10 July 1963
The delegation chose Mr. Makiwane to make the statement on its behalf as statements by Mr. Nokwe and Mr. Resha, both banned by the South African regime, could not be reported in South Africa.
The official record of the meeting was a summary record. The statement of the delegation and its answers to questions are reproduced here from the official summary record.
Mr. MAKIWANE (African National Congress) said that the African National Congress was the oldest African organization in South Africa. It had been founded in 1912, shortly after the adoption of the Constitution of 1910, and had done its utmost to gain redress for the grievances of the African people by legal, constitutional and peaceful means, including appeals to the United Kingdom Government. When those means had failed, the Congress had decided to rely on the resources and determination of the African people. The Government of South Africa had, however, replied to the mass movements of protest against racial discrimination with persecution and repression. In 1960 the African National Congress had been declared illegal but it had decided to defy the ban and to operate underground.
Now that the voice of the African inhabitants of South Africa could be heard in the United Nations, there was hope that the Organization would take radical action to assist them in the struggle to eliminate apartheid. Despite repeated condemnation of its racial policies by the United Nations, the South African Government had contemptuously ignored all demands to revert to the path of sanity. It had stubbornly intensified its policies of apartheid to such an extent that the situation had deteriorated and the country was on the brink of catastrophe and wide-spread civil strife. The white minority Government, ignoring the demands of the people and the pressure of world opinion, had established a complete fascist State where the rule of law had been replaced by the rule of force. Nevertheless, the African people still persisted in their struggle under the leadership of the African National Congress. In reply, the white population were arming themselves, with the assistance of certain Western Powers. Those Powers had tried for many years in the United Nations to shield the white racists from criticism and to sabotage all efforts to secure effective international action in South Africa. They had deliberately fostered the illusion that the South African Government could be made to abandon its policies through gentle persuasion. Yet outside the forums of the United Nations they did nothing even on those lines, while inside the Organization they opposed any suggestion to assist in removing the scourge of apartheid. Those who wished to prove themselves honest and serious friends of the victims of apartheid must be consistent in their utterances and act in conformity with their words.
The question posed by the situation in South Africa was very clear: it was whether the Western Allies, of whose support Dr. Verwoerd seemed confident would continue to support South Africa's racists or would help to destroy the existing system. The Verwoerd Government boasted that it was a bulwark of the Whites and of Western democracy and that it was a reliable ally in the fight against "the communists", by which it meant all those opposed to racialism, white domination and colonialism. That boast was intended to give moral support to the white defenders of racialism and to spur them on to commit further outrages against the African people.
Some of Dr. Verwoerd's allies asserted that their relationship with the South African Government was one of trade and business only, but the fact was that the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States were supplying the South African Government with the wherewithal to maintain its regime and to crush the liberation struggle, and they were doing so because they had a huge stake in the economy of the country. The United Kingdom had an investment of £1,000 million; other countries such as France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Switzerland controlled 20 per cent of the country's foreign investment; the United States had invested $700 million, or 17 per cent of the foreign investments. A booklet entitled "The British Stake in South Africa", published in 1962 by British manufacturers, stated that there was hardly an industry in which there was not some money subscribed by British firms, members of the public and to a smaller extent the British Government, and that of all individual countries in which they held private direct investment, South Africa had been the one from which they had drawn the biggest returns the previous year. The reason why investments in South Africa yielded high returns lay in the ruthless system of exploitation, of cheap and forced labour, to which the Africans were subjected. White domination ensured the continuance of those high returns and that was why South Africa was being supplied with arms.
One of the hypocritical arguments that the Powers which wanted to protect their investments in South Africa advanced against economic sanctions was that Africans would suffer most. The fact was that throughout the history of white domination the Africans had suffered oppression and exploitation in direct proportion to the level of economic prosperity. Economic development during and after the First World War had brought the vote to white women and loss of the vote to the few Africans remaining on the common voters' roll. With further economic advancement the three white parliamentary representatives given to the Africans had been taken away and all persons of mixed descent had been removed from the common roll. The removal of political rights had been accompanied by ruthless suppression of political activity and a reduction of economic and educational opportunities. As industry had developed and begun to flourish, a law had been introduced to exclude African women from skilled and semi-skilled work of the type they had been doing previously.
The truth of the matter was that the people who would suffer most from economic sanctions were those with an immense stake in the economy, those who were making fabulous profits from the maintenance of white supremacy. Even if economic sanctions were to entail a certain amount of suffering for the non-Whites, it would be short-lived, self-imposed and calculated to wipe out the present system once and for all.
The United Kingdom, France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany were pouring money and arms into South Africa which would be used against the African people. In addition, certain elements in the United Kingdom and France were collaborating with the South African racists to convert the country into an arsenal by building armaments factories there. Some countries, particularly the United States, tried to hide behind the excuse that the arms they supplied were purely for defence and not for use in the implementation of apartheid and the maintenance of police and internal security. The African National Congress rejected that explanation. Internal security and what the South African authorities referred to as defence were completely integrated. Indeed, the police force formed part of the defence force. The Minister for Defence had stated in March 1961 that the maintenance of peace and order internally was the main requirement of any operation against aggression.
The fact that the military build-up in the country was designed solely to maintain white domination was proved by the fact that only Whites were being armed. If it was a genuine question of defence of the country, surely the Africans would not be left unarmed.
Apart from the fact that the arms poured into South Africa seriously affected the balance of military strength on the continent of Africa and thus constituted a threat to the security of African States, they equipped South Africa to resist the United Nations resolutions on the question of South West Africa. In
July 1961, when the nine-man United Nations mission had sought to visit South West Africa, South African defence units had been used to prevent their entry.
Effective action against South Africa required a new attitude towards the Verwoerd Government and its supporters. They must be warned that there would be no compromise in the coming struggle and that there could be no room for neutrality or non-alignment. In that regard he welcomed the position adopted by the African Heads of State at the recent conference at Addis Ababa and expressed his appreciation of the action taken under the leadership of the African States at the recent International Labour Conference.
His organization believed that the following steps were vital in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa: (1) all countries, without exception, should immediately implement the resolutions adopted at the seventeenth session of the General Assembly; (2) the countries he had referred to as having involved themselves on the side of the oppressors in South Africa should withdraw forthwith from the arena of conflict in the country; (3 ) a blacklist should be drawn up of companies such as DeBeers Limited, African Explosives and Chemical Industries and others which collaborated with the South African Government in the manufacture of ammunition, and Members of the United Nations should be called upon to sever relations with such companies; (4) Japan, which had accepted the humiliating concession of having its citizens classified as white in South Africa for trading purposes, should be urged to end its trade with South Africa; (5) socialist countries which still traded with South Africa should be urged to cut off even that negligible amount of trade; (6) the United Nations should demand the immediate release of all political prisoners in South African prisons, the repeal of the banning orders under which opponents of the Verwoerd Government had been confined to certain areas or placed under house arrest, and the freeing of the scores of persons placed in concentration camps or banished to remote parts of the country.
His organization was convinced that if the South African racists were completely isolated and deprived of the spiritual and material support they now received through international trade and intercourse, white domination could be easily uprooted. It believed that wherever men of decency assembled, whether in the international councils of nations, in sports fields or in the halls of culture, the racist monster of South Africa and those who represented it should be excluded. In particular, the white racist, Government of South Africa should be expelled from the United Nations forthwith.
Finally, he wished to thank all those States of Africa, Asia and other parts of the world which had responded positively to his people's appeals for assistance and support, and all those public organizations and trade-union movements in Europe and America which had supported their cause.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the petitioner for his statement.
Mr. MALHOTRA (Nepal) expressed his delegation's appreciation of the petitioner's statement and asked whether, with the steady deterioration of the situation in South Africa and having itself been forced to go underground, the African National Congress was still committed to the use of peaceful means to achieve its goals.
Mr. NOKWE (African National Congress) said that that was the crux of the problem in South Africa. The African National Congress was convinced that the Verwoerd Government had closed all possible avenues of peaceful solution within the country itself. Peaceful methods of resistance had been made punishable by severe penalties, including the death sentence. Thus the Africans were facing a problem which many other peoples had faced: when an oppressor raised the threat of death, should they give up the fight or resist? His people had responded like all others and were prepared to fight for their freedom by whatever means were necessary. If they were forced to employ violence, they would do so.
Mr. QUAO (Ghana) expressed his delegation's full sympathy with the petitioners and their cause.
He asked, firstly, whether civil strife would not result in a massacre of the Africans in view of their lack of arms and, secondly, whether there was any validity in the argument that a trade boycott would do the Africans in South Africa more harm than good.
Mr. MAKIWANE (African National Congress) said that his people were making preparations for the eventuality of civil strife. His was not the first oppressed nation to face a strong and well-armed enemy. The struggle of the Algerian people, too, had been unequal, but its outcome was well known. His people were prepared to learn all possible lessons from the Algerian people and those who had waged similar struggles.
His own people had been the first to call for an economic boycott and they had done so fully prepared to accept the consequences of such action. They felt that economic measures against South Africa were to the ultimate benefit of the African people and their cause.
Mr. DOUMBOUYA (Guinea) thanked the petitioners. He asked them against whom the African nationalists thought their fight was primarily directed, the South African racists or the outside suppliers of military aid. He would also like to know whether the petitioners thought that a complete embargo on arms could lead to a settlement of the problem.
Mr. NOKWE (African National Congress) said that those responsible for the present situation in South Africa were not only the local supporters of Dr. Verwoerd but all the Powers that traded with South Africa, invested in the country and gave Dr. Verwoerd the funds with which to build up a huge military apparatus. No distinction between the internal and outside factors could be made; consequently his organization fought both Verwoerd and the great investors who stood behind him.
The African National Congress felt that a complete embargo on military supplies would be an effective step, but one step only. It was equally necessary, for instance, that the supply of finance which could be used to build up a large domestic armaments industry should be cut off.
Mr. Volio (Costa Rica) asked whether the African National Congress delegation vas in possession of any additional information on the strengthening of South Africa's military forces and on arms imports by that country.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that, if the petitioners were unable to reply to the question immediately, they might submit to the Secretariat the documentation available to them concerning every aspect of the situation in South Africa, including the armed forces.
Mr. NOKWE (African National Congress) sought the Committee's permission to follow the procedure suggested by the Chairman. His colleagues and himself had prepared a document on the military situation in South Africa but before they could say whether or not it contained any new detail, they would have to compare it with the documentation already available to the Committee.
Mr. Volio (Costa Rica) said that that procedure would be satisfactory from his delegation's point of view.
He asked the petitioners whether they thought that the end of apartheid might lead to the establishment of a multi-racial society in South Africa.
Mr. NOKWE (African National Congress) said that his organization had always held that racialism of whatever kind was an abomination and should be wiped off the face of the earth, and that people of all races could live happily side by side. The African National Congress and African people in South Africa were ready to receive all men who respected human dignity and were prepared to eradicate racialism from their minds. They hoped that South Africa would remain a country for people of various races.
Mr. VOLIO (Costa Rica) asked the petitioners how much importance they attached to the fight of some white groups against apartheid and what the results of that fight might be. He recalled in that connexion that Sir Villiers de Graaf had been reported by the Star of 18 May 1963 as having said that the South African Government's policy of suppressing certain organizations would have no positive result and might lead to an even more difficult situation.
Mr. RESHA (African National Congress) said that as South Africa was a multi-racial country dominated by one group, namely the Whites, it was important to know what role the latter were playing in the Africans' struggle for freedom. The Whites in South Africa could be divided into three categories. The first, an overwhelming majority, supported the present Government's policies. The second group consisted of people who held humanitarian and liberal views and were thus opposed to the regime's policies but were not prepared to do anything about it, firstly because they benefited from the present situation and secondly because they were not anxious to seethe country ruled by the Africans. Thirdly, there was a tiny minority of Whites who were dedicated to the struggle of the African people and were honestly determined to fight for the policies desired by the Africans. That minority of Whites was being persecuted; several of them had been gaoled and others had been placed under house arrest. It was difficult to assess the importance of white participation in the African people's struggle, but as that struggle was one of right against wrong, the role of the white people, particularly of the South African Whites, was important. South Africa's future would be determined by the number of Whites who would stand shoulder to shoulder with the African people and by the extent of their participation. The future would provide the answer to that question.
Mr. HACENE (Algeria) welcomed the African National Congress delegation and thanked them for their reference to the Algerian people's struggle. They could rest assured that until South Africa was liberated the Algerian delegation in the United Nations would regard itself as representing also the interests of the people of South Africa. The Algerian people were convinced that the day would come when the genuine representatives of the people of South Africa would sit in the United Nations together with the representatives of all the other free peoples.
Mr. IBE (Nigeria) thanked the petitioners for their statement. His delegation was convinced that after the Addis Ababa Conference the question of South Africa had entered a new phase.
With reference to South Africa's military preparations, it had been suggested by certain Powers which were heavily committed in South Africa that some of the weapons they were selling to that country were supplied within the concept of the defence of the so-called free world. He asked the petitioners whether they could describe the role played by Mr. Verwoerd in the fight against Hitler in the Second World War.
Mr. NOKWE (African National Congress) said that during the Second World War Mr. Verwoerd had been editor of the Transvaaler, a newspaper engaged in anti-war and pro-Hitler propaganda. At no time since the war had Mr. Verwoerd recanted or indicated that he had changed his mind concerning Nazism. Similarly, Mr. Vorster, the author of the Sabotage Act, had been an active saboteur against the war effort against Hitler. It was alarming to see that those who had fought and smashed Hitler now collaborated with saboteurs and presented them as the bulwark of the free world.
Mr. IBE (Nigeria) observed that it was obvious from Mr. Nokwe's reply that those for whom the Africans had suffered and died in the Second World War were now supplying arms to their erstwhile enemies so that the latter could massacre those who had been their friends in their hour of need. He asked the petitioners how that attitude towards Africans was explained by the great Powers.
Mr. NOKWE (African National Congress) said that the claim by those great Powers that they were helping Mr. Verwoerd's Government so that the latter could defend itself against outside aggression was blatantly untrue. The fact was that those Powers had a stake in white domination and in the exploitation of the African people which yielded high profits for those with investments in the country. It was the callousness which enabled them to derive profits from the exploitation of the African people that bred the callousness behind their support for Verwoerd's regime.
Mr. ARTEH (Somalia) associated his delegation with the expressions of welcome to the African National Congress delegation. He had been heartened to hear the replies to the questions from the representatives of Nepal and Ghana which indicated that there had been a change in the policy of the African National Congress owing to the new circumstances. With the support pledged by the Heads of the African States and with the assistance promised by the civilized world, the African people of South Africa were bound to succeed and he was looking forward to the day when he could congratulate them on their honourable achievements.
Mr. AUGUSTE (Haiti) said that his country, the first free Negro State in the world, would like to assure the African people of its whole-hearted support. He hoped that the day would soon come when the accursed policy of apartheid would be nothing but a bad dream. He noted that in the event of an armed conflict the Africans in South Africa would be at a serious disadvantage. He therefore appealed to the Committee to take effective and early action so as to ensure that the African people in South Africa would not have to rely exclusively on the force of arms.
Mr. PRANDLER (Hungary) thanked the African National Congress delegation for appearing before the Committee and for their statements. Hungary fully supported the African people in their just cause and would do everything in its power to help them.
Mr. RAMANI (Federation of Malaya) said that the African National Congress delegation should be heartened by the fact that the South African Government's apartheid policies had stirred the conscience of mankind. Apartheid had been condemned by virtually every country in the world. At Addis Ababa the African Heads of State had pledged full support to the South Africans in their struggle, and there was evidence that support for their cause was also forthcoming from the Whites in the Republic.
He wondered whether there was not an element of contradiction between the petitioners' request that the Committee should suggest adequate remedies for the solution of the problem of apartheid and their references to being prepared to meet armed repression with armed revolution. Perhaps it might be better for the African people to stress that they were unarmed and therefore had to rely on the help of the world community.
Mr. RESHA (African National Congress) recalled that Gandhism had been born in South Africa and that the African National Congress, the oldest organization in Africa, had always practised peaceful resistance. He and his colleagues had come before the Committee to explain the situation in South Africa and to ask for assistance in the manner they had indicated. They were not guilty of any contradiction. The Committee was aware that the South African Government was spending £100,000,000 on armaments. The Africans could not meet guns with peaceful slogans, non-violence and peaceful resistance. While it was true that they wanted help, they were also prepared to do everything in their power to free themselves.
Although they were defenceless for the time being, they were prepared to meet force with force. The people of South Africa were like men and women in other countries who had fought for their freedom. They were conscious that Africa, Asia and the entire world stood behind them and they hoped that the Federation of Malaya, too, would give them assistance.
Mr. NANAGAS (Philippines) expressed admiration for the noble spirit of self-sacrifice shown by the African people of South Africa. He asked whether they were planning non-violent measures such as organized nation-wide economic movements or sabotage and slow-downs which would undermine South Africa's economy and make the monster of apartheid less menacing.
Mr. MAKIWANE (African National Congress) said that the Congress had always attached considerable importance to economic pressures. In the past few years there had been seven nation-wide political strikes. The authorities had, however, enacted legislation which made it illegal for African workers to strike. African trade unions were not recognized and victimization had been used to force many leaders to resign. The strike weapon had been blunted by the Government's legislation, which included the death penalty for strikers. A campaign of sabotage had been initiated on 16 December 1961 and the authorities had reacted by enacting legislation under which 5,000 persons were in gaol.
The CHAIRMAN thanked the members of the African National Congress delegation for their statements and replies to questions.