as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Order! Before I put the next Vote for consideration, I should like to give three hon. members the opportunity to make personal explanations to this House. As I indicated yesterday evening, I again perused the speech made by the hon. nominated member Mr. Schutte. I now call upon the hon. member to speak.

Mr. Chairman, according to my reported speech I used the following words (Hansard, 16.9.1981)—

Those were also the words I repeated last night in this House. I now withdraw the following words—

I now call upon the hon. member for Pretoria Central to speak.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker summoned me and informed me that he was of the opinion that my behaviour in this House last night impugned the dignity of the Chair. I accept the ruling of Mr. Speaker unconditionally and tender my apologies to the Chair.

Order! I now call upon the hon. member for Roodeplaat to speak.

Mr. Chairman, in so far as my behaviour yesterday evening impugned the dignity of either this House or the Chair, I apologize.

Order! The Speaker has informed me that he has granted the hon. member for Pretoria Central permission to furnish a personal explanation in terms of Standing Order No. 134(2). I now give the hon. member that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Speaker for the opportunity he has given me to furnish a personal explanation in consequence of the events in this House last night.

During the discussion of the Justice Vote the hon. member for Pinetown said in a speech—with reference to offences involving the maintenance of law and order—that more people are gaoled in South Africa as a result of ministerial action than those who are sent to gaol by the courts. I considered that statement to be extremely irresponsible, and also as a slur on the good name of South Africa. After the speech of the hon. member for Pinetown I informed him in a private discussion that I was to take part in the debate last night at 20h00, that I would then react to the said statement by him and that I wanted him to be present in this House if possible.

A little later, while I was talking to genl. Otto, Commissioner of the Prison Services, who was sitting in the officials’ bay of the House, the hon. member for Pinetown approached me. He told me he was concerned at the possibility that in the course of his speech earlier on, he had expressed himself incorrectly on a specific point, in view of all the reaction his statement had elicited from the Government side. He informed me that he had a typed version of his speech and asked me please to look at it because it was an exact version of what he had really intended to say. He added that he had sent his original speech to Hansard, because they needed it to ascertain the correct spelling of certain names. I informed him that I would react to what he had intended to say, and that, if he had made a mistake in delivering his speech, I would not take advantage of it. He also asked me to consult the Year Book of the Institute for Race Relations, because the facts on which he based his allegation were contained therein.

A while later he spoke to me again behind the Speaker’s chair and said basically the same things as before. I then went to the Hansard office where I was informed that the speech of the hon. member for Pinetown had not yet been typed. I told the Hansard official concerned that the hon. member for Pinetown had asked me to look at the text of his prepared speech. I was informed that it was still with the typists at that stage. However, the official promised to send the speech to the hon. member for Pinetown in the House, and he could then hand it to me. A little later the speech was handed to me in the House. It was in a Hansard envelope on which the words “Mr. Pitman (for Mr. Nel)” had been written.

A little later the hon. member for Pinetown came and sat next to me in my bench and started a discussion with me for the third time. I informed him that I had received his speech and still felt that his statement was unacceptable. We consulted the typed speech together and read the sentences in question together.

He made no objection to the fact that I had the speech in my possession and he also knew that I would deal with his speech in this House. Just before the start of the evening session I received the Hansard of the hon. member for Pinetown. It was clear to me that what he had said in the Committee was essentially the same as what appeared in his typed speech. While I was addressing the Committee, I was asked whether I had the speech of the hon. member for Pinetown to hand. I replied that I had his Hansard. When I was later asked if I had his speech in my possession or on my bench, I answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I inquire whether the hon. member informed you beforehand of the contents of this explanation?

No. I had knowledge of the statement but not of the contents.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: Would you permit the hon. member for Pinetown to make a short statement in reply?

The rules of the House do not provide for any debate on a matter of this kind. The rules state very clearly that there cannot be any debate, and as far as my authority goes, I was informed by Mr. Speaker that he had given the hon. member for Pretoria Central permission to make a personal statement, and that is the only way the matter can be dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, may I raise a last point of order? Would you, Mr. Chairman, consider giving us advice, if not a ruling, on whether in these circumstances the hon. member should not at least have indicated to the other hon. member involved in the matter what he was going to say?

I shall apply my mind to that and if necessary refer to Mr. Speaker.

Vote No. 10.—“Foreign Affairs and Information”:

Mr. Chairman, before discussing some details of the Vote and matters relating to foreign affairs, I should like to make reference to Dr. Brand Fourie, the present Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. I do so because it is understood that Dr. Brand Fourie is approaching the end of his term of office and might not be occupying this position when Parliament discusses the Foreign Affairs and Information Vote next year. We believe that Dr. Brand Fourie has had a distinguished career in the foreign service, a career which we understand has spanned the term of office of no less than six South African Prime Ministers. During this time he has earned the reputation that he has the qualities of character and intellect of judgment that have made him an outstanding foreign service officer and Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. We can imagine how often Ministers have turned to him for advice and guidance. We can imagine what a sense of strength it must have been for ambassadors and other people serving South Africa abroad in the foreign affairs firing-line to know that back at home at the helm of affairs there is a man of the calibre of Dr. Brand Fourie. In these circumstances, Sir, on behalf of the official Opposition we wish to thank him for his services and to wish him well in the future.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman, following upon that statement, may I please have the privilege of the half-hour?

We are aware that never before has South Africa’s international position been fraught with greater dangers than it is today. We in the official Opposition realize that at this stage the debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote is not a time for scoring party political debating points even if such points are available to be scored. This is an occasion on which we believe the Parliament of South Africa can make a serious appraisal of South Africa’s position in the world in regard to what could or should be done about it. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves we in the official Opposition are willing to support the Government in the field of foreign affairs where we can. We shall most certainly attack those who violate South Africa’s sovereignty and we shall resist the attempts of those who wish to coerce us. We shall also condemn those who disregard our status as a sovereign, independent state or as a founder member of the old United Nations Organization. Having said that, let me also say that we will not flinch from our responsibility to express our disagreement with Government policy or actions where we believe this to be in the interests of the people of South Africa.

Perhaps it is important for us in the official Opposition at this stage to define certain areas in the field of foreign affairs in which we do find ourselves in disagreement with the Government. There are three main such areas. The first of these is that we do not agree with point 10 of the hon. the Prime Minister’s twelve-point plan, originally described as “The pursuit of a policy of qualified neutrality where there are clashes between the East and the West”, and more latterly defined in slightly different terms as “The implementation as far as possible of a policy of neutrality in the struggle between the Super Powers giving priority to South Africa’s interests”. South Africa’s interests must, of course, determine the extent of South Africa’s involvement on any particular occasion but we do not believe that it is in South Africa’s interests for this country to adopt a neutral posture in the ideological conflict between Communism and the Free World. Neither do we think that we should adopt a neutral posture in the global conflict between the Soviet Union and the West. We do not believe that this declaration of qualified neutrality in the twelve-point plan is based on a careful or mature consideration of what South Africa’s goal should be in world affairs. Rather do we see it as the Government’s knee-jerk reaction to the criticism and disapproval which Western countries have often directed towards us. We in the official Opposition believe that while South Africa is of Africa it should commit itself unambiguously and unashamedly against the communist and for the Free World system. We believe that apart from our cultural and spiritual heritages South Africa’s economic and strategic links are best served by our forging as strong links as possible with the nations of the West. We want there to be no doubt about our attitude in this regard.

Secondly, Sir, we believe that there is much in the Government’s “total onslaught concept” which in our opinion is simplistic, inaccurate and dangerous and certainly does not provide a sophisticated or discerning basis on which to build a foreign policy for South Africa. There are two reasons for saying this. First of all, we in the official Opposition are aware of the extent of the threat posed by Soviet expansionism to South Africa. However, the total onslaught concept, by linking the Communists and the West together in a total onslaught on South Africa, we believe conceals from South Africans both the deep concern which many people in the West have about the situation in Southern Africa and the real nature of the external threat to this country. I wish to refer to a couple of statements made by the hon. the Minister of Defence in relation to the total strategy before the Institute of Strategic Studies at the University of Pretoria in order to indicate what I mean. He said—

That is not part of an onslaught. The hon. the Minister of Manpower supports these “gedragskodes”. South African business institutions support these “gedragskodes”, yet in a very simplistic way it is argued that these “gedragskodes”, which are part of the Government’s policy, are in fact part of the total foreign onslaught on South Africa. There is another one—

But, Sir, it was Prime Minister Vorster who played a very significant role in 1977 to get Prime Minister Ian Smith to accept the concept of majority rule in what was then Rhodesia. To equate that simply with an onslaught on South Africa is an oversimplification of the problem. Then the next one—

I consider this to be a hopelessly oversimplistic statement of the position. It is not a sound basis for developing a foreign policy or for identifying the difference between the real enemies of South Africa and those people who have concern about the situation in South Africa.

Secondly, by concentrating everything on the external threat or the externally instigated threat, the total onslaught concept dulls one’s perception of the extent to which Government policies and Government actions have either caused or contributed to our problems in the international field. That oversimplification in the field of foreign affairs is highly dangerous.

This leads me to the third area where we differ with the Government, and that is the extent to which Government policies and Government actions contribute to or cause our problems in the international field. We believe that Government policies and actions have a direct bearing and a profound effect on South Africa’s international situation. There may be hon. members who disagree, but I must quote the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs who, when he addressed the Orange Free State Congress of the NP, was reported as saying—

This is a very important factor. Regrettably we believe that this generation of South Africans is paying today the price for the laws that were passed in the 1950s and the 1960s when the civilized world was trying to move away from discrimination and from colonialism and the Government of that day in South Africa was busy enshrining race discrimination in our laws and entrenching White political control in South Africa.

Many of the policies of the Government today still continue to embarrass and alienate those who could be our friends and play into the hands of those who are our enemies. I do not want to dwell on this, but I think we should not ignore the interrelationship between Government action inside South Africa and our foreign affairs situation. I am quite sure the hon. the Minister can tell us of the impact the Government’s handling of the squatter situation had on his embassies right throughout the world in connection with attitudes towards South Africa.

Our relationships with the Western World will never return to normal, nor shall we as an African nation be able to play a meaningful role in Africa unless we get rid of this racist tag which we acquired in the 1950s and 1960s. To do this, there are three essentials. We must dismantle legalized discrimination based on race or colour, or to borrow the hon. the Prime Minister’s recent phrase, “physical characteristics”. We have to allow for all South Africans to have a meaningful say in the power structure. In the third instance we have to negotiate a constitutional structure which has the support of all our major population groups.

We do not say that that is going to end the onslaught. It is not going to end the problems that we have with certain countries that are basically hostile to us, but we cannot move in the direction of normality in our foreign relations even with the West until we accept those three cardinal amendments to our policies inside South Africa.

I want to deal primarily with matters affecting us in Southern Africa, and the first one is the South West African or Angolan situation. There is no doubt that South West Africa’s independence has been overshadowed by recent events in southern Angola and at the United Nations, and that both of these events are likely to make the finding of a formula for an internationally recognized independence of South West Africa even more difficult. At the United Nations we have had a torrent of one-sided rhetoric, and the denial of South Africa to put its case in the General Assembly. We have had the Assembly’s restatement of its recognition that Swapo is “the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia”, and we have had a call for sanctions against South Africa. None of these actions is going to enhance the prospect of the United Nations being able to play a proper role as a supervisor in pre-independence elections in South West. At the same time, on-going violence and terrorism inside South West Africa, as well as the recent incursion of South Africa into Southern Angola, has undoubtedly sharpened animosity. Apart from that we also run the risk that it could strengthen the tendency towards a military option to the disadvantage of a political one. I quote from the Institute of Strategic Studies at Pretoria bulletin released only two days ago. Its comment is—

There is to be a Defence Vote debate next week when we will have an opportunity of evaluating the military implications of the Angolan and other operations, and so it would be quite improper for me to comment on that aspect of the operations in this debate. However, what I am sure the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs realizes, is that any military operation of this kind, involving a movement of military forces into the territory of a neighbouring State, has political and foreign policy implications of one kind or another. Given the state of South Africa’s international relationships, I believe that it is vital that all the likely political and foreign policy consequences of any operation across any borders are carefully assessed and weighed up against the military implications before such an operation is undertaken. We believe it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to ensure that, at a decision-making level, whether it be in the Cabinet or in the State Security Council, the political foreign affairs factor is always given proper weight and that it is not dominated by tactical considerations of a military nature.

The reality is that when any country becomes more militarized—when the proportion of its expenditure on defence becomes larger, or the number of citizens involved in the military increases or the plans of the military become greater—the military persons tend to assume a dominant position in the corridors of power and that the military component of the Government’s decision-making apparatus tends to increase in importance, not only in military matters, but also in relation to foreign affairs and even to domestic issues. This is a danger that is inherent in any situation where a country is required or forced to increase its military power. We therefore ask the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as the custodian of the foreign affairs component in this Government, whether in all decisions affecting our relations with our many neighbours, he is satisfied that the foreign affairs factor is given proper weight alongside the military one.

The next point I wish to raise is that of South West Africa/Namibian independence. Clearly the goal of independence for South West Africa/Namibia, which we have all been following for so long, seems to be as elusive as ever. The longer it takes to be reached, the greater becomes the danger of Soviet involvement in Southern Africa, and that affects us all. Hopes of this process being restarted have been raised by initiatives being taken by the United States Administration under President Reagan. Press reports indicate that the contact group of the five Western powers will be meeting on the 24th in order to try to reach an agreement on the latest proposals. There are a number of issues in relation to a peaceful settlement in South West Africa that clearly do need clarification as soon as possible. I want to raise some of them, realizing that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in a position to decide whether it is appropriate for him to respond to these matters today, or whether it would be more appropriate for him to respond when the negotiations have reached a more advanced stage. We in the official Opposition will respect the judgment of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this matter.

The issues which clearly have to be dealt with in due course are, firstly, the question: In view of the setbacks that have occurred and the tremendous obstacles that still exist, is the Government still committed to trying to achieve an internationally recognized independence settlement for South West Africa? We hope that this is still so. Secondly, to what extent does the Government still see resolution 435 as providing a basis for that settlement, bearing in mind that resolution 435 is meaningless unless Swapo stops its acts of violence and terrorism and genuine peace exists in South West Africa? A number of obstacles in the implementation of resolution 435, or any settlement, has surfaced during the past few years. To what extent are these still obstacles to a settlement? We think of the early obstacles, such as the monitoring of Swapo bases in Angola. Has that been resolved? The question of the designation of assembly places for all members of Swapo within South West Africa was an issue which had not been resolved. The need for the impartiality of the United Nations or its agents in any supervisory role which that body may have to play in three independent elections was another obstacle. More recently, there arose the issue of a guarantee of minority rights or the guarantee of the on-going existence of democratic government after Namibia has become independent. These are issues that will have to be clarified, and we leave it to the hon. the Minister to decide when it is appropriate to do so. Finally, there is the question of how the South African Government sees the roles which the internal parties in South West Africa should play in this independence process in relation to its own role as the power exercising a mandate over that territory.

I should like to make some comments about certain developments in the Southern African region as a whole. To my mind there are two developments which are of overriding concern and to which, I believe, we should refer. The first is the bitterness and the tensions that are developing in the relationships between the various States of the region. The present position is certainly a far cry from that of 1979, when the Government could conceive of a vast area of co-operation, an area stretching from the Cape to beyond the Zambezi. Secondly, there is the question of the extent to which the process of destabilization, or attempts to destabilize, have become a real factor in this region. There is hardly a country in this region in which there has not been an attempt to destabilize through one kind of act of violence or another. As we know, South Africa has not escaped the attention of saboteurs or of terrorists. Some countries have growing economic problems which intensify the threat of destabilization. Others, such as Angola and Mozambique, have identifiable guerrilla movements operating within their territories.

There have unfortunately been frequent Press reports of South African support for either Unita in Angola or the Mozambique Resistance Movement in Mozambique. I do not know whether this is so, or to what extent it is so. However, I feel that I must say that irrespective of the merits of either of these organizations or of the personalities involved, any assistance by the South African Government to any guerrilla movement operating in a neighbour State is fraught with dangers for South Africa. Apart from the general destabilizing effect it will have, it will provide an opportunity for the Soviets and other communist countries to increase their involvement. In addition we in South Africa run the risk of giving legitimacy to people outside of South Africa who want to give support to organizations who are committed to the violent overthrow of the Government of this country.

We believe that all the countries in this region should view this process of destabilization which is taking place, as a matter of the gravest concern, because instability in any one country has the ugly habit of infecting surrounding countries. Instability in Southern Africa as elsewhere in the world always favours the Soviet Union in the advancement of its expansionist goals. It provides the Soviets with opportunities for excuses of involvement and creates power vacuums which they are only too ready to fill, if not by themselves, then by their surrogates. Therefore we believe that the Government in South Africa’s interests should take a positive lead in promoting stability in this region.

A few years ago the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, spelt out our goals under the letters “VVO: vrede, vooruitgang en ontwikkeling”. Prime Minister Botha stated last year South Africa’s desire for regional stability in Southern Africa. We approve of these goals and laudable sentiments. Given the deteriorating situation in this region, however, I believe that the Government of South Africa, as the strongest State in the area, should embark on a serious and coordinated diplomatic offensive designed to get better understanding between the various Governments in this region on the critical importance of stability in this part of Africa. Given the ideological differences that have developed, this is not going to be easy. Nevertheless, because the stakes are so high for the whole of Southern Africa and for South Africa, we believe that every effort should be made in this regard.

Quite clearly, one of the areas that must be an area of concern, has been the deteriorating relationship between South Africa and Zimbabwe. There has been a perceptible cooling off in relationships between the two countries. Nevertheless, one only has to look at the map of Africa to realize that South Africa and Zimbabwe between them hold the key to progress and stability in Southern Africa. I hope it is realized that in spite of the ideological differences, in spite of the unsympathetic rhetoric that rolls across the Limpopo, it is in the vital interest of both South Africa and Zimbabwe that a modus vivendi be found whereby we can co-operate and promote progress and stability here in South Africa. There are a number of things that can be done in the economic field. Last year, in this House, the hon. the Minister said that because Mugabe had agreed to continue to pay the financial commitments of the former Government and because he had made it clear that they would not use their territory as a spring-board for terrorist movements against South Africa—

There has, however, been a deterioration in many ways, but we hope that in spite of that, there will be a positive approach towards economic co-operation between these countries. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it is important that these two countries should try to understand each other at the highest level. I believe the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should try to arrange a summit meeting between the South African and Zimbabwean Government at Prime Ministerial level. People will say it is going to be difficult, and of course it will be. But is it impossible? We say: No, no more impossible than the meeting at the Victoria Falls between Prime Minister Vorster and President Kaunda when the war was raging in Rhodesia and no more impossible than President Sadat flying into Israel to meet Prime Minister Begin and then going on to address the Knesset in Jerusalem. We believe that this situation calls for an act of statemanship on both sides.

Finally, I must make a brief reference to the relationship between the United States and South Africa because it is absolutely critical as far as the future is concerned. This is not only the case because of the United State’s economic and military strength, but also because of the role America plays as the leader of the Free World in it’s defence against Soviet expansionism. Once again I want to quote what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said during the debate on his Vote last year (Hansard, 19 May 1980, col. 6628)—

That is the reality. We are pleased that there has been a change in mood, style and relationships between these two countries. There has been a change in the style and nature of communication, and there has been a change in the way in which the US Administration has reacted to South Africa’s internal policies. I think it would be quite wrong for us to assume an approval on their part of our internal policies. President Reagan has described apartheid as abhorrent, and only today Mr. Chester Crocker described it as “a consistent pattern of gross violation of internationally recognized human rights”. These changes, however, flow from the Reagan Administration’s perception of South Africa’s strategic relevance in the global conflict between the Free World and the Soviet Union and its belief that constructive engagement is more likely to induce changes in South Africa away from discrimination than stand-offishness and pressures. They have therefore adopted a new approach, but the question is: “How long will the Reagan Administration continue with this approach?” I believe it depends entirely on whether the Reagan Administration sees that this new approach is being successful in achieving American goals in this region.

The key to these goals is that there should be stability in a region which is vital as far as the global struggle is concerned. To the extent that stability should also be our goal, the Government should be using the breathing space that has been created by the change of administration in America to initiate essential reforms without which there cannot be long-term stability in South Africa. When we see the way the Government is dilly-dallying with the simple issue of whether or not the Coloureds should have full and equal rights, when we see its exclusion of the Black majority from the central power structure in South Africa, we have to ask ourselves how long this relationship can last. It will be a tragedy for all of us in South Africa if, through the failure of the Government to bring about real reform away from apartheid and discrimination, South Africa loses this golden opportunity, and perhaps this last opportunity, of moving closer to the West emotionally, economically and strategically.

You should move closer to South Africa.

The hon. the Foreign Minister has had intensive discussions with the Assistant Secretary of State and the Secretary of State and he has had a meeting with President Reagan. All the reports indicate that these discussions have raised in the Reagan Administration’s mind the expectation that there is going to be real reform in South Africa. I conclude by asking the hon. the Foreign Minister to tell the House and the people of South Africa what the reforms are which he outlined. What are the reforms around which this new expectancy, this new hope, has been generated in the mind of the US Administration? I believe it is of vital importance that there should be no ambiguity and no doubt on this matter, because in the long run our relations with the leader of the Free World, the USA—and I use the phrases used by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs—are of vital importance to us, not only in the global context, but also in order to have peace and stability here in Southern Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Sea Point in his reference to the Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, since his retirement on pension is almost a certainty. Not only is Dr. Fourie well-known throughout the world as the former Secretary for Foreign Affairs and now as the Director-General, but he is actually a legendary figure, in the history of the Department of Foreign Affairs too. I think I am correct in saying that he has served under all the Prime Ministers of South Africa since Gen. Smuts. I think this is an unequalled record. We should like to wish him everything of the best for the future. We hope that he will enjoy a long, pleasant retirement together with his family.

The hon. member for Sea Point referred here to certain points of Government policy with which he does not agree. Amongst other things, he referred to the question of the neutrality of South Africa in the case of conflict and clashes between super powers. Then he said that we should very definitely state that we shall combat communism at all times. Surely it is the declared policy of the Government that we will oppose and combat communism with all our might. To insinuate anything else, is bordering on the ludicrous. The hon. member also alleged that he doubts whether there is such a thing as a total onslaught against South Africa and that it is not advantageous for South Africa if the Government alleges that there is in fact a total onslaught against the country.

After all, there is a total onslaught against South Africa, and it can be distinguished clearly in three spheres in particular.

The NP and …

There is an economic onslaught against the country which is quite clear and which is being organized by anti-apartheid movements practically on a daily basis throughout the world by means of boycotts and withholding investment funds for South Africa. There is also a military onslaught, even though it may be on a limited scale at the moment, by means of terrorism, not only on the borders of South West Africa, but from other territories too. There is also an arms embargo which is related to the military onslaught against South Africa. Then there is also a psychological onslaught against this country, an onslaught by means of an unprecedented stream of propaganda which does not always keep pace with the realities of South Africa. A total, complete onslaught can be directed at South Africa in these three spheres, an onslaught which can cause endless damage to this country. If the official Opposition now accepts as its point of departure or as its policy that it is going to announce that there is no such thing as a total onslaught against South Africa, they are not doing South Africa a favour; on the contrary, they are doing the country a great deal of damage.

As regards the final outburst of the hon. member for Sea Point, with regard to our policy of separate development, I want to put it to him that we have never asked America, Dr. Crocker, President Reagan, or whoever, to endorse or support or justify or defend our policy of separate development.

Nor have we phoned McHenry. [Interjections.]

We are following this policy because we believe and because there has already been evidence of the fact that it is in the best interest of this country, of its circumstances and of its population groups, that we should follow this policy. Whatever propaganda the hon. member for Sea Point and his party want to make of this, for instance by attempting to inspire other countries to condemn our policy and to encourage other countries to express themselves against our policy, makes no difference whatsoever. The Government will adhere to its policy of separate development because it believes that it is in the best interest of this country and of its people.

Do you endorse that statement, Pik?

Mr. Chairman, in the time remaining to me, I want to raise two topical matters.

Pik, why are you so silent? Do you support those statements or not?

Keep quiet. You can speak later. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to know whether the hon. the Minister supported those statements.

Order!

In the first place I want to exchange a few ideas about South West Africa, as well as about the influence that it may have on the international community if the Western World—by this I mean Western World as a whole—does not display insight and understanding for this specially sensitive issue in good time. In the second place I want to refer to the role of the Department of Information in the search for a formula for bringing about mutual confidence and good relations between the peoples of South Africa and Southern Africa. This is one of the most urgent tasks awaiting the Department of Information if we want to give substance to peace, to prosperity and to separate freedom of peoples.

South West Africa is in fact the most topical issue with which the Government is faced at the moment. However, South West Africa can also become the final test for Western solidarity and determination to stop communist imperialism in its march through Africa. As regards the expansion and the advance of communist imperialism through Africa, South Africa and South West Africa are also of topical interest for all Western democracies and for all countries that are opposed to communism. If the initiatives of the five Western Powers could result in the flag of Swapo flying over Windhoek—even if the hammer and sickel may be camouflaged by a UN flag—the West itself will be responsible for a paved pathway leading from the southern tip of Africa into Europe itself, and from there to the heart of the USA. The South West Africa issue is just as topical, and the sooner the West realizes this—the West including America—the better it will be for the Free World as a whole. Russia’s path through Europe, and from there to America, is being planned through South West Africa, via the southern tip of Africa, leading to the West. Here, where the balance of power between the two most important oceans of the world, the Indian and the Atlantic, can easily be controlled, and where the important sea routes between the East and West that have a bearing on oil and all other essential trade, can bleed to death as a result of one blow, here where some of the world’s largest quantities of strategic minerals have been stacked away in our good earth, lies the crux of the interest of communist imperialism. All these factors make South Africa a desirable target in Russia’s total strategy with a view to world domination. In order to prevent the creation of a paved pathway for Russia to Europe and from there to America, these five Western Powers, the so-called contact group, must do two very important things. It has repeatedly been said, but in a debate of this nature one can emphasize once again that firstly, the domestic parties of South West Africa must be consulted in all negotiations, and this is not necessarily being done. The parties of South West Africa must be allowed to place an internationally accepted democratically elected Government there. This possibility too is being denied them. It must be done without the violent intervention of Swapo. It appears as if the West is not always giving attention to this. It must be done without the biased intervention of the UN.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising merely to give the hon. member the opportunity of proceeding with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to extend my hearty thanks to the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition for the opportunity of proceeding with my speech. This biased intervention on the part of the UN and the violent intervention of Swapo must be stopped before favourable conditions in South West Africa can be developed with a view to independence. Secondly, America must visibly and purposefully associate itself with its allies in their joint struggle against communism. Even this is not always being done appositely. America must announce its intention of doing so and it must show its desire to do so by taking action and the world must see that America is taking action together with its allies in order to continue the joint struggle against communism. In the case of this important sub-continent it can be done by making use of South Africa’s airports, harbours and other facilities and in joint participation with the great powers of the West in air and sea exercises operating from South African bases, in recognition of the importance of the Cape sea route and by establishing the intention and determination of the West to protect and defend their interests in this sea route. This is what should happen, instead of cringing in fear whenever the shadow of the Kremlin falls across the American authorities, which was a common sight during the Carter regime. The Reagan regime must challenge the bear that casts this shadow with the drive of a super power instead of becoming a willing mammal for its fleas, as President Carter allowed.

If America is not prepared to take this initiative and to persuade its allies to do so too, the five Western powers will be responsible for a very special monument being established in Southern Africa, viz. that of capitulation in the face of the Kremlin by means of South West Africa. Although that monument’s base will be in South West Africa, it will cast its shadow over the whole of Africa. That monument will be worn away by the salt in the tears of many generations throughout the entire world because it will symbolize their eternal slavery. If America, which is the most powerful country on earth, and its allies are not prepared to prevent such a repugnant monument being established in Southern Africa, a small, but heroic people will take that responsibility on its shoulders on behalf of the entire free world, and that nation lives here in South Africa. We do not intend forfeiting this country even if it costs the blood of our last son and even of our last daughter. We shall hold the fort; there is no doubt whatsoever about this because figuratively speaking, we have the most powerful atomic weapon which the world has ever seen if our experts, our scientists and our technicians can only succeed in activating it in good time. It is the uncontrollable power of a national will against communism which is solely to be found in mutual confidence and good relations between all the peoples of South Africa. This is something which must be tested in one formula after the other in the laboratory of the Department of Information and must be perfected because if we do not succeed in creating such a formula for good national relations, an uncontrollable explosion can take place here, the shock waves of which will not be able to be measured on the Richter scale because the power and the heat thereof will be so intense that it will destroy not only entire continents but entire worlds. The components of such a formula for good national relations already exist and they contain a very special, rare element to which the Whites do no longer only hold the right. I am referring here to the right to acceptance and recognition of the human dignity of others. I am not saying the recognition of the human dignity of Black people by White people. I am saying the recognition of the human dignity of others, which also includes the right of the Black people to recognize the human dignity of the White people or not. This valuable, highly sensitive element of credibility, acceptability and the recognition of one another’s rights as White and Black entities, each with the right to exist in the same country has become a common possession. It holds the key to the uncontrollable power of a national will to resist communist imperialism in Southern Africa.

Now it is true, Mr. Chairman, that Russia is also interfering here. It is doing so with the fixed aim of eroding this sensitive element to the level where the source thereof, viz. good relations between White and Black, will scarcely be recognizable because it does not suit Russia to have good relations between White and Black. The communists have worked for creating a different disposition, viz. that of hate and rejection and censure amongst the Blacks towards the White people. They have also achieved some success and now it is ironical that their success is being supported and strengthened by the assistance which the HNP and other obstinate people have been granting them by way of their condemnation of good national relations over the past number of years. The result is that we have reached the point where the success of communism in Southern Africa must be stopped. This can be done by reversing the process of accepting and recognizing the human dignity of others because we no longer dare believe in good faith that the Black people accept our presence here and our right to it. We must convince them to accept us as belonging to the Southern African situation, belonging to this country, not as a nation that is here on a temporary basis and which does not belong to the colonial era either, but that as a nation from the soil of South Africa we are also of Africa and with our own Africa language and our own Africa culture and that Africa’s fate is our fate too.

Indeed, I want to turn this around and say that our fate is also Africa’s fate and Africa must realize this. That is why I say we have reached the point whether the HNP likes it or not, where it has become part of our task to convince the Black people to accept that we belong to the South African set-up and are a nation from the soil of Africa. I want to illustrate by way of two simple examples how this disposition of good relations can be created or destroyed. The NP has been trying to convince the Whites for years that there is no danger to maintaining one’s own identity lurking in running together and playing together with people of colour. We should rather fear the day when their spontaneous desire to run and play with us, is turned into a desire to fight us, because this is basically what it is all about, figuratively speaking, to run and play against one another since there is peace in good relations, or to fight with one another because there is war and hatred.

The second example is that of Bishop Tutu, who, on the occasion of the so-called Soweto memorial service told the Black people in the church that their natural enemy in this country is the White people who stole their country.

The spontaneous desire to run with us and to play with us, is noticeably on the wane, and this is where the tremendous, almost superhuman task of the Department of Information lies, because if the Department of Information cannot succeed in creating good relations, mutual understanding and mutual trust between those nations of Southern Africa, the continued existence not only of the Whites, but also of all the peoples of Southern Africa will be at stake, and this will even move parts of Africa.

If the Department of Information can succeed in this tremendous task of creating good national relations in this way and also by bringing it home to the entire country that there should be a shift of emphasis in the recognition of the human dignity of others, I believe that we will achieve success. I wish the department every success.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

On behalf of the NRP I should like to extend our thanks to Mr. Brand Fourie for the years of dedication and the years of service that he has given South Africa. I do not think there are words enough to convey the feelings of the entire country for his service. We shall miss him sorely by this time next year or certainly earlier next year when the Foreign Affairs Vote is once again debated and we shall most certainly miss his most cheerful disposition, his smile and his willingness always to stop, to have a chat and to exchange a few words. We wish him and all his family well in the well-earned retirement that lies ahead.

I should like to commence my first address in this House as the NRP’s spokesman on Foreign Affairs and Information by telling the hon. the Minister, if he cares to listen to me, that he has my deepest sympathy. He has my sympathy because of the pressures under which he must work wearing both of his hats. I believe that, wearing the hat of foreign affairs, he has a very difficult task in that he and his diplomatic staff in this country and throughout the globe are faced with open hostility because they have, more often than not, to defend indefensible policies, and because they often, in their presentation of our country’s case, are trying to defend actions that fall far short of the norms of the world.

I now come to his other hat, the other one in his cupboard, that of information services. I think here he is faced with a monumental and formidable task indeed because he must find himself in an impossible situation trying to stem the tide of hatred and vituperation that has been launched upon South Africa of late. I do not believe that in recent history we have seen anything that can compare to the campaign that has been launched against this country. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that we in this party shall do all we can and we shall play our part in trying to stem that tide. It is the sincere wish of every member of this party that we shall never do anything in our travels abroad that will either embarrass or belittle our country.

Having said that, let me add my thanks to the hon. the Minister, to his department and particularly to the members of the embassy staff in New York who last year looked after us so well. I wish to thank them for their hospitality and for the assistance they gave us during our tour of the United Nations. We are most grateful to have had that opportunity to see that world body at work, and my leader and I are particularly grateful for the fact that we were able to be in the United States during the presidential election when Jimmy Carter was swept from power and Ronald Reagan was elected as the new President of the United States of America. That change of fortunes heralded a glimmer of hope for improved relations between the United States and South Africa, and I think that we can all readily accept that that glimmer has developed into a positive ray of light. It is my sincere wish and prayer that we South Africans on our part will do nothing to bedevil that situation or to cause that light to fade into dimness and obscurity. However, I must say that I agree with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information when he says that the United States Government, led as it is by the Reagan Administration, will only do that which suits the United States. I accept that, but I think that we must also accept that in order to retain that goodwill, we on our part must continue to initiate change and reforms that will be acceptable to the United States. I think that the Financial Mail of last Friday summed it up very well in a supplement that was printed to that periodical, and I should like to quote from that supplement of 11 September 1981—

Those, I think, are sound words that we should take note of.

I should like now to turn to the international situation and our relationship with the international community. There are those inside and outside this House who cherish the fond belief that if South Africa scrapped institutionalized discrimination, the international community would queue up on our doorstep to present bouquets and to shower us with congratulations. There are those both inside this House and outside who believe that the international community will never be satisfied until there is Black majority rule in South Africa. I believe that for the foreseeable future, one thing is certain, and that is that South Africa is very much on its own. For this reason we must maximize our resources. We must maximize our human, natural and mineral resources, and any others that there may be, so that they will assist us to withstand the onslaught.

I have often asked myself whether we have to remain the pariah of the world for ever. Why do we have to continue to be the polecat? I believe that there are certain things that could be done in this Southern African region that could force the world to change its attitude towards us. In order to illustrate this point I should like all of us here to give our imaginations free rein and imagine a massive Southern African confederation. I would like us to imagine this confederation which would be one that would wield tremendous economic power, one that would set wheels of progress and development turning in what Sir De Villiers Graaff, the former Leader of the Opposition, used to term Capricorn Africa.

The first requirement towards that objective is undeniably a settlement of the South West African issue. This is an extremely delicate subject. It is a sensitive one and is one that I certainly would not care to comment on and cause obstruction to; neither would I want in any way to bedevil by my words anything that may be done in that regard. However, I do believe there are two cardinal factors that have to be debated. The first one is the role of the United Nations in the process towards independence and the second is the possibility and desirability of free and fair elections.

In regard to the first, we all know the United Nations’ record of hypocrisy. I recently commented on the exclusion of South Africa from the debate in that body on Operation Protea. I think that our treatment and particularly the treatment of our Ambassador Eksteen was disgraceful, to say the least. We know the United Nations recognizes Swapo. We know that in fact the United Nations recognizes Swapo as the sole legitimate representative of the people of Namibia. Therefore, I do not think it can be taken amiss if we wonder whether the United Nations can be recognized in South West Africa as anything other than an observer. We wonder whether the United Nations has any other role to play in elections or whatever occurs in that area. We feel that it is an observer body, an international observer body and nothing more. As far as the second issue is concerned, that of free and fair elections, we believe that this is the key to the whole solution. This is the must, this is the non-negotiable. The elections must be conducted on a free and fair basis. We would urge the hon. the Minister to continue negotiations with the Five in order to achieve that very situation because until we achieve that I do not believe we will ever arrive at any form of acceptable settlement in South West Africa.

Assuming that the elections come about shortly, I think we should look at the possible consequences. We must ask ourselves: What if the people of South West Africa democratically elect a government that will end all democracy, in other words, a Swapo régime? Obviously, that would be a serious reversal for freedom and democracy not only in this region but also in the world. It would be hypocritical of us if we did not concede that we—I hope the vast majority of us in South Africa—would very much like to see Swapo roundly defeated at the polls. I believe Swapo and Marxism can be beaten. Hon. members may ask how. I believe that one of the first things we should do is allow the DTA to get on with it. I believe South Africa should get off their backs. We should allow them to get on with the job because if, as we all hope, the DTA or some other similar democratic party is successful we will have an independent South West Africa with a moderate democratic government. Then that country, that independent South West Africa, could well become a member of the constellation, which is the NP terminology for it, or the confederation, which is our party’s terminology for it, of Southern African States. I have no doubt that if the latter government were elected, Swapo would continue to operate from Angola, but then let the message be clear. Angola, contrary to what the hon. member for Sea Point may have said on this issue, will have to continue to face the consequences of allowing them to do so.

Independent Namibia could be the beginning of big things for many countries of the region, big things for Namibia, for Botswana, for Lesotho, for Swaziland and, indeed, big things for Zimbabwe because, after all is said and done, if these States could be drawn into a constellation, this massive constellation cum confederation, they would be drawn into close co-operation with South Africa. After all, it is through us that they import their goods and, basically, it is this country that feeds them in the main. They would be drawn into this confederation which, in its turn, would be drawn into the orbit of Western influence where free enterprise rules the day and where such free enterprise would help to raise the quality of life for all. In this way there would be more stability in their Governments and there would certainly be more contented populations in each of those States. Equally, the economic benefits would be enormous, not only to them, but also to South Africa. Recently Ted Heath visited this country and chose to give us his opinions on our problems. His opinion, in the words of a well-known South African ex-politician, “left me cold”. This party will never accept the sort of situation that would result from the thoughts put forward by Ted Heath. We cannot see that Black domination, instead of White domination, is the solution. That is no solution at all, because Black domination has already shown itself in Africa to be a situation that develops into a one-party State. It is a truism of Africa and the history of Africa has proved that Black domination means simply “one man, one vote once only”. We also accept that the status quo cannot continue but we do not accept that one can replace that which we have with that which is directly the opposite. We cannot accept the situation whereby our standards would be lowered because we seek the elevation of people’s standards for all people up to the standards we enjoy currently. I should also like to point out that a lowering of our standards would automatically be followed by a lower capacity to withstand a Marxist onslaught. This follows as naturally as the night the day.

I want to state clearly that we believe that the Whites still have a role to play. They have played a very important role and, in fact, in the field of leadership they will still be required to do so until, through a process of evolutionary development, the system that we all want to see, is brought about, and that is a system of participatory government. I believe we must look at and recognize what the Whites have done in South Africa. The Whites have been the guardians of democracy, they have maintained the Western norms and ethics, and they are the people that have supported and maintained the private free enterprise system. They have also been the bastions against Marxism in Southern Africa and they have always fought the battle of the Free World. I think our message to Edward Heath and his lights must be simply this: “Do not scream at us. Just try to appreciate the role which the Whites play in South Africa.” We accept that we have made mistakes and we acknowledge the mistakes we have made. We are hoping for change and we are working towards change. I believe that the Whites of all political parties are working towards change as they see it. They are working towards the betterment of the situation in their own way. I do not agree with the way of the Government and I do not agree with the pace of the Government. I certainly do not agree with them. I also do not agree with the line taken by the official Opposition. However, I believe that collectively we are all moving towards a vision for South Africa.

What do we in the NRP believe—and this is important—the Whites will accept today? We believe that they will accept four things: Firstly, that all South Africans must be given a voice in a central co-ordinatory Government; secondly, that all communities must be given control over parochial affairs, affairs intimate to themselves, and that there must be an elimination of domination by one group over another; thirdly, that all restrictions on the individual must be removed and his potential must be maximized; and, fourthly, we believe we must bring about a democratic system which will guarantee freedom of choice and association. As I said a little earlier, others believe differently, but whether the world approves of this or not, this is the general direction in which South Africa is going. If the international community is not satisfied with this, then like the schoolboy, I can only say “hard fines”.

As far as the continuing condemnation of South Africa in the United Nations is concerned, we in this party believe we must not be intimidated. We must continue to be seen in the lobbies and corridors of the United Nations, even though we cannot take our seat on the floor of that body. We must never give our enemies the pleasure of seeing us withdraw from the United Nations in order that they can claim a psychological victory. Sir, we will never be beaten by sports boycotts and we will never be beaten by the threats of sanctions—make no mistake about that.

I am firmly convinced that, notwithstanding all I have said, we have a path back to the international community, and that path is through Africa because Africa needs us. Let us try another Vorster type Africa initiative. That started with great promise and there are many hon. members here who will remember it, but it failed because of apartheid and because of Connie Mulder. I think that, if we can go back to Africa with an independent, democratic Namibia, if we can go back to Africa with proof of real internal reform, which only this Government can do, if we can go back to Africa with a prospect of development and progress hitherto unknown, if we can go back to Africa having said that we have jointly declared war on poverty and hunger—I believe we should make that war our regional strategy—we will achieve great things. I do not think we should see a communist behind every bush. I should like to remind the House of Kaunda’s initial joy at meeting Prime Minister Vorster on the bridge. I think we should start again. Let us start at the Limpopo, let us go on to the Zambezi and ultimately let us move on to Jan Smuts’s vision of the civilization and development of the African continent. Smuts did not seek to practise a new form of imperialism but he did seek to liberate Africa from poverty, disease and ignorance. That was part of hits vision. At the Rhodes Memorial Lecture given at Oxford in 1929 Smuts said—

Today the entire African continent is in travail and the innocents of Africa cry out in their suffering. Let us make it possible to go to their assistance, for in the end we shall be the richer for it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself fully with the compliments addressed to Dr. Fourie, the Director-General of Foreign Affairs and Information, by the hon. members for Sea Point, Parys and Umhlanga.

*As a matter of fact I should like to say something more about this gentleman. He will reach the compulsory retirement age in October. I have asked Dr. Fourie to remain on in his present capacity at least until the end of April 1982, for the simple reason that it would be difficult for the Government and I to lose his services in these turbulent times, and because his successor, whoever he may be, will simply not be able to take his place easily because his successor will not have the experience and background that Dr. Fourie has.

Dr. Fourie was born in the Western Transvaal in the Wolmaransstad district. He received his initial university training at the University of Pretoria. He also obtained a master’s degree from the University of New York. This he could not help, nevertheless he did so. [Interjections.] In 1934 he joined the Public Service. He was, more than anything else, therefore, a child of the depression who joined the Public Service, one of those outstanding group of people who built up the Public Service of the Union of South Africa—later to become the Republic of South Africa—into a proud institution, because they came from a period and circumstances in which the people in this country suffered hardships, in which every penny had to be counted, in which there was appreciation for the fact that one could get any job at all and be paid for it. These were people who saw things in their true perspective and in a balanced way.

In 1934 he joined the Public Service, in the office of the then Controller and Auditor-General, which was perhaps a valuable tutelage, because to this day I do not know of another departmental head who displays as much meticulous financial discipline as Dr. Fourie. As a matter of fact his colleagues frequently consider him to be miserly when it comes to the State’s money but generous when it comes to his own hospitality.

Another symbolic event in his life occurred in 1939. Dr. Fourie had joined the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1938 and early in 1939 he was transferred overseas, to Berlin, where war clouds were gathering. Throughout the Second World War he was in London, where he got to know about the bombs of war, and personally experienced the effects of war as a young man. At the end of the Second World War he accompanied Gen. Smuts to the peace talks in San Francisco. He was present at the foundation meeting of the UN. He was also present at the last meeting of the old League of Nations.

Although he is too modest to acknowledge this, I know that he had a hand in the drafting of the UN charter, specifically in the drawing up of the introductory paragraphs to that charter, which contain a wonderful vision of man’s desire for peace and constructive co-operation. For many years he was attached to our mission to the UN. As a matter of fact I think that in aggregate he attended 20 annual meetings of the General Assembly of the UNO. He was also our permanent representative there, and represented us there in an excellent way and with great honour.

From 1963 to 1966 he was the head of the Department of Information, which at that stage was still a separate and full-fledged department. Since 1966 he has been the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, at present the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information.

Since 1939 not a single important international event which affected this country has occurred in which he was not involved, directly or indirectly. With the exception of Gen. Louis Botha, he served under all the Prime Ministers of this country. With some of them he worked very closely for many years, and was taken into their confidence. What an achievement, if he thinks back today on that career of his!

In the ’fifties he was already involved in the visit of Sir Charles Arden Clarke to South West Africa. Mention a visit to South Africa which was in our international interests and he was there. He was present on the occasion of the visit of Mr. Dag Hammarskjöld to South Africa, and also when Messrs Carpio and De Alva visited South West Africa and South Africa. [Interjections.]

Did he make the coffee? [Interjections.]

No, he made the bacon and eggs, not the coffee. [Interjections.] The Army made the coffee. [Interjections.]

During the visit of Messrs. Carpio and De Alva to the northern part of South West Africa Mr. De Alva was invited to a trip on the Zambezi in a little boat belonging to the then Bantu Commissioner at Katima Mulilo in the Caprivi. The boat was not in a good condition and when they reached the middle of the river a plank in the bottom of the boat worked loose. Dr. Fourie says that the boat foundered almost immediately. Mr. De Alva could not swim, but fortunately there was a sealed 4 gallon paraffin tin at one end of the boat which caused that end of the boat to float. And so Dr. Fourie and Mr. De Alva drifted down the river that day, clinging to that boat. As luck would have it there was a prisoner working in the gardens on the banks of the river and he saw what had happened. Now hon. members must realize that the boat, with Dr. Fourie and Mr. De Alva clinging to it, was drifting about among the crocodiles and the hippos. The prisoner ran home to fetch help and when the people saw him running they first thought he wanted to escape or was up to some devilment. They fired at him but fortunately they missed and he was therefore able to tell them what had happened. Then a number of rescuers jumped into another boat, but Dr. Fourie, drifting downriver, says he noticed that their rescuers had forgotten to cast off the chain which moored their boat to the side. So they were unable to get very far, and their boat almost sank as well. Eventually, just this side of dangerous rapids, Dr. Fourie, the boat and Mr. De Alva reached the safety of the bank. Hon. members can imagine what would have happened if Mr. De Alva had drowned or had been caught by a crocodile.

There can be few people in our Public Service—Mr. Chairman, you must allow me to talk about this man today—who have gained as much experience and who have given their lives, as he has done, given everything he had, for this country which he serves. When he became Secretary for Foreign Affairs in 1966, I had been back for a few years after a period of service in overseas posts and I was a member of the South West Africa legal team. There we co-operated again. He was my departmental head. We were together for many hours, many days and many nights in various parts of the world, and most of what we did can stand the light of day. Only here and there there are a few things about which I should provisionally prefer to remain silent. We literally got to know each other working through the night, and he enriched my life as a friend. When I eventually became the political head of the department, there was absolutely no change in our friendship and cameraderie of former times. I thank him for this.

Aptly enough he has been honoured by the State President with the Decoration for Meritorious Service and he has been honoured by RAU with an honorary doctorate. He should not retire because he is still fit and after a night’s work he is as fresh as the first grass in the Western Transvaal when the rain falls after a drought. He is fit. Therefore we hope that he will continue to serve South Africa in some capacity or other, even after his retirement.

I am saying these few words about him today because I do not know whether he will still be serving the next time the Vote on Foreign Affairs and Information is debated in this House. Nor do I know if I shall be the Minister in charge of that debate. That is why I wish to pay this tribute to this modest man who has made such an enormous contribution towards counteracting the dangerous front of the onslaught on South Africa. I thank the hon. members of the Opposition who did likewise. I am convinced that seldom if ever has an official of the Public Service of South Africa been shown such respect in this House as has Dr. Brand Fourie here today. His attractive wife and his children also want a share of his life now.

He deserves his retirement, but I am making an appeal to him through this House, as it were, to remain available in order to continue the excellent and valuable work he has done in the interests of South Africa.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point raised a number of issues. I shall address myself briefly to some of them now and to the others at a later stage. The hon. member for Sea Point indicated that the Opposition did not agree with one of the points included in the twelve-point plan. May I take it then that they do agree with all the other points?

The foreign affairs point.

Oh, I see. That specific point reads as follows—

I do not think I need to argue this point at all. This is not just a point in the twelvepoint plan. It is historically a cornerstone of the policy of this party that South Africa comes first.

That is obvious.

That is all the point states. [Interjections.] Of course it does. It states “and give priority to her own interests”. If South Africa’s interests demand that we should be neutral then we are going to be neutral. Let me say that very straightforwardly. If South Africa’s interests demand that we should lean over towards one or other side, then we shall do so. Let there be no mistake about that.

Even to the Communists?

I did not say that.

You did say that.

There are various currents and entities in the struggle between the East and the West. I have not defined them and neither does this point define them. There are various nuances of that struggle. However, I want to make this one point very clear: South Africa’s interests come first. That is of paramount importance. That is the test.

That goes without saying.

Once that is the test and the norm I cannot see why we should debate this matter unless hon. members are opposed to this norm. That is what I do not understand. Why should this matter be raised at all? There was a time when spokesmen for the former American Government—whether the Opposition like it or not I could not care less-demanded directions in policy that would have meant the total destruction of stability in this country. In such circumstances what does it matter who is responsible for one’s destruction? It was under those circumstances and at that time, if I remember correctly, that at least some of these points were drafted including the one we are now discussing. That is why, very wisely, the words were used “and give priority to her own interests”. That is the overall governing condition which qualifies the rest of the phrase.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston is the only hon. member in this House who does exactly what he is. I want to say to the hon. member for Sea Point that I believe it is futile to endeavour to debate in this House or in any other forum in South Africa which party’s policy will satisfy the outside world. I really think that we should be beyond this sort of thing now. There are more important matters for us to discuss today. I want to give the hon. member for Sea Point the assurance—and here I agree with the hon. member for Umhlanga—that there is no party in this House that will satisfy the outside world by means of its policy. Why, then, should we debate this matter, particularly in a debate of this nature? I consider it futile because for every person or organization or even Government that may tell the official Opposition abroad that it will support the policy of the official Opposition I can point to examples in history where similar policies or even more liberal policies than the policies of the PFP simply did not work. In fact, they were the direct cause of large-scale conflict and upheaval. I certainly do not intend therefore to indulge in such a debate. As far as I am concerned, in this Parliament there is not a party represented which has a policy that can satisfy the outside world.

As far as the hon. member’s remarks in reference to a statement by the hon. Minister of Defence are concerned, I can give the hon. member the assurance that my hon. colleague can fend for himself. I should like to say just this: The hon. member for Sea Point said that the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Defence oversimplified the subject he dealt with. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction, very much stranger. What the hon. the Minister said was not an oversimplification at all and I completely agree with the views expressed by my colleague.

The hon. member for Sea Point also asked—I am glad that he asked, because at the beginning it was almost as though he was accusing us, but eventually it turned out that he asked—whether in decisions of the Government, when it comes to tactical moves such as our operations against Swapo in Angola, due weight was given to the international implications. The hon. member should bear in mind that in this country there is a Security Council of which I am a member. There is also a Cabinet of which I am a member.

Every time matters of that nature are discussed, it is my task to inform fully the hon. the Prime Minister and my colleagues as to the probable and expected international consequences of our decisions. That is my task. Without implying that I am the only one qualified to do so I do have a little experience in this field having served in the Department of Foreign Affairs for 18 years before I entered politics in 1970. I think that by now I should know more or less what the international consequences would be of just about every decision this Government takes with an international bearing.

My task is to point out to the Government those consequences and then it is also my task to weigh together with the Government members the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages international and domestic of the action contemplated. Sometimes we are not in the position where we can weigh the advantages and disadvantages in the positive sense but we find ourselves in a position where our alternatives are limited to painful ones, all of them, and then we must choose the less painful of two painful alternatives.

I cannot remain in the Cabinet if, after I have given my opinion on the probable consequences of a decision of the Government, I do not support that decision after it has finally been taken. That is why, after I have pointed out the consequences which a certain decision will have on our international relations my task ends there. Then comes the weighing up. If we then decide to take a decision despite the fact that we know full well that that decision is going to have very and sometimes extremely harmful consequences in so far as our international relations are concerned, we must have the courage to take that decision. That is the way in which a country is governed; a country cannot be governed merely by the taking of popular and uncomplicated decisions. [Interjections.] I nevertheless thank the hon. member for the way in which he phrased that question.

He also asked me what it was that I told the President of the USA, Gen. Haig, Mr. Clark, Mr. Abrahams and Dr. Crocker. He wanted to know what I had told them, what it was that I told them which gave rise to expectations and favourable dispositions on their part. However, it is not clear to me what the expectations are. I have not asked a single member of the present American Administration to make any statement on South Africa. Even before I went to the United States, President Reagan, Gen. Haig and other members of the American Cabinet and members within the Government circle made certain statements that were considered by the world at large as pro-South African, as favourable towards our country. I did not solicit those statements. I went to the United States and informed Gen. Haig of my Government’s ideals and objectives and concerns both in South and Southern Africa. I told him that this Government was faced with a dilemma and that there were indeed certain matters that we would wish to rectify or change. However, should we do it without the required support or at too great a pace, there would be a White back-lash. This Government would then be out-voted, and the only party that could then take our place was not the PFP, but the HNP. And that is a serious matter, and it ought to be a serious matter for hon. members on the other side as well.

So you will not be here …

I am not trying to engage in a silly debate today. I am now dealing with serious matters. [Interjections.]

I explained our internal situation to Gen. Haig and told him that we had recently held an election in which the HNP got almost as many votes as the official Opposition. That is a fact, Sir. I pointed out to him what the record of the hon. the Prime Minister, the leader of the NP, is. All this nonsense of the hon. the Prime Minister suddenly backtracking is part of an evil strategy. The very same people who make these allegations privately admit that the hon. the Prime Minister is moving ahead, that he is strong and firm in his resolve to go ahead. They merely want to push him a little, force him to move a little faster. Others hope that he may trip up. In an effort to arouse suspicion within his own party ranks, they say he is back-tracking and try to play him off against my colleague Dr. the hon. Andries Treurnicht in an attempt to sow dissent and suspicion all round. This, Sir, is part of a strategy, and I am aware of it. I know it because a member of the editorial staff of an English newspaper who is a friend of mine, told me so himself. He said that that was the kind of thing they discuss at their editorial meetings, and I believe this gentleman.

I further informed Gen. Haig of the unstable situation in Africa, and I shall refer to that again in a moment. I told him that unless he, and the rest of America, accepted the arithmetic of Africa, they would be unable to play a role in this continent, because Africa was dying. I realize that Nigeria holds a very prominent position in America’s approach to African issues because of her oil production. However, I shall refer to the relevant statistics in a moment in regard to another argument that I wish to develop. But I gave Gen. Haig some statistics, startling statistics, not because we derive joy from the fact that Africa finds itself in a desperate state. When 63 million people, 45% of the economically active population of Africa are unemployed, it is a statistic that cannot be laughed away. It is no joke, but a very serious matter. That statistic has a certain devastating meaning, which must be analysed. If I say that the total external debt of the African countries this year will run into $50 billion, then I do not say it because I want to show that we are in a better position. Irrespective of our position, that statistic will remain and the debt will remain, and the causes for that condition will have to be analysed and faced, otherwise Africa has no hope. If the trade deficit of the African countries ran into $20 billion last year, it is a serious matter. If some African countries now spend more than half of their earnings on their exports to defray their oil bill then I say they have no hope, not because they are Black. They have no hope because the statistical fact says they have no hope. I explained these points to General Haig out of fear that—I say this without intending to reflect negatively on particular American representatives—what reaches him will be filtered by the diplomatic process.

I discussed with General Haig our internal situation to some extent, although I did not go there with the primary purpose of doing that. The primary purpose at that stage was really to get down to talks on South West Africa, a matter to which I will revert in a moment. That was the primary purpose, and most of our time was indeed devoted to a discussion on South West Africa. It was only after we had completed that part of our discussion that I started to talk about bilateral matters. The question of military attachés was discussed, as also the question of a consular treaty. We also broached other subjects, such as the question concerning fuel for Koeberg, which is a very complicated and delicate subject about which I will not say any more and, so also I hope, no one else in the debate. We also touched briefly on the future of the Southern African region. I gave him my views on this, and I warned General Haig that the countries of Southern Africa were drifting towards a conflict situation. I did say that, and I pointed out that there was an urgent need for this drift to be arrested soon, before it reached the precipice, the point of no return. I think Dr. Chester Crocker’s Honolulu speech recently which, inter alia, also encompassed this subject, was realistic and constructive. However, the moment we respond too favourably to that speech we will hear that the South African racist foreign minister is conspiring with Chester Crocker, and then Chester Crocker will be in trouble. This is the way things work. Therefore suffice it for me to say that it was a constructive speech, one indicating a realistic direction which I think the States of Southern Africa could follow in order to achieve mutually beneficial co-operation.

To conclude this part of my remarks I want to say that I did not make promises to General Haig, to Mr. Clarke, to Mr. Abrahams, to Dr. Crocker or, for that matter, to President Reagan when I saw them, nor the other Ministers I saw, and I saw four other Cabinet Ministers. I did not make promises. I stated the views of our Government and conveyed the objectives of my Prime Minister. I told them what my Prime Minister stood for. I told them what he would like to achieve, and I warned them that some of these objectives would not be achieved easily or fast. I gave the reasons for that, and I did not ask whether they approved of them. I can also say that no one in the United States indicated to me that they would wish this Government to relinquish its political power base in order to work towards a better understanding. I will not take this matter further. I have purposely phrased this observation in the vaguest possible way, and I do not think I should take it further than that.

I do not believe that we in South Africa should base our long-term planning exclusively on this more realistic, constructive approach of the United States. We should not overlook it, but as far as the future is concerned—I am talking of the next two decades, because we are not living for the next five years only—dramatic changes may occur in the present power structure as we know it, and in the balance of power between the East and the West. As we all know, since World War II the global power structure has been dominated by tension and conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. At one of the interminable international conferences on peace and security, speaker after speaker went to the platform and bemoaned and lamented the lack of communication which existed between the Soviet Union and the United States. They said if only they could communicate, if only there could be better understanding between the two countries, then maybe they would get to the stage where international agreements could be concluded on the decisively important matter of world security and world peace. Then late in the afternoon it was the American representative’s turn, and as he walked to the speaker’s rostrum, he put aside the text of his long and well-prepared speech, looked up and said: “Ladies and gentlemen, we know exactly what the Soviet Union wants, and the Soviet Union knows exactly what we want. We consistently want the same thing. There is nothing wrong with our communication. As a matter of fact, our communication are designed precisely to prevent each other from attaining our respective objectives. The Soviet Union knows this, and we know it. What is more, we know that they know that we know, and they know that we know that they know. Therefore we understand each other perfectly.” When he sat down he received considerable applause because he was the only one who did not beat about the bush. Be that as it may, I personally believe that there are indications—although they are not clearly visible now—of developments which may force a far-reaching transformation in the present power struggle structure, which may bring about new political options especially for key States in the southern hemisphere. That is what I am interested in—the southern hemisphere, the other States of importance in this region. The competition between the two super-powers—for the moment Afghanistan is still too much in the mind of Western leaders and the Polish situation is heating up to a boiling point—may nevertheless in time become less accentuated and more attenuated and new political and economic centres in the North-South complex could become more prominent.

Even if the strains and stresses in the relations between the Soviet Union and America do not become less accentuated, I still believe that each of the super-powers will start looking towards other allies or constellations of allies in order to further their own aims. Among the most important of the new political groupings which I foresee could be the Europe-Arab-African triangle; linkages could develop among States in the southern hemisphere as a counterpart to the industrialized northern alliance. The USA in an effort to retain possession of its unchallenged global leadership may have to seek special relationships with key southern States outside its influence in the western hemisphere.

Because it could not win a confrontation with the USA, the Soviet Union would be obliged, in my opinion, to diminish the visible reasons for confrontation. I am not one of those who believe that the Soviet Union can win a confrontation with the USA. An important consideration for the Soviet Union is the continuing difficulties it is experiencing in maintaining domestic political control and control within the Eastern European bloc. As far as the Eastern European bloc is concerned, we are aware of the tense situation in Poland. There are also indications of dissatisfaction of a similar nature in other Eastern European countries, and, of course, within the Soviet Union the position is being reached where the purely Russian population will soon become a minority in relation to the Asian ethnic peoples of the Soviet Union.

On the part of the USA certain adjustments need to be made. There is a growing need for the USA to placate traditional European allies whose proximity to the Soviet Union makes them vulnerable to Soviet military power. I do not want to mention countries, but we are aware of European powers which at present already enjoy such a volume of trade with the Soviet Union that it will be extremely difficult for them to entertain an anti-Russian policy, even at the instigation of the USA. These European States may become increasingly reluctant, as I have said, to support political initiatives of the USA that could provoke a reaction from the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union has a structural weakness in its ability to compete with the USA. Its economic power is inadequate for it to sustain the military or political contests in the long run against the American campaign. About that I have no doubt. Its only effective leverage in expanding influence has been its military aid. It is interesting to know that the total contribution of the Soviet Union towards development in Africa does not amount to more than about $350 million, while the total aid from the USA and Western countries now runs into well over $15 billion. So the Soviet Union has not given a fraction of the aid the West has given, but of course it still commands a majority of votes in the General Assembly of the UN.

The Soviet Union’s economic power is inadequate, I claim, to sustain a long-term campaign against the USA. Because the Soviet Union cannot satisfy the long-term economic development needs of client States—this is another important fact—it may be expected to encounter political setbacks, especially in the Middle East and Africa. The Soviet Union will in the short term remain a serious danger to all states in strategically important regions, but I predict that in the long term it will not be able to satisfy the economic needs of its African clients. It does not have the technical knowhow. It does not have the funds. It also does not have the psychological disposition to manage cordial relations with Africa. That is the prediction I am making. Domestically the Soviet Union will face increasingly difficult problems of an economic and ethnic nature, as I have said, problems which will weaken its ability to compete with the United States. It is uncertain, however—and this is my problem—whether the West, because of its own divisive interests, will be able to take advantage of the erosion in Soviet influence which I expect to occur in the long-term.

Indications are that a closer alliance may develop between Western Europe and Africa, as I have already said. The two continents may develop a mutual interdependence to provide for their security through their own devices rather than through protection by super-powers. The Europeans may wish to develop a greater independence from the United States in their political relationship with Africa. The first signs of this are already there. France, under a socialist Government, has already started to promote a Euro-Arab-African concept in terms of which European Governments will encourage Arab financing of African economic development to provide lucrative markets for imports from Europe. It is not an unrealistic concept. Of course, Africa will have to overcome its own problems of instability and socio-economic retrogression if it wants to attract sufficient investment and technological assistance.

Although Red China’s impact on the global political balance cannot be ignored, its economic constraints impair its ability to project effective power beyond its borders at this stage. It is a menace as far as the future is concerned, but for the time being it has too many people to feed and too many internal problems to solve. China is nevertheless expected to remain politically active in developing countries, Third World countries, in an attempt to offer an alternative alongside the European initiative to Soviet aid and influence.

As far as the southern part of the globe is concerned, owing to continuing competition among northern global powers, new linkages among developing countries in the southern hemisphere may emerge. This is the point which I want to make. Amongst the most important southern powers likely to play an important role outside regional boundaries, will, in my opinion, be Brazil and Argentina, South Africa and Nigeria, India and Australia. Economic, political and security considerations will be determinants in future decisions by southern hemisphere States seeking to counter regional dominance of the northern alliances. The common interests of the South Atlantic States in protecting their growing commercial ties will favour the evolution of a more formal South Atlantic co-operation.

If one looks at the map, it is very interesting to note how Nigeria and South Africa, on the African continent, and Brazil and Argentina, on the South American continent, straddle the South Atlantic Ocean. It is almost as though the ocean invites the four of them into closer cooperation. Personally I believe that if South Africa and Nigeria could be drawn closer together, it would be of tremendous benefit to the whole of the African continent, because—and let us face it—Nigeria produces and possesses resources which we need, and we have resources and manage technologies which Nigeria needs. I should hope that the opportunity which is being offered, probably by new linkages in the north-south constellation of interests—to call it that—will enable Nigeria and South Africa to be drawn closer together, if for no other reason, then for the very good reason that they are being threatened by the same power. They are being threatened by the same power, and they also have—South Africa perhaps not to the same extent at this stage—to contend with the same clients of the Soviet Union. Mr. Gaddafi will certainly not stop short at Chad. He will not stop short at what he is doing in Mauritius. He will not stop short at what he is doing in other parts of the world. Therefore I believe that, with a little bit of realistic assessment on the part of Nigeria, and with certain adjustments on the part of South Africa, these two important African countries could become a bulwark, in the real sense of the word, against foreign intrusion on our continent.

In the medium and long run we may witness drastic adjustments in the global political status quo. Traditional linkages, antagonisms and alliances are likely to be restructured. Political pragmatism may displace ideological preference. On the continent of Africa the prospect of diminished super-power involvement could open the way for expanded influence for South Africa. The opportunities for South Africa to gain advantage from its strengths—economic and technological development, strategic location and valuable mineral and human resources—are expected to grow wider. South Africa could serve as a key southern support both for European engagement in African development and security for the United States’ interest in developing powerful regional allies throughout the southern hemisphere. Of importance will be the role that South Africa can play in promoting political stability in the region, which will minimize the causes of potential disruption by outside military engagements in Africa. The benefits that this country might gain will strongly depend on South Africa’s ability to establish its credibility and status, not only as a necessary, but also as an acceptable and desirable partner for other Governments on the continent. Other African States will respond favourably to South African initiatives to the extent that association and identification with South Africa will no longer present a political liability.

Having said that, hon. members may ask me: But what is holding us back? With these very substantial prospects there is an unlimited potential for South Africa to play a key role in the development and security of Africa, in the South Atlantic and in the southern hemisphere and to fink up with Western interests, thereby rendering Soviet adventures and interference ineffectual for decades to come. What is holding us back? It is true that particularly in this respect South West Africa does present a very severe problem. I cannot deny that. I cannot deny the divisive effect that the problem of South West Africa has on the improvement of relations in Southern Africa. On the other hand, if we are to stand by and allow the achievement of power in South West Africa by a party through the barrel of a gun, then, too, nothing can come of the potential role that South Africa could play in 10 or 20 years’ time on this continent or in the South Atlantic. Then that dream will have been dreamt in vain.

I appreciate the way in which the hon. member for Sea Point raised the South West Africa issue today. There is still a number of important matters concerning this intractable problem that are unresolved, but progress has been made. Hon. members will remember that we reached an impasse after the Geneva Conference earlier this year, and we are not yet at the stage where I can predict that agreement is imminent, because the hurdles that must still be crossed are quite high. However, if one looks at the distance we have travelled from, when we had to pick up the pieces to see what could be salvaged of the settlement plan, and we see where we are now, then I think it is correct to say that substantial progress has been made, and it has been made on the basis of mutual confidence between us and those with whom we talked.

I consider that further discussions will be required urgently between this Government and governments of the Five. We have reached a delicate stage where it will be necessary to clear up a number of decisively important points in order to decide whether or not we can go forward at all. The South African Government cannot act on its own in these negotiations, a fact of reality which is not often very well understood by a number of people. This sometimes leads to the accusation that we are dragging our feet or delaying matters, which is not true. Our approach is that it is for the people of the territory to decide. This Government cannot on its own make decisions affecting the future of that country. Every time I return from the United States or Mr. Clark visits us or I receive a telegram or a communication or a message from a European power in this regard, I have to approach the Administrator-General of the territory. He then has to call together the members of the Ministers’ council in that territory for consultation with a view to procuring their consent for the proposal in question. That is the way it is. There is no way in which my Government can unilaterally start taking decisions for South West Africa. That is not our approach. What makes it particularly difficult for us is that as long as we have this bias in favour of Swapo on the part of the General Assembly of the United Nations—and now even on the part of the Security Council of the United Nations—so long will it make my task and the task of the hon. the Prime Minister and the task of my hon. colleague, General Malan that much more difficult. My colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, helps me very often in persuading the leaders of the territory towards a viewpoint that will facilitate the negotiations with a view to achieving an internationally acceptable agreement. It is not always easy. In April of this year even the Security Council refused the DTA a hearing. Members of the DTA at that stage took a very serious view of that unfortunate event and were considering the exclusion of any military component of Untag from service in the territory during any period that might lead up to an election or independence in the territory. That problem amongst others has not yet been resolved. I believe that we have now been given some flexibility by the democratic parties in the territory on this matter. Whether it will be enough, I do not know but I do not wish to say any more about it.

In relation to the Cuban presence in Angola, although not directly linked to this matter—I do not wish to be misunderstood here—and although we do not insist that Cuban withdrawal should be a precondition for further negotiations, the fact of the matter is that in practice their presence in such large numbers does increase the political stress and contributes towards a feeling of insecurity raising the fears and suspicions in that region. This again makes it so much more difficult to make progress in persuading the parties to come to an agreement. After all, Mr. Chairman, is there an hon. member in this House today who would really expect me to persuade parties in South West Africa to trust certain elements of the United Nations when I know full well that they have already stabbed me in the back? This is part of the problem. The hon. member for Sea Point also mentioned this. There is this problem of the pro-Swapo bias of the United Nations which has not yet been resolved, not at all. In addition there are a number of other matters that remain unresolved. However, I want to repeat this: Nothing has happened—and this is sometimes how progress is measured—which makes it impossible to resolve the outstanding issues. I want to thank the hon. member for Sea Point as well as the hon. member for Umhlanga for the responsible and serious manner in which they dealt with the South West Africa issue.

Mr. Chairman, as I see it, a further matter that makes constructive co-operation in Southern Africa very difficult if not impossible is that the African States have a petrified concept of the Whites of this country. They blindly accept the fact that the Whites of this country regard themselves as being superior to Blacks, hating Blacks, despising them, dehumanizing them, denigrating them and ill-treating them. This attitude of theirs is as a result of reports sent out of this country. Let me say immediately here that I have enough fronts to fight on today and I do not want to have to fight the Press as well. However, I am referring here to the way in which reports leave this country. One can have 999 successful sport events in this country where Black and White athletes compete and where the audience applauds the Black winner of an event, but one will not read about such an event in the newspapers. However, just let one official somewhere make an error or a faux pas, then the incident receives headline publicity, and what is read abroad is that such an incident is characteristic of the sport practice in this country. This is the sad part of it.

The hon. the Minister of Manpower the other day introduced into this House some of the most historic legislation in the field of labour relations. That that legislation represents a bold step forward cannot be denied, but its introduction was totally overwhelmed by the news about the squatters in the Cape Peninsula. The position of the squatters overwhelmed the very positive and constructive steps …

But what do you expect? [Interjections.]

What I expect is that the hon. member should give me the opportunity to complete my argument.

And they should also listen.

No, I do not want to get involved in a wrangle. [Interjections.]

Certainly nobody can claim that South Africa’s future depended upon the controversy surrounding the squatters. If we have made a mistake, then we shall admit it, learn from it and try to avoid it in future. Was it really necessary to overlook totally the historic steps that were taken by the hon. the Minister of Manpower and to allow the squatter story to be blown up to the extent that it was blown up? Is this perspective? Is this balance? This is the point I am arguing.

I can continue along this line, but what I am trying to do is to explain why it is that African leaders to the north of us as well as many other people elsewhere in the world harbour so much ill-feeling towards the Whites of South Africa. I want to make one thing clear to my hon. friends on that side of the House. If they think that a distinction will be made as to PFP, NRP, NP and even HNP when a major conflict occurs, they are making the mistake of their lives. That such a distinction will be made is just not true.

That is why we are angry with you.

The point I want to make is that there rests a responsibility, not only on this side of the House, but on all of us and also on our newspapers to approach relations between our diverse peoples in a balanced and responsible way. I do not want to criticize them, but I should like to point out that they will find that the Government is always prepared to listen to constructive suggestions and proposals. We are not, however, going to be told how to run this country and we are certainly not going to be told to refrain from action which the Government considers to be in the interests of the stability, security and safety of this country.

I said earlier that I am present in the Cabinet when decisions are taken which I know will have extremely harmful effects on our relations abroad. Those effects must be weighed against the stability of the country, its security and the maintenance of law and order. Why? The businessman, the industrialist, the investor, in the first instance—I do not say that he is an immoral man or that he is not sensitive to injustices in the country—looks for stability. He looks to see whether in the country there are available developed and efficient infrastructures such as harbours, ports, railway lines, roads, bridges and adequate and secured energy and water supplies. Businessmen want to know whether there is an independent judiciary functioning which can protect the rights and interests of such industrialists. They also want to know whether there is the possibility that the Government might nationalize their enterprises. They look to see whether in that country there is freedom of the Press and of expression, whether there are opposition parties in the Parliament, whether there are regular and genuine elections etc. That is the dilemma of Africa. I have already referred to our dilemma and will refer to it again. However, Africa, north of us also have dilemmas, and I do not say this in a pejorative sense. I do not believe in racial superiority and neither does the Government. The Government is in fact prepared to prove to a Black man that he is the equal of a White man. We are prepared to help Black farmers, technicians, clerks and railway workers in every phase of life.

I have already approached Black leaders and asked them to put aside a small section of their countries for private ownership, as this would enable a Black farmer to own 1 000 or 500 ha. I have assured them that we will help them with the training of the farmers, that we will assist them in every respect and teach them the market mechanisms. The Black farmer would then refuse to give his cattle to his family and instead send them to the market for cash. We are prepared to teach them bookkeeping, how to dip their cattle and repair the fences of their farms; in other words, to do the right thing at the right moment and to do it efficiently. We are prepared to do all this to prove to the Black man that he is the equal of the White man, because in that way one can instil dignity in a man and help him to get rid of his beggar image. Who are those responsible for the beggar image of the Black African? They are the United Nations, the industrialized nations and the leaders of Africa. What has happened to Mr. Nyerere’s scientific socialism? Only 28 of his 2 800 social towns are functioning.

I am, however, not here today to quarrel with Africa; I am here to appeal to them in their own interest. We find it difficult to co-operate with certain African countries because of their inherent and basic instability. Nevertheless the reasons for cooperating with one another remain compelling. Co-operation would help me tremendously in my task but it is not going to help me if the taxpayers ask what has happened to the R10 million that I loaned to A, B and C and it has gone. We therefore all have a dilemma, the rest of Africa and South Africa, and the time is approaching that we must fact the facts as they are without demanding confessions. Southern Africa is not a house of confession. What is required is a realistic appraisal of the dilemmas in which we find ourselves. If we fail to do this, the drift towards confrontation and conflagration in Southern Africa will become inevitable. Invective and acrimonious exchanges and eventually hatred, suspicion and mistrust will accumulate and will become a driving force towards a situation of general war in Southern Africa, and no winner will emerge from such a conflict situation.

I can quote—although I do not have the time to do so—pages and pages of statistics drawn from United Nations’ documents to illustrate the general picture of deterioration in most African countries. These are not my figures but those from United Nations’ documents that indicate that the socio-economic situation in Africa is perilous; that Africa is collapsing politically, and that unless drastic and radical changes are effected by African leaders, there is little hope for them. It will not benefit them to go to the United Nations year after year, putting up a flamboyant show, anaesthetizing themselves with the majority of votes they can muster against us. In terms of economic power their votes are worthless. This week in the General Assembly 117 votes were registered against us, but they do not even represent 30% of the UN budget. The 25 abstaining countries probably pay 60% of the UN budget, and this is what the Africans do not take into account. Recently an African leader who had visited Peking, Moscow and Europe came to see me. He told me that he was given presidential treatment in one of the European capitals. The red carpet was laid out and he enjoyed good wines, an excellent dinner and an impressive toast in his honour. However, he said, what worried him was that when on the next day he met banking officials, they inquired after the size of his country, its population, the number of children attending school, the extent of its railway lines, the availability of ports and its gross national product. They wanted to know the value of his country’s total exports and imports, the amount of its external debts and loans and many other details and this African leader’s reaction to all this was: “What silly questions”!

I talked to this man and told him that these were not silly questions. I suggested he draft a document—that I would help him—setting these things out for those bankers because unless the arithmetic was correct he would not get the money. They would not give it to him. That is the way they work in Europe. They will vote with Africa at the United Nations against South Africa but they will not pay up. They will keep on controlling the prices of raw materials of African countries. Then I said to him: Cannot you see the tremendous work that we have in front of us. I pointed out a number of obvious examples like standardization. I mentioned that they could not afford to have too many types of cars, fridges, power stations and power supplies systems in his country. We have to standardize these things for him. He has enough problems as it is. Food production, protein increase, the eradication of plant, animal and human diseases, efficient transport and communication systems—there is such a vast job of work for us to do, all of us, if only certain decisions could be taken.

That is why to my mind the choice is quite clear. It is imminent. South West Africa is only a part of the Southern Africa scene. It is, as far as I am concerned, the tip of the iceberg. The bulk is underneath and much more dangerous. I believe the Angolans, the Zambians, the people of Zimbabwe and the people of Mozambique are tired of the turbulence of our region. If that is the case then I believe there rests an historical responsibility on all the leaders of Southern Africa to get together somehow and objectively and constructively to review the whole situation in Southern Africa. I believe the time for this is ripe. If it is true that Swapo is tired, has been demoralized and merely wishes to return to the territory of South West Africa, and if it is true that the Angolan Government very much wants to get rid of them but does not know how to do so unless they either win an election or are received back in the territory, we must look at the situation, all of us, responsibly to get to the truth of the matter. This Government is prepared to do so and act in that spirit. It is of decisive importance for the stability of Southern Africa that the governments of the region must discuss with each other their grudges and concerns as well as their hopes and aspirations. I had a constructive meeting recently with the new Lesotho Foreign Minister, Mr. Mooki Molapo. Mr. Charles Molapo now has another portfolio. The Foreign Minister is now Mr. Mooki Molapo. I had a meeting with the Foreign Minister of Botswana. I had several meetings with the Foreign Minister of Swaziland. The King of Swaziland who recently celebrated his diamond jubilee made a constructive speech urging the States of Southern Africa to talk with each other instead of confronting each other. The Zimbabwians took it amiss that we had withdrawn locomotives, a matter which involves my colleague and friend, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. The point is that we do not want to be difficult about it. They think that we want to use government to government discussions to humiliate them, to boast to the Press and to use it for propaganda purposes. That is not our purpose. There are indeed certain practical matters that must be discussed at Government level. We will not, however, be intransigent about that. If there is another practical way to do this, we are prepared to follow that course but it is not necessary to shout every time a thing like that happens and to engage in the invective to which Mr. Mugabe is given more and more. He should stop that. He has enough problems in his own country. That is why he is already heading for a one-party State. I do not approve of everything he is doing in his country. I do not approve of the way in which he is now dealing with the White people in that country or with other minority groups. I do not approve of the fact that his government has taken control of the Press in that country and also of the broadcasting station. I do not approve of the communal system that is allowed in many African countries. I do not approve of many aspects of their internal policies and practices, but I do not shout at them about it. I respect their right to conduct their affairs their way for I know that I have enough work in my own sphere. I know that it will take us more than a lifetime to do even a little of the vast volume of work that lies ahead of us in this country.

There are therefore these ominous signs of a perceptible drift towards confrontation which, in my opinion, would be disastrous for Southern Africa. The potential consequences should be deterrent for all of us because there can be no winner. There ought to be no doubt about this. If countries still think they can destroy South Africa, they are making a mistake. It is too late. The country has become too powerful. This is not boasting. This country has become too powerful to be destroyed by conventional means. A stalemate has been reached and so I believe that the pendulum which is swinging towards confrontation must swing back. It cannot continue in that direction. I believe that the gravitational power, so to speak, of our geographic propinquity and the economic determinants and imperatives is already exercising a retarding effect on the momentum of this pendulum. What is badly needed now, is a decision by the leaders of Southern Africa to stop it altogether and swing it back towards constructive co-operation. That is what is needed at this particular moment. I believe it is possible. It is not going to be an easy decision because we are dealing here with mental attitudes, suspicion, a history of invective, publicly committed positions, acrimonious exchanges, fears and mistrust. These abound. The decision is obvious but it is not an easy one. I realize that. However, I also believe that unless this decision is taken soon, the drift towards confrontation will become irreversible, with disastrous consequences for all of us. I believe that the economic imperatives of Southern Africa should set the scene. We should put aside ideological differences for the time being. We can always come to agreement on our differences later and effect changes later, but right now this drift towards confrontation must be arrested before we reach the precipice. That is why, in my opinion, there also rests a heavy responsibility on all hon. members in the House to facilitate agreement and to avoid polarized confrontation. A momentous decision will have to be taken, a decision for which I hope our children and their children, generations from today, will thank the Black, White, Coloured and Asian leaders of Southern Africa one day as being the right decision. The South African Government stands ready to take just that decision. I want to thank hon. members for the way in which they have approached the debate thus far.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information has delivered a most fascinating speech. Indeed, I think we were all intrigued to hear some of the thinking which he reflected in terms of our international relations and also clearly the thinking of his department. I must agree with the hon. the Minister that the whole problem of Russia is a very complicated one, and I believe he has pointed out that Russia does have some very serious problems of its own, without necessarily getting involved in the Southern Hemisphere. The hon. the Minister’s emphasis on the interest of Europe is, of course, highlighted. I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that seven of the nine members of the Southern African Development Co-ordinating Conference, which is known as SADCC are members of the Lomé Convention. Therefore there is clearly a commitment by the European Economic Community to Southern Africa. The hon. the Minister’s concept of some kind of détente with Nigeria is, I believe, very positive. In fact, the leader of our party and our spokesman on foreign affairs have good contacts in Nigeria. I am sure that they would heartily support that attitude.

I too would stand by the hon. the Minister’s concern in regard to Southern Africa. Our spokesman on foreign affairs has expressed his concern at the destabilizing influence at work in this part of the continent. We are clearly going to have to do something about it. I believe that the hon. the Minister’s department should, as in the Biblical description, be as gentle as a dove but as wise as a serpent, because essentially the department is concerned with peace and our relationships but also has to face the realities. I believe that the hon. the Minister this afternoon has shown us that he does not believe in myths. I believe he has given a realistic appraisal, although I have one or two reservations to which I shall come back. We do need peace in Southern Africa. We need to be wise, in fact as wise as the serpent, in seeking to achieve that. I can assure the hon. the Minister that he will have the strongest support and co-operation from this side of the House if he can achieve that.

What I believe we have to remind ourselves of is that we did in fact embark upon such an exercise in 1974. I believe we have possibly forgotten how that détente exercise developed. I am sure that what went on behind the scenes will one day be known. Perhaps when the Director-General retires, he will be kind enough to write his memoirs. I believe that that would make fascinating reading for South Africa.

We know that the first salvo, as it were, in that programme was a speech by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, in the Senate. In that speech he indicated—I shall not go into details—that we have to normalize relationships in Southern Africa. That speech was followed by one made by President Kaunda of Zambia in Lusaka and also by a speech made by this hon. Minister in the United Nations. I refer to his celebrated speech in which he said that we were going to move away from racial discrimination. We also had a speech by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, in Nigel in which he used the famous phrase: “Give us six months and you will be surprised to see where we are.”

There was a real change in the attitudes in Africa. I believe that we in this House who are concerned with South Africa’s interests should be aware that there is very substantial goodwill in the rest of Africa towards South Africa, but that goodwill is dependent on one thing, and that is satisfaction that South Africa is moving towards real internal political change and, more particularly, is moving away from legalized racial discrimination. I do not believe Africa is so concerned about whether we are democratic or have a free Press. What African States are concerned with is the whole question of legalized racial discrimination, which is clearly an insult to Black people. For that reason we can never hope to become accepted in the world unless we are clearly seen to be moving away from that principle.

We have had examples of this sort of change. For instance, when the Wiehahn Commission was first announced, the world accepted that warmly. In fact, it was unfortunate that the hon. the Minister’s colleague decided to move the squatters away from Nyanga—I know it was one great conspiracy—because if that had not coincided with the passing of the Labour Bills in the House, I believe the whole world would have been applauding those Bills very loudly. The point is that Africa is prepared to accept change.

What really kiboshed that change in 1974-’75 was basically the invasion of Angola at that time. Looking back, I think it is a good thing to consider what in fact resulted from that invasion. I believe that in terms of foreign affairs we gained nothing from that invasion. When it comes to our international relations in Southern Africa, we have not advanced one iota. In fact, our initiatives were sabotaged as a result of that invasion.

I believe we are going to have to wait for history to assess the latest invasion in Angola. History will have to teach us whether that—no matter how successful it might have been militarily—will in fact have helped South Africa in terms of our international politics.

In view of his comments about Zimbabwe I believe the hon. the Minister must explain to us why the Government, if it is committed to economic co-operation in Southern Africa, is insisting that the agreement in respect of the use of locomotives has to be at ministerial level. We have been having rail agreements over the years. The hon. the Minister appeared to indicate he wanted ministerial contact. It seems to me a curious thing that an arrangement about the hiring of locomotives cannot be administered by the general managers of the two respective railway organizations, particularly in view of the years and years of co-operation between the South African Railways and the Rhodesian Railways, now the Zimbabwean Railways.

I should also like the hon. the Minister to tell us what is in fact happening to the constellation of South African States. In March 1979, in Zürich, this hon. Minister, addressing the Swiss South African Association, spelt out a vision of the constellation of South African states—CONSAS, as it has come to be known. He said this constellation was going to comprise all the states south of the Zambesi and Kunene Rivers. As I see it today, the constellation of states has not measured up to that vision at all. What it has effectively become is an association of South Africa and those states which were formerly part of South Africa. Instead, we now have something called the Southern African Development Co-ordinating Conference which consists of nine States from Tanzania south, excluding South Africa.

If the hon. the Minister is concerned with Southern Africa, I believe that he can immediately seek to establish useful cooperation and better relationships with SADCC because the influence of the Southern African Development Co-ordinating Conference is going to be very, very important in Southern Africa and in relation to our total position in this part of the world. Not only that, but if one also looks at the sort of conference SADCC held in Maputo in November 1980, and at what international representatives attended that conference and the kind of support they were given by the World Bank and the Development Bank, as well as by the European Economic Community and other countries—notably absent, of course, were Russia and Red China—it becomes clear that this body is a very, very important technical and economic instrument in Southern Africa. Therefore I believe the hon. the Minister should give us some indication of what his view is in respect of this particular body. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, strangely enough, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North commenced on a fairly responsible note. However, he cannot help being negative, and therefore he immediately expressed his doubt once again about our action in Angola. I want to know from the hon. people in the PFP what is happening in that party. This is exactly how the hon. member for Sea Point acted in his speech earlier today. The spirit and the purpose of his speech amounted to the fact that there is no total onslaught against South Africa whatsoever.

I now want to come back to this statement by the hon. member for Sea Point. It is true that our country is being threatened by boycotts and by sanctions. We are also being threatened on the military front. We are being threatened by isolation. We are being threatened by subversive action from within and without. Of all these threats, the psychological onslaught against South Africa, the propaganda onslaught against South Africa, the war of words against South Africa, has increased most dramatically in recent times. It has become the chief onslaught against South Africa. We have become the target of a psychological onslaught, an onslaught, the intensity and vigour of which knows no bounds. However, the hon. members of the official Opposition do not notice this and they do not want to know anything about these things. The aim of this onslaught against South Africa is to cripple us, to bring about destabilization and to isolate us. If we analyse the efforts over the past decades to apply sanctions against South Africa, then it indicates that our enemies are not so concerned about striking a blow at the economy of South Africa, as they are in the cry of “apply sanctions against South Africa” because they want to use this as a platform for placing our country in a bad light. Our enemies see the propaganda which is being made in this way as a more subtle, more dangerous strategy against South Africa because it undermines the will of the Western Powers and of our friends to assist us in a time of crisis.

The opposition to the Springbok tour which we saw in New Zealand, was a good example of the tremendous psychological onslaught against South Africa. A mammoth campaign against South Africa was built upon it. People were even paid to protest, even though this cost millions of rands. All of this is simply to discredit us in the eyes of the world. South Africa must become leprous so that the will and desire of people and countries who want to befriend us, can be undermined and broken down. The subversives of South Africa are ready for incidents that they can grasp at in order to incite feelings against South Africa. The people who helped so enthusiastically in organizing and arranging the squatting at Nyanga, can have it on their conscience that in doing so they played right into the hands of our enemies.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon. member entitled to suggest “dat ons die plakkery georganiseer het by Nyanga?” [Interjections.]

What did the hon. member say?

I said that the people who helped to arrange and organize the squatting at Nyanga should place it on their consciences.

Is the hon. member referring to the official Opposition?

I did not refer to the Opposition. I simply referred to “people”.

The hon. member may proceed.

If the cap fits the Opposition, then they can wear it. This is the type of incident which the countries abroad are looking for. These incidents are grasped by the liberal Press abroad. It was manna from heaven for them, because they could accuse South Africa on the basis of that. They acted as accusers, judges and executioners with regard to South Africa.

The centre of the anti-South African propaganda is the UN, where twenty bodies are actively involved in this. It is a place where countries like Russia, Cuba and Nigeria are particularly active.

A group of members of this House, including the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Leader of the NRP, visited the UN at the end of last year. The aim of our visit was study and to build up contact in the interest of South Africa. As the leader of that group, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for having made this visit possible for us. It was a good investment. The group as a whole conducted themselves as true patriots and South Africa’s standpoint was fearlessly stated there, particularly on the subject of South West Africa. However, what I actually want to deal with is the following. At the UN we encountered a wall of prejudice, of bias, of misrepresentation, of abuse and of blatant hatred of South Africa. It was clear to me that the UN has become nothing but a large machine creating propaganda against South Africa. The UN has become nothing but an instrument of Marxism. The essence of the propaganda against South Africa lies in the fact that it creates a climate. According to documents of the UN, the behaviour towards South Africa is aimed at isolating the Republic from its friends. South Africa is continually being represented as the racist successor to Nazi Germany and attempts by South Africa to make closer contact with Africa countries, which has been so fruitfully discussed here now, such as the constellation idea, are already being represented as neocolonialism. The creation of Black national States is also being represented as a form of neo-colonialism. All of this is calculated to create a climate of estrangement between South Africa and the rest of Africa. The isolation strategy of the UN is not simply seeking change in South Africa. It is being aimed at the total destruction of the existing political structures and order in South Africa. In the UN’s “Review of Proceedings” of 1979 we read the following words—

I say, Sir, that we are under-estimating the seriousness of the UN’s action against us. All the evidence is there that this campaign is being planned and co-ordinated in a masterly fashion. We shall have to prepare ourselves for a considerable stepping up of the campaign against us in the immediate future.

To come closer to home, the propaganda onslaught which caused Rhodesia, Mozambique and Angola to crumble, is now being directed and developed in full force against South Africa and South West Africa. We must not underestimate the efficiency of the war of propaganda against us. South Africa is the last revolutionary objective in Africa and South Africa is the final target in Africa.

Order! I am sorry but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to enable the hon. member for Bloemfontein North to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, my sincere thanks to the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition for the extension of time.

We can fight this psychological onslaught against South Africa in two ways. In the first place we must oppose the propaganda against South Africa with all our strength. After the events in the former Department of Information we know that our information machinery has been put out of action somewhat, but under the guidance of the hon. the Minister, matters have been put right there and valuable work is being accomplished by our information people on a broad front throughout the world.

I want to ask that information should be viewed as a matter of the highest priority and that the necessary means should be voted in order to double the force of our information effort, if possible, particularly now that the welcome breeze from the USA is blowing in our direction. It is a wave that we ought to ride.

There are countries where our missions do not yet have an information section. A few examples are countries such as Japan, Taiwan, Chile, Greece and Malawi. Another example is the mission at the European Community in Brussels. I want to ask that, if it is possible, our information service should be expanded to include these missions as well.

I also want to ask whether it is not possible for the department’s cadet group which is trained annually for foreign service, to be increased considerably so that we can have more people at our disposal to carry out this important task abroad and at home. I am convinced that stepping up the recruitment campaign at our universities should have good results.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to make a definite effort to recruit more Coloureds and Indians for information work. They have proved that they fit in well and do excellent work. Particularly in view of the situation abroad, these people can carry out very valuable work for South Africa.

If there is one matter for which we have to reach our hands deep into our pockets, it is information. In South Africa’s case a foreign information service is not a luxury or prestige item as it is in the case of other countries. It is absolutely essential in the struggle for survival which affects us all. We must combat the propaganda onslaught. We must win the psychological war before we can win the conventional war.

In the second place we must ensure that there is a peaceful, relaxed climate without incidents in South Africa. A just dispensation promotes such a climate. I cannot but agree with Mr. Rowan Cronje that many South Africans are living in a fool’s paradise and are not aware of the intensity of the onslaught against South Africa.

The official Opposition and the Herstigtes stubbornly insist that there is no total onslaught against South Africa, as we have heard from them in this debate once again today. Either they are being stubborn or they are living in a dream world, but with this attitude they are playing directly into the hands of our enemies who want to catch us napping. The danger no longer waits around the comer; the danger is upon us. People must wake up and assist the Government in carrying out its initiatives so that we can have peace and order in the constitutional sphere in South Africa too. The Opposition could also help us to do so, but they are boycotting us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s review of the situation was one that pointed to interesting possibilities and opened avenues for a great deal of rethinking, and we on these benches hope that this will be based more on probability than on possibility or wishful thinking. We, therefore, welcome the fact that the official Government attitude is moving in that direction.

I want to refer to one remark the hon. the Minister made at the start of his speech when he said that no party represented in this House would satisfy world opinion. I agree with him but that is only half the story because we in this party do not believe that our task is to satisfy world opinion. We believe that if one can satisfy South African opinion, if one can win the goodwill and co-operation of all the peoples of South Africa, the world will have no option. The attacks on us and hostility towards us are based on the fact that the world can point at us and say: “Your own people reject the régime.” If we could develop a situation in South Africa where all our own people, Black, Brown and White, could say to the world: “Whatever you may think of our system, whatever you may think of the way we do things, we all believe this is in the interests of all of us”—that would be the strongest weapon that any government could ever have in its conduct of foreign affairs. It would be the most powerful weapon that any government could desire, and I believe this is one of the targets that must be brought into any planning of strategy for our foreign relations.

I believe too that the present time gives us a better opportunity than South Africa has had for the past decade or more. At the present time with the Reagan administration in America and the Thatcher government in the United Kingdom, we, I believe, have a chance that we should grab. It is not an open-ended one time-wise but what I like about it is the absence of blackmail that we used to experience in the pressure applied to South Africa. I welcome the fact that these countries are no longer telling us “how” to do things or “what” to do. Today there is a more open approach of: It is for you to do it; it is for you to decide what to do, but you realize that there has to be change. They are not telling us what to do because they accept the Government’s, the hon. the Prime Minister’s and this hon. Minister’s commitment to change. They accept it at face value and say: “You say that you want to do it. We are not going to tell you how or when but simply say to you: Good show, get on with it.”

The second weapon that we must use in our armoury at the moment is, I believe, to grasp this opportunity to deal with our own affairs in South Africa in our own way without interference by these two powerful Western countries. This applies both to South West Africa and South Africa.

I want to deal briefly with South West Africa and say very clearly where this party stands in respect of that territory. I want to point out where we stand and what our attitude is to the issue of South West Africa/Namibia. Firstly, we believe—as the Government does—that every effort should be made to bring about a peaceful and an internationally accepted settlement. At no time should we appear to be dragging our feet. The hon. the Minister said that we were not dragging our feet, and I accept it, but it is important that we are not seen or thought to be dragging our feet. Therefore I think it is our duty and the duty of anyone in South Africa involved in public life—I accept the responsibility for the New Republic Party—to say what we see as unacceptable and what we would not ask or expect the Government to do in respect of a solution.

In the first instance it is our responsibility, South Africa’s responsibility to safeguard the population of South West Africa against violence, against intimidation, against all the things that they have suffered at the hands of Swapo. The second is that the election, when it is held, must be completely free of intimidation. That does not only mean that there should not be people with guns at the polling booths saying: “You vote this way or I will shoot you”, but that the atmosphere must be free of intimidation. It must be free of the fear of consequences for the people who do not “co-operate”. The people must not fear retribution. It is not just a matter of casting a vote; they must know that after wards they will be safe from any retribution by Swapo. Thirdly—and this is part of that atmosphere of impartiality—the Untag force must not be seen or in any way appear to be an extension, an ally or a part of Swapo. These are three absolute non-negotiables in the situation in South West Africa.

The other thing which we feel strongly about is the change from the monitoring of Swapo bases to the new DMZ proposal. Let me also go on record here that this party believes unequivocally that we had no option in the light of the Swapo raids on South West Africa and the build-up of forces but to go into Angola and clean them up. I was sorry to hear the hints dropped by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North who created the impression that they had doubts about this. When one of my colleagues interjected and asked whether they thought foreign affairs had not been taken into account, that hon. member interjected back: “Are you a Nationalist?” Of course we are not Nationalists but we are South Africans and we place South Africa first. [Interjections.]

What do you think about the previous Angolan war?

I do not have the time to deal with that, but when the decision was taken it was a correct decision. In retrospect it is always easy to criticize, but I say that we stand by this decision because we believe there was no other option. That is why the danger of a DMZ is the presence of a hostile force in a demilitarized area from which it can strike at will. What has appeared from this last operation is that Swapo and Fapla are working together as one force. Therefore, how can we say that there will be a DMZ and that we will trust Angola to monitor and to control Swapo?

These are the problems I believe we must bear in mind. On the positive side, we must give DTA every power short of UDI because it is essential if they are to have a fair chance in an election that they be able to show the people of South West what they can do for them. Therefore, we should have over everything short of UDI so that DTA can be seen as a Government with power, as a Government able to do things for the people.

Lastly, there is a saying that “sticks and stones can break my bones but words they cannot harm me”. I believe that we are sometimes hypersensitive to political statements made by leaders, particularly in Africa, attacking South Africa. These attacks are often made for internal consumption as some of our politicians sometimes speak for internal consumption. We should be guided by deeds, not words. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was a privilege for me to visit the headquarters of the United Nations in New York as a member of a parliamentary study group at the end of last year. On this occasion I want to express my gratitude and appreciation for the opportunity that I had to do so. It gave other hon. members of the group and myself the opportunity to gain a new perspective on world politics today. It also forced us to change some of our old opinions, although on the other hand it also confirmed many of our old opinions. We gained a valuable new insight into the level on which international politics is being conducted today.

From our interviews it became clear and was confirmed at a high level, that there are no objective norms and standards according to which the United Nations acts. In the past, just like others, I often accused the United Nations of maintaining double standards. However, I want to say tonight that I am convinced that this was a faulty statement. There are no double standards at the United Nations. There is one standard only, and this is that the truth is whatever the majority of the United Nations decides the truth will be. That is the only norm. Whatever the majority of the members of the United Nations decide, is simply accepted as being correct.

Another impression that we gained, was that the United Nations is definitely not what its manifesto says it is. Section 2(7), to mention one example only, is still to be found in the manifesto of the UN, but we were told on the highest authority that it has been decided long ago that this section will no longer be applied. However, due to the veto of the large powers it is impossible to delete this section, dealing with nonintervention from the manifesto. In other words, an image of non-intervention is being created, but in actual fact it has been decided long ago that this section will no longer be applied.

Another fact which became clear, is that the United Nations is definitely not ignorant about South Africa in particular, or about Southern Africa in general. On the contrary, I was amazed at the wealth of knowledge and information which the United Nations has on every possible facet of South Africa and also on Southern Africa in general. It is true that there are various agencies and committees with considerable budgets that are aimed at collecting information on South Africa and processing it for abuse by the United Nations. What also impressed me, is the special professional skill of secretariat the United Nations staff.

Another alarming fact, is that the responsible Western member countries have lost control over the United Nations, and that the communist bloc and the Third World have in fact gained control over this world organization. A further fact is that the standpoint which members of the UN are adopting, is determined exclusively by what they deem to be in their own interest. What is important in this regard, is that they are more concerned about their direct individual interests than the indirect general interest of the Free World.

Now the question arises how South Africa’s interests can be best served and promoted under these circumstances. I believe it is correct to say that we can scarcely hope to make a positive impression on the UN as such. This is due to the fact that I have pointed out, viz. that this organization has become nothing but an instrument in the hands of the communist bloc and the Third World in their struggle against South Africa. I believe that arguments about what is right and what is wrong, with regard to South Africa’s cause, will simply achieve nothing. I believe that we should turn our attention to the responsible members of this organization as individuals, because there are still some responsible countries that are friends to South Africa, there are still some of the responsible countries of the world that are prepared to listen and to form an objective opinion. I believe that we should emphasize South Africa’s importance to the direct individual interest of these countries. In the nature of things, this is the basis on which they will adopt their standpoint. Perhaps we should be a little more aggressive in order to emphasize our importance to these countries. Nor should it simply be the importance of the Republic of South Africa as a geographical unit that is at issue, but the importance of the existing dispensation in the Republic of South Africa in the individual interest of these countries. The idea arises only too often that, regardless of who governs South Africa, the natural mineral and other resources of South Africa will always be available to the Free World.

The hon. member for Sea Point said the following earlier on—

I agree with this, but the important fact that we must emphasize, is that it is this very Government that is responsible for making the important contribution that South Africa makes to the Free World.

That is a good one.

The hon. member may laugh, but if the present dispensation should come to an end in South Africa, would South Africa still be a bastion of the Free World if the ANC were to take over? Or does the hon. member think that his party will take over? His party will definitely not take over. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if one wants a clear picture of the future, it is necessary to make a clear evaluation of the present, and to be able to do so, it is sometimes necessary to get one’s projections from the distant past. Let me motivate this. To be able to evaluate the situation in South Africa within the greater world context, especially with regard to the projections one wishes to make of the future, one learns a great deal from what experts said 60 to 70 years ago when they were also dealing with the situation.

There are a few people in particular to whom we should look very closely when we ask this question today. Around the turn of the century there were a number of cultural philosophers who maintained that if Western civilization, at the rate at which it was growing and developing, continued to project the negative trend which was inherent in Western civilization as such, it would destroy itself in the long run—within 60 or 70 years. Here in the ’eighties we have reached that period. In this connection I wish to refer to people like Gehlen, Spengler and Spranger. The famous Oswald Spengler wrote the epoch-making book The Decline of the West. The original German title was Der Untergang des Abendlandes. Then there were also people like Ortega Y Gasset. Unfortunately we very seldom read this writer’s works because they have not been translated. He wrote in Spanish. All these people forecast that the West was on the road to self-destruction if it continued at the same rate.

However, someone else came along who said that a revival in Western values and standards was in fact possible. He was Fritz Joachim von Rintelen, a German. He wrote a book which he called Die Philosophie der Endlichkeit—the philosophy of the finiteness. In this book he showed how the West is deteriorating in various fields, and also what the West can do to save itself. To put it in a nutshell, this is possible if there is intervention from some or other quarter. As a matter of fact we learn this from the history of earlier civilizations. If this happens, it is possible for a civilization which is deteriorating, to rehabilitate itself, provided it wakes up in time.

This brings me to the second point I wish to refer to. This concerns the views certain people have of history. In short there are two specific groups. The one group says history repeats itself; history goes full circle. I am not a sponsor or adherent of this school. I would rather associate myself with the school of Arnold Toynbee, which says that history is like a spiral; it is a circle, but a circle which moves forward, like a drawn-out spring. It then goes on to show that civilizations in the past followed a cycle of approximately 300 years; a cycle of rise, full flowering and fall. We find this in the old Greek civilization, throughout the Middle Ages up to modern Western civilization. Naturally I cannot discuss each one of these civilizations. But what is of importance to us, is to take cognizance of the fact that the present Western civilization is deteriorating, but that something else of great importance is taking place. This is that the so-called Third World, to which we also belong—South Africa is a part of Africa which belongs to the Third World—is emerging, and that we are in a wonderfully privileged position to offer our leadership and our expertise to the emerging Third World—not in a paternalistic way but in an expert way—so that we can take a hand in making history.

I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with what the hon. the Minister said here earlier today. I think that this already constitutes the essence of the nucleus on which we must build our arguments in future. In the first place, what it amounts to briefly is that communism is not eventually going to triumph. When we look at communism as a system, we very quickly realize that the seeds of death are already implanted in the system of dialectic materialism, because we are dealing with separate polarities.

I also want to point out—and this was also made clear by the hon. the Minister—that cracks are already developing in that great world of communistic imperialism, not only between the nations that wish to identify themselves as nations—as it was before Russian imperialism took over in 1917—but also as a result of the inherent weakness in the communistic system as such. Who in the proletariate is actually the great capitalist? Surely it is the person at the head of the Presidium. This in itself is the beginning of the end for communism. The great weakness of communism lies in the fact that the greatest capitalism embodies itself in communism.

This afternoon I want to make it quite clear that in our evaluation of the Southern African situation we must not make the mistake of losing sight of the world situation when we want to anticipate what we must or can expect in the future. This of necessity brings us to a point where we cannot agree with Lenin that it is “eine geschicht fiche Notwendigheit”, historically inevitable, that communism must eventually triumph. This is not so. We must be able to tell the world that we belong to the Third World. There has been a clear change in the spiritual climate of the Western World in the wake of the Reagan Administration, where there is realism and faith and where the same conviction prevails that it is this great common enemy which eventually—if we must be realistic and we are working on this—wants Nigeria and South Africa as allies in the sense that they have a common enemy, and to bring them closer together. Then we must not buckle under to that—referring to communism—which these people have been writing since 1917.

Against this very briefly sketched background I should very much like to make a single observation on the task of Foreign Affairs. If my figures are correct, we have 1 218 staff members abroad. The amount we spend on Foreign Affairs in our budget is approximately R400 million. This afternoon I want to try to indicate how important it is, given the present situation in Southern Africa and the West and in the global set-up, that South Africa must figure as best it can, as often as it can and wherever it can. No one has ever won by retreating. No one has ever won by looking back. The Bible says once you have put your hand to the plough, you must look ahead. We must make use of every platform offered us in the world around us to put our case. We must play on every sportsfield in the world wherever we can. We must accept every challenge offered us so that we shall not be pushed off the platforms of the world and deprived of opportunities to put our case and the case of the West, the case which in the final instance contains within it the seed of the rebirth of Western civilization.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest to the hon. member for Brits and I agree that we make it very difficult for our people overseas when we make statements in this country that they have to honour overseas but which they have great difficulty explaining. However, it is in regard to the first part of his argument and his reference to the Reagan Government, i.e. South Africa—USA relations, that I want to deal with specifically today. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not, and if so how, he intends taking advantage of the hand of friendship that has been extended to us by the Reagan Administration. The hon. the Minister will surely agree that it is many years since such an opportunity has come South Africa’s way, when the most powerful country in the world has extended this hand of friendship towards us in an era where we have stood alone, isolated, criticized and vilified.

At an international conference that I attended recently at Jan Smuts House and which was arranged by the S.A. Institute of International Affairs in association with the United States International Communications agency there were a number of United States speakers, one of whom was Helen Defosses, who is the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Dean of Under-graduate Studies at the State University of New York. I could summarize the American point of view as follows: Firstly, South Africa’s domestic policy and foreign policy is inextricably bound. Secondly, a permanent and lasting alliance with the United States could be achieved, firstly, by a settlement in Namibia and, secondly, by bringing about the peaceful change in South Africa. Thirdly, Washington needs symbolic change. We need Pretoria to send out signals to Washington on these changes. She referred to the release of political prisoners, for example. However, when it comes to the arrest of student leaders, they find it very difficult to go back to the Reagan administration and explain South Africa’s case. South Africa should be willing at this stage to grasp the new opportunities that are presented to it by a sympathetic and co-operative Reagan Government. We may never get the chance again. Change in the long term should be on the lines of sharing political rights. Change in the short term, as they see it, is a settlement in South West Africa. Adjustment must be made now or we will lose out on the advantage that has been given to us. It is clear therefore that South Africa cannot and is not expected to have a policy of “one man, one vote” as far as the USA is concerned, neither is it expected to change its policy in regard to power-sharing overnight. However, it is expected publicly to announce and take positive steps towards a sharing of power and towards the removal of discrimination, particularly from our Statute Books. Is that very difficult, I ask? The impression that I have is that this could be in the form of a plan or programme spread over five or even 10 years, as long as it is a positive and meaningful programme of reform because reform must come about in this country. Hitherto we have spoken about reform in our own context and for our own sakes and for our own people. This is all very well but as stated by Helen Defosses and others, our internal policy is inextricably bound up with our external policy. If we can therefore satisfy the short-term demands by the United States, namely a settlement in South West Africa, this will do a great deal towards cementing our relationship in a pro-Western bloc alliance against the communist onslaught. I know that South West is a sensitive issue and I do not want to say anything that may in any way vitiate the discussions that are presently going on or the meeting of the Western Contact Group will take place in a week’s time. However, I believe the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information should go further than he has gone today during the discussion of his Vote on South Africa’s attitude towards the implementation of resolution 435.

We had the opportunity of discussing this in November last year at the United Nations with the Secretary-General, Dr. Waldheim, the Ambassador of the United Kingdom, other members of the Contact Group and officials concerned with the implementation of resolution 435. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the department, especially Mr. Eksteen, for the wonderful arrangements made for us. This was also referred to by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. At that stage, in November, there was something of a stalemate as the United Nations’ Secretary-General was apparently waiting for us to set a date on which the fair and free elections would take place. We, I gather, were waiting for positive proof that the elections would be fair and free and that the official recognition given to Swapo would be dealt with satisfactorily. Of the many discussions that took place, what stands out in my mind is the pertinent question that I had the honour to put to Dr. Waldheim in the presence of hon. members who will confirm this here today. The question was that if we did set a date and we did agree to go ahead with resolution 435, what would the United Nations do about the yearly grant of $14 million to Swapo and the recognition of that organization by the United Nations. In reply Dr. Waldheim stated unequivocally that the grant would stop and that the recognition would cease. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this would not remove much of the difficulty that has held up the implementation of resolution 435 and whether it would not help as far as the holding of fair and free elections is concerned? It also became evident to us in the discussions we had with various people that it was in communist Russia’s interests to keep this issue dragging on as long as possible for this would enable that country to justify its presence in and assistance to Angola and would certainly justify the presence of Cuban troops in Angola. Furthermore, the longer this took the better the opportunity for Russia and its consorts to make the Western Contact Group powers disenchanted with their role with a view to their actually withdrawing and leaving a permanent stalemate. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree that this would be highly undesirable and would not be in the interests of South Africa or in the interests of South West Africa.

Having listened to seven speeches at the United Nations in one day on apartheid in South Africa it is clear to me that we are not short of enemies in that organization. Therefore it is in our best interests to move as rapidly as possible within the means of the protection and assurances that we require under resolution 435 or any amendment agreed to, to release the international tension on South West Africa and cement our alliance with the USA who would of course welcome our expedition and conclusion of this thorny and vexed problem. If we have them as our ally, then I am sure that the USA will have other allies to assist us.

As far as the question of relations with South West Africa is concerned I am sure that the hon. the Minister is aware of a report which was brought out under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation with Franklin Thomas, president of the Ford Foundation, as chairman. Let us briefly have a look at South Africa, that is to say from the outside looking in. In the very short time at my disposal I want to summarize the report and first of all I should like to refer to chapter 18 of the report where one reads—

The commission saw two scenarios. The first scenario describes a process of change that avoids sustained large-scale violence. The second scenario posits retrenchment and intransigence by the Government, leading to major violence and civil war. Obviously our enemies prefer the second, because this would remove the pressure of the outside bloc on South Africa. If this does happen, they say that the conservative wing of the NP will block verligte reforms. The commission obviously prefers the first scenario. It says—

They do not set a timetable nor do they predict when this may happen. The hon. members should note that the commission does not ask for one man, one vote and I believe that it will not be all that difficult to satisfy its requirements.

The commission then made certain policy objectives. Firstly they made clear the fundamental and continuing opposition of the USA Government and people to the system of apartheid. Secondly they want to promote genuine political power. Thirdly they want to support organizations inside South Africa working for change. Fourthly they want to assist economic development. Fifthly they want to reduce the impact of stoppages of imports of key minerals from South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one welcomes the responsible attitude of the hon. member for Hillbrow in this debate. Of course he will understand that one cannot put the future of South West Africa at stake or in the balance because of a private assurance by Waldheim to Widman. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I should like to say that one appreciates the hon. member’s attitude and I think that augurs well for our future difficulties and those which the country is enduring at the moment.

Various hon. members have been painting a fairly black picture, but there is nevertheless some light on the horizon. I think the light exists because we are more and more moving into a situation of greater realism. The reason I say this is that a great number of unrelated events are taking place, but if one looks at them all, then perhaps one sees some light in the tunnel.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the situation in Africa. Launched in this euphoria of freedom from 1958, 21 one-party dictatorships have emerged and 19 countries with military government. That in itself is not so important; what is important is that the honeymoon with the despotisms is ending. Of that one can see signs everywhere.

I believe that we are living in the closing chapter of a period that began in 1958 and is finally ending. I want to illustrate what I mean. A sacred cow such as Mr. Julius Nyerere who had at his feet leaders who flew to Dar-es-Salaam merely to sit at his feet, is questioned by somebody like Mr. Kenneth Adelman, the Deputy Secretary of the USA to the United Nations. Here I refer to an article “The Great Black Hope” in Harper’s magazine. He was not officially repudiated. We must look not so much at what he says, but at the response to what he says. I want to quote briefly from the editorial of the Wall Street Journal of 17 July as follows—

It goes on—

It goes on to say—

Sir, there is some change in the air when such views are expressed.

What has happened is that the realities are catching up with the propagandists. The argument that foreign aid is a reparation for previous exploitation is a spent one. Nothing illustrates this more graphically than a few globular facts. In 1950 the lesser developed countries could feed themselves. In 1970 they imported 20 million tons of food, in 1975, 45 million tons and in 1979, 70 million tons of food. All the propaganda and rhetoric in the world cannot argue that kind of reality away. The spectre of the Kara Mahjong has been brought into the homes of every family and that is having a real effect. Of that we have a public admission, as the hon. the Minister mentioned today. When the Secretary-General of the OAU says in the presence of the representatives of 49 African countries: “Africa is in danger, our survival is at stake; Africa is dying”, it is a fantastic admission. Because the scale of misery is so vast and the behaviour of governments in Africa has become so bizarre, we do not want to compound the problems of Africa by following a road that has demonstrably failed, and this people are beginning to understand. Previously we did not have that opportunity because there were always limited successes. However, there are no more successes. The greatest successes are now only successes by comparison with the tremendous failures of those that have failed.

South Africa, on the other hand, has continued to flourish. We know the figures in regard to South Africa. We have 4% of Africa’s land surface and 6% of its population and yet we are responsible for 25% of its gross domestic product. We are producing agricultural surpluses and, what is more important, hundreds of trade delegations are carrying that message back to Europe. I believe that it is written indelibly where it counts most and that is in the order books of those businessmen who visit South Africa.

Responsible governments are beginning to perceive the complexity of our situation, and for this I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department. I think we have at least sold this reality well and that people are beginning to understand that the simple solutions that were previously on offer, whatever else may have been, are not an appropriate response to the complex challenges that we face.

A third factor that has placed South Africa in clearer perspective has been the Angolan episode. Whatever else people might have thought before, it has now been demonstrated beyond question that the foreign military elements in Angola were not there for internal purposes but were there inevitably to attempt to Afghanistanize South West Africa by military intervention at some time when it suited them and that this attempt was being promoted by the Soviet Union in an empire phase. No less a person than President Reagan talks of the Soviet Empire when he refers to the Soviet Union. The suspicions about which the hon. the Minister constantly warned us and which became a refrain over the past few years have now been proved absolutely correct. One can see this in its naked reality and that is an attempt, as part of a strategic and resource war, at a strategy that was used in Afghanistan. The way they seek to gain control of our resources is the same way as that in which they threatened Afghanistan to gain control of the resources and strategic areas of the Middle East. In short, a greater realism is emerging and I think a great deal of the humbug that we have had to live with has been exploded. I also think that an understanding has developed in response to the dynamic policy development in South Africa. What we are doing is being perceived increasingly as real, far-reaching and genuine.

Aside from the Western interest there is of course the interest of the landlocked States in Southern Africa with problems of small-scale economies. We know that there are 57 micro-States in the world and that 28 of these are in Africa. Of these 28 micro-States—States with a population of fewer than 5 million—10 are on the subcontinent. In the subcontinent therefore there is the double-edged problem of landlocked micro-States. There are certain geo-political and geo-physical realities which are causing an emergence of realism. This realism is that whether we are good or bad or indifferent, South Africa occupies an important place in the region and that we are here to stay; that we are the dominant economic, military, regional and agricultural power; and that, whatever else we may be, we have no territorial ambitions. The sustained political and economic evolution on our subcontinent may not have been so spectacular when measured against the emergence of the countries of Africa. However, it has been far more realistic and at least it had roots. What we see now emerging from the organic soil of Africa is real significant growth. [Time expired.]

I wish to thank the hon. member for Maitland for his positive speech. One is grateful for the fact that the Western World is opening its eyes to the realities of Southern Africa, and one hopes that Southern Africa will benefit from this in the long run. It is a fact that for the past 33 years South Africa has found itself in the dock because it is ostensibly applying a policy of racial discrimination. The countries that condemn South Africa most vehemently, also make the most rapid progress in the international popularity stakes. The irony of the matter is that many of the countries that condemn South Africa for its policy of racial discrimination are themselves unable to escape the grip of racial discrimination. I wonder if we should not change our strategy a little in this regard. Instead of silently turning the other cheek, I think South Africa should also try to get in a good, hard blow. South Africa must make a point of singling out and drawing public attention to the forms of racial discrimination in countries that wish to make it the only scapegoat. In this regard one has great appreciation for the aggressive way in which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information sometimes wades into South Africa’s critics with fists flying. There are two countries in particular which try to outbid each other in their attempts to discredit South Africa. I am referring to the Soviet Union and Australia. It is the Soviet Union which holds up South Africa to Africa as a Marxistic, imperialistic country which must be gotten rid of at all costs. It is the Soviet Union which is behind almost every attempt to isolate South Africa internationally. It is the Soviet Union which is behind almost every attempt to apply economic sanctions against South Africa. Surely it is the Soviet Union which is constantly seeking to have South Africa barred from every single sporting body, because this country is supposedly applying a policy of racial discrimination. But the Soviet Union is pre-eminently the country where racial discrimination is rampant. Surely it is a well-known fact that the ethnic minority groups in the 14 republics of the Soviet Union are totally dominated by the ethnic Russians in the Republic of Russia. Surely it is a well-known fact that very few members of these ethnic minority groups in the 14 republics have any significant say in the decision-making processes of the Soviet Union.

Surely it is a well-known fact that at present the Soviet Union is the largest colonial power in the world. I want to illustrate this statement by means of a single example. In 1940 a State like Esthonia was arbitrarily incorporated into the Soviet Union, after it had been independent for 21 years. If that State could regain its independence today, it would seize the opportunity with both hands, but the Soviet Union will not allow it to regain its independence. To this day the United Nations has not yet convened an extraordinary meeting to give attention to the independence of Esthonia. I think the time has come for all forms of racial discrimination in the Soviet Union to be singled out and emphasized, and I think South Africa ought to take the lead in this.

In Australia the position is not very different either. That country is the foremost spokesman when it comes to discrediting South Africa on international occasions. It is the country which is reproaching New Zealand for maintaining sporting ties with South Africa. It is also the country which recently refused to admit four senior public servants of the Republic, because of their connections with the South African Government, when they wanted to attend a conference on administration. But Australia cannot accuse South Africa of racial discrimination, for what are the facts? At the request of the aborigines of Australia a commission of inquiry of the World Council of Churches recently undertook an on-the-spot investigation on racial discrimination in Australia. A 90 page report, entitled “Justice for Aborigines in Australia”, was published. The report pointed out that every aspect of society in Australia is riddled with racism. The report referred to the 150 000 Aborigines as the “invisible members of society”, and pointed out that these invisible people do not share in the progress or the promise of a free, democratic, affluent Australia. This report advocates collective action by the international community to end racial discrimination in Australia. A prominent aborigine leader had the following to say—

One does not wish to take pleasure in the embarrassment of others, but sometimes it is good for someone to have a taste of the medicine he is continuously prescribing for others. In view of the most recent events I think if that country does not adopt a more moderate attitude towards South Africa, South Africa should also proceed to make the racial discrimination in that country universally known.

I am not trying to say that South Africa can simply apply racial discrimination because other countries are doing so. One cannot justify one’s own behaviour by using the wrongs of others aas a criterion. It is also true that in its election manifesto the NP committed itself to moving away from hurtful discriminatory measures and it is carrying out that promise.

When?

On the other hand—and I am saying this to the official Opposition in particular—you cannot try to get away from what the overseas countries call racial discrimination at such a breakneck speed that in the process you throw the child out with the bathwater. What is sometimes labelled racial discrimination by overseas countries and even by the hon. members of the official Opposition actually has nothing to do with racial discrimination. What was initially dismissed by the outside world as racial discrimination might eventually become a blueprint for peaceful coexistence in countries with a heterogenous population structure. I am referring to the principle of sovereignty in one’s own circle in the constitutional field which is also being embodied in the present political dispensation in South Africa and which makes provision for the political right of minority groups to self-determination.

Instead of apologizing for this policy which differentiates politically and which guarantees the right to self-determination of minority groups, I think we should market it on a world-wide basis. I have no doubt that it will eventually sell. I think there is already evidence that the market is favourable. An Australian aborigine who is a leader of his community, recently addressed a request to the Australian Government for land be made available to full-blooded aborigines so that they can develop separately from the Whites. If that request is not granted, I think that the problem revolving around the aborigine question in Australia will continue to exist. I hope that the policy of separate development, of multi-nationalism, of the right of minority groups to self-determination, can be sold on a world-wide basis as part of our foreign policy and that we shall not always apologize for it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randfontein began his speech by referring to the fact that in general South Africa finds itself in the dock internationally. This evening I should like to say a few words about the people who are first in line to hear those accusations, namely our diplomats abroad. I have had the privilege of serving in the Department of Foreign Affairs, as it was then known, in the ’sixties and ’seventies, and during that time I also served abroad and have therefore had firsthand experience of the conditions under which the diplomats must work abroad. Owing to my close connections with the department in the past, you will allow me, Sir, to convey my personal good wishes to the Director-General for when he retires in the near future.

The diplomats abroad are constantly in the dock on South Africa’s behalf. It would be said that this state of affairs is caused by the domestic policy of the Government. I should like to say that this is not the case, that basically it is due to a combination of circumstances. What is important is that the people who have to listen to these accusations, the people who have to fight in the front lines in this connection, are not the people who made this policy or created these conditions. Anyone who has not experienced this, will probably find it very difficult to imagine what it must be like to feel unwelcome 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, to be constantly accused of being racists, of being Nazi’s, of disregarding basic human rights, and the like. For our diplomats this state of affairs does not last for a single short period of service or a few months, but throughout their entire careers. Accordingly, when one realizes the task which the diplomats of South Africa are performing overseas under those conditions, the outstanding way in which they are performing that task, I believe that group of people deserves a special word of thanks and appreciation. They are not people whose activities are published in the newspapers every day. They are people who do their work in silence. However I believe it is appropriate that this House, too, convey a word of thanks to those people.

This brings me to the second aspect, about which I should also just like to say a few words. This is the training programme of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Approximately 10 years ago I, too, was privileged to be present at the inception of the Department’s systematic training programme. It was a small start, but it went from strength to strength and today, in my opinion, it is an excellent training system, a system which prepares our diplomats for the variety of activities they must perform abroad. I shall take the liberty of also mentioning a few names in this connection.

In the first place I must refer once again to the Director-General, who played a role in the introduction of this system. Mr. Evert Riekert, who is also present this evening, also played a tremendous role in the establishment of this system. Then there are the successive heads of that division, Messrs. Babb, Mostert, Cleary and Evans. There is also the present head, Mr. Scholtz, and Miss Verwey, who has made a tremendous contribution during the past few years. As far as I am concerned, the idea behind the training programme was to enable people to perform their task adequately under those difficult conditions.

The philosophy behind it is that when one has a good man and one trains him thoroughly, he becomes an excellent man and when one trains an ordinary man thoroughly, he becomes a good man.

In conclusion there just is one idea I wish to suggest to the hon. the Minister and the department. This is an idea regarding the possible expansion of this training programme. Actually there are two facets involved. One is that greater attention be given on a more advanced basis to continued training. Looking at the Defence Force, for example, we find that a professional soldier spends several years of his life undergoing full-time training. I think our diplomats would benefit by undergoing advanced courses from time to time. One method I want to suggest to hon. members in this connection is perhaps to have greater interaction with universities, especially by seconding officers to universities and seconding specific university lecturers to the department to fill these gaps. I say this because I feel, and in a certain sense experience has shown, that the break an official will get by being taken out of the department for a while and placed in an entirely different atmosphere, an academic atmosphere, say for a period of six months or a year, affords him an opportunity to recharge his mental batteries, as it were. This will enable him to be a better official when he returns.

Mr. Chairman the hon. member for Helderkruin dealt with a very important factor here tonight, viz. our foreign diplomats and their training. It is clear to us that he has a thorough knowledge of these matters and therefore he must forgive me for not following in the same vein which he raised here tonight. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information highlighted some very important factors here this afternoon and in the time available to me I want to touch on one or two of these matters.

†There are three aspects that I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. In the very short time that is available to one in Committee, it is obviously not possible to deal in any depth with them. But nevertheless I should like to specifically deal with three matters. In the first instance I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister the insight that he revealed with regard to the conflict between capitalism and communism, epitomized, of course, by the East-West conflict, i.e. the United States and Russia. It was very interesting to listen to his analysis, his diagnosis, his prognostications and to the projections that he has made in terms of the influence that that is going to have on the world power structure, particularly in the southern hemisphere. Secondly, in the evening sitting I hope to be dealing with an appeal to the hon. the Minister regarding immigrants from Zimbabwe, emigrants from that side. Then, thirdly, I should like to deal with the lessons to be learned from Zimbabwe by South Africa.

In the first instance, coming to the question of Russian expansionism, because I really think that is symptomatic of communist domination of the world and the strategy employed by the Russians, I should like to say that we in this party, as my hon. leader indicated earlier, agree entirely with what the hon. the Minister had to say about the strategy and the consequences of the strategy employed in the East-West confrontation. I should like to add that there is a lesson for South Africa in this as well. The people who back capitalism, if they are determined, if they have an adequate insight into the problems in their environment, if they understand what they are doing and if they are committed to their value system will—and in this respect we agree with the hon. the Minister—always succeed where communism and socialism will fail. That is the gist of what the hon. the Minister said. And, as one of the other hon. members has said, the cracks are starting to show in communism itself and it is starting to fray at the edges in their expansionistic programme. There are many reasons for this. In the first instance, of course, one must realize that capitalism is an outer-directed strategy. Capitalism’s very nature is an expanding one. It thrives on expansion. It thrives on diversity and innovation and on increasing its sphere of interaction.

Do you think South Africa is a capitalist economy?

Yes, very definitely.

Then you are very mistaken … This is a socialist economy.

If one compares that with socialism/communism, and I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville is suggesting that we are communist in the classical sense …

No. This is a socialist economy.

Socialism or communism is inner-directed, non-expansive, security-orientated and self-protective. In other words, it is operating in a totally juxta-position situation to capitalism. If one looks at the strategy employed by Russia, by the communist bloc, it has not been one of expansionism on a commercial basis, but what I call a sand-bagging approach. They are throwing up fortifications around the heartland of communism. They are protectionist-orientated. They are looking inwards towards themselves. They are looking inside and not outside of communism. They are using surrogates and they are posting them out to the far outposts of their empire. The hon. member for Maitland referred to the Russian empire. And because of their inner direction, they will ultimately fail. The reason for this is very simple. Communism can only thrive on standardization, because if they do not have standardization, they cannot control, and if they cannot control their ideology and personal iniative, then they will start the breakdown of communism. Our strength in protecting ourselves lies in perpetuating the capitalistic free enterprise system.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I said before the suspension of business that I believe that the hon. the Minister’s analysis of the conflict between East and West, America and Russia, was spot on and that we can find very little fault with it. In fact, I think hon. members will generally agree that the hon. the Minister made an exceptionally good speech here today.

The point I wish to re-emphasize is that capitalism or private free enterprise is expansionary, is innovative and its very character is to move out from its base communism, on the other hand, is inner-directive, security orientated and it depends upon uniformity and coercion to uniformity for its survival. Therefore the inevitable result is that capitalism will always triumph over socialism, and communism.

I should like to re-emphasize further that in the African context we are talking about a commitment to one value system or the other. This brings me to my very next point and that is that there is an onslaught by the Communist bloc to provide barriers to capitalist expansionism both into Eastern Europe and Africa and into Asia. The phenomena of the Berlin Wall and surrogate troops in different parts of Africa are all too familiar samples of the way the Communists try to create sand-bag barriers around their own particular domain.

What they fear, as the hon. the Minister correctly pointed out today, is not the West’s armaments, because communism and the Eastern bloc can match the USA, arm for arm and missile for missile. Their carrying capacity is obviously considerably less than that of the industrialized West. The reason for the Berlin Wall and the sand-bag barriers which they are throwing up in Africa north of South Africa is to prevent the expansion of capitalism. Capitalism is, in fact, the only economic system which can improve the quality of life of mankind as we know and for the reasons which I have given.

Therefore we believe that the greatest freedom of mobility of labour between Zimbabwe and South Africa should be permitted. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he foresees the possibility that we can have an international convention with Zimbabwe which would allow the free flow of labour between South Africa and Zimbabwe. I believe that this is a vital ingredient in the continued support for capitalism in Zimbabwe as opposed to socialism.

The history of Africa north of us is a very clear example of what happens when a developing nation becomes beleagured and is unable to cope with the stresses of capitalism. It then puts protective mechanisms around it and reverts to socialism.

I believe that recent developments have indicated that there is a very real danger that the interchange of labour between Zimbabwe and South Africa is being threatened. Whatever the original reason for that threat may be, I believe it will be in the interests of South Africa and the people of Zimbabwe that we should attempt to free the flow of labour between the two countries. [Interjections.] I believe Zimbabwe stopped it initially and I believe we would be most interested to hear from the hon. the Minister what his perception is of an international treaty for the mobility of labour.

Zimbabwe cannot survive as a capitalist nation without the technological expertise input from South Africa. That is a foregone conclusion. They will go the way Africa has gone. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what his perception is of the possibility of an international treaty between the two countries for the free mobility of labour. Black labour south and some White labour south, but a reverse flow of it as well.

Thirdly, I want to say that we have another lesson to learn from Zimbabwe. I say this in all sincerity. We are not concerned with scoring political debating points off one another. I should like to say in particular to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that Zimbabwe is a classical example, a dying example of the practical implementation of PFP policy. [Interjections.] The reason for that is very simply their inability to recognize the plural nature of an African society. The PFP, the official Opposition, refuses consistently not to recognize plurality, but to accommodate it. That is where the difficulty comes in. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to draw a comparison for himself between the events that occurred in Rhodesia, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and their policy.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip. I would like to draw a comparison between the Federation of Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the policy of the PFP. In the first instance that Federation was a geographic federation.

Which Vote are you discussing, Ron?

It was a geographic federation as is proposed by the PFP and it comprised of Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Do you want the hon. the Minister to reply to you?

Because of irreconcilable differences between the North and the South, between an industrialized nation and an unindustrialized nation, this inevitably led to the break-up of that Federation.

Give it to them, Ron; it hurts.

How did that federation reach breaking point? It was caused by irreconcilable differences, the inability to accommodate two value systems within one geographic federation as is proposed by the PFP in South Africa. [Interjections.] The two value systems for the benefit of the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is democracy and private enterprise on the one hand and authoritarian government and socialism on the other. Both will have to be accommodated in South Africa as they were required to be accommodated in Rhodesia. However, because of the irreconcilability of these two value systems and the efforts to amalgamate them into one, disaster struck the country. What happened subsequently? A miniature national convention was called at Lancaster House. Some of the representatives were elected leaders, which will ring a bell with the hon. members of the PFP, and some were not elected leaders, they were self-styled leaders. [Interjections.] At that miniature convention it was decided to ignore the protection of minorities. What was the end result? The end result is legion. Zimbabwe is today on the inevitable road of a one-party State which will be based on socialism. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether it is not a fact that the geographic federation failed in Rhodesia?

Of course it did.

Of course it did. Is it not a fact that Malawi is today a one-party State?

Right.

Is it not a fact that Zambia is a one-party State?

Right.

Is it not a fact that the former Southern Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, is also on the way to becoming a one-party State? [Interjections.] Of course it is, because they will not recognize the reality of the consequences of their policy. If we are to do justice to Zimbabwe and to South Africa I believe it is in the interests of both countries and for the sake of stability on the southern tip of the African continent we must ensure stability here.

Why are you so worried about us?

In Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi we find a dying example of the application of PFP policy.

We are good friends with Malawi. Do not be so nasty.

This fact is inescapable. I would like to ask the PFP where in Africa, where one finds a plural society, has their model worked?

In Nigeria.

That hon. member need not go back very far to find the bloodshed that occurred in Nigeria. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must be given an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those hon. members, by their very reaction, are obviously concerned about the implications of their policy. I believe that Zimbabwe is today the bottleneck to the north and the south. Zimbabwe and the countries north of it will have to receive fuel and food from South Africa if they are going to survive. One cannot eat Eastern bloc military hardware. Fuel and food for Africa will have to come from South Africa.

Zimbabwe is the gateway to survival for the territories north of South Africa, and equally so it is the gateway for terrorism and arms to infiltrate into South Africa. The hon. the Minister has his hands full with the settlement in South West Africa/Namibia, but the potential conflict that will arise from a Zimbabwe that turns to socialism and cannot feed its people, will be infinitely greater. There, Sir, lies the key to stability in Southern Africa, and I appeal to hon. members, particularly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to examine his policy in the light of the reality of what has happened in that territory.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North trod on the PFP’s toes, and I think he was fairly close to the mark because they complained a great deal. I think the PFP in the South African context could probably be termed the “Wets” in the modern terminology, and I want to appeal to Hansard please not to translate this expression by the word “Nattes”.

The South African approach to our overseas policy must of course be seen in the context of the East-West conflict. In this conflict, South Africa must realize that the strategy applied by the Russian imperialists in particular is the domino strategy. However, I believe that to a certain extent they have miscalculated as far as South Africa is concerned. During the past few years we have seen how first Mozambique, then Angola and then Zimbabwe became Marxist, and it was therefore assumed that South Africa would fit into the same strategy. However, South Africa is not the last domino in the East-West strategy. As has already been said today, South Africa is only the last domino in Africa in an effort eventually to gain access to the portals of America and Europe. For this reason we must take cognizance of the situation of Southern Africa in the East-West conflict. General Sir Walter Walker said recently in a lecture in Taiwan—

South Africa’s overseas policy must be seen as a total strategy against the total onslaught against South Africa as part of the East-West conflict. Over the past few weeks we have again had very clear proof that South Africa speaks from a position of power and strength, because we in South Africa are not colonialists. Mozambique and Angola can perhaps be seen as part of the colonial pattern and the Whites of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe can perhaps be seen as a nation in the making (“volk in wording”). But here in South Africa—let this be very clearly understood—we are not a nation in the making. There is already a nation (“volk”) here in South Africa that was born and bred here. That nation is the Afrikaner, born out of Africa. I mean this in the broader context and include both Afrikaans speakers and English speakers. We are of Africa; our future is in Africa. From this position of power, from this position of strength, it must also be clearly understood that we do not want to commit aggression against any other nation in Africa. But we believe in self-determination. We believe in self-determination for the Whites in South Africa; this is part of the system of values in which we believe. We believe, too, in the right of self-determination not only of the Black nations in Southern Africa, but of all the other nations of Africa. We believe they have a right to exist autonomously and to an identity of their own, that they have a right to develop into people with a national dignity. We are prepared to walk that road with them. I appreciate the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs today when he said that we are prepared to co-operate with other states in Africa and also other states in the world for the broader strategy of peaceful development in Africa.

Let us briefly consider this domino strategy in its present-day form. Let us consider the position of Africa and the Indian Ocean. America has one base in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia. Next year there will be an election in Mauritius, and indications are that the Marxist MMM party may come to power as a result of the economic problems that island is experiencing. The question now arises whether the American base in the Indian Ocean will not become an international bone of contention. The same applies in Madagascar. The Russian imperialists have gained a foothold there by means of the military training they undertake there. They already have a definite foothold there. The same applies to the island of Reunion. The same applies, too, in the Seychelles. In the Comoro islands there is a similar situation. The Marxists and the Russians are in Ethiopia, in Mozambique and in Angola and have thrown a bridge across Southern Africa, through Zambia and now through their efforts in Zimbabwe. The target is Southern Africa as a rung on the ladder to Europe. If the Russians succeed in controlling Southern Africa by means of subversion, terrorism and destabilization, or by whatever other means, they will succeed in cutting the fine of communication between Europe and America. Then, without necessarily having to fire a shot in Europe, Russia will have won the war for world domination by having Southern Africa in its power. This is the basic strategy, of not necessarily having to fire a shot in Europe in an attempt to bring about world domination. It is in respect of this strategy that we must ensure that the world becomes aware of the situation. It was ex-President Leopold Sengor who adopted a very clear standpoint in this connection, as quoted in the Sunday Times of 11 June 1978. The ex-President said the following—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North says capitalism will inevitably triumph over communism. I should, however, like to follow up what the hon. member for Klip River has said and emphasize that one should not underestimate the effect of communism, especially as an imperialistic power.

*If one had to characterize this twentieth century in which we are living politically, one could not but characterize it as the century of the rise of Marxism. Since the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels appeared in 1848, more than 1 300 million people have been brought under the yoke of communism. This represents more than one-third of the global population. The scope and distribution of this ideology can be compared only to the spread of Islam in the 8th and 9th centuries AD. After the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1917 it insidiously brought the areas which had previously formed part of the Czarist empire and which had been granted sovereignty, under the yoke of communism and the Soviet Union. Subsequently the following countries came under communist control: Albania, Yugoslavia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, China, Cuba, Lagos, Cambodia and Afghanistan. As far as Africa is concerned, there is a difference in opinion as to which countries are Marxist States, but Angola and Mozambique are self-declared Marxist States, and the Congo is generally considered to be a Marxist State. The imperialism of Marxism is continuing unremittingly and with increased intensity, because they are achieving success, but also because the Marxist ideology demands this of them. Marxism believes that there can be no global peace before the whole world has been conquered by communism. As long as capitalism continues to exist, the war will continue, because capitalism, according to Marxism, causes wars. Characteristic of this attitude is this statement which is ascribed to Kruschev, who said—

Precisely as a result of this approach, no State can avoid the onslaught or adopt a neutral attitude towards it. Marxism is engaged in a struggle against everyone who does not wish to accept it, and it is a struggle without rules, a merciless struggle. I should like to refer to what Dr. Du Preez said in his book Kommunistiese Vrede of Christelike Stryd, in respect of Russian expansionism in Eastern Europe—

Then it is being said that there is no onslaught on us! However, South Africa is very high on the priority list of the Marxist onslaught. At a very early stage the Marxists developed a special interest in South Africa. As early as 1907 there were Marxist and communist groups in South Africa. The S.A. Communist Party was officially formed in 1921 and at various commintern meetings South Africa was specifically indicated as a priority target. In 1977 President Breshnev declared to President Siyad Barre of Somalia—

Then it is being said by that side of the House that there is no total onslaught on this country!

I want to suggest that South Africa is in this respect engaged in a struggle which it cannot avoid. In order to deal with this onslaught, we must be prepared, not only in the military and economic sphere, but also in the spiritual, strategic and propaganda sphere. In order to be prepared in these areas, we must have a thorough and in-depth knowledge of the enemy and the strategy it is using against us. Accordingly a specialized study of this is in the national interests.

An institute was recently established at the University of Stellenbosch, which has as its specific and exclusive purpose the study of Marxism. This institute which is called the Institute for the Study of Marxism is under the guidance of its director, Dr. D. J. Kotzé. The research is being done under the guidance of Dr. J. S. Bergh. The objectives of this institute are primarily to gather source material on Marxist communism in general and in South Africa in particular, and to carry out research on the background, development and working patterns of the communists, as well as an in-depth study of communism in South Africa. However, the institute is not geared solely to carrying out research for its own sake. It is carrying out research for the specific purpose of making scientific reports available for use by persons and bodies against the onslaught of Marxism. As I have already indicated, this is what this institute is engaged in doing in the national interests and it ought to be accorded a high priority. That is why I want to make an appeal this evening to private enterprises as well as to the public sector of this country, not only to make use of this institute, but also to grant it assistance and the necessary financial support.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to respond for too long on the speech made by the hon. member Mr. Schutte. I think he has not discerned the difference between the threat of communism as a social or economic order and the threat of Soviet expansionism. They are two completely different things. If I were he, I would be very worried about the Communist threat unless one changes the social order inside South Africa so that it is acceptable to the Black people as well. The other question to which we should direct our attention is that of Soviet expansionism. That does not involve turning countries into Communists, but it involves finding certain pressure points which one can control through military activity or through surrogates. They are two completely different things. In fact, if one looks at Africa, one finds there no Communist countries as such, but there may be areas of Africa in which Soviet expansionism has a very important hold over the levers of power in that particular country.

Is that not a threat?

Of course it is a threat, but there are two different threats involved. As long as one confuses them, one will not find a solution to either of them.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his very frank and serious response to this debate. Whether one agrees in detail with everything he said or not, he directed the attention of this House to some very important and fundamental issues. We on this side of the House appreciate his frankness with both Government and Opposition on this occasion.

There was one area, however—and I should not like to turn this into a debate on internal policies—where I found the hon. the Minister extraordinarily frank. We understood him to say that during the course of his conversations with the Americans he had said that if the hon. the Prime Minister were to go too fast in the execution of his policy the NP would lose power to the HNP, and that the Government therefore had to move slowly in the direction of carrying out its policy. This concerns me. It concerns me because what the Government is saying is that the pace of change in South Africa is not being dictated by the NP caucus or by the Cabinet but by Jaap Marais and the HNP. [Interjections.] Honestly, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a very, very serious thing.

Oh you are still as stupid as ever.

It is very serious because what the Government is saying is that it will move slowly in executing its policy because if it moves too fast it will lose power. I must say that I am distressed. I am distressed at this very frank admission by the hon. the Minister. It is a reality, I take it. We believe that, even at the risk of losing some seats, the hon. the Prime Minister, if he should go all out to get rid of discrimination, will find a positive response, which would overwhelm the HNP. I really do hope that hon. members opposite, especially the leaders of the NP, are not going to have the pace of change dictated because of the threat of the HNP to the power of the NP in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister also raised some fascinating ideas, almost a “droombeeld”, I should say, of a new realignment, a southern realignment mentioning such countries as Brazil and Argentina, Nigeria and South Africa, India and Australia. I must admit that I find this a fascinating concept. It almost reminds one of what Martin Luther King said: “I have a dream”. It is one thing to have a dream, but it is a different thing altogether to convert that dream into reality. I happen to believe that in spite of all our differences there is a strange affinity between a country like Nigeria and a country like South Africa. We are both powerful and important countries of Africa. We both have a highly plural ethnic society and, if we in South Africa have problems with ethnicity, we should remember that Nigeria has had a war as a result of the ethnic factor. They are aware of this. Their new constitution, which was evolved during a period of military rule and through what can be called a national convention—what difference does a name make—actually states that they recognize the ethnic factor, that they realize that no one group, no one ethnic group, should be allowed to dominate any other group. We have our material resources. Nigeria has its oil. We have our mineral resources. Both countries have their ethnic factor. In some way, in spite of the current hostility, I think there is a strange kinship which can be developed.

Both Nigeria and South Africa would prefer not to have the Soviet Union breathing down our necks. The hon. the Minister said it would require adjustments on the part of both Nigeria and South Africa. We have to ask what the minimum adjustments are which the hon. the Minister will be prepared to make inside South Africa in order to reach some kind of accord. The hon. the Minister suggested that I was arguing in favour of a party’s policy when I said there were certain things that could be done. I really was not doing that. I was hoping to find common ground. It is one thing to say that the outside world will not accept the policies of any of the parties, but I am positive the hon. the Minister is not then saying in effect that as a consequence we should be doing nothing, we should not be changing anything inside South Africa. Surely, in spite of the fact that our policies may not be acceptable to everybody outside, there are certain things that we should be doing inside South Africa.

I understood that to be the philosophy of the hon. the Minister when, in November 1974, I listened to that exciting and powerful speech he delivered before the Security Council. He said we were moving away from discrimination, that we had pledged ourselves to move away from discrimination. Surely, the fact that he said that in an international forum indicated a realization of the fact that discrimination was one of the factors which prevented us from playing a full role in the international community.

I do not want to disagree with the hon. the Minister on this issue but I do believe—if we think in terms of these dreams of future alliances with Africa—we should establish for ourselves what the minimum is which we think should be done. I would have thought that getting rid of discrimination was one of these things. I would also have thought that to see to it that everybody had a say in the power structure of South Africa was one. Furthermore, I would have thought that reaching agreement on a new dispensation was another. I shall not pursue the matter any further. I do not want to go into the details. Surely, however, that is the common denominator which will make it possible for the dream the hon. the Minister expressed to us to become something approaching reality. I believe that there are changes that we can and should make, both in order to improve our relationship with the West and to make a meaningful contribution in Africa. The hon. the Minister has sufficient contacts in Africa to know that there is not a blanket wall of hostility. I can talk far more easily to Black Africans about South Africa’s problems than I can speak to Hollanders, Germans or Englishmen. They have an understanding. They are of Africa and they realize what some of our problems are. We must be prepared to be bold in the adjustments that we want to make to reach this accord.

The second very important element of the hon. the Minister’s speech was when he spoke about the drifting towards confrontation that must be stopped before it reaches the precipice. I tried to convey this in my own terms. It is one thing to realize that as a fact, to say that we would like this to happen, but there has to be a trigger action. It does not just happen because people make speeches in this House. It happens because somebody actually does something. Yes, it is true that we must get together. We must get the other countries aware of the fact that we are approaching a precipice. We on this side of the House say, however, that it is over to the hon. the Minister. He has expressed what we think are first-class, laudible sentiments, and we just hope that right now—just as in 1974 when there was a trigger action behind the scenes that launched Mr. B. J. Vorster’s detente exercise—as Southern Africa approaches a crisis situation, this Government, with all its power and with the perception that the hon. the Minister has displayed in the debate this afternoon, is going to take some action and move into the arena of international diplomacy in order to bring the heads of State, the Prime Ministers or the power structures of Southern Africa together.

There are one or two other matters that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the question of development funds and other matters relating to the Transkei fall under the aegis of his department. I want to put this matter to the hon. the Minister very frankly, on the basis that Transkei is considered by the Government as being a sovereign independent State and equal State, does he really believe that the treatment of the people at Nyanga was something that befitted the status of citizens of a foreign independent State which is friendly towards South Africa? [Interjections.] I put this to him because I think it is very important. [Interjections.] Either we recognize the States, not as technical equals but as moral equals, or we do not. Does he really think that the treatment accorded to those people was in accordance with the dignity of citizens of an independent and equal State? Does he think that even the negotiations that took place in order to bring about their removal were the kind of negotiations that should take place between Governments of independent States? The Government is responsible for seeing to it that large sums of money are being put into Transkei and we want to know whether, in fact, the Government is moving to control the expenditure of that money in Transkei itself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the second speech by the hon. member for Sea Point with as much attention as I gave to his first speech, but I must confess that I listened with just as much pleasure to the speech made here by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. I feel that the construction placed by the hon. member for Sea Point on the speech of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, does not do justice particularly to one statement he made. I refer to the remark made by the hon. the Minister when he expressly stated that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole are resolved to implement their statements and initiatives with regard to the development and maintenance of good relations in this country. The hon. the Minister did make the remark with regard to the HNP, but he also stated as a fact that the HNP received almost as many votes as the PFP, but he did not set that as a prerequisite for policy development in this country. This is the point we are disputing. The hon. the Minister calmly refrained from entering into a dispute with the hon. members of the official Opposition. I think that by doing so he succeeded in creating a favourable atmosphere in which this debate can take place. However I did not detect any remark in the hon. the Minister’s speech in which he prohibited backbenchers from arguing with the official Opposition. [Interjections.]

I had thought I could let that remark pass, but I cannot do so. In the first speech of the hon. member for Sea Point he said it, and he has just repeated it, and for this reason I cannot ignore it. The hon. member states that it is as a condition for favourable relations in Africa that we must move away from discriminatory practices. In the second place there must be participation in decision-making, and in the third place the hon. member insists that a constitutional dispensation must be established by means of negotiation.

What I do hold against the hon. member is the fact that in this favourable atmosphere he did not take the opportunity to say: The official Opposition differs from the Government as regards these two matters, but we acknowledge, although we differ from the Government in regard to style and methods, that the Government is also doing its best, within the framework of its intentions and mandate, to achieve exactly these things. I do not want to argue too violently with the hon. member, but I feel that if the hon. member were to state this matter in a positive way, he, too, could contribute towards helping to create a more favourable climate.

Other speakers succeeded very effectively in indicating the seriousness of South Africa’s international relations. Mention was also made of the fact that South Africa’s domestic policy and South Africa as such have to a large extent been internationalized. We are living in a world which has become small and dangerous. If one wants to see how small the world has become, one need only note the conditions set by some countries for the issuing of visas to South African passport-holders. One notes, inter alia, the absurdity of a country like the Philippines setting the requirement that the South African passport-holder must make a statement to the effect that he considers the Government’s policy despicable and that he does not agree with it. In that sense the world has become small.

The world has also become dangerous for us, in the sense that South Africa has become an object of interest to the great powers and that Southern Africa has become the area where the balance of power of the great powers is on a knife edge. As one can indicate this is how things go in this modern world—

This is the world we live in, and two campaigns in particular are running away with us. On the one hand there is a campaign of disinvestment by means of which an attempt is being made to bring the South African issue to the attention of the newspapers, courts, directors’ associations and the like, in a new way. In 1978 about a third of the shareholders’ resolutions submitted to annual general meetings had South Africa as a goal or objective.

A second action closely connected to this, is the inequitable way South Africa is treated in international organizations and also at the UN. Not only is South Africa denied participation, but South Africa is also becoming the object of certain conventions in which South Africa is mentioned by name or affected. I refer specifically to the convention regarding the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid. For me the disturbing characteristic of this lies in the fact that this convention has grown during the past 18 months by almost ten members, to the extent that at present, 64 countries have signed and endorsed this convention. Its aim is to subject certain Government officials and representatives to investigation by an international tribunal in those States.

This is the world we live in, and we are justified in asking: What is the escape route to be followed to get away from this abuse of the power of the international community and in the second place, where the route back to the international forums lies. The answer definitely lies in the establishment of sound regional relations in this country. One cannot escape this impression, especially if one looks at the resolution accepted on 14 September during the eighth special meeting of the Security Council.

If one analyses the voting, one notes that in spite of the fact that close economic ties exist between us, a large group of countries within the sphere of influence of regional relations bowed to pressure from the international forum. It is for this very reason that I feel that the remark of the hon. member for Sea Point, and his expecting the hon. the Minister to spell out here what his vision of Africa is, is unfair.

Through the announcement by this Government that it intends to establish a constellation and a confederation, there is adequate indication of its good intentions to allow sound economic regional relations to succeed within the framework of a constellation. What is more—and here I wish to address a word of warning to the Opposition—when it comes to the establishment of a confederation in Southern Africa, with specific reference to the three independent States with which we are dealing within this confederation, I wonder whether the Opposition always weighs its words carefully and what indirect role they will play in the fact that these States do not enjoy the international recognition we would like them to have. The hon. member is shaking his head, and as we are being reasonably friendly towards one another this evening, I should like to argue this matter with him with more venom in another debate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I can agree with the hon. member for Krugersdorp to a certain extent in the sense that he too referred to the latest, eighth special session of the General Assembly of the UN that we have just experienced. This session is referred to by the UN in their decision as “an emergency special session”. This session lasted for 12 days and as we all know, it concerned South West Africa which is called Namibia in the resolution. In this resolution which was adopted on 14 September, there is the customary confirmation of certain standpoints of the General Assembly as well as the customary prejudices to which we in South Africa have already become so accustomed. However, even the Security Council, the USA, certain countries of the Western contact group, the so-called Western Trans-National Corporations are being rapped over the knuckles and there is also the customary request to all States to institute comprehensive compulsory sanctions against South Africa. This proposal was accepted by 118 votes to 0, whilst 25 member countries abstained. As I said, it was a session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

On close examination, such decisions by the Assembly are disturbing, or perhaps I should say, if we had not known better, they would probably be disturbing. However, to what extent should we concern ourselves with the decisions of various organs of the United Nations? I should like to discuss this for a moment.

Perhaps we should look at some of these organs. The most well-known organ of the UN is probably the General Assembly. This assembly is a general forum where all member countries can meet and where practically every conceivable world affair is discussed on a broad basis. However, what is said here, can often be taken with a pinch of salt. The language here is not always so unrestrained, possibly for the very reason that the speakers know that there is very little substance in the decisions of that organ.

The General Assembly is in fact a forum for international dialogue and a useful place to observe specific world trends and tendencies. I believe that it should also be a very important forum for relieving international tension, and for discussing international problems in a positive way. Unfortunately, however, this is not the image of itself which the General Assembly of the UN gives. It has in fact developed an image which has led to the fact that we in South Africa do not always become concerned or excited about the decisions of the General Assembly.

We have learned that the UN organ that really has teeth, is the Security Council and that the General Assembly, as far as we are concerned, can only override it with a uniting for peace decision. Although there was speculation regarding such a decision before the session of this General Assembly, it appears that this organ itself is reluctant to make such a decision. This may be for a variety of reasons, all of which I am not aware, but if I were to speculate, I would say first of all that I think that the great power, the anti-South African power in the UN, viz. Russia, does not actually advocate the idea of this type of decision itself. In the second place, I believe that the General Assembly is reluctant to do so for the very reason that they are asking themselves: If such a decision should be taken, who is going to implement it?

There were 25 member countries who abstained from voting, and it may be interesting to note some of the reasons these member countries gave for having acted as they did. None of the reasons actually concern South Africa as such. On the contrary. They gave the impression that the refusal to participate in the voting, was a considered decision which was based entirely on principle to a certain extent. The reason for this was probably that the responsible members of the UN realized that their support of certain anti-South African decisions might boomerang back at them at some time or other. To summarize, the following reasons were submitted by the member countries: First of all some of the member countries said that they do not believe in sanctions as a means of solving the problem. Secondly, it was said that the proposal of the General Assembly was attempting to take over the function of the Security Council, viz. the introduction of sanctions. Certain member countries were not happy with that. Other countries were not happy with some of the terminology used in the proposal, such as “the armed struggle” and “Swapo, the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people”. A last example that I want to mention, is that it has been said that because it criticized certain countries in the proposal, the General Assembly is assuming the right to interfere with the autonomous right of member countries with regard to the ties, of whatever kind they may be, that they want to form, with whoever they wish. These reasons are of interest to us because it shows us that in the international community of nations there are many, many, powers who refuse to be taken in tow by such an assembly as the General Assembly of the United Nations.

As I said, the most important organ of the UN is the Security Council. In this body, as we know, all regions of the world are represented. What is said there, is to a very large extent representative of world opinion. It is in fact a concentrated world view on certain affairs. I think that we who follow the activities of the United Nations, will agree that the decisions of the Security Council are fairly balanced and controlled.

This is also where some of the permanent members have the veto. The name of the Security Council does in fact indicate that it is there to guarantee security with regard to a possible threat of world war. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend following the line of reasoning of the hon. member other than to say that I agree with him when he says that especially the General Assembly has not fulfilled the great expectations which I believe the originators of the United Nations had when that organization was formed many years ago. I think this is a great pity. I believe the United Nations can be severely criticized for the double standards which they apply to South Africa. The comment passed by the former United Nations Ambassador of the United States—now Senator Moynihan—when he described the General Assembly as the “theatre of the absurd”, was a fitting statement.

I do believe I am correct in saying that the mood of this year’s foreign affairs debate is quite different from the mood of former debates on foreign affairs. This is largely due to the hon. the Minister. The manner in which he replied after the first three speakers had spoken, added something to this debate. There have been many positive suggestions, and many positive attitudes have emerged during the course of this debate. I feel the hon. the Minister spiked the guns of the official Opposition in a way, because they too have been forced to take a more positive approach to the debate. [Interjections.] I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Sea Point, and a few of his statements were very provocative. The hon. the Minister, however, kept his cool. Despite the fact that while he spoke, he was provoked by way of interjections, he still kept his cool. I believe this has added something to the debate. The hon. member for Krugersdorp said it was a pity that the official Opposition did not use the favourable mood at least to give some recognition to what has happened in South Africa in recent years. I think this is the eighth Foreign Affairs debate I have listened to. In the past debates I have been party to, we in the Opposition tended to criticize the Government on the subject of change. We have had it again on a number of occasions this afternoon and this evening. I believe it was a valid charge against the Government, viz. that without meaningful change in South Africa we could not re-establish good relationships with our foreign friends. Perhaps in the South Africa we are living in today, we should possibly take a different approach in this particular debate. There are many debates during the course of a session where we can use all the power at our disposal to attack the Government, and I believe that we do just that, especially we in these benches. I should like to make the same suggestion which the hon. member for Yeoville made when he visited Bonn, the United States and London on a Foreign Affairs tour in 1979, a tour of which I was also a member. The hon. member for Yeoville then told foreign critics of South Africa: “Let us have a little more of the carrot and less of the stick”. This was a very positive contribution on the part of the hon. member at that time, and I noticed in the months following that statement that people from overseas were using those very words. I should like to suggest that in this debate we should rather take the approach of using a little more carrot and a little bit less of the stick. I believe that as far as projecting our image overseas is concerned—and we do this well through the Information section and through our diplomatic corps—there are three other objectives which should be included. I want to submit these to the hon. the Minister for consideration. The first objective I should like to see promoted in the outside world is the fact that change is indeed taking place in South Africa. We have been fighting for change. For 20 years now my party has been fighting for change.

How old is your party?

My party and its predecessors, that is, those of us who meet many overseas visitors, and I had lunch with one today, find that many of them are amazed at what they find in South Africa. Those who have been here previously are amazed at the change that has taken place. I believe we must sell this to the outside world, and tell them that change is indeed taking place. Let me ask the official Opposition: “Is change taking place in South Africa?”

You tell us.

Would the hon. members say that the labour legislation which the hon. the Minister mentioned, is really meaningful change? [Interjections.] Would they say that the President’s Council, on which three race groups are represented and which is seeking a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa, is evidence of change?

What has it achieved?

I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow whether the suggestion by the President’s Council that District Six should be given back to the Coloureds is an achievement? [Interjections.] I submit that change is taking place, and I ask the hon. the Minister to use his Information Service to project as an objective the fact that meaningful change is taking place in South Africa.

The second objective which I should like the hon. the Minister to project as far as our image is concerned, is that the Whites of South Africa are not the polecats of the world which they have been in some people’s minds and as a lot of people in the outside world still think. We are all South Africans, but we are not all White racists. The label which has been put on South Africa, however, is one of a nation full of White racists. There are White racists in South Africa, certainly. There are White racists in the USA. I have met some of them. There are also White racists in Britain. We are not, however, a nation of White racists. We may be a nation of Whites who believe in pluralism, but pluralism one can sell internationally but racism one cannot. I should like to put that suggestion to the hon. the Minister as a second objective.

The third objective is the one the hon. the Minister raised, viz. that we are of Africa and can be of great use to Africa and want to help Africa. This is not a new idea. My former leader, Sir De Villiers Graaff, spoke of “Capricorn Africa” and I have spoken of it in this debate over past years. My leader and the hon. member for Umhlanga again spoke of it today. I do believe that we can tell the outside world that we, of all the people in the world, know most about Africa. We have the technology, we have the understanding and we speak African languages. These things are absolutely necessary in order to extract Africa from the poverty into which it has fallen. The hon. the Minister mentioned these things. I think it was the Secretary-General of the UNO who said that Africa is dying. These are the realities of Africa. In earlier debates we talked about the future of South Africa and the need for economic growth and employment in order to avoid the disasters of over-population and unemployment. Those are objectives we are setting for South Africa as a nation. Africa must also set similar objectives.

When one considers the billions of dollars in aid moneys that have been invested in Africa over the last three decades, one must ask oneself how much has come out of it. A lot has been wasted. Perhaps it is time for South Africans to project the new image of change, of the fact that we are White pluralists and not White racists, that we are part of Africa and that we want to assist Africa. I believe that these images of South Africa are needed in Africa today. As the hon. the Minister said, we need stability in the southern portion of the African continent. I submit these objectives to the hon. the Minister as far as the Information Service is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, as befits a responsible member of a responsible Opposition group, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti entered this debate on behalf of South Africa with a harmonious attitude which can only be to our benefit. Therefore, I do not want to react to what he said or cross swords with him.

I want to turn my attention to the Information section of the department. At the very outset I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister for the way in which he has put the Information section of the department on the rails again after the traumatic experience relatively recently. I think the hon. the Minister and his officials are grateful that they can continue with constructive work once again. I also think it is only fitting for me to grant recognition to the Director-General of this department for the special share that he must have had in this task of co-ordination. I do not think anyone was more suitable to carry this out than he, in view of the fact that he was Secretary for Information before he became Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Consequently, he knew both sets of officials, and they knew him, so that there was mutual understanding and trust. We say thank you to them for what they have achieved thus far.

I want to confine myself chiefly to the activities of the Information Service in Africa and within the country. As far as the domestic activities are concerned, I just want to point out a few facts in order to show him how very efficiently the Information Service is now functioning. The 14 domestic regional offices of this division have paid approximately 17 000 to 18 000 contact visits this year, and have made new contacts. By means of film shows, presented by themselves and by other organizations that use them, they have reached nearly 750 000 people.

However, I want to pay special attention to the Africa Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. When one wants to talk about an enormous task, when one wants to talk about a challenging task, then this is the one. It is an enormous task, viewed on the one hand against the background of the tremendous antagonism displayed towards South Africa by Africa in the past decades, and on the other hand, viewed in the light of the fact that we are living on this continent and that we shall have to find the solution to our problems regarding international relations here. I also want to congratulate the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information right away on the special successes that it has achieved, in spite of the enormous stream of propaganda that is flowing over Africa to an ever-increasing extent every day.

As far as the Africa effort is concerned, I want to give hon. members a picture of special successes tonight, which all of us should actually treat with a great deal of respect. I do not want to talk now about the contact on the higher level, since this is something that we should rather remain silent about. This is evidence of the practical approach to liaison which now exists in the department. It is also evidence of a department which really makes the most of the opportunities offered to it, to the benefit of South Africa. For instance, the following is an interesting fact. An increasing stream of letters from Africa countries—I am not talking about our national States now—is being received, letters in which requests are being made for publications in which South Africa’s case is stated. For instance, in August 1980 the department received altogether 639 letters from Africa countries. In August 1981 the number of letters had already increased to 1 484—an increase of 132%, which I would call remarkable. However, it is interesting to note how this began.

A few years ago the department started receiving an increasing number of letters from Africa States, letters which apparently came from scholars, particularly in view of the content and the handwriting. These letters asked for pictures of motor-cars, animals, etc. This is really rather amusing, but at the same time it also moves one to think that children from a far off country have to write away in order to obtain pictures. Enterprising officials in the department, as well as the hon. the Minister, immediately realized the possibilities of this and evaluated them correctly. They sent those children the publications of this department, in which there were also pictures of motor-cars, animals etc. At the same time the publications were those in which South Africa’s case was stated and which tell the story of the prosperity of a good portion of this country’s coloured people. Those publications were sent to the children in the hope that they would be so impressed by this gift from far-off South Africa that they would also show it to their elder brothers and sisters, their friends, their parents and teachers. Strangely enough, this is exactly what happened.

Not only did the volume increase remarkably, as I have already pointed out, but it became apparent that this search for information is now coming from more adult and therefore more educated people. Now they are no longer asking for pictures. They are asking for information about South Africa.

I just want to give hon. members a few examples of this. I do not have the time now to go into the finer details. From Ghana, the pioneer of decolonialization and a traditional enemy of South Africa, a total of 117 letters were received in August 1981. In response to that the following publications were sent to that country: 42 copies of South African Digest, 98 copies of Informa, 4 copies of Panorama, 3 copies of Dynamic Change and 62 copies of This is South Africa. However, what is most interesting about this, is that in most cases where White foreigners ask for information they never contact the department again. In the meantime, four letters of thanks have already been received from Ghana. This was the reaction that we received from that quarter. In the same month, 45 letters were also received from Zambia, and they were followed up by four letters of thanks. 17 letters of thanks came from Malawi and letters also come from Zaire, Algeria and Nigeria—some of South Africa’s greatest enemies on the continent of Africa. However, do hon. members know what is most remarkable? The most interesting of all is that people do not want to give or lend these publications to their friends and families and that there is an increasing number of requests from people who say that their brother or fellow student does not want to give it to them. Then they ask: Will you not send one to me too so that I can have my own?

Then there is an even more remarkable phenomenon, and this is that graduates are now applying to the department about the possibility of obtaining a work permit in South Africa. I do not think there is more resounding, more significant testimonial of the success which this department is achieving in this sphere, and this is without grandiose schemes, without any show and without spending a great deal of money. I nevertheless want to tell the hon. the Minister that in spite of the trauma that we have experienced relatively recently and in view of the particularly difficult circumstances and task in Africa, do he and the department not want to consider giving attention to promoting South Africa’s image and message in Africa by way of unconventional methods as well? I know that immediately people will say “There you go again,” but we consider South Africa’s cause to be too important to hold back in the face of such a challenge. After all, we have a message to relay to Africa. The message is that development and economic progress in Southern Africa can only take place along the path that South Africa is taking. I do not want to dwell on this. I just want to point out the Government’s great concept of a constellation of Southern African States. I think they are ready for this message. The hon. the Minister spelled it out here very clearly this afternoon that not only are they ready for it, but that they need it too. After all, there is no doubt about this. I could quote statements by President Nyerere from this book to hon. members. He is one of the senior statesmen who says in despair that Africa has not achieved any of the things that it thought it would achieve by obtaining independence. The history of two decades has taught Africa that “uhuru” political slogans and the rattle of weapons does not bring about development, employment opportunities nor food and clothing.

We are faced with an Africa that needs development, but which is in dire need of South African technological skill, particularly its infrastructure. It is true that practically everything that they receive, they are receiving from or through South Africa at the moment. They are aware of these things. Recently a senior railway official in Zimbabwe said that the transport network of Southern Africa is like the blood-vessels of a human being, that it is significant only as long as the heart beats regularly and strongly and does its work through these blood-vessels. He also said that that heart is situated in South Africa. We must take this message and tell Africa: We can help you, to the north of us, with your enormous potential with regard to minerals and natural resources and your enormous potential with regard to food and agricultural production, we can help you to become a paradise and a tremendous food store for this subcontinent.

Mr. Chairman, we are living in a difficult era and the hon. the Minister spelled out the dilemma with which we are faced in this regard, very clearly. We are aware of the excellent work that is being done by our Defence Force and Police as the frontline in the defence of South Africa, but I do not think that we should underestimate the propaganda campaign which is being directed at us from outside, by means of the written word, radio, etc. Our enemies are using every possible means that they have at their disposal and often one asks oneself what the problem is with our young people today. They no longer have the sturdy anchors in all respects which many of us were privileged to have. It is nothing unusual for young people today to become involved in an argument about whether it is right or wrong to live together before marriage, right and wrong to use dagga and everything that accompanies it. Whereas in earlier years we knew exactly what was right and what was wrong, this is no longer the case today. This is a fact. In that respect they are making an easier prey of us and in that respect the SABC-TV can accomplish a very important task. The main target of those people is our youth.

In the era in which we are living, radio and television plays a very important role in forming and educating the peoples of South Africa as well as those of Africa. In this era we are dealing with tremendous onslaughts and propaganda as well as attacks by people from the right, the right-wing radicals. I was shocked when I saw two reports in the newspaper over the past two days—

and—

Then an attack is being launched by an Afrikaans group that are apparently extreme right-wing radicals, in which they object to Blacks appearing in television programmes.

The Whites in this country must simply realize one thing: They are not living in isolation nor in a cocoon.

In the second instance I want to point out that the television service which has been established in this country, is of a very high quality. It was established at tremendous cost and is not a facility which could simply have three or four different channels from the very outset. We are dealing with the issue of commercial reports. Africa is a huge market and the Black man is a huge market and that is why it is obvious to me that Black people will appear in our television programmes from time to time, even after TV 2 and TV 3 have come into operation. I want to suggest with all due respect that these right-wing radicals are uneducated, selfish and shortsighted and are playing right into the hands of our enemies.

Up till now the TV 1 facility has had to be shared. TV 2 comes into operation on 1 January 1982 and will primarily be geared to the Nguni and Sotho languages. Following that, TV 3 will present the Nguni and Sotho languages separately, as soon as this can be accomplished.

It does not simply end there. As regards its foreign radio services, South Africa is doing a tremendous amount of work. On page 16 of the annual programme, it is stated that according to an independent listeners’ survey which was undertaken, 5,1 million adults tune in to the Bantu language radio service every day. A record number of letters, 6,3 million, was received from listeners during 1980. Furthermore there are our services to Zambia, Mozambique and Zaïre. The work that these people are carrying out, is very extensive. I do not think it can be underestimated in any respect. I think that some of the people in those countries are being reached by us and they are actually taking the messages of South Africa deeper into Africa.

It also filled me with pride to see that Radio RSA’s German service has been nominated the most popular service in the world. This is no mean achievement. We want to wish the hon. the Minister, his department and the SABC everything of the best. They must proceed with this very important work.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Roodepoort will forgive me if I do not react to his speech, except to say that there are some aspects of what he says with which one obviously agrees. There are the attacks which are made on the SABC by the extreme right and I do not think one can quarrel with what the hon. member said in that regard. The difficulty, of course, is that the SABC is not immune from attacks from other directions as well, because it has not become politically as impartial as we should really like to see it in order to project the image of South Africa as it really is and not as some people would like it to be. That, however, is not my topic this evening, and the hon. member will forgive me if I shall not pursue it.

I should like to join in the words of appreciation which have been directed to the retiring Director-General. I must say quite frankly that I shall find Foreign Affairs very difficult to approach without the presence of the Director-General there. He has become part of an institution in that particular department and I certainly hope that his talents and his experience will be available at all times to us because we value it greatly.

The other point I want to make—and I want to make it in all seriousness—is that I think that while many of us are conscious of the strain that the Director-General and his staff are subjected to in dealing with very delicate matters concerning the foreign affairs of our country—and when I say that, I include all the officials—we must also appreciate the strain that the hon. the Minister is constantly subjected to and the difficulties which he experiences in negotiating some of these matters. We may not always agree with him but one thing one has to say is that he is obviously doing his best in a very, very difficult situation. One is conscious and appreciative of that. I think this has to be said because it is the reality of South Africa.

The second point I should like to deal with is that the hon. the Minister said that he was a little chary to tackle the speech which Dr. Chester Crocker made at Honolulu where he dealt with the Africa situation during which he said that he did not want to praise him because he was a White racist. I have no pretensions to being a White racist and I certainly want to tackle that speech although I do not necessarily suggest that appellation should apply in the context in which it was meant. However, I want to tackle that speech because I think it was an extremely important speech, not just for us in South Africa but generally from a global point of view.

Firstly, the major point that he makes is to my mind fundamental and is a point which we have to appreciate. I should like to quote from the report as it appeared in The New York Times, which significantly enough printed the whole of that statement as well as referring to it on the front page. I quote—

In other respects he points to the fact that we are now becoming a centre of conflict in global politics. Mr. Chairman, I would like South Africa to be the centre of many things but I certainly would not like it to be a centre of global conflict or in a conflict situation where the attention of the world is concentrated upon it. To use Dr. Chester Crocker’s words “It is the cockpit of mounting East-West tension” and we are caught in this situation in South Africa. The question which one has to ask is whether the public of South Africa is conscious that this is happening. Are the people of South Africa prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to solve the problems that confront us? Are they conscious of what is really happening to us? Are they prepared to effect the changes which are necessary for the survival which we want in South Africa? I do not believe that it is an issue that change is necessary. The only issue across the floor of this House is what is the change that is necessary? However, as far as the public is concerned, it appears to be unaware of the real situation that is developing in South Africa and in Southern Africa, the degree of instability that is developing and surrounding us and the problems that appear to face us in the future.

The fact that we have suddenly become news I can demonstrate by mentioning just two newspapers. The first of these is the New York Post. The report covers the whole of the front page and reads, inter alia—

The second page is full of it as well. The New York Times itself covers this event on the front page and the report states, inter alia—

There is a picture across the front page. There is an article about what happened in Angola and expressing the view of America in respect of Southern Africa. That kind of publicity as far as I am concerned really shows that this East-West tension is concentrating here. It is a reality that we are becoming the focus of world affairs and it is not something that is in our interests as a country.

Then the question has to be asked, and I want to put it very simply. I think that again across the floor we appear to be agreed upon the fact that South West Africa/Namibia should become independent. I think we are also almost entirely agreed on the method on which it should become independent. Therefore that is not the question at issue. However, the question that needs to be asked is in regard to the issue of conflict in Southern Africa, the issue whether there is or is not an independent South West Africa/ Namibia or is that issue far wider in Southern Africa? In other words, is it in fact the domino theory—that it was the Portuguese territories, afterwards Rhodesia now Zimbabwe, then Namibia and what is next? That too is a question that I think we should ask ourselves. The question that arises out of the whole context is whether the South African public are aware of this and whether we as politicians in this House, irrespective of the party to which we belong, are conveying to the public at large and to the ordinary man in the street the fact that they have to make changes and sacrifices in order to survive. Is not the situation in South Africa in actual fact that as far as the average man is concerned, he is still so fundamentally concerned about material things and the pursuit of leisure that he does not realize the situation in which his country finds itself? That, Sir, is a question that we as individuals have to ask ourselves, what our duty is, because in the end somebody is going to ask us why we did not change earlier, why we did not make the sacrifices earlier and do something about the situation while there was still time. That is what I believe we should really look at, and in my view it is in that context that Dr. Chester Crocker’s policy speech becomes so important. He deals with a number of other things, and says, inter alia—

What I ask is whether everything is being done in this House to ensure that the proponents of non-violent change continue to hold the initiative, because on that will also depend our future. Is there not a tendency now to say: Well, change is not the solution. Is there not a tendency to hold back a little, a tendency to fear that, in fact, we might be moving too fast? Sir, that again is really the test put to us because in no way can we convince the people that we need as our allies that apartheid is good, that we need not change, that the status quo can remain. We have to convince them that we are putting our house in order and that we are doing this not only to convince them but that we need to do it in order to survive. By doing that we will then in turn gain their friendship. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville made a responsible speech in this House, something that one cannot always say about hon. members on his side. I want to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville that the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated quite categorically that he will stick to the new initiatives that he has taken in regard to the situation in South Africa, and that nothing will stop him from bringing about the necessary changes. However, when the Government talks about change, when the hon. the Prime Minister refers to his initiatives and when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information puts South Africa’s case overseas, the Opposition must not expect us to implement PFP policy in South Africa. That, Sir, we are not prepared to do. We are, however, prepared to change and adapt in the interests of South Africa.

I want to come back to the Information section of this department. In the first place one has to look at the aims of that particular section. It is stated categorically that—

Those are the aims of the Information Service. These basic functions must be carried out, both internally and externally, as far as South Africa is concerned. South Africa and the world must be informed about Government policies and achievements, also in relation to certain adaptations and changes taking place in this country. We all know that unfortunately the world has certain distorted views of South Africa which have to be rectified.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who, according to a newspaper report this week, indicated that he was going to raise the issue of the Government abusing certain information publications for what he calls “blatant party political propaganda”. When this hon. member went to the Press with this type of story, The Argus remarked a few days ago that several recipients of the pamphlets had contacted the Press to complain at the distribution of National Party propaganda at the taxpayers’ expense. I just want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, and other hon. members on that side of the House, that that type of remark in relation to certain publications by the Government is another effort by the Opposition to arouse suspicion about what the Government has to tell the world. I think we have seen, in this debate, that when it comes to foreign affairs there is a measure of responsibility on the part of the Opposition. I think we must very clearly distinguish between …

We will decide what is responsible, not you.

I think the hon. member for Bryanston must rather shut up, because he really makes a nuisance of himself. The other day the hon. Deputy Minister of Finance was talking about a very brilliant Black man with a good brain when the hon. member for Bryanston shouted: “He has not got a vote”. The hon. member, however, has got the vote but no brains.

We must draw a very clear distinction between what is party-political propaganda and what is basic information that we have to give the world. We all know that this country is subjected to the cruellest and most vicious misrepresentations from all over the world. We also know that most of the propaganda against South Africa is based on blatant fallacies and deliberate lies in many instances. [Interjections.] Therefore this department, as the marketing arm of South Africa, must be put in a position to counter the unfair and what I would like to call artificially manufactured distortions by our enemies. It must vigorously tell the world the facts about South Africa.

I want to refer to this document which the hon. member was talking about, namely the S.A. Digest. The S.A. Digest of 14 August contained a supplement under the heading “The Road Ahead for South Africa”. That article contained extracts from a speech by the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa. It was not a party-political speech. It was not a verbatim reprint of the Hansard. All that was done was that all the major stands that are taken by the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa were taken from Hansard and put into print to be distributed in and outside South Africa.

The S.A. Digest has a 60% internal distribution and a 40% external distribution. This supplement is not a novelty. It is not the first time that the S.A. Digest has carried a supplement. I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that if he looks at the very next issue of the S.A. Digest he will find another supplement. He can now again go to the Press and complain that the S.A. Digest is being used for party-political propaganda. This is, of course, not true. These things are sent abroad, and also to influential people in South Africa, to influential bodies in South Africa, to all people who should be armed with the facts about South Africa, people who are either travelling abroad or who are entertaining guests from overseas in South Africa. It tries to create a reservoir of facts for those who must face criticism of the country that we live in.

Very often one-sided facts; that is the problem.

Many patriotic South Africans, and especially many businessmen in South Africa, are only too happy to be armed for the war of words which they have to endure when people are coming to South Africa or when they go overseas. Perhaps the hon. Opposition must rather make use of this type of positive information to arm themselves when they go overseas. I have heard many stories about the hon. member for Yeoville. When he goes overseas, he speaks like a patriotic South African. However, what do we find Opposition members on the other side also doing? I am sorry that the hon. member for Sandton is not here, but I think the letter that he wrote to an overseas magazine is an absolute disgrace. That is the type of contrast that we find on the Opposition side. I want to plead with the Opposition …

Do not waste your time.

I shall definitely not waste my time on the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, for I know exactly what his type is like. I want to plead with the Opposition that when they accuse or criticize the Government, either inside or outside South Africa, they must please tone down their language. If they continuously talk about a racist Government in South Africa, about indiscriminate discrimination in South Africa, about injustice in South Africa, about the humiliation of human beings in South Africa and about the rule of law not being maintained in South Africa, then I want to tell those hon. members that whatever the Information Section of the department does and whatever the hon. the Minister does overseas, is being made null and void. The hon. member for Yeoville …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member an opportunity to continue with his tirade.

I should like to thank the hon. Whip for giving me the opportunity to complete my speech.

The hon. member for Yeoville made one point this evening which I am sure the hon. the Minister and his officials appreciate, viz. that if one does a job for South Africa in a foreign country, if one has to do the work of a Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, it shows the strain on any man. It kills one off, because one is under tremendous strain. This is my plea to the Opposition: Do not make it difficult for our representatives who have to state the case of South Africa overseas. I want to challenge the Opposition, and in particular the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, when he speaks—and if he is not going to speak, to create an opportunity to do so—to take that article which appeared in the S.A. Digest and point out to me one example in that article which he regards a party-political propaganda.

With pleasure; you come and listen.

In that article not a single attack is made on a Opposition Party in South Africa. It relates to Government policy and Government achievements in South Africa. What is more, it relates to a major speech by the leader of the South African Government, the Prime Minister of South Africa. Had this been in America, the hon. the Prime Minister would have been given an opportunity to give a State address on television and to address the nation on every network in South Africa. Not even that privilege is given to the hon. the Prime Minister on SATV. That is the type of attitude which other Western countries in the world have. They create opportunities for the leaders of their countries to appear on television and to have all possible say, not for their particular governing parties, but for their countries. If we do not do that, the Opposition asks us why we do not tell the world what we are doing in South Africa, why we do not tell them what our policies are and why we do not tell them what our achievements are. However, the day we do that, we are criticized by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that we are using it for party-political gain.

Be in the House when I speak please.

There are many documents here. I want to refer to one called Towards a Constellation of States in Southern Africa. This document was prepared after the Carlton conference, attended by the hon. the Prime Minister and many South African leaders. The speech by the hon. the Prime Minister was printed in this document. At the back of the document appear a number of speeches by prominent South African leaders, inter alia, Mr. Oppenheimer, the Chairman of the Anglo American Corporation, Mr. Abrahamse, the Deputy Chairman of Nedbank, Limited, and a number of other people of whom I know for a fact that they are not Government supporters or members of the NP. This is the type of information that is being sent overseas.

Is there an article there by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

I want to say that in the S.A. Digest there are many instances—hon. members can go and read it for themselves—where the Opposition is quoted. Is that also regarded as party-political propaganda? I think we must not be absurd about this type of thing.

In fact, Sir, I want to congratulate the Information Service on a number of what I should like to call quality productions in which it tries to put the case of South Africa overseas. Instead of people commending the Information Service, they level this kind of accusation at it. I want to say that the Information Service is doing a first-class job. The information it is providing is of tremendous benefit in the hands of any South African patriot. Whoever one is and wherever one is, whether one is overseas or in South Africa, if one comes across people who are perhaps not as hostile towards South Africa as others and one has this sort of information available with which to enter into a discussion with them about South Africa, I must say that this is a tremendous benefit. What do we get, however, from the PFP? They arouse suspicion after suspicion.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti talked about changes taking place in South Africa and said that the Information Service should make use of information in regard to changes taking place in South Africa. I think that that is exactly what the Information Service is trying to do. I want to thank the hon. member for also saying to the official Opposition that when they talk about change, they must not expect the Government to accept PFP policy.

What is more, we have a story to tell in South Africa. I do not think there is any shortage of achievements for us to tell the people overseas about. One can look at the constitutional developments taking place in South Africa. If one enters into a discussion with a foreigner about constitutional changes in South Africa, about the question of ethnicity, about national States being created in South Africa and about the President’s Council, he is prepared to listen to one. We have a story to tell the world about the strong national economy that is being built up in this country. We have a story to tell about successful agricultural results.

You tell lots of stories.

We can say that we are feeding ourselves and are also exporting food to the outside world. We are also telling the world that we are an industrialized country. We can tell the world that in this country we have very sound labour relations and that in this country there are unlimited opportunities for everybody. We all know that we can also tell the world that our standard of living is higher in this country than anywhere else in Africa and that South Africa is still one of the safest and most attractive countries for investment. These are the positive aspects and achievements of the Government.

I want to end off by directing a plea to the official Opposition. If they want to fight with us about the policies of the Government, let them do so, but let them also tone down their voices, let them be positive in their attitude and criticism, and let them please not create difficulties for the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Information Service in these most difficult times we are living in. [Interjections.]

Have they ever complained about us?

If the hon. member wants to ask a question, let him do so.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Turffontein whether the Department of Foreign Affairs has ever complained about any member of the PFP or his activities overseas. [Interjections.] I should like to tell that hon. member that the members of the department have complained about members of the NP. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want to put it to the hon. member for Bryanston that if he is in possession of that type of information he should divulge it to the hon. the Minister. Why does he not do that? [Interjections.]

I asked you the question. [Interjections.]

I do not know. How should I know? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I want the hon. member for Bryanston to know that I have heard people complain about the stand taken and the expressions uttered by some hon. members of the PFP during their visit to the Angolan border recently. I was told that they had said certain things about South Africa’s military affairs. I believe they should be careful when they talk about things of this nature in the future. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Turffontein prepared to give the details here and now of the statements that are alleged to have been made on the Angolan border, and to name the people involved? I should like to know that.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to tell the hon. member for Yeoville who that particular person is. We can arrange a meeting at which the hon. member can put that question to the hon. the Minister of Defence. [Interjections.] I am sure that that matter will be raised with the hon. member in any case. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Turffontein in what he has said. However, I should also like to ask hon. members of the Opposition to be a little calmer at this stage, because I do not want to prolong the argument, but would like them rather to listen to the definition of the objectives of this department, as the hon. member for Turffontein stated them here.

I want to elucidate one aspect only. I want to point out, inter alia, that part of the definition of the objectives is to combat the psychological onslaughts against South Africa. One of the arms of the total onslaught against South Africa—or for those in the ranks of the official Opposition who do not believe in a total onslaught, the multifacetted onslaught against South Africa—is psychological warfare. I want to emphasize this. That is why I am stating it so frankly. It is a continued, propagandistic, psychological action, by means of which a climate is being created in which the impression arises that this country cannot be governed. The motive behind this is clear: Repeat this propaganda over and over until the people believe it; then it becomes a fact. The question that I therefore want to ask, is what we are really doing to combat these psychological onslaughts efficiently.

The amateurish, half-baked operations by the Mulder and Rhoodie enterprise, in its Information functions, placed us in a dilemma which caused a wound which was indeed covered by a healthy scab in the meantime, but which caused internal injuries which, I believe, cannot be healed even with the effluxion of time. That is why I believe that the decision that was made at the time to combine the activities of Foreign Affairs and Information and to co-ordinate them, was a correct decision, without any doubt. I also believe that the co-ordination of the diplomatic liaison and making factual information available has had a beneficial effect on the situation.

As the hon. member for Sasolburg and the hon. member for Turffontein correctly pointed out, extremely valuable work is being done. I should like to address myself specifically to hon. member of the Opposition on this matter. I want to put the following question to them. If we do in fact accept that a psychological war is being waged against us—and I do not think that they doubt it—should we not also accept that we cannot sit back, whilst these warring forces bear down upon us? Surely we cannot simply sit and wait for the end. We must also enter the fray.

The battlefield has already been marked out. It is of a psychological nature, and the object is not the human body, but the human mind. I am discussing this matter openly because I do not want to make party politics of it. I also believe that hon. members of the Opposition will support me in my request. Nor am I trying to maintain that the Government is perfect, or that the community in which we are living, is perfect. I believe that there are also political priorities that are enjoying attention. However, we must not overlook the fact that the enemy soldiers in this psychological war are not only operating outside South Africa, but within the country too. The battlefield is ultimately South Africa itself. The final blow is going to take place here and the war is going to be won or lost here. We are continually working towards combating the negative perceptions which our enemies are succeeding so well in generating here, whilst we actually have to create the situation where they have to fight like mad to attempt to break down positive perceptions. In a certain sense we are reacting instead of anticipating and initiating. In the psychological warfare we are involved in a hot pursuit operation, whilst we should also be planning and carrying out anticipatory actions. We must anticipate in creating a climate.

Having said all this, I am trying to say that somewhere within the framework of the activities of the Government, there is also a place and such a place must be made for a psychological information action like this, not as a clandestine action in itself, but as a publicly operated action in which, in the nature of things, there will also be opportunity for clandestine actions. However, this must be carried out by experts. If necessary they must be obtained from the private sector. This is something with which we cannot afford to deal within the framework of the ordinary activities of a department. If it is necessary, the private sector must not only launch it, but co-ordinate it and help to manage it for the State.

I want to concede, in fact I want to advocate, that such an action does not belong in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. I do not think it can be managed side by side with a diplomatic action. The mere ideas of diplomacy and psychological action are in fact opposed to one another. One cannot wage a psychological war in a suit and tails. In this rough and ready sphere, one may trip on one’s coat tails and fall on one’s own bayonet or be stabbed in the back by an enemy dagger.

In conjunction with this I also want to ask the Government to do everything in its power not only to make a free and open flow of information possible, but to cause it. I think communication between the authority and the media, although it is a thousand times better than it was a few years ago, is in fact still completely inadequate. There must be a disposition of frankness and there must be an efficient channel for this communication to flow through.

Then I want to ask very seriously and urgently: Why can we not establish a strong liaison section of communication experts in each department to be co-ordinated within the psychological action committee which I am talking about? If the Defence Force can achieve what it has achieved simply by carrying out its liaison function, in a very sensitive sphere to boot, why can all other departments not do so? I can point out a few departments who have also achieved a fair amount in this regard.

The objection that finances are a factor and that they are not available, does not hold water, with all due respect. It is much more expensive to clear up the ruins after a war than to prevent it.

We shall simply have to re-evaluate our priorities and govern the country, forgetting about the rest. If we can achieve a free flow of information and can promote it—I am speaking about all information, good and bad—I believe that the media, and through them the people, will develop an understanding for the task of the Government. In this way a mutual relationship of trust can be established between the authorities and the media, and in this way between the authorities and the people.

We must literally flood the media with positive information, not propaganda, but realities, therefore with facts. Certain sections of the media, or certain gears within it, will oppose us from time to time, deliberately or unconsciously, but here we have two obvious answers. The first is that the media will have to set in motion an internal process of rectification. By the very utilization of the media and assisting them to carry out their information function fully, we can have them on our side without engratiating ourselves with them. Whenever this self-corrective process does not work, one can take action from the psychological planning action viewpoint and bring those sections of the media into discredit. We must act in such a way that the climate is created in which Government action does not produce a reaction, but is actually requested and in which the action itself is viewed as placing the stamp on what should logically follow.

There is another plus factor too. As a result of the free flow of positive information and two-directional communication in an atmosphere of mutual trust, it cannot but lead to an even greater understanding and trust and in this way to healthier, better and even more positive and efficient Government than we have at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randburg will probably not take it amiss of me if I do not elaborate any further on what he said, for I want to make a contribution on SATV.

Before doing so, I want to thank the hon. the Minister most sincerely for his excellent speech this afternoon, and if a bankbencher is permitted to do so, I want to add to the hon. the Minister Mrs. Helena Botha who supports him in such an excellent way and who has been here since 14h15 this afternoon.

Various European guests with whom I have had contact and who are experts in the sphere of television, told me that our television service in South Africa compared very favourably with the very best of Western Europe. One of these people is a professor from the Netherlands who was for many years a member of the directorate of the largest television network in that country. I think it would be good for us to take cognizance of this positive assessment of the television service in South Africa.

However, these positive statements and assessment must not prevent us from examining our own television objectively, particularly in the cadre of South African living conditions. We must continue to ask ourselves what we want to achieve with television, what we want to do with it and what it seeks to do with us.

In the science of communication television is not considered to be a means of communication in the true sense of the word. True communication presupposes reciprocity and communalism. The presupposes a direct interchange of words and where there is a possibility of non-verbal communication, it presupposes a direct interchange of deeds or gestures.

In the case of television a communicator has no personal contact with the receiver. Information or knowledge which is transmitted is, as it were, at second hand. Consequently television is one-way means of contact which is geared in particular to the conveying of information, the broadening of knowledge and the provision of recreation. It is this very one way contact which makes television such a powerful means of influencing people. With television in so many of our homes, this means medium simply must exert a great influence on our lives. In fact, every medium which captures the attention of millions of viewers for several hours per day, must by its nature and of necessity have a great influence in all spheres of the life of such a community.

Research has indicated that the effect of television not only reinforces existing views and attitudes, but new images, other values and other patterns of life are also presented and adopted. Influencing and the conveyance of a different system of values can play an important part in watching television. Images beyond one’s sphere or world of experience may eventually come to serve as one’s own frame of reference and these images in due course provide the guidelines according to which one wants to organize one’s own life. A major part of what one learns is learned as a result of what one sees other people doing. It is a person’s world of experience and one’s world of observation. One observes specific conduct and then tries to imitate it directly. One could describe the imitation of a voice or the singing of a song or the act of a person as experimental imitation which may be positive or negative. However, negative experimental imitation could have tragic consequences for young people when it revolves around violence, crime or sexuality.

With this brief background sketch on television as a one-way means of communication which conveys a message to people, I now wish to come to the point I should like to make and with which I want to try to make a contribution to this debate. It is by no means my intention to be negative or moralistic. On the contrary, I ask myself the question whether many of the films which are shown on our television in South Africa—on Saturday evenings in particular—are, as far as content and message are concerned, not of such a nature that they jeopardize the norms and values of the average South African. In general Saturday evening is a family evening, that evening when children and young people may stay up later than usual. What are these children and young people being exposed to, particularly with regard to the feature film? In one film which I myself watched one Saturday evening, authority was undermined in all respects, theft highly commended and extramarital sex presented in such an attractively and enticing way that one wondered whether this must not inevitably result in people’s value systems being changed. In addition the misrepresentations are not rectified and it is not even suggested that these things are wrong or immoral. The appeal I should like to make is: Is it not possible for the Control Board of the SABC, when films are purchased abroad, to have greater regard for the moral norms and values which are still applicable in this country? I want to make an appeal to the Control Board rather to spend more money on purchasing films which are manufactured in and for South Africa, with the help of South African actors. Our own artists are entitled to this privilege.

Due to the emphasis which is being placed on spiritual preparedness—particularly in recent times—we as South Africans cannot afford to make our spirit the refuse bin of foreign waste products. I want to ask that we should be more intent on augmenting information and knowledge and no longer have the desire to spend 31% of our television time on dramas.

Mr. Chairman, just like the hon. member for Potgietersrus, I want to confine myself to the SABC, and more specifically to the Opposition onslaught on the integrity of the SABC, implying that it is a mouthpiece of the NP. It has become fashionable, particularly for the PFP, to castigate the SABC, and the onslaughts are repeated with monotonous regularity. One recalls, for example, the outrageous allegations of the hon. member for Sandton in the Post Office debate in March last year, and the vast number of attacks in the Opposition Press, that should be the very last to talk about prejudice. Perhaps I should refer to two of these attacks, firstly that in The Cape Times of 8 October 1980 under the heading “Nats misuse TV and Radio for Propaganda”. In this report they quote that paragon of objectivity, the magazine Deurbraak, and state that—

With the election on hand The Argus of 26 February 1981 stated the following under the heading “What can we expect”—

What is interesting is that they now have a standby in that Die Afrikaner is participating in this onslaught as well, and I want to predict that the same is going to happen in this debate. [Interjections.]

I do not intend to defend the SABC against the onslaughts which are being made on it, for I do not believe this is necessary. What is necessary, however, is to expose the distorted image the PFP is trying to create and the motive behind this suspicion-mongering. With their accusations they are, on the one hand, trying to create the impression that more time is being allocated to the Government, hence the NP, in a prejudiced way and, on the other, that inadequate Government control is being exercised over the SABC. In fact, the image they are trying to create is that any form of Government control is a demonstration of the subserviency of the SABC to the NP. Let us analyse the accusations of the unfair coverage that was allegedly given to the NP.

During 1980 a total of 44 minutes and 56 seconds was allocated to the four NP congresses in the TV news coverage, as opposed to the 31 minutes and 6 seconds allocated to the three congresses of the other parties. What must also be borne in mind here is that a major portion of the time allocated to the NP congresses was in fact concerned with Government departmental actions which were not of a political nature, whereas the Opposition congresses were of course of a purely political nature. Consequently a huge fuss was kicked up by the PFP during the election—there was a kind of hysteria among them—as to exactly what the SABC was going to do to promote the NP. There is a particularly significant report entitled “Elekom ’81” in which the media coverage of the election was investigated. It was compiled by the Department of Communication Science of Unisa under the guidance of Dr. Finn. Unfortunately the report has not yet been published, it was merely introduced at a Press conference. I had the opportunity of discussing the report briefly with Dr. Finn on his return from overseas yesterday. In brief, it was found that the election reviews given by the SABC were impartial. For interest’s sake I may add that it was found that the much maligned Citizen gave the most accurate news coverage of all the newspapers.

In respect of the time spent on news bulletins on TV, which was monitored for a period of a month, it was found that 41,1% of the time was devoted to the NP and 58,9% to the Opposition, with 26,7% that time going to the PFP. In addition one must see this data in an even more accurate perspective. The NP put up more candidates and held more meetings. What is particularly important in news coverage is that the NP as the governing party determines the direction in which this country moves, and as such the statements and actions of its leaders are, after all, far more newsworthy than the at times extravagant statements and actions of basically irrelevant parties and their leaders.

If you include the Cabinet Ministers, the figures will assume a somewhat different complexion.

Seen in the correct perspective, I want to state that if the SABC can be accused of anything, it is that it allocated too much time to people who are irrelevant to our future.

This brings us to the second leg of the accusation, where they try to create the impression that any form of Government regulation is in fact an improper infringement of the autonomy of the SABC. This is nonsense.

If we examine the position of broadcasting, we find that in no country in the world, which has an organized broadcasting service, is there no Government control. In a judgment given in 1943, the Supreme Court of the USA stated the position as follows—

There is no exception to the fact that Government control must be exercized over organized broadcasting. In fact, the International Telecommunications Union, a special organization of the United Nations, consequently lays down as a prerequisite that its member countries must exercize control over broadcasting in those countries.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus has already referred to some of the reasons why this has to be the case. I do not want to go into them again. Time does not permit me to. I may just point out that some of those reasons are of a purely physical nature, in that the spectrum of radio waves is limited and this limited number of radio waves has to be shared among the various States. That requires control. In addition it is a powerful medium which can exert a tremendous influence on all people and which can reach into virtually every home.

Consequently one finds that there is control. Basically this control can be classified into four categories. The only difference is that the content and form of the control differ. I want to refer briefly to the four categories: Firstly, where the Government itself operates the broadcasting service, as in Russia and Poland; secondly, where a public corporation has been established, as we and the BBC have, on which the SABC is in fact modelled; thirdly, where the Government and a private institution operate it in partnership with each other; and then, in the fourth place, where private organizations operate the broadcasting service under a licence, as in the USA. In respect of this final category as well, we find that the Government in question reserves methods of continuing to exercise control, and, as in the USA, even in respect of programme content. Consequently the mere fact of Government control most definitely does not prove that there is subservience to the Government. I wanted to say a great deal more about the PFP, but I shall leave them at that, for my time has almost expired.

I want to conclude with two requests to the SABC via the hon. the Minister. Since the radio services, and now TV2 as well, is specifically making provision for Black people, I feel the time is ripe to make some time available for our Coloured and Indian communities as well. The regional services such as Radio Highveld, Radio Good Hope and Radio Port Natal in particular, can be used to good effect for this purpose, as has been shown by the programme for Indian listeners, “Kaleidoscope”, on Radio Port Natal and the success it has achieved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, although I think I can say without any fear of contradiction that I am probably the one member in the House who knows the SABC both from the inside and from the outside, better than any other hon. member, I have so far refrained from speaking on this subject because my general inclination is to speak about foreign affairs proper. I think, however, that the time is opportune for me to follow on, more or less, on the theme which has been initiated here by the hon. member for East London City. Although no hon. Opposition member has yet taken part in this debate on the subject of the SABC, one of course knows exactly what they are going to say tomorrow. In fact, the hon. member for Yeoville did give us an indication. I must say that in the past four years I think I have listened to the almost amusing allegations and fanciful fiction from that side of the House with a great deal of commendable restraint.

*The first misrepresentation which the Opposition parties are so fond of propagating is that the SABC is controlled by the Afrikaner Broederbond and that that organization determines or at least influences the content of news and current affairs programmes in particular. If it were the case that news and current affairs programmes in particular were being controlled or influenced by Broederbonders or the NP, surely one would assume that the SABC would promote those very people to senior positions. In the 15 years during which I worked for the SABC I was unable to find any evidence of this being the case. [Interjections.] I understand the mentality of the Opposition, and that is why I know that they read Hennie Serfontein’s book very avidly, as well as the allegations in the so-called secret files of the Sunday Times dealing with them. I want to tell the Opposition that if they read those books, which they did do, they will, of course, find that my name does not appear there, because I am not a Broederbonder. Due to my origins and other factors, I also doubt whether I would qualify for membership of the Broederbond. Be that as it may, I have never been approached by the Broederbond to become a member, yet I held the record for rapid promotion in the news section, until I left the SABC in 1977.

Was that before or after you joined the NP?

What is more, I was promoted over the heads of well-known Broederbonders whose names do appear in the publications I mentioned. In addition I want to state it as a fact—and here I am speaking entirely from personal experience—that never at any stage in my position as news-editor, news-commentator or senior commentator was I directly or indirectly told by the Broederbond, or by anyone else for that matter, what I should or should not broadcast in news bulletins, or how I should write my commentories. No one prescribed the contents of those bulletins to me. [Interjections.]

†The way those hon. members are carrying on reminds me of a truth or a falsehood, whichever way one looks at it, which the “great” Dr. Josef Goebbels of the Nazi Third Reich used, when he said that a falsehood becomes a truth if it is repeated often enough. The kind of allegations that the hon. Opposition makes so loudly have, of course, a Goebbelsian tone about them. They are falsehoods which they believe will become true if repeated often enough.

Are you also the Minister of Propaganda?

We shall put you in a cage in the rural areas. [Interjections.]

That is why I just want to repeat that as far as I am concerned, the Broederbond story is nothing but absolute rubbish. Since I have never, nor am now a member of the Broederbond, I want to meet these Opposition half-way and admit frankly that I was a member of the NP before I went to work at the SABC. I have always been one and I am still one. I admit this with a measure of pride. When I became news editor in 1966 there were, however, three other news editors as well. The SABC has a reduplication of every post because they work shifts and they render a daily 24-hour service, seven days a week. In addition I want to state that at least one of those colleagues of mine was a supporter of the old United Party. To the best of my knowledge another was at least a sympathizer and I think, a supporter, too, of the former Progressive Party. Yet no listener could hear from the content of the news bulletins whether there was a PP, a UP or an NP editor in the chair. The reason for this is very simple. In that position we understood certain things very well which the Opposition parties do not want to understand.

†The first of these things is that everybody, whether he be a general in the Defence Force, a senior public servant or a news editor or a commentary writer of the SABC, is entitled to a private life and a professional life. Whatever our political views may have been in our private fives, the SABC demanded from us and got from us the highest degree of party-political neutrality and objectivity that it is humanly possible to achieve. In that I include PFP and United Party people. In all our work we adopted a pro-South African approach which had nothing to do with a party-political approach.

The second thing the Opposition parties fail to understand, or ignore because it is in their petty political interests to do so, is the constitutional distinction which exists in all democracies between the Government of the day and the ruling party. The Government of the day is the Government of the whole electorate, including those who voted against it, just as an MP represents all the people in his constituency, including those who voted against him, for the duration of his mandate.

What about those who did not vote at all?

On the other hand, the ruling party, just like all other parties, represents only its members and supporters. Therefore the SABC, like the BBC and most other statutory broadcasting institutions, makes a very clear distinction between Government announcements on the one hand and party-political views, ruling or otherwise, on the other hand. After all, it is the Government that announces legislation, that announces the increase or reduction of taxes, tariffs and so forth, the entering into of diplomatic relations, the signing of treaties, etc. It is the Government that determines the destiny of a country and its population for the duration of its mandate. In all these spheres the Opposition has very little to announce. It can express its views on these announcements, it can criticize them, it can praise them, but it has very little to announce. Announcements are “hard” news, whereas views and opinions are very seldom “hard” news. [Interjections.] Similar guidelines also of course apply to the “backgrounders”, the in-depth pieces and commentaries, which the SABC does. It is natural that the SABC should elaborate on announcements, but surely not on views.

This convention which I have been discussing is even recognized in the House. The Opposition chief spokesmen only get the half-hour when they actually request it, whereas the Government chief spokesmen, the Ministers in question, of course, have a free hand as far as time is concerned.

It is precisely in their criticism of these commentaries, particularly in my own case, that the Opposition make such miserable fools of themselves. If they would go back a bit, they would recall that the only topics I ever dealt with on television …

You only had to see it once not to want to see it again.

It was my television commentaries which bore the brunt of their attacks and that of their Press, against whom, incidentally, I successfully won a libel case, both against SAAN and the Argus.

Rencken on Rencken.

On television I dealt only with foreign policy matters and defence matters, and if these people then attack me for that, the implication is that they are decided … [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.