ECONOMIC DISENGAGEMENT
Extracts from a statement before the International Conference of Experts for the Support of Victims of Colonialism and Apartheid in Southern Africa, Oslo, 11 April 1973
For a long time, foreign business and banking concerns in South Africa were only too happy to abide by apartheid legislation. Several recent studies have shown that a majority of jobs available to Africans provide wages on or below the poverty datum line as established by the South African racist regime. With the increasing focus and pressure by world public opinion and the OAU on their policies and labour practices, international business and finance concerns have begun to devise an alternative and deceptive strategy that cannot be ignored. For better or for worse, foreign corporate investment in South Africa today retains one of the most important factors of change in South Africa. Its ability and willingness to act, whether under shareholders outcry or governmental pressure, to meet international political and moral standards, will greatly influence future developments in South Africa.
Corporate strategy, which is part of and closely interwoven with that of South Africa’s trading partners, is epitomised in what is known as the Polaroid experiment and the Oppenheimer doctrine, both of which are based on the dubious premise that economic progress and accrued investment will gradually transform and corrode the apartheid system from within. This contention is upheld neither by history nor statistics. Recent statistics show a widening gap between white and black wages. The earning gap between white and black workers rose from 15.2 to 1 in May 1966 to 17.9 to 1 in 1970.
While African workers under apartheid are defenceless, cannot vote or bargain, strike or organise into registered trade unions, white trade unions are busy consolidating the colour bar by enforcing the Job Reservation Act. Where a shortage of labour has pushed black wages up, the much vaunted policy of equal pay for equal work is immediately flouted, the official rationale put forward by the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa (ASSOCOM) being that it would be "unreasonable" to pay such inflated wages to blacks. In the meantime, an arsenal of repressive legislation, the Group Areas Act, the pass laws and the migrant labour system enforced by a brutal police apparatus, ensure the South African economy with a cheap labour supply and the highest rate of exploitation in the world.
It must be pointed out that the relative increase in black wages, improvement in the social policies of foreign corporate firms as may take place will, at best, lead to a slow and relative economic well-being of the oppressed working labour force, but within the abhorred system of apartheid, the system of white domination and exploitation. It will not affect apartheid. It will not bring dignity, political rights and freedom to the vast majority of South Africa’s population, to Africans, Asians and people of mixed descent. Under the cloak of moral redress and welfare politics, corporate reform as envisaged will only result in perpetuating the South African racial autocracy and the highest rate of exploitation in the world. This is why economic disengagement, arms embargo and discontinuance of collaboration with South Africa in all fields, as advocated in General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, remain under present circumstances the only correct policy course.
For all those who doubt the wisdom of economic disengagement, one must only recall the economic slump and dramatic capital flight - more than £81 million in 1961 - that followed the Sharpeville shooting and nearly brought down the racist regime in South Africa. We remain convinced that resolutions regarding economic disengagement if implemented can be most effective method of doing away with apartheid.
ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION MOVEMENT
Statement at the International Trade Union Conference against
Apartheid, Geneva, 15 June 1973
The international trade union movement is centrally placed to play a significant role in the world-wide campaign against racism and the evil system of apartheid which can only be compared to nazism. It was exactly 10 years ago, at the general conference of the ILO, that the African delegations and the great majority of the workers joined together to press for more vigorous action by the ILO, including the expulsion of the South African racist regime and the racist trade unions. The present conference is, in a sense, a move to formulate further action which has become imperative in the light of the experience of the past decade.
The system of exploitation and oppression of the black South Africans has been codified and ruthlessly implemented. Millions of African workers have been jailed for contravening the so-called pass laws"; thousands have been tortured or executed and many have died in detention; tens of thousands of families have been forcibly removed to impoverished "reserves" where malnutrition and high mortality rates prevail, real income for Africans has steadily diminished and unemployment is increasing. The trade union movement cannot and should not tolerate this situation if it wants to remain faithful to its fundamental principles of justice and equality for the worker.
The trade unions of the world cannot in any way be a party to this crime of apartheid which is based on efforts to perpetuate the system of slave labour of the black people. They cannot afford to condone this system or to acquiesce in it, if they are faithful to the principles of trade unionism.
The economy of South Africa is sustained from outside. Multinational companies, which are usually referred to as "big business," are among the principal sinners for operating and strengthening the system and maintain the terrible injustices imposed on the South African workers. Those companies have in no way changed the status of the black man, whether economically, socially or politically. A certain labour shortage has been experienced in industries such as construction, mining, motor industry, iron and steel and related industries. They cannot obtain the number of skilled men required. The expansion of the military build-up has also attracted recruits who would otherwise be available to the manufacturing industries. White immigration is not sufficient to provide the skills required. The employers are therefore urging a relaxation of the colour bar. It is argued that job reservation must break down since white labour is insufficient, and that industrialisation will gradually overcome apartheid.
This contention is upheld neither by statistics nor by history. The unscrupulous exploitation of the workers by greedy interests within and without South Africa will continue and the foreign companies and vested interests will go on trampling underfoot the rights, freedom and dignity of the Africans. Under the cloak of moral redress and welfare politics, the racist minority will continue to collect enormous profits at the expense of the Africans. This corporate strategy is closely interwoven with that of South Africa’s major trading partners in Western Europe, the United States of America, Japan, and so on. Unless something is done by the workers themselves, the colossal system of injustice will continue to spread its tentacles over the lives of millions of people who are suffering in that part of the world.
Action along the lines advocated by the United Nations cannot be implemented without the active support of the people, and particularly where collaboration with South Africa is strong. Action by non-governmental organisations is one of the main pillars on which the anti-apartheid campaign has to rest. Greater co-ordination between the United Nations and its agencies, on the one hand, and non-governmental organisations, on the other, is essential. In the face of Government inertia, the action of workers, students and church groups becomes extremely significant. Severance of trade relations with South Africa and the disengagement of foreign business cannot be promoted without the effective support of the workers of the world. Many countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and other areas are in fact enforcing sanctions against South Africa, some of them at great sacrifice. There are boycotts by anti-apartheid movements, co-operatives and some trade unions in Western countries, but the companies in Western countries and in Japan continue to increase their trade and investment.
Trade union action 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 United Nations ... The struggle to release the black workers from slavery, to put an end to the torture, harassment and oppression, cannot be ignored by you. The black people of South Africa are looking to you for help... I recall, at this juncture, the recent decision by the World Council of Churches to liquidate its financial holdings in corporations doing business with South Africa and to withdraw all funds deposited in banks that maintain operations in countries where racist regimes dominate. This is one type of concrete action which can and has been taken by non-governmental organisations, and which the Special Committee on Apartheid supports.
The Special Committee wishes to emphasise the role which trade unions can play by boycotting shipments to and from South Africa and by refusing to load vessels travelling to and from South Africa. Measures could also be applied against air transport, where the workers could show their solidarity by boycotting aircraft carrying goods from South Africa. Pressure should be exercised on banks and companies to withdraw funds and to disengage from South Africa. The immigration of workers to South Africa should be completely halted. Trade union organisations may establish information committees which would act in close co-operation with anti-apartheid movements in countries from which workers emigrate to South Africa and where collaboration exists with South Africa. The phenomenon of the migration of workers from neighbouring countries into South Africa should also be halted. It may be necessary for a standing working body to be established among your organisations to draw the attention of the international trade union movement to violations of the embargo on shipments of arms to South Africa and of the economic boycott of South Africa. The trade union movement may also be in a position to provide financial aid to the victims of South Africa’s policies. Certainly no trade union organisation should be willing to invest its funds or to have holdings in companies which are involved in the exploitation of South African labour. It was estimated last year that in the United Kingdom alone, 18 trade unions had between them over £12 million invested in firms with South African interests.
I would also like to express the hope that the trade union movement would pay special attention to the situation in Namibia, a territory under the illegal and brutal occupation of South Africa, where the heroic workers who protested against the illegal regime and slave labour have been subjected to brutal repression. Surely, no trade union which believes in international solidarity, can facilitate the trade in Namibian products since they are not only products of forced labour but are in fact the goods stolen from the Namibian people by the illegal occupier and the corporations collaborating with it.
I wish to emphasise that the United Nations needs the active and continuing support of the trade union and other organisations all over the world if its resolutions on South Africa or Namibia are to be effective. Such support has become crucial because of the uncooperative attitude of some States which constitute the major trading partners of South Africa. The Security Council committee on sanctions against Rhodesia has recognised that even the implementation of mandatory sanctions against the Smith regime requires the co-operation of trade unions and other organisations.
In April 1973, the United Nations organised at Oslo, in co-operation with the Organisation of African Unity, an International Conference of Experts for the Support of the Victims of Colonialism and Apartheid in Southern Africa. That Conference formulated a detailed programme of action which has been fully endorsed by the Organisation of African Unity. The participants at the Oslo Conference recognised the need for non-governmental conferences to formulate plans for action by the public all over the world. It is, I believe, more than appropriate that a trade union conference should be held at this time and we do hope that a programme of action at the trade union level will emerge at this Conference and will be carried back to the unions all over the world.
Statement in the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly, A/SPC/PV.859
In fulfilling its mandate, the Special Committee has for the past 10 years reported to the General Assembly on the developments concerning apartheid and has emphasized the threat of these policies of South Africa to the maintenance of international peace and security. It has pointed out the arrogant defiance of South Africa to the requests and demands of the General Assembly and the Security Council. It has documented that Government's continued disregard for its obligations under the United Nations Charter and its aggravation of racial policies resulting in violence and bloodshed. It has called upon Member States and, in fact, the international community as a whole to exert pressure against the South African regime until it abandons its racial policies. However, South Africa remains intransigent and has even reacted with increasingly brutal repressive measures.
For 25 years the United Nations and the international community have been seized with the problem of apartheid and the means to be used to combat that policy. After all these years it is disheartening to see us gathered here again to discuss measures to solve the grave dangers of the worsening situation in South Africa. The Special Committee on Apartheid considers that this session of the General Assembly must act determinedly and must take decisive steps to eradicate apartheid; it must insist that this scourge of racism in the southern part of Africa be brought to an end; it must insist on the full implementation of United Nations resolutions by all Member States; it must resolutely insist that it can no longer tolerate the attitude and the criminal actions of the South Africa regime and do all in its power to rectify the situation.
We all realize that there is hardly any member in this forum who condones South Africa's apartheid policy. We have all, in one way or another, expressed abhorrence of that policy. However, there seems to be a lack of will and determination for appropriate action. It is in this respect that the Special Committee feels that an effective programme of international action is long overdue. The groundwork for such a programme has already been done and the elements of the programme were formulated at the International Conference of Experts for the Support of Victims of Colonialism and Apartheid, held at Oslo in April 1973, and the International Trade Union Conference against Apartheid, held in Geneva in June 1973. They have been incorporated in the recommendations and conclusions of the report of the Special Committee.
I believe that if these proposals are adopted by the General Assembly, they can help us set the pace for renewed efforts during the Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. The actions and decisions taken by this session will be highly significant during this decade, aimed at the systematic elimination of the policy of apartheid and racial discrimination. South Africa has shown no intention of implementing United Nations resolutions and has continued to defy the authority of the General Assembly and the Security Council. It has even intensified its inhuman and repressive apartheid rule.
At a time when the international community was mourning the thirteenth year of the tragic and brutal massacre of Sharpeville, South Africa celebrated that occasion by murdering in cold blood, 12 African mine workers at Carletonville in September of this year. These mine workers were demonstrating for wage increases when the police opened fire, killing 12 and injuring over 30 others. Many of them were running away from the police and they were shot in the back. This typifies the way the minority regime regards the lives of black people.
The Special Committee is therefore duty bound to impress upon this session that the need for action has never been more urgent. The United Nations cannot afford to continue to coexist with apartheid for another decade while millions of black people are subjected to brutal oppression in violation of the principles of the Charter and in defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations. It is imperative, I submit, that we have a clear understanding of our aims and objectives in the years ahead.
We should neither underestimate nor over-estimate the capabilities of South Africa. South Africa today is economically stronger than it has ever been. It has built up a powerful defence force and police, and has acquired an enormous amount of military equipment and rapidly developed an armaments industry. It has accumulated that strength as a result of increasing financial, trade and technological links with certain countries which covertly or overtly disregard the United Nations decisions and their own stated policies. South Africa has accumulated that strength because those countries chose to rely in their military calculations on this minority regime rather than on the oppressed people of South Africa. It has accumulated strength because those countries, three of them permanent members of the Security Council - and I do not hesitate to name them: France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America - refuse to accept their responsibilities and continue to ignore the resolutions of the Security Council. I am referring here particularly to resolution 282 (1970) concerning the arms embargo. Some Western countries, particularly France, invoke the unpalpable argument of distinguishing between arms for internal repression and arms for external defence. We, States Members of this Organization, must categorically state that we cannot be convinced by such an argument and that the implementation of the arms embargo must be strictly observed without any exceptions or reservations.
Only a few weeks ago the permanent representative of France to the United Nations told me - and conceded the fact - that his country sold Mirage intercepter planes to South Africa for supposedly defence purposes. I feel that we should unequivocally reject such a distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. The Special Committee on Apartheid has submitted a special report to the Security Council and the General Assembly, drawing attention to breaches of the arms embargo. It has also prepared another report - to which the Chairman of the Committee has referred - on the question of the implementation of United Nations resolutions for the consideration of the General Assembly.
We all know that recently there has been an attempt on the part of Western corporations to argue that investment in South Africa would reduce the severity of apartheid and would allegedly change South Africa's policy from within. This type of argument cannot hold against the stark truth in South Africa under the apartheid regime. The period of the most extensive foreign investments in South Africa was precisely the period of the most intensive application of apartheid. It was the period when the migrant labour policy was extended, when the disparity between black and white wages increased, when the African workers were deprived of elementary trade union rights. It is gratifying to see that more and more concerned churches, trade unions and individuals have begun to realize the fallacy of the argument and the danger of its being used to legitimize both the investments and the status quo in South Africa. However, there is a long way to go in this respect and the pressure should be continued until complete disinvestment is achieved.
In a thorough five-year study of the situation of South Africa, the Study Project on Christianity in Apartheid Society, a number of prominent academics and other experts in South Africa have concluded that the country is in the early stages of a new historical process in which the initiative is passing into black hands. The tempo of this process could only accelerate no matter what temporary setback black initiative might receive. Earlier this year we witnessed the unrehearsed strikes involving over 100,000 black workers. In a country where strikes by Africans are a criminal offence subject to a severe punishment - indeed, possibly even to death under the Sabotage Act and the Terrorism Act - one could appreciate the courage and determination of these workers who revolted against exploitation and national oppression. Realizing the explosiveness of the situation, South Africa responded by accelerating its Bantustan programme.
In spite of the enormous effort and resources devoted to propaganda, I must say that the South African Government has not succeeded in deceiving world. It is, therefore, increasingly relying on new tactics. This Government and its supporters in the business community are more and more trying to use the names of some blacks in South Africa to oppose international action against apartheid. This is the same old game of divide and rule played by colonialists and imperialists.
At the International Trade Union Conference against Apartheid in Geneva, in June of this year, for instance, there appeared a black trade unionist from South Africa who is a leader of' an unregistered trade union. She went there to oppose sanctions against South Africa, presumably on a ticket of the Government of South Africa. After seeing the opposition by the representatives to her participation in the Conference, she decided that she would submit her statement for the record. I understand that she again changed her mind rather late.
At the end of the Conference we were rather astonished to find that much of the Western press had given more coverage to her statement - which was not heard at the Conference - than to the work of the Conference in which 180 trade union organizations from all over the world, representing 200 million workers, had unanimously agreed on a plan of action against apartheid. Nothing was said about this in the Western press.
As recently as last month, the Trust Bank of Cape Town placed a series of expensive advertisements in newspapers in New Zealand, Australia, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Each of' these advertisements, which covers a full page or a half page, includes a photograph of an African leader in South Africa and a statement alleged to have been made by that leader against economic isolation of South Africa. It has chosen for this purpose Chief Buthelezi, chief executive officer of the Bantustan set aside for the Zulus; Chief Lucas Mangope, chief minister of the Bantustan set aside for the Tswana people; and Mrs. Lucy Mvubelo, secretary of the National Union of Clothing Workers in South Africa. The last name, I suspect, is the name of the lady who appeared in Geneva on the South African ticket.
I would not like to criticize these black people in South Africa who have perhaps allowed their names to be used in this fashion by a Bank which profits from the apartheid system, for propaganda against resolutions of the United Nations. I would, however, like to warn any foreign governments or companies which are anxious to utilize these statements to violate United Nations resolutions, that they would be making a great mistake if they tried to choose the leaders or the spokesmen for the black people of South Africa on the basis of whether their statements are convenient in terms of making profit from apartheid in South Africa. That would be a paternalistic attitude which must be rejected.
The genuine leaders of the black people of South Africa are the leaders who have led the people in the struggle for· freedom and liberty, the leaders who are now in jail and in exile. The so-called leaders, chosen by the South African regime under the conditions of brutal repression and arbitrary division of the African people, cannot be recognized by us as the genuine spokesmen of the African people.
We do appreciate the difficulties of functioning in South Africa under the present conditions and we would not like to launch an attack on some of the blacks who have expressed doubts about the United Nations action. But we cannot - and here I speak as an African - accept their statements as representative of African opinion. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that the African people want no compromises on freedom and equality.
Last week, the General Assembly, by a very large majority, adopted a resolution rejecting the credentials of the South African delegation. The Assembly has, thereby, taken a step forward after giving a series of serious warnings to the racist regime in Pretoria. The importance of this step should not escape the attention of all delegations.
As the Special Committee on Apartheid said in its recent statement on political prisoners in South Africa:
"The men and women persecuted by the South African regime for their opposition to apartheid and racism truly represent the people of South Africa. The Nationalist Party regime which conceived the odious policy of apartheid and continues to maintain it by force against a recalcitrant majority in no way represents the people of South Africa and should not be accorded that privilege."2
The Pretoria regime does not even pretend to be anything but the so-called "white nation" in South Africa.
That regime, in its determination to perpetuate its domination over the African people and its exploitation of the African workers, has resorted to brutal measures which violate its obligations under the United Nations Charter and which are in flagrant contradiction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It has thereby created, as recognized by practically all the Member States, a serious danger, if not a clear threat, to international peace and security. It has illegally occupied the territory of Namibia, for which the United Nations has a special responsibility. The despatch of its troops to Rhodesia, in collusion with the Smith regime, can only be characterized as an aggression against the administering Power and, in effect, against the United Nations itself. It has sent its mercenaries into Mozambique and has colluded with the Portuguese colonial regime in Mozambique and Angola.
Member States have recognized that the policy of apartheid practised in South Africa and imposed in Namibia is a crime, and this session of the General Assembly will be adopting a convention for the suppression and punishment of this crime.
We feel, therefore, that the United Nations must now face the situation squarely and take the action required of it under the Charter. The South African delegation may be armed with papers which look like credentials and it may appear to follow diplomatic protocol; but the other face of the South African regime is that of a criminal who has been persecuting and torturing the black people and their leaders, who has been committing and continues to commit acts of aggression.
We must draw the logical conclusions of the decision of the General Assembly and act accordingly.
On the eve of the tenth anniversary of the Organization of African Unity, the Chairman of that Organization, H.E. General Yakubu Gowon,3 expressed what he termed a "message of hope for the colonial and racist regimes."4 He said:
"Nobody in Africa wishes to adopt the path of armed struggle and conflict against those minority regimes for the love of it. Nobody has asked that people who normally live in Africa and wish to consider themselves as part of Africa should, by any manner or means, be made to feel unwelcome. Those who are born among us and live and join us both in spirit and co-operation are welcome to live in Africa. For they are Africans. It is for this reason that we made genuine efforts to assure the world of 'our desire for racial harmony on conditions of mutual respect and fundamental human rights of all the inhabitants of the continent."5
It is up to South Africa's minority regime to heed that message or bear the responsibility of its eventuality.
Footnotes
1. Statement in the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly, A/SPC/PV.859
2. United Nations document A/9022, paragraph 87
3. Head of State of Nigeria
4. A/PV.2141, page 16
5. Ibid.
INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTT OF RACIALLY-SELECTED SOUTH AFRICAN SPORTS TEAMS
Statement before the Special Committee against Apartheid, 12 March 1974
The General Assembly of the United Nations has repeatedly requested all States and national and international sports organisations to cease all exchanges of sporting events with South African teams selected under apartheid policies, in violation of the Olympic principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or political affiliation.
Time and again the Special Committee has stressed its conviction that the implementation of these requests and firm adherence to the Olympic principle by Governments and sporting organisations would demonstrate the international community’s abhorrence of the practice of racial segregation and discrimination in sports in South Africa, universal support for South African sportsmen who have been struggling for non-racialism, and unequivocal opposition to white racist sports bodies and repression by the racist regime.
The Special Committee is gratified that various Governments have taken action in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly by such measures as prohibiting the entry of racially selected South African teams to their countries; denying any official support to contests with such teams, and advising national sports organisations to abide by the United Nations resolutions. The Special Committee has noted with satisfaction the decision of sports organisations and individual sportsmen to boycott racist South African sports bodies and racially selected South African teams, as well as the growing public support for such boycotts in many countries.
Meanwhile, the South African regime and the white racist sports bodies are engaged in various manoeuvres to deceive public opinion by some semblance of reforms, while continuing at the same time to issue banning orders against leaders of non-racial sports organisations and to resort to intimidation by withdrawal of passports, in order to prevent them from enjoying international recognition and participating in international sports contacts. It has sought, by propaganda and repression, to silence non-racial sports organisations lest it suffer the odium of further international isolation.
The Special Committee is concerned that some contacts with racist South African teams are continuing because the Governments concerned have failed to take the necessary action and some sports organisations continue to collaborate with South African sports bodies. The Special Committee believes that it is this non-observance of the Olympic principle that has enabled South African teams to participate in international sporting events, such as the Davis Cup tennis tournaments in the Latin American Zone.
The Special Committee, therefore, invites the attention of all the
Governments concerned to resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) adopted by the General Assembly on 14 December 1973, which reads in part as follows:
"10 Calls upon all Governments which have not yet done so:
(a) To take all necessary action to ensure the cessation of exchanges with South African sports teams selected in violation of the Olympic principle;
(b) To draw the attention of national sports organisations to the provisions of United Nations resolutions on apartheid in sports;
(c) To deny any assistance or recognition to exchanges with racist sports teams from South Africa;
(a) To end all cultural, educational and civic contacts and exchanges with racist institutions in South Africa."
NO RECOGNITION FOR BANTUSTANS
Statement at meeting of Special Committee against Apartheid, 14 March 1974
According to press reports, the Transkei National Independence Party, the ruling party of the Bantustan called Transkei, established by the white minority regime for the Xhosa people, has decided to ask for independence.
I would like to recall that the United Nations General Assembly has, in resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, categorically condemned the policy of Bantustans imposed by the South African regime and called upon all Governments and organisations not to accord any form of recognition to any institution or authority created thereby. It has declared that the liberation movements recognised by the Organisation of African Unity are the authentic representatives of the overwhelming majority of the South African people.
In earlier resolutions, the General Assembly has condemned the establishment of Bantustans and the forcible removal of the African people of South Africa to these areas "as a violation of their inalienable rights, contrary to their inherent right to self-determination and prejudicial to the territorial integrity of the country and the unity of its people."
The latest move of the Transkei National Independence Party, which is in line with the manoeuvres of the white racist regime, should deceive no one.
The Transkei has few resources and hardly any industries. A large part of the population is outside the territory, working in the mines, the factories, farms and homes, in areas which the racist regime claims as a white preserve. This regime has been intent to grant a fraudulent independence to the territory, while retaining it as a reservoir of cheap labour, in order to deceive world opinion. According to its calculations, Transkei’s "citizens" will include not only the 1,754,000 people in the territory but also the 1,271,000 Xhosa people outside that territory who will be regarded by it as aliens without any rights in South Africa.
The Special Committee affirms the words of the Freedom Charter adopted by the South African people in 1955, that "South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people." The present white regime has no right to represent the people of South Africa nor to dispossess the African people of their rights in the country as a whole. The ruling party in the Transkei, established under apartheid laws and under the protection of the brutal repression of opponents of racism by the white racist regime, has no right to speak for the African people of South Africa.
The Special Committee draws attention, in this connection, to the fact that the General Assembly, in resolution 3055 (XXVIII), adopted by a virtually unanimous vote on 26 October 1975, expressed its strong conviction that "the release of leaders of the oppressed people of South Africa and other opponents of apartheid from imprisonment and other restrictions as essential for a peaceful solution of the grave situation in South Africa." Genuine leaders of the African people and of the people of the Transkei, such as Nelson Mandela and Govan Mbeki, are now serving sentences of life imprisonment on Robben Island, while other leaders, such as Oliver Tambo, are in exile.
A peaceful solution of the grave situation in South Africa requires, as the United Nations organs have repeatedly emphasised, the liberation of all the opponents of apartheid, the repeal of all repressive laws and regulations, and the attainment of majority rule on the basis of universal suffrage.
The Special Committee calls on all Governments and peoples to reject the fraudulent manoeuvres of the South African regime and the apartheid institutions established by it, and to support the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movements in their legitimate struggle for freedom.
UNITED NATIONS STRATEGY
Statement on 21 March l974 at a solemn meeting at Headquarters to commemorate the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
The United Nations is committed to the total eradication of apartheid, as it must be if it is true to the letter and spirit of its Charter. It is totally committed to support the people of South Africa - especially the oppressed people of South Africa, led by their liberation movement - in their legitimate struggle for freedom and human dignity.
We have unshakeable confidence that apartheid and racism in South Africa will soon be eradicated by the South African people, with the assistance of the international community. We have no doubt whatsoever that the South African people will achieve their liberation and play their rightful role in the affairs of Africa and the world.
What we need to consider today is the action by which the international community can best contribute to this inevitable transformation in the face of the blind and suicidal determination of the racist regime and its supporters to preserve white domination.
This is the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination - and we must focus our attention on meaningful and effective action to eradicate apartheid.
The United Nations has laid down, clearly and unequivocally, the goals it seeks and the responsibilities of Governments, organisations and individuals.
It has proclaimed its determination to ensure that the destiny of South Africa will be decided by all the people of South Africa, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
It has declared that the racist regime which has ruled that country by terror does not, and cannot, represent the South African people. The international community has been patient in the hope that this regime can be persuaded to mend its ways and seek a peaceful solution. But this regime has defied the world and perpetrated ever more heinous crimes against the oppressed people and their leaders in order to preserve its power.
The United Nations has now addressed a strong warning to this regime. Let there be no doubt that any further defiance will lead to the inevitable consequences.
The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid which, we hope, will be ratified and enforced soon, has provided for the punishment of those who continue to perpetrate the crime of apartheid or abet the criminals. There can be no compromise with those who trample on the principles of the Charter and seek to enslave the great majority of the South African people.
The United Nations has recognised that South Africa belongs to all its people and that there can be no peace and no solution without the oppressed people of that country and their liberation movement which represents that great majority of the population.
The Special Committee has always recognised that the principal role in the struggle for the liberation of South Africa belongs to the South African people and their liberation movement - and that the task of the international community is to assist them in that struggle. We are happy today to initiate even closer association with the two organisations of the liberation movement in our efforts to promote international action against apartheid.
Let me add that we have never been unmindful of the legitimate rights of the so-called white inhabitants of South Africa. The liberation movement has consistently espoused the policy of non-racialism in the face of all provocations. The United Nations and the OAU have repeatedly called for peaceful solutions based on non-racialism. But the white minority will not be allowed to dominate, oppress and humiliate the African people or the Black people of South Africa. It is only by dissociating itself from its racist leaders, and by accepting the principle of human equality, that it can secure its legitimate rights. Its true friends are those who persuade it to embark on this course, not those who condone and assist its present course to disaster.
Isolation of South African regime
The United Nations has called on all governments, organisations and individuals to deny any cooperation or assistance, direct or indirect, to the racist regime which has utilised the economic and other resources of that country to entrench racism. Any form of collaboration with that regime will only encourage and assist it to pursue its crimes in defiance of the United Nations.
On the other hand, the United Nations has recognised the legitimacy of the struggle of the oppressed people of South Africa for freedom, and has urged humanitarian, educational and political assistance to them and to their liberation movement. Such assistance is, indeed, a duty of the international community, for, the struggle of the oppressed people of South Africa is a struggle for the fundamental principles of the United Nations.
We are gratified that there is increasing recognition among governments, organisations and individuals of the need for effective implementation of the United Nations resolutions against apartheid. Many countries and people have made substantial sacrifices to show their solidarity with the South African people and with the United Nations. There are now signs of increasing support, even in the few countries which have resisted international action against apartheid, to the measures recommended by the United Nations.
I would like, in this connection, to pay tribute to the work of the Anti-Apartheid movements, the Defence and Aid Funds and numerous other nongovernmental organisations which have tirelessly campaigned in these countries in support of the liberation movements and the United Nations.
We are distressed, however, at the attitudes and actions of the major trading partners of South Africa. They have frustrated the past efforts of the United Nations to oblige the South African regime to re-think its policy and abandon the imposition of apartheid. They bear a share of the responsibility for the constant aggravation of the situation since the Sharpeville massacre, at the cost of enormous human suffering. We would like to express our hope that they will harmonise their policies and actions with those of the great majority of nations of the world.
The Special Committee is now approaching numerous Governments and organisations - both those which have already taken substantial action against apartheid and those which have so far failed to do so - in order to acquaint them of our concern and to consult with them on the means for more effective and concerted action against apartheid. We will appeal to all concerned not only to consider further action in cooperation with the United Nations, but also to unite in action on this grave human problem irrespective of their differences on other matters. The Special Committee regards these consultations as an essential contribution towards concrete action as we launch the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.
No compromise with apartheid and racism
We are concerned about the blindness and short-sighted manoeuvres of those small but powerful groups which profit from apartheid and which seek to confuse public opinion. We will do all we can to counteract their diversions.
Let it be clear that there can be no compromise whatsoever with apartheid and racism. The struggle is not for a reform or a moderation of racism, or for the mitigation of oppression or exploitation. It is for the total eradication of racism.
Let it be clear that the destiny of South Africa must be decided, and will be decided, by the genuine representatives of the South African people, and not by the so-called leaders foisted or tolerated by the racist regime. There can be no peaceful solution without the release of the leaders in prison, the return of those in exile, and the abolition of all repressive measures against opponents of racism.
Let it be clear that there can be no recognition of the creation of subsidiary "states" by the racist regime in collusion with "Bantustan" authorities. No one can dispossess the African people of their inalienable right to participate, as equals, in the determination of the future of the country as a whole.
Let it be clear that the oppressed people of South Africa are entitled as much as any other people, to the sacred right to fight for their freedom by all the means at their disposal. We have the duty to assist them in their efforts to secure their inalienable rights without undue bloodshed and suffering. But let no one - especially no one who continues to give aid and comfort to the racists - dare to set limits to their right to struggle for freedom.
On this International Day, let us pledge to unite our efforts to see that no one will profit from the racist oppression in South Africa and that the oppressed people of South Africa are provided all the assistance they need in their struggle for the principles of this Organisation.
Let us send our greetings to all those who are languishing in the prisons of South Africa for their opposition to racial discrimination and their faith in humanity.
Let us assure the people of South Africa - all the people of South Africa - that we shall discharge our responsibilities to enable them to destroy the monster of racism and enter the community of nations in freedom.
LEGITIMACY OF THE STRUGGLE OF THE OPPRESSED PEOPLE OF SOUTH AFRICA
Extracts from an address at a public meeting organised by the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement in Dublin, 20 May 1974
The Black people of South Africa have as much right to freedom and as much right to struggle for freedom as any other people in the world. The struggle in South Africa is not for a little increase in wages or for a little increase in social welfare, but for the complete elimination of apartheid and for full equality for all the people in South Africa. On this question, there can be no compromise and no doubt. We cannot accept that other people can fight for their freedom by all means, including armed struggle, as many nations in Europe have fought, but that the Black people of South Africa, because they are Black, should be prevented from fighting for their freedom. We cannot accept that they should wait for charity from the oppressors or for some amelioration of oppression through the good offices of some people outside.
We believe in peace. The African people in South Africa believe in peace and there are few parallels in the history of the world to the non-violent struggle which the African people of South Africa and the Indian people of South Africa have waged for decades against oppression. It was not without significance that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the late Chief Albert Lutuli in 1961. But the South African regime has done everything it could, in flagrant violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to prevent a peaceful and legitimate struggle for freedom. No one can prevent the oppressed people from fighting for freedom and justice. These repressive measures can only force the people to adopt other means, however reluctantly.
If we really believe in peace, it is our duty to do everything we can to stop this repression and to oblige the South African regime to seek a peaceful solution. The African people in South Africa and the Organisation of African Unity, as well as the United Nations, have repeatedly called for a peaceful solution and the South African regime has consistently rejected all such initiatives.
It is now late in the day after all the oppression, the hangings and the savagery of the recent past. But it is not perhaps too late.
FREE THE POLITICAL PRISONERS
Address at a public meeting to commemorate Africa Liberation Day, Berlin, German Democratic Republic, 25 May 1974
Eleven years ago, in May 1963, the leaders of independent African States pledged on behalf of all the Governments and peoples of Africa that the cause of the peoples under colonial and racist domination is the cause of all Africa. They proclaimed 25 May, the date of the signing of the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, as Africa Liberation Day.
Two years ago, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the Week of Solidarity with the Colonial Peoples of Southern Africa Fighting for Freedom, Independence and Equal Rights, beginning on 25 May - and thereby recognised that their struggle is the common concern of all Governments and peoples who are truly loyal to the principles of the United Nations Charter.
On behalf of the Special Committee on Apartheid, I would like to commend the Government and the people of the German Democratic Republic for their solidarity with the oppressed peoples in Africa. The Special Committee is happy to be able to join with you in observing the Africa Liberation Day and the Week of Solidarity.
Apartheid is not merely a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it is a crime against humanity which must be eradicated. This monstrous policy is a dangerous anachronism in a world which is today faced with momentous challenges. So long as apartheid and racism are allowed to persist, so long as large segments of humanity continue to be subjected to racial discrimination and oppression, there can be no hope of true international co-operation. These evils constitute, at present, a grave threat to international peace and security.
The issue in South Africa is very clear. It is a confrontation between justice and injustice. On the one side, there is a Nazi clique which has imposed its leadership on a so-called white minority, and utilised the State power to appropriate the wealth of the country for the benefit of that minority alone. It has built up a ruthless repressive machine and denied all human rights to the great majority of the people. On the other side are the great majority of the people who have been struggling for decades, under the leadership of their liberation movement, for their inalienable rights to freedom and human dignity.
All of us have a sacred and inescapable duty to take a position. We must deny any support or co-operation or comfort to the criminal oppressors. We must give all necessary moral, political and material assistance to the oppressed people and their liberation movement until apartheid is eradicated.
The struggle of the oppressed people in South Africa has been hard and long because, despite all their appeals and the United Nations resolutions, some governments and corporations have continued to co-operate with the racist regime. These governments and corporations have not only continued, but increased, their trade with South Africa: they have been earning exorbitant profits from the forced labour of millions of Black workers. They have provided the Pretoria regime with a massive arsenal of military equipment, and built an arms industry in South Africa, in the hope that this regime can stabilise the system of oppression and exploitation. Some of them have even welcomed South Africa as an ally, open or secret, in their military plans.
The South African regime has become the bastion of colonialism in southern Africa. It has illegally occupied the Territory of Namibia, and sent its forces into Zimbabwe and the Territories under Portuguese domination. It has threatened the freedom and security of independent African States which have supported the liberation movements, particularly the Republic of Zambia and the United Republic of Tanzania.
The struggle for freedom against apartheid in South Africa is therefore at the same time, a struggle for peace and international security. All those who believe in peace must participate in the struggle against apartheid.
On this Day and every day, we should keep in mind those who have been imprisoned, restricted, banished, exiled or otherwise persecuted for their part in the struggle against racism.
In a few days, it will be ten years since Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki and other leaders of the South African liberation movement were sentenced to life imprisonment in the "Rivonia Trial."
Their struggle was a struggle for principles proclaimed by the United Nations. As Mr. Mandela declared in his historic statement from the dock on 20 April 1964:
"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunity. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if need be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
Mr. Mandela and his colleagues fought racialism with non-racialism. Because of this, they were joined not only by people of African origin but also by people of other racial origins in South Africa.
One of Mr. Mandela’s co-accused in the Rivonia trial was Mr. Ahmed Kathrada, a young Indian leader, who joined the struggle against racism in 1946 at the age of 16 and spent a month in jail even at that early age. I may perhaps recall that as a student in 1951, he led the South African delegation to the World Festival of Youth in this city.
Another accused in this trial was Mr. Dennis Goldberg, a white engineer who identified himself with the struggle of the African people.
The leader of the defence counsel, Mr. Bram Fischer, was himself sentenced to life imprisonment two years later. A famous jurist from an illustrious Afrikaner family, and a winner of the Lenin Prize, Mr. Fischer, now almost 70 years old, is still in Pretoria Central Jail, despite his ailing health. He symbolises the non-racialism of the liberation movement, as well as the courage and spirit of sacrifice that animates the fighters for freedom.
All of us have a responsibility for these prisoners because they are in jail for upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter.
I have unshakeable confidence in the victory of the struggle for freedom in South Africa. I do not wish to minimise the difficulties which the liberation movement has faced and may continue to face. I do not ignore the powerful forces which support apartheid out of selfishness and short-sighted considerations. But the friendship and the feeling of brotherhood, between the Black people of South Africa and the freedom-loving peoples all over the world, will grow and triumph.
As they say in South Africa, Mayibuye Africa, "Come back Africa." Africa will surely come back to its sons and daughters - with the struggle of the oppressed peoples, supported by all of Africa, as well as all freedom-loving people.
COOPERATION BETWEEN THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE AND TRADE UNIONS
Statement before the Workers' Group of the Governing Body of the International labour Organisation in Geneva, 30 May 1974
The Special Committee regards the International Trade Union Conference against Apartheid, held in Geneva last June as a very important development in the struggle against apartheid. The resolution adopted on that occasion is an excellent programme of action and all efforts should be concentrated on the implementation of that resolution.
The Special Committee has received reports from a number of trade unions. It is more than satisfied with the results of the Conference in terms of action against apartheid by trade unions at the national and international level.
We are anxious to make the necessary arrangements for close liaison between the Special Committee and the trade unions as regards the struggle against apartheid. In this connection, you will recall that the Conference requested that the United Nations associate the members of the Preparatory Committee of the Conference - including representatives of the international and African trade union movements - with the work and action of the Special Committee on Apartheid.
If you will permit me, I would like to stress one general point on which, I am sure, the Special Committee and the trade unions are agreed. We cannot regard apartheid as a mere violation of human rights or trade union rights. The United Nations has declared it a crime against humanity and a threat to the peace. We will need to look at various aspects of apartheid in that light.
I have emphasised that apartheid is in some respects worse than slavery. As you know, in 1973, some newspapers publicised the fact that most of the African workers in industries in South Africa are paid below the "Poverty Datum Line" - that is, the level calculated by the white municipalities as the minimum level for subsistence. Africans are paid starvation wages.
In the days of slavery, the slave master owned the slave. It was uneconomical for him if the slave starved or got sick. But in South Africa, the businessmen have not invested in the African worker. If the worker gets sick or invalid, the racist regime arranges to dump him in a reserve, which is kept as a source of cheap labour.
Some people now are pressing that the companies should pay at least the Poverty Datum Line. But we cannot be expected to rejoice because the Africans are treated as well as slaves in the last century.
There must be full trade union rights and full equality in South Africa for all the people of that country. While any amelioration of conditions is welcome, we cannot compromise on the principle of full equality.
13 September19741
I am delighted at this opportunity personally to convey the greetings of the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid to the National Anti-Apartheid Committee of New Zealand and to all the organizations which are associated with it as sponsors.
What you have done in the past few years in informing the people of this country of the inhumanity of apartheid in South Africa, and in enabling the nation to pronounce itself against collaboration with racism in South Africa, especially in sport, has been a source of great satisfaction and, indeed, encouragement to us at the United Nations. It reinforced our conviction that when people know the truth—even in countries where the people are mostly of European origin—they will reject apartheid and will join in efforts to eradicate it. This conviction was also put to the test in Australia and other countries and prevailed.
This conviction is precious because if it is proved wrong, humanity can look forward to nothing better than a permanent division across racial or colour barriers.
The actions of the Governments of New Zealand and Australia have also been a source of great comfort to the people in South Africa who have been struggling for decades for freedom and now face difficult days in their march towards the inevitable triumph of their just cause.
We greatly appreciate what the New Zealand Government has done, under the leadership of the late Mr. Norman Kirk, in dissociating this country from apartheid, especially in the important area of sport, and in affirming its faith in the oneness of humanity. I have been assured that the present Government, under the leadership of Mr. Wallace Rowling, will continue the same course. In fact, I would like to believe that this has now become the irrevocable national commitment of New Zealand.
If giving up rugby with the South African Whites is a sacrifice—and I know that New Zealanders are devoted to rugby—I would like to assure you that your action has raised the esteem for New Zealand in Africa and all over the world.
I would like also to take this opportunity, as we are so close to the Commonwealth of Australia—which I am regrettably unable to visit at this time because of the session of the United Nations General Assembly—to reaffirm the great appreciation of the Special Committee for the steps taken by the Australian Government, under the leadership of Mr. Gough Whitlam to dissociate Australia from apartheid. I would particularly like to refer to its recent decision to send home the military attaché of the Pretoria regime.
On behalf of the Special Committee, I would ask all other countries which have exchanged military attaches with the Pretoria regime to follow the example of Australia if they want us to believe their protestations of opposition to apartheid or of friendship with Africa or of loyalty to the United Nations.
Without in any way detracting from our appreciation for the actions of the Governments of New Zealand and Australia, I would like to acknowledge the commendable role played by the anti-apartheid movements and other non-governmental organizations in bringing about these welcome developments. The anti-apartheid movements have often acted, especially in the countries which have maintained relations with the South African regime, as the conscience of the nation.
Here in New Zealand, even a few years ago, you were a very small group—small in numbers though big in conviction and perseverance. You continued your efforts, in spite of attacks against you, to defend one of the fundamental principles of the United Nations, the Olympic principle of non-discrimination and the very soul of decent sport. You pressed that the nation face its conscience.
I am glad that people from various sectors of public life—churchmen, trade unionists, students and others—joined in reaffirming opposition to racism at home and abroad.
As a Christian, I am not in the least surprised that some churchmen have opposed apartheid and even faced persecution because of that opposition. How can any true Christian act otherwise? Could Jesus Christ, who was himself born in Asia, condone the oppression and humiliation of human being especially the great majority of people in South Africa and the world, for the colour of their skin? Could He remain unconcerned when the Gospel is cited to justify such oppression and humiliation?
And how can any trade unionist be unconcerned about the situation in South Africa? The struggle against apartheid is essentially a struggle of the working people against the denial of elementary trade union rights—indeed, against the imposition of forced labour and slavery—on the basis of colour. The struggle of the South African people for liberation is partly the struggle of the workers for their rights.
I am glad that the trade union movement in New Zealand has taken action in accordance with the decisions of the International Conference of Trade Unions against Apartheid, held in Geneva in June 1973.
But I would like to say that I am particularly heartened by the involvement of students and youth here in the struggle against apartheid and racism.
When you oppose apartheid, you are not merely showing sympathy with people suffering from poverty and oppression. You are not merely demonstrating solidarity with those struggling for a righteous cause.
You are contributing to the elimination of one of the scourges of our time and one of the major impediments to genuine co-operation between broad segments of humanity. You are helping to remove a cancer that can destroy our hopes for the future of humanity, in the next generation if not in the present.
The struggle in South Africa, let us be very clear, is not a struggle of the African people against the whites, but a struggle of humanism against racism.
If it were a mere revolt of the slaves or a race war by blacks against whites, the situation would be very different. In the South African society where the whites live in comfort on the labour of the blacks, all that is needed to spread panic in the whole white community, as some one said, is a conspiracy of a few cooks and domestic servants.
But the African people, and their liberation movement, have shown the utmost restraint and attachment to humanism in refusing to meet terrorism with terrorism. They have suffered because they are struggling for the principle that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it—black, brown or white. Their struggle is a struggle for all men and women, for the survival of whites as much as for the freedom of the blacks.
Just as the liberation movement of the African people of Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique fought for the liberation of the African people, and thereby also for the liberation of the Portuguese, the liberation movement of South Africa is struggling for the liberation of the blacks as well as the whites in South Africa. The true friends of the whites of South Africa are those who prevent that minority from its march to suicide under its present racist leadership.
As you know, the present regime in South Africa has not only committed crimes against the black people of South Africa, but has jailed and persecuted many whites who have opposed racism. It is now threatening the white students of the National Union of South African Students because they upheld the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and disclosed the miserable conditions to which African workers are subjected. In opposing apartheid, we declare our solidarity not only with the oppressed black people but also with those whites who espouse human dignity.
I have come here, as I said, on a friendly visit to this country, at the invitation of the government, to convey our appreciation to the Government and people of New Zealand. It is not my intention to criticize anyone—even those few who are misguided and who are still advocating that this country, which has rejected racism at home, should fraternize with racists in Southern Africa. It is my hope that they will see the light and join the mainstream of New Zealand, a country which we respect for its integrity.
But I must confess that I could hardly believe my eyes when I read in a paper that there is a group here which opposes the sports boycott against South Africa on the grounds that the world is discriminating against South Africa for its policies when other countries practice discrimination—and, I read to my amazement, including countries in Africa.
By refusing to play ball with the racists, it seems we are discriminating against the racists of South Africa, the one country in the world where racial discrimination is enshrined in the Constitution itself, not to mention hundreds of laws and the daily practice.
This group, I read, is apparently associated with some people in South Africa who call themselves, of all things, the “Committee for Fairness in Sport”. That Committee, we know, is, in fact, a committee to defend the system under which 15 million Africans have never had fairness in sport or in anything else in life.
The present regime in South Africa has shown great inventiveness in giving misleading and utterly false titles to its acts. There is a Suppression of Communism Act under which numerous non-Communists and even opponents of Communism are persecuted—including Chief Albert Lutuli, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and scores of churchmen. It passed an Abolition of Passes Act under which it reinforced the pass laws which prevent the free movement of Africans and made the passes more complicated. It has an Extension of University Education Act under which it prohibited blacks from attending the established universities. It has an Immorality Act under which making love to one’s sweetheart is a punishable crime if the skin colours of the couple are not the same. It set up a Republic which is the opposite of a Republic as defined in any dictionary.
I hope New Zealanders will never be taken in by such false names, or copy the South African example and lose their integrity.
Let me also, as an African, be very frank about the gratuitous reference to independent African countries. Africa is a continent which has just emerged into freedom—and it is not yet fully free. We are not perfect but we are trying hard to build our nations with the hope that we can forget the past and establish true international cooperation, even with our erstwhile oppressors. We hope we will succeed by our efforts, aided by the understanding, goodwill and cooperation of the rest of the world.
But before anyone tries to attack us for any real or imaginary mistakes we make during this period—in order to defend the humiliation of Africans and to undermine cooperation between Africa and the world—let him recall a bit of history.
In the centuries when Europe was developing its trade and industry, our continent suffered the ravages of the slave traders from which tens of millions of the sons and daughters of Africa perished—and whole regions of our continent, especially my part of Africa, were depopulated. Our continent suffered the pillages of the colonialists who took the rich natural wealth of our continent and left the people poor, sick and illiterate.
We have been independent nations for much less than a generation under difficult international conditions—facing inequalities in international trade and the remnants of prejudice in Europe and North America, as well as plots and conflicts instigated by the colonial and racist Powers and other vested interests.
We may have made mistakes—which nation did not?—but in these few years the independent African States have made more progress in education, health and the enjoyment of human rights than perhaps any other continent has done in a comparable period of time. Despite the tragic past, we have opposed racism and stretched our hand of friendship to all the whites who settled in Africa—on only one condition, that they accept that they are fellow human beings, fellow Africans, and not people destined to lord it over and humiliate Africans.
We seek friendship. We welcome friendly advice. But we will not tolerate inequality and humiliation. If this is discrimination, we do discriminate and we ask all our true friends to discriminate—against the racists.
We are grateful to New Zealand and we are grateful to all of you in the Anti-Apartheid Committee and the associated organizations because you have made your choice. You have chosen the friendship of the people of Africa as against the enticements of those who oppress the African people and whose policies and actions are an affront to humanity.
I would like to say a few words about one matter which seems not to have been fully understood in New Zealand.
The United Nations General Assembly, at its last session in 1973, declared that the liberation movements recognized by the Organization of African Unity are the authentic representatives of the overwhelming majority of the South African people, and reiterated that “the struggle of the oppressed people of South Africa by all available means for the total eradication of apartheid is legitimate and deserves the support of the international community”.
Perhaps we had not adequately explained these provisions and some friends in New Zealand, I understand, have expressed apprehensions that they may imply an encouragement of violence.
Let me make it perfectly clear that the Special Committee on Apartheid—there is no doubt that Africa shares its view—is most anxious to promote peaceful solution of the situation in South Africa. We have again and again warned of the dangers of conflict in South Africa—where it may develop into a race conflict with incalculable consequences—and pressed constantly for economic and other action by the international community to avert a tragedy.
Let me also recall that the people of South Africa have struggled for many decades by non-violent means, at great sacrifice, to secure their legitimate rights. They have been the pioneers and the most persistent practitioners of non-violent passive resistance. To tell them about the virtues of non-violence is as ludicrous as carrying coals to Newcastle.
But at the same time, it is imperative that the world should recognize that the struggle in South Africa is a struggle between right and wrong, and all nations, organizations and individuals must make a choice. It is equally important to recognize that the South African regime has been closing every possibility for a peaceful solution, by ruthlessly suppressing all non-violent and peaceful protest. It has been provoking the people to meet violence with violence, to meet massacres by armed self-defence.
Neither the United Nations nor Africa has tried to prescribe to the African people of South Africa the means of their struggle, nor have they encouraged one form of struggle against another. The form of struggle is for the South African people to decide according to their circumstances.
What the United Nations has done is to affirm the legitimacy of the struggle of the oppressed people by means of their own choice. It has thereby rejected the right of the oppressors in South Africa to tell the African people what kind of servile status they should aspire to—the Bantustans for instance—and how they should go about it. It has rejected the efforts of some foreign vested interests to find “solutions” convenient for themselves, “solutions” which are a compromise with racism and a continuation of racism to enable these interests to go on making profits from injustice.
We reject and condemn the efforts of anyone who attempts to limit the right of the people of South Africa to fight for their freedom, or to seek total eradication of apartheid and racial discrimination. We cannot accept that people of other countries have a right to resort to violence, but African people, because they are black, are denied that right. At the same time, we will do everything possible, by international action, to spare the South African people the suffering and the agonies of a violent conflict. That is precisely why we are appealing for support from all countries and peoples.
Those of you who have followed recent events in Africa know that the African people have not resorted to violence in their struggle for freedom until their peaceful protests were met by ruthless massacres. Today, as we celebrate the confirmation of the freedom of the people of Guinea-Bissau, and look forward to the freedom of Angola and Mozambique, the people of Portugal share with the African people the fruits of the heroic armed struggle which the liberation movements were obliged to undertake in the African territories. You are no doubt aware that the leaders of the independent African States have lent their good offices to secure settlements.
When the white minority in South Africa will abandon its dream of perpetual domination over the Africans, and when it is ready to seek, hopefully by concerted international action, to negotiate, with the genuine representatives of the overwhelming majority of the people, the destiny of the nation as a whole, I have no doubt that the African people of South Africa will show their traditional tolerance and magnanimity. I have no doubt that independent Africa will do all it can to facilitate a solution, as it has pledged many times—for instance, in the Lusaka manifesto which was adopted by the Organization of African Unity and endorsed, almost unanimously, by the United Nations General Assembly.
That is the day we look forward to—that is the outcome towards which we are striving. And I want to thank all of you in joining in this international effort.
Before closing, I hope you will permit me to say a special word of thanks to David Cuthbert, Trevor Richards, Toby Truell, and Dr. Pat Hohepa whose work we have known—and to say that it was a pleasure to meet all the others involved in this campaign in New Zealand.
1. Source: United Nations press release GA/AP/413, 16 September 1974
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Statement before the Special Political Committee of the UN General Assembly, 7 October 1974
There comes a time in the consideration of international problems when the elements are ripe for a solution if this Organisation and the Member States are able to rise to the occasion and muster the statesmanship, the imagination and the courage that are required.
In the case of apartheid in South Africa, which has been on the agenda of this Assembly for over two decades, I believe that that time is now.
The winds of freedom are again blowing through Africa after the pause on the banks of the Zambesi. They have come to the threshold of the land which the Vorster regime in Pretoria seeks to preserve as a haven of racism. They could not be stopped at the Zambesi by the colonialists and they cannot be held at the Limpopo by the racists.
The surge for freedom remains irrepressible in South Africa despite cruel suppression by the racist regime. The Black people have not reconciled themselves to servitude, exploitation and dispossession, and they will never be reconciled. Why should they? There are stirrings of new thinking even among some whites who see the inevitability of change.
And, finally, there is an increasing awareness all over the world of the inhumanity of apartheid and a growing commitment by Governments and organisations to assist the struggle for liberation in South Africa. The movement against apartheid has become one of the most significant movements in the present-day world.
I hope that we will not be regarded as immodest if, in presenting an account of the work of the Special Committee, we acknowledge that the Special Committee has been greatly encouraged by the recognition on the part of many Governments and organisations, and, above all, by the liberation movements, that in the discharge of the mandate given by this Assembly, it has made no mean contribution in promoting this movement over the past decade.
I may recall that at the very first meeting of the Special Committee on 2 April 1965, the then Chairman of the Committee said that the United Nations was duty bound to help the South African regime to extricate itself from the dangerous situation. One of the first acts of the Special Committee was, indeed, to seek the cooperation of the South African regime. But who can extricate a regime which has no desire to be extricated? That regime has condemned itself and is leading the white community, which it seeks to represent, to disaster.
In fighting against apartheid, we are not moved by hatred for the whites who have settled in the course of the centuries in South Africa. We say this despite the fact that they have callously enjoyed material comforts from the blood, sweat and tears of the African people. We look to the future. We detest the "race classification" imposed by the apartheid regime - and we look forward to a society based on human dignity, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
The liberation movement of South Africa has made it clear, again and again, and in spite of all provocation, that South Africa belongs to all the people in that country: all the people, including the whites, so long as they do not claim the right to oppress and humiliate the black people. There will certainly be no room in Africa for any group which claims the right to lord over the African people, but neither the African liberation movements nor the African States seek to throw the white people into the sea because they are white.
One need hardly underscore this today when the Prime Minister of Mozambique - who was only a few weeks ago leading an armed struggle for the liberation of his people - has invited the whites who have fled that country in panic to return to their homes.
The struggle against apartheid in South Africa is an act of human solidarity with all the people of South Africa, except the incorrigible racists. It is a struggle for principles we cherish and on which we cannot dare to compromise.
Path to peace in South Africa
The welcome developments in the former Portuguese colonies show clearly the way to a solution in South Africa - an amnesty to political prisoners; freedom of expression to the oppressed people; and negotiations with the liberation movements, as the authentic representatives of the oppressed people, on the basis of the principles of the United Nations Charter.
Ten years ago, in 1964, a Group of Experts of the United Nations - led by Mrs. Alva Myrdal of Sweden and Lord Caradon of the United Kingdom - suggested this course. And the Security Council, in resolution 191 of June 18, 1964, endorsed the conclusion of this group that "all the people of South Africa should be brought into consultation and should thus be enabled to decide the future of their country at the national level." It even offered assistance by the United Nations in facilitating consultations among representatives of all elements of the population in South Africa.
Five years later, the African States called for a peaceful solution in the Lusaka Manifesto which was endorsed by this General Assembly.
But the South African regime has spurned every move for a peaceful settlement. It has proceeded to terrorise the people and to impose Bantustans to divide and dispossess the African people.
As we discuss apartheid again at this session, our hearts go out to the hundreds of political prisoners in South Africa - the leaders of the oppressed people and the fighters for freedom - who have been languishing in prison for a decade or more. The Vorster regime and its brutal Security Police have been ruthless and vengeful. These political prisoners are denied remission of sentence and parole. They are cut off from the outside world in order to break their spirit. Many of them have grown old and sick - and we are most anxious for their lives.
As the General Assembly has declared at the last session, there can be no peaceful solution in South Africa without the release of the political prisoners.
Increased repression
But the regime in South Africa has not heeded the lesson of Portugal. When the leaders of the new Portugal and the African liberation movements were engaged in ending the colonial conflicts with the goodwill of the whole world, the white rulers in Pretoria began to rush their troops to the borders. They increased their military budget by over 40 per cent, hoping to get some more weapons of war from the black market or from some countries which seem to place profit above their concern for human lives in Africa.
Only a few days ago - on 25 September 1974 - the South African police and their dogs, attacked peaceful rallies held by the African people at the University of the North at Turfloop and in Durban to observe "FRELIMO Day." They raided the homes of many black trade union, student and other leaders all over the country. They even searched hospitals and arrested people who were being treated for the police dog-bites.
This Organisation has a duty to take urgent and effective action to prevent the racist regime in South Africa from precipitating a disaster by its madness. It must help all the people of South Africa to find a solution to the grave situation. The destiny of South Africa and of peace in Africa cannot be left in the hands of the mad racists.
Need for effective international action
The Special Committee on Apartheid is firmly convinced that this is the time for this Organisation to make a mighty effort to concert action by all Governments, all organisations and all peoples in support of the struggle for freedom in South Africa. The recommendations of the Special Committee in the report before you are all directed towards this end.
Let all those who believe in peace and international cooperation, and all those who detest racism and racial discrimination, be brought together in concerted action to help the South African people to attain their inalienable right to freedom and human dignity - so that we can finally solve this grave problem of apartheid which has concerned this Organisation since its inception.
Let no one give comfort or encouragement to the apartheid regime. Let no one profit from the oppression and exploitation of the black people of South Africa. Let no one be allowed to sow confusion in our ranks.
The General Assembly has already taken two significant steps at this session: first, by rejecting the credentials of the delegation of the Pretoria regime and calling upon the Security Council to review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa; and, secondly inviting the representatives of the South African liberation movements to participate in the debate on apartheid in this Committee.
These two decisions are complementary to each other. They are a logical sequel to the determination by the General Assembly at its last session - in resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of l4 December 1973 - that the South African regime has no right to represent the people of South Africa and that the liberation movements recognised by the Organisation of African Unity are the authentic representatives of the overwhelming majority of the South African people.
I would like to welcome and congratulate the representatives of the African National Congress of South Africa and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania who have attained this recognition by the international community after a long and heroic struggle for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. We are most heartened by the overwhelming votes by which the General Assembly has adopted the above decisions, which are but a recognition of a simple and indisputable fact.
I am, of course, aware of the doubts and reservations of some delegations. But who can deny that the regime in Pretoria does not represent the people of South Africa? It can, at best, claim to speak for the white voters of South Africa who have themselves been subjected to manipulation and pressures so that that regime can stay in power. That regime is, in fact, nothing more than the representative of the greed, the prejudice and the consequent fear of the white voters.
Some people have tried to argue that we should accommodate the delegates of the Pretoria regime in this Organisation because of the principle of universality. But they are mistaken. Universality can be achieved only by the elimination of colonialism and racism in southern Africa so that the misrepresentation of the people will end and the millions of peoples under colonial and racist domination can occupy their rightful places in this Organisation. The recent decisions of the General Assembly are the first step towards ensuring the representation of all the people of South Africa, irrespective of race, colour or creed - and thus contributing to the true universality of the United Nations.
The special session which was held in Dublin, Rome, Berlin (GDR) and Geneva, provided the Special Committee with an opportunity for extensive consultations with governments, as well as public organisations. I would like to take this opportunity to express once again the great appreciation of the Special Committee to the Governments of Ireland, Italy and the German Democratic Republic, and to the numerous participants in the special session, for their cooperation and assistance.
We would also like to emphasise that the arms embargo against the South African regime, and the ending of any form of military cooperation with it, is the first and minimum step in action against apartheid. Those countries which are with us in wanting to avert a gruesome conflict in southern Africa must stop arming the racists.
We feel we have the right to expect the co-operation of the permanent members of the Security Council in dealing with the problem of apartheid because this problem concerns the maintenance of peace and security. But instead of assuming their responsibilities as permanent members of the Security Council and as founder members of this Organisation who have in fact drafted the Charter, some of them have continued to obstruct international action to eradicate apartheid.
We know that they have declared their opposition to apartheid. We know that they have made some gestures to show their displeasure at the policies and actions of the South African regime. But we also know that the South African regime continues confidently to count on them to prevent effective action by the Security Council.
Whatever the attitudes of Member States towards the right of veto in the Security Council, I am sure that no one conceived of or accepted it as an instrument to hinder the struggle against racism or to give comfort to a regime which has oppressed the great majority of the people of its country in defiance of the Charter and the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly.
The recent resolution of the General Assembly requesting the Security Council to review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa, provides a test and an opportunity for the permanent members of the Security Council, especially the permanent members who have abstained in the vote in the General Assembly. We do hope that they will act with courage and integrity in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Charter and in the light of the evidence of the violations of the Charter by the South African regime.
Concern about continuing collaboration with apartheid
In the discharge of its mandate, the Special Committee on Apartheid, has drawn special attention to the actions of some countries which have strengthened their relations with the South African regime in the past year. I have referred to these recent instances of collaboration because the Special Committee has been charged with following the implementation of United Nations resolutions. I believe that this Committee should be a forum for a frank exchange of views by all Member States with a view to serious consultations to ensure full implementation of all the resolutions.
I have expressed our distress at some developments in order to make an appeal to the States concerned to take appropriate action in the spirit of international solidarity. It is not my purpose to criticise or to condemn. That is the province of the oppressed people of South Africa and of the peoples and the consciences of the States concerned.
But if I have referred to instances of collaboration with the South African regime, I do not by any means wish to leave the impression that the record is all distressing. We have been most heartened by the actions of many Governments which have implemented United Nations resolutions at some cost. We were deeply moved to meet many people from many countries - young men and women; trade unionists and churchmen - who have dedicated their lives, and given their time and energy, to the sacred cause of the liberation of the oppressed people of South Africa.
There is continuing collaboration with the South African regime because some governments, instead of educating their public opinion about apartheid, have taken the easy course of succumbing to pressures to continue trade and other relations with South Africa. I am confident that when people know the truth about the situation in South Africa, they will support the efforts of the United Nations. I believe that they will not let their nations profit from the oppression of the African people of South Africa. My faith in the people, even in the West, has been reinforced by the development of public opinion in some countries where apartheid has become a national issue as a result of dedicated efforts by youth, trade unions and churches.
I believe that we should appeal to all governments to co-operate with the United Nations in informing their peoples about the inhumanity of apartheid, the struggle of the oppressed people of South Africa and the concern and commitment of the United Nations.
I hope that these remarks will be taken in the friendly and constructive spirit in which they were made. The problem of apartheid deserves the most serious consideration of the United Nations at this crucial stage. We look forward to thorough consultations in this Committee and in private, by Member States from all groups, in order to arrive at proposals which will command unanimous support and which will result in effective implementation of United Nations resolutions.
PATH TO PEACE IN SOUTH AFRICA
Statement in the Special Committee against Apartheid on 8 November 1974
In our last report to the General Assembly, we stressed that the international efforts to eradicate apartheid have reached a new stage. The developments in the Territories under Portuguese administration have radically changed the situation in southern Africa. The South African regime has become more isolated than ever and the international campaign against apartheid has gained momentum, partly because of the activity of this Committee.
This new situation represents, in my opinion, a challenge to the international community and to the South African people, not least of all to the white minority in South Africa.
Isolation of South African regime
In the last two months, there has been dramatic evidence of the isolation of the South African regime in the overwhelming votes in the General Assembly on the question of its credentials and in the debates in the Security Council. It now remains in the United Nations, thanks only to the votes of the three Western Powers, who wield the veto. Many of the smaller Western countries, which have had traditional relations with the South African regime, have recognised that it has no right to be a Member of the United Nations.
Faced with this isolation, the South African regime is trying to make the world believe that it is embarking on some major shifts in its policies. Members might have seen the report on Mr. Vorster’s statement two or three days ago, appealing for a few months’ time to implement some changes, and the statement of their Foreign Minister yesterday.
Call for Peaceful Solution
If these statements represent a genuine desire for a peaceful solution, in accordance with the principles of the Charter, we would, of course, be delighted. The United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and the liberation movements themselves have pressed for years for a peaceful solution, because of the awareness that the alternative is a bloody racial conflict, which would have grave consequences in and beyond South Africa. The sufferers would be not only the black people, but also the white community in South Africa.
A few weeks ago, the Chief of State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, General Yakubu Gowon, received parliamentarians from the opposition Progressive Party in South Africa. He took the opportunity to tell South Africa that the African States and the African peoples were not against the whites, but against the policies of apartheid and against the advocates and apostles of apartheid. He called on the South African whites to take a cue from Portugal and to change their attitude towards the black people in South Africa.
He said: "If such a change is made and there is a move by the South African Government or by white South Africans against apartheid, the effects of such a change are bound to be felt beyond South Africa."
After the recent statements by Mr. Vorster in the white Parliament, the President of the Republic of Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda, declared in a speech at the University of Zambia on 26 October that, if the South African regime is prepared to seek a peaceful and just solution, Africa stands ready to help create conditions for peaceful change, in accordance with the Manifesto on Southern Africa.
I have heard his statement quoted out of context in some cases to suit South African propaganda.
Pretoria seeking to reform apartheid
I have studied the statement of Mr. Botha in the Security Council (1800th meeting) and I have followed the recent reports from South Africa in the hope that the white community and its leaders may have at last given up their dreams of eternal discrimination over the Africans and may be prepared to seek peace.
There is certainly some evidence that they are beginning to realise that their past course has become untenable.
But it seems to me that their thinking is still far removed from reality and that they are not yet ready to accept the minimum prerequisites for a peaceful and lasting solution. They seem to be thinking in terms of "humanising" apartheid or "reforming" apartheid - not of eliminating apartheid.
They promise to end some of the so-called "petty apartheid." This "petty apartheid" is not petty at all, in my opinion. It has caused enormous suffering and tension. Under the petty apartheid laws - such as the pass laws - about a million Africans are gaoled every year. Certainly the world would welcome the elimination of this so-called "petty apartheid."
They offer increases in the wages of African workers, who are now paid below starvation levels. Certainly the world would welcome an improvement in the wages of the black workers.
They are planning greater investment in the overcrowded African reserves, where the people have been forced to live under miserable conditions. Certainly the world would welcome any improvement in the living conditions in these reserves.
They are considering some concessions to the people of Indian origin and the Coloured people, who have also been subjected to racial discrimination. Certainly, we would not object to any alleviation of the conditions of these communities in South Africa.
But all these reforms are in the context of stabilising and strengthening the system of apartheid. They seem also to be intended to divide the black people. While talking about these reforms, the regime is increasing its repression against the leaders of the black organisations, who are totally opposed to apartheid and refuse to be associated with any apartheid institutions.
What the regime is trying to do is to make some concessions to the so-called leaders of the black people, whom it likes, in return for acceptance of apartheid. We have a name for such people.
We cannot but reject these manoeuvres and we have no doubt that they will not succeed.
Prerequisites of peaceful solution
As we have often emphasised, the basic problem in South Africa is not the humanitarian problem, but the political problem. There can be no solution in South Africa so long as the leaders of the liberation movements are in gaol and in the absence of negotiations with the liberation movements. This is the first lesson of the developments in the Portuguese Territories.
In the United Nations and in the Organisation of African Unity, we have not tried to lay down the constitution of a free South Africa. We have recognised and proclaimed that the future of South Africa is for the people of South Africa to decide on the basis of equality of all men and women.
We have only demanded that the leaders of the liberation movement be released from prison, that the liberation movements be allowed to carry on their legitimate struggle for freedom and that there be consultations among the genuine and legitimate representatives of all the people of South Africa to decide the destiny of the country.
After the Sharpeville massacre of 1960, and in defiance of the Security Council, the South African regime chose the path of conflict and war by banning the African National Congress of South Africa and Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and resorting to repression against the leaders of the people. If the whites of South Africa now seek peace, they must retrace their path.
Statement by Mr. Botha
In his statement before the Security Council, the representative of the South African regime emphasised that his people live and belong to Africa and that their destiny lies in Africa. We would welcome this statement if this meant that they no longer claim to be an appendage of Europe in Africa. We have already declared that no one is against the whites in South Africa so long as they accept that they are Africans and so long as they do not claim a right to oppress the Black Africans.
The representative of the South African regime also said that the white people are not better than the black people. He claimed that his regime does not condone discrimination purely on the grounds of race or colour. We know very well that this is utterly untrue, that his regime came to power in 1948 by arousing white fears of a "black peril" and that it has greatly intensified racial discrimination and oppression. But we have confidence that there can be a peaceful solution if the South African regime is prepared, even now, to negotiate on the basis that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour.
The South African representative also claimed that his people - the Afrikaners - had struggled against colonial rule and that they accept the right to self-determination. I do not wish to comment on the war between the British and the Boer Republics in 1899, except to note that it was a struggle in which the rights of the great majority of the people of South Africa were ignored. The parliamentary politics of South Africa in the ensuing decades consisted of deals between the Afrikaners and the British at the expense of the black Africans. That time is now past. The interests of the black people, who constitute the great majority of the people, must now be paramount.
Right to struggle by all means
I would also like to recall that the struggle of the Boers in 1899 was an armed struggle in which tens of thousands of people died. It was a struggle in which many freedom-loving people from outside South Africa went to fight with the Afrikaners. If the Afrikaners really respect their own struggle for freedom, they should equally respect the right of the African people to struggle by all means for their freedom. They should respect the leaders of the African National Congress of South Africa and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania, who have risked their lives and their freedom in the struggle for liberation.
They should honour leaders like Robert Sobukwe and Nelson Mandela as South African patriots and discuss with them the future of their common homeland.
When they are prepared to follow this course, they will have the good will of the whole of Africa and the whole world.
Collective action to eradicate apartheid
A few days ago, Alan Paton was reported to have said that the three vetoes in the Security Council meant a "stay of execution" for the South African whites. I believe that the expression was not quite appropriate. No one is trying to execute the whites of South Africa.
In my own statement in the Security Council (1797th meeting), I said that it was no pleasure to propose the expulsion of South Africa. I appealed again to South Africa to follow the path of a peaceful settlement, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The white community, under its present leadership and by its present policies, has been marching towards suicide, while the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity have been trying to save them from disaster.
So long as the white community and its leaders pursue their present course, the international community has no choice but to take collective action to eradicate apartheid. We must first of all redouble cur efforts to implement the arms embargo in order to minimise the danger of violence. We must exert economic and other pressures to make the white community realise that it cannot continue on its present collision course. We must give full support to the liberation movements in their struggle for freedom by all means of their choice, including armed struggle.
The test to any Government or any organisation which claims to oppose apartheid is its attitude towards such collective measures.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARMS EMBARGO
Extracts from a statement to the press at United Nations Headquarters, 4 June 1975
I would like to say a few words about the arms embargo against South Africa. As you know, the Special Committee against Apartheid has been anxious to secure an effective arms embargo against South Africa. On the recommendation of the Special Committee, the General Assembly adopted a resolution at its last session requesting the Security Council to take action under Chapter VII of the Charter to ensure the complete cessation by all States of the supply of any arms, ammunition, military vehicles, spare parts thereof, and any other military equipment whatsoever to South Africa." as well as any military co-operation with South Africa. I refer to resolution 3524B (XXIX) of 16 December 1974. That resolution was adopted by a majority of 109 votes to 1, with 9 abstentions. The only vote against, regrettably, was by the United States of America. Those who abstained included the United Kingdom and France, 4 other NATO members, as well as Japan, Malawi and Luxembourg.
The General Assembly recognised that an effective arms embargo requires a mandatory decision by the Security Council. We need diplomatic action and also mobilisation of public opinion to persuade the big Powers to agree to a mandatory decision. The General Assembly requested the Special Committee to encourage and promote co-ordinated international campaigns for an arms embargo.
The Special Committee has been giving high priority to the arms embargo, and has sent missions to a number of countries to talk to Governments and organisations.
I myself have visited Belgium, the USSR and Nordic countries this year. I had discussions with the NATO Secretary-General in Brussels in February and addressed a rally in Trafalgar Square, London, on 25 March. Last year, I visited a number of countries including Britain, France, Italy and Japan. I hope to visit Lisbon and Washington soon. A mission from the Special Committee left for Latin America yesterday.
We are not limiting ourselves to the Big Powers and members of the Security Council; we would like world-wide action by Governments and organisations.
We are now closely watching the debate in the Security Council on Namibia. As you know, several delegations are pressing for a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa under the Namibia item. We will decide, in the light of the developments, when and how we should take up apartheid in the Security Council.
Meanwhile, I would like to make a few general remarks. First of all, we regard the arms embargo as the very minimum step by the international community. As you know, many western countries claim that they are strongly opposed to apartheid and that they are trying to persuade the South African regime to abandon racism. But how can any country persuade Vorster to abandon racism when it is trying to sell him arms or even to increase trade with South Africa?
Secondly, I would like to believe that we have made some progress, partly as a result of our consultations with various Governments. As you know, the British Government has announced that it would terminate the Simonstown Agreement and enforce an arms embargo. I have been assured by the NATO Secretary-General and some of the NATO Member States that NATO is not involved in South Africa. We are satisfied with the strong support of Sweden and other Nordic States for an arms embargo.
But we have to be constantly vigilant as there are frequent reports of secret contacts. France is continuing to supply military equipment to South Africa. According to recent reports, South Africa hopes to purchase five more submarines from France and a number of Mirage aircraft. France tells us that the arms embargo is not mandatory, but, so far as we know, she is still opposed to a mandatory decision by the Security Council.
The United Kingdom and the United States tell us that they are implementing an arms embargo but will not agree to make it mandatory because they do not want to declare that the situation is a threat to the peace.
South Africa’s military budget increased from R44,000,000 in 1960-1961 to R470,000,000 in 1973-1974 and R948,000,000 in 1975-1976. As I said a few days ago, if this does not reflect a threat to the peace, words have lost their meaning.
In the light of information we have recently received, we have reason to suspect that the problem is two-fold. Supply of military equipment is one aspect of the problem. The other aspect is military collaboration with South Africa, especially in connection with the military communications facilities established in South Africa with the co-operation of several Western Powers. The documents which are being released today concern the second aspect.
I may recall that the three Western Powers could not agree that there was a threat to the peace in the Portuguese colonies when large-scale wars were going on. The Portuguese armed forces and the Portuguese people had to liberate themselves from the sophistry and end the wars.
I would like to ask; will the inevitable process of the liberation of South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe also be marked by a series of Western vetoes? Why should they hold up the threat of veto whenever African liberation is brought up in the Security Council?
The Special Committee against Apartheid feels that we should not be deterred by the threats of veto and should keep on pressing in the United Nations and in the various capitals.
The recent seminar of the Special Committee in Paris called for trade union action to prevent the supply of arms to South Africa. Several trade unions are reported to be considering such action. We will continue to do all we can to encourage non-governmental organisations to carry on campaigns and public action for full implementation of the arms embargo.
[Note: This issue contains the text of a paper presented by the Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid to the Extraordinary Session of the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity, held in Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania, in April 1975.
It reviews and analyzes the recent developments concerning the situation in South Africa with special reference to the diplomatic moves of the South African regime in the past few months in the light of the resolutions and activities of the United Nations organs. It takes as a starting point the dedication of the OAU to the total emancipation of African countries; the principles of the Lusaka Manifesto, endorsed by the OAU and the United Nations in 1969; and the commitment of the OAU and the United Nations to co-operate in efforts to resolve the situation in South Africa in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This paper was prepared after consultation with H.E. Mr. Salim Ahmad Salim, Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and H.E. Mr. Rupiah Bwezani Banda, President of the United Nations Council for Namibia.]
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
GROWING ISOLATION OF SOUTH AFRICA
Developments at the United Nations
Developments in the specializes agencies of the United Nations
Actions by States and organizations
THE NEW "OUTWARD POLICY"
ADJUSTMENTS WITHIN APARTHEID
Bantustans, Coloured people and Indians
Sports
"Unnecessary discrimination"
Workers
"Consultations with Blacks"
Assessment of the Special Committee against Apartheid
REPRESSION AND RESISTANCE
Repression against the Black Consciousness Movement
Repression against white students and churchmen
Dual purpose of repression
Resistance by the people
BRIEF NOTE ON DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING ZIMBABWE AND NAMIBIA
CONCLUSIONS
Common position of the United Nations and the OAU
Apartheid - a matter of universal concern
"Détente" and "dialogue"
Cooperation between United Nations and OAU on further action
INTRODUCTION
During the past year, the South African regime was forced to recognize that the balance of forces has turned very much against it.
The change of government in Portugal and the progress of the peoples of Mozambique and Angola toward independence, under the leadership of their liberation movements, destroyed the "unholy alliance" of the Pretoria regime with the Ian Smith clique and Portuguese colonialists, and undermined its geopolitical calculations. Moreover, the Pretoria regime became increasingly isolated internationally - as evidenced by the success of African moves ;at the United Nations and its agencies, in pursuance of the decisions of the twenty-third ordinary session of the OAU Council of Ministers (Mogadishu, June 197*0.
Gravely concerned over the situation, the South African regime has launched a new diplomatic and propaganda offensive. It calls for a "detente" with independent African States and offers material inducements for co-operation. It tries to convince the world that it is undertaking reforms in South Africa, that it is leading Namibia to independence and that it is anxious for a settlement 'in Zimbabwe,
A close examination of the facts shows, however, that the so-called reforms in South Africa are not intended to end racial discrimination. They are designed to divert attention from the struggle of the Black people for total equality and freedom, and to gain time in order to declare the Transkei and other Bantustans independent, thereby presenting the world with what it hopes will be accepted as a fait accompli.
It refuses to release the recognized leaders in prison or to talk to the authentic representatives of the people in prison or under restrictions or in exile. It has reaffirmed that there will be no deviation from the policy of "separate development" which means forced segregation and the setting up of Bantustans with 13 per cent of the land for 70 per cent of the people, so that the millions of Africans in the rest of South Africa could be treated as aliens. Any reforms or improvements in the economic and social conditions of the Africans would be within the context of the denial of equal rights in the whole country.
As regards Namibia, it refuses to accept the United Nations responsibility for the territory, but only offers to speed up its own solution of Bantustanization.
As regards Zimbabwe, it has recognized that the Ian Smith regime is becoming a serious liability and is trying to find a solution as favourable to it as possible.
Meanwhile, it is carrying on active propaganda, efforts to divide the ranks of those opposed to racism and colonialism. In this effort, it is aided by some Western States and by the Western press.
The United Nations General Assembly, in resolution 3324 (XXIX) of 16 December 1974, has again called on the South African regime to seek a peaceful solution in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Lusaka Manifesto, and clearly laid down the prerequisites for such a solution. At the same time, in the absence of any evidence of a meaningful change in the attitude of that regime, the Assembly has called for concerted action by Governments and organizations to intensify the struggle against apartheid.
GROWING ISOLATION OF SOUTH AFRICA
With the victory of the liberation movements in Mozambique and Angola, and the advance of the struggle for liberation in Zimbabwe, the South African regime was faced with the prospect of becoming isolated in southern Africa itself and losing the buffer zones it had counted on. Freedom has come to the borders of South Africa with Mozambique and of Namibia with Angola. Swaziland is no more surrounded by racist and colonial powers. These developments greatly encouraged the Black people of South Africa who saw that the day of their own liberation was drawing near, after decades of struggle against a brutal oppressive regime.
At the same time, the South African regime has faced growing isolation in the United Nations and other international organizations. It was also becoming increasingly isolated even from States which had formerly given it comfort and confidence, as a result of their recognition of the new realities, the development of anti-racist public opinion in the world and the diplomatic efforts of the OAU and the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid.
Developments at the United Nations
For the first time, at the 29th session of the General Assembly in 1974, the Credentials Committee decided to reject the credentials of the South African delegation. On 30 September 1974 the General Assembly approved the report of the Credentials Committee by 98 votes to 23, with 14 abstentions.
On the same day, an African Group proposal calling upon the Security Council to review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa "in the light of the constant violation by South Africa of the principles of the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" - was adopted by 125 votes to one (South Africa), with nine abstentions (France, Iran, Israel, Malawi, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Spain, United Kingdom and the United States). Many of the States which found it difficult, because of procedural consideration to support the rejection of credentials, voted for this resolution which declared, in effect, that South Africa had no right to membership in the United Nations: these included the Nordic countries, most EEC countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The vote was a great victory for the African Group and its friends.
A proposal for expulsion was then "brought up in the Security Council, as decided by the Council of Ministers in Mogadishu. There was an impressive debate , with the participation of numerous African and non-African delegations. The proposal received more than the required majority and the three Western Powers were forced to exercise their veto.
What was significant was not the failure of the proposal, which was expected, but the fact that it received wide support, including the positive votes of Australia and Peru. The Western Powers were put under great pressure and felt obliged to give assurances that they would exercise their influence toward meaningful change.
Then came the President's ruling in the General Assembly on 12 November 1974 that the South African delegation cannot participate in the work of the Assembly. The ruling was upheld by 91 votes to 22, with 19 abstentions. This action was unprecedented in the United Nations.
Meanwhile, on 3 October, the General Assembly decided, without a vote, to invite the African National Congress of South Africa and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania, to participate in the debate on apartheid as observers in the Special Political Committee.
The Assembly was able to take a series of decisions on apartheid, Namibia and the colonial problems by consensus, since South Africa's only consistent ally, Portugal, had deserted her. The 29th session of the General Assembly was thus able to record a great advance in the struggle against apartheid and colonialism in that important international forum.
Equally significant was the fact that the Security Council adopted a resolution on Namibia on 17 December 1974 by a unanimous vote, thus depriving the South African regime of any comfort it may have derived from the vetoes of the Western Powers on the proposal for expulsion.
Developments in the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations
The specialized agencies - especially the UNESCO, ILO, FAO and WHO - have taken further actions, as a. result of the initiatives of the Special Committee against Apartheid or proposals of their members, not only to exclude South Africa but also to join in the campaign against apartheid and support the victims of apartheid and their liberation movements.
The UNESCO has published a source-book on South Africa for use in schools, based on material supplied by the British Anti Apartheid Movement. The ILO has encouraged action by trade unions against apartheid. The WHO has published a study on the effects of apartheid on health, which has received wide publicity. The FAO has agreed to prepare a study on the crucial problem of landownership in South Africa.
Several agencies have initiated educational and other programmes of assistance to the liberation movements, under UNDP grants.
A noteworthy feature is the involvement of agencies which had not in the past shown much activity - because of the weighted votes of Western members or the technical nature of their mandates.
In September 1974, for the first time, South Africa lost its seat on the Board of Directors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank, after Australia and New Zealand decided to "break their association with South Africa and no other members were willing to enter into similar arrangements. The defeat was described by the South African press as a "disaster" and a "humiliation".
The Universal Postal Union has decided to exclude South Africa from all conferences.
Several specialized agencies have invited the liberation movements to participate in their meetings.
Actions by States and Organizations
At the same time, there has been a trend toward more concerted action against apartheid by an increasing number of States and public organizations.
For instance, Australia and New Zealand, which had close relations with South Africa, became active opponents of apartheid since the e