The Special Committee has now unanimously adopted a special report to the Security Council and the General Assembly and on this occasion, I wish to make a few remarks on the importance of this document. First of all I would like to say that I do not consider this report as a mere routine document of the Special Committee but as a call for action at this crucial stage of the South African question. This call for action is being made to the Security Council and the General Assembly, but more especially to the permanent members of the Security Council who have a sacred special responsibility for the maintenance of peace, to the major trading partners of South Africa, namely those who hold the key to a peaceful solution of this grave problem, and, indeed, to all the people of goodwill who need to exert their maximum efforts to prevent a catastrophe in South Africa.
The report does not advocate any miraculous or ingenious formulas or proposals. In that sense, it is not very novel. But let no one feel that the situation remains unchanged or that action can be put off indefinitely. The solutions which are possible today may be entirely irrelevant and worthless when the zero hour has struck.
We have always been patient in searching for a peaceful solution and in trying to persuade, by all means at our disposal, the Powers which have interests and can exert influence in South Africa to co-operate in effecting such a solution. But if these Powers refuse to act even now, because of selfish motives, not only will our patience end but, more important, the situation will itself demand that we should explore other ways and means. We may have no choice but to call on all States, organizations and individuals urgently to give all moral and material support to the liberation movements in South Africa, and to ostracize the accomplices of the South African regime. We may have to accept the inevitability of a solution by force, a solution in which the United Nations may only play the role of a powerless spectator who has fallen into disrepute.
If there is one thing new in this report, it is the affirmation of the conviction of the Special Committee, based on a serious study of the problem, that all other means to deal with the situation in South Africa have been exhausted and that the United Nations now faces the inescapable and imperative duty to take decisive mandatory action. There is no longer room for procrastination and equivocation - whether clothed in sanctimonious and symbolic denunciations of apartheid or hidden behind easy procedural maneuvers. Indeed, any hesitation to support decisive action and any resort to delaying or diversionary tactics will be judged by history as appeasement and abetment of racism and fascism in South Africa and as tantamount to the fanning of racial conflict in South Africa and perhaps in the world.
It is only a few days before the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Charter of the United Nations in San Francisco - a Charter which was born in the bloody and bitter struggle against Nazi racism. Almost continuously during these two decades, the United Nations has been concerned with racism in South Africa, a racism elevated to a State policy by a clique which includes notorious sympathizers of the Nazis.
Can anyone discover the slightest amelioration of the situation - we ask this question because we cannot even speak of a solution - in these two decades? In fact, the trend has been continuously toward an aggravation since the inception of the United Nations.
Most of the members of this Special Committee were not Members of the United Nation in 1945, having been under colonial domination. But we were concerned with the problem of racism in South Africa, as it was inseparable from the problem of colonialism in Africa: our struggle for dignity required the ending of racism and colonialism for ever.
For more than a decade, it was extremely difficult in the United Nations even to obtain general agreement that the monstrous policy of apartheid was not an internal matter of the racist regime or to adopt resolutions involving even the mildest criticism of that regime. The United Nations was told by the "mature", the "responsible" and the "experienced" Western Powers and their spokesmen that change had to come peacefully from inside South Africa; that outside criticism and pressure does not help; that persuasion is better than coercion; and that all that the United Nations Members need to do is restrain their feelings, quote the Bible, perhaps, appeal to the conscience of South Africa's rulers, hope for a change of heart and do nothing. This, broadly, was the United Nations record, before the revolution and independence of African States, until the Sharpeville massacre of 1960.
But these very powerful and so-called "responsible" members of the international community were not so inactive outside these halls of the United Nations. They were pouring investments into South Africa and deriving fabulous profits. They were making with South Africa - which would not admit any people of African or Asian origin into its army - joint military plans for the so-called defence of the African continent. They were full of praise for the South African regime for sending an air squadron to Korea and vied with each other to offer it all military equipment. Eric Louw, former Foreign Minister of Pretoria, might have been unpopular in the delegates' lounge of the United Nations, but he was received with open arms in Wall Street and the City of London, in the State Department and the Foreign Office.
What was the result? Was there the slightest improvement in South Africa? No, the very opposite happened day after day.
The regime of the National Party, under the leadership of Malan, which came to power in 1948 with a minority of (White) votes, and which would have toppled if there was the slightest pressure by the Great Powers, by the United Kingdom, to name just one of them, consolidated itself and felt secure enough to implement the most vicious racist policies which were unprecedented in the history of mankind. South West Africa was for all practical purposes integrated with South Africa. The few Coloured voters were moved to a segregated electoral roll. The Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act, the so-called Immorality Act, the Separate Amenities Act, the Bantu Education Act, the Bantu Authorities Act, the notorious Suppression of Communism Act, the Public Safety Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act, the brutal suppression of the Defiance Campaign organized by the resistance in South Africa in 1952, the Treason Trial of 156 of the courageous opponents of apartheid in 1956 - these are but a few landmarks of the period that led to the massacre of Sharpeville.
After Sharpeville - and the fact that this event coincided with the upsurge of independence in Africa was no accident - the attitudes of the major Powers changed. Now they will vote for any condemnation of the South African regime - sometimes they use even stronger words than we do - but they will not recognize that the situation constitutes a threat to the peace under Chapter VII of the Charter and they will not support any effective or mandatory action. They will always look for means to postpone or divert action.
Even they cannot and do not deny that in these five years the situation has rapidly deteriorated. But they continue to oppose all the proposals for effective action, and they have not put forward a single proposal which they can justify with any conviction as effective. One can only assume that they are not too anxious to solve the problem at all if a solution involves the smallest material sacrifice.
We have had the Hammarskjold mission in 1960-61 which led to nothing. We have had the Expert Group in 1964 considering the means by which the South African situation may be resolved, and its report has been shelved. We have had the Expert Committee in 1964-65 considering the measures to resolve the situation. Its report seems to have had the same fate as the one produced by the so-called Expert Group.
We have had uninterrupted series of endless resolutions, missions and studies while the fire has been raging and bloodshed has continued. It is time that we stop this leisurely procedure, tantamount to blatant hypocrisy and lack of seriousness - for we must act before there is an explosion which may consume much more than we can imagine and may lead to irremediable consequences.
We are told that the South African situation does seriously disturb the maintenance of international peace and security, but does not constitute a threat to the peace under Chapter VII of the Charter.
About a year ago, on 19 May 1964, to be exact, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, Ambassador Stevenson, was reported to have declared in London:
"The situation there (in South Africa) - repugnant as it is - does not, in our view, constitute a threat (to world peace) at present.
"No country has said that they intended to invade South Africa. The United Nations provision far sanctions can only be operated if that happens or if the situation in South Africa becomes bloody." This was published in Cape Times on 20 May 1964, and apparently also in other papers. The report was not contradicted.
If this statement reflected the view of Ambassador Stevenson and of the United States Government, we can only express our amazement.
Is it only after some country invades South Africa - after blood has begun to flow in the streets of Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town - that the United States will contemplate effective action?
We have pressed patiently for economic sanctions precisely so that we can avoid a military solution and prevent the shedding of blood.
But if there is no choice but to seek a military solution - that is to say, if the United Nations Organization fails in its peaceful efforts as we fear - and if the liberation movements in South Africa seek material assistance in order to wage a liberation war, I have not the slightest doubt that it will not be "some other country" invading South Africa, but the whole of Africa supporting the liberation movements with the help of Asia and all anti-colonialist forces to rescue that part of the continent from the clutches of fascism. The pledge of the African States at the Addis Ababa Conference in 1963, and, indeed, at every African conference was not a formality, but the reflection of the determination of all the African peoples to rid the world of the scourge of racism and oppression.
And when the African States and the South African liberation movements are compelled to seek a solution by the sward, they may be in no mood to ask for any form of intervention from the Security Council or from any States which have frustrated a peaceful solution. The example of the Congo may be useful in this respect.
In the past few weeks, the spokesmen of the South African Government have been claiming that a "cold war" against South Africa was being waged only by certain "extremist" African States. The Minister of Defence of the South African regime claimed in the House of Assembly on 16 February 1965 that some pockets of friendship were developing in Africa itself. The Foreign Minister claimed in the House of Assembly on 4 June 1965 that "extremist" States in Africa were preventing the extension of South Africa's diplomatic relations in Africa. Lately, in the Disarmament Commission, the Ambassador of South Africa also referred to threats from "extremist" States.
I would advise the South African regime not to fool itself and its friends not to swallow this propaganda and jump into miscalculations.
The attitude to apartheid, affirmed unanimously at every African conference, is not merely the attitude of Chiefs of State or Governments, but of all the people of Africa. It is inseparable from the affirmation of the dignity of Africa; and, in fact, it antedates our own independence since independence to us was inseparable from the restoration of the dignity of African men and women everywhere. The South African regime and its friends will be making a grave error if they build their hopes on the search for "Uncle Tom" in Africa. These ignorant people who still believe in the supremacy of the White race intend to give the impression of disunity in Africa in order to place the problem of apartheid within the framework of the "cold war".
It is indeed a strange situation when the Great Powers endowed with special responsibilities, refuse to recognize a threat to the peace when the South African regime itself does not seek to hide the fact. This regime has increased its defence budget from $56 million in 1959-60, the year of Sharpeville, to well over $300 million this year. It has put the whole country on a war footing and has passed laws which are more stringent than wartime laws.
I notice that the so-called Minister of Justice of the South African regime, Mr. Vorster, said in Parliament on 11 June that South Africa is "entering the final phase of sabotage." "In the future," he said, "we will be faced by saboteurs who are trained in the finest detail." As Sir Hugh Foot declared last summer - I must add that this was before he became Lord Caradon, the Minister of State of the United Kingdom and representative of the Labour Government to the United Nations - if the South African situation is not a threat to the peace, then words have lost their meaning.
Why then do some of the Great Powers resist a recognition of the clear threat to the peace and why then are they supported by the major trading partners of South Africa and, it seems, only the major trading partners?
I must confess that I can discover no convincing reason except that they derive profit from the oppression of non-Whites in South Africa, hesitate to disturb the source of those profits and make Machiavellian plans of military alliance with South Africa to fight what they call Communism, as if, in their view, apartheid is a superior ideology to communism. They would certainly ally themselves with the devil to protect their exorbitant interests and their privileges which are too obviously selfish to be tolerated in our century.
In the annex to the present report we have given details on some of the powerful business interests, far away from South Africa, which derive enormous profits from South Africa and which are attracted to that country by the fabulous opportunities created by the enslavement of 14 million out of 17 million of its inhabitants. They have a stake in the stability of the system which keeps the non-White wages low, which forbids Africans from strikes, and which ensures an exorbitant rate of profit. While the United Nations condemns the policy of apartheid, they express their confidence in the Pretoria regime. They say, as Mr. M. D. Banghart, Vice-President of the Newmont Mining Corporation of America, said in 1962: "We know the people and the Government (of South Africa) and we back our conviction with our reputation and our dollars". We will be told, of course, that business is business and that it has nothing to do with politics.
In fact, Mr. Edwin P. Neilan, Chairman of the Board of the United States Chamber of Commerce, speaking recently at Annapolis, Maryland, challenged the theory that investment by American business firms in South Africa amounts to support of the apartheid policy. "This certainly is not true," he said, "for it is the impact of these companies in hiring and training workers regardless of race that has done much to increase the impetus and effectiveness of the South Africa programme".34 I do not understand what South Africa programme he means, but I do know that when he talks of hiring and training workers regardless of race, he is, to put it mildly, telling lies. For, the United States companies operate under South African laws which reserve all the better jobs for Whites and only leave the other jobs to Africans.
We regard the foreign business interests going into South Africa as, for all practical purposes, the collaborators with the fascist South African regime and partners in racial discrimination not only in South Africa but in the United States of America and other countries as well. They reassure the South African regime that it has powerful friends abroad. They help it to strengthen its military power and to build up self-sufficiency. The day is not far now when the 20 million American Negroes will join 200 million of their African brothers to tell the inveterate racists what they are.
When we take exception to the increasing foreign investment in South Africa, we do so not because we are opposed to foreign investment in general or to the companies involved, but because investment in South Africa strengthens the hands of the racist regime, for, according to the elementary rule of economics, investment is profitable only in countries offering a guarantee of stability.
We can destroy the system of apartheid only when we eliminate profit from apartheid - the profit derived by the Whites in South Africa and that obtained by foreign business interests, firms and banks. Let the Governments of the United Kingdom, United States and other countries prohibit companies registered in their countries from investing in South Africa and let them refuse to allow any profits being received in their countries from South Africa. Only then will the apartheid regime revise its attitude.
In the Expert Committee of the Security Council, the United Kingdom delegate, Sir Roger Jackling, spoke of the enormous cost of a naval blockade of South Africa - estimating it at between 70 million to 130 million pounds a year. As I said earlier, I do not see any great need for a blockade if the United Kingdom and its allies will faithfully implement the United Nations resolutions. But since this matter has been raised, I would make a very simple proposal, namely, that the United Kingdom, the United States and all other countries agree to allocate all the profits they receive from South Africa to a special fund to end apartheid. In 1963, that is the latest figure I have, the United States companies earned a profit of $86 million from investments in South Africa: they took out $40 million from the country and reinvested the other $46 million. The profits have certainly gone up since that time. The United Kingdom companies, I am sure, earned more than the United States companies. If all States will agree to devote an amount equivalent to their profits to support the efforts of the United Nations, we can secure the end of apartheid in a very short time.
Before I conclude, I would like to make a brief comment on the statement I quoted earlier from the Chairman of the United States Chamber of Commerce that these foreign companies are performing a service by training non-White workers. I notice also a hint in statements in the Expert Committee that the situation may be improved, or made more tolerable, by some small pressures which will induce South Africa to raise the wages of Africans or open some skilled occupations to them. Let me make it clear that such measures do not touch the issue at all. The day is long past, if ever there was one, when the Africans will be satisfied with a few more crumbs from the table of the Whites and will accept continued humiliation in return for the promise of a few more jobs.
The issue has to be faced squarely and with no illusions.
We present this report to the Security Council and the General Assembly as it is our duty to draw their attention to the need for a serious consideration of the problem and for taking urgent and decisive action.
It would seem to me most appropriate that the Security Council, according to its provisional rules or procedure, should meet in the heart of Africa when it considers this problem again so that it can demonstrate to the African people that it shares their deep concern over the explosive situation in Southern Africa and intends to find a pacific and equitable solution. Let it meet in Africa and let the members of the Council look at the African people squarely in the face.
The time allowed by the oppressed masses of South Africa to the United Nations to seek a pacific solution to their tragedy has come near its end. Very soon, they will have no choice but to take up arms and crush their executioners, as has been done in Algeria, Kenya, Angola, Mozambique and so-called Portuguese Guinea. Who would then dare to blame them?
Footnotes