed. In fact, the policy of the NP has not failed. The fact is that after only 30 years, we have progressed to the point where the first homeland has already become an independent country …

“Only”?

Before the 30 years have passed, a second homeland will have become independent. In addition, there is the greatest measure of understanding and co-operation. The most gratifying of all is that when one visits the homelands and speaks to the leaders and the ordinary people, one finds that there is a positive spirit among them. I find it very distressing, after having come into contact during the recess with homelands and with people who are struggling to make progress, people who are forging ahead, to be confronted in the House of Assembly with people who are more advanced and who ought to know better, but who have no feeling for this, who do not understand it and, worst of all, who do not show any desire to understand and to help and encourage those people. The things which the people do in the homelands are belittled. The homelands are dismissed as backward regions. However, their homeland is their most precious possession; it is their fatherland. But the homelands are belittled and those people are told, “Leave your fatherland and come to the White man’s land.”

Your policy has failed.

The hon. member for Bryanston is one of the chief exponents of this. He does not know what he is doing. He is giving mortal offence to people and nations, but he does not understand this because he is not a nationalist. This applies to every one of those hon. members. They do not understand this because they are not nationalists and have never felt or experienced this. All they have ever done is to destroy nationalism; that is what they have done. They have never changed either. They are still just the way they always used to be.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is in favour of Black nationalism?

I am in favour of nationalism in its pure form. There is no finer force in the life of any people than nationalism in its pure form.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.