I would like to make a few remarks with regard to the discussion that has taken place hitherto in connection with sanctions. First of all I would be lacking in appreciation if I did not thank Mr. Zupnick for his paper which is one of the best papers I have read, written by an economist, straight-forward and indicating in no uncertain terms that the four countries he mentioned are responsible for the failure of sanctions against South Africa so far. I think he has also clearly shown that the United States itself is in a position to impose sanctions regardless of what the other three are doing. This does tie up with what Mr. George Houser said in his paper on the "Policy of Disengagement". I am equally happy that he has explained what it means, although we personally have always been clear about disengagement.
We maintain, at the liberation movement, that the four countries mentioned by Mr. Zupnick and others have, in fact, entered the arena of conflict in South Africa on the side of the racist regime by their trade and their investments so that, when one speaks of disengagement, one refers to countries that are already engaged against us to the extent, therefore, that disengagement by these countries, that is, implementing the resolutions of the United Nations and imposing sanctions against South Africa is on their side a positive action. For once they will be seen to have taken the side of the oppressed and not to have been on the side of the oppressor. I think, therefore, that this policy, well explained, should make more sense to the American people and not allow the American Government to hide behind the argument, as other governments do, that if they impose sanctions against South Africa other countries will continue to trade. This must be more than that. It must be a question of principle - the Government must be made to have some morals - that the reason they want to disengage, why they do not want to maintain their trade and investments in South Africa, is the policies of apartheid.
It is also interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, the second proposal of Mr. Houser in connection with cooperation between the African States and non-governmental organisations in the United States. I would suggest that this should be taken up because the Council of Ministers of the Organisation of African Unity, in February 1964, passed a resolution to boycott airlines and vessels that were going to and from South Africa and not allow them to use the airports or sea ports. I think such a resolution could be combined with this proposal in order to make Africa more active,also to make Africa implement her own resolutions which would help the struggle for sanctions against South Africa.
Mr. Chairman, the questions which have been asked by the distinguished delegate from Algeria are very important, and one is somewhat pleased by the answers that have been given to them. But I also feel that we have got to understand certain points. It has been argued, and quite rightly, that the American public is not well informed about the situation in South Africa. So, I think, is the public almost in every part of America and Europe. But we must not at the same time make the mistake of thinking, as somebody has said, that it would be sufficient to inform the public and the public will act. The public will only act if there is an organisation or if there are organisations in this country which are calling upon them to do something positive. The war in Vietnam had been going on for many years before certain individuals and committees in the United States decided to organise activity against the war in Vietnam and draw the population of this country into that activity. The same will have to be done as far as this is concerned.
It has also been argued, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the four governments mentioned in Mr. Zupnick's paper would be forced into taking action if the struggle in South Africa itself, that is, an armed struggle, gains momentum. This is not correct. These countries did not stop at ignoring the resolutions of the United Nations calling upon them to impose sanctions. They went further.
They increased their trade and investment with South Africa so that they have now reached a stage whereby in the event of an armed struggle in South Africa they will be forced to defend (a) the Government, which guarantees their investments and trade; and (b) their own investments. So there is a danger of working along the lines that the struggle, the armed struggle in South Africa, will automatically make these governments to move out. We say it will not; it is the action of the electorate, of the population, in these countries that must agitate against these countries working with the South African regime and making it more formidable.
I think it is extremely important that, from the point of view of the liberation movement, we should explain, however briefly, our definition, our interpretation, of sanctions. When people say that it is what we do in South Africa that may make sanctions work, this presupposes that we are calling upon the world to do the work for us, to fight for our freedom. This is not what we are asking for. We say, and we believe in this, that the struggle for freedom, for independence and for human dignity in South Africa will be fought and won by the South African people themselves inside the country. This is our belief, and all our work is towards that goal. We believe that whatever support we get internationally can only supplement our own efforts inside the country. But, as I said earlier, we must not forget that the people of South Africa who are fighting a government that has friends who are already operating inside the country, assisting its laws to work, be it industrial legislation or laws of various other kinds, so that our interpretation of sanctions must be understood as calling upon the world community to do its part in assisting us in our struggle because their countries, their industrialists, have entered the arena of conflict in South Africa against us. The implementation of sanctions and boycott against South Africa, in our view, is a participation of the world community in a struggle that has been made international by the countries that are trading with South Africa and South Africa's actions and activities toward those countries.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, even on the question of the arms embargo, some of the countries mentioned, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, in the last three years have taken unilateral decisions after having decided to place an embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa. Recently, on the 8th of September, the British Broadcasting Corporation, reported on what is taking place and what is going to take place in the United States. I quote: "President Nixon's Government has made a first move to relax the American arms embargo against South Africa. It became known in Cape Town today that the British-built jet Falcon, a light executive aircraft with American engines, is now available to South African buyers. Three years ago, the sale was vetoed by President Johnson on the grounds that the aircraft could be adapted for military use. The leader of French sales team now in Cape Town says the plane is available to anyone who wants it. The American Government is also relaxing restrictions on the visit of naval vessels to southern Africa. A guided missile frigate is making a two-day routine visit to Lourenco Marques in Portuguese Mozambique next week."
This is merely to indicate, Mr. Chairman, that these countries are going further in supporting South Africa, rather than waiting for the situation develop in South Africa which will make it important for them to withdraw.
Other matters have been brought in here, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to deal with tomorrow. There is the question of whether people support violence or not and what support, if any, people could give without supporting violence. I think we must be clear at this seminar that the question of violence does not come in at all. Violence is being meted to the African people every day in South Africa, and if the liberation movement has decided to meet Government violence with violence, we must not adopt this attitude of White people not liking violence against African people but, feeling that it becomes horrible when it is an African doing it to the White people.
There is going to be violence in South Africa, there is going to be a war in South Africa and no Christian, no progressive, no sane person can be neutral. Because if this violence takes place, it is the only way whereby the African people can free themselves. It is not a question of deciding that we are violent for the sake of violence. If one supports the struggle for freedom, then one must find a way of supporting it. I do want to say that even tomorrow when we discuss this we are not going to ask the American non-governmental organisations for guns and ammunitions. But we think we would be asking for that which you can do in order to support our struggle.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Meeting 109 (Special session with the participation of representatives of several church and other organisations) - 17 March 1969 - A/AC.115/SR.109
Hearing of representatives of organisations
Meeting 110 (Special session, continued) - 17 March 1969 - A/AC.115/SR.110
Economic sanctions and related measures to secure the elimination of apartheid
Meeting 111 (Special session, continued) - 18 March 1969 - A/AC.115/SR.111
Role of non-governmental activity and information in promoting effective action for the elimination of apartheid
Meeting 112 (Special session, continued) - 18 March 1969 - A/AC.115/SR.112
Moral, political and material assistance to the liberation movement in its legitimate struggle and humanitarian assistance to the victims of apartheid
Meetings 109-112, 17-18 March 1969. Special session of the Special Committee. George Houser, Mr. Stevens and Mrs. Elizabeth Landis, ACOA; Mr. Tucker and Mr. Ellis, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA; Mrs. Gail Morlan, University Christian Movement; Ms. Wilmore and Mr. Beeman, Presbyterian Church; Mr. Butler, Students for a Democratic Society; Mr. Busch, United Auto Workers; Mr. Schaeffer, Board of Missions, United Methodist Church; Mr. Trachtman, American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organisations (AFL-CIO); Timothy Smith, United Church of Christ; Walter Martin, American Friends Service Committee; Mr. Van Culin, Executive Council of the Episcopal Church; Professor Elliott Zupnich; Congress Mbatha; William Minter; Mrs. Mia Adjali, United Methodist Church; Mr. Hutchings, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
Footnote
The Special Committee held a special session on 17-18 March 1969, with the participation of several non-governmental organisations and experts, to discuss means to promote effective action for the elimination of apartheid in South Africa. Professor Elliott Zupnick of the City University of New York and George Houser, Executive Director of the American Committee on Africa, presented papers on sanctions against South Africa.