DEFENCE AND AID FUND AND THE UNITED NATIONS

In July or August 1963, when I was preparing the first annual report of the United Nations Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa (later renamed Special Committee against Apartheid), I happened to see a report in the British press that Canon Collins had said that the needs for assistance had tremendously increased because of the massive repression in South Africa and that the Defence and Aid Fund was facing difficulty in raising adequate funds.

Since early that year, thousands of people had been arrested for suspected involvement in Poqo. Hundreds of ANC activists had been detained under the “90-day law” of May 1963, and several leaders of the ANC were arrested at Rivonia on July 11th.

We had a meeting of the officers of the Special Committee in August 1963 to consult on the recommendations to be made in the annual report to the General Assembly and the Security Council. The officers were:

Ambassador Diallo Telli of Guinea, Chairman
Ambassador Fernando Volio Jimenez of Costa Rica, Vice-Chairman
Ambassador M.P. Koirala of Nepal, Rapporteur (He was based in Washington; Ram Malhotra, Counsellor of the Nepal Mission to the UN, attended the meetings on his behalf.)

I suggested that the Committee might perhaps recommend an appeal for contributions by governments and organisations for assistance to the political prisoners and their families. I did not expect them to agree. There was no precedent for such assistance in the UN. Assistance to people in a Member State, especially those alleged to be involved in violence, was likely to be considered contrary to international law.

But Diallo Telli cleverly turned to the Vice-Chairman for his opinion. Volio Jimenez said that assistance can be recommended if it was described as "humanitarian." The Rapporteur agreed with him. And so there was unanimous agreement to my surprise.

At the next meeting, they approved the draft I prepared, which was as follows:

"451. The Special Committee, therefore, attaches the utmost importance to the release of political prisoners, withdrawal of orders of banishment and other restraints against political leaders and the abolition of repressive legislation. Moreover, it takes note of the serious and special hardship faced by the families of persons persecuted only because of their opposition to the policies of apartheid and considers that the international community, for humanitarian reasons, should provide them with relief and other assistance." (This was in the "conclusions" to the Report).

"513. Fifth, in view of the persecution of thousands of South African nationals for their opposition to the policies of apartheid and the serious hardship faced by their families, the Special Committee considers that the international community, for humanitarian reasons, should provide them with relief and other assistance. It recommends that the Secretary-General should be requested, in consultation with the Special Committee, to find ways and means to provide such relief and assistance through appropriate international agencies." (This was in the "recommendations").

This set an important precedent in the United Nations, which was later used on other issues also.

I had heard of the Defence and Aid Fund, but was not fully familiar with its activities. (In fact, I heard of Canon Collins more in connection with CND than in connection with D & A. My ignorance was reflected in the drafting. For instance, it referred to assistance to families and not to legal defence. It referred to assistance through "international agencies," while Defence and Aid Fund was a British national organisation.

I did not expect any money to flow into D & A. My hope was to make assistance to the political prisoners more "respectable" so that the task of Canon Collins in raising funds would become easier.

First UN resolution on assistance, 1963

In October 1963, Oliver Tambo came to New York and on October 11th, we managed to get a resolution on the Rivonia Trial and the release of prisoners by an overwhelming majority - 106 votes to one (South Africa).

I felt that we may not be able to get a substantive resolution at the end of the Assembly session as apartheid was then before the Security Council, and was looking for innocuous-looking resolutions which would not be opposed on procedural grounds.

I spoke to Oliver several times in the next few weeks. He was against the proposal for humanitarian assistance, as he felt that would divert attention from political action, especially sanctions.

Finally, late in November Diallo Telli spoke to him and he agreed to the proposal, and one of the two resolutions tabled by the Non-aligned Group dealt with assistance.

I kept the Secretary-General, U Thant, informed. When the resolution was taken up on December 16th, he said:

"I am prepared to do everything in my power to assist in a humanitarian measure of this kind. In this connexion, I would understand the reference to 'appropriate international agencies` as follows. If the families have left South Africa they might be considered refugees and I would plan to take up the matter with the High Commissioner for Refugees. With respect to the families within South Africa I would consult with the International Red Cross to determine what assistance might be rendered under its auspices. I would further understand that it is not envisaged that I should provide direct relief, since no funds have been made available for that purpose..."

The resolution - 1978 B (XVIII) - was adopted on the same day by 99 votes to 2 (Portugal and South Africa).

The Secretary-General then wrote to UNHCR and ICRC.

The High Commissioner for Refugees replied that he would stimulate assistance to refugees if requested by a host government, and that he would take action for legal protection if a problem should arise.

The International Committee of the Red Cross replied that it had contacted the National Red Cross Society of South Africa [an apartheid body]which indicated that it would provide assistance, in close contact with competent authorities, if there is a need for assistance. Any detainee`s family could, in fact, apply to the competent authorities. The South African Government had indicated that it cannot agree to any outside interference in this regard.

So, really nothing came out of these letters.

Meanwhile, I had also been appointed secretary of the UN Group of Experts on South Africa, with Mrs. Alva Myrdal as Chairman and Sir Hugh Foot (later Lord Caradon) as Rapporteur. It began its work in January 1964.I was to visit London in February to assist the Group with its consultations.

Oliver wrote to me that people in London were very excited about the resolution on humanitarian assistance and that I should meet them. When I arrived in London, he arranged a party for me at his residence where I met several young anti-apartheid volunteers. He asked Robert Resha to take me to various people - including Mrs. Clara Urquhart of Amnesty, Canon L. John Collins and Dr. Yusuf Dadoo. (Clara, I heard, had been active in efforts to get the Nobel Peace Prize for Chief Lutuli.)

Robbie took me to Canon Collins at 2 Amen Court. I told John that I felt honoured to meet him not only because of his work for South Africa but because I admired his work in CND etc. He briefed me about the work of the Defence and Aid Fund. (See Appendix I).

I then went to Geneva where I met the High Commissioner for Refugees, a Swiss national. He was very conservative. (South Africa was a contributor to his Office). The Deputy High Commissioner, Prince Sadruddin Khan, was friendly and more liberal.

The head of the ICRC had little sympathy for the political prisoners.

It was clear that little assistance would flow through UNHCR or ICRC. I had to think of other means to promote assistance.

Peter Benenson, then Director of Amnesty International, was in Geneva and came to see me. He told me that Amnesty International would be best placed to act as a channel for assistance. It was an international organisation which enjoyed consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

I asked him about Defence and Aid. He said he had very good relations with D & A and that Amnesty could arrange to channel funds to D & A. I made no commitment. (See Appendix II).

I also met Professor Z. K. Matthews, then director for Inter-Church Aid, at the World Council of Churches. He had toured Africa and prepared a programme of assistance - including assistance to victims of apartheid in South Africa. The WCC began to provide assistance in South Africa, especially to families of political prisoners.

I met Sean MacBride, secretary-general of the International Commission of Jurists, and Chairman of Amnesty International, at the ICJ office in Geneva with some hesitation as I had the mistaken impression, from earlier years, that ICJ was a Western cold war organisation. But when I said that the struggle in South Africa was like that in Ireland, his eyes lighted up and he told me how he was concerned and could help. He told me that his father was respected in South Africa - as a volunteer during the Anglo-Boer War - and that he has been able to maintain communication with the South African Government.

Since then, Sean MacBride became a great friend of mine.

Appeal by the Special Committee

After these consultations, I felt that the Special Committee itself should send an appeal to all States, giving particulars on all organisations which were assisting the victims of apartheid.

I kept ANC and Canon Collins informed about my consultations. Robert Resha emphasised to me that Defence and Aid Fund was the most dependable and very important to the liberation movement - and that we should not build up rivals. (This was stressed later by Joe Matthews also). Canon Collins told me that he would not like Amnesty as a channel for funds to D & A. He was afraid that D&A may not receive funds generated by the UN appeal as it was a national body while Amnesty and WCC were international bodies with consultative status at UN: he decided to make D & A international. The International Defence and Aid Fund was formed in 1965 by groups in several Western countries.

Meanwhile, in February 1964, when I was in London with the Group of Experts, the Defence and Aid Fund held a public fund-raising meeting - in Westminster Central Hall. Marlon Brando spoke there. (Apparently Marlon Brando happened to be in London: Abdul Minty contacted him at the hotel and he agreed to attend the meeting and speak.). Jooste de Blanc, then Archbishop in Cape Town and head of the Defence and Aid Committee there, also spoke.

The meeting was an experience for me, as I had never attended a public meeting in London. There were several "Empire loyalists" who were heckling the speakers and shouting "What about Ghana?" Canon Collins was patient for a long time, and finally asked them to leave the hall and offered to refund the admission fee. (In the United States or India, they would have been thrown out).

Sir Hugh Foot, Rapporteur of the Group of Experts, also dropped in at the meeting. He was at that time in a crusading spirit against apartheid. The next day, he told Mrs. Myrdal about the meeting.

The Group of Experts was not directly concerned with D & A work. It proposed a UN scholarship programme for South Africans: Mrs. Myrdal was keen on that and had discussed it with Prof. Z. K. Matthews, then with the World Council of Churches, and others. But she was to help later in Sweden.

After the Rivonia trial was over, and after consultations with Robert Resha and with colleagues at the UN, I worked on an appeal for assistance directly from the Special Committee, suggesting bodies which may be supported, and the new Chairman of the Committee, Ambassador Marof Achkar of Guniea agreed. I obtained information from those then engaged in assistance:

Amnesty International
Defence and Aid Fund
Joint Committee on the High Commission Territories (Mrs. Margaret Legum), concerned only with refugees
World Council of Churches (We already knew from Prof. Z. K. Matthews that the WCC had sent funds for humanitarian aid to South Africa.)

I drafted the appeal and arranged a meeting between the officers of the Special Committee and the Secretary-General, U Thant, to get his support. The appeal was sent by the Special Committee to all Member States through the Secretary-General in October or November 1964. The draft was so prepared as to favour the Defence and Aid Fund by stressing that it was appreciated by Chief Lutuli and others.¹

I had not the slightest idea as to the likelihood of contributions. (UN Funds were not doing well). But for the prestige of the Special Committee, we had to get some response: I sent a personal appeal in advance to India for a modest first contribution and promised to publicise it.

Response to the appeal

I was happy that almost immediately after the appeal went out, India announced, on November 12, 1964, a contribution of $ 5,000 to Defence and Aid Fund. (Swaran Singh was then Foreign Minister.)

Then I wrote a personal letter to Mrs. Myrdal in Stockholm. I told her that the scholarship programme would need some more time to start and suggested that Sweden might consider a contribution to Defence and Aid Fund.

I was most gratified that on January 29, 1965, Sweden announced a contribution of $ 200,000 - half to Defence and Aid Fund and half to World Council of Churches.( I heard much later that Canon Collins had also been in touch with Sweden. I suppose the contribution was due to the efforts of both of us.)

Several other substantial contributions followed. Sweden and other countries were at the time opposed to sanctions which were being pressed by African States; contributions to the Trust Fund were an easier option, a gesture to show their concern in response to UN appeals and public opinion at home.

A list of contributions received in response to the Special Committee`s appeal is attached (Annex I). It is significant that, partly due to our lobbying at UN, almost all contributions were to the Defence and Aid Fund.

PAC complaints

In April 1965, A. B. Ngcobo, Treasurer-General of PAC, appeared before the Special Committee. He complained – perhaps at a private meeting with Achkar Marof and myself - that Defence and Aid Fund was not helping PAC people. Marof and I agreed that I would speak to Canon Collins as I was soon leaving for London.

(Earlier Nana Mahomo had told me that when the South African United Front was in existence, ANC was privately getting funds from Canon Collins. He said that was one of the reasons for the break-up of the United Front. Dr. Dadoo told me that was a lie, and that Nana was getting money from ICFTU and other anti-Communist sources).

In London I met Oliver Tambo who said that PAC had no grounds for complaint and that PAC people were getting more assistance than ANC people. He was firm that D & A should help all those persecuted by the regime, irrespective of political affiliations.

(At that time, those who were administering assistance in Cape Town were white liberals and I believe more PAC families got welfare assistance. But legal defence was decided from London, and more was spent for ANC, since ANC trials were more prominent.

(But the funds were far smaller than were to be spent in later years, as many lawyers defended without fees. Most of the money for legal defence was sent from London through personal contacts, rather than the local Defence and Aid Committee. I have a note that up to April 13, 1964, Defence and Aid Fund sent only 9,000 pounds for legal defence in the Rivonia trial).

I spoke to Canon Collins in London and he denied partiality. I asked him if the PAC had approached him for assistance to the Sobukwe family: I knew they had approached other sources. He was not. Then I suggested that he should call the PAC representative in London, Matthew Nkoana, before Ngcobo got to London, and express displeasure that PAC had not informed him about the needs of the Sobukwe family. There was no more complaint from PAC about D&A for several years.

Canon Collins on role of Defence and Aid Fund

Canon Collins remembered that our 1963 resolution referred to "international" bodies, though I had forgotten about it. He arranged a conference in London in the first half of 1965 and formed the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, to make sure that it would be preferred for grants. (Committees in Britain, Sweden, Denmark and Australia were founding members). He then wanted to visit New York and meet people at the UN, and I arranged a hearing for him before the Special Committee on June 7, 1965.²

He showed me the speech he intended to make. It was a radical political statement. I asked him if he really wanted to say that, and he said he did. I could not press my own views, because of my respect for him, although I was concerned that the South African Government might use that as an excuse for action against the Fund. (The text of his statement is in the pamphlet by IDAF on his speeches at UN).

He said there was little likelihood in South Africa of effecting the necessary political changes by normal, democratic, internal political processes. "In such a situation it seems probable that only external pressure and the threat or execution of internal revolution will bring about the desired result."

"It might appear... that the Defence and Aid Fund (and other such organisations) can be no more than a palliative, valuable and, indeed, essential as such, but unable to play any decisive part in bringing about what the civilised world looks for, namely, a peaceful but revolutionary change of policy in South Africa.

"I believe it would be wrong to suppose that the work done by the Defence and Aid Fund is no more than a palliative. I think that, as well as bringing aid to the persecuted victims of unjust legislation and oppressive and arbitrary procedures, and relief to their families and dependants... the Defence and Aid Fund has played, and continues to play, a vital role in bringing about those political changes so desired by all the people of goodwill. And of much importance, in my opinion, is the fact that the contribution of Defence and Aid Fund in this respect fosters the morale of the internal resistance... it is the resistance movement inside South Africa, the front line of the struggle for freedom, which alone can give to South Africa the ability to become a non-racial society based upon a free and democratic way of life. I am encouraged in this opinion by the constant emphasis placed by the non-white South African political organisations upon the importance of the Defence and Aid Fund in their struggle...

"Those who wish to continue the struggle (in South Africa) have to go underground. But what man or woman can happily undertake such dangerous work if he or she knows that, by doing so, the well-being of the children and other dependents is at stake?"

We had been emphasising that assistance to prisoners and their families was humanitarian.

Canon Collins did not at all like the description of Defence and Aid, which had now become his life's mission, as purely humanitarian and, therefore, secondary.

I told him that I personally attached great political importance to Defence and Aid. If the morale of any political prisoners broke down because their families were starving, that would undermine the whole movement. But I had two reasons for underplaying its political importance in public statements. First, we should make it difficult for the South African Government to prevent assistance. Second, more important, we needed to focus in the United Nations on sanctions, and condemn countries which collaborate with South Africa, and we should not let any government to claim that it is doing the right thing by merely giving some money to Defence and Aid.

We continued our approach in the UN, while praising Defence and Aid Fund. We stressed the great importance, in terms of race relations, of assistance to the oppressed black people of South Africa by people all over the world, including Western countries.

When the UN Trust Fund was established at the beginning of 1966, the first statement of the Chairman of its Committee of Trustees, Ambassador Sverker Astrom of Sweden, was:

"This operation is not intended to resolve the political and social problems with which other United Nations organs are concerned. Its purpose is to meet a limited, albeit urgent and clear, need of a humanitarian character. If it does, in addition, help people in South Africa to view their problems with less bitterness, it will be doubly worthwhile."

Defence and Aid banned

The statement of Canon Collins before the Special Committee provoked an angry reaction in South Africa. On June 10, 1965, three days after the statement, Netherlands announced a contribution of 100,000 Dutch guilders ($27,760) to Defence and Aid Fund. There were many protests and demonstrations by Netherlanders in South Africa. (The contribution was actually delayed for a year and was, I believe, given to UN Trust Fund for South Africa).

The South African Government felt it had to take action. In July 1965 I heard rumours that Defence and Aid Fund would be banned. The South African Defence and Aid Fund was actually banned on March 18, 1966 by Proclamation R-77. (We can only speculate how long the ban on D & A would have been delayed if Canon Collins had been cautious in his speech). By then, IDAF had affiliates in Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, USA (Africa Fund of the American Committee on Africa) and Australia. The South African committees were not formally affiliated to IDAF.

Setting up a UN Trust Fund

From July 1965, I was thinking of means to continue and increase assistance.

One problem was that many governments, unlike the Nordic governments, do not normally contribute to non-governmental bodies. Ambassador Volio Jimenez of Costa Rica, Vice-Chairman of the Special Committee, suggested to me that if we could set up a UN Trust Fund, it would be easier for many countries to contribute.

I had initially some hesitations. Several people were expressing concern that we might be allowing Western governments to give some "guilt money" as charity and claim that they were doing enough against apartheid. My own attitude was not to bother about the source of funds: they would be "purified" by the UN, and go for right purposes. The liberation movement had no obligation to thank the donors and could continue to criticise the allies of apartheid. But I could not ignore the attitudes of others.

I became convinced after some time that a UN Trust Fund was desirable. The needs were great and we should try to get more contributions.

I was aware that the attacks of the Special Committee were worrying Western Governments and Japan, and that they might contribute to the Trust Fund for their public relations.

I saw the situation as follows. The liberation movement has many needs: scholarships and refugee relief, assistance to prisoners and their families, funds for publicity and other non-military purposes, and arms. Contributions for each of those needs depend on the level of commitment of donors, but all the needs had to be covered. Governments might be persuaded to move from one level of assistance to another. (I think that proved correct, for instance, in the case of Nordic countries which started with refugee relief and scholarships, and proceeded to support political prisoners and then the liberation movement).

Equally important, I felt that we should have a mechanism for ensuring continuance of assistance if Defence and Aid Fund was banned.

I had no idea of the procedures to set up a UN Trust Fund. I approached C. V. Narasimhan, Chef de Cabinet to the Secretary-General, who was helpful. He convened a meeting with the Controller, Bruce Turner, and the Legal Counsel, Constantin Stavropoulos, and we worked out the procedures. [The UN was charging 14 percent for administrative costs of trust funds; these were waived in the case of the Trust Fund for South Africa].

Canon Collins was concerned that the Trust Fund might divert funds from D&A. On my next visit to London, Phyllis Altman, secretary of IDAF, came to see me at the hotel and expressed her apprehensions. I explained to her that our purpose was not to divert funds, but to get additional contributions and avoid any stoppage of assistance. She said that the Defence and Aid Fund would continue as long as possible. I told her that worried me (as it meant that D & A may cease and might have prevented any others from trying to do the job). I would have liked to hear that Defence and Aid Fund would continue assistance, whatever the obstacles, since the situation was similar to that in Nazi Germany, and would never stop. I suppose we misunderstood each other. Later Canon Collins and I discussed the matter and I was reassured.

We went ahead with setting up the UN Trust Fund for South Africa.

The Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, Achkar Marof, was, at first, against a separate resolution of the General Assembly to set up the Trust Fund. He felt that the Western Powers would vote for it, while opposing the main resolution on sanctions etc., and claim that they were against apartheid. But I was able to convince him that a separate resolution with widest support was desirable to get results in terms of contributions.

We arranged for Nigeria to propose the resolution for the establishment of the Fund in the General Assembly, as Nigeria (unlike Guinea) was then considered a moderate country and for Sweden to second the proposal.³ A five-member Committee of Trustees, with five Permanent Representatives to UN, was set up so that there would be no administrative costs. No member from Eastern Europe was included.

I had at that time decided to leave my post as secretary of the Special Committee, as my work as Chief of Section for African Questions had greatly increased. (I was working at least 10 hours a day, seven days a week. I wanted to get some time to write a book which Ronald Segal had requested for the Penguin Africa series). But I agreed to become the secretary of the Committee of Trustees of the Trust Fund so that Canon Collins would be reassured. When the Committee first met in February 1966, we arranged that Sweden - which was not a "candidate" - would be the Chairman and Nigeria Vice-Chairman so that we could get contributions from Western countries and make it difficult for South Africa to charge that the Fund was used for support to the liberation struggle.

Ambassador Sverker C. Astrom, the first Chairman, was excellent and deserves great credit for his work on South Africa, and we worked together intimately.

Overcoming the ban: help by Sweden

But hardly a month went by, and the Committee of Trustees of the Trust Fund had hardly begun work, before the South African Defence and Aid Fund was banned, and we faced an immediate problem. No member of the Committee felt at the time that we could make a grant to a banned organisation.

Pakistan had sent the Trust Fund a contribution of $ 5,000, before the ban, with a desire that it should go to D & A, and that was sent D & A.

In April, Sverker Astrom went to London, on his way to Stockholm, to speak to Canon Collins. I was to go to Sweden a few days later to attend a Seminar on southern African refugees in Uppsala, and we agreed to meet in Stockholm.

Soon after I arrived in Stockholm, Amb. Astrom came with Mr. Palmlund to see me at Hotel Gillet and we had a long session at the bar. Astrom said: "I had a very interesting meeting with Canon Collins. There he was at Amen Court, near St. Paul`s Cathedral where the bombs had fallen during the War. It was a great experience for me. But, Mr. Reddy, what can we do?"

After some discussion, I asked: "Is there any way that Sweden can make a secret contribution of $ 25,000 to D & A to give us time to sort out the problem?" Naturally, he could not give an answer.

Next morning, Mrs. Ethel Ringborg, who was in charge of aid in the Foreign Ministry, took me to the Foreign Ministry, and then to the Cabinet Office. There was then absolutely no "security" in Sweden. (The Prime Minister often used to go to his office by tram to show that he is of the people). We walked to the office of Mrs. Lindstrom, Minister in charge of aid. There were two buttons on the door, one for the Minister and one for the Secretary. We pressed the button for the Minister and walked in.

Mrs. Lindstrom asked me about the Trust Fund and D & A. I said I wondered if a confidential grant of $ 25,000 could be made to D & A. She said, "Yes, we will." That was one of the many crucial times when Sweden came to the rescue, and very generously.

Either on the way back from Sweden or shortly after, I went to London and spoke to Canon Collins. He told me of various plans which were being discussed to circumvent the ban. (Neville Rubin had worked out a plan which Canon Collins seemed to like.) We had a meeting of a few people at Russell Hotel.

My own feeling was that South Africa did not and could not ban IDAF (which was an organisation based in London) and that it should not act as a banned organisation. Only the South African D & A was banned. I was told that people can be charged in South Africa for serving the purposes of a banned organisation. But I did not think that the South African Government can take action if money orders were sent to the families of prisoners. And another body can be set up, under the secret control of Canon Collins, for legal defence.

But eventually, Canon Collins decided on carrying on all IDAF operations in secret. He stopped organising public meetings for fund-raising on the ground that IDAF cannot answer questions about its operations. We argued about this many times, but about that later.

He did set up a Freedom from Fear International Charitable Foundation, with Lord Campbell as Chairman, for legal assistance. That was, however, even more secretive than IDAF on the advice of a lawyer whom Canon Collins used to call "Mr. X".

Resuming grants to Defence and Aid

The Committee of Trustees was faced with a very serious problem.

We could, and did, encourage governments to make direct grants to IDAF. But how can the UN Trust Fund make secret grants to a banned organisation? We were bound by UN Financial Regulations, and the requirement for inspection of accounts by the Controller and the Board of Auditors.

If a grant to IDAF was announced, there may be questions and problems with some Member States. The South African Government may be provoked to take further action against IDAF. If no grant was given, that would send out a wrong message.

We needed time to consult and find solutions.

I tried to do what I could to help. Professor Matthews came to New York soon after the ban and Astrom invited him to lunch with members of the Committee of Trustees. I requested Prof. Matthews to stress the need for support to IDAF: I was sure he would do that, as he was from ANC and Joe Matthews had told me a few weeks earlier that ANC strongly supported IDAF. But he did not say a word about IDAF at the lunch.

Canon Collins and Robert Resha came to New York from a UN Seminar on apartheid in Brasilia - I believe in August 1966 - and Astrom gave a lunch for consultation about IDAF. Resha, of course, was strongly supportive of IDAF.

The Committee of Trustees subsequently decided that it would not announce the names of bodies to whom grants were given, nor report them to the General Assembly; only the numbers and amounts of grants and the purposes would be published. This was an extraordinary and unprecedented decision. The Committee's files had to be made confidential, accessible only to two or three people (including myself). Luckily, the members of the General Assembly that year did not question the decision of the Committee.

In the interim, the Committee gave two grants ($ 400 and $5,000) to Amnesty International, for assistance to families to visit political prisoners on Robben Island and for the legal defence of Michael Dingake. I believe he was a Communist and was organising transit for freedom fighters going out through Botswana.

On November 29, 1966, it gave a grant of $ 50,000 to Freedom from Fear International Charitable Foundation.

It gave another $ 5,000 on the same day to the Southern Africa Education Fund of Christian Action.

(This Fund was also set up by Canon Collins on my suggestion. I felt that education of children of prisoners would appeal to donors. D & A sent us a long paper on needs for education of children - letter of August 20, 1965, from Ian Henderson of D & A, document A/AC.115/L.152 - and I publicised it. The Education Fund was headed by Bishop Ambrose Reeves).

Although Canon Collins and I had become good friends, and I was doing all I could ( which probably no official would have done, and at some risk) to help D & A, he was suspicious and jealous of all other groups. He would raise alarms every now and then and get ANC leaders or Per Westberg of Sweden etc., to intervene. The ANC was always loyal to him and took his alarms seriously.

In December 1966, Oliver wrote a letter to Ambassador Astrom conveying great concern that the Trust Fund was "excluding" IDAF. I wrote a long letter to Oliver explaining the situation and received a telegram from him that he was very much gratified and relieved. (Annex II).

Such incidents happened several times.

The first grant from the Trust Fund to IDAF, after the ban, was made on March 28, 1967, at $ 28,000. By that time we were able to clear practical problems and were reassured that the secrecy of grants was not questioned in the General Assembly. Two further grants were made to IDAF later in 1967 - $ 25,000 and $ 84,000.

The total of grants from the Trust Fund in 1967 was $ 173,000: all but $ 26,000 of this was given to the funds controlled Canon Collins.

(Amb. Joe Iyalla of Nigeria - Vice-Chairman of the Committee of Trustees -was concerned about the letter from Oliver Tambo. I believe Robert Resha spoke to him about the importance of D & A. He then strongly supported the grant to D & A. That helped Amb. Astrom.)

After that, I assured Canon Collins that his funds would get more than half of the Trust Fund money, in addition to almost all direct contributions from governments. In fact, they received much more. (But I cannot say he was ever satisfied, or could be).

The Trust Fund supported the Freedom from Fear International Charitable Foundation until 1976. Grants to it were then stopped as it served no useful purpose when grants could be made to IDAF, and "Mr. X" was reporting even less than IDAF.

The Southern Africa Education Fund was given two grants ($15,000). It withered away.

Canon Collins told me once that he started another fund for welfare work, as another channel for Trust Fund money. I told him that was quite unnecessary and nothing was done.

World Campaign for the Release of South African Political Prisoners

Dennis Brutus arrived in London in mid-1966. Canon Collins then set up a World Campaign for the Release of South African Political Prisoners in the IDAF, with Dennis as Director.

A World Campaign, with the same title, had been set up by the Anti-Apartheid Movement in 1963 and was led by Jeremy Thorpe, a leader of the Liberal Party. Ruth First and Sonia Bunting were active in it. It did excellent work on the Rivonia Trial and sent us material to help the campaign by the Special Committee.

Canon Collins felt that since IDAF had spent a lot of money on Dennis, it should make use of his valuable testimony on prison conditions. (IDAF had paid fares to bring Dennis and Wilfred, his brother, and their families to London. Dennis, I believe, had 11 children). AAM did not object because of their regard for Canon Collins.

Dennis and IDAF were quite effective in focussing attention on the problem of ill-treatment of political prisoners in South Africa.

We had already taken up the matter in the Special Committee against Apartheid after I had received many affidavits from Diana Russell and Ruth First in 1964. The Special Committee raised the matter in the Commission on Human Rights which set up an "Ad Hoc Working Group" on the matter. (That Ad Hoc Group lasted until 1994!). IDAF also produced an excellent pamphlet on prison conditions.

The first-hand testimony of Dennis had an impact. We helped, as much as possible, to get attention to the treatment of political prisoners in South Africa. As a result, treatment of sentenced prisoners improved substantially in South Africa; but not for detainees, especially after the Terrorism Act came into being with the SWAPO arrests.

The IDAF World Campaign did not last very long. It lost its steam by 1968, and it did little on the major SWAPO trial. Dennis got busy with SAN-ROC and there were other problems, and he left for the United States to take up a teaching position at the Northwestern University.

I think part of the reason for the ineffectiveness of IDAF at this stage of the campaign was the ultra-secretiveness of Phyllis Altman and others for security reasons. IDAF used to get a lot of information on trials from the victims and the lawyers. But everything went into secret files, instead of being used, as much as desirable, for the campaign. I could never get information - even simple things like copies of indictments - from the IDAF office, despite our very good relations, for our crucial campaign in the UN on political prisoners. I had to contact others like the United States and Swedish Governments, International Commission of Jurists and the Lawyers` Committee for Civil Rights under the Law. Confidentiality was necessary, and Phyllis deserves credit for maintaining it, but that was overdone.

People began describing IDAF as not a campaigning organisation. Even lists of addresses of families of prisoners for encouraging people abroad to send them Christmas cards were transferred to AAM. Earlier, D & A had been very much of a campaigning organisation.

D&A and the Liberation Movement

We arranged a hearing for Canon Collins before the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly in October 1967. (I believe he wanted to come to New York mainly because of some problems which had come up with Joel Carlson and the Namibia trial).

It was on that occasion that he said that "so long as the Liberation Movement continues... to give its unqualified support for the humanitarian work that it (D&A) does we shall carry on that work to the best of our power." "For my own part, and speaking also on behalf of the International Defence and Aid Fund, we shall do all in our power to remain effective servants to the Liberation Movement so long as they ask for our services." He repeated that statement at the Stockholm meeting of the Special Committee in 1968 - explaining that the "humanitarian" concern of IDAF was different from that of the Red Cross in earthquake relief, as it seeks to rid South Africa of apartheid.

Namibia and Rhodesia

Christian Action and D&A had provided small amounts of assistance to Namibians and Rhodesians, but the needs became much greater after UDI in Rhodesia and the beginning of armed struggle in Namibia in 1966.

Meanwhile, I was anxious to get recognition in the UN and in the world that the problems in southern Africa was interrelated. There had been a tendency in Africa to feel that priority should be given to assist liberation movements which were active in armed struggle and that South Africa would come last. I wanted to emphasise that South Africa was the main enemy and was involved in other southern African territories. (This view was strongly supported by Algeria).

We organised an international seminar in Kitwe, Zambia, on racism, colonialism and apartheid in southern Africa and obtained a declaration on the need for coordination.

On the basis of the precedents we set up on South Africa, I was able to get a recommendation that UN should extend programmes for assistance (for prisoners and scholarships) to Namibia, Rhodesia and Portuguese territories. There was a delay, and I came under attack, because of bureaucratic problems in the UN. In fact, I did not expect to survive for long in the UN.

But I managed, after some delay, to widen the terms of reference of the Trust Fund for South Africa and the scholarship programme - and were able to give substantial grants to IDAF for Rhodesia and Namibia in later years.

Soviet Union and Amnesty

In 1966, Ambassador Israelyan, the second ambassador of the USSR to the UN, called me and said that grants were being given from UN Trust Fund for South Africa to organisations which were not against apartheid. He threatened to raise the matter in the General Assembly and that would have undermined the confidentiality of the Trust Fund.

He had Amnesty International in mind. I explained to him that only a small grant was made to Amnesty when IDAF was in difficulties after the ban, and that too for the defence of Michael Dingake, a Communist. But he was not pacified.

(I was vulnerable to Soviet pressure as the head of my Department in the UN was traditionally from the Soviet Union).

I reported the matter to Amb. Astrom. He spoke to Amb. Israelyan and was able to stop the issue from being raised in the Assembly. I thought the matter was closed.

But next year, I had exactly the same conversation with another Soviet delegate, L. Kutakov, and again approached Amb. Astrom to stop public airing.

As luck would have it, a few months later Kutakov was appointed head of my Department and that did not make my life easy.

Consultation in Stockholm

In June 1968, the Special Committee against Apartheid held a special session in Stockholm, with Oliver Tambo and Canon Collins as special guests. It invited a number of Parliamentarians and other leaders from all Nordic countries to participate.

At my suggestion, it was decided to hold a confidential consultation by a few people on all aspects of assistance - to the liberation movement, to IDAF, for scholarships etc. - to get an understanding on channels and amounts, to avoid rivalries and ensure coordination.

The meeting was held at the beautiful summer place of Per Wastberg and Annalena. It was attended by Oliver, Canon Collins, Ambassador Astrom, Ambassador Edwin Ogbu of Nigeria (Vice-Chairman of Committee of Trustees of UN Trust Fund) and Ambassador Achkar Marof of Guinea (Chairman of the Special Committee). It was a very fruitful consultation.

Oliver told us about plans for setting up a Lutuli Memorial Foundation, and we obtained promises of support by Sweden and Denmark.

IDAF and public fund-raising

I pressed Canon Collins several times that IDAF should resume public fund-raising. I felt that was politically important and would encourage government contributions.

IDAF, I felt, should not become totally dependent on government funds. The UN Trust Fund was meant to "supplement" the resources of aid agencies which were functioning well and needed more funds. The Committee of Trustees gave most support to IDAF on the grounds that it was doing a very good job of collecting funds and providing assistance. We did not give large grants to others who applied because they had not raised substantial amounts from other sources or had not given evidence of efficient administration of assistance.

I wrote to Canon Collins in March 1967 that IDAF should not become "respectable" as a government-financed agency and lose "the spirit of the old days." Fund-raising had a political value.

But I was not successful. The only public meeting IDAF arranged - a rock concert at Albert Hall in 1968 - became somewhat of a disaster as one rock group burned an American flag and that got negative publicity.

New Constitution

Respect for Canon Collins was one of the main reasons why IDAF received large grants from Sweden. They showed full confidence in him and did not question his use of the funds.

But by the 1970s, especially after he had a heart attack, the question frequently came up as to what would happen if he had prolonged illness or passed away. He complicated the problem, as several people became convinced that he expected them to succeed him.

I spoke to Canon Collins about this several times. At the IDAF annual conference in Dublin in 1975, we had a full private discussion. I suggested that he should set up a committee of trustees of people who had the respect and confidence of the large donors. Their only function would be to ensure that the grants were spent efficiently and strictly for the purposes for which they were given.

He agreed and later proceeded to have the IDAF constitution revised. There were problems with some members of the existing IDAF Committee as they were reluctant to lose their powers. But the members of that committee could not have enjoyed sufficient confidence of the donors.

The change of the constitution, therefore, took a long time.

Utilization of Trust Fund Grants to IDAF

IDAF had wide terms of reference (especially Clause 3 ) and Canon Collins interpreted them broadly. He supported some political action. He gave grants to the British Anti-Apartheid Movement and to SAN-ROC, and set up a World Campaign for the Release of South African Political Prisoners which was active for a few years. He also gave funds to ANC leaders for humanitarian needs, for travel and political work.

We were anxious that the grants from the United Nations Trust Fund should be used purely for the humanitarian purposes within the terms of reference as the Trust Fund received contributions from Western governments and as our accounts were subject to scrutiny by United Nations auditors.

On a number of occasions we advised Canon Collins, when we received the accounts, that some of the expenditures were not within the purposes of the grants. He transferred such expenditures to the grants given to IDAF by the Swedish government. While the Swedish government was very strict on the proper use of the grants from the UN Trust Fund, it allowed great flexibility in the use of its direct grants to IDAF.

APPENDIX I

NOTE ON MY MEETING WITH THE REVEREND CANON L. JOHN COLLINS, LONDON, 12 FEBRUARY 1964

CANON COLLINS said that the Defence and Aid Fund had collected about 260,000 pounds since its inception, mainly in connection with the treason trial. The cost of collection was less than 12.5 percent. It was earlier around 10 percent.

The assistance to families of prisoners is undertaken by South Africans, partly from donations made by the Defence and Aid Fund in London.

The Defence and Aid Fund in South Africa assists in legal defence, but it does not defend cases under the “sabotage act” because of threats by the South African government. Financial assistance for defence in such cases is discreetly sent from London to the attorneys in South Africa.

Defence and Aid Fund, London, has so far sent 9,000 pounds for defence in the Rivonia trial. The need is much greater. According to a letter received from Alex Hepple recently, the needs in the next six months are as follows:

The above is for legal defence alone.

The needs for relief for families is enormous as many thousands of persons are in jail for security offences. Even if a bare minimum of 500 families are to be provided 20 pounds a month, the total cost is 10,000 pounds a month or 60,000 pounds for six months.

The Defence and Aid Fund had in the past assisted refugees, but now lacks resources. The needs may be estimated at 20,000 pounds for six months.

Altogether, a minimum of 200,000 pounds is needed during 1964.

This, of course, does not include an6y assistance for the African organisations in South Africa to continue operation.

Recently, Defence and Aid Funds have been formed in Sweden and Australia. They are likely to make their disbursements through the London committee in order to avoid duplication.

APPENDIX II

NOTE ON MY MEETING WITH PETER BENENSON, SECRETARY-GENERAL, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, IN GENEVA, 14 FEBRUARY 1964

Mr. BENENSON felt that it may be possible to organise a federal arrangement among the agencies involved in relief in South Africa. He promised to send a memorandum on the existing relief operations and on needs.

He suggested that Amnesty International, which has consultative status with the United Nations, would be an appropriate channel for international assistance and could help coordinate assistance. He said he had good relations with Canon Collins.

He was recently in South Africa. He thought that some kind of partition was perhaps the only solution.

[Mr. Benenson called on 15 February to say that he had spoken to officials at the International Committee of the Red Cross. They were not likely to undertake any operation for assistance to families of political prisoners in South Africa. They would perhaps make representations to the South African government to increase and widen the modest advances to the families.]

APPENDIX III

CONTRIBUTIONS AND PLEDGES IN RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE AGAINST APARTHEID IN 1964 (BEFORE THE UN TRUST FUND FOR SOUTH AFRICA WAS ESTABLISHED)

[The contributions were to the Defence and Aid Fund, unless otherwise indicated.]

APPENDIX IV

EXTRACT FROM LETTER OF OLIVER TAMBO TO CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF TRUSTEES OF THE UN TRUST FUND FOR SOUTH AFRICA, DECEMBER 1966

In the many years of persecution which our people have known, the Defence and Aid Fund has been a pillar of strength for them, not only because it openly and boldly proclaimed its opposition to apartheid and missed no opportunity of exposing its evils, using the testimony of the victims themselves. It continued to do this despite the sustained campaign of vile and vicious smearing and slander, initiated by the South African Government and intended to alienate the support the Fund enjoyed from Governments, influential bodies and leading personalities. The aim of the campaign was to deprive the victims of apartheid of one of the most effective channels of international support, while repressive measures were being intensified to break the morale and spirit of resistance of our people. With the international campaign against Defence and Aid failing to yield the desired results, the South African Government banned the South African Defence and Aid Fund, and used this fact to step up its attack on the International Defence and Aid Fund, claiming falsely that this Fund is illegal.

For nearly two decades now, the South African Government has been using the weapon of bans indiscriminately against its opponents. These bans serve an evil and inhuman cause, and the African National Congress believes that to observe or honour them is to be party to that cause. For this reason, we have been heartened by the decision of the International Defence and Aid Fund to continue, as it is continuing, to channel funds for legal defence and aid for our persecuted people, despite the ban on the South African Defence and Aid Fund.

Footnotes

Amnesty was not supporting prisoners who were accused of violence.

The text of the speech is at: http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/solidarity/collinsp.html#1

That was the first resolution on apartheid co-sponsored by a Western country in the General Assembly since 1952.