I have put together this collection of my speeches and papers, as the United Nations official in charge of apartheid from 1963 to 1984, at the suggestion of a number of friends, as a record of the growing commitment of the United Nations in support of the liberation struggle in South Africa.
For me it is also a personal record of the discharge of my responsibilities, as an international civil servant and as a national of India, in support of freedom in Africa.
I became interested in the freedom movement in South Africa as a student in India in the early 1940s. Then, in 1946, I was privileged to meet the multi-racial delegation from South Africa, led by the President-General of the African National Congress, Dr. A.B. Xuma, which came to attend the United Nations debate on the Indian complaint against South African racism. The passive resistance campaign of the Indian community, the African mine labour strike and the United Nations debate had that year generated international concern over the situation in South Africa. I began seriously to study the developments in that country. I was greatly impressed both by the long struggle of the African majority for its inalienable rights and by the identification of the Indian community - under the leadership of Dr. Yusuf Dadoo and Dr. Monty Naicker - with that struggle.
In 1949, when I joined the United Nations Secretariat as a political affairs officer, I was assigned to Africa and the Middle East and was able not only to continue my study of South Africa but to follow the development of freedom struggles in other African countries. From 1963 - as Secretary of the Special Committee against Apartheid, then Chief of Section for African Questions and finally Director and Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Centre against Apartheid - I was privileged to be able to contribute directly to international action in support of freedom in southern Africa.
In all my work at the United Nations, I was moved by my convictions as a youth in India under colonial rule - detestation of racism in all its forms, without hatred of any racial group; rejection of any compromise on the principle of racial equality; respect for the freedom movements as the primary means for change; and faith in the victory of freedom, however long the struggle, however mighty the adversaries and whatever the reverses in the course of the struggle. I have tried to secure the widest understanding and support for the liberation struggle, irrespective of the cold war and other differences in the world, and in particular to encourage not only the governments but the people in all countries to support the just cause.
I have come to know and respect many patriots of all racial origins from South Africa and numerous persons from all continents who have made great contributions and sacrifices because of their solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa. They have become dear friends; their appreciation of my work and their advice have always been a great source of encouragement to me.
There has been a tremendous advance in international understanding and support of the South African freedom struggle since 1946. In fact, rarely has a freedom struggle received such wide-spread support. But during this long process, the unscrupulous racist regime in Pretoria has acquired enormous military power and it is still able to count on the support or connivance of some powerful forces in the West. The forces of liberation are stronger than ever but there are gravest dangers in the final stage of the struggle.
I believe that the world must understand that apartheid in South Africa is not merely an evil, but a menace far beyond its borders and a vital link in the concert against human progress. Governments, organisations and individuals must not only dissociate themselves from this evil but must try to prevent others from reinforcing it.
The Government and people of India have a proud record in support of the freedom struggle in South Africa. But perhaps we too should go beyond the feeling of human solidarity and recognize the struggle of the South African people as our own. For, our own freedom is diminished so long as South Africa and Namibia are not free, and the oppression of the people of Indian origin in South Africa is a constant affront to India. Any support to the Pretoria regime, by any Power or vested interest, must be seen as a hostile act against India. India is as much a frontline State in this struggle as any African country.
E.S. REDDY
THE UNITED NATIONS AND APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA
Speech at the National Conference on South African Crisis and American Action, Washington, DC, March 21-23, 1965
APARTHEID AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the African Studies Association, United States of America, 1973
THE UNITED NATIONS WORLD CAMPAIGN AGAINST APARTHEID
Article in Unesco Courier, Paris, November 1977
INTERNATIONAL ANTI-APARTHEID YEAR (21 March I978-21 March 1979)
Statement at briefing for non-governmental organisations at the United Nations, New York, March 2, 1978
Speech at the New York Society of Ethical Culture on the occasion of the presentation of the 1978 Ethical Humanist Award to Mr. Percy Qoboza, editor of the World, Johannesburg, May 14, 1978
SOLOMON MAHLANGU: FREEDOM FIGHTER AGAINST APARTHEID
Speech at the meeting held by the World Peace Council's Presidential Committee in memory of Solomon Mahlangu in Prague, April 1979
THE ACHIEVEMENTS AND THE CHALLENGE
Speech at the Conference of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement on its twentieth anniversary, London, June 26, 1979
TRIBUTE TO BISHOP AMBROSE REEVES
Speech at meeting on the 80th birthday of Bishop Reeves, Ambassador Hotel, London, December 10,1979
ARMED RESISTANCE IN SOUTH AFRICA
Paper prepared for the Anti-Apartheid Movement, May 1980
Statement at public meeting in Montreal in connection with Seminar on Women and Apartheid, May 10, 1980
ROLE OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN PROMOTING SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA
Statement at the International NGO Action Conference for Sanctions against South Africa, Geneva, June 30, 1980
Statement in the Panel at the Dedication of the Papers of Dr. DuBois, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, September 19, 1980
SIGNIFICANCE OF SOUTH AFRICAN STRUGGLE
Speech at the Conference on "The Case for Sanctions", Dublin, October 24, 1981
Statement at the meeting of the Special Committee against Apartheid, January 13, 1983, in connection with appointment as Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations
NO ONE CAN BE NEUTRAL ON APARTHEID
Speech at meeting of Special Committee against Apartheid on receipt of Frederic Joliot-Curie medal from the World Peace Council, March 30, 1983
SAVE THE LIVES OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS
Statement at Mahlangu Day Meeting at the Church Centre for the United Nations, New York, April 6, 1983
Remarks at the Annual Conference of the American Society of Public Administration, Panel on "South Africa: Implications for Public Administration", Hilton Hotel, New York, April 19, 1983
Speech at the Patrice Lumumba Friendship University, Moscow, on the occasion of the presentation to him of the memorial medal of the University, May 30, 1983
TRIBUTE TO ARCHBISHOP TREVOR HUDDLESTON
Speech at the meeting of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement to observe the Soweto Day and the seventieth birthday of Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, Toynbee Hall, London, June 16, 1983
INTERNATIONAL ACTION AGAINST RACISM
Speech at the opening session of the International NGO Conference on Action against Apartheid and Racism, ILO Headquarters, Geneva, July 5, 1983
TRIBUTE TO THE REVEREND MICHAEL SCOTT
Speech at memorial meeting for the Reverend Michael Scott at Church Centre for United Nations, New York, September 29,1983
TRIBUTE TO BISHOP DESMOND TUTU
Speech (as representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations) at the dinner of the Society for the Family of Man for the presentation of the "Family of Man" gold medallion to the Right Reverend Bishop Desmond Tutu, Sheraton Centre, New York, December 7, 1983
CULTURAL BOYCOTT AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA
Introductory statement at a Press Briefing at Royal Commonwealth Society, London, January 11, 1984
Speech at the "Evaluation Symposium of ICFTU Programme of Action in Support of Independent Black Trade Union Movement in South Africa" DGB-haus, Dusseldorf, January 19, 1984
Speech at a public meeting organized by the Black Studies Department of the City College of New York and the New York Southern Africa Solidarity Coalition to launch the "Year of Women of South Africa", City College, New York, January 30, 1984
Speech at the Seminar on South African Aggression and Destabilisation against Frontline States, organised by the United Nations Association and Anti-Apartheid Movement, London, February 29,1984
Speech at the opening session of the Interfaith Colloquium on Apartheid, Church House, London, March 5, 1984
ABOLITION OF RACISM - AN URGENT TASK
Speech at the Launching of Anti-Racist Year by the Borough of Hackney, Hackney Town Hall, London April 27, 1984
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STRUGGLE IN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INDIA
Lecture at India International Centre, New Delhi, May 19, 1984
UNITED NATIONS AND THE ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT: A FRUITFUL PARTNERSHIP
Article in the Anti-Apartheid News Supplement for the 25th anniversary of AAM, June 1984
Speech in a Commission at the "National Convention against Apartheid and for Freedom in South Africa" organised by the Anti-Apartheid Movement at City University, London, June 23, 1984
Speech at the Non-governmental Organisations Conference for the Independence of Namibia and the Eradication of Apartheid, Geneva, July 2, 1984
APARTHEID AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Speech at the concluding session of the Seminar on the Legal Status of the Apartheid Regime and other Legal Aspects of the struggle against Apartheid, Lagos, Nigeria, August 16, 1984
THE UNITED NATIONS AND APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA
The question of South African racial policies has been before the United Nations, in one form or another, since 1946. At first, it came up in the wake of the Asiatic Land Tenure Act and the Passive Resistance Campaign of the Indians as the complaint by the Government of India on the treatment of people of Indian origin in South Africa. From 1952, after a spate of apartheid legislation under the National Party Government and the launching of the "Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws" by the African National Congress and other organizations, a number of Asian and Arab States inscribed a broader item entitled: "The question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa". These two items were combined in 1962.
Meanwhile, the question of the mandated Territory of South West Africa has also remained on the agenda every year from 1946.
Year after year, the United Nations organs held discussions, passed resolutions and made appeals to the South African Government to adjust its policies in accordance with the principles of the Charter. Again and again, the South African Government has reiterated that the matter was essentially within its domestic jurisdiction under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the United Nations Charter and that the resolutions of the United Nations were ultra vires.
The practical results of United Nations action on this question have so far been disappointing. Not only has the South African Government not abandoned the policies of apartheid and racial discrimination, but it has filled its Statute Books with more and more apartheid laws, and implemented them with increasingly severe measures against those resisting these laws.
I would submit, however, that it would be quite erroneous to jump to the conclusion on the basis of this disappointing record that United Nations action has little positive value or to accept the argument of some South Africans and others that it has, in fact, a negative effect.
World Concern after Sharpeville Incident
I wish to go back for a moment to the event which took place five years ago and which is on everyone's mind here - the shooting by police in Sharpeville of peaceful demonstrators against the pass laws. The Sharpeville incident and its aftermath not only shook South Africa and the world out of their complacency but formed a turning point in the United Nations consideration of the South African problem.
Exactly five years ago today, on March 22, 1960, the United States State Department took the extraordinary step of issuing a statement in which it declared:
"While the United States, as a matter of practice, does not ordinarily comment on the internal affairs of governments with which it enjoys normal relations, it cannot help but regret the tragic loss of life resulting from the measures taken against the demonstrators in South Africa."
It expressed the hope that "the African people in South Africa will be able to obtain redress for their legitimate grievances by peaceful means."
In March and April 1960, the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands - the two countries with the most intimate connexions with the people of European origin in South Africa - expressed their sorrow at the events in South Africa and their hope that the situation would be resolved by peaceful means.
Similar expressions of concern came from Canada, New Zealand, India, Nigeria, Denmark, and numerous other countries.
The worldwide concern was reflected in the fact that the matter was considered urgently by the Security Council of the United Nations at the request of 29 Member States. On April 1, 1960, the Security Council adopted a resolution recognising that the situation in South Africa was one that had led to international friction and which, if continued, "might endanger international peace and security." It deplored the policies and actions of the South African Government which gave rise to that situation and called upon that Government "to initiate measures aimed at bringing about racial harmony based on equality in order to ensure that the present situation does not continue or recur and to abandon its policies of apartheid and racial discrimination".
The South African Government did not accept this resolution and instead proceeded with the declaration of the State of Emergency, the banning of the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress, and the strengthening of its security forces in an effort to bring the situation under control.
Since then, increasing attention has been given in the United Nations and outside to the possibility of action to ensure the fulfilment of the purposes of the Charter.
While there remain serious differences as to the appropriateness, desirability and effectiveness of some of the concrete measures which may be taken by the United Nations, a very wide area of agreement has been achieved by practically the entire membership of the Organization and is reflected in unanimous or almost unanimous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.
There is no more hesitation regarding the competence of the United Nations to consider the situation in South Africa, nor any conviction that mere appeals and exhortations to the South African Government would be fruitful.
The United Nations has proclaimed that the situation in South Africa is seriously disturbing international peace and security, and that this situation has been brought about by racial policies which are contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nations and incompatible with the obligations of South Africa as a Member State of the United Nations.
The United Nations is firmly convinced that a positive alternative to apartheid and racial discrimination must be found through peaceful means and that this alternative should ensure the full, peaceful and orderly application of human rights and fundamental freedoms to all inhabitants of South Africa, regardless of race, colour or creed.
The United Nations is also convinced that a peaceful solution requires free consultation among all the people of South Africa, thus enabling them to decide the future of the country at the national level. A prerequisite to such consultations is the liberation of all persons imprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for having opposed the policies of apartheid.
Ever since Sharpeville, the United Nations has been concerned with action which may be taken by Member States, separately or collectively, in conformity with the Charter, to dissuade the South African Government from its present racial policies and to persuade it to go forward towards a positive alternative.
Economic Sanctions and Arms Embargo
Many African, Asian and other States have advocated economic sanctions as the only effective peaceful means available to the international community to achieve these purposes. The General Assembly had recommended economic sanctions by a substantial majority, in resolution 1761 (XVII) of November 6, 1962, and they were also supported, in principle, by the Group of Experts headed by Mrs. Alva Myrdal of Sweden in 1964. Many States have broken off diplomatic and commercial relations with South Africa after the Sharpeville incident or after the General Assembly resolution. These States, however, account for a small part of the foreign trade of South Africa. The main trading partners of South Africa have expressed reservations or opposition to economic sanctions. A report has just been prepared by an Expert Committee of the Security Council on the feasibility, effectiveness and implications of economic sanctions and other measures.
As of now, the position is that economic sanctions have been recommended by the General Assembly but these have not been supported by the main trading partners of South Africa and have not been endorsed by the Security Council which alone can take mandatory decisions on this matter under the United Nations Charter.
The Security Council, however, solemnly called upon States in 1963 to stop the sale of arms, ammunition of all types and military vehicles to South Africa, and also equipment and materials for the manufacture and maintenance of arms and ammunition in South Africa. The decision of the United States Government in August 1963, and of the United Kingdom Government in November 1964, to stop all arms shipments, except those under earlier contracts, and similar decisions by many other States, are evidence that these States are prepared to take into account the implications and consequences of their relations with South Africa and to sacrifice profitable trade if necessary. According to the Defence Minister of South Africa, the British decision represented a loss of some $140 million in arms orders.
Assistance to Victims of Apartheid
I wish to refer to General Assembly resolution 1978 B (XVIII) of December 16, 1963, inviting Member States and organizations to contribute generously to provide relief and assistance to families of all persons persecuted by the South African Government for their opposition to the policies of apartheid. The Special Committee against Apartheid, which suggested this resolution, sent an appeal to all Member States to make contributions, and to encourage organizations in their countries to make contributions for this purpose. It emphasized that such contributions would not only serve a humanitarian purpose, but would help counter the growth of racial bitterness in South Africa. In response to this appeal, the Government of India announced a contribution of $5,250 and the Government of Sweden pledged $200,000.
Even before this appeal, many organizations and individuals have contributed for legal assistance to political prisoners, for the maintenance of their families and for the relief of the refugees. There have been some contributions from private organizations in the United States. But the needs have increased beyond the level of private contributions, and that was why the Special Committee considered it essential to appeal to Governments as well. The response to the appeal of the Special Committee has so far been rather disappointing and I would express the hope that this Conference will help generate a greater response.
In June 1964, the Security Council invited the Secretary-General to establish a programme for the education and training abroad for South Africans. This programme should be in operation soon, and there is much that private organizations, universities and individuals can do to supplement and support efforts by the United Nations.
The educational situation in South Africa today is one of the most distressing aspects of the effect of the racial policies. Not only are schools and colleges strictly segregated on racial and even tribal lines, but the facilities available to non-whites are most inadequate and inferior.
The Government grant to African education has been pegged at a fixed amount since 1953. Meanwhile, the enrolment in schools has doubled with the result that per capita expenditures on African pupils have declined to about one-fourteenth of the expenditures on white pupils. The African children, moreover, have been obliged to learn one more language than the white children. The result has been a very high rate of failures, affecting practically half a generation of Africans. The Bantu schools and colleges are not able to train even a fraction of professional men, technicians and teachers needed to fill the limited number of such jobs available to Africans. There are only a little over a hundred doctors, very few lawyers and hardly any engineers.
Discussions in the South African Parliament and press indicate that there is a widespread realization that the inadequacy of educational facilities is affecting economic growth in the country as a whole. South Africa has abundant resources and it can surely devote more to education. Let us hope that there will be a speedy and radical improvement.
The United Nations Group of Experts has recommended international assistance for education and training abroad for South Africans so that by positive action, world opinion may have an influence on the South African Government.
By concentrating on the issue of economic sanctions, we have perhaps not given sufficient attention to practical measures such as these. Surely, contributions for relief or education do not solve the basic problem. But they do reflect the seriousness of international concern and the readiness to assist and to sacrifice. They help create an atmosphere conducive to the peaceful and just settlement we all seek.
Peaceful Solution
Because of the incalculable dangers of violent conflict in South Africa, the urge for a peaceful solution is a common feeling in the United Nations.
Those who advocate economic sanctions call for them as a means for a peaceful settlement. The purpose of economic sanctions, in their view, is not to damage the economy of South Africa or to create chaos or to take revenge. It is perhaps fortunate that this matter is within the purview of the United Nations, for the United Nations cannot develop a consensus for revenge for the past but only for a solution for the future.
The logic of economic sanctions is based on the assumption that if the world will make clear its determination to prevent the combination of prosperity and discrimination in South Africa, the privileged group will be compelled to reassess the situation and choose prosperity and equality, rather than poverty and inequality.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, has often emphasized the grave danger that the continuation of the efforts to impose the policies decided by one racial group in South Africa and the closing up of possibilities for a peaceful change may increasingly lead to violence which is likely to have widespread international repercussions. He has said that in comparison to a "race war", the religious and ideological wars of the past may look like family quarrels. He has made earnest appeals for the search for peaceful solutions to the South African problems.
Role of World Opinion
Despite the seeming defiance of world opinion and the many acts contrary to United Nations resolutions, the South African Government is perhaps not so immune to what Dr. Verwoerd calls "the movement of men's minds" in the world. Indeed, in a policy statement on June 5, 1964, Dr. Verwoerd declared:
"...the situation in the world changed after World War II. A new outlook developed and that new outlook spread across the world and it had the effect of emancipating States in Africa. One cannot escape from it that the change in outlook also reached our country."
He continued that his Government sought a solution by moving towards speedier separation and speedier self-rule to the bantustans. Whatever one's view on these moves, it is perhaps not entirely without significance that policy adjustments are made in the light of changes in world opinion even if they have to be explained as refinements of the same ideology.
The South African Government may regard the new arrangements in the Transkei and other bantustans as "safety valves", but in the politics of nations, the safety valves often have dynamics of their own, beyond the intentions of their creators.
I feel that it is not without significance that the National Party and the Dutch Reformed Churches have taken steps to stop insulting references to African States and to the non-whites in South Africa; that we hear no more of "baasskap"; that the term apartheid itself is being replaced by "separate development" and "separate freedoms"; that liberalism is no more such a bogey that it was a year ago; that South Africa is no longer described as the outpost of Western civilization in Africa; and that there is greater insistence that South African Whites are Africans as much as the non-whites. All this may well be for propaganda reasons, but even a change in propaganda cannot but have a deeper effect on the psychology of the people.
Perhaps it is not without significance that the courts and politicians do not sneer at the leaders of the non-white organizations who have openly admitted leadership of movements which organized acts of sabotage, but reserve their most uncomplimentary epithets to those who testified against their colleagues as State witnesses. Perhaps the Afrikaners, when they look back on their own history, will understand and appreciate those who fight for their convictions and rights and are prepared to take the consequences. For, as an Afrikaner poet wrote: "If you enslave a proud people, resistance to the law becomes its right."
Let us Persevere
There is a crisis in South Africa today. It may be that the pressure of international opinion holds the key to preventing bloodshed and promoting a peaceful adjustment. In the course of my duties, I have met many non-white leaders from South Africa in exile and I am convinced that there is still time for a peaceful settlement, that the fears and doubts of the Whites can be allayed and that a smooth transition without chaos is possible, if only the representatives of all the people of South Africa are able to come together to consider their common destiny. International opinion can play a role in promoting such free discussions.
But international opinion can only be effective if it is informed objectively of the situation in South Africa, and if it approaches the problem without self-righteousness but with due respect for the pride of the people of South Africa.
Despite the intentions of the international community, the fear of international pressure may have tended to drive the Whites in South Africa into the laager. The few who refuse to move into the laager and identify their destinies with the non-whites are praiseworthy and perform a very useful historical function. But the march into the laager, by itself, should perhaps not unnerve and mislead the world. The tragedy of South Africa in the twentieth century was that the two White groups have tended to make compromises without due regard to the interests of the non-whites and at their expense. It may be a new and hopeful day when the Whites face the problem of race relations as one group and deal with it earnestly.
A really peaceful solution in South Africa can only come with the agreement of the Afrikaners, and not against their resistance. I would like to hope that by a study of the lessons of their own history and the realities of the present day South Africa, and by the pressure of informed world opinion, they will soon begin to look ahead to the promise of the future instead of harping on the outmoded traditions of the past.
Let us, therefore, never tire of repeating that we seek no humiliation of the Afrikaner people, that we look forward to a society where the interests of all men and women are respected, that we do not seek to impose any external solution but stand ready to help in the fulfilment of a solution based on the wishes of all the people of South Africa, and that we are determined to do all we can to see to it that this problem is solved without delay.
Rarely has the policy of an individual government attracted as wide attention throughout the world as the racial policy of South Africa. It has been discussed in several organs of the United Nations, in specialised agencies of the United Nations, and in several other international and regional intergovernmental organisations; in the Parliaments of many countries; and in numerous non-governmental organisations. A number of countries have broken diplomatic, consular and trade relations with South Africa or refrained from establishing such relations. Actions protesting apartheid have involved hundreds of thousands of people outside Africa. The publications and documents on apartheid fill a good-sized library. Apartheid has been defined by the United Nations General Assembly as a "crime against humanity": and even a special "International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid" has been opened for signature by governments. Judging from the actions of the United Nations, the South African government is more isolated than any government in modern history.
Yet the Government of South Africa seems as determined as ever to continue to pursue its policy of apartheid. It has acquired sophisticated equipment and developed local manufacture of arms, from bullets to rockets. The economy of the country is growing, and the recent sharp rise in the price of gold has been a boon. The National Party has become entrenched in power, while to some extent repression and the bantustans appear to have succeeded in hindering and disrupting national resistance on the part of blacks. The apparent failure of the United Nations and the international community has aroused cynicism and created disillusionment. Some people have become so impressed with the might of the South African regime that they see no solution but, rather, a compromise with the racist institutions of the oppressors. For those who appreciate the proper role of the United Nations and the international community, however, there is little cause for cynicism or despair.
Has the United Nations Failed?
It is often felt that the United Nations has failed in its attempts to induce change in South Africa and that the progressive strengthening of the resolutions only reflects increasing frustration among the Afro-Asian delegations. Whether the United Nations has in fact succeeded or failed can only be determined in relation to an understanding of the proper role and responsibility of the organisation.
It is perhaps correct that the provisions of the United Nations Charter on the promotion of human rights were based on the assumption that certain objectives could be achieved through exhortation and education and through the gradual development of international norms. Exhortation, however, has failed with respect to South Africa, and the development of international norms has only led the South African government to adjustments in the forms of racial discrimination. There has been an inevitable escalation of resistance and repression leading to an aggravation of the crisis.
Over the years there has also existed a hope, or faith, among the black people of South Africa that the United Nations would somehow see to the fulfilment of its purposes and principles in relation to racism in South Africa. This reflected a lack of understanding of the limitations of the United Nations and of its Charter.
Such an illusion was perhaps fed by the assertion of some South Africans and many friends abroad that economic sanctions alone could lead to important changes in the racial policies of that country. This proposition, particularly attractive to pacifists, has not been proved or disproved since economic sanctions have not been imposed by the United Nations Security Council and since measures recommended by the United Nations General Assembly and by the Organisation of African Unity have not been universally applied.
It must be noted that the liberation movement in South Africa has not subscribed to that simple formula. It has given the central place to the struggle of the people. The purpose of economic sanctions is to weaken the oppressors, in the context of a struggle of the people, and to render that struggle easier. After the initial disillusionment with the sanctions against Rhodesia, a more realistic appreciation has emerged.
Total economic sanctions must be universally applied if they are to be truly effective. But any measure which contributes - however slightly - towards economic isolation has a significant political effect. A series of such measures can retard the development abroad of vested interests which tend to counteract international action. In the case of South Africa, these vested interests have been particularly powerful since South Africa has very substantial foreign trade and since foreign investment in South Africa is sizeable.
The dissipation of early illusions concerning the impact of United Nations opposition to apartheid has led to a realistic redefinition of the role of the United Nations. The Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid declared in 1967:
"The main role in the liberation of southern Africa should rightfully go first to the oppressed people themselves. The international community can assist them and help create the conditions in which they can secure the liberation with the least possible violence and delay, but it cannot aspire to deliver liberation to them. The efforts of the international community should only complement the efforts of the oppressed peoples.
"It is essential to recognise that popular revolutions take their time, face reverses and even lose battles but will ultimately succeed. The international community cannot formulate the methods of the liberation struggle or determine its timetable. Perseverance and determination are essential if it is to play a helpful role.
"...while the United Nations can play a significant role in the international field, its role is not exclusive. States individually, as well as collectively through the Organisation of African Unity and other inter-governmental organisations, can make additional contributions. Non-governmental organisations of various sectors of public opinion can also play an important role. It is essential to co-ordinate these efforts in order to promote maximum effectiveness of the totality of international effort."
By that test the United Nations has succeeded rather than failed. It has created a world conscience which is a great support to the South African liberation movement in its struggle. It has kept the issue alive even when the liberation movement suffered serious crises. It has provided assistance to the victims of persecution and to the organisations in exile, thereby bolstering the morale of those who oppose apartheid. South Africa cannot hope to obtain international support and sympathy should its policies result in large-scale conflict.
The effects of the international efforts of the past quarter century may be intangible; for instance, the restraint on the South African government in its repressive measures and the moral support to opponents of Apartheid.
But there has occurred a very clear and historic shift in the balance of forces against apartheid. Twenty-five years ago, it was difficult even to obtain the required majority for a discussion of apartheid in the United Nations. Many powerful Western and other States blocked any condemnation of South Africa. Africa was mostly under colonial rule: South Africa and the colonial powers were engaged in discussions on co-operation based on the premise that the continent would remain an appendage of Europe, producing raw materials for Europe and for the "white Christian" civilisation of South Africa. Today, the United Nations and the international community are committed to the total eradication of apartheid. There is no government which admits to friendship with the Pretoria regime. Even Western governments contribute funds for the legal defence of persons charged under such offences as "communism", "sabotage", and "terrorism", ignoring South African protests. Many governments assist the liberation movement in its struggle against apartheid, even the armed struggle.
There is, indeed, need for constant vigilance to counteract efforts to confuse and divide the ranks of the international forces against apartheid, but it may be said with confidence, especially after the failure of the South African moves for dialogues with African States, that despite all the statistics on the military budget, trade and investment - the South African regime is increasingly isolated from the rest of the world. The decisive role in ensuring the end of apartheid and the beginning of a new course in South Africa belongs to the South African people themselves, but the international conditions for such a development are rapidly being created.
This optimistic evaluation does not mean that there is not much more that needs to be done, but only that a favourable trend has been created by the changes in the world situation and the efforts of many governments, organisations and individuals. In order to ensure that the favourable trend will be utilised, a fresh analysis of past action and the possibilities of further progress is essential.
This paper is not intended to review developments over the past twenty-five years with respect to international action against apartheid, or even United Nations action which has been described in various documents, nor is it intended to indicate future courses of action. It attempts to deal with only a few specific aspects of international action, with special reference to those on which scholarly research would perhaps be useful.
Effect of the Cold War
One area in which research may be desirable is the effect of the "cold war" on moves for international action against apartheid - especially in view of the current debate as to whether present trends towards détente are favourable to liberation from colonial and racist rule.
A study of the post-war period would perhaps show that the cold war had created great difficulties for the movement of the African people in South Africa by providing allies to the white regime and encouraging divisions within the movement.
The National Party won the general elections of May 26, 1948, by obtaining only 40 per cent of the total vote, and a slight majority of the membership in the Parliament with the support of small parties. Many of its leaders had associations with the Nazis during the Second World War and the party established a government which was for the first time composed entirely of Afrikaners, excluding the English-speaking group which dominated the economic life of the country and had strong links with Britain. It could have been expected that this government would be short-lived as it would be vulnerable to pressure from the opposition inside the country and opinion outside. But the governing party gained strength in subsequent years, mainly because it was able to paralyse or prevent effective opposition from the business community and to build links with the Western powers.
The Government of South Africa was able to wield its State power effectively not only in order to strengthen Afrikaner influence within the business community but also to neutralise the political role of the English-speaking capitalists by a combination of inducements and pressures. The big business and mining houses found that the government encouraged private business and enabled it to make profits even while developing the State sector. If some prominent businessmen gave contributions to the opposition parties or made statements in favour of the liberalisation of race policies, they proceeded at the same time to link themselves with State corporations and to take Afrikaner capital into partnership. These companies also established the South Africa Foundation and have been active in propaganda against international action. Because of their relatively liberal image and flexibility and because of their contacts abroad, they were perhaps more effective than the government itself in discouraging international action.
Meanwhile the emergence of the cold war mentality militated against any effective external pressure on South Africa to change its racial policies. The Nationalist government was quick to utilise the cold war in order to obtain international support. One of its first acts was to widen military contacts and to approach countries other than Britain. It offered to participate in the Western-led alliances in return for military equipment and political support.
Between May and June 1949, a South African ambassador-extraordinary visited a number of African colonial territories, as well as Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Great Britain, to discuss military co-operation. In August 1949, the Defence Minister of South Africa, Mr. F.C. Erasmus, accompanied by the Chief of General Staff, visited the United States to purchase equipment, particularly for an expansion of the air force.
In 1950, the South African government contributed a fighter squadron with ground personnel for the Korean War. In the same year, it offered to contribute forces for the defence of the Middle East.
South Africa became involved in a series of international conferences and discussions on military co-operation in Africa and received sizeable military equipment in recognition of its cooperation. In September-October 1950, Mr. Erasmus visited the United Kingdom, the United States, France, and Portugal for talks on military co-operation. From 25 October to 16 November 1950, a conference on central and southern African transport problems was held in Johannesburg with the participation of a number of countries. In August 1951, defence talks were held in Nairobi, under the sponsorship of the United Kingdom and South Africa. A communiqué issued at the end of the conference stated that it had made a series of unanimous recommendations designed to ensure the rapid movement, if required, of troops and military supplies to the eastern and central parts of Africa.
The South African government was also included in consultations in 1950 and 1951 on the proposal for a Middle East Command. The United States State Department announced on October 24, 1951, that the United States intended to establish a Middle Eastern Defence Command in collaboration with the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, New Zealand, Australia and the Union of South Africa. (Egypt had rejected an invitation to join the Command.) It added that the question of the relationship between the Middle Eastern Command and NATO would be considered. In March 1954, a seven-power conference to co-ordinate defence arrangements in Africa south of the Sahara was held at Dakar under the sponsorship of Britain and France. South Africa was one of the seven participating countries.
After the Anglo-Egyptian agreement for the withdrawal of forces from the Suez Canal Zone, South Africa made renewed efforts to establish closer military links with Britain, the United States and NATO. It could not obtain association with NATO but the Simonstown Agreements were signed with the United Kingdom in July 1955 as a result of a series of conversations. It was announced on July 4, 1955:
"Both Governments have agreed jointly to sponsor a Conference to develop the planning already begun at the Nairobi Conference in 1951, on the improvement and security of the lines of communication around southern Africa and between South Africa and the Middle East."
Both sides agreed that "defence of southern Africa against aggression lies not only in Africa, but also in the gateways to Africa; namely, in the Middle East."
The South African Government repeatedly approached other governments to move towards a regional defence organisation but failed, largely because of the racial policies and the reactions generated in other countries. The hopes of Malan for an "African Charter" of colonial powers - Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal and the Union of South Africa - to ensure that Africa would develop as part of "Western Christian civilisation", voiced in an interview on January 17, 1953, were not fulfilled because of the advance of the freedom movements in Africa and Asia. South Africa was against any arming of Blacks while Britain and other countries contemplated the raising of African forces.
Because of its virtual alliance with one side in the cold war, however, South Africa was able to obtain military equipment and to make sure that a large bloc of powerful countries would prevent any effective international action, at least until the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960 and the attaining of independence by a large number of African countries beginning in 1960.
In 1963, the United States government decided, partly in response to the birth of the Organisation of African Unity, to impose an arms embargo against South Africa. It also supported resolution 1881 (XVIII) of October 11, 1963, in the United Nations General Assembly, calling for the release of political prisoners, many of whom were involved in sabotage and several of whom were well-known communists. That same year, the Labour Party in Britain came out for an arms embargo; the embargo was imposed in 1964 when the Labour Party came to power.
A détente among the major Powers may perhaps be expected to weaken resistance by States to international action and to promote more united public opinion against apartheid. There is already a clear trend among the smaller countries in Western Europe, which are not particularly concerned with strategic considerations outside the continent, to support stronger action against apartheid.
The Role of Non-Governmental Organisations
An important aspect of international opposition to apartheid is the significant role played by non-governmental organisations in many countries in promoting and carrying out programmes of action. Some of these non-governmental organisations have played a more important role than many governments.
Anti-Apartheid movements have sprung up in a number of countries and have engaged in a variety of political and other activities. Defence and aid funds have been established in several countries, especially since the Defiance Campaign of 1952. They have been sending funds to people accused in South Africa of a variety of offences under the repressive legislation, ranging from communism to treason and terrorism. The campaign for the boycott of racially-selected sports teams from South Africa has led to the establishment of special committees and the involvement of hundreds of thousands of people, especially in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Older non-governmental organisations with an interest in human rights, churches and trade unions have participated in various programmes.
Apartheid became a national issue in some countries and has even affected general elections. Many public figures achieved prominence by their participation in anti-apartheid movements. Fortunately, the efforts of certain groups to promote a backlash, by accusing anti-apartheid movements of breaking law and order, have almost always failed.
It is perhaps correct to state that the resolutions of the United Nations on apartheid are supported by many governments and by a substantial segment of the population in countries where governments are not yet ready to support them.
The question of apartheid has attracted such wide public attention because of a number of factors.
In the early post-war period, the struggle in South Africa took the form of passive resistance campaigns under the leadership of the African National Congress and the South African Indian Congress. The effectiveness of such campaigns generally depends, first, on the number of volunteers who are prepared to risk imprisonment and persecution for their beliefs and, second, on the public support they gain both from the victims of oppression and from privileged groups. In the South African context, and because of the existence of the United Nations, the movements sought support not only from the white community within the country, which monopolised all State power, but also from the rest of the world.
In 1946, when the strike by African miners and the Indian passive resistance campaign brought large sections of both communities into action, a complaint against South Africa was lodged in the United Nations by the Government of India. At that time, a multi-racial delegation composed of Dr. A. B. Xuma, President-General of the African National Congress, H.A. Naidoo and Sorabji Rustomjee of the South African Indian Congress and Senator H. Bassner arrived in New York to seek international support. Shortly thereafter, the Rev. Michael Scott campaigned in the Western world in support of the struggle in South Africa. The Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws in 1952 attracted much wider attention and led to the establishment of support groups and fund-raising in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries.
Support came from a variety of groups: the pacifists, such as the Rev. Michael Scott, the Rev. Canon L. John Collins, and the Rev. George Houser; the radicals, such as Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, and Fenner Brockway; and a number of liberals with an international interest.
The African National Congress in particular paid great attention to obtaining such broad support. Its emphasis on multi-racialism and on the principles of the Freedom Charter was perhaps partially influenced by the friends it had gained.
However, because of the cold war, there were circles in the West, including some governments, which found it in their interest to try to discredit the movement by focusing on alleged communist participation or domination. But the pacifists and other supporters of the ANC were not alienated by their propaganda.
The solidarity movements were faced with problems of adjustment after the banning of the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress in the aftermath of the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960, and they were presented with even greater difficulties after both of these African organisations gave up their adherence to non-violence and moved in the direction of an armed struggle. It is to the credit of the leaders of the solidarity movements, including the pacifists, that they did not abandon their role but adjusted to the new situation. Even if opposed to violence themselves, they recognised the right of the African people to choose their own means of struggle.
More recently, the direct action tactics of anti-apartheid groups appear to have led to a few desertions from their ranks. Campaigns against corporations involved in South Africa seem to affect much wider interests. Some liberals who had earlier advocated economic sanctions changed their attitude and began to advocate greater "communication", together with pressure for wage increases, as the direction for change. But it appears that this development has not caused any significant weakening of the anti-apartheid forces, since direct action brought new recruits.
Meanwhile, the development of public action on apartheid has contributed greatly to the creation of movements of solidarity with the struggles of the colonial peoples in Africa.
The United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid has actively encouraged non-governmental action against apartheid since its inception in 1963. Such action was also encouraged later by the Organisation of African Unity.
More research on the role of the non-governmental groups against apartheid and the interaction between these groups and the inter-governmental organisations would be particularly useful at this time.
Repercussions of International Action against Apartheid
In the absence of the fulfilment of United Nations resolutions on apartheid, it is difficult, as indicated earlier, to describe precisely the effects of international action on the situation in South Africa. Nevertheless, some effects on the international level are highly significant. For instance, it was perhaps the international opinion created by opposition to apartheid that made it possible for States to set up funds for the support of liberation movements. The decision of the African States to set up a Liberation Fund and a Liberation Committee might have been widely denounced as a violation of international law if the proper climate had not been created over the years by campaigns against apartheid. By 1965, even Western governments were prepared to contribute funds to support legal and other assistance to persons persecuted in South Africa for their political activities.
International assistance to victims of oppression and their movements has become acceptable at the governmental and inter-governmental level. There is now a proposal, in the context of the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, for the establishment of a fund for action against racism in general.
The realisation that the attitudes of the Western countries could be influenced only through the development of public opinion has led the United Nations to undertake active information campaigns within the Western countries and to maintain close liaison with various opposition groups in those countries. Such intervention by the United Nations has been accepted by the governments concerned, thus enhancing the role of the United Nations.
The action against apartheid and colonialism in recent years reveals a growing recognition by the smaller countries of the potential usefulness of United Nations machinery in spite of the right of veto enjoyed by the Great Powers in the Security Council. On their initiative, the United Nations has granted the right of petition which has been valuable to the leaders of the oppressed people. It has also recognised the legitimacy of the struggles of the liberation movements and called for assistance to the movements, thereby encouraging individual States to contribute to the liberation movements without any fear that this will be regarded as a violation of current international law. More recently, the movements have received observer status in United Nations bodies.
United Nations action against apartheid has also had some important side effects which are significant in relation to the total change in the balance of forces. It has stimulated, for instance, the growth of anti-racist movements in such countries as Australia and New Zealand. Action initiated by anti-apartheid groups against companies investing in South Africa has spurred the movement for the recognition of corporate responsibility in general. Concern over the torture of prisoners in South Africa has encouraged action on the wider problem of the torture of prisoners in general.
The Prospects
It is impossible to predict the course of major changes such as those sought in South Africa. Revolutions take their own historical time, and international action is only a secondary factor in determining the course of events.
The international community has come a long way since 1948 when it was impossible even to adopt the mildest resolution in the United Nations General Assembly on the racial problem in South Africa. The United Nations is now committed - or at least the great majority of Member States are committed through General Assembly resolutions - to promote the total eradication of apartheid in South Africa. It is committed to the support of the legitimate struggle of the oppressed people, irrespective of the means they choose, including armed struggle. The resolutions are moving in the direction of non-recognition of the Government of South Africa. Apartheid has been declared a punishable crime under a new Convention. The commitment of the United Nations is shared not only by many governments but also by large segments of public opinion.
The balance is constantly turning against apartheid - with the independence of every territory in the Third World, with every victory against racism in other countries, with every confrontation against forces collaborating with South Africa, and with every advance of the liberation movements in the colonial territories in southern Africa.
With the recent developments in Africa and the rest of the world, there may well be more concerted and more widespread public action against apartheid. The results of the International Trade Union Conference against Apartheid, held in Geneva in June 1973, reflected the possibility now of unity against apartheid transcending sharp divisions on other matters.
This is not to say that the struggle on the international level has been completely won. There are still illusions and hesitations, as well as resistance, which need to be overcome.
The illusion that apartheid can be abolished by international persuasion and exhortation is perhaps no longer alive. But the hope that apartheid can somehow painlessly wither away as a result of economic development, industrialisation and modernisation seems very attractive to some elements and has recently been propagated with vigour. While a strategy against apartheid will need to involve pressures on many fronts, and while pressures for wage increases or civilised working conditions may be useful in the context of a broad strategy, concentration on these pressures can he harmful if they are posed against economic sanctions or the policies of the liberation movement and the United Nations.
There can be no real progress without the movement of the people in South Africa. And a policy of promoting dialogue with the accessible Africans - that is, those who are able to move around when the leaders of the struggle against apartheid are successively jailed and banned - can only steadily lead to compromise with apartheid, not to its elimination or to a settlement.
The statement that one often encounters, that apartheid persists because of support by the governments or economic interests abroad, is, in my view, not quite accurate. There is little support from outside, unless one considers loans at substantial interest rates as support. In fact, some foreign governments and economic interests have benefited from the isolation of South Africa by driving hard bargains. What the United Nations and the liberation movement seek is really the withdrawal of any economic or other dealings with South Africa and the isolation of that regime. Such a course is intended to weaken that regime and prevent the existence and development of lobbies in favour of that regime.
Apartheid has been a challenge to the international community. Opposition to it has led to many healthy developments in international life, such as an acceleration of international action against racism, the development of solidarity with the black people struggling against colonialism and racism, and the growing recognition of corporate responsibility.
Will the changing balance of forces on the international level lead to an early solution in South Africa? The answer depends on the development of the movement of the oppressed people and the reaction of the white minority and its government. But perhaps two things are certain: first, South Africa cannot resist the world, and the end of white supremacy is assured even if the next round is lost by the opponents of apartheid; and, second, international action will have contributed to the minimising of violence and casualties in this struggle.