Contents
June 26 1969
Today, 26 June, is traditionally observed by the African National Congress of South Africa and its associate organizations, as well as by many other bodies, including anti-apartheid movements and various international organizations, as "South Africa Freedom Day".
26 June was so designated because it was on 26 June 1950 that the first national stay-at-home strike was organized as a mark of protest against the Suppression of Communism Act and other undemocratic and unjust legislation. It was, again, on 26 June 1952, that the historic Campaign of Defiance of Unjust Laws was launched. But above all, 26 June was chosen as "South Africa Freedom Day" as it commemorates the historic adoption, on 26 June 1955, of the Freedom Charter by the Congress of the People of South Africa, a multi-racial conference of the opponents of apartheid and racial discrimination.
The Freedom Charter, describing the democratic and humanist aspirations of the oppressed people of South Africa, is a historic document which is in full harmony with the purposes and principles of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and relevant resolutions of United Nations organs. It sets out the democratic changes required to enable all the people of South Africa to live in brotherhood, enjoying equal rights and opportunities without distinction of colour, race, sex or belief.
Its preamble reads:
"WE, THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH AFRICA, DECLARE FOR ALL OUR COUNTRY
AND THE WORLD TO KNOW:
that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people;
that our people have been robbed of their birthright to land, liberty and peace by a form of government founded on injustice and inequality;
that our country will never be prosperous or free until all our people live in brotherhood, enjoying equal rights and opportunities;
that only a democratic state, based on the will of all the people, can secure to all their birthrights without distinction of colour, race, sex or belief;And therefore, we the people of South Africa, black and white together - equals, countrymen and brothers - adopt this Freedom Charter. And we pledge ourselves to strive together, sparing neither strength nor courage, until the democratic changes set out here have been won".
These are the objectives of the struggle of the South African people - a struggle which the United Nations General Assembly has recognized as legitimate and as deserving international support.
26 June, South Africa Freedom Day, should be a day for rededication to the cause of freedom, to the legitimate struggle of the South African people. It should be a day to pause and pay our respects to all those who have lost their lives in the course of the struggle and those who have been imprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for having opposed the policies of apartheid. This is a day to renew our demand for the release of people like Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada, Dennis Goldberg and Raymond Mhlaba, who have been serving sentences of life imprisonment because they stood up for the principles of the Freedom Charter, the principles of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and for the release of others like Abram Fischer who are in jail because of their opposition to apartheid and because of their courageous support of the struggle for freedom.
In a statement issued on the occasion of the South Africa Freedom Day, the African National Congress has called upon the international community to stand up to the demands of the South African revolution and to give moral, political and material aid to the liberation movement. The United Nations has already recognized the legitimacy of these demands. They are enshrined in the Freedom Charter which, I repeat, is in full accord with the purposes and principles of the United Nations…
October 2, 1969
Today is the centenary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi, one of the greatest humanists of this century.
It was in South Africa, in the struggle against racial discrimination and the humiliation of the Indian people, that Mahatma Gandhi had his baptism of fire. It was in South Africa, between 1893 and 1914, that he perfected his philosophy of passive resistance which he later applied in India in the struggle of his people for national independence.
On this centenary of Mahatma Gandhi, we cannot but note that the struggle in South Africa against racial discrimination, against the monstrous policy of apartheid, continues.
The colleagues and followers of Mahatma Gandhi - and the people of Indian origin in general - have continued the struggle and, under the leadership of the liberation movement of the African people, made a notable contribution.
The Special Committee has had occasion to note the heroism and the persecution of people like Dr. Yusuf Dadoo, Nana Sita, Ahmed Kathrada, and Dr. G. M. Naicker, and hundreds of others who are in prison or under bans for opposition to apartheid.
Indeed, Mahatma Gandhi's son, Manilal Gandhi, was an active participant in the struggle until his death a few years ago. The son-in-law of Manilal Gandhi, Mewalal Ramgobin, is now under banning orders. Two children of Mahatma Gandhi's adopted son are now in prison for their participation in the struggle for liberation - Indres Naidoo is on Robben Island serving a long term of imprisonment with Nelson Mandela and others; Miss Shanti Naidoo was detained last May under the Terrorism Act, along with Mrs. Mandela and others, and is now kept incommunicado.
On this occasion, let us pledge to redouble our efforts to liberate the prisoners and end racial discrimination in South Africa. I feel that we should also promote greater awareness of the long history of the struggle for justice in South Africa and I would like to request the secretariat to take steps to publicize the contribution of Mahatma Gandhi to the struggle against apartheid.
February 26, 1970
Arrangements are in progress to convoke a joint meeting of various United Nations bodies which deal with the issue of apartheid and related forms of human exploitation in Southern Africa. This meeting, which will take place in New York next month, will be one of the first ventures to be undertaken this year by concerned nations to make 1970 a decisive year in the struggle against racism in that part of the world.
Unfortunately too many resolutions and too little action are all that the United Nations can show after having dealt with the problem for twenty-five years. In this period all peaceful procedures for settling this issue, outside of those provided by Chapters VI and VII of the Charter, have been tried but to no avail. We have had outright condemnations of those racist policies by those major powers which have assumed positions of responsibility for world leadership and which have the means to give a lead in the problem. But their condemnations have not been matched either by performance, or by precept. Not only have the United Nations failed to halt the progressive erosion of the inalienable rights of the non-white population of the region by white minority regimes, but we have allowed ourselves to become passive witnesses to the development of a situation which now constitutes a real threat to international peace and security.
One of the purposes of the proposed joint session would be to analyze the elements of the issue and co-ordinate the work of the committees in a common action programme. The necessity of dealing with the political problems of Southern Africa in a wider context was recognized by the Kitwe seminar in 1967. That conference also recognized the close inter-relationship of the problems of Southern Africa and the need to marshall and co-ordinate international effort for their solution. The basis for the proposed conference next month was laid down in various General Assembly resolutions adopted at the twenty-fourth session.
The campaign against apartheid has assumed a multi-directional approach with the emphasis being placed, first, on the national liberation or resistance movements, second, on the support of concerned nations, and third, on the conduct of an information campaign to enlighten the international community on the evils and dangers of apartheid. In the information campaign the Special Committee has relied and continues to rely, to a great extent, on the labours of the nongovernmental organizations.
In this jubilee year of the United Nations, the Special Committee believes that, in addition to promoting support of the national resistance movements of Southern Africa, efforts should be made to associate world youth with the problem. The fact that apartheid has been allowed to continue unsolved for twenty-five years is convincing proof that the present generation, by its attitudes and values, has failed to provide the necessary moral leadership. Trust and hope for the future become increasingly dependent on the young people of today. We have seen how effective they have been in questioning the values and institutions of our societies and of bringing about meaningful change.
The Committee has been encouraged by the increasing interest that has already been manifested by youth in the problem. Student opposition to apartheid on a number of "white" campuses in South Africa, demonstrations on some American campuses against the investment policies of those colleges in South Africa and widespread protests in the United Kingdom in recent months by thousands of youthful demonstrators against racially selected sport teams from South Africa, are indeed convincing evidence that apartheid has no place in the world today. Special emphasis will be placed on the question of apartheid in sport during the coming months. In this connection, it will be of interest to know that Mr. Arthur Ashe, the well-known United States tennis player, will appear before the Special Committee on Apartheid in the near future. He will, no doubt, give an account of his own experience in this matter…
March 21 1970
The close identification of the question of apartheid with the United Nations concern for human rights is evidenced by the fact that on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, we commemorate the tragic event which took place in Sharpeville in 1960. That event was highly significant because it brought home to the African peoples of South Africa and beyond, the fact that non-violent protest had become meaningless; it brought home to the international community the enormity of the injustices that were being perpetrated against the black majority; finally, it heralded a period when the conversion of the blue-prints for apartheid into terrible reality was accelerated and intensified.
Today, then, is an appropriate time for the international community to ask itself to what extent the sense of outrage experienced in 196( has resulted in positive action to combat apartheid, and to what extent a determination to eliminate apartheid, has grown with the proliferation of apartheid policies in South Africa. In both cases the answer, unfortunately, must be in the negative.
The wave of indignation that swept through the world soon after Sharpeville held promise of a programme of action which would successfully combat apartheid. But by 1965 marked contradictions appeared in the attitudes of many States, particularly those which have maintained a continuing economic and political interest in South Africa. Humanitarian concerns have given way to material ones; positive proposals for action have been met by silence, passivity and apathy.
Naturally, the absence of a firm and unified stand by Member States of the United Nations to exert moral, political and economic pressure, encouraged the South African Government to extend and intensify its oppressive policies. It should not be thought that world opinion is of no account to the racist rulers of South Africa. They are highly sensitive to criticism. Tremendous sums of money are spent in propaganda campaigns in many countries in an attempt to justify their policies. Every new trading agreement with a Member State of the United Nations is hailed in the South African press and in official statements as a blow to the effectiveness and prestige of our Organization. This is why the current attitude of many Member States of the United Nations towards apartheid is so deplorable.
This attitude can be summed up very aptly by a term now under fire in another human rights context - benign neglect. For while the majority of States reject apartheid in principle and express sympathy for the oppressed majority, few are prepared to do anything about it. It seems incredible in the face of the clear evidence of what is going on in South Africa and beyond that there has been such a general abdication of moral responsibility.
The situation in South Africa does not allow complacency or compromise. Not only are we faced with the most virulent form of racial discrimination that any people has had to contend with in modern times, but also with a new form of colonialism more pernicious than the classical variety. A ruthless minority has usurped all authority, denied the humanity of the majority because of race and colour, created for itself social and political privileges, and monopolized the country's natural resources.
The establishment of so-called homelands in which the black population are being forcibly contained is nothing less than an attempt to create black impoverished communities, politically powerless, excluded from the mainstream of national life and tied to the white minority in a master-servant relationship. This is an unparallelled form of colonialism designed to keep a defenceless and exploited people in permanent subjection.
One of the preambular paragraphs of the United Nations Charter reads:
"We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small ... have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims."
Ironically, this preamble, I am told, was written by Field Marshall Smuts, the South African statesman. Three years after the adoption of the Charter, South Africa became the second country in modern times to accept racial discrimination as a State philosophy. Three years after the Sharpeville incident shocked the world, Prime Minister Verwoerd could say publicly and
brazenly:
"We want to keep South Africa White ... Keeping it White can only mean one thing, namely White domination, not leadership, not guidance, but control, supremacy."
After twenty-five years of attempting to deal with the problem of apartheid we have arrived at an impasse. During this period the ruling minority in South Africa has not given out a single ray of hope that it would ever be inclined to change its apartheid policies. In the United Nations we have continued with the fruitless exploration of peaceful measures of persuasion. Short of force, the only potent weapons that remain are those of the trade boycott as called for by the General Assembly and the arms embargo imposed by the Security Council, but these have been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. They must, however, remain as the principal means of coercion available to the United Nations.
The trade boycott lends itself to a variety of ways in which States, individually or collectively, can take meaningful action. Africa has a particular role and I trust that African States will seize the initiative again as they did after the Sharpeville incident and, in addition to other measures called for by the General Assembly at its last session, join to insure an effective prohibition on the use of facilities in their countries to aircraft flying to and from South Africa. This action, though relatively limited in scope, would certainly have an impact on South Africa, and it would cause other commercial interests to re-examine their own activities in the light of that experience.
Countless appeals have been addressed to the Western Group of nations to disengage from South Africa. The majority of these nations, by continued collaboration with South Africa, and by their indifference to the United Nations resolutions on the matter, give strength, comfort and encouragement to the racist government. We trust that they will re-examine their position, particularly after what has transpired in the Security Council on the question of Southern Rhodesia. I do hope that we can continue to rely on the full co-operation of the Asian, Latin American and Socialist States. However, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say here that the Special Committee has been alarmed at the increasing reports of economic and military collaboration between South Africa and a number of influential Latin American States.
Having regard to the high traditions and scrupulous regard which Member States of the Latin American Group pay to questions of human rights, we confidently trust that they will maintain a united stand on the apartheid issue.
In considering what other directions should be emphasized in the campaign against apartheid, we must take into account that it is not only the lesson of history, but also of our times, that failure to bring about social change in a society which is suffering from the cumulative effect of long-standing injustices, results in revolution and violence.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right of the people to rebel in situations such as the one that prevails in South Africa. Preambular paragraph 3 of the Declaration insists that "human rights should be protected by the rule of law, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression".
The General Assembly has recognized the legitimacy of the struggle of the people of South Africa against racism and has recommended the provision of aid to the national liberation movements. While I join with the Chairman of the United Nations Trust Fund in appealing to Member States to give generously in support of individual victims of apartheid, it is of paramount importance for concerned Member States to give substantial aid also to these liberation movements.
In emphasizing the need for support of the liberation movements, I do not wish to minimize the importance which should be attached to the international campaign to enlighten public opinion on the evils and dangers of apartheid, nor to the valuable work which non-governmental organizations can perform in this field. All have an effective role to play in the struggle. Furthermore, if I have paid particular attention to the racial policies of South Africa, it is not because I do not have concern for situations in other parts of the world where racial discrimination continues to be practised. All forms of racial discrimination are reprehensible and debasing and must be resisted by all means possible.
Distinguished colleagues, it is the earnest hope of the Special Committee on Apartheid that the anniversary of Sharpeville in 1970 will mark the beginning of a new determination to eradicate the scourge of apartheid and all other forms of racial discrimination wherever they may exist.…
24 June 1970
The statement of our distinguished rapporteur on the arms build-up in South Africa and on continued violations of the embargo by several western Powers reflects the serious and distressing nature of the two long-standing and gross violations of the United Nations Charter: the use of arms by the South African Government to deny people their fundamental human rights, and the equally unpardonable act of some States which involve themselves in arms trafficking n support of that regime and which put material gain ahead of the principles of international morality they are pledged to support.
In 1963 and 1964 when the Security Council adopted resolutions calling for the imposition of an arms embargo against the Government of South Africa, great hope was attached to the role which the four permanent members of the council had pledged themselves to play. We realized that if those four Powers lent their full co-operation, other States would follow their example and the embargo would have a considerable chance of succeeding.
The Soviet Union gave its unqualified support to the proposal. The United States pledged itself to "a policy forbidding the sale to the South African Government of arms ad military equipment, whether from Government or commercial sources, which could be used to enforce apartheid". The French delegation declared that its Government "would take all the steps they considered necessary to prevent the sale to the South African Government of weapons which could be used for purposes of repression". The British representative announced that it was the position of his Government "that no arms should be exported to South Africa which would enable the policy of apartheid to be enforced". He reserved the British position regarding the supply of equipment to South Africa for purposes of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter.
Briefly, let us recount what has happened since the adoption of the arms embargo resolution. The Soviet Union is the only State that has discharged its responsibility fully. France has honoured the arms embargo more in the breach than in the observance and by its actions has encouraged several other western European States to break the embargo. Almost every report on the arms situation issued by this Committee since its inception has contained evidence of the supply of French arms and military equipment to South Africa in defiance of the Security Council resolution.
In all fairness to the United Kingdom and the United States we must state that considerable efforts have been made by those two States to honour their commitment, although at times we have had reason to point out discrepancies in their performance. These discrepancies arise from the extremely loose interpretation which they place on certain arms and military equipment as falling within the category of arms for external defence, and on arms contracts entered into before the arms embargo was instituted. It cannot be denied that arms and military equipment supplied ostensibly for purposes of external defence have been used extensively for internal security.
Yet despite these lapses, we must concede that the public commitment of the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom to honour the arms embargo has had a restraining influence on the supply of arms to South Africa. The problem now is this: how can the Security Council persuade those few States who continue to supply arms to South Africa in defiance of the arms embargo to refrain from doing so, and how can we induce others to continue faithful compliance with the embargo. Whatever measures are adopted by the Security Council, the outcome in reality will depend on the action of the permanent members.
In recent weeks, and particularly since the elections in the United Kingdom, considerable speculation has been aroused about the attitude which the new Government is likely to adopt towards the arms embargo. Many of us have been alarmed at some statements, which have been attributed in the Press to leading personalities of the Conservative Party, about the stand they would take on the arms embargo against South Africa and on the type of relations they would wish to establish with the rebel regime of Ian Smith in Southern Rhodesia. On the other hand, we have noted the restraining influence which the new British Prime Minister -- the Right Honourable Edward Heath -- has tried to exercise on racist and other extremist groups within his country. We trust this to be a clear indication that the policies of his Government will in n way give in to racism. In our opinion it would be racism to reopen the flow of arms to South Africa, to assume a negative position in the international scene against the South African racist policies and to give some form of recognition to the racist régime in Salisbury.
Apart from the verbal condemnations of the policies of apartheid, and a hesitant and unconvincing response to the humanitarian needs of the situation, the arms embargo, for what it is worth, represents the only tangible measure taken by the international community to countermand the criminal and sustained aggression of the South African Government against the rights of the non-white people of South Africa.
Any weakening of the embargo will affect adversely not only the struggle of the oppressed in South Africa, but also the struggle of the populations of Southern Rhodesia, Namibia and the Portuguese-occupied territories of Angola and Mozambique. It is no secret that sanctions against Southern Rhodesia have been frustrated because of the open trade which South Africa freely conducts with the rebel régime. The extensive arms and military equipment which the South African Government has been able to procure from abroad, has enabled that Government to station its units on Southern Rhodesian territory, and its air force to carry out military reconnaissance and offensive operations against liberation movements in territories beyond the frontiers of South Africa. Should South Africa be permitted to increase its purchase of arms from abroad, or be provided with the means to increase its manufacture of them at home, the international community can be certain that those arms will find their way to the rebel régime of Southern Rhodesia further undermining the international commitment to sanctions.
This then is the position: I suggest for the consideration of this Committee that in the light of evidence that has been collected over the years and in consideration of new developments that are taking place, we ask that the whole position be reviewed by the Security Council and that it take measures to strengthen the embargo.
January 19 1971
On being elected to chair this Committee for the third successive year, I am conscious not only of the honour that you have accorded my country and myself, but also of the heavy responsibilities that are involved. My own contribution to the task that lies ahead will be facilitated by the fact that my Government is totally committed to the struggle against apartheid. It does not entertain any illusions that the basic human rights and the political rights of the non-white population of South Africa will be secured by compromises in the stand taken by the United Nations in. its campaign against apartheid.
That campaign has not been as successful as we would wish, for reasons which are familiar to you all. But my Government believes that it was never more necessary than at the present time to continue, with unabated vigour, the task of keeping the question of apartheid before the conscience of the world, of providing assistance to the oppressed, and continuing to search for ways and means of combating apartheid. The alternative is to abandon the oppressed majority in South Africa to their enslavement by the white minority.
The months ahead will be important ones for this Committee. This is the International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination - a campaign in which the question of apartheid must necessarily figure largely. The seven resolutions on apartheid passed by the General Assembly during its twenty-fifth session make clear our goals and responsibilities. It is for us now to draw up an action programme which will enable us to realize them.
The advocates of a dialogue with South Africa
Among other matters, we have to consider what we must say to those who advocate a dialogue with South Africa, who maintain that the United Nations should persuade the racist regime there to change its policies through contact and not by ostracism and those who object to any form of coercive measures arguing that the United Nations should suit its actions to its capabilities.
On my part I would submit that these are the rationalizations of those who profit from the current political order, and of those who are on the threshold of exploiting the South African market of human misery. The representatives of South Africa's main trading partners speak of United Nations proposals for remedying the situation - proposals carefully formulated and made within the provisions of the Charter - as if they themselves were free from the obligations imposed by the Charter. They speak as though they are unaware that the capacity of the United Nations and its aims and objectives are set by its Members. If some Members refuse to see the responsibilities of membership of the United Nations, it is for no other reason than narrow self-interest.
On the question of dialogue - and this is very important - I should like to be shown one instance over the past 20 years where the white minority Government of South Africa has indicated that it was prepared to enter into discussion on its apartheid policies with anyone critical of them. Not even South Africa's main trading partners, despite their close association with the regime, have been able to persuade it to abandon its racist policies.
Basis for a meaningful dialogue
I believe that when we speak of dialogue, the most important consideration must be whether or not the possibility exists of a dialogue between the white minority and the black majority of South Africa. Without this, dialogue between the international community and South Africa is meaningless. In other words no dialogue on race relations within South Africa can have any practical meaning unless it is predicated on the truth that all men are entitled without discrimination to equal political, social and other human rights. The non-white people of South Africa have asked for a dialogue on this basis and the whites have rejected these just demands.
Presence of black diplomats no breakthrough
South Africa's so-called outward policy is sometimes cited as a sign of a thaw in her attitudes to race relations. But the handful of black diplomats who are now being welcomed in Pretoria are there for one reason alone: the mutual benefits of trade with South Africa and aid to their countries. In their official capacity they are able to enjoy some of the courtesies and decencies reserved for the "white baas", but what happens to their compatriots who wish to visit the country as ordinary travellers? They are either refused entry or, if allowed in, are given the same offensive treatment as that reserved for South Africa's non-white population. Those who claim that the presence of black diplomats is a breakthrough in South Africa's racial policies are either deluding themselves or are deliberately trying to spread a smokescreen over the realities of the situation.
The example of the United States
My delegation believes that in dealing with apartheid we can profit from other examples of entrenched racial discrimination. Those who say that dialogue can be effective in ending racism in South Africa should take into account the experience of the United States. Although the United States constitution accepts as basic tenets the equality of man and the equal rights of citizens, for many decades after the abolition of slavery the Federal Government was unable to persuade a large proportion of the people to abandon an oppressive and inhuman racism. It was only when Civil Rights legislation began to be introduced and enforced initially by coercive measures that meaningful progress was made.
Dialogue nothing more than wishful thinking
The South African problem, as we know, has much greater dimensions, since apartheid is based on a philosophy of government held by the ruling Nationalist Party. The most charitable thing that one can say to those who counsel dialogue with South Africa is that they are indulging in wishful thinking. In most cases, as in the case for example of a Foreign Minister who said recently that South African money has no colour, it would be nearer the mark to say that they have no compunction about investing in the misery of millions of their fellow men.
Indifference to African aspirations
One of the ironies of our present situation is that many of those who recommend dialogue on apartheid with South Africa are not even prepared to take part in a dialogue on the question within the United Nations. As in previous sessions, South Africa's main trading partners, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and France, refused to contribute to the debate on the question. They did not come forward with a single suggestion: yet, they were ready with their usual negative criticism when resolutions had been passed. These same States are not even prepared to sit on this Committee or on its related Committee - the Committee of Twenty-four on decolonization. In boycotting this Committee since its inception and in walking out of the Committee of Twenty-four, these Powers have displayed indifference and insensitivity to African needs and aspirations. This attitude is calculated to-destroy whatever trust some Africans may still hold in the sincerity of those Powers towards questions affecting the rights and interests of black populations under white minority rule.
A busy year ahead
As I said earlier, this will be an important and busy year for our Committee. Our mandate, in brief, is to increase our efforts to accumulate and sift the evidence that indicts apartheid as a crime against humanity; to disseminate this information as widely as possible; to consult with all those inside and outside the United Nations, who are concerned to bring about justice in South Africa, on the most effective means of carrying on the anti-apartheid campaign; and to formulate appropriate recommendations for the consideration of the General Assembly.
My delegation believes that it will be particularly important to coordinate our efforts with those of the specialized agencies, regional organizations and non-governmental organizations which are playing a vital role in changing the climate of opinion on apartheid from apathy to action with consequent repercussions in South Africa itself.
July 10 1972
First let me express, on behalf of the Special Committee on Apartheid, our sense of satisfaction that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has agreed to support the International Trade Unions Conference to be held next year, to work out a common programme of action against apartheid. The Committee has long believed that the great interest and concern of the international labour movement in southern African questions can be channelled into even more productive action than in the past and that a labour conference devoted exclusively to a discussion of apartheid and the means to combat it is of major importance to the international campaign against racism and colonialism.
The international trade union movement has an impressive record in exposing and opposing the exploitative minority regimes in southern Africa. As early as 1953 an Ad Hoc Committee of the ILO made this judgment on the situation in South Africa:
"The Committee is convinced of the existence in the Union of South Africa of a legislative system applied only to the indigenous population and designed to maintain an insuperable barrier between these people and the inhabitants of European origin. The indirect effect of this legislation is to channel the bulk of the indigenous inhabitants into agricultural and manual labour and thus create a permanent, abundant and cheap labour force."
This was a remarkable judgment at a time when the detailed application of the apartheid plan had only just begun. This clear and concise description of the essential nature of apartheid has been more than validated by the developments of the past twenty years. But of course the international trade union movement has not only been active in defining the injustices of apartheid and in expressing solidarity with the aims of the United Nations campaign to eliminate this evil. Trade unions have been prominent in taking action against the widespread collusion between many countries of the world and South Africa.
It was the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) which called for a two-month boycott against South Africa in May 1960 - the kind of action, incidentally, which our Committee would like to see renewed on a permanent basis. Since that time various trade unions have taken specific actions to deal with particular situations. Recently, for example, the Longshoremen's Association in the United States refused to offload cargoes of chrome ore which were illegally imported from Southern Rhodesia. This is the kind of action which we welcome, and we are aware of the difficulties involved. In this case, the chrome was offloaded by non-union labour.
In Australia, many of the unions were prominent in refusing services and other facilities to racially-selected sports teams from South Africa. In Britain, the Trade Union Congress in 1971 pledged support for any worker who, for reason of conscience, refuses to work on the production of arms for South Africa. There have been many other cases where the unions have been very helpful to the movement against racism in southern Africa. But I should like to suggest that the time has come for a more extensive, more sustained and more cohesive programme of action aimed at the liberation of the oppressed workers of southern Africa.
No tokenism
We are working in a climate that is increasingly favourable to our cause. Public opinion is much more aware of the issues than it was ten years ago, even after the massacre of peaceful demonstrators at Sharpeville in 1961. The international trade union movement itself has done much to increase public awareness of the injustices of the southern African situation, and we at the United Nations greatly appreciate your help in the vital information and education campaign.
We at the United Nations have rejected tokenism - the kind of tokenism that some foreign corporations in South Africa are advocating as a public relations gimmick, while their African, Asian and Coloured workers are still deprived of their basic rights and equality of opportunity, just like European workers in the 19th century. What we want is radical change in South Africa, and the basis for this must be human rights for all. The key to achieving justice in South Africa is obviously pressure - and this includes economic pressure, which is where the unions can be most effective.
Shortage of Skilled Labour
The system imposed by the racist regimes is probably well enough known in general not to need a detailed survey. But it may be useful to point out that this is not just another theoretical international issue. Apartheid is based on the exploitation of African, Asian and Coloured workers. It always has been. South Africa is built on the profits from the mines - gold, diamonds, copper, iron, coal and many other minerals. The enormous profits were made possible by forced labour, with very low rates of pay and inhuman conditions.
The same applies now: African gold miners earn no more now, in real terms, than they did in 1911. It is worth reminding ourselves that gold mines in Britain, the United States and a number of other countries would be working today if they could get labour as cheap as in South Africa.
Of course, with the emergence of the manufacturing industry, South Africans have a big problem: labour is just as cheap, but since apartheid keeps the majority of workers undereducated and unskilled, it also creates a shortage of the skilled labour necessary to support South Africa's status as a growing industrial power. This shortage has been a factor in the slowing-down of the phenomenal economic growth of the 1960s. In this situation, the international campaign against apartheid has an opportunity to increase the pressure on the minority-ruled economy and to increase South Africa's difficulties in maintaining the present system.
Fantasy that Economic Growth will Undermine Apartheid
But it must not be imagined that either South Africa's overall economic growth or her economic difficulties will serve, of their own accord, to mitigate or end the injustices of apartheid. On the one hand, the South African Government has clearly decided that a relatively slower rate of growth is preferable to any weakening of the apartheid structure. All the legislation of recent years and the stringent application of the apartheid plan bears this out. On the other hand, it is clear that even during the 1960s when the economy was booming, African wages went down in real terms, not up.
It is a fantasy, maintained by those who profit from apartheid, that helping to make South Africa prosperous will help to accelerate the defeat of apartheid and make its African people prosperous also. Among the factors they neglect to notice is that economic growth does not apply to the poverty-stricken Bantustans into which the Africans are being herded; and the migrant workers have no rights of any kind in the white industrial areas. Such legislation as the Bantu Laws Amendment Act of 1970 intensifies the force of the job reservation system which keeps Africans out of decent jobs. The control of the economic prospects of Africans is completely in the hands of the white minority.
As you know, Africans, who form 70% of the South African labour force, are forbidden to form registered trade unions, and it is a criminal offence to strike or in any way attempt to bargain with their employers. They exist, as far as the Government is concerned, only as labour units. The Minister for Bantu Affairs, Mr. Botha, has said:
"It must be understood very fundamentally that the Bantu who are working in the industries in South Africa on the basis of our policy... are not here on an integrationary basis… to become equal workers, equal entrepreneurs or equal partners."
And Mr. Vorster, the Prime Minister, has underlined this by stating:
"We need them, because they work for us... but the fact that they work for us can never… entitle them to claim political rights, not now, nor in the future."
Another Government Minister, Mr. Froneman, has elaborated by saying that workers must not be "burdened with superfluous appendages like wives and children." Workers' families are therefore removed to camps where conditions are intolerable - although the Government takes good care not to allow too many observers to get near enough to describe them.
All these are signs that apartheid, far from being undermined by South Africa's prosperity, is being steadily entrenched. In fact the attraction of investments and trade which yield quick returns because they are based on the slave labour conditions in southern Africa is part of the vicious circle that locks in the apartheid system. But let us also keep in mind that while apartheid is basically a system where a rich minority owns all the wealth of the country, and the majority live in grinding poverty in the midst of wealth, apartheid cannot be defined only in economic terms. It also means that the most dehumanizing form of racism that exists in the world today; it means the absence of all political and most social, legal and economic rights. In short, it is as the United Nations has labelled it, a "crime against humanity". It is on two counts, therefore, that we ask for your increased support - as workers in protest against the flagrant violation of the principle of workers' rights, and as human beings confronted with a large-scale attack on humanity.
I appreciate that no society is perfect. There is racial discrimination in many parts of the world. But South Africa is unique in showing no commitment to improving conditions, or working towards a situation where the ordinary citizen can by his own efforts aspire to anything he chooses. In fact, there is a definite official commitment to inequality, which is enforced with all the force at the disposal of a modern police state. As individuals with a concern for human rights this is the challenge that must be taken up with unfailing vigour. As workers you are confronted with the fact that the registered unions in South Africa, serving the minority of non-African workers, are partly responsible for the situation. It is union pressure, for example, that preserves the colour bar against skilled Africans. Any increase in general prosperity goes exclusively to the employers and the unionized elite. The international labour movement cannot maintain its integrity if it is in any way associated with these whites-only unions.
Propose International Trade Union Conference against Apartheid
What we in the United Nations are trying to do is to keep the issues of southern Africa before the eyes of the world, and to involve as many people, organizations and governments as possible in positive action to eliminate racism in southern Africa. In this task, we count on the support of certain countries, and many groups of people in all countries who are strongly committed to justice and human rights.
It was an indication of the importance which the United Nations attaches to the role of the trade union movement, when in 1970 the General Assembly in resolution 2671 D ()OCV) requested the Special Committee on Apartheid:
"in consultation with the Organization of African Unity and the International Labour Organization, to report… on the possibility of holding an international conference of trade unions… for promoting concerted action against apartheid by the trade union movement at a national and international level."
I am happy to say that the Workers' Group of the ILO has voted unanimously in favour of the proposed conference. The projected conference would consider such action as: a) discouragement of the emigration of skilled workers to South Africa; b) taking appropriate action in connexion with the infringement of trade union rights and the persecution of trade unionists in South Africa; c) exerting maximum pressure on foreign economic and financial interests which are profiting from racial discrimination against non-white workers in South Africa, in order to persuade them to cease such exploitation; and d) cooperating with other organizations engaged in the international campaign against apartheid.
It is for the trade union movement itself to decide what action it is prepared to take to answer the appeal of the General Assembly. Some of the possibilities I have mentioned have already been tried out. I should just like to elaborate on a few of the others.
Discourage Emigration to South Africa
One of the valuable tasks that the unions can undertake is to help slow down the rate of emigration to South Africa. Every skilled or semiskilled emigrant is filling a desperate need of the minority regime not only to keep its economy going but, more important from its view, preserving the status quo. The flow of emigrants prevents indigenous labour from obtaining employment - although of course under another name, and at a very much lower rate. And emigrants bring with them valuable training and experience, which is a straightforward gift to the regime.
It is interesting to note that last year, for the first time, European emigration to South Africa fell. This was probably due to the slackening in the growth rate, which has reduced the attractiveness of the country for emigrants; I would dare to hope that possibly the decision of many unions to discourage their members from emigrating was also beginning to have an effect. What is needed now is to increase the deterrent, perhaps by putting teeth into the resolutions to stop emigration. The unions themselves know best how to do this; one possibility is to suspend or expel a member who emigrates to Southern Africa.
If the advertising of jobs in South Africa could be stopped, this would make it very difficult for that country to get the particular skills that it needs. In Britain, the Race Relations Board has been asked several times to enforce the Race Relations Act in this respect, banning the advertising of jobs which are not available to people of all backgrounds. It refuses to act. Perhaps the unions could approach the Board, or even take the matter up in the courts themselves. The printing unions could also ask their members to refuse to handle advertisements for South Africa.
Assist the Oppressed People in Southern Africa
There is always a need for direct financial assistance to the victims of apartheid, whether workers in jail or their families, and also financial support for the political campaign. Examples of what can be done have been given recently in connexion with the general strike in Namibia: leading British trade unionists sent a letter to The Guardian appealing for contributions to the Namibia strike fund; and the Austrian trade unions have contributed to the United Nations Fund for Namibia. That fund, together with the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa and the United Nations Education and Training Programme for Southern Africans, are possible channels for trade union help to their oppressed brothers in southern Africa.
Help Enforce the Arms Embargo
We should very much like to see unions refusing to take part in manufacturing and exporting arms for South Africa, in violation of United Nations resolutions. At the United Nations the overwhelming majority of states regard the implementation of the process of apartheid as a continuing act of aggression against the non-white population. Even the few states which insist on maintaining relations with the South African regime accept the view that apartheid is a criminal affront against the dignity of mankind. Yet arms manufacturers from those states continue to provide the power by which the racist regime is able to maintain its grip over the population. Workers involved in the production of these arms, seamen and others involved in the carriage of the arms to South Africa cannot escape responsibility for this sad state of affairs. The arms embargo is the result of a decision of the Security Council to which no state has dissented. Surely all of us, in our different roles, have a responsibility to ensure that this rule of law prevails.
Refuse to Handle Imports from Southern Africa
We should also like to see unions refuse to handle imports from South Africa. Agricultural products, for example, are often produced by prison labour, or under a system where part of the payment is in daily rations of alcohol, so that the workers become alcoholics and therefore cannot leave the farm where they receive these rations. This is known as the "tot" system, and has caused a great deal of misery to farming families. Dock-workers could refuse to unload some or all of the imports from South Africa, produced by measures such as these.
This would also apply to goods which are from Rhodesia, where the government of the importing country refuses to take action in spite of its pledge to support international sanctions. We in the Security Council Sanctions Committee have decided that information on sanctions violations will be welcome from non-governmental sources, and obviously the trade unions can be very useful allies in this...
Imports from Namibia should also be given special attention. This is an occupied territory, from which South Africa is removing all the natural resources. If the unions could embargo Namibian products, this would be very useful. Even better would be a court case, where the unions would have standing in national courts to call for the application of the law which exists in many countries, forbidding the import of goods from an occupied territory, since they constitute "plunder". These laws were passed in Europe after the Second World War, in order to allow the recovery of goods looted from occupied territory by the Nazis.
Namibia is of particular concern to the trade union movement, because labour conditions there are as bad, perhaps even worse, then those in South Africa. In December and January last the contract labourers staged a very courageous general strike. Even now, only a minority of the workers have gone back to work, and there are continuing disputes over wages, conditions and civil rights.
And what are the basic demands of the Namibian workers? They could be applied with justice to all the non-white workers of southern Africa. They have asked for the abolition of the contract labour system - abolition of the pass system - the right to freedom of movement throughout the country for workers and their families; an end to the separation of families by the migratory labour system - the right of free choice of jobs - increased rates of pay and an end to all job discrimination on the basis of race and colour and the right to be represented at all labour settlement talks. It is ironic that companies which originate in areas of the world where the rights of workers have long been established should be so devoid of conscience as to cooperate in and profit from labour conditions which, in their own countries, Were outlawed in the nineteenth or early part of the twentieth century.
Action by Professional Organizations
The professional organizations ought to be just as concerned about the position of their colleagues in southern Africa. A coloured nurse, for example, has the same training and does exactly the same work as a white nurse, but is paid half the salary. The same goes for lawyers, teachers, doctors and others. There are many cases of these people being arrested, detained without trial and even tortured for activities which would be quite legitimate in any free country. Ahmed Timol, for example, an Asian teacher, died under interrogation in a South African prison recently. What will the teachers' union do to protest such barbarity? If internationalism has any meaning, then the professional organizations should act as watchdogs. And it is time that some of the Trade Union Internationals cut all affiliations with those South African registered unions which make race a qualification for membership.
Withdraw Investments from Companies Involved in Southern Africa
Perhaps the most valuable contribution the trade union movement can make to the international campaign against apartheid is to shape its investment policy in such a way as to militate against and publicize adversely those companies which are involved in the exploitation of southern Africa. Trade unions should ensure they have no monies invested in firms with South African subsidiaries. For example, in the United Kingdom, it has been estimated that 18 unions alone have between them over 12 million pounds invested in firms with South African interests. In the United States the amount is much more. In Western Europe it could be as much. Up to now, it is the churches which have taken the initiative over questioning their investments in firms dealing with southern Africa… Many student groups have also made great efforts to force their colleges and universities to remove their investments from these companies. If the ICFTU could take up this issue, coordinating information on trade unions' portfolios, and the activities of the companies involved, this would be a big step forward.
Support the Struggle of African Workers
The motivation for action and the measures I have outlined are not only made from the point of view of those of us looking in on the southern African situation from the outside. They are underlined and emphasized by the voices from inside southern Africa and we must not fail to take account of what they are asking us to do. In this regard I would ask that particular note be taken of a recent memorandum recently submitted by the South African Congress of Trade Unions.
As I interpret the memorandum, there are three major areas in which they are asking the trade union movement to exert the pressure of its undoubted moral and material force. They have asked that pressure be exerted on governments to come out clearly in the United Nations in support of measures aimed at ending injustice in South Africa. They have asked for your full cooperation with all non-governmental organizations, such as anti-apartheid movements and sports organizations, which are taking practical measures to oppose apartheid. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, they have asked you to bring pressure to bear on employers who have subsidiary companies in South Africa, to breach the wall of apartheid, rather than to carry out token improvements within the apartheid structure. They want equal pay for equal work; equal training opportunities for black and white; the right of Africans to form legitimate trade unions with the power to strike and collective bargaining; and the removal of the colour bar in employment. There may be companies with the courage and integrity to undertake such a programme, but the initiative, the pressure, the drive for such action will only come from the workers.
In 1969 the Organization of African Unity adopted the Lusaka Manifesto setting out the African position on questions relating to the problems of racism and colonialism in southern Africa. The Manifesto, which was unanimously endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, formulated a rational basis for action by the international community when it said:
"South Africa should be ostracized by the world community until it accepts the implications of man's common humanity. It should be isolated from world trade patterns and left to be self-sufficient if it can. The South African Government cannot be allowed both to reject the very concept of mankind's unity and to benefit by the strength given through friendly international relations."
This is the philosophy which motivates United Nations action against southern Africa. It underlies the measures we have put forward for your consideration. It underlies our conviction that the international labour movement - itself a symbol of man's common humanity - will continue to be a potent force for supporting the struggle of the African workers in southern Africa for their basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.