APRIL 4, 1961(1)
MY DELEGATION WISHES TO ADDRESS ITSELF especially to the basic issues in this matter because, during the many years of debate, we have dealt with specific grievances. We have appointed committees to inquire into those grievances, we have made appeals, we have asked people to use persuasion, last year we asked the Secretary-General to go to South Africa, and each year, on returning to the Assembly, we have found the situation worse than when we left it. So the question will soon arise - though perhaps not during this Assembly session, in this particular form - with regard to the obligations of membership in the United Nations of member states.
There is no member state which cannot in one way or another be regarded as having fallen below the ideals of the Charter, or even, perhaps of having committed transgressions in regard to it. But all this is increased or decreased by the character of the action concerned, as regards its quantum.
So the time will come for the Assembly to consider, and for the Union of South Africa to consider - as, indeed, it did at the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers - whether that state can feel comfortable in the company of those who have a rather different view of life. We are not, at the present moment, dealing with that; but I should like to look at the Charter itself and study it even though it is, perhaps, well known to everybody. We should look first at the Preamble where it speaks of "the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small". It does not simply say "the equal rights of nations large and small", it speaks of "men and women", of "nations large and small". That is what apartheid deals with. Then let us turn to Article I (3) which speaks of:
"international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".
If this Charter were something which South Africa did not understand, or had no part of formulating, perhaps the onus upon it would be far less. But in looking through old records one comes across a name that is very much respected in the United Nations, in spite of our individual differences on many matters, that is, the name of one of the people who tried to put this Charter into words - though I am not saying he is the father of the Charter - the name of General Smuts. And General Smuts in San Francisco said that this Charter should not be a mere legalistic document for the prevention of war. He suggested that the Charter should contain at its very outset, in its Preamble, a declaration of human rights and of the common faith that had sustained the Allied peoples throughout the prolonged struggle for the vindication of those rights. He went on to say: "Let us in this new Charter for humanity give expression to this faith of ours; let us proclaim to the world and to posterity that this was not a mere brute struggle of forces correlating to the last war."
If there was one factor that, whether we were independent nations at that time or not, characterised the last war to which General Smuts refers it is that it was a fight against Hitler whose position in Germany was based upon the racial doctrine, that policies for which he was responsible were also based upon that racial doctrine. Here we have an appeal on behalf of the Charter which puts at rest any idea that the issue that we are discussing is not covered by the Charter as a matter of domestic jurisdiction and so on, but makes clear that this is basic to those who accept the Charter.
WE OUGHT NOW TO LOOK INTO THE POSITION AS IT STANDS TODAY. It is sometimes forgotten that, out of every seven people in the Union of South Africa, six are people who have no civic or political rights, who have no position as civilised human beings. It may well be that some of them are well treated; so are some animals in some places; indeed, some animals are better treated than some humans. Though there are 12 million people in South Africa the population of South Africa used to be given as 2 or 3 million, which means that the other people were not taken into account; in fact, it even outbids the old city states of Greece and other places, where liberty was confined to the few and the others were slaves. It is not sufficient for us to treat this merely as a sentimental issue, or even one which concerns human rights in a narrow sense. We must understand how it basically affects the equality of nations in this place and also to what extent it is related to the late resurgence of Africa and its necessary march towards a society where in each of those communities there will be respect for human life and human dignity and the capacity for them to develop industrially, economically and socially.
If you will take the Union, therefore, and look at the economic and social consequences of apartheid, it is not a question merely of the white person not liking the non-white person or vice versa; that is not it. So far as my Government is concerned, it stands fully and squarely against all forms of racial discrimination, however much it may fall behind in practice from day to day, in matters which we try to correct. Whether it be the apartheid that discriminates against the non-white races, or the apartheid that sometimes may tend to do the reverse, both are equally bad.
We look at the incidence of this policy on economic conditions... and we find that the average income of the white family in the Union is £115 per month - that is about $400 per month. When it comes to the African family, the 100 disappears and the 15 remains; that is to say the difference is as between £15 per month and £115 per month. These are the economic consequences of a situation which excludes the African. It is not because he does not want to earn; it is not because he does not have the capacity - that has yet to be proved - but because he is shut out from all occupations where he can lead a life or follow a profession which would enable him to have a higher income and better standards of life.
So when we turn round and look at the average wages paid to these people, we find that there again not only is there a distinction between African and non-African, between white and non-white, but even among the non-white populations there is a gradation of castes, though it may - in this particular list - be to the advantage, shall we say, of the Asiatic populations. This is one of the worst features of this kind of racial domination: you always find that where there is a system of castes there is an attempt to put what may be called a slightly higher caste against a slightly lower caste - that is the way that a hierarchy is maintained, so that the top person can use the middle person to suppress the person still lower down. Thus if you take the Bantus, who are the pure Africans, their wages would at the very highest be about 25 per cent of the European wages; yet, apparently, they have the same kind of stomachs, they have to pay the same amount of money for food, they live under the same economy and, therefore, their expenditure must be the same. The only inference one can draw, therefore, is that the Bantu has to be satisfied with 25 percent in comparison with the white populations. Then come the Asians, whose wages are about 42 per cent, and then comes the mixed population which is slightly better off. I point this out to show that, just because some of the non-white populations do better than some others, it does not reflect a state of affairs which conduces to prosperity or to social justice in this area.
Now, again, if one took the whole of the Union, one could probably find that some 87 percent of the total population - that means practically all the non-white populations - have incomes far less than what is required to keep themselves together according to the various surveys, that is to say, to pay for their food and their rent, and so forth. And one would also find that a great number, 61.6 percent of the population of the working people - I do not have the figures right before me - are not able to pay their rent for the places in which they live. I could go on multiplying such examples to show that the economic and social consequences of apartheid are of a character that can only produce social conflict, ultimately resulting in a threat to international peace and security - if they are not already doing so. For these reasons, we look at this not merely as a sentimental issue, as something which we have already overruled; this is something concerning the interests of the African people.
When you then come to what is normally regarded as more accessible to populations which have been there for the longest time - the tenure of land - you will find in the Union of South Africa 92 per cent of the land is owned by the white populations; and 8 per cent is owned by the Africans. There is no evidence of any kind - biological, racial or scientific - to show that the African requires either less fresh air or less room to move about or that he can do with less amenities or anything of that character.
Therefore, while there is no colonialism in South Africa in the sense that another state controls the affairs of the state of South Africa, there is a state within a state - that is to say, a hierarchy of people who are privileged, who normally are called South Africans, and the others are forgotten. In fact, I remember reading that at the time of the League of Nations the South African representative was asked: "What is the total population of South Africa?" And he had said: "One and a quarter million". And the Indian delegation asked him at the time: "We thought there were 5 or 6 million others". Oh, yes, said the South African, "you mean the natives", that is to say, they did not take into account even the existence of these people.
All these things are sustained not only by social practices - as they are in many of our countries. There is not, perhaps, one of us here who can say: "In our country, there are no discriminations between the various kinds, whether black, brown, white or whatever it may be". But the difference between the worst of us and South Africa is this: that we recognise this evil, and we try to get away from it. In apartheid, South Africa not only does not say that it has to adopt these policies because of historic reasons, or because the flesh is weak, or anything of that kind; it says that this is the ideal for mankind to follow. The ideal for mankind to follow is to have different kinds of people, in different compartments, preventing people from progressing from one to the other or of having equality of opportunity. And what is more, it is reflected in all their legislation...
Although it has been mentioned so many times in the General Assembly, we may not forget the conditions that exist there, conditions that are difficult to believe unless one is already familiar with them. Not only do they not belong in the twentieth century, but they do not belong to any kind of civilised order of society.
The first of these is the Pass Laws where - even as Hitler did with certain sectors of the German population - there is stamped upon a man the mark of inferiority, and which is spoken of by writers as torture and humiliation. And what is more, it is the instrument of oppression in the hands of the ordinary enforcement authorities. It is not as though you were told that you had committed a crime and you go to court and do something about it. A policeman stops an African in the street - he may be an old African or a young one. A young policeman may stop an elderly African and say: "Kaffir, where is your pass?" The African is struck in the face if he is slow in producing it. Not only under these laws is the taking of the law into its own hands left to the executive, but they live in what is much worse than a slave state.
I DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD PASS FROM THESE OCCASIONS without paying tribute first of all to those Africans themselves - that is to say, the non-white Africans in the Union - who in spite of all these discriminatory laws, in spite of the penalties that threaten them, the danger to their lives, have put up a very bold struggle and continue to do so. After all, we in the world who have these meetings and these resolutions, do not suffer from them. They have for years resisted to submitting - a great many leaders of the African people, their organisations and what not. One mentions with a great deal of gratification and a sense of gratitude those others who are of white descent who have participated in the resistance to these discriminatory laws, sometimes to their material and other disadvantages, who have come out with proclamations - whether they be outside Africa or inside - they have fought these acts and have become the common victims of the various types of legislation that have been introduced to stop protests of this character.
More recently, I am told that these pass laws have come to be operated more rigorously against women - largely, I suppose, with the advance of women in the world and their participation mainly in Africa, particularly countries like Ghana and Nigeria and so on, where women have such a high position in their society and their economic system. They have enacted that it will be compulsory for African women to possess reference books with effect from December 1960. The fact that women have now become liable to summary arrest, to possible molestation by any policeman, and detention in jail while their children are uncared for at home, has caused much indignation. This is from the African press itself.
Again I should like to pay tribute to sections of the South African press which, in spite of the press legislation, in spite of the social system that obtains, have given publicity to these matters...
DURING THESE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS, particularly since the advent of the present Government - I am not trying to compare evils, as the previous one was not basically better, but of course there can be bad and worse and so on - there has been more and more legislation of this character, sometimes having these rather highfaluting titles such as University Acts, Investment Corporation Acts and so on, which if we look at the titles, we could think they were beneficent legislation.
Having dealt with these things in the past I should like to deal with some of the more important ones that have come about in the present time which affect citizens of other countries, which affect international philanthropy, if you like, and since I have not got the time to take every instance, I shall take one item - education.
Let us look at the University College of Fort Hare Transfer Act. This university was founded by American money, by the money of philanthropists in Africa itself. I believe some non-European people had contributed towards the founding of the University College of Fort Hare, which was a mixed college in the sense that there was no discrimination against white people going there. Now the objection in apartheid is not merely to non-white people going to white colleges, but to white people going to non-white colleges. It works both ways. Anyway, there is this insidious legislation which is called the University College of Fort Hare Transfer Act. This is the preamble by the present Prime Minister(2) who, as a previous representative said, has a history behind him of being one of the ace supporters of Hitler in the early days and he said "education must train and teach people in accordance with the opportunities in life and according to the sphere in which they live" - that is to say it is based on apartheid to start with:
"Good racial relations cannot exist where education is given under the control of people who create wrong expectations on the part of the Natives themselves.
"Native education should be controlled in such a way that it should be in accord with the policy of the state."
Now a more authoritarian thing you cannot think of.
"Racial relations cannot improve... with the creation of frustrated people".
I agree with this gentleman that there should be no frustrated people, but the question is who creates the frustration.
Under the terms of the University College of Fort Hare Transfer Act (1959) the Minister of Bantu Education took control of Fort Hare as from January 1, 1960. This University was established in 1916 as an inter-racial university, thanks to much community effort, and private generosity, especially on the part of church groups, of those in the United States and Canada and in the Union itself.
Fort Hare has now been reduced to the status of a tribal college. Admission of white, Coloured and Asian students has been prohibited, unless Ministerial exemption is granted in individual cases beforehand. The Vice Principal, Professor Z. K. Matthews, left as he would not resign from the African National Congress. Seven other staff members were dismissed because of their opposition to apartheid. This caused great concern in South African academic circles. The Council of the University of Cape Town issued a statement pointing out that the dismissal of these teachers for their political opinions was against academic freedom. And the answer of the Government was to create an all-white college Council at Fort Hare to replace the old Council which had both African and white members. The college will be financed from the Bantu Education Account, which in effect means that the poorest section of the population is to be compelled to pay for its own colleges.
That is to say, the Government takes over the institution supported from its own population and from outside parts of the world - even apart from the moral and other issues involved - takes it away from its original purposes and wants it to be financed by the Bantu Education Account. That means that if the Bantus want education, let them pay for it themselves on the wages which, as I have said, in regard to 88 per cent of the population are below subsistence level. This came under very serious protest. Even in a country like the United Kingdom - in 1959, long before there was any idea that South Africa was likely to leave the Commonwealth - a former Prime Minister like Lord Attlee, a great jurist like McClair, a former Secretary of State like Lord Halifax, and the leader of the Parliamentary opposition, Mr. Gaitskell, and so on, wrote to the Prime Minister of South Africa and said that this strikes at the very root or the conception of a university because a university must be universal in its membership.
When education is separated in this way, it means the Bantu population get a type of education which is far lower in quality, and there is a reason for it. They do not want the African population to be trained in any type of education that will fit them for trades or professions so it can be claimed they are qualified - no skilled occupations, nothing of that character. The Minister of Education, as late as the end of 1959, said that he would not pay a penny to any person known to be destroying the Government`s apartheid policy. This is the kind of thing that is being done to the educational system. What is more, it is a matter which affects not only those who are in South Africa but also others who participate in this. It does not affect those people who do not want to attend mixed colleges; they are allowed to stay out and other provision is made for them. But if there were a white South African who wanted to send his child - his son or his daughter - to a mixed college, he is prevented from doing so. It becomes a crime to be decent. That is what it really means. It becomes unlawful to behave in a decent fashion.
Section 32 of the Act debars a non-white person from registering at or attending any white university. Upto the present time - although several Cape Colony Indian students have been given permission to attend universities - all but two of the 153 Bantu applicants who wanted to attend universities have been refused. It is of course possible that there may be some individual who for some special reason becomes a favourite of the Government or of some official, and he can get into a university. However, this has been the subject of universal protest not only in South Africa but in various other parts of the world.
I have selected the subject of education because its effects are very far-reaching. As I have said, it is not merely an antagonism to complexion, or anything of that kind. Surely the South African population cannot, any more than any other people, have any objection to complexion, because there are men and women there of all shades - black, white, yellow - so it cannot be any optical objection to a colour as a non-aesthetic one. It is simply a desire to keep populations in economic, social and spiritual slavery in such a way that they will function merely as producers of goods and services for their people.
WE COME NOW TO A WHOLE SERIES OF NEW ACTS of legislation which are the gift of the present Government. Here, again, the titles are interesting and I hope my African colleagues, if they have not already looked at them, will do so. They are all either innocuous or they look very pro-African.
The Factory Act has been amended, but with one of the worst amendments - and I hope those who have been paying special attention to the law of the sea will take note of this because South Africa has now by law enforced segregation in the sea up to the three-mile limit. Not only does segregation prevail on land but now also in the territorial sea which, for South Africa, extends to a three-mile limit which it may later extend further as other countries, including my own, would like to do.
And what does this mean? It means that the law now applies to a very large proportion - numerically a very large number - of African labour on the ships that sail the African seas, or even in the African services which are world wide. Not one of them would be permitted to pursue an occupation of a skilled type; certainly he would not be paid a skilled man's wage, which means that even on a ship, they must live as though they were sub-human; they would not be permitted to follow any occupation other than perhaps stoking coal or, perhaps, they might be allowed to clean the deck and do other jobs of that type. The whole idea is to force them down into a kind of "lower level" of working people. Also, in every factory, as in every post office, there are separate amenities, separate entrances, separate places for whites and for non-Europeans, as provided in previous laws - that sort of thing has only been increased.
On top of this, they have passed what is called the Unlawful Organisations Act. On 8 April of last year, following the Sharpeville killings, a ban was placed on the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress for one year. The Act supplements the Suppression of Communism Act, amended in 1951, under which African leaders can be charged with bringing about political, industrial, social or economic changes by the promotion of disturbances or disorder. Under this Act, every religious leader in every democratic country would be judged subversive, because they are all trying to change either the economic or the political order or to make industrial changes. The titles do not mean anything: for example, Mr. Patrick Duncan, who is the son of a former Governor-General, was arrested and, I believe, convicted under the Suppression of Communism Act, and as far as I know, he was almost a fanatical, pathological anti-communist. The only trouble with him was that he stood for racial equality and I suppose racial equality is interpreted in South Africa as a form of communism.
I shall now deal with another piece of new legislation which concerns forced labour. It is usually thought that the only part of the world where forced labour obtains is Portuguese Africa. However, the Portuguese are to be congratulated in the sense that they have some people who agree with them. The Farmers' Prison Cooperative - nice name, is it not?- in the different districts collects money - £20,000 to £75,000 - and builds prisons. They build prisons in places that are convenient to the farmers. "Farmer" might give you an idea that he is a hard-working person; that is not so in South Africa. The bulk of the Afrikaner element comes from these farmers who put the indigenous population to work. In any case, the farmers collect this £20,000 to £75,000 in what are called "Farmers' Prison Cooperatives". They do not mean cooperative stores or factories or anything like that - they build prisons. The Prisons Department - that is the Government - collects the men. African men on short-term sentences are packed into these jails; many of them are arrested on trivial technicalities such as being found without a pass, an efficient little book giving all personal details. One thousand African men are arrested every day for this reason - because they live in their own country. That is all there is to it.
In a sense, they are worse than domesticated animals because domesticated animals do not have to carry a pass. No society woman`s poodle is ever arrested for not having a pass but an African citizen or an African servant would be.
Every morning before seven the farmers come to the jails to pick up their forced labour. They deposit one shilling and nine pence a day per convict if they supply their own armed guard. For two shillings a day they get a guard from the Prisons Department. The convicts normally work until about 5 p.m. Their conspicuous red shirts make it impossible for them to dash to freedom without being seen. I confess that when one reads these things, it is almost impossible to believe that they exist in the modern world.
I have referred to African citizens - white African citizens - who take a different view of it. It is to the credit of the Union, and it is to the credit of the judicial system in that part of the world of which we are, in a sense, a part that, in spite of all this executive action, in spite of all this fanatical, pathological persecution, the judiciary in South Africa - the higher judiciary - by and large has upheld the rule of law.
When these treason trials came up,(3) Justice Rumpff said:
"It is conceded by the prosecution that if it fails to prove a treasonable conspiracy there is no case against any of the accused."
In other words, they have not done anything. The objection to them is that there was a meeting of their minds for the contemplation of something which is alleged to be wrong. The whole system of law in South Africa is partly British, partly Dutch, and neither of them permits in actual practice penalties in regard to mere thoughts. It is the performance - it is either the likelihood of doing something that is wrong, or the doing of something wrong - that is regarded as criminal. Justice Rumpff went on to say:
"On the evidence presented and on our findings, it is impossible for this court to come to the conclusion that the African National Congress had acquired or adopted a policy to overthrow the state by violence - that is, in the sense that the masses had to be prepared to be conditioned to commit direct acts of violence against the state."
In other words, what the judge is saying is that all that these people have done is to join a political movement in order to bring about changes.
FIELD-MARSHAL SMUTS SAID in the preparatory stages of the Population Registration Act of 1950:
"I think all this problem, all this probing into private affairs, this listening to informers, this effort to classify what is unclassifiable, what is impossible to achieve, will create a situation which will hit this country hard in years to come."
This is before he died, some ten years ago.
This Population Registration Act of 1950, which was passed at that time, classified populations in South Africa as white, Coloured or Native.
"A `white person' means a person who in appearance obviously is, or who is generally accepted as, a white person but does not include a person who, although in appearance obviously a white person, is generally accepted as a Coloured person."
It simply means the executive decides this.
"'Native` means a person who is in fact or is generally accepted as a member of an aboriginal race or tribe in Africa."
Now the funniest part of this is that the Bantus are the people who come most under this definition. And if you ask Mr. Louw when he is here, he will say, "Oh, no, the Bantu came after me. We, the Afrikaners, went there and a few years later the Bantus traced their way back into the Union"...
There are certain very extraordinary consequences that follow from these things. I believe it was the Archbishop of Cape Town, who I think is Dutch by origin, the Most Reverend Joost de Blank, who wanted to dedicate a church to Christ the Carpenter. Then he found that Africans were not allowed to become carpenters and the poor Archbishop was in a difficult position. How can he dedicate a church in South Africa to Christ the Carpenter? The Archbishop in an interview with Stephen Barber of the News Chronicle, London, told him that the Union Government was "pursuing a policy of pinpricking and goading the non-whites to the point of explosion." The Archbishop further said with a bitter laugh: "You know, we recently thought to dedicate one of our new churches to Christ the Carpenter until we realised that the work of carpenter is now reserved for whites only."
At the present moment they are not allowed to go into any kind of occupation except of an unskilled character, which means all the men will labour inside the mines and so on. Since we are not debating the conditions of what is virtually forced labour, I do not want to go into it. But those conditions are such as to affect the status of people all over the world. It would be interesting to know what the International Labour Office does about these matters, but the great wealth of South Africa, which I believe at the present time amounts to the export somewhere about 4 million metric carats of diamonds - all that is brought to the surface by the African people and under very strict conditions and often conditions of cruelty; and so is the coal that South Africa sells to the world and so is the uranium and the gold and everything else. South Africa is one of the wealthy countries of the world and is gradually becoming more and more industrialised. In that industrialisation this apartheid plays a role which is a matter of concern for all of us, certainly for the countries with advanced levels of labour and for countries like ours which want levels of labour to be advanced...
It is interesting that in spite of all this apartheid, from the beginning of this century, half the population employed in industry has been non-European. It is interesting both ways, because half the European population that is employed covers all of the skilled occupations. At the same time it has not been possible to conduct industry without the unskilled labour of the indigenous population...
That is why one sees some sense in what the Australian Prime Minister said the other day in London when this question of the continuation of the membership of South Africa in the Commonwealth arose. Well, I am not here to discuss or debate the merits of this question, but he said that apart from everything else it was unworkable because the white population want African labour and the presence of a mixed population itself is evidence of the fact that some day humanity has to mix in this way. So it is unworkable. I am not subscribing to it. I think it should be abolished not because it is unworkable but because it is inhumane, unjust, inimical to the peace of the world and to international security.
FOR ALL THESE REASONS WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS MATTER year after year and tried to draw the attention of the United Nations. We have been one of the countries who have always argued for a degree of patience, a degree of restraint in regard to the attack on South Africa. And I am free to confess I have a certain reluctance to participate in this debate because the Union is not here. I can understand their feelings. I am quite certain they feel out of water among a community of people who do not recognise apartheid...
But the fact that they are not here is not only not our responsibility. I was here when this item came before the General Committee and all that Mr. Louw, the Foreign Minister, said, so far as I recollect, was that he reserved his position, as he had already stated, on Article 2 (7) but he did not object to this item being admitted. Now a member state, having allowed an item to be admitted and then treating us to the discourtesy of not even participating in this, leaves itself open to certain relationships in regard to all of us. Therefore, one tries as far as possible not to exaggerate these things and even to play them down a little. I have, here, a vast quantity of material which, if one were to read out or refer to them, would create considerable amount of disgust in the minds of people.
When this matter was first brought here, a large number of member states felt that, bad as these things may be, after all they will right themselves and we must make appeals. In the first year we even found it difficult to make a pronouncement, because people said, "Let us discuss it and leave it there". And then we came to resolutions. My country took its part in them, and we always subscribed to the position that it is better not to overstate our criticism but to make appeals. Then we tried to assist South Africa by the appointment of a Commission presided over, not by a European or an African, but by the representative of one of our colleague countries, namely, Chile, of South America.(4)
And soon we were faced with the fact that this gentleman, who no doubt had an open mind on this matter, would not be allowed to go there. The United Nations records contain the reports Mr. Santa Cruz made over the years; I cannot say that conditions have not changed - conditions have changed much for the worse. Today South Africa is not only a police state, it is a state which is a menace to the whole of the African continent.
It has become a menace to the whole of the African continent for two or three additional reasons. First, that in this great continent of Africa, with its ancient civilisations which some of us ought to be able to appreciate more than we have done in the past, we are not dealing with what may be called a primeval state of affairs. They are people with civilisations going back long before other parts of the world had absorbed them, people who participated in the early European civilisations, in whose countries are now dug up archaeological and other remains which prove the antiquity of civilisation, people who had representatives and ambassadors representing their countries, as in the case of the Congo in Portugal, which country enslaved them after the visit of one of their missions in 1542. Not only have we all this in mind, but we have now come to a situation in South Africa where apartheid has come to be a war of extermination of one side or the other.
Secondly, there has been in the continent of Africa the emergence of twenty-five or so independent states seated here as member states. Are we to content ourselves with the position that there are here representatives of many new countries and the representative of an older country which assisted in the formulation of the Charter, whose sentiments I read out to the Committee, and what is more, one of the founder members of the League of Nations, and who was entrusted, in wisdom or otherwise, with the trusteeship of territories in Africa? Are the representatives of the new countries not to feel that they are equal?... Are we to have two Africas, two separate worlds of this type, two different laws? These are the problems that worry us very much.
We have now come also to the position where the whole relationship of the Union with regard to what should be the Trust Territory of South West Africa assumes a different complexion. Although it is too late to do it this year, my Government will take into consideration this new factor. This territory of South West Africa was one of those conquered from the Germans in the First World War and, under the impact of President Wilson`s opinions, there were no annexations; these territories were declared to be A, B,C mandates. South West Africa became a C mandate. In 1919 the authority for exercising the mandate was vested in the Crown of the United Kingdom, the King of the United Kingdom being at that time the "King Defender of the Faith, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the Dominions beyond the Seas". At that time there were not five Crowns as there are today, and the Government of the United Kingdom in its wisdom vested the mandate, shall we say, in the King of the Union of South Africa. The League of Nations never gave a mandate to South Africa; they gave it to the King of the United Kingdom and he, because it was part of his dominions, conferred it as he did.
Now that South Africa has become a Republic, a new position arises. It can no longer plead that the League of Nations placed a mandate with it, because it did not. It was an arrangement and if it is raised in that way we shall take that up. However, that is not the main point I want to bring up. We are arriving at a situation when South Africa, apart from the Empire, within its own territory, is building another colonial appendix to it in the Trust Territory where there are large numbers of people and, where - a further misfortune - they discovered, in the year 1890, large pipes of diamonds. With diamonds come trouble to Africa. It was a large discovery of diamonds which was preceded - or succeeded, I forget which - by the great massacres of that time.
The resistance offered by the African people and all those who agree with them, whether they are of African descent or otherwise, whether they are on a ruling basis or otherwise, the great resistance offered to the South African Government, we hear very little about. And I think, even apart from passing these resolutions, on behalf of my Government I would like to express our sense of tribute to these men and women of whom we hear so little. We may hear about some of the notorious or famous trials, and so on, but day after day there are those who martyr themselves in the cause of freedom. They fight our battles; they fight the battle against racial discrimination, for the dignity of the human being. We pass resolutions on the Declaration of Human Rights; they fight for them. This is the difference. The least we can do is to stand in solidarity with these people who are fighting against these laws. And of some importance - though I did not want to bring it up here - is the position that transpired in London a few days ago.
I think it is common knowledge that it was not the desire of the majority of Commonwealth countries, black, white or brown, to expel South Africa, because they thought it was far better that it should remain there and be taught a lesson, but all, including Australia and the United Kingdom - each, for different reasons, has not a soft view, but a different view from others, I suppose - were unanimous that there should be an expression of opinion, which expressed abhorrence, or, as Macmillan said, that it was inconsistent with the ideals of parliamentary government and so forth, and we decided therefore that there should be some expression of opinion condemning apartheid. That settled the issue, because the Prime Minister of South Africa, rather than agreeing to this condemnation, decided not to continue.
We ourselves in a sense may feel sorry because the impact of other countries upon it, particularly of the new African states like Nigeria, Ghana, and I suppose soon Tanganyika, East Africa, Sierra Leone and various other countries would perhaps have corrected future governments. But there was no option left...
We are also concerned about the fact that there are other territories on that continent, such as Portuguese Africa, with its 1.3 million square miles and a very considerable population living in conditions of semi-slavery or worse, and the territories that lie between the Congo and the Union itself, where so many things are taking place, where there are struggles going on unknown to the rest of the world, in which the African people themselves are resisting all these things. That is why, once again, in spite of the fact that so many resolutions have had no effect, we have brought this up here again.
THERE ARE TWO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS in documents A/SPC/L.59/Rev.1 and A/SPC/L.60. The first resolution stands in the name of three countries of which mine is one: Ceylon, the Federation of Malaya and India.(5)
I do not want anyone to believe that there is any fundamental difference of opinion between these two groups of countries, if you would like to put it that way, in regard to the intensity of this matter or the question of dealing with it mildly or otherwise. We are all entitled, as sovereign states, to put forward before the Assembly such proposals and such solutions as appear to us consistent with principle, which are strategically or otherwise wise, which fit the needs of the case. For example, we have time after time disagreed even among our own colleagues with regard to the language to be used, one way or another. And so, there are these two draft resolutions.
First of all, let me dispose of one preliminary matter. Our friend and colleague from Ghana, Mr. Quaison-Sackey, has asked us this afternoon whether we, as a sponsor of one of the draft resolutions, would have any objection to his resolution receiving priority. We have consulted our colleagues and conveyed our view. We have no objection to this having priority because, after all, the Assembly must decide on the substance of these things and come to its own decision. We shall naturally vote for our resolution, which I confess is couched in stronger language than previous years because of the changes in South Africa and because I forecast - although I have not at the present moment the authority of my Government to say so but I assume it will come in due course - that we shall have to consider seriously what things are consistent with membership of the United Nations. I do not go any further than that at this stage. We shall not only naturally vote for our own draft resolution but we hope there will be no vote recorded against it.
And, without naming countries, my Government would like to make a particular request to those three or four countries which, normally, while they do not vote against such resolutions, for various reasons abstain. Such abstention in the present context of affairs, especially after the result of the Commonwealth conference, is likely to be misunderstood. There is nothing here which is of a character inconsistent with the Charter and in fact many of our colleagues and friends feel that perhaps the draft resolution does not go far enough...
We therefore make a very fervent appeal not only that this should be passed without opposition but that there will be no absentees on a roll-call because, whatever South Africa may say, whatever bravado it might practise, however much it might walk out of this meeting or of the Commonwealth, there is one factor which is total in the world and that is the will of human beings. That is what public opinion is. That is all that we are trying to put into motion, the support that has increasingly come to the expression of opinion by the United Nations year after year; and each time we have tried to find ways and means whereby South Africa would not feel humiliated or would not even be compelled to discuss in the context of the resolution. Times without number, year after year, our negotiators have told them that discussions do not mean that you accept the authority of the United Nations in this matter or anything of that kind.
Now I want to draw attention to certain general statements here, for example, operative paragraph 3: "Requests all states to consider taking such separate and collective action as is open to them to bring about the abandonment of these policies".
My Government has stated it in this way because we feel that, irrespective of the enormity of any crime or the insistence on any policy, we shall not be a party to doing anything which appears to be an infringement of the legitimate, sovereign and constitutional rights of countries. We may have the right to request but we have no right to prescribe what shall be done, what shall not be done. Therefore, all we have done is to say that states should consider for themselves what separate or collective action they can take in the implementation of their wishes. It may be writing a letter, it may be an economic boycott, it may be breaking all diplomatic relations, it may be the setting up of a voluntary organisation or body or whatever it is. We feel that in any appeal of that kind, the right, correct thing to do, certainly at the present stage in the General Assembly, is for us to make individual appeals, is to appeal to individual states to take either their own action or collective action according to their own procedures. We are also mindful of the fact that each of our countries is tied up in so many international agreements and also that any action we may take may affect something else.
THAT BRINGS US TO THE NEXT RESOLUTION (document A/SPC/L.60) with which we are in complete sympathy, because the bulk of it, namely, the operative part, practically says the same thing as the other resolution because it comes from the same circumstances. We have no objection to any of these operative parts, in fact, we have no objection to the whole of it, but I must say in all frankness that I have no instructions and my Government will find it very difficult to vote for operative paragraph 5 as it stands.(6)
I do not say we will vote against it; we cannot vote for paragraph 5 as it stands, because it specifies what each country should do. While we may express a general wish in this way and request countries to take individual or collective action, not wanting to interfere in their internal affairs, we feel we would not be right in our relations with other countries to say that they must break off diplomatic relations, that they must close their ports, that they must enact legislation, that they must boycott South African goods, that they must refuse landing facilities and so on. I have no desire to go into the merits of this thing. It might even be that the United Nations may decide on action under the military provisions of the Charter. That is a matter for the United Nations to decide. At the present moment we do not feel that we can vote for items (i) to (v), set out in seriatim, under operative paragraph 5. That does not mean that we as a country would not practise it and, so far as the Government of India is concerned, no question of pulling our punches arises in this matter.
As early as 1946 we broke off diplomatic relations with the Union Government. We carry on no trade with them. We do not allow their citizens to work in our country, and our citizens do not work in their country. We have condemned apartheid and dissociated ourselves from it at every turn. Large numbers of our nationals or peoples of Indian origin have, from the time when Gandhiji went to Africa sixty or seventy years ago, participated in direct action movements and are today members of African and other organisations in the country protesting against things of this kind. So we have no reservations on this. We have no diplomatic relations with the South Africans, we have no trade relations with them, we have no communications relations with them, except as may be under world radio agreements or something of that character. So we have nothing to lose by it.
But we are not here merely as one country; we are here as one ninety-ninth of the United Nations and when we put forward a resolution, we had to put forward something which in our judgment, right or wrong, would be in all conscience acceptable to the majority of the people who agree with us in principle. Those who object to it in principle, naturally, will vote against it. And therefore it is on that basis that we have put forward this resolution.
At the same time, we recognise the strength of feeling in Africa. There was a conference at Accra in 1958 which asked for all this and more. Then there was a conference at Monrovia which did not ask for more but still reiterated it. There was a conference at Cairo and there was a conference somewhere else afterwards, and then there was a conference at Addis Ababa nine months ago which asked for all these things.
We should be very glad to see no ship bearing, shall we say, the Liberian flag go to South Africa; then that would cut away one-third of the shipping of the world. But I cannot dictate to Liberia that its ships should not go there. It would be interference in its internal affairs, even by suggestion.
We are not in any sense opposed to the second resolution but we have, in all conscience and out of the frankness with which we state our positions in the United Nations, to point out that we could not vote for these sub-paragraphs (i)-(v), not because we have any objection to them singly but because we think that the principle of it has been met by the paragraphs in document A/SPC/L.59/Rev.1, which:
"Deprecates policies based on racial discrimination as reprehensible and repugnant to human dignity; and
"Requests all states" - not only member states - "to consider taking such separate and collective action as are open to them to bring about the abandonment of these policies."
One of the reasons that actuated us - you may think it is a rather small, tactical reason - is that we do not want any resolution in this Assembly this time to receive even a single vote less than last year, because in the sensitive state of South Africa everything is likely to be construed, and any kind of slowing down on this matter would be working against the Africans, the mixed population, the Asians and the Europeans who are fighting against the Verwoerd Government, and create a still different situation in the country.
What is more, having regard to the implications of apartheid to the rest of Africa, this common approach by a large number of countries - and I hope there will be no one left out - would be something that might assist the progress of Africa forward, as against all the inequities and discrimination of which it has been the victim for generations.
If you would like it put another way, our country is quite prepared to have two blows delivered at this policy instead of one, so that no one is left out.
We are therefore quite willing that Mr. Quaison-Sackey and his colleagues should have the benefit of priority if it is the wish of the Committee, because of course it is not in our hands. We shall not object to it, although this resolution of ours was drafted and submitted earlier and has been in circulation for a long, long time. But out of courtesy to our colleague from Ghana more than anything else, and knowing very well his desire to rally opinion as widely as possible, we shall, if he sees any tactical advantage to be derived, not stand in his way. It is in justice to him, as well as to ourselves, that we should express our reservations in regard to those five recommendations which we shall not be able to support in their present form.
We have a feeling that we should not apply remedies which do not lie entirely within the four corners of the Charter. Also, we should not pass resolutions unless we are all prepared to implement them. If the trade that is carried on by African countries with the South African Union were to drop off it would mean £12 million less for them. We have seen no evidence of that so far, because these things take time, and also boycotts produce counter-boycotts which must affect the economy. All these things, however, must be decided by them for themselves. I am not saying that there are no circumstances in which one must put all these considerations aside and go on.
I also think that any application of economic sanctions - and here I state the position of my Government - must emanate from the Security Council, because sanctions, if they are applied, are not child's play. They must conform to Article 41 of the Charter; and there is no reason why that Article should not be invoked. My country would not lag behind anyone else if it were the general desire of the Security Council or the United Nations to invoke those provisions. If the matter goes to the Security Council, its implications and all the economic and other factors will be taken into consideration.
We are not in any way opposed to this draft resolution; we merely state our position.
Finally I would say that all of us must remember that we have come to a stage in this world which, on the one hand, has become so shrunken, and on the other hand is conscious of such wide implications, that it is a world at once larger and smaller that we inhabit. And in these circumstances - in the words of Abraham Lincoln - we cannot have a world that is half enslaved and half free. So long as South Africa remains in this condition, we in the rest of the world are exposed to all the dangers that arise from racial discrimination; we are exposed to all the dangers that hatred creates; we are exposed to all the dangers that inequality of conditions of labour, and of near-slavery, provide; we are exposed to all the dangers which arise from the affront to human dignity...
(1) Statement on "Question of Race Conflict resulting from the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa".
Source: Foreign Affairs Record, New Delhi, Volume 7, pages 103-115
(3)The trial of 156 leaders of the freedom movement, charged in December 1956 with high treason and other offences, ended in March 1961 with the acquittal of all the accused.
(4) A three-member United Nations Commission on the Racial Situation in the Union of South Africa was established under General Assembly resolution 616A (VII) of December 5, 1952, to study the racial situation in South Africa in the light of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter and resolutions of the United Nations. It was composed of Hernan Santa Cruz of Chile, Henri Laugier of France and Dantas Bellegarde of Haiti. It submitted three reports, in 1953, 1954 and 1955, before it was discontinued.
(5). Afghanistan and Indonesia subsequently joined as co -sponsors of this draft resolution. The other draft resolution - A/SPC/L.60 - was eventually co-sponsored by 24 African states, Cuba and Indonesia.
(6) Under paragraph 5 the Assembly would recommend that all states consider taking the following steps: