laid upon the Table:

Mr Chairman, it is the first time this session, I believe, that this House has become involved in a debate on foreign affairs. It is not simply because foreign affairs are not important. They are extraordinarily important. I suppose, however, it does reflect the fact that our foreign relations are intertwined and inextricably linked with our internal and our domestic situation.

In order, Sir, to direct the attention of hon members to the Department of Foreign Affairs and its activities, I may point out that trying to follow the fortunes of South Africa in the field of foreign relations over this past year has been something like riding on a fast-moving roller-coaster. There have been breathtaking brinkmanship, sudden turns and nerve-testing ups and downs; and, regrettably, although there have been some ups, there have been many more downs.

In all of these circumstances, Sir, standing in the breach have been the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs who, with their very slender resources, have stuck manfully to their task. I believe that we in this House owe them a debt of gratitude and congratulations on the way in which they have carried out their duties in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, it is undoubtedly true that the image of South Africa and the credibility of the Government hit an all-time low during the latter part of last year. This was in part owing to an orchestrated and sustained campaign by certain organisations abroad to denigrate South African wherever and whenever they could. In their campaigns these organisations have resorted at times to special pleading, to selective morality and to one-sided presentations of the South African situation.

Having said that, however, I should point out that we in South Africa would be stupid and very wrong if we saw these campaigns as either the only or even the prime reason for the serious problems South Africa is experiencing in its relationships with the rest of the world, and especially in its relationships with its trading partners in the West. There can be no doubt that Government actions—and at times the inaction of the Government— have been a major reason for the tarnishing of South Africa’s image and for the destruction of the Government’s credibility over the past year. There were events in South Africa for which the Government was directly responsible, and in the case of which the Government played right into the hands of South Africa’s enemies. Indeed, at times last year it looked as if the script for the actions of the South African Government—and especially the actions of the hon the Minister of Law and Order—had been written, not by a pro-South African Cabinet but by an anti-South African organisation with its headquarters in Moscow. That was the impression that was created.

There were also some incidents of an international character over which this Government did have control. They were the abortive Cabinda raid on 1 May; the trial of the “Coventry Four” which began on 5 June; the threats to expel foreign workers during June and July; the attack on people and targets in Gaborone during June; the initial brinkmanship in connection with the Klaas de Jonge affair in July—luckily that brinkmanship came to an end; revelations later during that year regarding South Africa’s involvement with Renamo—even after the signing of the Nkomati Accord—which came very close to wrecking the Nkomati Accord entirely; decisions by the Government in June 1985 to set up an interim Government in South West Africa—a move which was widely interpreted as a deviation from the Resolution 435 route to Namibian independence; and, finally, the large-scale military involvement of South African forces in Angola in support of Unita during September last year.

Nevertheless, while these issues which were of an international character added to our problems in the field of foreign relationships, I believe they were overshadowed by the events that were taking place right here inside South Africa. [Interjections.] Let none of us underestimate the impact which the events of last year inside South Africa had on both our internal and our external relationships. I refer, for instance, to the declaration of the state of emergency and its continuation for very many months during last year. I refer also to the widespread violence—violence of all kinds—that took place in South Africa during the past year; but I should like to refer particularly to the violence and brutality perpetrated at times by agents of the Government in support of the unjust system of apartheid. These were the incidents one saw on television while one was overseas; for example, that infamous “Trojan Horse incident” when TV viewers around the world saw how three Coloured youths were shot during a police ambush while police were concealed in boxes on a SATS truck. These were the kind of incidents which aggravated the problem for the Government and for South Africa. There were constant and repeated violations of civil liberty and the rule of law and, of course, the continuation of aspects of the policy of apartheid even in the form of Government structures and the removing of the people of Moutse and putting them under the control of the Ndebele Government.

There was also the way in which the Government dragged its heels in carrying out its own commitment to reform. There can be no argument about the fact that this image of a heel-dragging, time-wasting, decisionducking Government last year was confirmed to the world in the State President’s Rubicon speech on 15 August 1985. The hon the Minister will know how our enemies rubbed their hands with glee, our friends threw up their hands in despair, pressures immediately started building up and various forms of sanctions were applied. Within four weeks President Reagan, who is opposed to the principle of sanctions against South Africa, felt disposed to signing an executive order which included certain forms of sanctions against our country. Ambassadors were recalled and the accreditation of South Africa’s military attachés was withdrawn.

Yet, amidst this international anger and frustration I believe there were also signs of a more constructive approach developing. People in certain Western countries, and to an extent in Africa, were appearing to realise that it was not good enough just to pressurise or to punish, and that if a catastrophe was going to be avoided in South Africa a constructive effort had to be made to assist in dismantling apartheid and, in addition to this, some thought had to be given to the kind of society that would emerge in South Africa once apartheid was gone.

I certainly detected this subtle change in numerous discussions I had in South Africa with representatives of other governments and of the private sector. Interestingly enough I came across this more positive approach in November last year when I was in Australia and New Zealand for discussions with Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and David Lange as well as the opposition leaders in those countries. I sensed an interest and concern which went deeper than just the critical rhetoric that one so often hears directed towards South Africa on the issue of apartheid.

The PFP believe that the problems of South Africa have to be resolved in South Africa, by South Africans and in the interests of South Africans. Yet we should not ignore or reject the assistance which could be forthcoming from those outside who genuinely want to help South Africa to get rid of apartheid and help South Africa to take its place in the community of nations once again.

Let me give illustrations of that to the House. I refer for instance to foreign companies that have decided to stay on in South Africa in spite of the pressures back home for them to pull out. I think of the multinational companies such as IBM and Coca-Cola who are making millions of rands available for Black education in South Africa. I think of corporations and foundations overseas that are contributing very considerable sums as well as making vast loans available to organisations such as the Urban Foundation. I think of the various institutes and of the conferences that are taking place involving South Africans across the board in trying to explore constitutional alternatives.

None of these can be a substitute for fundamental change by South Africans in South Africa, yet all of them I believe show a desire on the part of people to get rid of apartheid and to see whether South Africa can move into a fuller future for all of its people.

Perhaps the most important of these two helpful approaches—if I may call them that —was the package which went with President Reagan’s executive order. This executive order did apply limited sanctions in four important fields but there was also a positive injunction to American companies to behave in a positive way. There was also the appointment of the committee of 12 wise people who were due to come to South Africa to see whether in one way or another they could monitor the positive achievements of Americans and American companies in trying to help South Africa away from apartheid. More important and perhaps most topical was the decision taken at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference at Nassau in the Bahamas in October last year. Largely at the initiative of Mrs Thatcher of Great Britain, it was decided to appoint what has come to be known as the Eminent Persons Group. Once again there was a sanctions component, but another and very important component was the intention to try in a constructive way to help get meaningful dialogue going in South Africa.

Apartheid is an indigenous belief!

I believe that we in South Africa should take this group and its mission seriously. In my opinion, the South African Government has behaved very correctly towards the EPG, and the EPG has done likewise by playing the game and behaving in a responsible way towards the South African Government and as far as its overall mission is concerned.

I am encouraged by the fact that the EPG, having received the State President’s response to its first visit, is planning to return to South Africa in the relatively near future. While the process of negotiation ultimately has to be between South Africans and South Africans, not between the EPG and South Africa, I believe that the EPG may be able to help in getting this difficult process going.

There are risks involved in any process of negotiation and obviously it is the duty of a government to try to minimise these risks. At the same time, when the Government is deciding what level of risk will be acceptable––entering into negotiations will most certainly involve risks—it must also take into account the disastrous consequences to South Africa both internally and internationally if we do not enter into meaningful and early negotiations with Black South Africans on their participation in the constitutional future of this country.

We have stated time and time again that if these negotiations are going to be meaningful, certain preconditions will have to be fulfilled. There is a whole range of them involving getting rid of apartheid and creating the climate for negotiations. Indeed, some of these climate-building operations have already taken place. We of the PFP believe that it is going to be essential that Mr Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners be released. This is a precondition for getting negotiation off the ground. Secondly, we have stated over the years that we believe that the ANC must be unbanned so that it will be possible for members of the ANC who wish to participate in negotiations on a new constitution for South Africa to do so here in South Africa. Newspaper reports, both in South Africa and abroad, indicate that the Government is possibly starting to think along these lines. We hope that this is so. We hope that the Government will act along these lines. I shall not press this matter in this debate, save to say to the hon the Minister that the future of this country and its people for many years to come will be affected in a very significant way by the decision which the Government takes on these two issues in the next few days, if not the next few months.

I have noted—and I want to say it to him—the hon the Minister’s earnestness on the issue of fundamental constitutional reform in recent times. I know that he will realise that he has come a long way since 1976 when he had a dream of a White South Africa and he said:

However, that is a closed chapter. That was 1976—10 years ago. The hon the Minister has created the impression in recent times that he is serious and in earnest about the need for fundamental constitutional reform and for urgent moves to make power-sharing a reality. [Interjections.]

The statement by the hon the Minister roundabout 5 February about the inevitability of the possibility under power-sharing of there being a Black State President, I believe, unbeknown to him gave substance and meaning and thrust to the words of the State President such as was impossible to achieve by any glossy advertisements or TV presentations. It was a pity that, two days later, the hon the Minister retracted the statement and toed the party line once again. In the important context of Black perception I believe that that retreat of the hon the Minister was in fact a blow to reform. I believe that on that afternoon of 7 February when he came to the House and accepted his party political medicine, the hon the Minister, while he did the honourable thing by his party, allowed one of those rare and magic moments in the political life of our country to slip through his fingers. I hope he is not going to do it again.

The hon the Minister has been in the van. He has approved of Ambassador Beukes debating in public with a member of the ANC on television networks in the USA. In a report from London I see that Mr Von Hirschberg of his department has indicated that there are specific moves being made indicating that the Government is possibly considering unbanning the ANC. The speech the hon the Minister made on Friday night to the Afrikaanse Sakekamer seems to indicate a positive approach. I did not see the full text but saw the extracts on television. I know that it is possible that only selective extracts may have been shown, but I also read the newspaper report today. There was an earnestness about the hon the Minister trying to get rid of this concept of domination and trying to make power-sharing a reality while it is still a prospect in South Africa.

For that reason I say to the hon the Minister and hon members on that side of the House that we are all going to be faced with tough and critical decisions in the months ahead. It is going to require each one of us, including the hon the Minister, to stand up and be counted for making the option of power-sharing a reality in South Africa before that option also slips through our fingers and there is no longer any prospect of power-sharing or a democratic solution for our country. For that reason I say to the hon the Minister and the hon members on that side of the House who share a sense of urgency, as I say to the hon members in these benches, that I trust that when that moment comes the hon members of this House will be prepared to stand up and be counted and to put before all else a commitment to a new South Africa.

We are moving into critical times which affect our internal situation and our external situation. I believe that we need a follow-through on power-sharing in a fundamental way. If we do not have that follow-through in a fundamental way we will just be left only with the prospect of one form of tyranny or another.

My colleagues and I will raise a number of more specific matters during the course of the debate. For the moment I want to leave my remarks at that.

Mr Chairman, I wish to open by saying I am in agreement with the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in his expression of thanks to the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs. If there is one matter on which hon members of this Committee should agree, it is in our gratitude and appreciation to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials of the department serving both in the country and overseas for the excellent work done for South Africa under very difficult conditions. These men and women bear the full brunt of the onslaught against South Africa. Day after day they go through fire and water for the country and they deserve the thanks and appreciation of all parties—of everyone in South Africa.

We should also like to welcome the hon the Deputy Minister here on the occasion of his participating in the discussion of this Vote for the first time in his new capacity. We wish him everything of the best.

I want to get back to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. Unfortunately I have to agree with him again in a certain sense. It is unpleasant to mention this but there has been a dramatic deterioration in the image of South Africa overseas over the past 18 months. [Interjections.] The image of our country has not been as bad as during these 18 months for a very long time.

Get another Minister! [Interjections.]

If the hon Leader of the Official Opposition now claims that it is the Government’s fault, I cannot agree with him at all. [Interjections.] It is not the consequence of lack of action on the side of the Government; there are other reasons for this. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition again attempted creating the impression here that the Police were to blame for what had occurred in areas of disturbance. He again came with the old story of “get rid of apartheid”—as if this would put everything right in South Africa overnight. [Interjections.] Why does the hon Leader of the Official Opposition not tell overseas countries about the fundamental reform which has taken place in South Africa recently? [Interjections.]

Order! This debate will last until tomorrow. There will be ample opportunity for hon members to participate in the debate. An hon member who has the floor is not to be prevented from making his speech. There will be ample opportunity for other hon members to react to it. Consequently I shall not allow constant interjections. The hon member for Bloemfontein North may proceed.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition said nothing positive here today. What he said will once again be viewed by the outside world as a damning charge against South Africa.

Did you write that yesterday?

That has been our experience over the years. Speeches emanating from Official Opposition ranks have always provided fuel to the enemies of South Africa. What the hon Leader of the Official Opposition said again here today is nothing but fuel to the enemies of the country. They will pounce on it and exploit it!

I said the image of South Africa abroad had not been good over the past 18 months. It was noticeable that a new wave of anti-South African sentiment and activities coincided so well with the implemention of our new constitutional dispensation from which the Blacks are excluded—according to foreign concept. Foreign countries immediately linked the wave of internal unrest which broke over the country at that very time with this.

The riots in South Africa were manna from heaven to our enemies and the sensation-seeking media. They were seized upon to destroy the salutary effect of our reform initiatives. For days, weeks and months the South African riots formed the main news of nearly every television or radio service abroad. They created the impression that South Africa was going up in smoke and flames.

We were overseas ourselves and saw and experienced this. With the exception of Lebanon, the largest contingent of foreign media people are currently operating in South Africa. Many of them made a meal of South Africa’s distress; they literally cavorted in our riot areas until we pulled them up. We did take steps against them although it is a pity we left this so late. I think we should have done it sooner.

Yes, we are also very sorry about that!

What I have just said represents the hard facts about the poor image of South Africa, but let us proceed on a positive note.

What should we do now? We should fight back, we should attack and regain lost ground. Nevertheless we cannot regain lost ground with a speech such as that made by the hon Leader of the Official Opposition here this afternoon. We should apply all the power and the means at our disposal to repair and build our image. Unlike the CP, which is shouting so hard on the opposite side, or the HNP, we cannot turn our backs on overseas countries; our country would then go under in isolation. [Interjections.]

Last year during our parliamentary visit to the USA an eminent Jewish leader told us— some hon members will recall this—that we should emulate Israel; we should not take it lying down but fight back. That is very good advice. We should fight back and in the time at my disposal today I shall attempt to indicate how we and South Africa should go about it to be able to fight back. We should continue convincing fair and reasonable elements in Europe, the USA and elsewhere of our good intentions. The voice of South Africa should be heard increasingly—“the voice of reason”, as President Kaunda of Zambia himself once called it.

South Africa should continue moving outwards and now, more than ever before, move outwards in Africa, Europe and beyond. The State President recently provided this outward movement with impetus by attending the coronation ceremony in Swaziland. He was spontaneously applauded by thousands of people there; South Africa was accepted there in the fellowship of Southern African states. This is good progress, Mr Charman, and the Nkomati Accord was infused with new life there as well. We may now move out with greater self-confidence because our case is so much better and stronger. The hands of our overseas representatives and our friends abroad have been enormously strengthened by the depth and reality of reform in South Africa. That is the very point, Mr Chairman, on which the hon Leader of the Official Opposition was silent in this debate. [Interjections.]

Changes in South Africa are not superficial or of a cosmetic nature; the reform is fundamental. I could devote my entire speech to mentioning to hon members what all the recent reforms have comprised. Fair and reasonable people like President Reagan of the USA give credit for them.

There are many ways and also many spheres in which we could fight back, one example of which is precisely what our rugby people have just done. Although this may be regarded as contentious in some circles, I wish to congratulate our rugby people who brought the All Blacks to South Africa on the breakthrough they made. [Interjections.] This is the type of daring and aggressiveness South Africa requires in these times. [Interjections.]

When one speaks of building the image of a country, one thinks in the first place of the information service of the country concerned. One usually thinks the information service of one’s country should carry out that task. Granted, that is the task of the person in information but what I have in mind is a global and absolute strategy with worldwide impact and in which all of us in this country could participate.

Do you perhaps want to bring Eschel Rhoodie back? [Interjections.]

Order!

The creation of a Bureau for Information for the better information of the people of the country was a very good step which has already borne fruit but we shall also have to reinforce and extend our external service.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford my hon colleague an opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip for extending my time.

As I was saying, we shall have to reinforce and extend our external service. There will have to be closer co-ordination between the two information functions because it is actually the internal service which has to feed and propagate the external service from South Africa.

We know our external information personnel have a superhuman task which they accomplish with great dedication but what they do is a mere drop in the bucket. The handful of information personnel we have overseas have to serve approximately 700 million people, 4 150 newspapers and magazines, 1 300 television stations, more than 10 000 radio stations and 2 500 universities and colleges. [Interjections.] The difficulty of their task is further increased by the multidimensional onslaught against us and by the problematical complexity of South Africa. We dare not lose the propaganda struggle and the psychological war. We should have no illusions about sanctions and boycotts like dark clouds overhead.

Many false perceptions about South Africa have been created overseas such as that our oppression of people here continues. That deduction may once again be drawn from the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech; it is really a disgrace that these matters are approached in this way in this Committee.

These perceptions and their falsity are most injurious to South Africa and will have to be shattered. Nevertheless these perceptions are now being reinforced by a speech such as that of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. A group from the International Association for Human Rights, for instance, found after an investigation that human rights had been violated far less in South Africa than the media made out. That is how these perceptions are created.

We are devoting too much time to defensive action and knocking trouble on the head. We are working with too much of a backlog; we should attempt to get ahead for once. We could do this by going over from defence to attack; I think hon members of the CP could also assist us in this. [Interjections.]

I wish to appeal that information overseas should receive higher priority and that the necessary means be voted to increase the impact of our information service abroad. Whereas the Department of Foreign Affairs had approximately R94 million at its disposal over the past financial year to project the South African image overseas, UNO headquarters in New York spent $110 million— more than twice as much as we did—on anti-South African propaganda. To this should be added the millions of rands applied against South Africa by UNO agencies and a legion of anti-apartheid movements.

We should reinforce our manpower abroad and where necessary school them better for the formidable task they have to accomplish. Of import, too, is that we should recruit more people of colour— Blacks, Coloureds and Indians—for this work. They are just as competent as Whites and our experience on visits abroad was that those of colour do exceptionally valuable work. They help to open doors and lend greater credibility to missions from South Africa. We should also appoint more people of colour in representative overseas posts— even at ambassadorial level. [Interjections.] This would assist greatly in lending credibility and impact to our reform initiatives.

Our external information service cannot do everything alone; it requires our assistance. The ways in which we could assist it from South Africa are legion but we shall have to think bigger and move faster locally. We shall have to be prepared for more spectacular acts, acts which could diminish the conflict potential here. An example of this is the upgrading of Black areas where slum conditions are still too extensive.

Where are you going to find the money? Upgrading takes money!

The chap is half mad!

Order! Who was it who said somebody was half mad?

Mr Chairman, I did. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! Only the hon member for Bloemfontein North may proceed.

I wish to tell hon members over there who keep interjecting that, when important matters like these are at stake, the money has to be found. [Interjections.] It is in the interests of their survival and mine.

I now get to the media. It is all very well to fight the media and they give us a great deal of reason to do so but one cannot win by fighting them. Let us admit roundly that we cannot get on without the media; they remain one of the most important instruments in building the image of the country.

There is only one way to co-operate with them and that is to make friends with them and see that one’s liaison with them is good. I wish to appeal for regular liaison with the media and that doors be opened to them where possible. Although they are sometimes critical, frequently mischievous and usually sensation-seeking, it remains the best policy to be good friends with them. It is true that the media have very great influence and enormous impact. If they were to concentrate on positive events in the Republic for about three months, on all the fine steps to reform, this would influence the negative foreign climate very strongly.

I wish to get to a matter which may sound trifling but has great impact, namely technical aid projects. Experience has proved time and again that projects by which South Africa has furnished technical aid have not only provided the country with good publicity but also created splendid goodwill towards South Africa. I should like to cite a few examples.

South Africa made a present of water pumps to a community in Bolivia to supply it with fresh water. We furnished aid in the training of masons and plumbers in Paraquay. The Official Opposition criticised this in a previous debate but to do so is very shortsighted. A trifling amount was involved in both cases but the gifts elicited exceptionally favourable publicity—out of proportion to their cash value.

We should do more on the level of technical aid. An aid programme of this nature does not cost more than an advertising campaign and is of more permanent value; it is bread cast on the waters for South Africa.

I also wish to say that we should not be so miserly in sending members of Parliament overseas to put South Africa’s case, nor in bringing influential opinion-formers in greater numbers to South Africa as guests. Members of Parliament should also go overseas in small groups on a more regular basis to keep positive dialogue on South Africa alive. [Interjections.]

It has been proved time and again that guests brought to South Africa return as good ambassadors for our country after acquiring first-hand information here.

South African companies and organisations could also do more at their own expense in inviting prominent people to South Africa as their guests.

Our exporters should continue building on last year’s successes of greater penetration into export markets. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour and move as an amendment:

[Interjections.]

My hon leader would have wanted to participate personally in this Vote discussion today in order to reply to certain accusations made by the State President that he had allegedly made offensive remarks about friendly countries, or about their heads of state, but he is at present paying a visit to King Goodwill of the Zulus, and consequently cannot be here today. [Interjections.]

I looked up in Hansard, the State President’s accusation against my hon leader in regard to the offensive remarks which he had allegedly made about other states, starting from column 3616. The person who says that the hon member for Waterberg made offensive remarks either in respect of a friendly country or in respect of a friendly head of state, is talking absolute nonsense. [Interjections.] The visit of our hon leader to King Goodwill also refutes the hostile accusations of hon members of the governing party that we do not, or do not want to talk to leaders of other peoples in this country. On the contrary, we are completely at liberty to tell our Black neighbouring states that we recognise and respect their sovereign integrity, and that when we come into power, we shall help and support them and will not cheat them. [Interjections.]

†Earlier this year the hon member for Standerton stated that South Africa’s internal matters had become fully internationalised. He used the word “verintemasionaliseer”, and he was quite correct. He should have added, however, that due to the weakness of the NP Government and due to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs it had become so internationalised, and more particularly, Americanised. South Africa and US relations as well as US involvement in Southern Africa have been in the limelight for a long, long time. The USA is the most powerful country in the history of the world, and the American people are a great nation. Personally, I have the highest regard for President Reagan. He is a worthy president to his nation, and his achievements are numerous. He is the liveliest and the most spirited lame duck that I have ever seen! History, I am sure, will show him as one of the great presidents of his country.

I have here a document titled “Statement of Howard Phillips, Chairman, the Conservative Caucus Inc, before the Subcommittee on Africa, Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives, Washington DC, 9 April 1986”. At the weekend I also had the opportunity to read an issue of the McAlvany Intelligence Adviser containing a report on the present Southern African situation which was compiled after the editor and a group of about 60 Americans had visited this country earlier this year. The whole tenor of the Phillips statement and the McAlvany report is that it is most critical of the State Department of the USA, but not of President Reagan. I quote from the statement:

On page 2 it reads as follows:

On page 11 the following is stated:

Further on the following is said:

The report ends by saying:

The McAlvany report, on page 7, under the heading, “The Weakness of the South African Government” reads as follows:

A bit further on it reads as follows:

This I believe is absolutely true. The frequent protestations of the State President that he is not being dictated to by outside governments impress nobody. The frequent monitoring calls of deputy or assistant secretaries of State and the Minister’s regular report-back trips out of South Africa prove the point. The encouraging sounds made by the United States’ State Department on steps of so-called reform, which is in fact submission, usually linked with further demands, serve only to confirm the already obvious.

The McAlvany report goes on to list certain examples in support of their statements, the third one being the following:

On the next page of the report the following is said:

1. (1) intimidation and bullying by the US State Department.
2. (2) fear of sanctions—which are coming in any case, no matter what South Africa does.
3. (3) fear of world opinion and Press reaction. World opinion and media reporting can’t get any worse, so they are worried about what is already a fait accompli.

Mr Chairman, I have quoted extensively from the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor. If half of what is said in the report is true, it is utterly alarming. The consequences will be disastrous, not only for South Africa but for the whole free world: South Africa so strategically situated from a defence point of view, will be lost to the free world; South Africa’s strategic minerals will be lost or at least not guaranteed available on demand as is presently the case; South Africa, a very important factor in the free world economy, will become just another African burden on the shoulders of the free world. For communism it will be a step closer to its final onslaught on the West and in particular on the USA. In all sincerity I trust that the US President will take cognisance of the statement and the report.

At the moment the Government is being pressurised to release Mr Mandela, and I believe that it is merely a matter of time before the Government will cave in on this point also. The hon the Minister is already paving the way for this. I wish I could bring to President Reagan’s attention what Winnie Mandela wrote in a message to a meeting of an organisation named “The Call of Islam”. According to Die Burger of 26 April, she expressed her joy and pride (blydskap en trots) in “The Call of Islam’s” solidarity with Col Muammar Gaddafi and Lybia.

As far as this hon Minister is concerned, I believe he is a full convert of the United States’s State Department, and the sooner this country is rid of him, the better. He must go, and he must go now. [Interjections.]

*Last Friday in Johannesburg the Afrikaanse Sakekamer witnessed another one of the hon Minister’s fairly regular outbursts. [Interjections.] Incidentally, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he would not please control himself and his language in public. [Interjections.] It is true that he is not “the State President, after all”, but he is in fact the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs. Words such as “lick” and “devour” may perhaps be appropriate to a kind of Breyten Breytenbach mentality, but are definitely not worthy of his audience and of his position. I feel ashamed when the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs acts like that on TV. [Interjections.]

According to the Johannesburg daily The Citizen of last Saturday, the hon the Minister allegedly said:

Yes!

I am now asking the hon the Minister, and those hon members who said “yes”: Was the South African “right wing” in Iran or Cuba or Rhodesia, or recently in the Phillipines? [Interjections.] This hon Minister and his cronies on that side …

Order! There is far too much comment on the hon member’s speech. The hon member may proceed.

As I said, this hon Minister and his cronies are so obsessed with the right-wing—and I have to say this in English—that whenever they see or hear “White”, they understand “right” and from “right” they get such a fright that they turn white. Then the whole cycle from white to right to fright starts all over again. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister also said the following:

The hon the Minister is once again taking his old 1983 referendum speeches down off the shelf and dusting them off, but I want to tell him—just as the McAlvany Report states— that the things they are afraid might happen are happening in any case. Since he said that this would happen under a right-wing government, I want to tell him that this is what is going to happen to the country’s Government in any case—his Government—unless they are ultimately going to agree to capitulate to the ANC. After all, that is what the world, whom they listen to and which threatens and prescribes to them, wants.

I want to touch upon a few other matters, but first I want to make the point that as far as the CP is concerned we totally reject interference from outside in the domestic affairs of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

South Africa is a free, sovereign country. South Africa does not, like many other Third World countries that try to prescribe to America, England and the rest of the West what to do with South Africa, rely on charitable assistance from the outside world. South Africa is a country that did its share, as a free sovereign country in the Western community of nations, in two World Wars, and is an indispensable link in the Western economic system.

South Africa under the guidance of the CP will seek and strive for normal relations with those states with whom having such relations are worthwhile to us. If the CP is controlling this country, South Africa will play its part in the world and contribute its share as member of the Western community.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North referred to the information service. I want to say that under this hon Minister the information service seems to have ground to a halt now, particularly during the past five years. Last year when the riots reached a peak, I received a call from a friend in England.

†He told me that it was all over with South Africa—the country had had it. He said that for three weeks the international Press had had a field day.

*He said we should bring our families out of South Africa. Furthermore, he said: “In all that time, not a bleep came from your Government.”

One constantly receives the same evidence, for example from well-disposed visitors to this country who come to one with news of this kind. I do not think it is attributable to a lack of money. It is the result of incompetence on the part of that hon the Minister and his department that the image of this country abroad is so deplorable! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we have heard what the hon member for Soutpansberg said. I do not think his speech as a whole made a very good contribution to the promotion of South Africa’s foreign relations, although I did agree with one or two points in it. One of these was that foreign interference in South Africa’s domestic affairs should be rejected.

A second point I agree with, is that I got the impression that the White House and the American Department of Foreign Affairs do not always stick to the same approach in respect of South Africa. I regard his quotation with regard to the fact that the American Department of Foreign Affairs strives for more or less the same objectives as the Soviet Union, as somewhat exaggerated. That is a debate between him and that country, however, which I do not want to become involved in.

The third point on which we agree is our shared admiration for Pres Reagan.

†A former British Prime Minister, Lord Chalfont, once said, at the beginning of the reign of terror when all those hijackings by the PLO and other organisations took place, that terrorism was a new warfare which was becoming the scourge of the twentieth century. He said the only way to fight it was to fight it as it was waged—ruthlessly and internationally.

These sentiments were echoed recently by President Reagan of the United States when he announced the American attacks on terrorist bases on Libya. He said:

Needless to say, we on this side of the Committee are in complete agreement with these sentiments as expressed by both Lord Chalfont and President Reagan. We have expressed the same views on many occasions over the past two decades. We have done so because we have always known of the existence of an international network which links various terrorist organisations under the umbrella of the Soviet Union. On several occasions we have presented evidence in this House of the close association which exists between organisations such as the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Irish Republican Army, the Red Army Brigades in Germany, Italy and Japan, the Tupamaros in Latin America and organisations such as Swapo, the ANC and the PAC here in South Africa.

Renewed evidence of such links was given very recently by the State President during the discussion of his Vote. In fact, he gave the venues of two international conferences at which ANC, PAC and other delegates took part with the PLO and representatives of Gaddafi and the Kremlin. The American attacks on terrorist bases, therefore, accord with our attitude towards terrorism and how to deal with it. We thus approve of their action completely. We have acted in the same way on numerous occasions ourselves. On each such occasion our attacks on ANC and other terrorist nests over the years in Maputo, Maseru, Gaborone or wherever were preceded by the same serious warnings to the countries in which such terrorist bases were harboured.

We too, like President Reagan—and I quote him again—issued warnings in this vein:

We have issued, as I have said, similar warnings. It is also our right to defend our citizens from acts of terror and, if necessary, we shall do again what the Americans have done, naturally after taking the same precautions that they have taken. The Americans ensured that they knew exactly where the terrorist nests in Libya were to reduce to the minimum the civilian casualties in the crossfire. They established who had been responsible for the attacks on the Berlin nightclub and they then, having taken these precautions, took the necessary steps. That is exactly what we have always done. Yet, when we took out terrorist bases in Gaborone the free nations of the world did not unite to work together with us; on the contrary, the USA withdrew its ambassador for several months on end and other European nations followed suit.

That pressure led to other pressures against this country, which I find completely unjustified in these circumstances. I think the time has come for this kind of double standard to end. For as long as one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter this earth will not be rid of the scourge of the 20th century.

There are other forms of double ethics related to this that I think are similar. The disgusting, barbaric, indescribable brutality of the necklacing of 32 elderly Lebowa citizens is the kind of intimidation that President Reagan referred to in his statement. It is barbarism in its extreme form. There was no international condemnation of this disgusting incident, but when a single UDF person died in the Lebowa police cells there was an international outcry, even before there was an investigation to establish the cause of his death. That kind of thing I also find quite unacceptable. It is a morality that I fail to comprehend. Let me make myself plain. I do not condone police excesses, this Government does not condone police excesses, and if there are individuals in the Police Force who are guilty of them, then the due investigations are launched and the due processes take their course. However, this was not the case in the incident that I have mentioned.

There is pressure exerted on this country, pressure to which I have already referred, but this Government has committed itself to powersharing with Blacks, to equality of opportunity and treatment for all South Africans, and if this is to be brought about peacefully, evolutionally and constitutionally this commitment needs to be encouraged. However, we do not get the necessary encouragement. This is where I come to the dichotomy that I detect between the state departments. President Reagan certainly understands the problems that we experience. He said so in as many words the other day when he said that he understood that President Botha was often in the same circumstances in which he found himself and that he realised that President Botha was doing his best.

When, however, the abolition of the so-called pass laws was announced recently, Sir, the American State Department said that was not enough.

Not nearly enough!

Not nearly enough! Right! Now, Sir, we know that. We do not need to be told that. We have committed ourselves to equality of treatment and opportunity, and until we have reached that goal… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Benoni will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks. I will certainly be dealing with terrorism during the course of my address here this afternoon. Perhaps the hon member will be interested in my remarks then.

This afternoon’s debate, however, has been highlighted by the fact that little or nothing has been said about certain obvious matters such as the South West African situation, our relations with the front-line states, our relations with the independent states within our borders etc. What has run through this debate, however, like a golden thread, has been our country’s image in the outside world, and it is to that very problem that I should like to address myself too this afternoon.

I should like to refer in particular today to this very nettlesome issue of our overseas image. Surely, Mr Chairman, this last year will go down in the annals of history as the most challenging year the Department of Foreign Affairs has ever experienced, particularly in this regard. Conditions within our borders coupled with the ongoing violence in our midst, have been flashed on to television screens in living rooms throughout the length and breadth of the world on a daily basis, and South Africa and its problems have been the number one news internationally for almost as far back as this time last year when we debated the Foreign Affairs Vote here in this House.

Overnight South Africa has become a media sensation—a media sensation which is guaranteed to make front-page bold headlines in almost every capital of the world. I venture to suggest, however, that if the world suddenly lost interest in us, and if the rest of the world suddenly stopped reporting on events in our country, the violence in South Africa would subside on a proportional basis. I say this because there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that this violence is a well-orchestrated violence which wants to play to a capacity crowd at all times.

It is the Richard Attenboroughs of this world that look upon the violence in our country as no more and no less than show business, and of late again we have been inundated with political cast-offs and has-beens who visit this country so that they can go home again and try to bolster their waning fortunes in their own countries. Edward Kennedy started the fashion, and the latest, of course, has been Herr Willie Brandt of Berlin fame.

And Fabius too!

Yes, and Fabius too. Fabius is another one of them. All these has-beens and cast-offs think that a high day and holiday is to visit South Africa and to go back to try to put their position right in their own constituencies.

It is under these difficult circumstances that we expect our officials in embassies and consulates abroad to maintain a measure of dignity and decorum while at the same time trying to represent our best interests. I believe, Sir, we would do well to pause and reflect here today on the challenges which they must face every day of their lives. I believe we would be doing equally well were we, from this Parliament today, to send them each and every one a message of encouragement and gratitude in their labours. You know, Sir, it is not their fault that they sometimes have to defend the indefensible. Our actions have very often placed them on the hot plate. The actions of this Government have put them on a hot plate. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition certainly spelt out a few examples here in his address earlier today.

We went to the USA last year on a visit, which—let me hasten to say—was sponsored by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It was something I appreciated. I find no fault with the Department of Foreign Affairs sending members of Parliament to speak out against disinvestment in other countries. In this respect I subscribe to what the hon member for Bloemfontein North has said. I believe this is altogether a good exercise. We certainly find it worthwhile.

During that visit, which was followed by an extended visit to the United Kingdom— and here I hasten to add that that visit was for my own account—I came to realise the vital importance of the South African visitor overseas. We South Africans, when we travel, can do our country a great service by correcting the appalling misconceptions that are firmly entrenched in the minds of so many honest and decent-thinking people in the countries that we visit. I think that when we South Africans visit overseas we so often come across these normal, everyday people who do have these misconceptions. They are right-thinking people—and when I say “right-thinking people” I do not mean right in the political sense but that they are just everyday people—who are inundated with propaganda. Some of the propaganda they see may well be true, but they nevertheless have these terrific misconceptions.

However, I think it is equally important that here at home there must at all times be a public awareness of just how delicately we are balanced between constructive engagement and sanctions. We are treading a very fine fine indeed in this regard. President Reagan has steadfastly adhered to a line of constructive engagement, and I think we should be grateful for that. We must also appreciate, however, how vulnerable we are and how close we could be to a completely opposite viewpoint and strategy in the USA if there is a reverse of the landslide that carried the Republicans to victory in 1980.

Margaret Thatcher is equally steadfast and equally determined. Here again, however, we find ourselves doing a highwire act with an extremely long balancing pole. It would appear to me as if the forces that would destroy us at all costs have now resorted to the simpler expediency of moving the winning posts every time we embark on a meaningful programme of reform. Every time something meaningful is done they up the bar on the high jump.

Dramatic events over the past few weeks have been met with sneers of “it is no more than cosmetic”; and once again our embassies and consulatês have to go out and face the music. It is a deep tragedy and a sorrow that in our society—a society, I might tell hon members, which includes many who are not too far from this Parliament—there are those who indulge in this game of moving the finishing post. Moreover, they always seem to find a willing audience overseas while our diplomatic representatives battle for any hearing whatsoever. Let us mention a few names. I do not think Bishop Tutu has any difficulty with an overseas audience. Neither do I think that the Rev Allan Boesak, the nine-commandment minister, has any difficulty when he wants to be heard overseas. I submit, however, that our diplomatic representatives do encounter serious difficulties.

In these exercises the political forces outside of South Africa that would destroy us, feed off the evil and the violence within our borders, and the flames of that violence are fed by the measure of the cries of indignation that meet its sensational media and television coverage. We therefore have an ongoing process here, a never-ending circle and a catch 22 situation.

I am not saying for one minute that there should be no media coverage. Indeed, I think it is vitally important that there must at all times be media coverage of what is happening; but I should like to talk a little more about the type of media coverage. I would like to comment on the responsibility of that media coverage. In order to do that, I can do no better than refer this House to a paper on riot control measures written by Brig S C Dutton, a director of S & D Security Equipment in London. The paper appeared in an ISSUP Strategic Review, of March 1985. In the paper Brig Dutton deals with riots and riot conditions in Britain and the rest of the world. He expresses, inter alia, the following opinions. He says:

Meaning South Africa in this instance—

He goes on to say:

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful to the hon Whip for his courtesy.

Brig Dutton a little further on in his article says:

I would ask this Committee to remember that this paper was not written by a South African and it was not written for South Africa’s consumption; it was written by an Englishman who was studying and examining a phenomenon in his own country and who was looking at the worldwide pattern of political riots. I think we can recognise much truth in some of the comments he made. However, we must remember that the projection of our image overseas is the responsibility of this department and, while comparisons are odious, I would suggest that the Department of Foreign Affairs faces a far more challenging task than the newly created Bureau for Information which has a similar responsibility but towards the people of South Africa in South Africa. I would, however, urge a close liaison between these two departments because I sincerely believe that the time has come for the South African population to see the kind of thing that is being shown on overseas television. In this regard I make an appeal to the hon the Minister to see and ensure that South African television services show us footage of what is being shown to overseas audiences because nothing is more soul-destroying than being suddenly exposed to this when one lands on foreign shores. Thousands of South African travellers who are all potential ambassadors for our country are immediately disadvantaged because they have not been sufficiently armed against the torrent of abuse and disinformation that is being propagated through certain media that seek the sensational rather than the objective. We should arm these people, these potential ambassadors of ours.

It is easy to criticise, but what can we do to improve matters? Change? Yes, we must. Reform? Yes, we must. However, we in these benches, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, wish to place on record the fact that we are supportive of a responsible and factual presentation of the South African situation through efficient information centres with a high standard of credibility in all our embassies and consulates. Here credibility is the key word. We will support the voting of any available funds—we suggest the hon the Minister would do well to seek as much as he can—to enhance and further such a programme as we believe that this is vital at this time in our history.

Mr Chairman, I listened carefully to the hon member for Umhlanga and he made a very interesting speech here today. I have had the privilege on more than one occasion of travelling beyond our shores with the hon member and I would like to put on record that he—as he did in his speech today—has always conducted himself on those trips like a true South African, putting the case for South Africa not only ably but also in a very well-balanced fashion. I thank him for that as well.

*I should like to touch on one theme which the hon member for Umhlanga raised. He referred to the image of South Africa abroad and I want to associate myself with him, apparently to the chagrin of hon members of the CP, by supporting the words used by my colleague, the hon member for Standerton, in an earlier speech. He said that South Africa’s internal policy had been internationalised. Events in South Africa have been internationalised. Whether one likes it or not, it is a fact.

There are many serious visitors to our country who are more than mere tourists who come to South Africa for the good wine and sunshine they can enjoy here. One embassy informed me that they receive an average of approximately 40 serious visitors to this country per month. These are people who observe very closely what is happening in this country as regards the development of its internal policy. There are also many journalists accredited in this country and it is their task to report to their media centres and newspapers about events in South Africa.

We are surely entitled to ask why South Africa is so newsworthy. I think it can be attributed to three factors in particular. I know it angers many people, but whether we like it or not, in the eyes of the outside world South Africa is heading for disaster. That in itself is news, as shocking and as painful as it is to experience. For example a journalist who was accredited in Lebanon was sent to South Africa by his newspaper because this country, in the eyes of the newspaper’s readers was also doomed to conflict and disaster. It is sensational news for them.

Furthermore, we cannot escape the fact that there is a tremendous degree of hidden racism in the international arena. In every Western country, Germany, England and the USA for example, one will find tremendous racial prejudige and antipathy in their own internal politics. South Africa is judged in this light and not within the context of South Africa’s own norms and standards in the milieu in which the country finds itself. It is rather the milieu in which the particular decision-maker, journalist or newsreader, finds himself.

Furthermore South Africa’s internal policy has become the internal policy of every politician abroad. If one stands for mayor of New York, then you must state where you stand as far as South Africa’s politics are concerned. If one stands for a school committee in Bonn, then one must state where you stand politically as far as South Africa is concerned. It is exactly the same as one has to say in Soutpansberg, or wherever, how you feel about the politics of the country.

Stick to Krugersdorp!

It is most certainly the case in Krugersdorp as well.

It has been like that for years!

I should like to argue with the hon members and I shall in fact have an opportunity to do so within the next ten minutes. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that such a person has to state where they stand as regards South Africa’s policy. It is interesting but tragic that the journalist who comes here to report on events, has within a few days after his arrival, seen more than many inhabitants of the country have ever seen. Because of the background of his prejudice and aversion he does admittedly have a particular perspective, which is reprehensible, but he has seen more than many people living in the country. I shall tell the House why this is the case.

All of us have travelled at one stage or another, and we know that one’s sources of information are the taxi drivers and the men in hotel foyers. In this country as well those are the contacts of the journalist when he wants to visit Black residential areas and wants to make contact with people.

I think it is a pity, but there is nothing we can do about it except to live with South Africans’ view of their country. We shall have to work at it, and we dare not become tired of informing and guiding people concerning events in this country. We cannot but persevere in our attempts to persuade them to understand the specific circumstances in this country. Unfortunately we will not be able to convert them to our points of view on the basis of their own assessments. That is why we shall have to do what we believe to be right in this country, but we shall also have to defend our policy decisions and be prepared to debate them with whoever challenges us to do so.

I find it somewhat tragic that people who are exposed in this way to the international media, are apparently prompted by persons or bodies other than the NP Government and its members. I want to quote from the Los Angeles Times of 18 March 1986. A certain person called Danie was quoted as follows:

Now the question is, whose policy is this person proclaiming? Where was he when he was prompted to make this statement to an international journalist? [Interjections.]

When we engage in internal politics with each other, there is, in my opinion, an extremely heavy responsibility resting on all of us. We must behave in such a manner that when our supporters who applaud us and shout “hurray”, return to their daily routine, they will also look after the interests of this country as worthy South Africans.

I consider the remark which I quoted to be scandalous behaviour, but unfortuntely I cannot accuse any specific person. The fact of the matter is, we are all engaging in politics and those persons who feel guilty, should in my opinion, wear the shoe if it fits them.

In the few minutes available to me, I should like to exchange an idea or two with the hon member for Soutpansberg concerning a speech which he made here. He levelled a very serious accusation at the hon the Minister. He felt so strongly about it that he moved, by way of an amendment, that we express our lack of confidence by not approving the hon the Minister’s salary. I must say with all due respect, however, that I attach very little weight to the hon members’ representations. The substance of the hon member’s argument cannot justify such a step. Who is he to come and state arrogantly here that his party will support and aid the sovereign states of this country when they are in need, while he himself has no reply to the most cardinal problems of this country? On 11 March the hon member had the opportunity in this House to explain his policy, and he had nothing to say. It has been placed on record that that hon member said: “I am not elaborating on it” when asked about one of the cardinal aspects of his policy.

He did not say he could not elaborate on it.

The hon members of the CP are carrying on as though we on this side of the Committee crawl around on our knees in front of every foreign visitor and guest. Who are those hon members to say such things? When their leader addresses their crowds of supporters on very important occasions, he explains the policy of partition as he has been reported here:

In this case these are the strong men that choose terminologies not for their effectiveness, but because of their acceptability abroad. [Interjections.] That is the only conclusion I can draw from this.

Why do you use the words “co-operative coexistence”?

If that hon member wants to debate with me, there are other forums available. [Interjections.] What is of importance now, though, is that hon members must not preach one thing in this House and proffer something else to the outside world. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Krugersdorp made a realistic speech much of which we in these benches can agree with. He referred, inter alia, to some of the matters by which we are judged or condemned in the outside world. I want to refer to one aspect which I think falls into that category by implication. I want to refer specifically to our relationship with the TBVC countries, our responsibility for the situation which exists there and the disturbing image which is often created by events there. I think the hon the Minister will agree that there has to be a special relationship with these states, as opposed to foreign affairs relating to South Africa and other states abroad.

There are three factors which I think are of special significance in so far as our relationship with the TBVC countries is concerned. Firstly, they are of course creatures of our own creation. Secondly, they are de jure independent as far as South Africa is concerned, although they are not recognised as such elsewhere, but their defacto position is that they are totally dependent on South Africa for their economic viability. Thirdly, their people and our people are interdependent. Whether it is in the field of labour, or employment opportunities, or in situations of economic recession, or in drought or flood disaster situations or in relation to matters of internal or external security, the interdependence between ourselves and those states is absolute. For these reasons, what happens in the TBVC countries is of particular concern to us in the Republic, because however they may be dressed up in the grand costume of independence, in the end as far as their people and our people are concerned and as far as the Republic is concerned vis-à-vis the outside word, the buck stops with us. If things go wrong there or appear to go wrong there, the local population and the world will blame the Republic of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, my time is very limited, but if I have time at the end I shall be glad to answer the hon member’s question. [Interjections.]

It is therefore important to know the Government’s response to the image of an alarming breakdown in law and order in these territories which often points to the total abrogation of the rule of law, the misuse of power agains innocent people, sometimes to corruption and maladministration and to the misuse and/or the extravagant squandering of public funds, much of which comes from the South African taxpayer. So, this is of direct concern to us and to this hon the Minister.

I shall cite some examples of these matters which cause us great concern, but before doing so I must say that while it is easy to be superficial and to lay the blame on the TBVC authorities for the indiscretions and the irregularities which are reported, much of that blame must of course be laid at the door of the South African Government. The governments of these countries have, after all, inherited an impossible situation from the Republican Government. They have inherited the whole climate of mistrust and suspicion which has resulted from the practice of discrimination and White domination over so many decades in South Africa. They have inherited a limited independence which can in no way insulate them against the discontent, the mistrust and the unrest which exist in the Republic itself. This means that in the exercise of their independence they are on the one hand subject to all the disabilities arising out of the history of racial strife in the country as a whole, while on the other hand they are expected with the very limited resources at their disposal to assume responsibility for the welfare and the wellbeing of their own people. This is in itself an impossible task, and it is not surprising therefore that in many cases they easily fall into the habit of using the same questionable methods as we do in dealing with the rights of people and imposing their brand of law and order upon them. However, I want to stress that in the end the responsibility for this is ours, and it is therefore imperative that this hon the Minister reacts to the image—which is becoming more and more apparent—of a serious movement away from the democratic processes in some of these independent states.

There are many examples of this. Firstly, when one looks at the situation in Bophuthatswana which is often regarded as the best example of these states, which has a president who is perceived to be enlightened and which has as part of its constitution a bill of rights protecting the rights of individuals, one sees that here too, more particularly in recent times, there have been disturbing instances of police excesses and attacks against the rights of individuals. This is a matter of concern because one did look at Bophuthatswana with perhaps a greater degree of hope than one looked at the other three independent states.

I think too of recent interdict which came before the Mmabatho Supreme Court, restraining the police of Garankuwa from assaulting and detaining residents. According to reports the legal advisers placed before the court scores of photographs of bruised and bloodied torsos of victims who had allegedly been beaten and detained because of their proclaimed association with the trade union movement, or perhaps with a banned organisation, and even, it has been alleged, because they were members of the Roman Catholic Church.

Much of this seems to arise out of the situation of the residents in this area, the Winterveld area in particular, who are non-Tswana residents and who are therefore treated in some quarters as squatters. Once again, this is something Bophuthatswana has inherited from the South African Government. The fact remains, however, that what has occurred recently has caused grave concern and has been widely reported around the world because of action seen to have been taken against individuals by the police—action aimed not only at the trade unions but also at the Roman Catholic Church itself. While Bophuthatswana may be an independent state, I want to repeat that the buck stops with us because to the outside world Bophuthatswana or any of these independent states is immediately associated with this Government. Indeed, the Catholic Bishop of Pretoria, describing the police actions, did so by saying that they were “abuses of the worst kind”. He added the following:

One could carry on in this vein.

When one looks at what is happening in some of the other TBVC countries, one sees a deterioration in respect of the rights of individuals and excessive police activities which are very difficult to defend. In Transkei there was recently the case that was widely reported both inside and outside this country of the murder of Mr Ndongo, the former vice-president of the SRC at Transkei University. He was shot down by people who subsequently turned out to be members of the Police Force. Then there was a very tardy response on the part of the police authorities to take steps in order to redress the situation. In fact, witnesses were arrested even after a police docket had been opened.

Then one could quote the example where recently again in Ciskei some 6 000 people were removed from the squatter camp in Kunu earlier this year. According to Press reports, “Ciskeian army and police began evicting squatters from their homes without warning almost two weeks ago”. This quote refers back to the incident of a couple of months ago. The Press report continues as follows:

As a result of this incident the Ciskeian Government published a notice in the Gazette indemnifying the State and the State President from civil or criminal action arising out of what it termed “maintenance of public order and national security”. It seemed to many that this was simply an attempt to protect them from any action which might be taken by the dispossessed so-called squatters.

One could leave aside those aspects of what is happening in the TBVC countries and look briefly again at the situation of financial controls in those countries. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that financial controls are not sufficiently tight. To my mind this is also a matter of considerable concern to which this hon Minister should give attention when advancing further moneys to these countries for development aid. We are being asked to vote in this instance an amount of, I think, R697 million for Budgetary Aid and R75 million for Project Aid for the TBVC countries. We on these benches do not say that we should not advance this aid. However, this is money being advanced by us; it is the South African taxpayers’ money, and therefore we want to appeal to the hon the Minister again to exercise the greatest influence he possibly can in the circumstances to ensure that this money is well and properly spent. There is a great deal of public disquiet that what is in fact taxpayers’ money is not being properly spent when it is advanced to the TBVC countries. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Berea dealt with a matter which I think the hon the Minister will be able to respond to more suitably. I just want to mention in passing that I find it disturbing— that may be an overstatement—that the hon member referred to the Winterveld incident and the unrest there without referring to the judicial commission that was appointed by the President to investigate those circumstances. I also believe that we have a responsibility towards the TBVC countries but as far as law and order in those countries is concerned, I do not believe that we have the sole responsibility.

*I now want to come back to the debate which chiefly focussed here on South Africa’s image and on the pressure from abroad, including internal reform, to which the hon member for Krugerdorp referred as the internationalisation of our domestic policy.

The hon member for Umhlanga, in his participation in this debate, said that he was of the opinion that if there were an end to reports about what was going on in South Africa, the violence would also stop. So he was saying, by implication, that if the reporting stopped, the violence would also stop. I think he is being over-optimistic, and I think that everyone in this Committee, except the hon member himself, would probably agree with my next statement. I nevertheless want to concede that there is a link between the two.

In this connection I have ascertained that in America there are more than 8 000 TV stations. There are fewer than 1 500 newspapers. So the electronic media completely dominate the news and the reporting scene, also when it comes to reports on South Africa. We must also remember that in overseas news, and in the electronic media in particular––in fact, anywhere—people are looking for “scripts”, because even news presentations and programmes of topical interest embody the concept of entertainment. Violence is also a very good subject for these much-needed scripts.

Many of the speakers referred here to Lebanon, where violence is the order of the day. If one looks at television programmes, however, the picture is no longer all that interesting, because one keeps seeing the same old buildings that have been destroyed. For example, one sees a wall and what appears to be the same old soldier emerging from behind that wall, firing a few shots and then leaving the scene. That script has ceased to be of interest as far as the electronic media are concerned.

South Africa is quite different. As far as South Africa is concerned, each time a different place, another town, other people are filmed, but nevertheless there is a common thread, and this hinges on the characters or the parties involved. One is in uniform—a soldier or a policeman—and the other is the one who is suffering—the Black man—and this is like a cowboys and crooks film. [Interjections.] Countries abroad have also identified who the cowboys are and who the crooks are. For them it is very clear. As they see it, the ones wearing uniforms are the crooks and the Black people who are suffering so much are the cowboys, and their experience of films tells them that the cowboys are going to win out in the end. They now sit watching and waiting for the end. The picture repeats itself time and again, but they sit waiting for the day when the cowboys are going to win.

Against this background an attack is being launched on this department indicating that its information campaign is simply not good enough. There is a tremendous task involved in breaking down this concept. I want to contend that we shall eventually only be completely successful by achieving success on the domestic front and, to the extent to which we do succeed, projecting our successes to countries abroad. After all, we cannot have an overseas image that differs from that which prevails locally.

Against this background I also want to raise a few ideas about the concept of disinvestment and pressure from abroad. Over the years it is with a touch of cynicism that I have viewed multi-national companies which are involved here and which have been involved here over the years. I think, however, that over the years, since the advent of the Sullivan code, their conduct has changed. Initially it was not all that serious. There were merely “social responsibility” programmes, but particularly in recent times, when they have been making less profit, and in many cases no longer making any profit, they have still remained because they have begun to feel a commitment to and a responsibility towards this country. In my view it is a responsibility for which we can also be grateful, particularly if we also bear in mind that the picture is normally that approximately 1% of their capital—or these days even fewer and even smaller portions and profits—come from South Africa and are invested here.

Against that background we ought to be fairly impressed by the strong determination, on the part of those people abroad who are still involved here, to remain here and to withstand the pressure for disinvestment. The pressure being exerted on them from the other side is simply overwhelming. Several hon members, including the hon member for Bloemfontein North, referred here to the network of organisations engaged in this campaign. I just want to tell hon members one story that has come to my attention about how they operate. This involves an organisation called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. That is the same organisation that was originally the Martin Luther King Junior organisation. That organisation specifically monitors South African products sold there and the boycotting of South African products at the retail outlets.

I have had experience of that! [Interjections.]

I take as an example the case of a specific company importing canned fruit from South Africa. The company distributed the fruit there to a chain store group. When the above-mentioned organisation comes across the labels—also by making use of advertisements telling people who purchase the products in shops to remove the labels and send them, together with the payslips, to the head office—that head office exerts pressure on the importer himself.

The demands made on the importer are threefold. Firstly he must never again import products from South Africa; secondly he must enter into a written agreement to this effect with the organisation; thirdly there must be a Press statement to the effect that such an agreement has been entered into and that he will no longer be purchasing goods in South Africa. It takes a great deal of courage to continue importing from South Africa, in spite of this pressure, particularly if one bears in mind that the products that are imported frequently constitute less than 0,1% of the total turnover of those companies.

After having said all that, I want to raise a final point relating to the background against which these pressure groups operate. Morality forms the backdrop. They canvass for votes on the basis of the immoral characteristics inherent in the South African situation and the South African policy. They do so against the background of being completely uninformed, because they have no real interest in being better informed; after all, they are informed by the media, as I have explained to hon members.

I want to allege that we shall only really succeed in countering that efficiently if we fight back on the same terms ie on the basis of morality. On the one hand one could point out the additional pain and suffering caused by disinvestment, but on the other hand one could point to the real change taking place here and to the concepts that have been accepted here. In this sphere of labour I have in mind a concept such as freedom of association. Then there are the latest reform initiatives, eg the abolition of the pass laws, influx control and the consequent freedom of movement. There are the investigations into discriminatory legislation being carried out by the President’s Council and the Government’s overall point of departure.

And a Black President!

I do not want to deny that people throughout the world have a responsibility to be committed to other people throughout the world. In fact I want to endorse that. They have a right and a responsibility in that regard. This does not mean that interference in the actual domestic affairs of a country is permissible. It does, however, mean involvement in support of man’s humanity and the principles underlying the recognition of that humanity. [Interjections.]

There are also many people in South Africa who are asking for sanctions to be applied. I now want to lodge a final plea in this regard. We must take note of the fact that many of the people who are requesting sanctions are really doing so on the basis of a conviction that they are doing so on moral grounds and that locally and abroad it would be in the best interests of mankind to do so. We must enter into a dialogue with these people. We must accept their bona fides and not make them enemies of the country, of those of us living in this country or of human beings in general. If those asking for sanctions say they are doing so to ward off a revolution, to ward off violence, we must accept their bona fides and argue the point with them; argue about the correctness or incorrectness of their interpretation. I want to ask that we do not ascribe motives to these people which they do not necessarily harbour, but ask them rather to join us in a process of peaceful negotiation, of benefit to all of us in the country, so that we can find structures within which we can all operate.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randburg made a very interesting speech on the type of information the American public receives and on the question of the morality of our policy which is criticised overseas and in countries with which we are friendly.

The problem I find with the hon member for Randburg’s speech is that it is so difficult today to attempt disseminating one’s policy and its morality overseas because we do not know exactly where the government is heading. Over the years we experienced no problems in conveying the morality of the old NP policy to our partners in dialogue but we do not know what the present position is and can therefore not do much about conveying its morality. We cannot do this until the NP or its leaders tell us where we are heading. That is actually of great importance. Arising from what the hon member said, I wish to say—I do not want to simplify the problems we have in South Africa—I think a large component of the problems we have inherited is that the governing party has always presented and—thanks to the assistance of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs— continues to present the rightist parties as Malan nazis, as if we have supposedly retained, a “Herrenvolk” mentality about this. The same image is presented as the one held up when those people supported neutrality in 1939-45. The hon member grew up in that milieu; he knows about it.

We have just seen what happened to Dr Waldheim. He could not obtain an outright majority merely because there was something in his past linking him to the Nazis. It is that mentality, that image, for which the former United Party and its Press have been chiefly responsible, namely to create an impression overseas that our policy of separate development and separate freedoms is a “Herrenvolk” mentality. These are shackles which have bound us all along.

I wish to revert to certain matters raised by the hon member for Soutpansberg as well as to what the hon member for Bloemfontein North and the hon member for Krugersdorp said. It was held against the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and it was said that he was not doing South Africa any favours. The hon member for Krugersdorp said that we as politicians should be responsible. Let us take only a few incidents. I should like to agree with those allegations but let us see who is to blame. Firstly we have the discussion between the State President and Dr Van Zyl Slabbert in which Chief Buthelezi’s name was bandied about in the discussion. “Hy wil die enigste bul in die kraal wees.” Hon members are aware of Chief Buthelezi’s reaction to all that type of thing said to each other in so-called privacy being made public after the discussion by none other than the State President.

This brings us to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. After the coronation of the Swazi king he spoke disparagingly of President Kaunda and the head of state of Zaire.

It was not disparaging, it was …

He spoke in negative terms about the very people with whom we should reach an agreement. We are all of like mind that the future of the Republic of South Africa runs through Africa. [Interjections.]

I also wish to get back to the then MP for Hillbrow, Dr Jacobs. Hon members will recall how he was criticised by National newspapers and National MPs and how a flood descended on him because he spoke of an African state as a “banana republic”. Nevertheless our own hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs now comes and does nothing other than disparage certain African leaders when he appears on television.

I now wish to refer to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ speech reported in The Citizen of 3 May as “the right-wing is dragging South Africa to disaster”. The hon Minister should remember, whether he accepts it or not, that more than 50% of White Voters in the Transvaal support the rightist party according to figures of the five by-elections last year. At this stage almost 40% of the White voters in this entire country support the rightist parties. If he therefore says the rightist parties are leading South Africa to disaster and if he says we are driving people into the hands of the communists and all this type of thing, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs he is referring to a very great percentage of our population. In the same way the United Party of 1948 and subsequently did South Africa no favours by saying the banks would close when the National Party came to power. General Smuts and the United Party said at the time that we would go to bed at night and wake in the morning to the sound of the footsteps of the unemployed in the streets of the towns and cities of South Africa.

We also recall the dramatic utterances of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the seventies; inter alia that the Tanzam railway was a dagger in the flank of Africa. What dramatic language he used to proclaim it. He alleged equally dramatically that Chinese communism would extend to the heart of South Africa. We no longer take fright at that dramatic language, those theatrical remarks and alarmist utterances of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Cheerleader Pik!

We are concerned only about the image of South Africa in general and of the rightist parties in particular which he is communicating to the world. We shall struggled just as the National Party struggled after 1948 to rid ourselves of that image when we come to power if the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not act more responsibly than is now the case. [Interjections.]

He was the one who accompanied Mr Vorster overseas in 1976 and 1977. He was with Mr Vorster when the latter spoke to Dr Bruno Kreisky, the Austrian prime minister at the time, and American Vice President Mondale. I also recall his addressing the Young Conservatives—men who have to be under forty and have at least R1 million in the bank to be permitted to attend that gathering. There he preached separate development and received a standing ovation lasting minutes from those people on three or four occasions.

And now he wants a Black state president!

That was the time when the then Prime Minister said he had succeeded in conveying South Africa’s message clearly. When he and Mr Vorster arrived back in South Africa—and the hon the Minister stood on the Prime Minister’s right—he said he was convinced the road on which South Africa found itself was the best and the only one for this country. And now? Now he is driving South Africa into communist hands. How can one explain this? How can one explain such language? Or is this merely the theatrical, the histrionic in the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs again?

Real cheerleader! [Interjections.]

Did he not take note of what happened again in Durban on Thursday? Uwusa was founded with 90 000 supporters of this new body with trade union affiliations. Against this, Fosatu … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, what is the significance of those trade unions? Their significance is their separateness.

Whoops!

This is a separate federation which came into being among the Zulus.

Are there Zulus in the CP? [Interjections.]

Order!

I have a paper with me by Dr W J Breytenbach with the title Afrika, waarheen? It is a paper he read before the Africa Institute in 1978. In this he quoted president Senghor as follows:

Dr Breytenbach, who is attached to the University of Stellenbosch at present, then continued:

Ethnicity, ethno-linguistic ethnicity, is the basis of apartheid and that on which partition is fashioned.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs then adds that there may be no domination. I wish to point out to him what the hon the Minister of National Education said the other day because I know he agrees with this. That Minister said it should offer full and true participation to all those participating and every system intent upon keeping some participants in a subservient position in a clever or crafty manner would fail. Does the hon the Minister agree with this? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan devoted the major part of his speech to launching an attack on the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. But I am extremely greatful that he did so in a much more reasonable way and in much more moderate language than was the case with the hon member for Soutpansberg.

And what did you not have to say about Dirk Mudge? [Interjections.]

Order!

Enough of comparisons! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon Leader of the Official Opposition thought fit to refer to South West Africa, and seeing as the hon member for Soutpansberg quoted from a report concerning Resolution 435, I should also like to refer to it. But I firstly want to make the observation that we are dealing here with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, appointed by the State President of the RSA, in whom we have the fullest confidence.

That is not what you have always said!

That is the same person who with great success appeared for South Africa in the International Court hearing against Ethiopia and Liberia. Then we applauded him. That is the same person who as an ambassador made great breakthroughs for South Africa. Once again we applauded him. That is the same person who made the Nkomati Accord possible. Once again we applauded him. That is the same person who concluded security accords with Swaziland and made numerous visits to countries abroad. That is the same person who works day and night in the interest of South Africa and all its people. This hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and their department are bridge builders. They build bridges between peoples and nations, bridges over borders, over oceans; and where they are not able to build bridges, they bore tunnels, tunnels into the hearts of people—and often the hardened hearts of people!

But what do we do in this House? We provide the advocates of disinvestment with arguments. We demonstrate to the world how intolerant we can be, even towards our own people. We show the world how racist we can be. The PFP and the CP have a common goal, to bring the Government down.

Hear, hear!

There is no doubt about that!

There you have the “hear, hear!”, Sir. [Interjections.] We cannot avoid it. In this process, however, no consideration is given to the damage that it can do abroad to South Africa, our father-land. [Interjections.] In this way hate reigns supreme and opponents of the left and right unite in their onslaught against the democratic institutions of this country, because this is indeed a democratically elected Government. I refuse to accept that that is the aim of all the hon members of the CP. I refuse to accept it. I think their feelings of patriotism would not allow it. I therefore ask that we temper our pronouncements, that we do not merely insult people, but that we first consider what we are about to say and decide what damage it would do to South Africa. [Interjections.] Personal attacks and character assassination has never been part of the politics of South Africa. This hon the Minister deserves our thanks and recognition; he does not deserve our insults. [Interjections.]

I want to remind the hon members that the Security Council accepted no less than nine resolutions against South Africa during 1985—more than ever before!

To return to the subject of South West Africa, I should very much like to draw hon members’ attention to it by quoting from Oorsig of 17 April. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was approached following a report in which Mr Ahtisaari allegedly said that the UN had committed itself fully to bringing Resolution 435 into operation on 1 August of this year unconditionally. I quote:

I also refer hon members to the speech of our State President during the discussion of his own Vote. He also said, and I quote:

I think these are two very clear pronouncements about which we really need have no doubt.

But I do want to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs, under the leadership of our hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister, has played an extremely important part in our political set-up. It is actually this department’s diplomatic arm which presents a mirror image of South Africa. They have to market South Africa and have to try and sell it. They are expected to negotiate trade agreements and to ensure free commercial traffic and in this way to ensure a stable export market for South Africa because without that industrial growth and job creation would stagnate and unemployment, our worst enemy, would increase. If there is one thing that we cannot afford in South Africa, it is further unemployment.

South Africa has at its disposal inherent assets that influence and certainly facilitate the Department of Foreign Affairs’ job of taking positive action abroad. I should like to give the Committee an indication of a few assets: Our exceptional natural resources; our sophisticated and extensive infrastructure; our dynamic developing economy; a highly developed technology; highly specialised and motivated human resources; the necessary political determination to co-operate on a regional basis for the purpose of ensuring peace, stability and prosperity for everyone; our military preparedness; and our extremely important strategic position. I think every hon member in this Committee can endorse these assets because they are assets we should be proud of. It is these assets which form the basis upon which the Department of Foreign Affairs negotiates abroad on behalf of South Africa.

Over the years the Department of Foreign Affairs also laid down guidelines for itself which actually form the basis of foreign policy. I think here we can speak of the Ten Commandments of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I should like to present a few of these to the Committee.

Due to South Africa’s isolated geographic position and our historical, cultural and economic ties with the Western World, and on the other hand due to the fact that we are part of the continent of Africa, South Africa cannot and does not want to live in isolation. We aim at occupying a distinguished place in the international community; are prepared to co-operate with all other states; respect the sovereignty of other states and harbour no territorial ambitions; refrain from interfering in the foreign affairs of other states; believe in the maintenance of good neighbourliness; give assistance and support as far as we are able; aim to play a positive role and to co-operate on a regional and national basis; set great store by being able to depend on our own strength and ability and to advance our own interests and are therefore commercially orientated and maintain an open-door policy; we are concerned with maintaining a free market system, private initiative and a Christian and democratic lifestyle and therefore reject and oppose communism; we realise our strategic importance to the Western World and civilisation; and are concerned with extending our ability to defend ourselves and in so doing to see to our own safety.

These are wonderful guidelines and it is as a consequence of these guidelines that the department is able to carry out its difficult task. Also now, when it is called upon to stem the tide of disinvestment and to combat it, it does so with excellence.

Here I should like to refer to the departmental guest programme which certainly looks impressive. During the past financial year 210 guests who represented 29 countries and the European Parliament were brought out to South Africa. Local assistance was given to 615 visitors. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, because the time allotted to me is extremely limited, the hon member for Walvis Bay must pardon me if I do not react to his speech.

The most elementary principle in the policy of every country’s Department of Foreign Affairs is that every country puts its own interests first in the area of foreign affairs. That is why Dr Verwoerd in 1965 with the advent of “Independence” stated very clearly that the basis of any country’s foreign policy is that the prestige, independence and rights of that country should be maintained at all costs. That is why Dr Malan had this to say about South West Africa: “We shall not bow down”. Mr Strijdom said: “We shall not cast South West to the wolves”, and Dr Verwoerd, when the Commonwealth would not accept our internal policy set-up, led South Africa out of the Commonwealth.

The USA operates on exactly the same principle. In its efforts to further its own imperial interests here in Southern Africa, it does not hesitate for a moment to place its own interests above those of South Africa. That is why Mr George Schultz, when he lodged a plea for partnership between Blacks and Whites in South Africa the other day, said: “The South Africa system is in conflict with American values”. That is the point. America strives for the realisation of its own values in South Africa, and not those of any one else. It does not serve South Africa or the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but its own interests.

That is why President Carter said “Black rule for South Africa” and Dr Kissinger said: “I want a black government in South Africa.” Dr Chester Crocker said virtually the same thing the other day. The allegation that Howard Wolpe stole a march on him, is nonsense—Crocker does not allow anyone to steal a march on him.

Mr Mark Siljander, a member of the American House of Representatives, set out a whole programme that must be implemented for America in South Africa. His plan was reported in the Press and according to it he pleads for the abolition of the Group Areas Act––this is on the cards—the abolition of the Mixed Marriages Act and Section 16 of the Immorality Act—that has happened––the granting of citizenship rights to all South Africans within the internationally recognised South African borders—this is happening or has happened—and the abolition of influx control—that has happened. America’s programme is therefore being carried out step by step by this Government under the leadership, at the instance and instigation of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

We should like to point out to the Committee this afternoon that no-one in South Africa up until now has asked for a Black State President. No branch of the NP has submitted a draft resolution, no congress has taken a decision, and no city council, school board, provincial council or any responsible body in South Africa—not even the board of directors of a company—has asked that South Africa should have a Black State President. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, however, wants one. He in fact goes so far as to say that it is unavoidable. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken this course since he was appointed, and while he is putting internal pressure on South Africa to move in this direction, the “Eminent Reject Group” also puts external pressure on us to move in that direction. [Interjections.]

Let me illustrate the great extent to which American policy is being applied and carried out by this Government in South Africa. I have here a photostat copy of a letter of 5 March this year which the Deputy Postmaster General wrote to his staff. I quote:

We are therefore even implementing the American policy of integrating the races at job level in South Africa under the supervision and instigation of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.]

There is a problem, of course. It is the personal opinion of the hon the Minister— he has not yet renounced it and is not going to do so either—that he wants a Black State President in South Africa. But a Black State President cannot govern without a power base. He cannot govern with the Whites, Coloureds or Indians as a power base. He could not even govern in South Africa with only one Black people as a power base. Buthelezi could not govern South Africa with the Zulus and Inkatha as a power base, and the Xhosas could not govern in South Africa with the Xhosa people as a power base. That is why the following was reported in Rapport yesterday:

[Interjections.] The reason for this is that the Government, under the supervision and auspices of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has to clear the road for a Black State President to govern South Africa with the only power base that would make it possible, ie the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front.

That is why the NP is so cautious, sly and dishonest and is busy opening channels to a power base for a Black President with so much deceit towards the public. In this regard everything is taking place chapter and verse and step by step in accordance with the great aims which America harbours in South Africa. It is also taking place against the opposition of the hon the Minister of Law and Order who according to Beeid of 6 October 1984 said only during the year before last:

Now the NP is discovering Nationalists in the ANC! [Interjections.] As the Whites leave the NP, they discover Nationalists in the ANC. [Interjections.]

New Nats!

This is the biggest load of nonsense ever! The tragedy is that it is precisely that standpoint which was held by the hon the Minister of Law and Order according to my quote, which appears on pages 13 and 14 of the recent White Paper on Defence and Armaments Supply. At this present moment the Department of Defence is saying exactly what the hon the Minister of Law and Order said merely a year or so ago.

That is why I want to say on behalf of my party in particular—I know I am speaking on behalf of others as well—that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs presents the most striking contrast imaginable in South African politics when compared with a Nationalist and a supporter of his fatherland such as Dr Eric Louw. He represents the completely opposite pole.

Let me tell the hon the Minister this afternoon that every step he takes, is virtually one of furthering, as an agent of a foreign power and the international Big Business a policy of racial integration in South Africa. He must not think that we, as he said the other evening on television, are afraid of him. He must not come along and tell us that we should go and look for another country. No, we are not going to seek another country. With the tide that is building up against the Government and against him in particular, it is the hon the Minister himself who will have to go and find another country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, my time is limited … [Interjections.]

Especially in Randfontein!

No, my time is unlimited in Randfontein. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish to make a few comments arising from the hon member for Sasolburg’s speech. [Interjections.] He began by saying the principal factor which should determine foreign policy was self-interest. Obviously that is so and therefore the slogan under NP-rule is “South Africa first”. [Interjections.] Everything the NP has done so far has been because of its belief that it was in the interests of South Africa.

There is one question the CP should answer. If it is true that South Africa obliges the USA in everything, why are we the victims of limited sanctions by the USA and why does everything have to be set in motion to ward off sanctions from this country? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Randfontein did not intend his question to be replied to immediately. The hon member for Randfontein may proceed.

I should like to reply to other points here as well but shall leave it at that for the present.

During the colonial era South Africa’s road to Africa ran through Europe but I think it is the exact opposite today. Today South Africa’s road to Europe runs through the whole of Africa. In other words, the degree to which South Africa is accepted or will be accepted by the outside world will be determined in great measure by the degree to which South Africa is accepted by other African countries. To my mind there have so far been two chief stumbling blocks or factors preventing South Africa’s acceptance by the rest of Africa as an African power.

The first is that South Africa has always been regarded—I think unjustly—by the majority of African countries as a colonial power. The second factor is that many African states retain a negative image of South Africa because of the so-called apartheid policy applied in South Africa in its negative connotation.

In this respect I think the State President did some spadework at the opening of Parliament this year by announcing two important matters. The one was that South Africa was in the very process of outgrowing this outdated colonial system and the second was that South Africa was also outgrowing the outdated concept of apartheid. These pronouncements of the State President’s confirmed the reality that South Africa was definitely not a colonial power. The Government in power here and the people it represents at present have just as much right to be in Africa as anyone else.

It is important that appreciation of this should gradually arise in the rest of Africa. Recently a Nigerian journalist paid a visit to South Africa and he stated that it was becoming increasingly the case that African leaders no longer regarded South Africa as a colonial power. I think this is of vital importance.

That was 10 years ago.

He did not make that statement 10 years ago.

Others said so 10 years ago.

I do not care who said so 10 years ago; I am referring to a Nigerian journalist who visited South Africa last year and pointed out that South Africa was definitely not a colonial power.

That is nothing new out of Africa.

Then it is high time we all took note of this stale news and that the hon members also carried out this stale news in their own political policy they are in the process of devising.

Of import too, is that this Nigerian journalist pointed out that the White group, of which we all form part, should not be expected to negotiate on a system of one-man-one-vote in South Africa.

What is that supposed to mean?

If the hon member does not understand it, I do not know why he occupies a seat on these benches.

Order! The hon member for Rissik cannot expect to give a running commentary while other hon members are holding the floor. The hon member for Randfontein may proceed.

This journalist said that to ask the Whites of South Africa to accept majority government on the basis of one-man-one-vote was tantamount to asking them to negotiate on political suicide. He said it was unrealistic and that South Africa required a confederal arrangement giving each and every language group autonomy in its own affairs as is the case in Switzerland. I am not conducting a constitutional debate here but I wish to point out that there is understanding that South Africa is not a colonial power and that there is appreciation for South Africa’s outgrowing an outdated concept of apartheid.

I think our entire foreign policy should be directed at establishing diplomatic relations with African countries to a greater degree as well. Recently the President of the Ivory Coast said his country would not submit to pressure or blackmail as regards establishing diplomatic relations. The Bank of Arabia for Economic Development in Africa wanted to withdraw money from that country because it resumed relations with Israel whereupon the President made the statement to which I have referred. I wish to request that we test the President’s statement through our diplomatic channels as well. We should also try to establish diplomatic relations with these specific countries in the light of this pronouncement.

I suspect that we have diplomatic relations with only one African country at this stage— that means north of the Limpopo—and that is Malawi. I think we may also extend our diplomatic relations to the 47 countries with which we trade. Africa can benefit from this as well. South Africa is the only country able to help Africa with the expertise of Africa, which can help Africa to help itself. It is also essential in our own interests to extend relations of this type.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with a few points raised by a number of colleagues during the course of the debate, but I want to approach the standpoints from what is perhaps a different point of view. I identify myself completely with the standpoint of the hon member for Randfontein. We are an African country and I believe that we can learn from Nigeria and Nigeria can learn from us. They had a constitution enforced on them by British imperialism. They waged a war and then drew up their own “eiendom-like”—I think that is the new word in vogue in this House—constitution.

†In the past two weeks we have seen the pass laws scrapped. By any standards this was a historic event for South Africa, and indeed it was a great and exciting event in the process of the abolition of apartheid. What has surprised most people and I think the Government particularly, was the fact that this has not been well received. The fact that the promise has been made to abolish them by 1 July has, however, increased our credibility. The fact that these announcements were not well received has indicated how low our credibility has sunk since this hon Minister took office.

Too often events since Prime Minister John Vorster’s “give us six months” statement this hon Minister’s undertaking when he was still the ambassador to the United Nations that he would abolish racial discrimination 10 years ago, Dr Piet Koornhof s “apartheid is dead, apartheid is dead!”-speech at Palm Springs, the Information scandal, the indefensible action in relation to the Coventry bail agreement and the other things my hon leader has mentioned have left our allies and friends, as well as our own officials, with egg on their faces. This hon Minister and his Government cannot expect to be believed or trusted as a result.

The disaster of the August Rubicon speech was a further blot on the credibility of this hon Minister. He was responsible for the expectations generated before that speech and he owes an explanation to South Africa as to why things went wrong, as South Africa was grievously harmed as a result.

As long as we act—to use the hon the Minister of Defence’s terminology—as “a vagabond among nations”, we cannot look forward to the world’s accepting real change without extreme scepticism born out of the hard reality of this hon Minister’s and the Government’s decade of devious dissembling.

One of the peculiarly difficult problems that our foreign policy has—and the hon member for Krugersdorp has mentioned this—is that our domestic policies have in turn become domesticated in most of those countries where we have diplomatic representation. This domestication in foreign countries of our internal policies has occurred for three reasons, as I see it. I will suggest three solutions to these problems.

The first reason is that racial discrimination is rightly seen as a serious problem throughout most of the world, but legalised racial discrimination enshrined in statute and in our Constitution with its Hitlerian overtones, is rightly abhorrent to the international community. In this field the solution is a simple one and lies in repealing racially discriminatory laws. This hon Minister knows that when we changed our labour laws we got enormous kudos and, in due course, hopefully, the scrapping of our pass laws will do the same.

Secondly, the Western countries and more particularly the public opinion-formers there, seem not to have grasped that the Whites of South Africa are not expatriate colonials but White Africans with a history in South Africa two centuries longer than the Matabele in Zimbabwe. As a result, all these Western countries’ former guilt and colonial complexes are transferred onto the South African situation and onto the White Government in particular. The Government’s policy of apartheid assists this perception and flagellates those colonial guilt complexes because apartheid comes through, quite rightly, as White domination.

To counter this view, the Government must ensure that apartheid is quickly dismantled and that South Africa in its public service, its schools, its sports teams and in its Parliament, reflects what South Africa really is.

What about the language?

All our languages. However, that is another debate but we will discuss it. Afrikaans is a minority language.

Which one will be the official language?

There will probably be one official language and a number of others. [Interjections.] Whites will certainly be playing a prominent part, but not from an apartheid base. When that happens this perception will decline.

The third and most powerful reason for this domestication was caused by the Government’s decision to ban the ANC and PAC in 1961. From exile, these organisations have skilfully exploited the first two reasons I mentioned to make South Africa a domestic issue in most countries of the world. They have, with the help of the stupidity of the NP Government, as well as the lobbying and the publicist experience of sympathetic pressure groups, succeeded in making the work of this department extremely complex and difficult.

The solution is a simple one: Unban the ANC and the PAC. That will mean that South Africa’s domestic policies will not be domesticated in foreign countries. The Government must hurry up and do this as a matter of urgency. A career in our foreign service will then become less of an occupational hazard, which can only be compared to addressing an NP meeting in Brits in April 1986.

Something the hon the Minister’s Government can do now, however, is to allow Mr Donald Woods to return to South Africa. Mr Woods is not a communist. He is a tough fighter against apartheid but he is a man of integrity and a son of South Africa. A gesture to Mr Donald Woods would only bring South Africa credit and we need people like Mr Woods in South Africa now. [Interjections.] It would also remove one more factor in internationalising South Africa’s domestic policies.

Mr Chairman, I shall respond to the hon member for Pieter-maritzburg North in the course of my speech.

Give him hell!

At this stage I merely wish to say that it is gross generalisation of which he accuses the Government in saying for instance that the announcements concerning the measures of the White Paper were not received positively at all. Nevertheless I shall get back to the hon the member in the course of my speech.

To my mind there are three South Africas. The first is that known abroad and chiefly created by the international media. This is a South Africa viewed simplistically as a country in which five million Whites and 18 million Black and Coloured people live. It is regarded as a country in which the White minority oppresses and exploits the majority and leaves it without a vote—a South Africa created by the international media and kept alive by them. This is a simplistic view of South Africa, resulting in a simplistic solution. Consequently these foreigners suggest a very simple, simplistic solution: Remove apartheid. What do they understand by apartheid? To them it means the disappearance of all differences between Black people and Whites and this comes down to nothing less than one-man-one-vote.

Unfortunately there are hon PFP members, like the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, who have also fallen into this trap of simplistic solutions to South Africa’s problems. They constantly put forward this simplistic solution which will supposedly remove all South Africa’s problems. According to them we simply have to scrap all legislation in the way of a one-man-one-vote system in South Africa.

I think the image of South Africa created by the international media is far removed from reality because Paul Johnson, a well-known British journalist, said the following about television:

That is the image of South Africa existing overseas, created by the internatinal media.

South Africa is portrayed differently in this country. That is the true South Africa, a country which is considerably more complicated than the country known overseas. As hon members are aware, it is a vast country and the White and the Black simultaneously penetrated the interior in the seventeenth century—the White immigrated in a northerly direction and the Black man came south. The people living in South Africa today—the Whites as well as the Blacks—therefore all have the right to be here. The hon member for Sasolburg’s saying that it was only in 1986 that the NP first started working on a process by which people were to obtain a share in decision-making in South Africa is incorrect.

Hon members know the history of how Britain granted countries such as Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho their independence but when South Africa did the same as regards the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Ciskei and Venda, countries overseas did not recognise these countries as independent states. Consequently the golden thread of a simplistic foreign view runs through history which comes down to the fact that double standards exist where South Africa is involved. Every other country in the world can do exactly what South Africa does, but South Africa is the only country in the world of which perfection is expected.

Hon members are aware of subsequent history. Since 1978, when the present State President became the Prime Minister, a process was set in motion—this is not new, as the hon member for Sasolburg alleged here—with the objective that all people with the right of abode in South Africa, as I explained, would have full rights in this country on the conclusion of that process.

When a Black man becomes the President? [Interjections.]

You know, Sir, I sometimes feel there is a tape recording here playing the same phrase over and over every now and then!

Just answer the question! [Interjections.]

Are those hon members incapable of a little wit in coming up with a new question? [Interjections.]

Accusations are also frequently made that the South African Government does not do enough to correct this image I have told hon members about that the country has overseas. Hon members heard the hon member for Bloemfontein North telling them in detail what powerful organisations and media networks exist overseas. When the accusation is levelled that South Africa does not do enough, I may say for instance—to mention only one country—we have 30 overseas officials in the USA at any given time whereas there are 230 million inhabitants. In my opinion it is therefore impossible to bring South Africa’s image home to every individual American or foreigner if we do not have access to international media.

I can assure hon members that these small groups of officials overseas do South Africa a gigantic service. I know this because I was privileged to serve overseas for a while. I should like to pay tribute today to those people putting South Africa’s case overseas––often under difficult, unpleasant circumstances.

Then there is a third South Africa and that is the South Africa of the CP, HNP and AWB alliance—the dream South Africa, the South Africa to which they cling as a dream which could exist in this part of the world but which does not take cognisance of reality. The hon member for Soutpansberg said earlier that the CP would strive for normal relations with other countries. I wish to say today—if it were to come about that CP policy became operative in this country—this would be the surest way of totally isolating South Africa from the outside world. [Interjections.] The South Africa they wish to create would not only exist in a dream but the reality we are dealing with here would have no place in their South Africa. Only the NP Government has taken the realities of this country into account throughout its history. Only the NP Government will ultimately be capable of solving the problems we are experiencing now. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should also like to refer to the South African image as the hon member, Mr Schoeman, has just done, but I should like to do it from a more domestic angle.

I should like to direct the spotlight at the task and the duty of every South African citizen, of every individual citizen, as well as groups of citizens as they are represented for instance in sport clubs, societies, educational institutions, churches and so on as regards what is commonly known as foreign affairs. We are quick to ask—if I may express it in general colloquial language—what a speed cop in Pretoria or a minister of religion in Heidelberg actually has to do with foreign affairs. Surely that is the job of Minister Pik Botha, ambassadors and the Department to deal with this. How wrong—how dangerously wrong—we are in adopting that standpoint. The simple proof is that, in consequence of the dramatic and almost incredible progress in the field of communications, the mass media and electronics to which the hon member for Randburg referred, communication satellites, television and far more, the world has actually become very small. That is why every newsworthy item which occurs here can occur within millions of homes of millions of viewers throughout the world within a few hours at the most; and occur visibly. Therefore circumstances are quite different now.

Permit me to use a few practical examples in demonstrating what I mean by this.

Arising from the South West Africa/Namibia problem. Angola has been prominent front-page news for quite some time. The hon member for Walvis Bay actually pointed out that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had been involved with this problem for 23 years. His involvement in this dates from the days when the World Court was brought into the dispute for the first time. Consequently the hon the Minister will certainly know better than any other hon member of this House what is going on in this sphere.

On 6 April 1908 a serious rift occurred in the Reformed Church, which at the time was the only Afrikaans church in Angola. Obviously this could have happened to any other religious denomination under the same circumstances. At that time the so-called “dorslandtrekkers” lived more or less as the only Whites in the southern regions of Angola. These were the same “Dorslandtrekkers” who had moved back to South West Africa by 1928 and 1929. This history is splendidly related in the book Ons Halfeeu in Angola, by P J van der Merwe. Incidentally I knew that very Oom Peet van der Merwe very well personally. It is interesting that he was the father of Dr Paul van der Merwe who was the Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker of this House. Even more interesting, Sir, is that Jamba in Southern Angola used to be the Van der Merwe’s farm. Dr Paul van der Merwe was actually born there. This is the same Jamba which is Dr Savimbi’s principal base now.

As I said, Mr Chairman, almost 80 years ago a serious rift took place in what was the only Afrikaans church in Angola at that time. The cause of the rift was merely the fact that the White Minister not only dared to preach to the Black congregation but also to baptise Black children and serve communion to Blacks. Unfortunately I do not have time to relate this interesting piece of history in toto. At that particular meeting of the congregation on 6 April 1908—a meeting which became very rowdy at one point—one of the brothers ultimately leapt up and asked: “But what will this church building smell like if Blacks are to enter it now?”

The statement I am actually trying to make is that that event did not make world headlines at all. Way back in 1908 the Afrikaners in Angola did not even have a political party at their disposal. Their political, cultural and educational lives and their societies were all conducted through the church. Obviously communication was also so slow at that stage that it took more than two years before they were able to obtain a Minister from the Hervormde congregation of Zeerust to establish a congregation in Angola. That was the situation in southern Angola—and, of course, also in South Africa— as regards communications at that time.

What is the position today, however? A minister forbids someone at Heidelberg to attend the funeral service of a good friend merely because he is not a White. At Randfontein a few Blacks are denied admission to a church where they wish to attend the funeral service of a beloved employer and friend—purely on the basis that they are not Whites. At Otjiwarongo a Brown soldier is denied admission to a church service officially attended by soldiers who, just like him, are there to lay down their lives for their country and its people if necessary—purely on the basis that he is not a White. In Pretoria a traffic officer grabs a Black man participating in a road race merely because he is not White. In Johannesburg, at the Goudstad teachers’ college, there are a few fools making a fuss because, among the RAU students permitted to use their swimming pool by agreement, there were a few Brown South Africans who would probably contaminate their pool.

I shall quote a last example of incidents of this nature, Mr Chairman. The All Blacks are touring South Africa at present. After all the drama and struggle the All Blacks are in Cape Town today; the rugby world is in confusion about it; the battle continues, here and abroad.

I was talking about South West Africa, however. At Outjo there is only one rugby field. The committee of the schools in control of the rugby field forbids a team including Coloured players to play there and also if Coloureds are sitting in the pavilion. Why? Its members allege it has nothing whatever to do with politics; it is supposedly in case there should be saboteurs and terrorists among those Coloureds.

Don’t even mention the question of Black patients in White hospitals!

Mr Chairman, the last example I cited was taken from a report in yesterday’s Rapport. As I have said, the six examples I have just dealt with are echoing throughout the world. Because of advanced development in the electronic media and so on, these matters are no longer of purely local interest. What one does one should therefore do responsibly, in the full knowledge that it may echo throughout the world.

The debate here today is about matters affecting the Department of Foreign Affairs. I shall therefore not say any more in this debate about the fact that action of the nature to which I have just referred—whether by individuals or bodies—is short-sighted, unchristian, immoral and, particularly as seen from the domestic angle, nothing but criminal.

There are people in this Committee, however, who are very fond of referring to treason, to the Piet de Wets and so on. I wish to state it categorically today, from the point of view of the international interests of the RSA, that by such short-sighted action—I assume it is possibly unconscious—persons are certainly committing treason against our country and our people and our cause. They are definitely undermining our country’s cause and the damage they occasion cannot be repaired even by spending billions of rands of the taxpayer’s money—by information action or whatever. Every citizen, every club, every society and every institution in this country, of whatever nature, has a task and a duty regarding foreign affairs as well. This obligation and responsibility resting on all is so great, the domestic situation so urgent and the world has shrunk so much in consequence of the electronic media, that every citizen should fully realise the importance of his obligation. These obligations should be fulfilled faithfully for the benefit of our country, South Africa, and its people.

I wish to close with a single comment on all the stories so often told about a possible Black President. I wish to tell hon members of the Opposition not to ascribe words to the State President just to accuse him later of deviating from them when it suits them. What the State President did in essence was to say it was not individual Ministers who determined NP policy but that it was determined by congresses. This matter has not yet been discussed by the congresses. Therefore it can certainly not be NP policy yet. What I do wish to say is that the State President has not expressed himself at all on whether it may be possible in future for a Black man to become the state president or not. If hon members of the Opposition therefore allege that the State President said it would never be possible, they are ascribing words to him which are simply not true. That question remains hypothetical; it is still under discussion and we shall address it when it becomes necessary to do so.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Vilonel will excuse me if I do not discuss this matter in the context of his train of thought. There are three matters which I should like to raise briefly with the hon the Minister himself.

On 4 March 1986, the State President made an important announcement in this House concerning the possible future of Namibia. He said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 4 March 1986, col 1445):

Two months have now lapsed since that statement was made in the House. We are now approaching the target date, but so far all we have seen is an alarming build-up of sophisticated weaponry on both sides involved in the civil war in southern Angola. I wonder therefore whether the hon the Minister is in a position to provide this House with any further information in this regard.

The question I want to put to him are as follows: Firstly, as far as the South African Government is concerned, does the agreement on the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola remain a prerequisite for the start of the implementation of Resolution 435? Secondly, has any material or hopeful progress been made with respect to the withdrawal of Cuban troops? If so, can the hon the Minister inform us what progress has in fact been made? Thirdly, is the hon the Minister still hopeful that an agreement can still be reached before the target date is reached? We are now halfway between the date on which the statement was made and the target date. Fourthly, if the target date does in fact expire in August, what attitude will the Government then adopt in respect of Resolution 435, and the independence of Namibia?

Finally, taking into consideration that there is at present an interim government in South West Africa, has this Government in fact consulted with the interim government of South West Africa? If so, what is the attitude of the interim government to the question of independence through the process of Resolution 435, and to the withdrawal of the Cuban forces from Angola? While we are on the subject of Angola, I want to ask the hon the Minister if he could perhaps give us any information about Captain Wynand du Toit who is still being detained in Angola? We read that his wife recently went to visit him in Angola. Is that an indication of a softening in the attitude of the Angolan government towards his detention? What attempts are being made by the Government to implement his release? Has any progress in this regard been made at this stage?

A second aspect which I would like to raise, is the question of the Nkomati Accord.

†We consider the Nkomati Accord to be one of the most important treaties ever agreed to or signed in Southern Africa. We know that during the course of this past year there have been tensions over the Nkomati Accord to the point of its almost collapsing following the publication of what were know as the Vaz Diaries. I would like the hon the Minister to tell us what his reading is of the state of the Nkomati Accord. Is it working now as he would like it to work and as he anticipated that it would work? Has the Joint Security Commission which was to be set up in terms of the Nkomati Accord been meeting during the course of the past year? A year ago he announced that a proposed Joint Operational Centre was to be set up at Komatipoort. Has the Joint Operational Centre in fact been set up and is it functioning? There was an agreement signed over Cahora Bassa in May 1984. In terms of that agreement are we receiving power from Cahora Bassa and is the South African Government assisting the Mozambique Government to protect the Cahora Bassa powerlines from attack in terms of that agreement?

Finally, what is the South African Government’s relationship with Renamo? By this I am asking whether the Government still maintains any contact with Renamo or whether it is assisting in any way the government of Mozambique to fight and to beat Renamo and whether it is taking all practical steps to prevent Renamo from getting any assistance from sources in South Africa. I ask these questions because we believe the Government should be proactive rather than passive or reactive in respect of the Nkomati Accord.

*In conclusion I should like to raise the point concerning the danger emanating from the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. Although it would appear that the greatest dangers are at present occurring in the northern hemisphere, we can never be sure that these dangers will not affect us in the future in some way or another. I ask the hon the Minister whether the South African government and its agents are in contact with any other governments concerning this matter. Secondly, are we co-operating with other countries in monitoring radio-active material and radiation? Thirdly, do we have access to the knowledge which has been obtained by other countries as a result of this disaster? Fourthly, is the Government taking steps to ensure that no radiation-contaminated products are being imported into South Africa?

I put these questions to the Government because South Africa, despite its international isolation, has a duty to adopt all necessary precautionary measures in order to protect the citizens of our country against dangers which have no respect for, and are oblivious to, international borders or ideological differences. I hope the hon the Minister will reply to these questions in the course of his reply.

Mr Chairman, this has been an interesting debate because it is clear to me that hon members of this Committee have realised this year, consciously or unconsciously, that the future of all of us is going to require new thought and new analysis.

Even the emotional reactions which we received from some of our friends in the CP are to be welcomed, because we are all struggling hard in the search for a new and safe South Africa. It must be a future of stability and progress; one to which our children can also look forward.

It will avail us nothing—and I am not reproaching any hon member of any party now—to hark back to the past. I would go so far as to say it will not help us, as we did in the old days, to pile up and win debating points against one another, or to be a little acrimonious in our personal attacks here and there. I understand this. This has always been the case in our politics, but the question is whether we can afford it much longer.

To the extent to which speakers who participated in this debate made the seriousness of our situation apparent, and the extent to which everyone, from the ranks of the opposition as well, made it evident that they were concerned about the future of South Africa, this was a relevant debate. I also welcome the opportunity to react in general to the problems at present surrounding this country, to the nature and the extent of the onslaught, and to the course I think we ought to adopt in order to cope with and bring to a halt the international onslaught and boycott movements.

The campaign against us is being waged on various fronts. Two or three years ago I would never have thought that the most serious and most immediate threat to our economy and our trade would have shifted from the UN and its agencies to the Western World. This has happened.

For years the Western industrial countries, who are our trading partners—we must also include Japan, for this is one of the principal countries with which we trade—helped to prevent sanctions against us in the Security Council of the UN. For years they condemned apartheid in the strongest terms, but they prevented boycott campaigns—except, that is, in the case of the arms embargo and certain other boycotts—and meaningful sanctions being imposed on South Africa by the world. Now the situation has changed and this is happening.

In my opinion the enemies of all the communities in this country have succeeded in taking the international campaign against us to such lengths that our traditional trading partners are now acting against us. It is as if Moscow’s aims and objectives are now being implemented directly by the democratic industrial countries. Moscow can now sit back and wait until the economic weakening and consequential military weakening of South Africa has occurred according to its planning, and then I think it will show its true colours and advance its true strategy. Our first task in the foreign arena is therefore to try to halt the boycott campaign and punitive measures of the international community. That, of course, is difficult.

We all express this wish which I have heard throughout the country and here in this Committee as well: “Should we not do more? Could we not have done more?” Of course we could always have done more if we had more money at our disposal, but even if one did—and the Treasury did give us more money for this purpose—we must try to understand that we are dealing with hostile elements and planning which goes far deeper than we realise at first glance.

One is dealing with editors in overseas countries, and with media representatives who are conducting a co-ordinated campaign against us as part of a previously planned policy. The editors of media institutions in European countries, such as Britain, Germany, Italy or France, will for example liaise with one another in connection with their presentation of news about South Africa.

†They might decide for instance that the news of the ending of arrests in terms of the pass laws is too good for the so-called White racist regime of Pretoria. It might have unfavourable consequences from their point of view in that Germans, Italians or Britons might start thinking that real change is taking place in South Africa. It might help the Whites, or those Black people who are anticommunist or anti-socialist. These editors will then agree either to suppress the news completely or to give it very little coverage and say the developments are cosmetic, too late and too little and that there is a sting in the tail. They will say that Pretoria is up to its usual tricks, is deceitful and has no credibility. That is how they deal with every new announcement from South Africa.

*This is not something I am thinking up; this is the reality we are facing. Even if we have the money, we do not get through to the media, because they have taken a policy decision to grind us into the dust and to assist in the campaign to disrupt the present order in South Africa and help establish a different kind of government in this country. Hon members will easily be able to guess what the ideology of such a government will be.

I should like to refer to a visit paid by Chief Minister Buthelezi to the USA, as a second example of the kind of difficulty we are encountering. As far as I know, he was received by President Reagan and top-ranking senators of the Republic and Democratic Parties, as well as members of the House of Representatives. He addressed the Washington Press Club, and did all the rounds that an important visitor to the USA does. His anti-disinvestment speeches inter alia were, at first, well received.

A little while later Bishop—now Archbishop—Tutu also visited the USA, and wiped out practically everything Chief Minister Buthelezi had accomplished. Hon members will agree with me when I say I do not think there are many of us in this Committee who will be able to fare much better overseas than Chief Minister Buthelezi did when it comes to the anti-disinvestment campaign.

I should like to emphasise another point. When the disinvestment legislation got under way in the USA, there was a motion in the House of Representatives to the effect that they should first test Black opinion in South Africa. Of course it is in itself a presumptuous attitude for any country’s legislative council to test the opinion of citizens in another country in order to determine the moral grounds for its legislation. Of course it is arrogant, but it is no use our carrying on about it. If a knife is drawn in anger against one, one must do something about, otherwise one is going to be stabbed.

This motion was voted down in the House of Representatives. A majority in that legislative body of the USA was therefore of the opinion that it was not necessary to test Black opinion in South Africa on the question of whether sanctions should be introduced against this country. As far as they were concerned, the opinion of Black people in South Africa was not relevant. All that was relevant was the persecution mania and the political motives of the American Congressmen involved. Against that kind of mentality—that is all I am trying to say here—there is nothing much one can do except to keep one’s head, to carry on regardless, to get through and to keep on getting through to the individual legislators, editors, churchmen, media representatives, industrialists, importers, exporters and bankers. There is no other way and there is no shortcut or easier route either. It is like learning mathematics—there is no easy way of learning it. We must keep on and we must have courage. In the meantime we must also persist in our reform policy, and not make it dependent upon the approval or disapproval of overseas interests.

This brings me to the hon member for Soutpansberg. Year after year he levels the accusation at us that the Government is subservient to the USA. He himself quotes from American reports. But I do not maintain that he quotes from those reports because he is making himself subservient to the American writer …

Where is he now?

I do not think the hon member knew that I would be speaking, and I did not let him know either; consequently it is not his fault that he is not here. [Interjections.] In any case, I am not saying that because he quoted from that report—he quoted from it for a long time—he was making himself subservient to that American who wrote it or that he had swallowed that writer’s opinion whole. I am not saying that. What is important, though, is that the hon member quoted from a passage in which it was alleged that I had said—hon members heard this—that the Americans had threatened to impose total sanctions against us unless Resolution 435 of the Security Countil was implemented by 1 August without any prior agreement on Cuban withdrawal being reached.

Not only did I never say that, but I made it very clear, in season and out in this House, in public and wherever I went—as the hon member for Walvis Bay also said today––that there would be no implementation of Resolution 435 unless an agreement was reached on Cuban withdrawal. The report from which the hon member for Soutpansberg quoted fell short. I do not think the American who wrote it deliberately presented it in this way, but I do not think he understood what was happening. I do not think he understood our standpoint in regard to Resolution 435. All I want to say to the hon member for Soutpansberg is this: He said that if only half of what was contained in that report were true, it was abominable. He must tell me what half he was referring to. I think both halves are suspect. He need not attach any further value to it.

But whether he likes it or not, every government in this country will have to attach value to the standpoint of friendly governments, if they are reasonable standpoints. If a banker tells one that they really cannot do business with us any longer while we have the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act on our Statute Book, because no one can defend it, I am not saying that one should hasten to change that Act merely as a result of what was said. But one should not consider a critical remark such as this to be hostile either. But look at what happened in the past, because it illustrates the Government’s attitude. Long before vehement opposition to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act began to mount abroad, this Government requested the churches to go into it. At that early stage already the State President of this country said there were no such things as sacred cows as far a as legislation was concerned. We tried to persuade church denominations to reach consensus on this issue. Concerning our sense of what we considered to be fair, Christian and ethical, according to our profession of morality and ethics, we arrived at the conclusion that we should reconsider that legislation and try to change it. By the time world opposition to those measures had emerged prominently, we in this governing party had already struggled with ourselves on the morality and the ethics of that legislation. The hon members of the CP know this. Ultimately we repealed the legislation because we were true to our own views of what was right and fair. And South Africa is still there, even though that legislation has been repealed.

The hon member for Sasolburg also upholds such views. Among other reasons he left our party because of a rugby team which was to have toured this country, a team which was to have included a Maori or two. [Interjections.] He knows this to be the truth; he knows there was a tremendous conflict over that issue at our congresses, and also here in Parliament and in our caucus. We were at daggers drawn. Today I am nevertheless convinced that many hon members of his party are going to watch the rugby, and will enjoy it. That matter is something of the past; it is forgotten. And we did not go under. [Interjections.] All I am saying here today is that it will be fit and proper if we …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Hon members on this side are listening attentively to the hon the Minister, but hon members of his party are not giving us an opportunity to do so. [Interjections.]

Order! I appreciate the attention with which the hon the Minister is being listened to, and I shall not allow the atmosphere to be unnecessarily disrupted by any hon members in this Committee. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. On my part I just want to say I appreciate the attitude of the hon members of the opposition.

The fact of the matter is that we in this Committee are the representatives of the White community in this country and if we have to clash with one another—if our division is so profound, so fundamental and so deep-seated and if we feel so strongly about it—then the dissension is understandable; nothing can stop it.

The argument I do want to advance is that if that division is not really to profound that it affects material principles and ultimate objectives, but is instead concerned with methods of attaining the same objectives, it would be a great pity, and our children and posterity will level heinous accusations at us sitting in this Committee for wasting time, for playing games and for failing to give attention to the truly serious matters, the important matters facing us.

If we want to attain specific objectives in this country, based on values on which we agree, we have specific responsibilities to put aside petty politics. I am referring to the objectives of ensuring civilised norms and standards in this country, of maintaining a sound community life, freedom of speech and religion, of acquiring stability, of expanding our trade and keeping our country economically strong, and of establishing and expanding industrial development sufficiently so that the exchequer can obtain more capital so as to enable the State as well to realise the objectives in regard to uplifting the lesser privileged and underdeveloped sectors of our population. Then, too, there is the upgrading of the education system which we need for the Black people; the training which must take place; and the purposeful utilisation of our factories which are at present underutilised. I am referring to our infrastructures which have to be improved; keeping up with developments in the sphere of technology; and the exchange of scientific knowledge.

If we wish to look forward to a peaceful future, we must all co-operate in promoting stability, in ensuring that we retain an independent judicial system and a democracy, so that a government can be voted out, and so that its leaders need not be killed in order to be replaced. We must co-operate to ensure that the freedom of the Press, of religion and worship remain in this country, and to ensure that we retain a competitive system here. The right to the possession of private property must be preserved; so, too, in private law the protection of the individual in regard to his freedom and rights. The Government has announced that it will remove apartheid.

†We will remove the racial sting from the laws of this country and from our traditions and practices. We will do so in principle and on the basis of power sharing. In that lies the greatest security for the White community of this country, but not only for the White community––for all the various Black communities and for the Coloured and Indian communities.

I have seldom come across any South Africans, irrespective of the colour of their skin, who have told me that they want to marry our daughters, that they want to flood our schools or drive us from our homes.

It is our common enemies, also the enemies of Inkatha, the enemies of our Coloured community, our Indian community, and of the various other communities of this country who do not want a peaceful solution and a negotiated settlement. They do not want power-sharing but the seizure of power for their own ideological, selfish purposes. Those are the dangerous elements and my appeal and thoughts are as follows: Cannot we at least unite in order to combat those forces together first of all? Then we can get around the conference table where we will naturally take into consideration the views of all parties, including the CP, in order to arrive at a constitutional order jointly agreed upon.

*It is the truth that we have friends in the CP. After all, we are all part of this country. Basically they also fear the future, just as we do. It is not only we who have that fear.

You do not even want to negotiate with us.

There is fear. There is fear in the hearts of most Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Asians. That fear must be removed by building up mutual trust. That trust can only be built up if the intimidation and the violence in this country can be stopped. That is why it is so important for this country that the violence should now cease. That is why it is important for this Parliament and for this Committee to help end the violence. If the violence does not cease we shall not be able to manoeuvre ourselves into a negotiating position. If we are unable to do that—whether the outside world is going to impose additional sanctions or not—we are impairing South Africa’s economic growth. This does not affect only the Whites; it affects the Black people as well. A window that has been smashed, is smashed on both sides, damm it, it is not smashed on one side only. This is a harsh fact which is not fixing itself upon the minds of our Black friends either so that they put a stop to the violence, because they fear the intimidation or our enemies who have decided that there is only one way to attain their objects, and that is to fan the flames of violence. While I am standing here making my speech I am convinced, because I have proof, that there are people in this country, South Africa, who gather at night in dark comers—and they include Whites who have the franchise––and who confer with one another as follows. Some of those people ask one another: “What is the score for the day? How many were shot dead?” Then others say: “Well according to the newspaper reports, so many. It looks like six children and eight adults.” Then the ringleader says: “No, that is not enough”. The organiser says: “In Port Elizabeth we said that they should provoke the police to the utmost, pester them to such an extent and act in such a way that the police have to shoot. Why did that fellow that had to do that in Port Elizabeth not do a proper job? Why did they shoot only six children? More should have been shot! Burn him alive! Give him the ‘necklace’!" And so the cry continues. Then they hold a “people’s court” to confirm the sentence. These are the things to which we should give attention in this House. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition cannot run away from this. I am not saying that he wants to run away, but we must talk about his. We must tell the world, we must tell this country, and we must tell one another that it is now time we clamped down on the instigators of violence in this country.

The representations which are being addressed by the State President to the Western countries—particularly the seven at present meeting in Tokyo—amount to the following: “For months and months you have been crying out against apartheid. I said it would be removed. For months on end you have been getting at us in every possible sphere, and you have been threatening us with sanctions. We said that we would accept power-sharing in principle to give the future South Africa a new constitutional dispensation."

The time has come for the Western powers and for the African countries who feel the same way about this matter—and they are there—to say unequivocally to these instigators of violence, those elements in the ANC, the PAC and other parties, that the violence they are seeking is going to destroy them one day. It is time to tell those elements that they cannot acquire political power through violence and then think that they are not going to govern with violence, because he who comes into power through violence, will have to employ violence to remain in power. It is as simple as that.

The time has come for all of us in this House to ask ourselves what this country is going to look like after apartheid.

†The time has come for the Western powers to state categorically that, just as they condemned apartheid, so do they condemn in advance any proposed system which will not be based on fundamental rights and civil liberties. They should say in advance that they are not going to accept the ANC’s nationalisation-of-business policy; that they will not accept that no elections will be held; that they are not going to accept a one-party state; and that they are not going to accept a Government-controlled Press.

*If the Western powers—among the Western powers I include the American Congress––do not say this, their present attitude is a direct encouragement to the instigators of violence. When the planners of violence for ideological purposes hold those clandestine meetings at night in those radical nests to which I referred, they say to one another how important it is to persuade the Western countries to carry on with punitive measures against South Africa until the country’s economy is broken. That is why every announcement and step to remove apartheid has to be dismissed as deception or as insignificant. It was not for nothing that violence in this country got under way precisely when the Government’s reform process began to gain momentum. To succeed in their ideological objectives, reform must be stifled.

†They say that they must continue to give the impression that a liberation struggle is being fought in this country, that the racist Pretoria regime consists of a bunch of crooks; that the Government continues to oppress the people; that the Government’s power-sharing story is not genuine and is designed to buy time; and that if they can keep on persuading the news media that nothing but violence will prevail in South Africa, then eventually they will cripple us, damage us economically and that in turn will damage us militarily and then they can deal the final blow with the assistance of their comrades from abroad.

*We must not only guard against this. I want to come back to my basic theme: That all of us in this Committee—the CP, the HNP, the NP, the PFP and the NRP—and also the hon members in the other Houses and the members of Inkatha and all national-orientated parties and institutions must realise that it is time to put a stop to the violence in this country on a collective basis. We must form a phalanx against it, and then decide on what basis this country should be governed in future. The CP itself said today––I think the hon member for Brakpan— that our road lies through Africa. He is correct. By the way, I did not speak disparagingly about Dr Kaunda; all I did was speak to him man to man and tell him that he must not listen to the communists. I am grateful, however, if it is an indication of a new departure on the part of the CP that the hon member for Waterberg is paying a visit to the king of the Zulus today. I am first to welcome this. [Interjections.] I am saying out loud that I welcome it.

It is in that spirit in which we must act in this country, and I welcome it. I welcome the statement by the CP that our road lies through Africa, but Africa is also in South Africa. It is here in our midst. Everything has changed: The people who once polished shoes now want to wear shoes, and the people who washed cars now want to own cars. They do not want ours, but their own. And they are entitled to them.

The past is gone forever. We are no longer ploughing with oxen, but with tractors. The Black people have learnt to drive those tractors and to manufacture them, and have learnt accounting. They have developed. Not a single newspaper can be printed, including the CP’s newspaper, without Blacks being involved in the process.

We have admitted that the Blacks are permanently in our midst. There is no way in which one can bring about peace in South Africa unless the recognition of the permanence of Black people in White areas is accompanied by the granting of rights to those people in a way which allows them to satisfy their aspirations. There is no other way.

But if we resort to conflict, if that is our point of departure, it makes no difference whether we have a White revolution or a Black revolution. The Whites have enough power to destroy this country, but so do the Blacks. The point of departure of this Government is that we must not vie with one another in the destruction of South Africa, but must share jointly in the Government and in the welfare of the country. We are struggling and striving, and we are hewing open a new path, which no one has ever walked before. There is no model; we are embarking upon a course with the compass of fundamental values which can lead us to a stable destination.

I want to reiterate some of these values: Freedom of speech and of religion, private ownership, power-sharing, an independent legal system, a healthy community life, the removal of racistic stings from legislation, practices and traditions, and the acceptance of one another as South Africans, on the basis of respect for one another’s language and cultural heritage, and for one another’s human dignity. As the destructive only alternative to this Government’s proposals emerges, particularly among our Black friends, they will come to the right realisation, and they will be able to break the wall of intimidation. But let us help them. Let us help them in this House as well to come forward with confidence. Let us forget the past now. Let us forget about who said what and when. That is no longer relevant. What is relevant now is power-sharing and the question of how to bring it about so that this country can acquire stability. The same bankers and the same businessmen who also exert such extreme pressure on us for the sake of change are the first people who will take their money and leave when this country falls under a revolutionary administration, an administration which nationalises everything, which introduces a Government-controlled Press, which establishes a one-party state and makes the legal system subordinate to the government. If something like that were to happen, the investments in this country by overseas investors would also be lost.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition put a number of serious questions to me concerning Angola and Namibia, as well as our attitude in connection with Resolution 435—with a view of course to the arrival of 1 August.

Time does not stand still of course. The first of August will arrive. I cannot say today what will have happened by that date. I cannot say because we do not know whether the Angolan government might yet be in favour of negotiating or talking about an agreement in regard to Cuban withdrawal from Angola. That government has already admitted in principle—and this is important—that there is a connection between the implementation of Resolution 435 and a Cuban withdrawal. For a long time the South African Government was attacked for having introduced a new element as far as Resolution 435 was concerned by demanding that an agreement must be reached on Cuban withdrawal from Angola before that resolution can be implemented. The Angolan government admitted this itself more than two years ago. That indicates the progress that has already been made. What we baulk at is the programme they propose for the withdrawal of the Cuban troops. That programme is totally unrealistic. It cannot be accepted by this Government or, as far as I know, even by the USA or by the leaders of the interim regime in South West Africa.

However, the hope is still being cherished that we will be able to negotiate on that programme. I am in constant contact with the USA on this matter. It seems to me that Luanda’s wrath is kindled as a result of the resolution that American aid will be given to Unita, and that the atmosphere for negotiations is very poor at the moment—to put it mildly. Be that as it may, South Africa has support from America, from certain Western countries and also from African countries for its standpoint.

The African countries do not want to say this aloud, but there is more support than people realise in certain African countries for the standpoint that the Cuban troops must be withdrawn from Angola in order to bring about a peaceful implementation of a settlement plan for Namibia. It is no use implementing a settlement plan which will lead to war, strife, chaos and misery. The Cuban presence north of the border remains a serious intimidating factor to any election planned in Namibia under UN supervision.

I want to make another point as well. Apart from the South African Government’s standpoint that the Cubans must withdraw within the framework of the implementation of Resolution 435, it is also our standpoint that we do not want foreign, hostile troops in our region in any case. We shall not allow the troops of other countries who act in an intimidating way towards, or who form an intimidatory factor for any of our neighbouring states, to be stationed in our territory. This is a sound practice in international life.

What is going to happen if an agreement on Cuban settlement is not reached by 1 August? This is a matter to which the Government will have to give attention, as 1 August approaches. We shall have to do so in consultation with the USA, because the USA has been in agreement as far as this matter is concerned since President Reagan came into power. In general they have stuck to their guns—in fact, it was their idea. President Reagan is there for another two years. What will happen after he is gone I do not know, but I hope that there will be progress in the two years in which he will still be president of the USA.

As far as Captain Du Toit is concerned, I can tell hon members that arrangements have been made by the International Red Cross for his wife to visit him. A member of the International Red Cross also visited him. The latest information we have at our disposai is that he is in good health. He complained that his cell was too small and that he was not getting any exercise. We are trying to get that concession for him. If we can free Captain Du Toit and Mr Sakharov then, as the State President announced, we are in a position in which we can begin to discuss another very important matter in principle. Whether it is going to succeed I do not know. Even if Mr Sakharov is not released we shall continue to work for Captain Du Toit’s release. But hon members must not ask me this afternoon to furnish more details in this regard. I am in contact with the Government in Angola as far as this matter is concerned.

†Of course the Nkomati Accord is of great importance to this Government. Among other reasons that is why the State President and I had discussions with President Machel during the coronation proceedings in Swaziland on 26 April 1986. But any accord of this nature must be supported by the good faith and mutual trust of both parties. Suspicion arose on both sides last year that the other party was not adhering to the conditions and spirit of the accord. However, I want to appeal to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition not to give the impression that the fault lies with South Africa. We have gone out of our way to investigate their charges. I reported this to hon members of this House on 6 February this year and I need not repeat what I said then. However, the State President appointed two persons whom he trusted personally to investigate the charges. They had access to all the records. They investigated the matter, and I flew to Komatipoort subsequently to convey the result to the government of Mozambique. They have not come back with further particulars. I met with members of the government of Mozambique again last Friday. They presented me with documents and information, not implying the involvement of the SA Defence Force, but of certain individuals in this country in planning violence in Mozambique. Among other things, they submitted prima facie documentary evidence in respect of a car bomb that exploded in Maputo, indicating that it had been planned by a person—I do not know whether that person was a South African citizen—from Johannesburg. I think this is what President Machel might have had in mind when he said, according to a report which I read in Die Burger this morning: “South Africa is violating the Accord.” This does not necessarily mean the South African Government.

I was present on the occasion in Swaziland to which I referred, when he told our State President: “I do not doubt your integrity”. He calls our State President Pieter Botha. He went on to say: “I do not doubt the integrity of Roelof Botha …” That is me; he does not call me “Pik.” [Interjections.]"… and thirdly, I do not doubt Magnus Malan’s integrity." He stated that categorically in our presence. He said: “I have never attacked the President of South Africa.” He stressed that point. Sometimes, I think, we do not understand the dimensions of and the style in which our fellow leaders in Africa speak. However, we are investigating the matter to which I referred. The Police will investigate it, the intelligence services will investigate it, and this Government will take action if required. During our discussions last Friday we agreed to put together a new committee––the liaison committee—which will be a central committee consisting of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Minister of Defence and of Law and Order, who will co-opt other departments as required eg in the field of agriculture, transport services, health, etcetera, so that we shall henceforth be dealing in parallel with the issues of security and economic co-operation. I think it will be an improvement.

We are not assisting Renamo.

No; in fact you are assisting the Frelimo Government against Renamo. [Interjections.]

We are not assisting Renamo. We have no contact with Renamo. It would be a violation of the Nkomati Accord to assist them.

They are communists!

Are Renamo communists?

No, Machel is a communist. [Interjections.]

Order!

That government of Mozambique was recognised by the late Mr Vorster shortly after it came into being. [Interjections.] Those hon members were then sitting with us on this side of the House. [Interjections.] I can quote Dr Connie Mulder’s words to hon members. He stood up in this House and said: “We are not interested in the ideology or colour of that government.” [Interjections.] Dr Mulder accepted that power was handed over in terms of international law. I was not even in Parliament at the time but hon members are now blaming me for what Dr Connie Mulder and Mr Vorster did. However, the fact is that they took the right decision at the time.

Is he a communist or not?

Order! There are too many interjections. The hon the Minister may proceed.

As far as the tragedy of the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Soviet Union is concerned, the matter does not fall under my department. However, I can assure the hon member that the departments concerned will not allow the importation of any contaminated products from those areas. The contaminated products are mostly perishables such as fruit, vegetables, milk and that sort of thing. The hon member can rest assured that the Government will monitor the situation very carefully and keep a close watch on it. I also happen to know that the closest co-operation exists betwen my hon colleague who deals with these matters and his experts and scientists and scientists in other parts of the world in regard to safety requirements for nuclear power stations.

*Tomorrow I should like to reply further to individual contributions to the debate, probably after other hon members have spoken. I want to repeat that an intense economic onslaught is being waged against us from abroad; from the Hill in the USA. Once again they are beginning to stir, moves are afoot to introduce further legislation against us. The 12 European countries are already beginning to growl; they are planning further sanctions against us. The International Trade Union association and the World Federation of Transport Workers is seeing whether they cannot boycott this country on the grounds of resolutions by their associations, that is to say, even without their governments promulgating legislation in this connection. There is the UN campaign, and then there is also the Commonwealth campaign. Against this background I must repeat that it is time we in this House decided whether we agree with one another on the broad objectives we want to attain for ourselves and for posterity in this country. The struggle against us is so intense and comprehensive that it now requires our unanimity and our co-operation in this House.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.