At a time when the General Assembly, for the twentieth time, is opening the tragic file on apartheid, permit me to begin by exposing the South African situation in its internal as well as its international aspects. This situation is characterized by four constant factors which have never failed to prevail and which seem recently to have reached the stage of crystallization. They are:
First, the persistence and the stiffening of the policies of repression, oppression and exploitation by the Pretoria authorities. There is a striking correlation between this and the United Nations efforts to combat these policies. The blindest manifestation of these policies is, on the one hand, the elevation to power of the ex-Nazi, Balthazar Vorster, ex-Minister of "Justice", to succeed Dr. Verwoerd, who fell victim to the violence of which he was the prophet, the creator and the symbol in South Africa, and, on the other hand, the intolerable interference of the advocates of apartheid in Southern Rhodesia and their rebellion against the United Nations in the case of South West Africa.
Secondly, the determined pursuit of a policy of indifference, if not complicity, by the great Western Powers which, while misleading public opinion by their verbal and platitudinous condemnation of racism as a system of government, continue to sustain apartheid and prevent the competent organ of he United Nations, the Security Council, from taking drastic measures against the South African regime. The refusal of these Powers to co-operate has gone beyond all limits of decency, to the extent that they have boycotted the Special Committee on Apartheid, rejecting the invitation extended to them by the General Assembly to join that Committee.
Thirdly, the flagrant inability of the United Nations to find a peaceful solution to apartheid because of its inaction as a result of the refusal of the main trading partners of South Africa to co-operate, as a result of their sabotage of its resolutions and because of all the loop-holes which explain the paralysis of the Security Council. The Security Council has not discussed this grave problem for two years, in spite of the voluminous report of the committee of so-called experts, as well as the various reports of the Special Committee on Apartheid. To the South African people who are wounded and distressed, the United Nations is failing to fulfil its promise - its very raison d'etre - which was born out of the struggle against Nazi racism in the Second World War.
Fourthly, the resolute determination of the oppressed South African people to liberate themselves by any means and at any cost, and their decision to organize themselves for the bloody conflict which may destroy forever the hopes for racial harmony and for the achievement of a non-racial society in South Africa, and which will endanger international co-operation, as well as peace in Africa and the entire world.
That is the tragic and sombre situation which is painted in black and in bloody red. Member States must take action, bearing in mind the strengthening of apartheid in South Africa, the support given to that policy by the great Western Powers, the paralysis of the United Nations, and the prospect of a racial war with loss of lives and massive destruction of the infrastructure and supra-structure of South Africa. That country is damned because of the madness of a handful of men who prefer the present material and sentimental satisfactions to reason and wisdom dictated by the eternal values enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
I do not intend to dwell at length on the barbarism of apartheid or the dangers inherent in racism or the need for international action to eradicate this rampant cancer from the African continent.
The International Seminar on Apartheid, held in Brasilia in August-September 1966, engaged in lengthy discussion on the problem: its report is before this Assembly.
The Special Committee on Apartheid, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, has submitted a detailed report to this Assembly.
I do not wish to go over the contents of the report, but I wish, with your permission, to stress that the report makes it very clear that the trend in South Africa has been towards a further intensification of ruthless racism.
The ruling National Party in South Africa increased its majority in the general elections in March 1966, and the most rabid and fanatical sections of that party are becoming dominant. If any of us believed that the limits of racial discrimination and oppression had been reached in South Africa, we underestimated the perverted imagination and the determination of the racists.
The regime has introduced a new bill which threatens universities with loss of grants if they subject to any form of discrimination any student or organization which advocates or promotes racial separation on the campus. While the world is concerned about ending racial discrimination, South Africa makes it an offence to deny protection to racists.
Another bill seeks to destroy the National Union of South African Students and any other body which admits the few non-White students in the universities. Even charitable organizations, such as the National Council for the Blind, have been ordered by the Pretoria regime to segregate their members.
Another bill - the so-called Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill - prohibits all interracial co-operation in the political field. Of the two multi-racial parties, the Progressive Party has been obliged to consider becoming a pure White party and the Liberal Party has decided that it was better to dissolve rather than to accept racism in its ranks.
The opponents of apartheid are being subjected to even more ruthless treatment. People who have served long gaol sentences are tried and sentenced again, or confined to their homes under arbitrary orders. A number of people have been gaoled without trial as possible witnesses. Whole families have been subjected to arbitrary and cruel measures. The ill-treatment and torture of prisoners, especially those imprisoned without cause or trial, and the non-Whites on Robben Island, is a source of the gravest anxiety and fills us with irrepressible disgust.
As the Special Committee has shown with detailed documentation, it is no longer a question of arbitrary action or tyranny - and there is enough of that. The regime is intent on conditioning the Whites to cruelty, on spreading fear among the non-Whites, and on wreaking vengeance upon all the opponents of racism.
South Africa does not have gas chambers yet, to be sure, but the South African authorities have fully imbibed the inhumanity and torture of the Nazis, and even surpassed them in some ways in inventing means of oppression.
The report of the Special Committee contains a sombre note: while the situation in South Africa is assuming proportions of the utmost gravity, which should arouse the anguish of international opinion and lead to drastic and decisive international action, the record in the United Nations in the past year has been most distressing. The Security Council has not even considered the situation for over two years - since June 1964, to be exact - as it was clear that the United Kingdom, the United States and France were not prepared to take or support any further action.
The General Assembly, at its last session, decided that the Special Committee on apartheid should be expanded by the inclusion of some of the great Powers and principal trading partners of South Africa, so that there could be earnest discussions on effective action which would command wide support. But the certain Powers concerned, when contacted for this purpose, unfortunately refused to join the Committee, despite repeated requests, in what can only be described as a conspiracy to frustrate United Nations action. The Powers which are directly responsible for the South African tragedy, and which are most able to put an end to that tragedy, have not even deigned to join us to discuss what can be done to implement the resolutions on the elimination of apartheid. By abdicating their responsibilities, these Powers have seriously undermined the United Nations and have set a most disturbing precedent. I need only refer to the refusal of the United Kingdom and France to join the Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa, probably in the hope of nullifying that Committee's authority and validity. These Powers do not even help to implement some resolutions for which they voted; they do not even try to persuade world opinion that they too are concerned about apartheid.
As is well known, the Special Committee promoted the establishment of the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa for humanitarian assistance to the families of political prisoners in South Africa and to refugees from South Africa. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan and other major trading partners of South Africa voted in favour of General Assembly resolution 2054 B (XX), which established this Fund. I wish to commend the members of the Committee of Trustees of this Fund and its Chairman, Ambassador [Sverker] Astrom of Sweden, as well as the Secretary-General, for their efforts to promote the Fund, and to express appreciation to the many African, Asian, Latin American and European states which have made contributions to it.
While many poor and developing countries, which bear no responsibility for the oppression in South Africa, have made generous contributions, in addition to contributions to other funds set up to help eradicate apartheid, we find that the names of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan and other trading partners of South Africa - these profiteers from the policies of apartheid, vampires fed by the blood and sweat of the non-Whites of South Africa - are conspicuously absent from the list of contributors to the Trust Fund.
It has just been brought to my attention that the Italian Government has recently taken the decision to make a contribution of $2,500, and we wish to thank them for it.
The United Nations Education and Training Programme for South Africa was established by a decision of the Security Council in June 1964. This Programme was strongly supported by the United States and the United Kingdom, which seemed to be intent on showing that, while they were opposed to economic sanctions, they were prepared to support certain humanitarian measures.
For our part, we emphasized that humanitarian measures of this kind do not solve the problem of apartheid nor replace effective international action. As it turned out, apart from rather meagre contributions made during the initial stage of the Programme, the United States and the United Kingdom refused to contribute to it - whereas in the beginning they had supported it vigorously and had, in fact, virtually sponsored it. Subsequently, it was supported by the Scandinavian States alone, supplemented by small contributions from Asian and African countries.
I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Governments of Sweden and Denmark for their generous support of the two humanitarian programmes. While we also wish them to lend active support to more decisive action in this matter we certainly appreciate that they have honestly and generously tried to contribute towards the implementation of resolutions which they supported.
But what can be said of the main trading partners of South Africa - the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Italy and Japan and others - who forget their commitments? As I have said, Italy has recently honoured its pledge, but it seems that once the General Assembly is over, these Powers ignore their promises, although they are always ready to condemn apartheid verbally. They are not ready, however, to do anything to eliminate it. They always seek Pretoria's approval before they go so far as to contribute to purely humanitarian programmes.
The time has come to end all subterfuges and pretences and to say to the world, frankly, whether we are for or against the South African people, the African peoples - the coloured people - as a whole. The martyred people of South Africa have for years appealed to the United Nations for help in securing their legitimate rights. Our Organization has answered by adopting a large number of resolutions but yet the Powers which could give life and meaning to these resolutions have either opposed them, or failed to implement them. It is high time for us to stop giving false hope to the people of South Africa, and deceiving world public opinion.
For many years we have pleaded with the Powers I have just named to take effective action to eradicate apartheid. We even have been the target of criticism because of our proposals. It is said that we take up too much time at the United Nations, that there are far too many African and Afro-Asian problems here, and that more than half the time of the Organization is being devoted to these problems - as if we had invented apartheid, as if we had created the Portuguese colonies, and as if we were the ones who had invented the colonialist and imperialist systems. Because we have tried to ensure that these conditions, which threaten international peace and security, are eliminated, we are accused of taking up too much of the United Nations time and attention. They want us to stop discussing apartheid; it should no longer be spoken of, because it is embarrassing to some Powers, and because it costs the United Nations money. Attempts are made to muzzle us; we should be silent, as if we were not here at all. We should not exercise our right to express the aspirations of our peoples. Well, these lies, these calumnies, this press campaign, leave us completely cold. We shall continue to denounce the criminals, all those guilty of crimes against Africa and Asia.
The partners of South Africa have they ever given us an alternative which would have assured us of the eradication of apartheid? We have always been, and still are, ready to examine any suggestions on their part to achieve the genuine elimination of this terrible conflict.
In the meantime we have decisions of the competent United Nations bodies which should be implemented and enforced. As the Secretary-General has emphasized, these decisions can only be enforced if the United Nations is assured of the sincere co-operation of the great Powers.
While these great Powers - the major trading partners of South Africa - remain so passive, so inactive, here in the United Nations when it is dealing with the question of apartheid, they are by no means passive outside this building. On the contrary, they have been furiously competing with each other to derive exorbitant profits from trade with and investment in South Africa. While these imperialist Powers express their moral abhorrence of apartheid in the United Nations, they cannot resist the temptation to profit monstrously from its inhumane policies. The profits have indeed been fantastic.
Let us take the case of the United States, the second largest investor in South Africa, which publishes detailed statistics in this connexion. At the beginning of 1950, United States investments in South Africa were not more than $105 million. In the next fifteen years, the new flow of United States capita to South Africa was about $76 million. If the loss of $36 million, suffered by a mining company in 1960 when it liquidated its subsidiary, is taken into account, the amount is only $40 million, making a total of $145 million.
During those fifteen years since 1950, the United States companies made a profit of nearly $800 million, of which they took away $500 million and reinvested the rest in South Africa. The United States investment itself grew to $467 million by the end of 1964.
In other words, in the fifteen years under consideration, United States companies made a profit of from four to five times the capital they had invested in 1950 and quadrupled their capital while sending no more than a few million dollars from the United States. I am referring, of course, to net flows of capital. Moreover, I do not think that these figures reflect the true picture, since the market value of the investments has soared tremendously during the last few years.
We are not surprised, therefore, that the United States claims that it does not encourage or discourage investments in South Africa, and we were even less surprised to hear that the former Assistant Secretary of State in charge of African Affairs, Governor Williams, declared on 1 March 1966 that, in dealing with South Africa, the United States was faced with "a frustratingly difficult set of policy considerations to juggle". We would certainly appreciate some enlightenment on the difficulties of the United States in making up its mind on this most straightforward and clear-cut issue of apartheid.
The United States, this great Power, which bears such a tremendous responsibility for peace, has taken the position that an arms embargo, which should be the first step of a long list of effective measures, is almost the last concrete step which it would take on this matter.
The United Kingdom - which bears chief responsibility for the situation in South Africa and southern Africa because it handed over power to the racists in South Africa and because it is the most important trading partner and investor - also does not go beyond the arms embargo. In fact, loop-holes are permitted in the arms embargo itself. Moreover, the United Kingdom Government has again become a defender of the Pretoria regime against international action, this time on the ground that the integrity of the pound sterling is dependent on keeping the South African racists in good humour.
What should we say of France which, despite all our appeals and warnings and the anxiety of all Afro-Asian countries, is developing especially intimate relations with the Pretoria regime? France, which declared its renunciation of colonialism and imperialism, has set up a missile tracking station in South Africa, increased its trade and investment in the country of Nazi Vorster, and arranged loans for South African companies.
Alone among the great Powers on the Security Council, France openly supplies equipment of all kinds for the South African military forces. We must reiterate in all seriousness that the supply of arms and equipment to South Africa is a hostile act against all African States and peoples, and provides an easy and dependable excuse to the other Powers to justify their refusal to take any measures. They are afraid to see France replace them, thus making every coercive decision against South Africa inoperative.
There is no doubt at all that, because of its economic and military policies in respect of South Africa, France is the best ally South Africa has and, therefore, the enemy of the non-White peoples of that country, whom the entire continent has sworn to liberate in order to save the honour and dignity of the African peoples - the very same peoples to whom France is constantly reaffirming its friendship.
Some other countries - notably the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, and Italy - have, to a tremendous degree, increased their economic relations with South Africa. It has been reported in the Press that Japan - an Asian coloured country - is even contemplating exchanging of ambassadors with South Africa.
Despite the denials by the Italian delegation here, reports from South Africa confirm that Italy has supplied jet trainer aircraft to the South African Air Force and is assisting the development of the military aircraft industry in South Africa. The aircraft is now manufactured in Italy under licence from the United Kingdom.
South Africa has received substantial capital from West Germany and France for its military and other industries. These Powers are thus rapidly increasing their economic and, in some cases, military relations with South Africa. The biggest companies from these countries - British, French, Italian and German companies - have built factories all over South Africa. Managers and technicians from their countries have gone to South Africa in large numbers.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the South African Government does not at all take seriously the mere declarations in the United Nations of the representatives of these countries, and continues to intensify its oppression of the adversaries of apartheid. It is no wonder that Pretoria flouts the United Nations and world public opinion.
We have been pressing for years for universal economic sanctions. It is evident that there is little prospect of the adoption of economic sanctions because of the selfish and short-sighted attitudes of the main trading partners of South Africa who have, in fact, been busy increasing their involvement in racism, and of certain permanent members of the Security Council who watch over the interests of South Africa as if they were their own.
If a peaceful solution is made impossible, there is no other choice for the oppressed people of South Africa than to fight for their dignity and freedom by non-peaceful means. They would not be human - they would not be worthy of being considered human beings - if they did not do so. This is a simple fact of life: people do not need incitement to fight for their freedom, when all other means have been exhausted. The struggle in South Africa will then enter a new stage. For half a century, until the Sharpeville massacre, the people of South Africa tried every possible peaceful means to end racist oppression. From 1961 to 1964, the struggle entered the stage of sabotage when the people tried to draw the attention of the world to the situation and to warn the South African Government, by acts of sabotage, while taking the utmost care to avoid any loss of life. The Pretoria regime met this movement with the most ruthless repression.
The only course left open now is violent conflict, against which the Special Committee has tirelessly warned since its inception. It must be said straightaway that, if there is bloodshed, the responsibility is entirely on the shoulders of those Powers which have refused to co-operate in efforts to secure a peaceful solution, and which permitted the regime of apartheid to follow its disastrous course, that is, those Western Powers which claim to incarnate the universal human values of liberty, equality, fraternity and peace.
We are often subjected to preaching by the Great Powers on the need for peaceful solutions.
Africa, which has been the victim of oppression and violence by the slavers and the colonialists, does not relish oppression or violence against any people or any race. It seeks to build a non-racial and peaceful society. It needs no sermons on this matter; nor do the South African people whose attachment to peaceful and non-violent means has been a legend.
The test of one's attachment to peace is the willingness to take effective measures and to make sacrifices to secure justice. The countries which profit from injustice are only precipitating and forcing the violence which appears nearer every day. They have no right to talk of peaceful solutions when they mean only one solution: perpetuation and tolerance of racist oppression and profiting from such oppression.
In the context of this grave danger of a violent conflict, because of the refusal of the Powers concerned to put their professions into practice, there is reason for great anxiety as to the effect of the increasing involvement of these Powers in South Africa, We ask: If the struggle in South Africa should lead to loss of life and property, what will be the attitude of these countries which have increased their investments in South Africa and sent large numbers of their nationals to South Africa? What would it be, indeed? We feel that it is necessary to give warning, in good time, that if these countries try to interfere, as they have done in other places and at other times, in order, as they usually say, to save their interests and their nationals, there may be a confrontation between these countries on the one hand and the liberation movement in South Africa, as well as all the opponents of apartheid all over the world, on the other. The American magazine Ramparts wrote in November 1966:
"But the worst thing of all about South Africa's coming race war is that the United States and their allies are likely to be on the wrong side, defending the heavy investments we have in that country and its position as the most solid anti-communist bastion on the continent of Africa, No South African Government official takes seriously these antiapartheid speeches the US representative to the UN gives to the General Assembly every year. The time South Africa has been most threatened economically - when foreign capital started pulling out of the country after Sharpeville - America bailed her out, and all indications are that we'd do it again."
The Committee of Conscience against Apartheid, initiated by the American Committee on Africa and the University Christian Movement and sponsored by many eminent Americans, which is organizing a boycott against American banks which are involved with racism in South Africa, also stated the problem very clearly when it referred to the "omnipresent threat of a violent upheaval", and said:
"Because America has extensive interests in South Africa, our involvement in any conflict would be in defence of those interests that have allowed and encouraged our participation, the 'Verwoerd Government'.
"With the probable alignment of the African forces with the Eastern bloc countries, Americans would once again be called upon to defend their Government's policies by fighting against the non-White forces in Africa. Because of this tragic possibility, it is our concern that the Government of the United States and American business take a more enlightened approach to the problem of South Africa, anticipating and preventing catastrophe rather than merely reacting to it."
We feel that it is essential to bring this danger to the attention of the world in view of the callous indifference of the Powers concerned, and to demand that they disengage immediately from the situation in South Africa, if they are not prepared to co-operate in eliminating apartheid.
After the developments of the past year, I need not elaborate on the conclusion of the Special Committee and, indeed, of the General Assembly that the situation in South Africa constitutes a threat to peace. The South African Government has not only intensified oppression in South Africa in defiance of the United Nations, but has challenged the United Nations all over southern Africa.
Speaking at Windhoek on 15 November 1966, and referring to South West Africa, Mr. Justice V.G. Hiemstra, a South African judge, said:
"We have rattled the sword and we have said that we will fight, and fight we will, though I pray this may never be necessary. I do not believe it will come to this state of affairs, because those who desire war cannot undertake it, and those who can will not undertake it."
The South African regime has been the main source of support for the Ian Smith clique in Southern Rhodesia and the principal obstacle to the implementation of the resolutions of the Security Council. It is in open rebellion against the United Nations in South West Africa. It has increasingly collaborated with the Portuguese colonialists who are carrying on colonial wars in Mozambique, Angola and so-called Portuguese Guinea. The sovereignty and independence of Lesotho and Botswana are threatened by the existence of this racist regime in South Africa.
There is a theory in some quarters that, in considering the liberation of southern Africa, South Africa should come last. According to this theory, we should deal first with Southern Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories and give full attention to the problem of South Africa only after these other territories are liberated. This theory, which superficially seems sound on geographical and logistical grounds, is misleading. So long as the regime in South Africa is secure, and feels itself to be secure, it would be idle to expect the liberation of other territories in southern Africa. The Pretoria regime has made it clear that it would sustain the Smith regime, whatever the next step in the United Nations. South Africa has also proclaimed that it will lend its support to the Portuguese colonialists in their war against the liberation movements. And, in South West Africa, the United Nations and the liberation movement will face the full might of the Pretoria regime, which has been aided by the Powers of Western Europe and North America. When it threatens war against the United Nations if the United Nations seeks to fulfil its obligations to the people of South West Africa, its threats are backed by the planes, ships and guns supplied by the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Italy.
Of course, as I said recently, the war for South Africa has started in Angola and Mozambique and will soon move on to Southern Rhodesia, heading irresistibly towards Cape Town. This does not preclude the possibility of an explosion within South Africa itself, making easier the liberation of the whole of southern Africa.
The Special Committee has repeatedly emphasized the fact that the problems of the whole of southern Africa are inextricably interrelated, and that the problem of apartheid in South Africa is the core of the crisis in southern Africa. It has called for co-ordinated efforts in the United Nations in dealing with the problems of racial discrimination and colonialism in southern Africa. We are aware that certain Powers are over-awed by what they call the might of the South African regime, and are cynical of the ability of the unarmed people of South Africa and their friends to develop an adequate resistance. We are very much aware of the military and economic power of the Pretoria regime, but we would like to remind these cynics that they have been wrong in Algeria, where a highly developed nation with 50 million inhabitants could not defeat the nationalists, and in Viet-Nam, where the mightiest nation on earth cannot defeat the freedom fighters of the Viet-Cong and heroic North Viet-Nam. They will again be wrong in southern Africa, even if they all unite against the non-White peoples of Africa.
We have no doubt that southern Africa will be liberated. The African States and the African people have solemnly declared that the struggle of the people of southern Africa is the struggle of the whole continent. Much as we need peace, much as we need economic development to satisfy the basic needs of our peoples, the liberation of colonial territories in Africa is our supreme duty and our first priority, even if we have to sacrifice the fulfilment of all other plans.
What we wish to emphasize here is the fact that the way the region of southern Africa is liberated will have a tremendous impact on the future of the United Nations and on the future of international relations and race relations throughout the whole world.
The African States and people have made it clear that their objective, their only objective, is to secure the dignity and equality of the African people. We do not seek to decide the future constitution of South Africa; that is a matter for the people of South Africa alone. We do not seek to expel all the Whites from the African continent. We regard every person who is loyal to Africa, irrespective of colour, as an African entitled to equal rights. We demand only that the future of South Africa be decided by all the people of South Africa in full equality. Much as we feel a sense of brotherhood and solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa, we do not seek privileges for our kith and kin but a solution based on the elimination of all racial discrimination. For this just and legitimate cause, Africa will fight without compromise.
We deeply regret that certain Powers of the so-called free world have continued to range themselves against Africa on this crucial problem. We warn them that Africa is very much aware and demand that they change their attitudes without any further delay.
I do not intend now to elaborate on the clear and specific recommendations of the Special Committee on Apartheid. I wish only to make a few comments on these recommendations.
The Special Committee has taken fully into account the limitations of the General Assembly and has tried to present proposals which can be implemented by a decision of the General Assembly. The Special Committee remains convinced that universal economic sanctions are the only effective peaceful means to solve the problem of apartheid. But such actions can only be imposed by a decision of the Security Council, with the support of the main trading partners of South Africa, including the United Kingdom, the United States and France.
In the meantime, the Special Committee feels that it is essential to warn the Powers concerned that their non-co-operation in implementing the resolutions of the General Assembly is aggravating the danger of a violent racial conflict that will endanger international peace and present them with agonizing alternatives; and to urge these Powers to take urgent steps towards disengagement from South Africa.
The Special Committee has recommended a series of measures in order to help persuade these Powers to change their attitudes to conform with the conviction of the great majority of Member States, and in order to inform world public opinion of the need for effective action. For these purposes, the Special Committee took note of the very pertinent recommendations of the International Seminar held at Brasilia and recommended an international campaign against apartheid under the auspices of the United Nations. The Special Committee has also emphasized the need for co-ordinated action on the colonial and racial problems in southern Africa and suggested a seminar on this matter.
This is the minimum that the General Assembly can do at this session without, I must emphasize, promoting any illusions outside about the extent of the action by the United Nations.