SEPTEMBER 24, 1962(1)
THE ADDRESS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE of South Africa to the Assembly consists of about 8,000 words and we have not had the opportunity to study it in full. It is not the intention of my delegation to traverse the whole of this document or, indeed, to reply to other representatives in the Assembly who have quoted words in context or out of context, as the case may be. I would refer at the present moment to certain general observations in the way of attacks, either veiled or unveiled, on my country and Government - indeed, even attacks on the United Nations. These are matters of general argument which any representative is entitled to put forward, and we shall answer them in due course.
The first of these is in regard to the conduct of the Indian delegation in 1946 in violating the Charter, particularly Article 2, paragraph 7...
I have no desire at the present moment to embark on an analysis of Article 2. We have not touched, either in this debate or in any other, on any matter concerning any country which is essentially within the jurisdiction of that country. The crimes against humanity, the treatment of Indian people in South Africa, the violation of treaty obligations, the cruelties practised - these are not essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of South Africa; and what is more, this Assembly, not once or twice, but, I believe, eight or nine times over, by overwhelming majorities, consisting not only of people from one part of the world or of one persuasion in political or economic matters, has supported this view. Therefore we have no need to apologise for having attempted to persuade the Assembly to violate the Charter or for having submitted to the Assembly proposals involving violations of the Charter.
On the other hand, we have always relied - and I am happy to say the great General Smuts did - on what has been written into the Charter in the second paragraph of the Preamble, where it says: "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," "in the dignity and worth of the human person", - not only of nations - "in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small".
It goes on, in Article 1, paragraph 3, to speak about "encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".
It fell to the delegation of India at San Francisco, even before India's independence, when it was represented by the nominees of the British Government, to introduce this amendment, including the reference to racial discrimination, into the Charter. And General Smuts, on behalf of the Union, accepted it and, what is more, quite rightly appropriated to himself the credit for the virtuous action of agreeing to it.
WE NOW COME TO WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED "DOUBLE STANDARDS". It is very difficult to answer those allegations, because some of them are veiled and some of them are directed against us.
But, broadly speaking, what has been said or implied is that in our country there are instances of discrimination. I do not deny this, I would not be so hypocritical as to deny it. There is not one nation - there are not many nations - in the world where social, religious, racial and, even more, economic discrimination against people does not prevail. But the Government of the Union of South Africa is the only one that makes a virtue of it. We try to get away from it. Our Governments do not advocate, practise, permit or exclude from penal provisions the practice of discrimination. But the policy of the South African Government is not only to live with this sin but, far from trying to eliminate it, to state to the world that racial discrimination is right. It is established as a virtue and, what is more, it is put forward as a pattern for other people to follow. This is rather different from the lapses that occur in human society in many nations. Therefore, when one speaks about double standards, and refers to social evils in one country or another, our country is no exception to the general rule. But we have strenuously tried to overcome these evils and we have condemned their existence both in our country and elsewhere.
Then there is a reference to our role - not by name, but by implication - in Korea, a very thinly veiled reference to the fact that some countries, though they subscribed to it, did not participate in the United Nations action in Korea.
First of all, the United Nations Charter does not impose any obligation upon any country to take up arms unless it wishes to do so. That is purely a voluntary action. But, over and above that, my country`s record in regard to Korea will stand examination. We made our contribution toward peace in that area at considerable sacrifice to ourselves. Perhaps we did not do it in the same way that South Africa did: some countries do it in one way, and other countries do it in some other way. Therefore, our record in regard to Korea will stand examination. And perhaps it is to be noted that we did not volunteer, that the United Nations itself invited the Government of India to assume this role. Therefore, if we are condemned, the whole of the Organisation is condemned.
Then there are two other matters. One is in regard to Goa. I have no desire to argue this question all over again, because this is really not a history lesson. Nor am I going to enter into discussions of what Lord Home is supposed to have said. We can settle affairs with Lord Home in other places, and I am not going to permit myself to be dragged into an argument with my good friend, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that, if he did say this, he has had enough time to think things over and probably has different views now.
But, so far as Goa and Kashmir are concerned, to use the word "aggression" is very strange; you cannot commit aggression on your own country. You can only commit aggression in other places. We have not committed aggression. We have not violated the sovereignty of Portugal or any other country. What we have done is simply, after very patient efforts put forth in other ways over a long period of time, finally used such strength and determination as we have in order to end colonialism. And what is more, this was after the United Nations had decided that colonies have no place in the world. Goa is not Portugal. It is India. As has been repeatedly said in this Assembly, even the British, who were with us in one way or another for two or three hundred years, never insulted us by calling us Englishmen. That was left to the Portuguese.
Therefore, in regard to these two questions of Goa and Kashmir, while this is not the time or place to speak about them, the position is that they are Indian sovereign territory, which was defended at the appropriate time by such strength as India had and which will continue to be so defended if the occasion should arise.
THE WHOLE OF THIS TIRADE AGAINST INDIA arises from the fact that since 1946 the Government of India, not particularly for its own selfish reasons, has drawn the attention of this Assembly not only to the problem of Indians in South Africa but to the larger problem of what has been called apartheid. Perhaps the name does not fully indicate what is involved. It means real racial discrimination - not discrimination in a small way, but regarding people who do not belong to certain races as not belonging to the human family and as being outside the context of the Charter.
It is not my intention, in answering these allegations, to use language of the type that has been used in attacking us. We do not have any apologies to make in regard to the various resolutions that have been moved. I am glad that, in order to make this criticism, the representative of South Africa was at least compelled to study them. There have been resolutions moved here in regard to what has been called co-existence and neighbourly relations, resolutions which have been accepted by the entire Assembly. If those resolutions were wrong, then the entire Assembly is wrong.
If we have sometimes, like other people, failed to live up to the highest principles set forth by the Charter in any particular, we may be guilty in that particular. But nothing has been brought against us.
It is true that we have said that war is no longer useful as an instrument for deciding issues between nations. That was said in the context of world disarmament. That is still our position. I do not know why we come in for criticism in this regard.
I conclude by saying that South Africa is the only state in this Assembly which is guilty of flagrant violation of the Charter. What is more, the state is based - in so far as it accepts apartheid - on this violation. South Africa makes a virtue of apartheid, and it prescribes it as a remedy for the world's ills. Fortunately, the world is too sensible to accept that.
(1) Statement in reply to the Foreign Minister of South Africa, Eric Louw.
Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventeenth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages 73-74