In this report, the Special Committee has tried, in clear and precise terms, to describe the main aspects of the situation in South Africa and to explain why the international community must take action now.
It has made a number of recommendations for action. I admit these are not very new, but in the Special Committee's view, they are nonetheless the most appropriate type of action at the present stage of the problem.
These recommendations fall broadly into three categories: (a) economic sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter, which the Special Committee and most Member States feel are the only effective means to resolve the situation; (b) humanitarian and other assistance to victims of apartheid; and (c) measures to inform world opinion. We attach great importance to all three aspects because they are complementary; we do not regard them as alternatives; and it goes without saying that the recommendations of the last two categories cannot be substitutes for the recommendations regarding economic sanctions.
I also wish to draw your attention to the recommendation for an international investigation into prison conditions in South Africa; we made that recommendation in view of the alarming reports which have come from South Africa and which have appeared in the international press. I feel that such an investigation should be carried out with or without the co-operation of the regime in South Africa.
We are sometimes reproached by friends in the press corps for repeating our recommendations and for not coming up every time with something novel which they can print.
I must reply, first of all, that we cannot tire of stubbornly and persistently pressing this matter, because the policy of apartheid is a permanent one in South Africa and its causes and consequences are constant. This policy threatens not only South Africa and Africa in general, but the whole world.
Secondly, I must say that how we solve this problem may be almost as important as whether we solve the problem. We nave here a struggle by millions of oppressed people against their racist oppressors. These oppressors are doing everything to turn this struggle into a "race war," hoping to win by force, and expecting to get the sympathy of the so-called Western world.
Africa, for its part, does not want a race war which will destroy this organization and much more. That is why we have been anxious to emphasize the resistance by the few decent Whites in South Africa who have also been struggling for racial equality in their country. You may recall, for instance, my statement on the occasion of the execution of Mr. John Harris, a White South African, in April 1965. We also attach great importance to the Western and Christian Powers joining this struggle on the side of the oppressed people of South Africa.
By their patience, the Africans have shown that they do not seek a race war and they do not want to involve this problem in the cold war.
But there is a limit to patience in the face of continued and intensified oppression in South Africa, and the inaction of the Great Powers.
I invite you to think of the following: Will it be very difficult to organize an African army to fight the racists in Southern Africa? If we need any weapons or equipment, do you think we will have great difficulty in getting them? Certainly not; but, then, it is clear that the Africans will not be able to save the Whites of South Africa. We are convinced that the South African people will win, but we cannot maintain that we will be able to save what we wish to save.
When we cross the limits of human patience, as I said, there will have to be other recommendations and other strategies.
Meanwhile, we do what is humanly possible to convince the Powers which can put sense into the South African regime that they should do so, in their own interests and in the interests of all of us. Indeed, the question that faces the United Nations Organization pertains to the basic principle of the Charter, that of the maintenance of peace. Should the United Nations prevent the breach of peace in preventing war or should it try to restore peace with more or less chance of success after a war has been declared?
As we review the last year, we find that there is no hope of any solution without international action - peaceful action, as we have recommended, or violent action which is the only other alternative. We recommend that the Security Council recognize, in all honesty, that this is a matter which falls under Chapter VII and take the logical course of action. If the United Nations or, more precisely, the Security Council accepts the assertion that the application of sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter is the only peaceful solution, its refusal to take decisions to that effect would be tantamount to recommending the other method, namely, "war of national liberation." We are at a turning point. If the Security Council does not assume its responsibilities, the United Nations would prove that it cannot find a solution. The movements of liberation would then have to draw their own conclusions.
Before I conclude, I wish to say a few words to the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom bears a special responsibility on this matter, and as it occupies the President's Chair in the Security Council this month.
At the eighteenth session of the General Assembly in 1963, when the first report of the Special Committee was discussed, a British Minister of State, a Minister in the Conservative Government, told the Special Political Committee that we were rather too pessimistic and too radical. He thought there were some hopeful signs in South Africa and pointed to the establishment of a "Christian Institute" by Reverend Beyers Naude, a former leader of the Dutch Reformed Church, to study solutions to the problem.
We, of course, told the British Minister of State, very politely, that he should not fool himself or try to fool others.
Now, the Government in the United Kingdom has changed and we have a new Minister of State at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, who has seriously studied the problem as member of the United Nations Group of Experts and who has made very honest and cogent observations on the situation.
In May 1965, the South African police searched the Christian Institute and Reverend Beyers Naude himself for four hours to find evidence to incriminate him in "subversive activities" and prosecute him. They asked him to empty his pockets and even put their hands in his pockets.
They found, according to a Government statement in Parliament, one piece of evidence and confiscated it. That piece of evidence, gentlemen, is a green and white pamphlet called "A New Course in South Africa", published by the United Nations Office of Public Information. It is the report of the United Nations Group of Experts on South Africa with Mrs. Alva Myrdal as Chairman and Lord Caradon - then Sir Hugh Foot - as a member. (I understand that Sir Hugh Foot was the rapporteur of the Expert Group.)
I think we might tell the United Kingdom to face the issue honestly, stop looking for non-existent rays of hope, and take the action that is indispensable.
I have used the word "honestly" because I have read an announcement by the South African Information Department that fifteen members of the Imperial Defence College, London, headed by Sir Deric Holland-Martin were due to arrive in South Africa on 11 August, that is yesterday, for a six-day tour of the country. In fact, we read in the South African press that they will visit, on their tour, the Bantustan of Transkei and also the African township of Sharpeville. I need hardly comment.
Honestly, I ask, is this consistent with the responsibilities of the United Kingdom under the Charter of the United Nations or the ideals that the Government of the United Kingdom professes before the world?
I would also like to appeal once again to France, to her Government and to the French people, not to sacrifice their true interests in Africa and in the Third World in order to satisfy the lust of gain of the gun-dealers and the pressure groups who have not forgotten their failures in Algeria and would like to transfer to South Africa their unholy crusade in favour of white supremacy. The French vocation forbids the French Government to strengthen any racist and fascist regime anywhere in the world even if the racism and the fascism are directed against Negroes or other coloured people.