Southern Africa: Freedom and Peace
Canon L John Collins
Addresses to the United Nations 1965-1979
Contents
Tribute to Canon L John Collins
1. The Work of IDAF
Address to the 62nd meeting of the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid, New York, June 1965
2. South Africa: The Cost of Freedom
Address to the United Nations Human Rights Seminar on Apartheid, Brasilia, August 1966
3. A New Phase of the Struggle in Southern Africa
Statement before the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly, October 1967
4. Assistance to the Victims of Apartheid
Address to the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid, Stockholm, June 1968
5. South Africa Today
Albert Lutuli Memorial Lecture, Dublin, June 1970
6. Assistance to the Victims of Apartheid
Statement prepared for the United Nations Unit on Apartheid, April 1971
7. The Present Situation In Southern Africa
Address to the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid, London, January 1972
8. South Africa: A Threat to World Peace
Address to the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid, Dublin, May 1974
9. Detente and the Prospects for Peace In Southern Africa
Address to the Annual Conference of IDAF, Dublin, May 1975
10.In Action for Liberation of Southern Africa - A Plea to All Nations
Address to the World Conference on Apartheid, Lagos, August 1977
11.Solidarity with South African Political Prisoners
Address to the United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid, New York, October 1977
12. Address to the United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid
by Diana Collins, October 1978
In December 1963 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling upon Member States to contribute money for humanitarian assistance to those struggling for freedom and human rights in South Africa. The United Nations Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa specified certain organisations to which direct contributions might be made, and the British-based Defence and Aid Fund inaugurated and directed by Canon John Collins was one of these.
In June 1964 the British Fund took the initiative in setting up the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa (IDAF) with affiliated committees from a number of different countries. This body was eligible to receive grants from the United Nations Trust Fund for Southern Africa which was set up in 1965. Since that year IDAF has received regular support from the Trust Fund, as well as direct grants from sympathetic Governments. International co-ordination of IDAF's humanitarian work has continued to develop alongside co-operation with the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid.
As President and director of IDAF, Canon Collins has, over the years, been called upon to make statements and speeches at various international gatherings. The following extracts from some of these speeches give a picture of the developing situation in Southern Africa, as well as of the developing work and policies of IDAF.
The policy of apartheid, certainly as it is practised in South Africa, is clearly quite incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To put matters right in South Africa requires political action on a big scale. And, in a country where the victims of this policy, the vast majority of its citizens, are disenfranchised and persecuted under minority laws and enactments which make it an offence against the State even to wish to establish a non-racial society under a constitution which gives equal rights and responsibilities to citizens irrespective of race or colour, there is little if any likelihood of effecting the necessary political changes by normal, democratic, internal political processes. In such a situation it seems probable that only external pressures and the threat or execution of internal revolution will bring about the desired result. It might appear, therefore, to those member states of the United Nations who wish to see the policy of apartheid abandoned by South Africa, that the Defence and Aid Fund (and other such organisations) can be no more than a palliative, valuable and, indeed, essential as such, but unable to play any decisive part in bringing about what the civilized world looks for, namely, a peaceful but revolutionary change of policy in South Africa.
I believe it would be wrong to suppose the work done by the Defence and Aid Fund is no more than a palliative. I think that, as well as bringing aid to the persecuted victims of unjust legislation and oppressive and arbitrary procedures, and relief to their families and dependants - and that thoroughly worth-while job we have done now for many years, and will continue to do until the blacks in South Africa are politically, socially and economically free men and women-the Defence and Aid Fund has played, and continues to play, a vital role in bringing about those political changes so desired by all people of goodwill. And of much importance, in my opinion, is the fact, that the contribution of Defence and Aid in this respect fosters the morale of the internal resistance; for, if the necessary political changes are to be brought about with the minimum of violence - and no sane person could wish otherwise - it is the resistance movement inside South Africa, the front line of the struggle for freedom, which alone can give to South Africa the ability to become a non-racial society based upon a free and democratic way of life. I am encouraged in this opinion by the constant emphasis placed by the black South African political organisations upon the importance of the Defence and Aid Fund in their struggle.
Let me expand what I have said already by a consideration of the two main aspects of the work of Defence and Aid, the provision of legal defence, and the provision of aid to the families and dependants of those defended in the courts. In some respects, of course, the two overlap.
First, then, legal defence:
Legal defence achieves far more, I think, than a bare recital of the statistics of those defended would indicate. First and foremost it builds and sustains the morale of the people in the face of deliberate government policy to break their spirit and to force them into docile acceptance of apartheid policies. The mass arrests, the multiplicity of new laws, and the serving of banning orders have this one common aim, namely, to silence completely all effective opposition. But, because people are defended in open court, because abuses and malpractices-often sanctioned by the South African government - are subjected to the harsh glare of court proceedings, the government is continually defeated in its efforts to cow the people.
Take, for example, the Rivonia Trial. After one year, seven men were given life imprisonment, and many people may wonder what, in fact, the Fund achieved by its expenditure. I think it achieved three important objectives:
It is the spectacular trials which hit the headlines; trials such as the Treason Trial and the Rivonia Trial. But little is known of the hundreds of less celebrated trials, where complete acquittals have been secured, or lesser sentences have been given, or sentences have been quashed on appeal, because good defence counsel have been briefed by the Fund. One such case is the Goodwood case which ended recently in Cape Town, where, after a twenty-one-month fight in the courts by the Defence and Aid lawyers, thirty-one of the forty-four accused were acquitted. Without the Fund to provide proper defence, all forty-four would have gone to gaol. Among the horrifying facts which the lawyers and advocates revealed during this case were two I would like to mention: one of the accused was a pregnant woman who was kept for eight months of her pregnancy, first in solitary confinement, and then as a prisoner awaiting trial; the second case was that of a man suffering from incurable cancer who was kept in solitary confinement without medical care and who has subsequently died. It is also important to put on record that six of the accused were tortured during the time they were under arrest.
A South African lawyer, who has played a major role in many political trials has said: 'In thirty-five cases in which I was personally involved, 202 accused appeared. Of the 202 only eighty-three were found guilty. The rest were either found not guilty or else the cases were withdrawn or succeeded on appeal. We feel that this is a magnificent achievement.'
The lawyer continues:
'But these were not the only results. Often two out of three charges were dismissed and the accused found guilty on only one charge; which means that the sentence is much less. Secondly, the fact that they were represented in court invariably affected sentences. It has been my experience that where the accused are undefended they are given the maximum sentence. When they are defended, the magistrate fears an appeal and he is much more cautious about the sentences.'
Not only does the Defence and Aid Fund get acquittals, charges thrown out and lowered sentences; but, in addition, it helps the accused in a way that is difficult to express. It makes all the difference to accused people to have lawyers to see them and to defend them in court, to know that they have people who care about them. All this is made possible through the Defence and Aid Fund.
Today the need is greater than ever. The latest news coming out of South Africa makes it clear that there is to be no let-up in the persecution of all opponents of apartheid. Let me read from a newspaper account yesterday of one of the latest of the South African government's purposes. 'The South African government laid drastic new security legislation before parliament here today, including a bill that would allow it to arrest possible witnesses in any criminal case and hold them for up to six months. The witnesses would have no right to receive visitors, even their lawyers, or appeal to the courts. Only the Attorney General, the official ordering the arrests, would have the power to relax these restrictions.' Here, Your Excellency, is the open threat of a deliberate breakdown by the South African government of all that we understand as civilized behaviour. The safeguarding of the right of individuals to have recourse to the courts of justice without hindrance by the government is an essential of any civilized society.
A sinister development in South Africa is that men already serving sentences are being brought to court on new charges. Many of these charges are based on 'information' obtained by the police from people held in solitary confinement, under the notorious ninety-day no-trial law.* Other charges are for acts which were legal at the time, but which, retrospectively, have been made criminal offences. It is difficult to predict how many will be so charged, but the funds required for defence have already trebled. I estimate that for the next twelve months we shall need not less than £75,000 and perhaps very much more. 1
It should always be remembered that these people whom we are defending are those who are fighting for equality and human rights in South Africa. We have saved many hundreds of them from gaol to carry on the fight.
2. Welfare
I have explained one aspect of the welfare work of Defence and Aid, namely, that the morale of the man in gaol is kept up when they know that their families are cared for. But the problem is so vast that it is assuming the proportions of an aftermath of a disaster such as an earthquake. A conservative estimate is that there are between 15,000 20,000 wives and children whose breadwinners are in gaol. The Defence and Aid committee in the Cape has formed a national committee, together with other organisations, to cry to keep these people alive, by giving them subsistence grants of £6 - £8 a month. Now, the poverty datum line in South Africa, taking into account the cost of living, transport etc., is £24 a month for a family of six. So we can see that all the committees can do at present is to keep the people alive. Of course, it does more than this. It collects and gives them second-hand clothing; tries to advise them on personal problems; gets news of their men in gaol; arranges visits to Robben Island and other prisons, and gets the money for this. When only one visit is permitted every six months it would be tragic if the wives could not afford the transport: yet without the International Defence and Aid Fund to back them they would not do even what they are doing; they would not be able to take advantage of the meagre concession granted by the government to the wives of Robben Island prisoners.
In Port Elizabeth, and the Cape Eastern Province, which were strongholds of the ANC, the leadership of the resistance has been almost decimated. So many people have been arrested there, that three special courts have now been set up to handle the cases. The plight of the dependants is desperate. A few months ago there were 600 families in Port Elizabeth alone who needed assistance. If each family is given only the inadequate relief of £6, this is £3,600 a month - or £42,300 a year. And this is only for 600 families.
The human tragedies and anguish behind these bare outlines are indescribable. The conscience of the world is easily aroused when there is all earthquake or a flood; but this vast disaster which is forced upon the opponents of apartheid in South Africa gets so little publicity and consequently, inadequate response from those who, if they knew the facts, would be moved by conscience to great generosity.
An extremely evil policy practiced by the South African government is 'endorsing out' wives of political prisoners from urban areas to remote and impoverished reserves. In Port Elizabeth, thirteen wives were thus deported, and as with their husbands' imprisonments, they had lost their rights to remain in the city and their homes and to hold whatever employment they may have had. This is done administratively and cannot be challenged in the courts; but the Defence and Aid Fund does all that it can to help such people, and tries to maintain contact with them in the areas to which they are deported.
There is a third and last aspect of our work about which I would like to say a brief word, namely, the education of political prisoners (serving sentences) and of their children.
The International Defence and Aid Fund has recently taken on a new responsibility. There are over 2,000 political prisoners on Robben Island alone. In other prisons there are many others. Many of these prisoners are serving life sentences or sentences of twenty or thirty years. The blacks are given backbreaking hard labour, the whites are set to sewing mailbags. But those who wish to study are given facilities to do so, provided they enrol for courses offered by the University of South Africa. We believe that to keep them sane, to save them as human beings, and to further the cause of freedom, we must give them every possible assistance. To this end, we have made available to the Johannesburg committee of International Defence and Aid Fund, the token sum of £1,000 so that already some of the convicted prisoners are able to study. We plan to extend this, so that every convicted prisoner is able to study, if he or she so wishes; and assistance for this type of our work is now earnestly being sought.
Furthermore, the education of the children of convicted prisoners is in jeopardy. From what I have already said of the circumstances of the families and dependants, it will be clear that such items as school fees, books, uniforms, etc., will have to be sacrificed for food and rent. Also young children have to be taken from school to augment their families' meagre incomes. (There is no school-leaving age for African children in South Africa, nor is schooling free.) Through the Defence and Aid Fund committees we hope to get details of the many thousands of children who need help with their schooling and to make the money available.
I have given only a bare outline of all the needs. Nor have I touched upon the necessity to provide for the families and dependants of the underground resistance. Because of the tyrannical legislation of the present South African government, no political organisation which seeks to change South Africa's racial policies can function properly in the open; the black political organisations are banned. Those who wish to continue the struggle have to go underground. But what man or woman can happily or easily undertake such dangerous work if he or she knows that, by doing so, the well-being of the children and other dependants is at stake.
Though this committee is specifically concerned with the problems of South Africa, I am taking the liberty of mentioning the responsibilities of the International Defence and Aid Fund in Southern Rhodesia. Here, where men are restricted indefinitely without trial, where a lawyer who has been bringing applications to court to test the validity of these orders is himself restricted, where thirty men are in the death cell, under the statutory hanging law, the problems of aid and welfare are becoming as urgent as in South Africa. The Fund is trying to find £10,000 immediately for legal aid alone. This is a minimum estimate.
And, as in South Africa, the needs for welfare and education are becoming enormous. So far we have been able to give some help. But most of the money subscribed to the Fund has been going for our South Africa work, and we shall now have to make a special and separate appeal for funds to meet our commitments to the resistance movement in Rhodesia. It is my earnest hope that the member states of the United Nations will so follow the good, noble and generous response of the governments of India and Sweden to the needs of Defence and Aid in South Africa, that some of the money subscribed to the International Defence and Aid Fund by non-governmental organisations and by individual donors for general purposes can be released for use in Rhodesia.
* * *
This speech, though moderate by United Nations standards, created a furore inside South Africa. The government was enraged and the local Defence and Aid committee inside the Republic, already under considerable pressure, became increasingly nervous. These local committees had come into existence after the Sharpeville massacre of 1960; organizationally they were entirely separate from and independent of the British Defence and Aid Fund, but they acted as its eyes and ears in South Africa; and they were used, though by no means exclusively, by IDAF, to channel funds for both legal and humanitarian aid . Some members of these local committees had already been 'banned'* and those still working were understandably anxious. 2
The South African government had always hated the Defence and Aid Fund and had been in the habit of levelling all kinds of wild and entirely inaccurate allegations against it. But now, as the Fund was beginning to attract international support on a considerable scale, this campaign of vilification was intensified. In March 1966 the South African government banned the internal Defence and Aid committees and confiscated their funds. These were fortunately not large since Canon Collins, foreseeing such an eventuality, had never transferred more money than was sufficient for immediate needs.
The Defence and Aid Fund as such is and always has been purely humanitarian. Any suggestion to the contrary is a lie, as the South African Government itself knows perfectly well. No shred of valid evidence has been or could be brought forward by anyone to establish that a single penny-piece has been spent outside the terms of reference of the Fund which are, without question, humanitarian.
During the trial of Bram Fischer the prosecution at the preliminary hearing brought forward a state witness, an African who had been submitted to the terrors of solitary confinement in the care of the Special Branch (under the provision that permits the police to hold men and women in detention without trial for up to 180 days); he declared that Defence and Aid money had been used by Bram Fischer to promote an underground Communist Party. But at the trial itself the prosecution dared not put this witness forward to be submitted to cross-examination. The South African government, having ensured that those who are afraid of the Communist bogey had been submitted to a customary piece of its propaganda, discreetly dropped this false accusation against the Defence and Aid Fund.
The Defence and Aid Fund stands for freedom and democracy, and is in full accord with the Charter of the United Nations and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In its allocations of money it never has and never will discriminate on any grounds other than the ground of need. Anyone opposed to apartheid who is accused of a political crime under the racialist laws of South Africa, whatever may be his or her political or religious persuasion, or to whichever racial group or political organisation he or she may belong, is, if money is available, given the opportunity of a fair trial - in so far as discriminatory laws permit - and this includes having a legal representative of his or her own choice, a point well worth remembering if and when any alternative means of providing for legal defence may be considered. The Fund also seeks to provide aid not only to those who, because their family breadwinners are no longer able to support them, are deprived of the means of subsistence, but also to political refugees and to those opponents of apartheid who need assistance during and after imprisonment or banning - that peculiarly South African form of psychological cruelty. And it provides money whereby political prisoners may avail themselves of opportunities for further education and their children be enabled to go to school. In all this it does just those things that are always associated with any real regard for freedom and democracy.
Besides the obvious humanitarian aspect of Defence and Aid, this work has, I believe, among others three very important effects. In the first place, the provision of legal defence for those accused of political offences under apartheid laws and aid for them and their dependants gives concrete evidence - and perhaps in present circumstances the only concrete evidence - to the victims of apartheid inside South Africa that the outside world has not forgotten them and is determined to stand by them in their struggle. At moments of depression I am heartened to renewed effort by the evidences we receive of the effect of the little we have been able to do upon the morale of those who, in the face of acute suffering, are at times driven to despair. The Africans, Indians and Coloured inside South Africa ought not to be left on their own in their struggle for a free and non-racial society in that unhappy land. The racial conflict there is a threat to world peace. And if the struggle against white supremacy in South Africa can be seen to be the positive concern of all people of goodwill, of whatever race or colour or creed, there may be some hope that its defeat will lead to a greater measure of positive co-operation in the future between all the races of the world for the creation of a just, a peaceful and a harmonious international ordering of society.
Secondly, the work of the Defence and Aid Fund keeps alive the possibility of peaceful change in South Africa. Personally, I fear that the opportunity for peaceful change may already have passed us by. Ever since the Nationalists came into power the blacks in South Africa, with the assistance of only a handful of whites, have, against heavy odds and in the face of ever-increasing persecution, endeavoured by such means as ought to have commended themselves to civilised people the world over to create in South Africa a free, democratic and non-racial society. But over and over again, when help has been most needed, opportunity has been lost; those inside and outside South Africa who ought to have given help have not done so for fear of this or that consequence. In my own sphere as a churchman I have often been sickened by the persistent failure of the churches and individual Christians - despite the admirable witness of exceptional persons and groups - to put aside their fears and openly to oppose the whole present ugly set-up of society in South Africa as wholly incompatible with the gospel they proclaim. It may not yet be too late. If all who say that they are opposed to apartheid would now - before it is too late - abandon their fears and remember that help given too late is worth little or nothing to those who need it, perhaps there might still be the possibility of peaceful change. Support for the work of Defence and Aid would at least, I am convinced, ensure that change is brought about with less violence than might otherwise be the case.
And thirdly, the Defence and Aid Fund on its legal aid side has done something which no other body has or, in my opinion, no other body that is not independent of political and diplomatic considerations could do; it has exposed the South African Government's pretence of respect for law and equity for the lie that it is.
Dr. Verwoerd and his colleagues would like the world to believe that South Africa is one of the bastions of Christian and Western civilisation, that its citizens enjoy the benevolent rule of a state committed to the preservation of the right of the individual to seek the protection of the law against any infringement of his proper liberties. But the Defence and Aid Fund, by providing for those accused of political offences legal representatives of their own choice, so exposed the activities of the Special Branch in their efforts to subvert the course of justice that it became an urgent necessity for the Government to try to put it out of action. It is in this context that we can best understand the banning of the South African Defence and Aid committees.
How Defence and Aid operates is a question about which, particularly since the banning of the Defence and Aid committees in South Africa, we need to be cautious; during this Seminar it is imperative that I should neither say nor imply anything that might assist the South African government in its efforts to hinder our work. But there are certain things I would like to say: First, there is, I hope, little need for me to emphasise that the Defence and Aid Fund is a properly constituted body and that its accounts are properly audited and open for inspection by any who may wish to see them.* Secondly, I wish to give categorical assurance that the banning of the committees in South Africa, though it has created difficulties, has in no way stopped the Defence and Aid Fund from functioning. And thirdly, and equally categorically, let me add an assurance that we still function through channels that are legal not only outside but also inside South Africa. 3
The time may come in South Africa, as it came in Nazi Germany, when it will no longer be possible to provide, through normally legitimate channels, any proper legal defence for those accused of political offences or any aid for their impoverished families. Already the Government has assumed such powers that it has adequately demonstrated that its professed respect for justice is, in fact, a pretence. And the extent to which it is prepared to go in its tyrannical determination to destroy all legitimate opposition to apartheid has been evidenced by Mr. Vorster's recent announcement of his intention to introduce, in the next session of the South African Parliament, a bill extending the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act so as to give him greater power than he already has over the course of justice in the South African Courts.
We know, of course, or ought to know by now, that in South Africa today anyone whom the Minister of Justice may deem to be a communist is regarded as one before the law; and this means that everyone whom the Government considers to be a threat to its racial tyranny can be named as a Communist. But, until there remains no further possibility of any proper defence of victims of apartheid in the South African Courts of Law, Defence and Aid will continue to function within the law.
The statement I made in June 1965, on behalf of the International Defence and Aid Fund, before the Special Committee of the United Nations on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, evoked considerable criticism. I was criticised not only by persons who regard any assistance, however humanitarian, to the victims of apartheid as an unwarrantable interference in the internal affairs of South Africa, but also by people, inside and outside South Africa, who are themselves opposed to racial discrimination, including some members of the now banned South African Defence and Aid Committees.
I am, of course, sorry for any embarrassment my statement may have caused to friends, particularly to fellow-workers inside and outside South Africa. Some felt that by my use of the words 'resistance' and 'underground' (to refer to the active opposition to apartheid) I had played into the hands of government propagandists and had made the task of those inside South Africa who are actively opposed to apartheid more difficult. There were those who thought that I had given the government the excuse they desired to ban the South African Defence and Aid Committees. I am, of course, aware of the emotional effects of the words 'resistance' and 'underground', of their association in people's minds with sabotage and other forms of violence used by the underground resistance to Nazism during the 1939-45 war: and in the situation that obtains in South Africa today, with a government whose prime minister and many of his colleagues wished for Hitler's victory and with a white population that is terrified of any possibility of a successful uprising of the Africans, Indians and Coloureds, it would perhaps have been more discreet on my part to have found some other words or expressions to indicate what I meant. But my own criticism of my statement is that I did not speak forcefully enough. I believe that the main points I tried to make are essentially important if non-South Africans are to make any significant contribution towards bringing about an end to apartheid. I trust you will forgive me, therefore, if I repeat them, but repeat them, I hope, in a manner that may dissociate them from the misrepresentations of pro-apartheid propagandists and from the misunderstandings of friends.
But I am not sorry that what I said - however open to criticism my choice of words may have been - was given a hostile reception within Nationalist circles and among those whites, outside as well as inside South Africa, who, whether by reason of apathy or because of self-interest, whether through fear or as a result of ignorance, whether by accident or by design, consent to Nationalist racial policies and actions. Those of us outside South Africa who desire an end to apartheid may rest assured that anything in furtherance of our object we may say or do that wins the approval or even the neglect of Dr. Verwoerd and his colleagues is of little or no avail, and that what evokes their hostility is likely to be of value. In my opinion this is an important point to be borne in mind in determining how best to assist the victims of apartheid: those whose greatest concern it is that the present tyrannous regime in South Africa be exchanged as quickly as possible for one that will respect the human rights of all South African citizens without regard to their race or colour or creed.
The policy of apartheid is quite incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: this statement, the opening remark of my case on behalf of Defence and Aid before the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid, I regard as self-evident. There are those who argue that some kind of separate development for the races in South Africa, at least as a temporary measure, could be to the advantage of the blacks. And there are professing Christians, including the bulk (though not all, thank God) of the membership of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa who try to justify apartheid on biblical grounds, not simply as an expedient, but as a permanent and proper way of ordering any multi-racial society. But 'separate development' is only a polite substitute for 'segregation', and 'segregation' is a less obvious way of saying 'discrimination'.
In any society of mixed races we seldom find the underprivileged asking for 'separate development'. Bram Fischer, in his statement before the court at his recent trial, said that when he suggested to an African leader that there might be advantages to the Africans in 'separate development', that African replied that what is required in South Africa is more understanding of each other among the races whereas 'separate development' would only add to the fears and suspicions of each other which already exist. It is perhaps significant that in the USA alone, where at long last, largely as a result of growing world pressures and of an increased awareness of their own economic power, the black population is being granted equality of rights before the law, some blacks, driven to doubt the integrity of the white majority, are beginning to favour the idea of separate development. But Bram Fischer's African friend was correct. Apartheid is an evil because, in a world that is seeking for the creation of a society of mankind that is based upon mutual understanding, harmony and goodwill among people of all races, colours and creeds, it fosters ignorance and misunderstanding, discord and discrimination. Whether it be on grounds of expediency or of principle, all arguments in favour of apartheid would seem to me to deny any sensible concept of a man or of human society that could be acceptable to anyone (whether a secularist or a religious person) who believes in the possibility of human fellowship within an ordered, just and peaceful world. Certainly all such arguments are an affront to the Charter and to the Universal Declaration.
Here at this Seminar there is no need for me to set out at length my reasons for believing that no fundamental changes in South Africa's racial policies will be brought about by normal democratic processes inside South Africa. Others more qualified than I, themselves victims of the tyranny under which all South Africans who desire an end to white supremacy must suffer, will make this abundantly clear. I wish to draw attention to the fact that every political organisation in South Africa that has attempted to effect changes by normal democratic means has been either banned or made ineffective - according to the degree to which the South African government has feared its potentiality.
But how, if not by normal democratic processes, are the necessary political changes in South Africa to be brought about?
External pressures of many kinds are needed, whether they be through the United Nations, or through the Organisation of African Unity, or through individual states, or through trade union movements or through any of the many independent international and national organisations, or through individuals. For, as conditions in South Africa are at present, it is inconceivable that the blacks of South Africa can hope within the foreseeable future to bring about the downfall of white supremacy without external aid of some sort or another. Here others more competent than I am will speak of ways and means of supplying the necessary economic, social and political pressures that may best help to bring about the required radical changes inside South Africa. And to many such pressures I certainly give, in principle, my own personal support.
But in the long run, I believe, it is the positive opposition to apartheid inside South Africa that alone can rid that unhappy land of the evils of segregation and discrimination - and that opposition, because the population of South Africa is three-quarters African, is and inevitably must be predominantly African. If South Africa is to become really politically free it will be because the majority of South Africans, through their political organisations inside and outside South Africa, obtain that freedom for themselves. And this they can do, in existing circumstances, only by means that the South African parliament makes illegal. Inside South Africa opposition or resistance to apartheid (call it what you will) has to become illegal or go underground (express it how you may); and it must surely be our task to assist this 'opposition', whether it may operate inside or outside South Africa, and to assist it in such ways as its own leaders may wish. For myself, it is because Defence and Aid, in fulfilling its humanitarian role, boosts the morale of South African opponents to apartheid of all races inside and outside South Africa, and because responsible leaders of their political organisations themselves emphasise its vital importance in their struggle, as well as on account of my humanitarian concern as a Christian for the relief of suffering, that I so fervently espouse its cause.
When I speak of the probability that only external pressures and the threat or execution of internal revolution will bring about the liberation of the oppressed people of South Africa I am not putting myself on the side of violence. By 'revolution' I mean what the word itself implies, a turning round, a radical change. Such a change may or may not involve violence and shedding of blood. Alas, in South Africa, because of the violence of those determined upon apartheid, it has now become probable that attempts at release from tyranny will be violent. Violence breeds violence; and too frequently in world history what is achieved through violence has become the foster-parent of more tyranny and more violence. Only let it be clearly understood, inside and outside South Africa, that if the liberation movement now turns to violent methods to achieve its end the blame must be squarely laid upon the shoulders of white supremacists the world over. And let us assure both ourselves and the world that, in the event of violence on the part of the oppressed, it would be sheer hypocrisy on this account to withhold our support. By what right do we of the West or the East, with our arms races, our persistent dependence upon the force of arms to achieve our ends and to preserve our respective ways of life, counsel the oppressed of South Africa to use nothing but non-violence to gain for themselves the basic rights incorporated in the United Nations Charter and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Least of all can those who have enjoyed the privilege of colonial possessions afford to cast stones at others who, in their case because of desperation, turn away from non-violence to violence.
As a Christian who believes in the validity of the way of love as expressed in the life, teaching and death of Jesus, as one who hesitantly calls himself a pacifist, I always counsel restraint and non-violence in the South African situation. But I do not and ought not to expect of the leadership of the South African opposition to apartheid any greater respect for non-violence than is and always has been common to man. It is easy for a white man, with all his privileges, to call for patience and restraint on the part of those who have no such privileges; but for African or Indian or Coloured persons, the victims of oppression, to respond to such a call is exceedingly difficult.
The African National Congress, up to the infamous police action at Sharpeville, was committed to non-violent means for the achievement of its ends. But in South Africa every attempt at non-violent protest was met by the Government with violence and ruthless persecution. The decision of the ANC to meet violence with violence ought not, then, to have come as any surprise. The white regime in South Africa is a violent tyranny. Rejecting violence, as in principle I do and in practice I try to do, I say, nevertheless, that such a tyranny may expect to be overthrown by violence. The whites inside South Africa could, if they so wished, act constitutionally to insist upon changes of policy and legislation. Indeed, if all those Whites who say they oppose apartheid would really act against it, this would perhaps be the only chance of a non-violent, non-racial revolution to bring about the downfall of the present Nationalist Government and an end of a regime that is committed to the wickedness of denying human rights to the bulk of the population.
But, things being what they are, though we should sympathise with those who would suffer in the eventuality of violence on the part of men and women determined to obtain their freedom, it must remain our task here and now, at the risk of violence being confronted with violence, to aid the victims of apartheid to bring about those radical changes in South Africa that alone could, in the long run, minimise violence in that tyrannised land. And we must not allow ourselves to be hindered in our purpose by the propaganda of the South African Government and of those many groups and organisations, inside and outside South Africa, that support its racialist policies. It is well to remember that Dr. Verwoerd is an able doctor of psychology and has made it evident that, while approving of Hitler's racial policies, he does not intend to repeat Hitler's psychological errors in the presentation of his case to the world.
There is one further point I would make before bringing this paper to a close. There are those who suggest that the South African opposition to apartheid, inside and outside South Africa, ought to be more aggressive. They complain that inside South Africa there has been no open rebellion of the oppressed people, little or no use made of its industrial power as the main labour force and only derisory use made of sabotage; and no leading of any liberation foray from outside. I believe such criticisms to be as harmful as they are stupid, liable to hinder rather than prosper the cause for which those who make them claim to stand. We ought rather to pay tribute to the opposition of all races, predominantly African, particularly to the African leadership, for their patience and their judgement in the difficult task they have undertaken in face of a ruthless white supremacist tyranny.
The fact is, South Africa is a wealthy modern state that supports a large military force, equipped with efficient modern weapons, and an exceedingly expensive, uninhibited and (where it is deemed expedient) brutal police force; it is governed by a fanatical government representative of a white privileged population that is fanatically afraid of those millions it deprives of their human rights. In such a situation none but fools (or knaves) would counsel impatience or foolhardiness on the part of those whose concern is for the ultimate well-being of the whole nation, for the 3,000,000 who at present so wickedly or so foolishly deny to the majority of its citizens their proper rights and responsibilities as well as for the 13,000,000 or so who are at present the victims of a tyranny of white supremacy. To act impatiently or precipitately could only end in a terrible slaughter of countless innocent victims of apartheid with little or nothing of value gained.
Today the Liberation Movement is not only committed to the policy of meeting violence with violence; it is already working in the early stages of an armed conflict. We are now in the presence of a threat not only of a violent upheaval inside South Africa itself, but of the beginning of a race war in the whole of Southern Africa that could easily lead to a world-wide racial war. It is no longer a question of whether there will be a violent struggle in South Africa; it is now simply a question of what is our responsibility in this new situation.
As president of the International Defence and Aid Fund it would not be proper for me to discuss the merits of the decisions made by the Liberation Movement about the methods of their struggle, whose essential purpose is the achievement of the legitimate rights of the people. The Defence and Aid Fund exists to serve the interests of the victims of apartheid; and so long as the Liberation Movement continues, as it does today, to give its unqualified support for the humanitarian work that it does we shall carry on that work to the best of our power.
But I venture to make a few comments, in a personal capacity, upon this new phase of the struggle against apartheid and white supremacism in Southern Africa.
As one who hesitantly calls himself a Christian pacifist, I always counsel restraint and non-violence. Violence, I believe, breeds violence. But I do not and ought not to expect of the leadership of the South African Liberation Movement any greater respect for non-violence than is and always has been common among them. It is easy enough for those who possess the privilege of freedom to call for restraint and patience on the part of those who have no such privilege; but not so easy for the victims of apartheid.
Despite all that has been done within the United Nations, particularly through the Special Committee on Apartheid and the Trust Fund for South Africa, despite all that opponents of apartheid the world over have been able to do, the situation in South Africa has gone from bad to worse. The Nationalists, obstinately determined upon white supremacy and in defiance of repeated expressions of world opinion, are more established in power than ever before; their tyranny over all effective political opposition increases daily; and, as though to add insult to injury, their flouting of world opinion is being rewarded with growing economic prosperity. How, then, can any fair-minded and humane person blame the victims of apartheid if they despair of outside support in their just cause, if they become disenchanted by pious expressions of sympathy, if they doubt the effectiveness of countless resolutions passed at international and national assemblies, seminars, conferences and meetings, if they, in desperation and impatience, set about the task of trying to achieve their aim by armed conflict.
There are, I think, lessons in all this for those of us who though not directly involved as victims of apartheid, wish to see an end of white supremacy in Southern Africa, and all the evils that flow from it. First, we need to reassure the Liberation Movement of our integrity as active supporters of their just aims. Sympathetic talk and resolutions by themselves will not do. What is required is active assistance in such forms as they themselves request. That is why the Defence and Aid Fund continues and will continue to give humanitarian aid, despite all that the South African government can do and does to hinder it in this purpose.
Secondly, we need to face the fact that we are involved in what is likely to be a long struggle. Our patience needs to match the patience that has been so admirably displayed by the Liberation Movement. It is not easy to sustain a prolonged effort, particularly in international affairs, when, as in this case, we move from one crisis to another. The Vietnam War, the Middle East tensions, and other such issues, vital as they are, ought not to be allowed to distract us in our work to rid the world of apartheid in South Africa and every remaining vestige of white supremacy. If you live too long with a bad smell you get used to it, and the intrusion of some new stink may cause you to forget the existence of the old one. Racialism in Southern Africa, just as much as what goes on in Vietnam and in the Middle East, is an issue that, if not quickly and effectively tackled on the international level, could easily plunge the world into a global racial war.
And the third lesson to be drawn from the present situation in Southern Africa, I suggest, is the necessity to insist that those nations which, particularly by their votes in the Assembly of the United Nations, claim to be opposed to apartheid should give practical evidence in support of such claims. It is a notorious fact that many nations which do make such claims often allow their selfish concern with their own economic interests to stand in the way of their fulfilling their obligations. For example Great Britain, the United States of America, France, West Germany - to name some of the worst offenders - persistently aid the South African economy by increasing their trade with and their investments in that country; and we have to note that South African trade with some Asian countries and with certain independent African States is on the increase. What is required now, in my opinion, is for the United Nations, as well as passing resolutions designed to bring about necessary changes in South African policies, to concentrate attention upon influencing realistically the public opinion in those countries whose governments selfishly flout international opinion on Southern African racial issues.
There are two more points I would like to make before I bring this statement to a close.
The first arises directly from what I have just said. After succeeding Dr. Verwoerd as prime minister of South Africa, Mr. Vorster made it one of his main objectives to win favour of the outside world. He made it clear, however, that in trying to establish a better image of his government, he could not surrender any of the principles of apartheid. It should be self-deception not to acknowledge that his campaign has achieved some success - for example, South Africa's booming trade, its wide and more cordial diplomatic relations, including relations with nearby African states and the fading interest shown by the world press in events in that country. Mr. Vorster's satisfaction is seen in the boasts of one of his ministers: senator de Klerk is on record as saying 'there has been a remarkable change . . . there are today groups of friends of South Africa everywhere'.
The government of South Africa is spending something in the region of £2 million a year on direct information services designed to improve its image. In addition there is an annual appropriation in terms of the Foreign Affairs Special Account Act 'to promote the Republic's foreign relations in an unorthodox fashion' (to quote the words of the minister for Foreign Affairs). This expenditure will not be subject to normal scrutiny of parliament. This measure gives permanence to the practice begun in 1965 of allocating £250,000 of the annual Foreign Affairs budget to 'secret services' in fostering trade and diplomatic relations in Africa and abroad. There is also the South Africa Foundation which, following upon its successes in London, is about to establish (or has already established) a permanent office in New York. The Foundation issues vast quantities of literature and provides free jaunts to South Africa for newspapermen, publicity agents, industrialists and others.
And linked with the Foundation are the activities of businessmen who are advised and guided by it in their dealings abroad. As a result, nervousness and uncertainty which previously prevailed, particularly following upon Sharpeville, have given way to a scramble to do business. Foreign investment is steadily increasing; imports and exports are breaking records. It is significant that, besides doing more business with Britain, the United States, France and other wealthy powers, South Africa, ill the first four months of 1967, almost doubled its exports to Asia and increased its sales to African territories from £28.7 million to £30.6 million.
This expenditure of effort and money on the part of the South African government for the purposes of improving its own image and hindering the work of opponents of apartheid should convince us of the need for powerful organisations, suitably financed and competently run, to present the other side. The International Defence and Aid Fund, within its present terms of reference, has undertaken to do its part in this respect. We have set up a special Study and Research Centre to collect and to collate information on South Africa, South West Africa, BoTswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique. On the basis of this accurate information we hope to place not only the Defence and Aid Fund itself but any others who may wish to avail themselves of this service in a better position to counter the extensive pro-apartheid propaganda that is disseminated by the South African government through a variety of channels. I hope very much, Mr. Chairman, that this extension of our work will receive the goodwill and the support of your committee and through it, the goodwill and support of the United Nations General Assembly.
My second point is on the question of the extension of the work of the Defence and Aid Fund to parts of Southern Africa other than South Africa. Up to the present we have been primarily concerned with South Africa and South West Africa. But recently demands upon us by the Liberation Movement in Rhodesia have been increasing. It seems to me, particularly in view of the resolutions at the Kitwe Seminar and of what has recently happened in Rhodesia, where the South African government quite blatantly helps the Smith rebel regime to evade sanctions and to harry and victimize opponents of white supremacy, that, if we are to do our work adequately for the South African victims of apartheid, we must also try to be ready to respond to requests for humanitarian aid from any of the Liberation Movements in the whole of Southern Africa. We would like to be able to do this, but we can only do so if sufficient funds become available for this purpose.
The struggle for freedom and justice for all in Southern Africa is one which surely must commend itself to every sensible and sensitive human being. For my own part, and speaking also on behalf of the International Defence and Aid Fund, we shall do all in our power to remain effective servants to the Liberation Movement so long as they ask for our services. Men and women of all races in Southern Africa have given themselves without stint in the cause. I consider it a joyous privilege to have been counted a friend of so many Africans, Indians, Coloureds, and Europeans alike, who have sacrificed so much.
In particular I would like to end by paying tribute once again to Chief Albert Lutuli: his death was a sad blow to all who loved and admired him, but the cause he served lives on and we shall best honour his name by giving ourselves devotedly and actively, to the best of our ability, to ensure its speedy success.
I would like, by way of introduction, to express my belief that the International Defence and Aid Fund is a unique organization and so provides anyone associated with it unique opportunities in the matter of rendering aid to the victims of apartheid.
In the first place, it is the only organization whose sole concern is and always has been the provision of aid for the victims of apartheid - for the purposes of this paper I take the expression 'Victims of Apartheid' to mean those persons, of whatever race or colour or creed who, together with their families and dependants, suffer persecution because of their active opposition to racial and discriminatory legislation and policies of white-supremacist Governments in southern Africa that represent only white minorities. And the terms of reference of the Defence and Aid Fund were so designed as to provide aid for just such victims of racial prejudice and intolerance.
Secondly, the International Defence and Aid Fund is unique because it has behind it more than sixteen years of continuous experience in effectively doing the job for which it exists. Constituted early in 1965, in response to resolution 1978 B (XVIII) of the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1963, it took over responsibility for the work already being done, since 1958, by the London-based Defence and Aid Fund; and this latter Fund itself originated out of the Christian Action Treason Trial Fund, founded in 1956, and the Christian Action Race Relations Fund begun in 1952 in response to a request for aid to the families of those who were imprisoned because of their participation in the non-violent defiance campaign against racial segregation that was organized by the African and Indian National Congresses in South Africa.
Here, then, in the light of my experience, are some comments I would like to make:
Assistance to the victims of apartheid needs to be thought of under two distinct heads, (a) political, and (b) humanitarian. By the former I mean the kind of aid, by direct grants to organizations, that would assist the Liberation Movement to further its aim of overthrowing the white regimes at present in power in Southern Africa.
Quite clearly, anybody contemplating the giving of what I have termed political aid is confronted by difficulties. What organizations are to be the recipients of such gifts and on what grounds are their needs to be assessed? How are the differences that exist between this and that political organization within the Liberation Movement to be reckoned with? What strings, if any, are to be attached to the gifts and will the Liberation Movement itself be embarrassed rather than aided, if it receives such gifts? Should aid be given irrespective of whether it is for violent or non-violent action? These are some of the questions that have to be faced.
By the latter, by humanitarian aid, I mean the provision of money for welfare purposes, whether given to individuals or to groups of individuals or to organizations, aid that is given without discrimination on grounds of race, colour, creed or party-political affiliation, and independently of whether the Liberation Movement is involved in a violent or a non-violent struggle. That kind of aid is the just due of every person in need simply by virtue of his being human. And every member of the Liberation Movement, together with his or her dependants, is in need of much aid; freedom and justice, food, clothing and housing, political rights and responsibility, these, denied to the victims of apartheid, ought to be theirs by right, and it is surely the duty of everyone who himself possesses these to try to make them available to those to whom they are denied.
The terms of reference of the International Defence and Aid Fund clearly limit that organization to the giving of humanitarian aid in the sense that I have defined it. And to these terms of reference we have always adhered, and still do. But the South African government, not only by its totally unwarranted banning of the Defence and Aid committees inside South Africa, but also by its persistent pro-apartheid propaganda, tries to persuade white South Africans and the world outside that the International Defence and Aid Fund is, under cover of its humanitarian work, a communist-dominated organization that fosters violence within the Liberation Movement and seeks by its gifts to further a violent revolution aimed at the destruction of white power and influence in Southern Africa, and the setting up in its place of black anti-white tyranny.
The purpose of this false propaganda is clear. The South African government is afraid of the International Defence and Aid Fund. It is fearful of the many exposures of the methods often used by the South African police, particularly by members of the Special Branch, to extract information from and to obtain state evidence against political prisoners as a result of cross-examinations in the courts of men and women defended by lawyers briefed by the Fund; it is worried by our literature that reveals the true and ugly picture of present-day South Africa over against the falseness of the rosy picture presented to the world by South African government-sponsored propaganda; it is frightened that, by our provision of welfare to the families and dependants of those who are opponents of its racial tyranny, the morale of the Africans, Indians and Coloureds in South Africa will be lifted and the power of the resistance to apartheid inside and outside South Africa will increase; and it is angry because not only individuals but also governments and the United Nations have, in response to the exposures of the true state of affairs in South Africa, increasingly given support to the Fund - it is significant, for instance, that the Defence and Aid committees inside South Africa were banned soon after it had been announced by the Dutch government that they proposed to donate £10,000 to the Fund.
The purpose of South African propaganda against the International Defence and Aid Fund is, then, twofold: first, it seeks to intimidate people inside and outside South Africa whose social, economic or political interests are concerned, and so to persuade them to have nothing to do with the Fund; and secondly, it seeks to create confusion and mistrust amongst those who are committed opponents of apartheid. It is distressing that so many individuals, organizations and governments outside South Africa swallow so much of this false propaganda. Those who do swallow it, whether by their consequent failure to support the work of the International Defence and Aid Fund, or by creating situations in which there is hostility rather than co-operation between persons and bodies that are genuinely concerned to bring about an end to apartheid, endanger the Liberation Movement and threaten the African, Indian and Coloured peoples of South Africa with even greater affliction than they at present suffer.
Of course, where South Africa is concerned, it is not possible to keep a strict division between what is humanitarian aid and what is political. They are necessarily interlinked. In any properly civilized country the International Defence and Aid Fund would be regarded as humanitarian. But because it is not possible within the context of the South African situation to be humanitarian towards the oppressed opponents of apartheid without becoming politically involved, the task of white South African propagandists is made easier and those who swallow the false propaganda are given seeming grounds for easing their consciences.
South Africa is, for the vast majority of its population, a police state. Its legislation is quite blatantly designed to further its government's policies of apartheid and white supremacy. Wherever the government finds evidence of the growth of any legitimate and effective opposition it promptly passes laws to render illegal such opposition, not hesitating to make this retrospective if it so wishes. For example, having banned the African National Congress, the PanAfricanist Congress and the Congress of Democrats - all of them political organizations that would be acceptable in any genuinely democratic state - they have recently turned upon the Liberal Party. By its recent Act, the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill - an Act that those unaware of the absurdities of apartheid legislation might suppose to be concerned with sexual perversions - the South African government has made any multiracial political activity illegal. The Liberal Party, a multiracial political organization, rather than accept this inhibition upon its activities, has, to its credit, put itself out of commission. And, by vesting special extrajuridical powers in the hands of this or that minister or of the police, the South African government safeguards the power whereby it exercises its tyrannical oppression of more than three-quarters of the population over which it rules. In such a situation no aid to the oppressed is without its political side-effects. The provision, for example, of aid to the families of banned, detained or imprisoned political opponents of the government's policies, particularly if it is rendered by those who, whether on moral or political grounds, are themselves opposed to apartheid, becomes political aid because it inevitably boosts the morale of the oppressed people and thereby is seen by the oppressors as a threat to their regime. And the provision to a man charged under the present apartheid legislation of a proper defence in the courts by a barrister of his own choice, a right that any man might expect to be his in any civilized country, is in South Africa today seen not as a humanitarian act but as political.
No country can be trusted that has on its statute book such provisions for keeping order as 'the 90-day law' and 'the 180-day law', nor is it worthy of any respect. And today, surely there is no country in the world that can claim not to know how cruelly and how ruthlessly these laws are utilized in South Africa. It surprises me that the propaganda that comes from so evil a regime is ever taken seriously by persons and governments that claim to be concerned about human rights. And I would plead that all who are opposed to present racialist legislation and behaviour in Southern Africa, particularly those member states of the United Nations that have voted in favour of aid being given to the victims of apartheid, ignore all attempts by the South African government to denigrate the International Defence and Aid Fund and other such agencies.
Before Sharpeville, the resistance to apartheid was, with rare exceptions, non-violent; non-violence was, in fact, the official policy of the African and Indian National Congresses. But now, with their people suffering under the ever-increasing violence of their oppressors and they themselves denied every possibility of the use of non-violent means to bring about change, the Liberation Movement has decided to meet violence with violence. We are not entitled to judge them for the decision they have made. I have many times pointed out that the modern Western world, including the communist 'sixth of the world', will be judged by history - if, indeed, modern civilization survives and its history is written - as one of the most violent on record. All that we have gained and held has been gained and held by violence; and the most violent and terrible wars have been fought between European nations. Let us not condemn others if they are tempted to follow our bad example. Let us remember that the decision of the Liberation Movement to meet violence with violence, a decision which any pacifist may question, is, in fact, intended by them as a check to violence. In these circumstances, not less but much more humanitarian aid to the victims of apartheid will be required. And the work of the International Defence and Aid Fund becomes not less but more vital.
The International Defence and Aid Fund - and indeed any other voluntary international agency committed to the task of meeting this need - must, then, be prepared to carry on its work; it must strive to be in a position to meet whatever growing demands may be made upon its resources. What is done must remain clearly humanitarian. But it would be inhuman to refuse help to those in need because our humanitarian actions might have political significance or because their need might be the result of violent revolutionary activities or of civil war. I myself believe that violence breeds violence; as a Christian, I am convinced that it is love alone that casts out fear. But where others take a different view and violent revolution or war breaks out, I am equally convinced-as many members of the Society of Friends were convinced during the two world wars - that it is my Christian duty to come to the aid of the victims of violence. If, as is likely, the violence of the South African state against its political opponents is increasingly met by violence that it engenders on the part of the Liberation Movement, it will, I believe, remain the duty and privilege of the International Defence and Aid Fund to continue to do all in its power for the welfare of the victims of apartheid, combatants as well as non-combatants.
I come now to what I think is one of the most vital of the comments I wish to make. The International Defence and Aid Fund regards itself as a servant of the Liberation Movement. Let me repeat what I have often said before: the day that the Liberation Movement might cease to require the kind of assistance that we offer, I personally would have no further interest in the Defence and Aid Fund. Of course, I would hope that the general kind of humanitarian aid that is administered by international agencies such as the Red Cross, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Amnesty, etc., would continue regardless of any expressed desires of either side in the struggle. But in assisting the victims of apartheid our humanitarian aid is intended to offer more than relief Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, famines, floods, these and other such national disasters cause untold suffering to mankind, the relief of which should be everybody's constant concern as, of course, it is mine. But the special humanitarian concern of the International Defence and Aid Fund, and, I think, of this Committee, is cathartic; we hope to rid South Africa of the disease of apartheid; to remove the cause that brings so much misery to so many millions.
The Liberation Movement, for good or ill, represents today the oppressed people of southern Africa and is for them the hope of their salvation from a cruel tyranny. It is, then, up to the Liberation Movement, for good or ill, to decide upon how it shall operate and where it most needs assistance from outside. We may, indeed, wish sometimes to offer advice and perhaps to influence their decisions this way or that. But it is for them to decide, it is for them to accept or reject what we have to offer; and it is for us to accept the role of servant, hoping, maybe, that we shall be received as trusted friends.
Here let me add a word of warning. I am a Christian. I would like everyone to be Christian. But to use my power to assist the victims of apartheid as a means of converting the Liberation Movement and the suffering people they represent to what I believe to be the Christian way of life would be wicked, no less wicked than any other attempt on my part at blackmail would be. Yet there are those concerned to assist the victims of apartheid, whether with political or humanitarian aid, who attach strings to their gifts. Against any such infringement of human rights and human dignity we should be constantly on guard. Whether it be an attempt to interfere in the politics and strategies of the Liberation Movement or an attempt to advance the cause of this or that ideology, this or that political bloc, this or that national economy, the power to give financial aid ought not to be used to any such end. The Liberation Movement has the responsibility of freeing Southern Africa from the tyranny of apartheid; it must remain the judge of what aid it requires and where; and we, the willing servants responsible for trying to provide what the Liberation Movement asks for, must, each according to his ability and his convictions, do our best to help.
The International Defence and Aid Fund is grateful to the United Nations Trust Fund, and to those governments that have in the past so generously supported it. It has, over the many years during which it has operated, achieved a great deal. It has the blessing of the Liberation Movement. But, if it is to match up to present requirements and continue to give adequate service to the victims of apartheid, it needs continuous support and support on an increased scale. Today there are thousands of Africans in South African gaols and so-called transit camps because of their political beliefs and activities. They and their families and dependants are in great need of humanitarian aid, a need that should evoke an immediate and generous response in all who are concerned with human rights, governments as well as individuals and organizations. This need can be met only if, all the world over, those who hate racialism and see in the Southern African situation a threat to world peace and human happiness help the International Defence and Aid Fund to function effectively and adequately.
We are still fully operative - in some important respects the only remaining operative body - despite all that the South African government and its supporters inside and outside South Africa have done to inhibit us. As with those who rendered assistance to the Jews in Germany under the Nazi tyranny, so with us: we must accept the political consequences of our actions and we must be ready to be more and more unorthodox in our methods of operation. The more the South African government endeavours to inhibit us in our legitimate efforts to help the victims of apartheid, the more shall we be driven to find suitable ways to overcome such endeavours. And we shall hope that our friends and supporters will appreciate the situation and will, with full regard to the needs of security, continue to have confidence in us and to give us their support. I am confident that, given the money and the continuing goodwill of the Liberation Movement, we shall be able to go on operating effectively and adequately till that day when the Liberation Movement has triumphed over the evil of apartheid and sunny South Africa is free, the happy homeland of all of its people, whatever race.
I would like to end this paper by returning to a point I have stressed throughout. Why do I lay such emphasis upon the fact that the International Defence and Aid Fund wishes to regard itself as a servant of the Liberation Movement and wants, in giving assistance to the victims of apartheid, to enjoy its goodwill? Of course in one sense this is the obvious and proper thing to do. But because we work in a particular historical context the manner in which we operate assumes particular importance for at least four very good reasons.
It is not, and I must repeat not, the business of Europeans, nor indeed of any other well-wishers, to tell the men and women of Africa how they should run their own affairs. For far too long Europeans have dictated to and then patronised the inhabitants of Africa - ghosts of paternalism, if not the substance, are not laid; it is high time we eliminated them once and for all. We must assist the victims of apartheid - and advise them if advice is asked for - as friends, as brothers, as servants, or our assistance, even in its humanitarian aspects, will be ultimately self-defeating.
Secondly, the Liberation Movement - whatever South African propaganda may try to make us believe to the contrary - represents the victims of racial oppression in southern Africa in their will to political, economic and social freedom. And among its leaders are men and women of the greatest possible integrity; men and women who in any nation uncorrupted by racialism would be acknowledged and welcomed as worthy to occupy the highest positions available in the political, social and economic life of the state. I have been privileged over the years to know many of them personally and some of them, particularly some among the accredited leadership of the African National Congress of South Africa that plays so big and so vital a role in the whole Southern African Liberation Movement, are my close friends. Only racial tyranny keeps such people from openly possessing their rightful places in the lands of their birth, whether as politicians or statesmen or leaders in other fields of human endeavour.
And thirdly, in the work we do we are looking to the future, a more hopeful future than can at present be easily discerned in South Africa. South Africa is a land of many races and the African National Congress, in spite of the treatment meted out to non-white political organizations by the white minority, has always generously acknowledged that this is so: it has never been their policy to drive out the white man who is willing to stay under majority rule. One day, therefore, we all hope that all races will be able to live happily and peaceably together in a redeemed South Africa. But if they are to live together they must be able to work together now in spite of the powerful and cruel pressures that seek to drive them apart. In South Africa today the government has been all too successful in its merciless application of apartheid, blindly, inhumanly separating human beings from one another. But the Defence and Aid Fund is still one of the few remaining links between the races; both inside and outside South Africa it remains an area in which, despite all difficulties and dangers, men and women of all races can still meet as brothers and sisters to comfort and help and encourage one another. It is indeed a tiny area of light in a very great darkness.
And, lastly, this darkness is not, alas, confined to Southern Africa. Ominous rumblings of racial conflict can be heard from all corners of the globe. If we are to ensure a peaceful future for the human race or - some might argue - any future at all, the achievements of racial harmony is an absolute imperative. It is within this wider struggle that the International Defence and Aid Fund plays its small but not insignificant part; it is within this context that it rejoices to regard itself as a servant of the Liberation Movement.
I first met that very remarkable man, Chief (or, I suppose I should say, 'deposed Chief') Albert Lutuli, in whose memory these annual lectures in Dublin are given, in 1954 during my first visit and, to date, my only visit to South Africa. We had corresponded about the work that was done by Christian Action in support of the Defiance Campaign begun in 1952 by the African National Congress (of which Chief Lutuli was President) with the co-operation of the Indian National Congress and the Congress of Democrats; indeed, I had invited him to come to England for a lecture tour, under the auspices of Christian Action, an invitation that he had enthusiastically accepted subject, of course, to his being allowed by his intransigent and stupid government to leave the country. But I wanted to meet him, not only to discuss with him the proposed lecture tour, but also because of the very great regard in which he was so obviously held by all the victims and opponents of apartheid of whatever race, colour or creed.
To meet him was no disappointment, no anti-climax. On the contrary he was every bit as great, every bit as human, every bit as dynamic, every bit as humble a man as one had hoped to meet.
During my stay in South Africa we were able to see each other only twice, such was - and still is - the situation in that beautiful sun-drenched but crazy land. Once we met at a clandestine party in the delightful home of an Indian at which the Chief, surrounded by African, Indian and white colleagues, tape recorded for underground distribution a moving and magnificent call to the oppressed people of South Africa for non-violent but militant action against the racial tyranny under which they were made to live.
The second time we met was in the home of an alleged communist. On my visit to Zululand I had asked my official guide to arrange for me to call upon Chief Lutuli at his home; this he failed to do, despite the fact that we passed close by the Chief's home. And on my return to Durban I found that neither my host and hostess nor any of their friends and acquaintances, not even the minister of their local church, thought it desirable that two Christians, one an African and the other a white man, should meet in a white man's home on equal and personal terms. In South Africa this is left to communists or to those who are prepared to risk the opprobrium of being alleged to be communists.
As a result of these two personal encounters there emerged between us a deep and growing friendship which lasted till that tragic day when, in such mysterious circumstances, Chief Lutuli met the end of his life here on earth. But I was to see him again only during his visit to London and Oslo on the occasion of his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Of that visit two memories stand out in my mind, both of them, I think, significant. The first - a shaming memory in the light of recent British legislation and behaviour in regard to immigration - is of his midnight arrival at London Airport. He stepped out of the plane and greeted those of us who were there to meet him. Then, after looking around with childlike wonder at the always moving scene of Heathrow on a clear starlit night, he jumped up and down on the tarmac and said, 'Freedom, freedom. At long last I stand a free man on the free soil of Britain. This is a dream come true.' How sad are the ironies of history! He went on to say that in a few days time he would have to return to his homeland to assure his people there that their dream of freedom would one day become a reality.
My second memory is of his excellent bearing and inspiring words throughout the ceremonies at Oslo. I see him now as I entered the hall where the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony took place; he sat, dressed in his Zulu chief's costume, a figure of immense dignity; but he remained that same delightful unspoiled human person so loved by his friends and supporters. A white South African friend said to me as we entered, 'My God; the Chief is wearing a Zulu chief's outfit. Here in Norway, of all places.' He need not have worried: the Chief knew what he was doing and magnificently carried it off.
And I remember his words to me on what was to be the last occasion that I saw him. I had asked him whether he planned to come out of South Africa and carry on the struggle from outside; I had suggested that perhaps from outside he could more effectively influence affairs than he could from inside under the conditions in which he was placed by the tyrannical legislation of the South African government. He replied, 'The elected leader of the Liberation Movement must stay inside with his people and share in their sufferings; that is the price he must pay for the honour and privilege he has been given.' Others, the younger men, he said, must accept the task of ensuring the continuation of the struggle from outside; and theirs would be the even heavier price of having to leave their fatherland to face the sufferings that are the lot of every political refugee separated from his family and friends and dependent upon the good or bad will of strangers amongst whom he has to live.
I have tried to give some small and personal picture of the man we commemorate today. In brief, I would say that he was a great statesman who was denied by a wicked regime the opportunity of properly exercising that gift, a great Christian who was magnificently true to his faith but rejected by too many of his fellow Christians, a great human being whose boundless compassion, humour and integrity were or should have been, and still are or still should be, an inspiration to all who care for freedom, justice and peace. In simple language, he was a lovable and loving man, a man of peace and a man of prayer, a man whose noble character and warm heart marked him out as the acknowledged and beloved leader of the oppressed majority of the people of South Africa.
We can, I think, best pay tribute to Chief Lutuli by taking to heart the significance for us today of what, in the South Africa of his life-time, he stood and worked for and the means by which he hoped the ends he sought could be achieved. An uncompromising opponent of racial and colour discrimination in all its forms, particularly of all those manifestations of racism that are expressed in apartheid legislation and practice, he never lost his vision of a non-racial and democratic South Africa, and he never lost his Christian conviction that the best way towards that end was the way of militant but non-violent political action. In all that he did and said he persistently and courageously sought to turn his vision into a reality and remained to his end a faithful advocate of non-violence. Canon Collins went on to quote from a number of speeches and statements by Chief Lutuli - he continued his lecture:
What shall we make, then, of Chief Lutuli's emphasis upon non-violent means of achieving the ends he sought? What relevance has this emphasis to the present-day struggle against apartheid?
Till the Sharpeville incident in 1960 the African National Congress was fully behind its President, fully committed to a militant but non-violent struggle in pursuit of freedom and justice for the oppressed people of South Africa. But after Sharpeville, in view of what seemed to be a shattering evidence of the inability of non-violence to overcome violence, of the failure of a policy of meeting fear and violence and hatred with tolerance and love, it changed its policy and decided that in future violence would have to be met with violence. Chief Lutuli did not withdraw from the Congress; on the contrary, he remained its revered President. But neither did he change his view. What he did was to keep before himself and his people the signposts of love as pointing towards the true and realistic way along which human society should go; but he also believed that no blame should be attached to any, whose lot in life it is to be violently and cruelly treated by a violent and powerful enemy, who, in frustration and despair, themselves decide to tread the way of violence: that being, in their view, the only road to freedom and justice left open to them. I believe it is along these lines that those of us outside South Africa, who wish to see an end to apartheid, should approach the question of what is to be our attitude towards the Liberation Movements now that they are committing themselves to a violent struggle.
To me personally it would seem to be self-evident that violence, a violence that involves one human being in deliberately doing harm to another human being, is always wrong. And, certainly where national interests are concerned, I would call myself a pacifist - a reluctant pacifist if the interests are, in my view, just ones. For that reason I try to hold out before myself, as well as before others, the knowledge that violence breeds violence, and the hope that love is stronger than hatred and fear, that it is, indeed, the only realistically effective power that can overcome fear and oppression. But who am I to blame others who fail to heed what I believe to be the truth when I myself so easily ignore it?
The Western world has behind it a long history of war and of colonial aggrandisement and exploitation supported everywhere by violence. How can it now, without contemptible hypocrisy, turn aside and wash its hands of the South African liberation movements that have been driven to seek freedom by violent means? And is the Christian Church, its history red with blood that has flowed as a result of inter-Church hatreds and quarrels, in any better position to condemn Southern Africans when they cease to be patient under tyranny and begin to counter violence with violence? But to say all this is not to condone violence. Violent acts may be wrong; but those who, from the depths of frustration and oppression commit those acts need, and are morally entitled to our sympathy and our succour. And it is we, with our material and military might, who, in fact, have the power to make their violence unnecessary. If we chose to do so, we could exert such economic and other pressures upon South Africa as would drive the white minority to reconsider its position. Instead we have enthroned in our midst the golden calf of material prosperity and a rising standard of living; and to this we sacrifice daily, not only our national integrity, but also the just, and indeed the noble, aspirations of millions of Africans, Indians, and Coloured people of Southern Africa.
The second recurrent theme in the letters and statements of Chief Lutuli to which I have drawn attention is the fact that his Christian faith was for him of vital significance in all that he tried to achieve. It is, I believe, of the utmost importance that, particularly here in Dublin, I should lay emphasis upon this point. It is, or ought to be a challenge to the Christian Church and it is, or should be, of significance to everyone who respects the life and teaching of Jesus. Non-Christians will forgive me, I think, if I address myself for a few moments on this second theme to those who would claim to be Christians.
Apartheid and every other manifestation of racial or colour discrimination are blasphemous denials of the Christian beliefs about God and man. Christians and the Christian Church ought, then, to be in the very forefront of protests against such evils and of activities designed to bring them to an end. When Christ, whom we believe to be the manifestation of the true nature of God as love and of man as made in God's image, is spat upon, as spat upon in South Africa he is, are there any grounds for hesitancy in rallying to the aid of all who are the victims of such evils, and in giving support to those who, whether on Christian or any other ground, set about the task, the sacrificial task, of ending them? I personally believe that if, in 1952, all the Christian churches inside and outside South Africa, forgetting their own self-interests, had openly and actively given support to the non-violent Defiance Campaign and had positively opposed every attempt of the Nationalist and white-supremacist government of South Africa to impose its racialist policies against the wishes of a disenfranchised majority of the people, the South Africa of today might well have been already well on the road towards redemption from the evils of racialism.
Let me, then, call upon the Church and upon all Church-people to repent of their past hesitancies and of their compromisings with apartheid and with all other forms of racism. Let us strive with might and main to ensure that in South Africa - indeed in every part of the world where racialism and racial tyrannies thrive - governments, groups, and individuals shall no longer succeed in legislating for, or in the practice of, any form of racial intolerance. And to this end let us pledge our support for all victims of racism both in their sufferings and in their attempts to gain freedom and justice for all regardless of race, creed, or colour.
And what of Chief Lutuli's constant hope in victory for those who believe in, as he passionately believed in, a truly democratic and a truly united South Africa as part of a just, a free, and a peaceful world? First, a word about democracy itself.
This is something that those who live under dictatorships and tyrannies long for, but with which many who live in supposedly democratic societies are becoming disillusioned. But it is as foolish to be disillusioned with democracy as it is to be disillusioned with Christianity. Both represent some of the noblest aspirations of mankind, and for that very reason both have never been fully realised or achieved. The democratic ideal, I take it, is of a society in which men and women are, as far as is possible, free and able to exercise and develop their particular talents and to share responsibility, as far as is possible, in political and other decisions that shape their lives. The system of representational government goes some small way along this road. How small we are beginning to realise: and the cry of 'participation' is on everybody's lips. Now there is a great deal in African tradition that is both representational and which still provides for a large measure of participation by members of the community. Already in some parts of independent Africa interesting experiments are beginning which combine Western experience with the ancient social wisdom of Africa. It may well be that Africa has a unique contribution to make to the development of a genuine world democracy; and it was just this kind of hope that, I believe, inspired Chief Lutuli. Even with all the vast problems of a multi-racial community before him, he saw, and passionately believed in, the possibility of creating a unity in diversity. And in many ways he foreshadowed in himself this kind of unity; for he was entirely and traditionally an African, as well as being a fervent Christian and an admirer of all that is good in the traditions of western Europe.
Secondly, if, as I believe, racism is always a threat to justice, freedom and world peace, and the present racial tyranny in South Africa is the most dangerous and most rampant expression of racism in the world today, the realisation of Chief Lutuli's hope is of the utmost importance to mankind today. 'In a strife-torn world, tottering on the brink of complete destruction by man-made nuclear weapons, a free and independent Africa is in the making, in answer to the injunction and challenge of history.' These words of Chief Lutuli himself should assure us that to play however small a part in bringing about an end to apartheid is to play a significant role for peace.
And lastly, I would remind you that Chief Lutuli's optimism is the optimism of a Christian. A true Christian is a short term pessimist but a long term optimist. In the short term, he recognises that sin, ignorance and mortality are common to every man. He knows that love does not reign triumphant in the daily life of humanity. He is fully aware of the sufferings of human beings, of the tyranny, of the violence, of the injustices, and of the deprivations that are so much a part of their lives. The symbol of all that he holds most dear is the Cross. But in the long term he sees the Cross as the symbol, not of defeat, but of victory. The Cross-Resurrection theme is at the heart of the Christian Gospel.
South Africa today is incomparably so much worse a manifestation of the cruelty and tyranny of a wicked regime and of the afflictions of the oppressed victims of apartheid than was the South Africa of Chief Lutuli's lifetime. Must we then despair of the realisation of his hopes? As a Christian I say we must never despair. Let us rather, in the spirit of Chief Lutuli, ask ourselves what practical steps we can take to help to create the free, democratic, and united South Africa for which he so steadfastly laboured and hoped.
1971 has been declared by the United Nations the International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.
But we have had International Years before and we have to confess that they have achieved very little; a temporary acceleration of effort by enthusiasts, a momentary focusing of world attention, and then the nations carry on as before pursuing their selfish policies of unenlightened self-interest.
I want to plead here and now, with all the strength of which I am capable, that this coming International Year against racialism shall not go the way of all those other years. The issues are far, far too grave. They concern not only the future of millions who have as yet had very small opportunity of fulfilment and self-expression; they concern also the future of us all, the future of the whole world. When the new British Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, occupied the same office in a former Conservative government he went on record as saying that the greatest danger then facing the world was the danger of a racial war. I don't always agree with Sir Alec, but I agreed with him then; and since he last held office that danger has increased. I would like to ask him whether he really considers that the best way of averting a racial war, the best way of initiating an International Year against Racialism, is to assist in the arming of the most powerful practitioner of racialism that exists in the world today? I can think of few actions more calculated to sabotage effectively the struggling and tentative efforts for racial peace and harmony that are being made around the world by individuals, by groups, by governments and by the United Nations. If this is indeed to be one of the first actions of the new British government, it will go down in history as a shameful betrayal of human hopes and of human efforts in the cause of peace: were I a politician I should tremble to have such a betrayal upon my conscience.
Let us turn once again to the true man of peace, Albert Lutuli. Let us remember one of his last appeals when he spoke about the Rivonia Trial: 'I appeal', he said, 'to all governments throughout the world, to people everywhere, to organizations and institutions in every land and at every level, to act now to impose such sanctions on South Africa as will bring about the vital necessary change.' This is the objective we should set ourselves for 1971. Our public agitation, our pressures for action should be positively directed to this end. Of course it will mean sacrifice; we may have to forego that second car, the improved washing machine, the colour television. Other men and women sacrifice their lives. So I would beg all who care about the human future, all who are really concerned for world peace, to devote themselves wholeheartedly and unswervingly to the struggle against racialism. By attacking the fountain head of this evil as it exists in Southern Africa we shall be resisting its spread in other parts of the world. In so doing we shall play a major role in the human struggle for world peace.
One last word: let us never countenance the all too easy path of substituting one racialism for another. In everything he said and did Chief Lutuli insisted that he was working for the future of a united and democratic South Africa. He remained to the end free from all bitterness and recrimination and hatred; and the African National Congress and other liberation movements have followed his lead.
In a very real sense every South African, whatever the colour of his or her skin, is a victim of apartheid. The present racial and colour conflict is not simply the result of the coming to power in 1948 of the Nationalist Party. It is the result of more than three centuries of history, the sad story of a struggle for land and power between black and black, between white and white, and between black and white. In the course of this struggle the indigenous black population of South Africa has been well-nigh annihilated, the whites have taken possession of both the power and the land, and the blacks have become more and more the oppressed victims of racial and colour prejudice that stems out of an increasing determination of the whites to maintain white supremacy. All alike, whatever their colour, have inherited from the past deep fears and resentments.
But in this paper I am not concerned with those victims of apartheid who possess the power and the land; nor am I even concerned with the bulk of the blacks against whom the whites persistently discriminate and over whom, with its apartheid legislation, the present government conducts a reign of terror. In this paper my special concern is with those people, of whatever race and colour - the vast majority of whom are African - who are persecuted by the state because they openly and actively oppose the government's apartheid legislation and seek liberation of all South Africans from segregation and racial oppression. And this special concern necessarily includes the families and dependents of the persecuted. So let us look a little more closely at the background to the struggle in which these particular victims of apartheid are engaged.
Stage for tragedy set in history
For more than three hundred years there has been contact in South Africa between white and black. Such a long association has left its mark indelibly written into history. It has engendered in South African society certain developments, certain attitudes of mind, and certain modes of behaviour which have become part and parcel of the South African way of life. For good or for ill the stage for the tragedy that is now being enacted in South Africa has been set in history.
For good and for ill. For the minority - the whites - the contact has meant, after early struggles and privations, an incredible enrichment on the material level. With an abundance of cheap near-slave labour to serve them, they enjoy today a standard of living which, judged from the standpoint of a materialist, ranks among the highest in the world. In a beautiful land blessed bountifully by nature the few, on the ground only of their racial origins and the pigmentation of their skins, take for themselves the lion's share of the national cake - of its raw materials, of its land, and of the profits of its labour. But, despite these material advantages, the contact has brought upon them a sickness of soul that is rooted in fear.
For the majority, the blacks, the association with the whites has brought them a modest measure of material gain that is insignificant by comparison with the need, and is incomparably smaller than any advantage that has accrued to the whites. They have gained a modicum of education and of medical attention, and visions of a progressive movement forward from primitive tribalism to that kind of modern civilization to which the minority are so attached.
But for ill, it has destroyed the moral and spiritual pillars of their former way of life and put nothing adequate in its place - only a Christianity whose effectiveness for good has been largely negated by colour prejudices within the churches inside South Africa and by a failure of the churches outside South Africa to do more than bleat generalities and pass resolutions in opposition to apartheid. It has revealed to them a promised land from which they have been excluded and so encouraged in them feelings of frustration and resentment. It has brought them into an intolerable subjection to the white man. Having detribalised them, it has obliged them to live in their reserves and locations, badgered by innumerable restrictions upon their personal freedom, in conditions that beggar description and are the despair of all humane and liberal-minded people, both black and white.
Legacy of discrimination
The Nationalist government is not alone responsible for the present racial crisis in South Africa. In former days governments, whose power depended upon the goodwill of the British Raj, were equally insistent upon white supremacy. They encouraged colour discrimination and segregation; but they did so unsystematically, not on grounds of principle but of expediency.
But the Nationalist Party, in power since 1948, sees white supremacy as a fundamental principle that has, under the authority of the Scriptures, the sanction of God. The Nationalist government has ruthlessly, brazenly, and systematically legislated in favour of discrimination and segregation; it has brazenly and smugly engaged in a campaign for apartheid that is rooted in a dogmatic insistence upon a divine sanction for the principle of white supremacy. It has boasted of its purpose to reverse the course of history, to retribalise a largely detribalised majority, and to retain by force the privileges and the power of the white minority. And in this campaign, despite the doubts and feeble protests of the Opposition, it has enjoyed the overt and hidden support or the apathetic collusion of the bulk of the English-speaking white South Africans. There has been a long process of development towards the present situation, a process in which nearly all white South Africans have played a significant part.
Racial prejudice rooted in fear
Racial prejudice is common to white persons in South Africa: it is rooted in fear. To enjoy a Western standard of living and to believe oneself an inheritor of a Western culture, and yet to be a member of a small minority in the midst of a vast majority which is denied this standard of living and whose culture is reckoned to be savage, is to create a soil favourable to the growth of fear.
Deep down in almost every white South African, whether English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, there lies this basic fear: press even one who in other respects is a very humane person and he will express his fear in some intolerant attitude or action. The dread that all he is and all he stands for may be swamped in a great and terrifying wave of black power and primitive heathenism is a bogey from the clutches of which few whites in South Africa are able to rid themselves.
Those of us outside South Africa who do not have to face this problem in ourselves, need to be sympathetic towards those who do. But our sympathy should not blind us to the truth, nor prevent us from doing what we can to right what we believe to be wrong.
The deep fear, which makes nearly all white South Africans fundamentally prejudiced in matters of race and colour, is responsible for the failure of the churches and the trade unions, despite occasional and sometimes courageous statements of the former and the real desire of some of the latter to serve the interests of all workers in industry, to resist effectively the racial policies of the present government.
The Nationalists know that, save for a handful of men and women who have succeeded in driving away fear with love, when it comes to the point most white South Africans opt for the continuance of colour discrimination and segregation. It is because the United Party, as well as other political groups of the Opposition, are themselves to a greater or lesser degree riddled with colour prejudice that the Nationalist government has been able to proceed so successfully along its appointed road towards complete and permanent 'white supremacy' in South Africa.
After a resume of the major developments in South Africa since 1948, Canon Collins commented upon some of the consequences of the Sharpeville shootings of 1960:
The Sharpeville incident, which was the result of a PAC attempt to wrest the initiative from the ANC, not only accentuated the growing differences between the two organisations and made reconciliation between them all the more difficult, but also had a profound effect upon the ANC itself. For some time non-violence remained its official policy. But the leadership, driven by circumstances beyond its control, had to reconsider the matter in the light of the fact that, after the violence and wholly unjustifiable action of the police at Sharpeville, the rank and file of the movement lost faith in non-violence as an effective means of resistance.
Was this what the South African government wanted? I thought so then; and since then nothing has caused me to change my mind. From the time of its coming to power in 1948 the Nationalist government had shown itself to be increasingly afraid of the growing influence of the African and Indian Congresses. And with the formation of the Pan Africanist Congress in 1959, and the consequent threat of even more militant resistance to apartheid legislation, this irrational fear expressed itself in greater and more ruthless oppression. But how to justify the total destruction of organizations committed to a non-violent struggle was a problem. The conscience even of white South Africa might have been stirred to protest if the physical might of the state had been openly deployed against an unarmed and a non-violent protest movement. The government had, therefore, to try to persuade white South Africans that they were under threat of a violent and communist-inspired revolution, a revolution designed to overthrow the state and to put them at risk of their lives and property. Sharpeville provided the excuse their propagandists desired.
Resistance movement deserves sympathy and support
Men and women of goodwill the world over, particularly those like myself who, however hesitantly, call themselves pacifists, will persistently press for non-violence, moderation, and reconciliation within the context of the racial conflict in South Africa. Could any person whose heart is not made of stone, certainly any Britisher, stand, as I have stood, before the sombre monument in Bloemfontein to the 26,000 women and children who died in the concentration camps of the Boer War, that grim witness to the inhumanity of the British in an unseemly event in history, and not have some sympathy for the proud, obstinate, sometimes stupid and often narrow-minded Afrikaner? We may, indeed we must, condemn his racialist attitudes; we may, indeed we must, do all in our power to bring about an end to apartheid and the whole wicked set-up of the present Nationalist regime. But what we have to do must surely be done in the spirit, not of enmity, nor of vindictiveness, but of reconciliation.
But, if I am correct in my suggestion that the South African government wanted the ANC to abandon its policy of non-violence, and if, as I believe to be true, the South African government deliberately and progressively furthered this end, how tragic that the outside world did not give whole-hearted, immediate, and practical support to the ANC before it had despaired of non-violence as a viable means of resisting violence! The churches, at least, committed as they are or ought to be to the 'Gospel of Peace', might have been expected to come to the aid of those engaged in so peaceful a way of protest against the evils of apartheid. And, given such support, perhaps the ANC might have been encouraged to counter the Sharpeville shooting and its aftermath with so effective a non-violent action as might have brought about the downfall of the Nationalist regime. But 'if ifs and ands were pots and pans, there'd be no work for the tinker.'
But whatever may happen in the future, however violent the racial struggle in South Africa may become, I sincerely hope that all who wish well to that unhappy land, pacifists as well as non-pacifists, will give their continuing sympathy and, to the fullest extent compatible with their consciences, their continuing support for all who, in their resistance to the evils of apartheid, seek to create a new South Africa, which, with the African majority and all other blacks enjoying their full rights and responsibilities as citizens, will play its proper part in a happier and a more peaceful world. Why, we may well ask, should those who suffer violence on account of their opposition to the present wicked apartheid regime in South Africa be placed under condemnation when, in face of the extreme violence of the State, they reluctantly abandon non-violence and decide to meet violence with violence? Who in our so-called civilized world will cast the first stone? Hardly, I hope, Mr. Vorster and those who share with him in his assumption that the African is and must always remain inferior to the white marl: nor, surely, anyone of East or West who enjoys the benefits of a civilization that is largely rooted in violence; Nor, indeed, any member of the Christian churches whose records are so red with blood.
State of Emergency
People the world over were shocked by the police brutalities at Sharpeville. Many people, outside as well as inside the country, who had never before raised their voices in protest now began to speak out openly in condemnation of the South African government's racialist policies and practices.
Inside the country white people who had formerly sympathized with the general aims of the black resistance movement, but had remained mostly passive, now began to be active in their opposition to apartheid. The Liberal Party, for example, which, with notable exceptions, had for many years tended to stand on the touchline, now began to commit itself to a much more positive role. There were, indeed, evident signs of a potential world-wide panic, well illustrated by precipitate falls in South African stocks and shares on markets inside and outside the country.
The government, frightened by these and other such manifestations of a growing and a more militant opposition to its authority, was quick to react: It placed the country under a State of Emergency. Like Pharoah when confronted by Moses on behalf of the oppressed Israelites in Egypt, it increased instead of decreased the burden of tyranny laid upon the blacks and their white sympathizers: It banned all black political organisations; it hotted up its persecution of political opponents; it resorted to increasingly oppressive and sometimes retrospective legislation; it gave more and more licence to the security police; and white people who had previously been left unmolested found themselves harassed, arrested, banned and imprisoned. The police state was, in fact, extended to cover all, white and black alike, who were known to be or thought to be actively opposed to the government's racialist policies.
All this led to a number of developments, two of which have significantly affected the work of the Defence and Aid Fund and of other organizations concerned to provide aid to the victims of apartheid.
Flow of Refugees
First, there began a flow of refugees from South Africa, white and black, which has continued ever since. For convenience I would like to divide them into four groups: (a) those Africans, Indians and Coloured people who have come out, whether as roving ambassadors, administrators, or trainees, at the express wishes of the banned political organizations of which they are members, in order that they might help to sustain and foster the political struggle against apartheid from without; (b) those whites, many of them leading figures in the banned Congress of Democrats and most, if not all of them, victims in one way or another of the South African security police and of vicious apartheid legislation, who have preferred life with integrity outside South Africa, rather than to remain inside but unable to be actively useful to the liberation movement; (c) families and other dependents of the 'politicals'; and (d) the 'non-politicals' who, seeing little worthwhile future for themselves in the land of apartheid, have elected to seek a better life outside.
How, then, were these refugees to be provided for? Who was to pay the fares of those sent out by their organizations as roving ambassadors or those granted exit permits but unable to provide themselves with tickets? Here was a problem for the Defence and Aid Fund which was already nearly stretched to its limits. As a temporary measure we sent a little money to aid some of the many who had taken refuge in what were then the British Protectorates of Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland; and we were able to assist a few of the key leaders who had managed to reach London. But clearly a more workmanlike scheme had to be evolved as quickly as possible and money raised to pay for fares and subsistence. And as the flow of refugees became a flood so the magnitude of the problem increased.
It so happened that not long after Sharpeville, Dr. Nkrumah was in London. He and I met to discuss our problem. He agreed to ask his government to airlift a first batch of refugees from Swaziland to Ghana and to be responsible for their maintenance; and he invited me to go to Accra for further discussion. While I was there, this first batch arrived. We then agreed upon a less expensive method of transport for any possible rescue operations; but the Ghana government continued to help, directly by caring for those refugees already transported to Ghana and indirectly by making a generous donation to the Defence and Aid Fund. And, as the number of refugees in the Protectorates increased, our burden was considerably eased by the setting up in London, on the initiative and under the direction of Margaret Legum, of the Joint Committee of the High Commission Territories which raised its own fund to meet some of the special needs of the refugees in those territories.
But, at best, we were only touching the fringe of the problem. By the end of 1963, despite a considerable increase in our income, it had become apparent that the Defence and Aid Fund had to limit still further its obligations to the refugees. The Rivonia Trial had somewhat drained our resources; the impact of Sharpeville was diminishing and, consequently, our appeals for money were receiving less enthusiastic support, while calls upon us to provide for defence and aid inside South Africa were increasing. Fortunately other organizations, notably the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Council of Churches and Amnesty International, had begun to accept a measure of responsibility for the welfare of the South African refugees.
Accordingly, the Defence and Aid Fund decided that in future it would provide aid only for refugees in the first three of the four categories to which I have referred and, except in special circumstances, would make no educational grants. Our special responsibility, we agreed, had to be to those refugees engaged in the liberation movement; the others could safely be left to the care of less politically involved organizations. To the best of its ability and not, I think, without a fair measure of success, the Defence and Aid Fund has managed to meet at least some of the needs of most, if not all, the actively political refugees.
Humanitarian aid is unlikely ever to solve the political problems created by apartheid and all other forms of racialism in Southern Africa. These problems can, in the long run, be solved only by the black victims themselves. But sacrificial acts of giving aid to those engaged in the struggle for freedom, responsibility, and justice, and to their families and dependents, can demonstrate, better than any amount of resolutions, the sincerity of the international community in its professed concern to rid the world of apartheid and all other forms of racialism.
Secondly, it is imperative, even in the field of humanitarian aid, to counter the subtle, massive, and too often effective propaganda put about by the South African government. That is why the International Defence and Aid Fund, under the clause in its terms of reference that enables it to do what it can 'to keep the conscience of the world alive to the issues at stake', set up its own information service.
In 1968, it was estimated, the South African government was already spending something in the region of £2,000,000 a year on services designed to improve its image, to attract people and capital to serve its interests, and to discredit the political victims of apartheid and such humanitarian agencies as give them aid. In addition, it makes an annual appropriation in terms of the Foreign Affairs Special Account Act, not subject to the scrutiny of parliament, 'to promote the Republic's foreign relations in an unorthodox fashion' (to quote from the Minister of Foreign Affairs). And the South Africa Foundation, which issues vast quantities of official and semi-official literature and provides free jaunts to South Africa for newspapermen, publicity agents, industrialists and others, persistently adds its quota to the flood of South African pro-apartheid propaganda. All who are genuinely opposed to racialism will, it is to be hoped, make it possible for the International Defence and Aid Fund and other organisations providing humanitarian aid to the victims of apartheid in South Africa to continue to counter such propaganda and, armed with accurate information by such agencies as our information service, to make widely known the need for aid and the full implication of the work they are doing.
Thirdly, despite all the bridge-building that has gone on for more than twenty years, the racial situation in South Africa has progressively deteriorated. Many people, not only here in Britain, but also in most parts of the world, have persistently failed to assess correctly what has been happening since the Nationalists came into power. Consequently they find themselves today quite unable to face the truth that the Nationalist government now maintains a police state of a peculiarly corrupt and vicious nature, and that the needs of the oppressed victims of apartheid grow daily in urgency and extent. In deference to genuine 'bridge-builders', let us agree that to make attempts at reconciliation is a noble aim, one to which Christians are certainly committed. But to build bridges marked 'for whites only' is not to reconcile, certainly not in the Christian sense, but to condone evil. By providing arms to South Africa, by trading with her, by playing games with white South Africans, and by visiting South Africa for holidays in the sun, we do not ease the burden of the oppressed majority nor persuade the regime committed to racial discrimination and intolerance to change its evil policies; rather, we encourage the regime to persist in its evil ways, we exacerbate an already irreconcilable state of affairs, and we increase the sufferings of the victims of oppression.
Only dedicated, sacrificial, practical, persistent and politically effective action can adequately meet the needs of the victims of the racial and colour intolerance in Africa of white supremacist minorities and governments that are determined to deny them their proper rights and responsibilities. The victims themselves, particularly through their Liberation Movements, have magnificently, patiently and continuously done all they can to release themselves from the tyranny they have to endure and to bring about such changes as would give them the opportunity to create non-racial, just, and peaceful communities in which all, regardless of race, creed, or colour, might contribute to the common good of mankind. Only by giving them the humanitarian aid they need, by sharing with them in their struggle and, where conscience permits, by actively supporting in the white dominated territories of Africa; only so can it demonstrate the sincerity of its professed concern for the well-being of the oppressed majorities in the white dominated territories of Africa; only so can it demonstrate the sincerity of its professed desire for the creation of a world in which justice and peace for all mankind are maintained.
In the fulfilling of such a task we dare not weary. We need to persevere, despite the worst that the enemies of freedom, justice and peace may do. In the short run, whatever may be the difficulties, the disappointments, the frustrations, the sacrifices and the failures we experience, we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have contributed towards the alleviation of the suffering of the victims of racialism and have clearly demonstrated our concern for freedom, for justice and for peace for the whole of mankind. In the long run, we shall, if we persevere, succeed in giving Africa opportunity to play its full and proper part within a world that is free, that is righteous, and that is at peace within itself.
We need, as far as conscience and the interests of justice and peace will allow, to give our wholehearted support not only to the victims of racialism but also to all who seek to redeem their homelands in Southern Africa and in Guinea-Bissau from the tyranny of rule by white minorities. We need to bear in mind that the present Nationalist, white-dominated South Africa, which is by far the most powerful national unit on the African