STATEMENT IN THE SPECIAL POLITICAL COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

NOVEMBER 5, 1959⁽¹⁾

I HOPE THE COMMITTEE WILL pardon my delegation if we try to treat this subject not merely in a brief intervention, but to deal with the position of my country, and I venture to presume of a great many others, which has to be set out somewhat more fully.

The explanatory memorandum which is contained in document A/4147 and Add.1 is a very important document from our point of view.⁽²⁾

To a certain extent it summarises the position that should be taken on a draft resolution of this character. That is, it does not seek to condemn; it does not seek to allocate blame or responsibility, but it only seeks to obtain appropriate recommendations for adherence to the provisions of the Charter. What is more, it finally declares that it is the purpose that the United Nations should continue to offer its assistance with a view to a peaceful solution of this problem. I hope we will not regard this as being merely a form of words. I hope that this approach will animate the spirit of our discussions.

It is also not without importance that in this explanatory memorandum is set out the text of a resolution which originated not from a non-European country but from a European country, and a Nordic country at that, where there has not been an admixture with non-European peoples in, shall we say, at least 2,500 years, when I suppose, a very small stream of Celts came over the Asiatic continent into the northern parts of Europe.⁽³⁾

This resolution is important in the sense that it is not addressed to the Union of South Africa; it is not addressed to the American peoples; it is not addressed to the Asian peoples. In the third operative paragraph of this resolution which has been quoted advisedly in this memorandum, it says:

"Solemnly calls upon all member states to bring their policies into conformity with their obligation under the Charter to promote the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

The importance of this paragraph is first of all to remind ourselves that we are not dealing with an individual evil, we are not acting in a sense of bitterness, but we are dealing with the application of a principle to all member states. What is more, it is a reminder to some of us on whom this doctrine makes an adverse impact that we may not practise apartheid in reverse. Racial discrimination, the attitude towards race that is reflected in apartheid would be as much of a crime if it were to be practised by non-white races against the white race. This was the policy that animated the resolution adopted at Bandung,⁽⁴⁾ where there was, as was to be expected, a minority opinion, at least in the corridors, that wanted to take that attitude.

Fortunately for us, all delegations took the view that we could not practise discrimination in reverse, because that would be applying a remedy that was the same as the disease.

Therefore, this explanatory memorandum, which will form part of the documentation of the United Nations, is an historic document in that sense. It summarises our approach. As my delegation pointed out in its submission on the problem of South West Africa, it is not our desire to see a member state put in the unfortunate position where the overwhelming majority of delegations here are in total opposition to its views, year after year.

Having said that, I should like to express my regret that our colleagues of the Union of South Africa are not present with us today. Their absence is regrettable from many points of view. There has never been an occasion in this Assembly when anyone has expressed any adverse view in regard to the Union's right to express its opinion, totally unacceptable as that opinion is, I dare say, to every member state in this Assembly. That provides all the more reason why we should regret the absence of the Union's representative.

Furthermore, the Foreign Minister of South Africa, speaking in the general debate, had merely wanted his reservations on the legal position to be recorded. Therefore we hope that this will not be the position if another occasion should arise, and that the representatives of the Union will be present with us; they will not be the recipients of any discourtesy of any kind because, even in their absence, that is not the practice of this Assembly.

I SHOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE COMMITTEE of the history of this matter extremely briefly.

This question was the subject of discussion among delegations for a long time before it actually came up as a resolution. It was first brought up before the seventh session by thirteen countries, including my own. On that occasion, the debate in regard to Article 2(7), the debate with regard to dividing the Assembly on the lines of race, in which my delegation took a very considerable part, was very sharp and very prolonged. But in spite of that, a resolution which did not seek any condemnation, but merely wanted us to study the problem, was adopted by 35 votes to 2, with 22 abstentions. I refer to this because, as I sketch the history, it will be found that there has been a progressive growth of opinion in this Assembly in regard to South Africa, in regard to apartheid, year after year.⁽⁵⁾

Then came the eighth session, when Mr. Lester Pearson presided over the Assembly, and a similar resolution, providing for continuance of the Commission, was adopted by 38 votes to 11, with 11 abstentions.

Then came the ninth session. Again, the resolution was adopted, in much the same way - if anything, opinion more sharply against South Africa.

Then came the tenth session, where the matter was continued. At the eleventh session three years ago, Indonesia and Pakistan and India requested the inscription of the item and introduced a resolution calling upon South Africa to consider its position and revise its policies. This was adopted by 56 votes to 5, with 12 abstentions.

Then, in 1957, the position became more fully expressed when 59 States voted in favour, with only 6 against and 4 abstentions.

Last year, there was the highest record, when this Assembly adopted a resolution by 70 votes to 5 with 4 abstentions.

We are not trying to create a voting record. But I hope that at the end of this debate, especially in view of the attitude taken by those on whom this policy makes an adverse impact - and it would be only human nature to react to it with more hostility than we have - I hope that this resolution will have passed by a larger vote, and with no votes against it, even if one or two delegations, for whatever reasons, should desire to abstain. I mention this because it is a matter on which the Assembly has very strong feelings, feelings which are not divided by the boundaries of continent or race or political opinion or by the unfortunate dividing line of blocs.

When our colleagues of the Union do not participate in spite of the attitude we take, their action is not directed against those who submit this item, it is not directed against what may or may not be the decision of the Assembly, but it is against the repeatedly recorded decision of the Assembly over a period of years. It is a question - and my colleague from Ireland will understand this reference - of everybody being out of step except my Johnny.

THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF SOUTH AFRICA, speaking in the Assembly, stated his objections on the ground of Article 2 (7). I have no desire to repeat the arguments brought in this Assembly time after time. I believe that it was at the eleventh session that my delegation discussed this whole issue of Article 2(7), with all the documents of San Francisco, with the arguments for and against, with the relevant international law. At that time, text-book writers had not referred to this problem categorically. Since that time, there has been a new edition of Oppenheim's International Law. On page 320 of the first volume, that great scholar says:

"Although it is explicitly laid down in the Charter of the United Nations that it does not authorise intervention with regard to matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states, the provision in question does not exclude action short of dictatorial interference undertaken with a view to implementing the purposes of the Charter. Thus, with regard to the protection of human rights and freedoms, a prominent feature of the Charter, the prohibition of intervention does not preclude study, discussion, investigation and recommendation on the part of the various organs of the United Nations."

I would commend this paragraph to the Assembly, and also the various footnotes that appear on that page in regard to it. Oppenheim then goes on to say, in another part of the book:

"The exclusion of the right of `intervention' on the part of the United Nations must be interpreted by reference to the accepted technical meaning of the term."

It is a well-known proposition of law that any document, any word, has to be construed in the natural meaning that it bears.

Oppenheim goes on:

"It excludes intervention conceived as dictatorial, mandatory interference, intended to exert direct pressure upon the state concerned. It does not rule out action by way of discussion, study, inquiry, recommendation, falling short of that type of intervention."

Perhaps, so far as this Committee is concerned this is what might be called pushing at an open door. But it is important to have this on record because the matter is of such consequence and because the Union of South Africa is not only one of the members of the United Nations but is a country which has taken a very prominent part in the formulation of the Charter and, what is more important, has a record of loyalty to the League of Nations and to the United Nations itself except on this issue - and it is a very great issue. It is also important because of the statements made by Mr. Louw. The position of apartheid is regarded by the Union as merely an internal matter - except that the vast majority of the people concerned, even in a limited democracy or under a popular government of any kind, would not create laws against themselves. If it is accepted that it is a purely internal matter, then the whole of the Charter and everything that went into the formulation of the third paragraph of Article 1, would be simply a scrap of paper.⁽⁶⁾

But what is interesting is that Mr. Louw regards the continent of Africa as being divided, broadly, into two areas. He says :

"There are the countries north of the Sahara, the majority of which border on the Mediterranean and whose destinies have since the earliest days been closely linked with the countries of Europe. There is the further fact that the countries on the Mediterranean littoral maintain a close affinity with the Arab world," -

this has to be read with the statement made by the President of Guinea only ten minutes ago in another room that this separation of sheep from goats is not going to get us anywhere -

"its heritage, religion and culture. Then there is the rest of the continent, generally described as `Africa south of the Sahara`, though perhaps not quite strictly so in the case of the Sudan and the northern part of Ethiopia."

Now this is a very important part.

"It is particularly in the sub-Saharan Africa that important and significant changes and developments have taken place during the past two years. Three fully independent states, the Sudan, Ghana and Guinea, have come into being to join the Union of South Africa and Liberia, which until then were the only sovereign independent states south of the Sahara. The status of certain other African territories, including the former French colonies, has also undergone a significant change. Next year the already fully independent African states will be joined by Nigeria, the Cameroons, Somaliland, Togoland and possibly also the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland."

Would it not be right for us to enquire whether the Foreign Minister of South Africa, who welcomes these new states and does not preach the policy of apartheid in relation to them, should not realise that, on this continent where there has arisen these numbers of African republics, if a conference of the independent kingdoms of that continent were held, the apartheid policy would stand in singular solitary minority?

Therefore, how do these policies square with one another? On the one hand, there is the welcoming of these states. They have been voted into membership without adverse vote on the part of South Africa. They are regarded as adherents of the Charter, accepting its principles. They come here with a recognition that in this Organisation and in the activities of this Organisation the question of discrimination cannot play a part.

That is the only reference we have from the Union of South Africa with regard to this matter...

I WOULD LIKE NOW TO GO BACK A LITTLE INTO THE PAST.

Somewhere in the second half of the nineteenth century, the British Colonial Secretary, in order to assist the economic development of South Africa, persuaded the British Indian Government of that day to send numbers of people to work on the sugar plantations in Africa. From that time onwards there has been a racial problem in South Africa. Perhaps there was even one before that, but the newer view is that the Bantu tribes came after the Dutch. But I am not going into the history of this. There are two views about it.

There was a racial problem and no one was aware of it more than General Smuts. But in spite of that and after the League of Nations had been founded, at which he made similar statements, and it died, and the problems of racial discrimination had come to the forefront under the benighted rule of Adolf Hitler, General Smuts, speaking in San Francisco, in words which should be inscribed in letters of gold, states: "The new Charter should not be a mere legalistic document for the prevention of war. I would suggest that the Charter should contain at its very outset and in its preamble, a declaration of human rights and of the common faith which has sustained the Allied peoples in their bitter and prolonged struggle for the vindication of those rights and that faith." Part of the vindication was the persecution of the semitic peoples in Germany by Hitler and also the rape of countries like Czechoslovakia, mainly on a racial basis.

Field Marshal Smuts went on to say:

"In the deepest sense it has been a war of religion perhaps more so than any other war of history. We have fought for justice and decency and for the fundamental freedoms and rights of man, which are basic to all human advancement and progress and peace. Let us in this new Charter of humanity, give expression to this faith in us, and thus proclaim to the world and to posterity, that this was not a mere brute struggle of force between the nations but that for us, behind the mortal struggle, was the moral struggle, was the vision of the ideal, the faith in justice and the resolve to vindicate the fundamental rights of man, and on that basis to found a better, freer world for the future. Never have all peace-loving peoples been so deeply moved. This is what our men and women feel" -

meaning the men and women of the Union of South Africa -

"they are fighting for on the war fronts, and have been labouring and slaving for on the home fronts in these long years of steadfast endurance. Let us put it into the Charter of the United Nations as our confession of faith and our testimony to the future. Our warfare has been for the eternal values which sustain the spirit of man in its upward struggle toward the light. Let us affirm this faith of ours, not only as our high cause and guiding spirit in this war but also as our objective for the future. The peace we are striving for, and are taking such pains to safeguard, is a peace of justice and honour and fair-dealing as between man and man, as between nation and nation. No other peace would be worth the sacrifices we have made and are prepared to make again and the heavy responsibilities we are prepared to take under this Charter."

It is hardly necessary to say that this was not a sermon for one day of the week. This was a statement made in the formulation of the Charter. But if that stood alone it would not be adequate. At another part of the session at San Francisco, Field Marshal Smuts said:

"Looking farther afield for precautions and remedies against war beyond the war machine itself, the Charter envisages also a social and economic organisation of the peoples, intended to raise the levels and standards of life and work for all, and, by thus removing social unrest and injustice, to strike at the very roots of war."

What other thing can raise greater social injustice and unrest than the doctrine of apartheid where the vast majority of people who live in their own countries are foreigners and strangers, outcasts, and where, what is more, any action which they take by not moving out of the house is crime under the law of the country.

Field Marshal Smuts states:

"Great as our achievement is, I feel that more is needed than a mere machine of peace. Unless the spirit to operate it is there, the best plan or machine may fail... And in our faith in the future we expect that those who come after us and who will have to carry our Charter in the generation to come, will also show no less goodwill and good faith in their part of the great task of peace."

So what we are doing here now has the authority of one of the greatest statesmen not only of South Africa, but of the world, who lived in the context of these racial troubles. I am not for a moment saying that racial laws were not passed in his time. But here is a full statement of the case in which at San Francisco we were enjoined to carry out these principles into the open and to pass them on to posterity.

LAST YEAR'S RESOLUTION stands with us in document A/RES/1248 (XIII).⁽⁷⁾

Since then what has happened?...

I want to preface my observations by saying that my country would be the last to question the right of South Africa to pass whatever laws it wants in its own territory. That Government has a sovereign right to do so. But we as adherents of the Charter also have equal rights to point out if those laws are violation of the Charter, and a total violation in the face of this.

During this period, nine measures have been under consideration of the South African Government, and some of them have been passed. I must say at this point that it is not sufficient to look merely at the titles of the laws in South Africa. Some of these titles might be misleading.

First, there is the elimination of non-whites from "open" universities and the establishment of university colleges for non-whites: If you look at the law you think it would be a good thing to establish university colleges for non-whites. But the essential part of it is that they cannot go into the colleges which they were in. This is in the one field of education, in the liberal arts, where people are discriminated against on the very grounds which are contrary to the studies of the humanities.

"The transfer of University College of Fort Hare, which was attached to Rhodes University, to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development." It would look as though this great university was handed over for administration by non-European people, according to the title of the bill. That was not what happened. What happened was that the non-European people were taken out of this great university and put out in segregation. In other words, the new arrangement is a ghetto, not university; that is what it comes to.

Another law is the "abolition of African representation in Parliament and the Cape Provincial Council". It is not merely an objectionable law but a violation of undertakings given by the South African Government from time to time.

Another law under consideration is: "The strengthening of the powers of the Minister of Labour, so that he can apply job reservations unhindered by court decision". I am sure that the trade union movement of the world will take note of this... The question is not whether there is a man who is an electrician or an engineer, but: what is the colour of his skin or the colour of the skin of his parents?

Fifth, there is: "The establishment of a Bantu Investment Corporation" - another misleading title - "the capital for which will come from African savings and state contributions." The effect of this is that Bantu development must come only from that place. Again, this is putting apartheid into the whole business of economic development.

Then there is: "The transfer of Coloured special schools from the Union Department of Education to the Department of Coloured Affairs." That also looks very good. It looks as though the so-called Coloured people are going to a big show and look after their own affairs. What happens is this: the state as a whole and its resources no longer become responsible, but the Coloured people are shunted off into an ante-room and become a kind of poor relation.

Then there is: "The extension of the concept of Bantustan to the towns". That is the real building of ghettos, territorial segregation. Bantustan, I suppose, means the territory of the Bantus, borrowed from Indian analogies.

Next is: "Amendment of the Group Areas Act to overcome difficulties with local authorities in the establishment of townships for race groups." The Group Areas Act is an old friend of ours. It was first introduced to remove the Indians from various parts of South Africa. The groups who are discriminated against were to be denoted by the executive. That is, the executive says, "you are a group that is objected to, you must go from where you are". Then they are moved bag and baggage from the place. We have been asking them in this Assembly time after time to withdraw the Group Areas Act... What has happened is, instead of withdrawing the Group Areas Act, which has been the demand of all concerned, they amended the Act so as to overcome the difficulties of the local authorities in establishing townships. It means that the power was given to them for forcible eviction and pushing them out from their original homes to the wilderness.

The last of these is: "The abolition of Native Advisory Boards when African representation in Parliament is abolished". That is to say, any function that African peoples could have in regard to administration of Advisory Boards is a concomitant of the abolition of their representation in Parliament.

Legislation in regard to three or four of these has been completed, and the rest is in progress. Despite these new measures, it must be remembered that not only has there been no progress in this matter, but also there has been considerable regress and a total disregard of the resolutions.

I WILL NOT TRY TO ANALYSE EACH OF THESE LAWS, but I will merely quote the opinions of non-South Africans in regard to labour legislation. Mr. C. N. Millard of Canada, Director of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, and Mr. P. H. de Jonge of the Netherlands, another official of the Confederation - this organisation has consultative status in the United Nations - went to South Africa in April 1958 to hear part of the debate in Parliament on this Bill. Mr. Millard said that provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the amending Bill were in conflict both with the United Nations bill of rights⁽⁸⁾ and ILO Convention 87 which sought to safeguard freedom of association and assembly and the right of collective bargaining for all workers. The provisions of the Bill were a challenge not only to organised labour in South Africa but to organised labour everywhere...

In an exclusive statement to The Natal Mercury, Mr. Millard alleged that Natives were "taken in the name of justice and law and threatened with jail sentences unless they agreed to work on farms for 9d. a day."

This is forced labour, and this is the opinion not of the Indian delegation but of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. He said that the men were virtually used as convict labour and he would take all available steps to expose "the harsh legislation which results in this type of thing going on". He further said:

"While African employees are ignored so far as the definition of employees is concerned, they do become employees for purposes of job reservation amendment."

When they are entitled to get something, then they are told that they are not employees. But when they are excluded from something, then they come under the definition. Mr. Millard continued:

"This, of course, is completely inconsistent on the part of the authorities. We feel that it is a very dangerous thing to allow the formation of African trade unions and, on the other hand, deny them the right of registration and the due processes provided by that registration. It is unpardonable discrimination. We feel that the rights of the trade unions in South Africa are being trampled under foot by the Government."

It is to the credit of the Union of South Africa that this new kind of apartheid finds very considerable opposition and, what is more, opposition against odds, very courageous opposition from large sections of the white population of South Africa. In this connexion, I want to read the opinion of a person who had a special view about it. He is not a crank or anything of that kind. The Cape Times of South Africa is highly respectable. Editorially commenting on the Job Reservation Bill in its issue of April 22, 1958, it said:

"Apart from elementary questions of morals, expediency, commonsense and sanity, the feature of Mr. De Klerk's Job Reservation Bill is its naked authoritarianism."

That is to say, that is one of the concomitants, one of the by-products which has become larger than the tree of apartheid itself. It is authoritarianism in this member state of our Organisation. The editorial continued:

"This bill is not a law as that term is understood in civilised countries. It is a naked grant of unlimited power to a politician to control, in general and in detail, the employment of any person by any other person."

If that is not forced labour or slavery in a sense, what it is I do not know.

The Natal Mercury of South Africa, while editorially commenting on this bill, said:

"There is no doubt about it that the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill is intended by the Government to entrench the principle of job reservation beyond challenge, whatever the consequences of this repressive regimentation may be."

I said a while ago that we should not be misled by the title of this bill. It is "Industrial Conciliation".

I HAVE REFERRED TO BANTUSTANS, that is the territorial segregation. The Bill promulgated by the Union in April 1959 was called the Bantu Self-Government Bill. The Bill in its preamble says that the Bantu people of the Union do not constitute a homogeneous people - of course all the white population do, only they come from different parts of Europe or elsewhere. As I said, the Bill in its preamble says that the Bantu people of the Union do not constitute a homogeneous people but form separate national units - they have national units but they cannot have national freedom - on the basis of language and culture. It divides the Bantu population into eight Bantu national states. I will not read out all the names, but the attempt is to split up the Bantu population not only as separated from the rest of the people of South Africa but to reintroduce tribalism in its worst form.

Provision is made in this Act for the immediate appointment of five commissioners-general who will form a direct link for consultation between the Bantu units they represent and the Government; that is, on the Central Government, self-government has no impact; that is what is going to be done through an agent of the Central Government. The main feature of this Act is that it provides for the abolition of the existing representation of Africans in Parliament and the Cape Provincial Council at the expiration of the existing terms of office of these representatives.

This Act of the South African Government, we submit, amounts to the direct repudiation of the promises made to the African people by the late General Hertzog. At the joint sitting of Parliament in 1936, General Hertzog, then Prime Minister, justified the terms of the Representation of Natives Bill on the ground that it would help to remove the white man`s fear of being ultimately swamped by a vast black proletariat and that it was a reasonable, equitable quid pro quo for the removal of the franchise that Natives living in the Cape Province had enjoyed. The legislation, which was passed at a joint sitting by 169 votes to 11, gave or promised the Cape Natives three Native MP's, four Senators and two provincial councillors, 7 million morgen of land for exclusive occupation by them, and the Native Representative Council, a truly elective body. This was in addition to those members of the Upper House appointed by the Government for "their special knowledge of non-European affairs". The whole of the Nationalist Party in Parliament at that time recorded their votes on the Bill's third reading in favour - that is the present Government, not only General Hertzog, is committed to all these things, and the repudiation of the pledge given to the peoples in order to violate human rights. The whole of the National Party supported the Bill.

Ten years ago the Natives Representative Council was summarily abolished. By 1959 not much more than half the 7 million morgen of promised land had even been bought. And now by a simple majority, the three MP's, the four Senators and two provincial councillors are thrown out. In return, the Africans, after 150 years of association with the white man, and after eighty years on the common roll, are judged fit to be given only local committees, membership of which is at the discretion of the Central Government. From common roll to tribal committees of government stooges in twenty-three years is the dazzling vision of progress which South Africa displays at present in the battle of Africa for the minds of 200 million men and women.

Now, there is another one here from the Star of Johannesburg - again, a highly respectable paper. It writes under the caption "The Great Illusion" on 25 March. "The Great Illusion" advertises the considerable plan to promote autonomy for the Native population in South Africa - that is, the self-government Bill. It turns out on a most cursory examination to be little more than a scheme to take away from the Natives forever the meagre political representation they have gained after generations of contact with Western civilisation. As a substitute they are offered self-governing "rights" in their own areas which must necessarily be illusory for two reasons. These rights will always remain subject to the will of Parliament - that is, not their Parliament, the European Parliament in which they have no representation. It is not a Parliament so far as they are concerned. So far as they are concerned it is an assembly with autocratic rights. These rights will always remain subject to the will of Parliament and the Government in whose decision, according to Dr. Verwoerd's hypothesis, they are irrevocably debarred from having the slightest voice. And again, by the expressed terms of the whole shoddy arrangement, says the Star, the millions of Natives going outside their own areas will be without even the semblance of self-government unless they solve the legal fiction of remote control by travel authorities whom they are powerless to influence.

Regarding apartheid for the dead, a report on cemeteries and crematoria by the City engineer of Durban, published in June 1959, says that "in view of the policy of segregation of South Africa and the natural, racial and social differences in relation to funeral ceremonies" - how can there be natural differences in ceremonies, I do not know - "it would be undesirable to mix various racial ceremonies at the same crematoria". I suppose if you are burned, you are converted into phosphates and gases, whatever your race.

I WILL READ JUST ONE MORE quotation because it is in regard to the application of this principle to universities.⁽⁹⁾

I do not want to lay particular stress on the iniquity of racial discrimination in universities. The International Committee on Science and Freedom which represents 296 universities in fifty-two countries includes such moderate and liberal minded people as Professor Toynbee and Salvador de Madariaga. I say this because names of these associations are sometimes misleading. This Committee said that the Extension of University Education Bill is:

"a flagrant denial of human brotherhood which strikes at the roots of genuine university education and menaces the standing of South African universities as members of the world community of learning."

The Natal Mercury, writing on this bill, said:

"The fundamental objection is that university apartheid means direct interference with the right of access to a common fund of learning and denial of intellectual contact between white and black."

Now, those are the opinions of people who cannot be regarded as being in any way fanatical or extreme, who probably would not subscribe to an extreme resolution if they were in this Assembly...

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) was asked to make an inquiry to find out whether there was any scientific basis for any racial discrimination. It was stated by the UNESCO that the scientific material available at present does not justify the conclusion that inherited genetic differences - I am not going into any argument about Mendel's theory and so on - are a major factor in producing the differences between the cultures and the cultural achievements of different peoples as groups. It does indicate on the contrary that a major factor in explaining such differences is the cultural experience which each group has undergone... The report states further that the available scientific knowledge provides no basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development. I should like to say, how could it be because 500 million years ago our ancestors were the fish that inhabited the waters of the time - not even chimpanzees - and I suppose another 500 million years before they would want to be called a virus. The report continues that there is no evidence that race mixture produces disadvantageous results from a biological point of view - those who are horse traders know that this is true. The report goes on again to say that the social results of race mixture, whether for good or ill, can generally be traced to social factors.

This text was drafted by Professor Bergman of the Royal Tropical Institute of Amsterdam, and a long list of others whose names I shall not read. I commend this United Nations document, which is a rather scholarly volume, to my fellow members of this Committee.

I WANT THE COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS ITSELF to this particular problem : What is apartheid and what is it not in terms of law as we understand it, and if you like it, moral law? Apartheid, taken at its best, is not a discriminatory law against an individual. It is a law against a class. It comes into the same category of objection that we have to things like guilt by association, collective fines on villages and others of that character. Therefore, all the disabilities that arise from it have nothing to do with the performance of the individual. It is simply, "You were born in that stable and that is all there is to it."

Apartheid is a direct violation not only of human rights but of the rule of law as we understand it; you visit penalties whether or not anything has been done, just because someone belongs to a particular group. That is what apartheid is.

Now I would like to say what apartheid is not. There may be a case - I would not subscribe to it myself - as in the case of Liberia when Africans on the one hand and whites on the other may say, "Well, we are equal, but we are different. Therefore, let us decide to live differently." That is possible. But apartheid is not that. What it tries to do is to push one group into one place and not leave them alone; they are set upon by others on the top. Sometimes when we hear all this idea of not interfering with customs, putting them separately and so on, we would think it is a kind of complete autonomy. That is not the idea. If the expression is not to be misunderstood, it is to create what they would call a black Africa which is ruled by white Africa. It is the old, old story - the white man's burden with the black man carrying it.

That is what apartheid is - on the one hand, the negation of the rule of law and, on the other hand, fundamentally against the whole idea of self-government and self-determination. If they created a whole South African Republic, another Liberia in the south, then I personally would reject it because I believe that Africa must have a multi-racial society. But there would be some justification for it. If the Union Government were to say, "There is so much land. You go and prosper otherwise, just as you are going to," that is a different question. But that is not it. there is no apartheid in trying to control them; I suppose they do it by remote control.

Last year the Independent African States passed resolutions in Monrovia, Liberia, on 4 August. I do not say that any group of states of the United Nations gathered here or anywhere else can legislate for all of us; but these are the people who wear the shoe more than most of us do and, what is more, they are fellow members of the United Nations. They passed this resolution which:

"Notes with concern the relentless manner in which the Government of South Africa is putting into practice its apartheid policy;

"Condemns the practice of racial discrimination and segregation in all of its aspects all over the world, especially in the Union of South Africa, in the Central African Federation, in Kenya and in other parts of Africa."

If I may comment on this paragraph, it is not important for the strong word "condemns", but it is important for the fact that this is an infection that is spreading. We have seriously to consider whether one of the states mentioned here - it is not for me to say which - would not become another South Africa, would not be an apt pupil. It may likely be one of the states that apply for admission over here.

"Calls upon all Members of the United Nations and all peoples of the world to associate themselves with the resolutions passed by the United Nations and the Bandung Conference..."

This is an expression of view by the independent states who have come into being at this time.

There is also a memorandum circulated to members of the Organisation by the African National Congress which, I am glad to say, is a territorial Congress. It does not exclude anybody on grounds of race. Not only non-white people but Europeans, courageous people, are members of the African National Congress; at least they used to be in my time anyway. This memorandum has been circulated and while it is not an official document of ours it can provide a considerable amount of information. I will read just two very small sections:

"At this time when more and more African peoples are receiving freedom and independence, the policies of the Union Government are becoming more and more intolerable than ever. Many countries, appalled at the consequences of this policy, are adopting concrete attitudes towards it. The utter contempt with which the Union treats decisions of the United Nations Assembly constitutes a serious threat to peace in Africa and therefore in the world."

This is the position so far as Africa is concerned.

I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSEMBLY to the hint, which I just read out about race conflict. This does not come from South Africa; it comes from Oslo in Norway, a Teutonic country and, I am glad to say, without race discrimination. It is as follows:

"The race explosion in Durban is a sinister omen of the awful things which may happen if the present policy in South Africa is pursued further.

"The systematic and intentional suppression by the white people of the black population must sooner or later result in an open clash which there is reason to fear will take place in brutal forms.

"What makes South Africa different from all other regions in Africa is that the Negroes are gradually being debarred from every possibility of fighting for an equal position with legal political means."

Part of the parliamentary system, the democratic system of government, is that you can fight evil with the law. But if you are put beyond the pale of the law then there is no redress and there is no constitutional remedy. That is really an invitation to violence.

"The apartheid policy is unfeasible in practice because the whole economy of South Africa is dependent on the working power of the Negroes. It is economically completely impossible to separate the races from each other. The Negroes would perish of hunger if they were forced into the reservations, and the economy of the white people would break down. The whole apartheid policy is only a desperate attempt at making the supremacy of the whites permanent."

This is the occasion for me to deal with this problem from the point of view of the world as a whole. The vast majority of the populations are those on whom apartheid makes an adverse impact. They have to mine the coal, the diamonds and the gold, cultivate the fields, operate the elevators, cook, nurse the children and do everything else. I regret to say that the trade unions in South Africa are as much guilty of this or even more so than anyone else. Therefore, the whole economy of this region, where the world is short of food production and of all the resources that are required, would be affected by this. On the other hand, the pace of industrialisation, partly arising from the desire of individuals to amass profits, cannot be kept back. And when industrialisation takes place there will be created a vast proletariat which will have economic power and technical knowledge in spite of all these reservations, but which will be denied political power and be the subject of this kind of discrimination. What more is required to create social instability?

THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY WE BRING THIS MATTER here year after year. It is not because this is a hardy annual. The draft resolution before us in document A/SPC/L.37 does not express the very legitimate indignation of large numbers of people. It does not express words of condemnation. It speaks more in sorrow than in anger. The reason why the draft resolution before us is drafted in this way is in order that the lowest common denominator of adverse opinion may make some impact, if not on the Government of South Africa immediately, on those large numbers of people who, as in Hitler's Germany, are against racial discrimination as such, a thing that cannot be worked...

I hope that the restraint, the moderation, that is shown in these matters will not be regarded by those who do not agree with it as timidity. Our country does not believe that hard words find solutions, but there should be no doubt in the mind of anyone that this disease is fast spreading...

My delegation wishes to make it perfectly clear that we could not solve this problem merely by setting up committees from outside, writing reports going into the anthropology or the physics or the chemistry of this business. We would be the last people to promote or encourage any move which recreates further hostilities. Our attitude is one of appeal to South Africa to join in this general attempt to remove these evils.

Secondly, we do not want it in any way to be understood by any one that these racial evils are a blot on South Africa and South Africa alone. We have plenty of them in our own country. There are not many countries in the world where discrimination of one kind or another does not take place. But there is not a country in the world which defends discrimination. We all try to get away from the evil. We would not stand up on a platform and proclaim that discrimination is a virtue. We know it is with us, we fight against it, we organise our public opinion against it, we even fight our own countrymen, our political colleagues. But here not only are we told that this has arisen in the context of history, and what are we to do about it. That is not what we are told. We are told that there is apartheid, that there must be apartheid; and not only that there must be apartheid in Africa, but that it must be everywhere else...

I did not want to introduce emotionalism into this matter. I did not want to refer to the enormous amount of hardship it has cost in the uprooting of peoples and families who have been in places for generations and yet being turned out into the jungles and prevented from having the opportunity of earning their livelihood, being separated from employers, who are humane people, who do not subscribe to this but who must obey the law, where bitterness is creeping in. All of those processes which make a society unstable is being promoted by legislation.

A distinguished South African judge once said: "There are so many laws that have been made in South Africa that if an African gets out of his house, he can commit a crime". Because if you do something or look at somebody, or tilt your hat in the wrong way, or forget your passbook, or whatever it is, they are statutory crimes. We have moved from the time when the poll tax was the only inhibition in order to obtain control over the African peoples or populations of that character.

We appeal to the Assembly to give full support to the draft resolution, and once again we would like to say to South Africans who are hereby proxy that in spite of all that has happened, we fervently hope that whatever procedures they adopt, whether it be formal or informal, whether it be through those who are not so committed as we are, whether it be by any action they take themselves, whether it be by negotiations with their sister states in the African continent, whether it be by some convention to which they could agree, they would make a breach, create some disengagement of this problem, so that it will prevent its spreading into the rest of the continent and will avoid the horrors of racial conflict.

In that connexion, I am instructed by my Government to draw the attention of all of us to the fact that one of the evil by-products of this may be the division among the non-white peoples themselves. An old English official once spoke of "a subject peoples speaking two languages, one for itself and one for the ruler". Similarly, it is possible - it has happened in the questions in which we are more intimately related - that attempts will be made to create divisions among the people on whom apartheid makes its impact. There are always those who are prepared to buy a junior partnership in imperialism.

So far as the Indian populations on the African continent are concerned, it is the deliberate policy of my Government to point out to them that nationalism is territorial. An Indian in Africa is an African-Indian or an Indian-African, the same way as the Dutch is an African. It is only on this basis that we can proceed...

(1) Statement on "Question of Race Conflict in South Africa resulting from the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa".

Source: Foreign Affairs Record, New Delhi, November 1959.

(2).The document contains a letter of July 20, 1959, from 13 member states requesting that the item be placed on the agenda of the General Assembly.

(3). The reference is to resolution 1248 (XIII) adopted by the General Assembly at the presvious session on October 30, 1958. It was based on a proposal by Denmark, introduced in the Assembly by 33 states.

(4). Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, April 1955

(5).The item was first included in the agenda of the General Assembly at its seventh session in 1952, at the request of 13 Asian and Arab states. Resolutions were passed in subsequent years by increasing majorities as follows:

(6). Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations declares that one of the purposes of the Organisation is to achieve international cooperation "in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".

(7).In that resolution, adopted on October 30, 1958, the General Assembly declared that governmental policies which are not directed towards ensuring equality before the law of all persons, and political participation of all racial groups on a basis of equality, but which are designed to perpetuate or increase discrimination, are inconsistent with the pledges of members under Article 56 of the Charter of the United Nations. It solemnly called upon all member states to bring their policies into conformity with their obligations under the Charter. It expressed its regret and concern that the Government of the Union of South Africa had not yet responded to the appeals of the General Assembly that it reconsider governmental policies which impair the right of all racial groups to enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms.

(8) Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(9) The reference is to university apartheid enforced under the "Extension of University Education Act" of 1959.