Of all the crises in the world today, the growing conflict between the minority regimes and the liberation movements in southern Africa is of most direct and urgent concern to the United Nations. At stake are the purposes and principles of the United Nations and the imperative need to eliminate colonialism and racial discrimination, which are major sources of international tension and conflict.
The African people in Rhodesia, South Africa and Namibia patiently tried for decades, by peaceful and non-violent means, to obtain their legitimate rights. But the authorities consistently rejected peaceful change to full equality, and met the African demands with increasingly ruthless measures of repression. The African political movements were obliged to abandon non-violence and organise underground activity, sabotage and armed struggle.
Rhodesia is now the scene of an armed conflict between the illegal regime and the liberation forces in which, according to official accounts, over 5,000 people have been killed.
Encounters between the South African forces and the freedom fighters of the Namibian liberation movement, the South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAPO), have become a frequent occurrence.
In South Africa, many hundreds of Africans have been killed and thousands wounded since the killings of African school children demonstrating against racial discrimination in Soweto in June 1976. The violence has been entirely by the police, but the beginnings of armed resistance by the black people have appeared.
These conflicts have spilled beyond national boundaries. South African and Rhodesian forces have repeatedly committed acts of aggression against Angola, Mozambique and Zambia in pursuit of freedom fighters and to intimidate the neighbouring African States which support them.
In 1946 the United Nations was seized with the problem of racial discrimination in South Africa and with South Africa's moves to annex Namibia. Since then, United Nations action on southern Africa has evolved from mere appeals to attempts to apply sanctions and other forms of pressure, and finally to wide-ranging programmes of international action at governmental and non-governmental levels.
Until 1960, the United Nations annually appealed to the South African government to end racial discrimination in the hope that it could be persuaded by world opinion. These appeals failed, but the United Nations debates were not without value.
They resulted in the gradual acceptance by all Member States of the competence of the United Nations to consider the situation in South Africa, in greater world awareness of the aspirations of the black people of that country and in the moral isolation of the South African government.
The discussions on Namibia - reinforced by the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice affirming the international status of the territory and the accountability of the South African government for its administration -helped prevent an annexation of that territory. The Namibian people were enabled, despite strenuous South African objections, to approach the international community through petitions to United Nations organs and hearings before them.
By 1960, the rapid advance of Decolonisation in Africa and the entry of newly-independent African States into the United Nations drew greater world attention to southern Africa.
The South African government, determined to resist the "winds of change" sweeping the continent, stepped up repression against the growing movement for freedom in South Africa and Namibia. On December 10, 1959, Human Rights Day, the South African police opened fire on a crowd of Africans in Windhoek, peacefully demonstrating against a forcible move to a segregated location, killing 11 and wounding 44.
On March 21, 1960, in Sharpeville, South Africa, police shot indiscriminately at a peaceful demonstration against racist "pass laws", killing 68 and wounding over 200.
These tragic events heightened world concern over the situation, especially in Western countries which had earlier resisted strong condemnations.
On April 1, 1960, the Security Council considered the situation in South Africa for the first time, and called on the South African government to abandon apartheid and racial discrimination. In December of that year, the General Assembly adopted the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, solemnly proclaiming the need to bring colonialism in all its forms to a speedy and unconditional end.
As the South African government continued to defy United Nations resolutions, the African States, supported by Asian, Socialist and other States, pressed for economic and other sanctions against South Africa.
They felt that South Africa would pay little attention to United Nations resolutions so long as it was able to count on continued political, economic and other relations with the Western countries and its other major trading partners. The latter resisted sanctions, arguing that they were neither feasible nor appropriate, and that they could not achieve the desired results. United Nations deliberations began to reflect a consensus on the objectives but sharp differences on the means of promoting them.
On November 6, 1962, the General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting Member States to break off diplomatic and economic relations with South Africa, and to refrain from supplying arms and ammunition to that country. This resolution was opposed by the main trading partners of South Africa, and many other States abstained. The Security Council decided in 1963-1964 to recommend an arms embargo against South Africa but could not agree on mandatory sanctions.
In 1966, the United Nations General Assembly decided by an overwhelming vote to terminate South Africa's mandate over Namibia and declared that the territory was henceforth under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. Following South Africa's refusal to withdraw from the territory, the General Assembly and the Security Council recommended a number of measures to secure its compliance but again there was no agreement on mandatory decisions.
Meanwhile, the United Nations became increasingly concerned with the situation in Southern Rhodesia as the minority regime in that territory attempted to obtain independence without granting equal rights to the African population.
After that regime made a unilateral and illegal declaration of independence in 1965, and on the proposal of the administering power, the United Kingdom, the Security Council imposed mandatory sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. The effectiveness of these sanctions was, however, limited by the fact that South Africa (and Portugal until the independence of Mozambique in 1975) enabled the Rhodesians to circumvent the sanctions.
Most nations of the world have broken, or refrained from establishing diplomatic relations with South Africa, but 21 countries, including the main trading partners of South Africa, maintain diplomatic representatives in Pretoria. All countries have recognised the illegality of South African administration over Namibia and almost all have terminated official relations with it. No country, except South Africa, maintains diplomatic relations with the illegal regime in Rhodesia.
But in the economic field, the results have been particularly disappointing. Though many countries complied with United Nations resolutions, some at considerable sacrifice, South Africa was able to increase its economic relations with its main trading partners.
Even more alarming was the military build-up by South Africa, despite the arms embargo. While most governments prohibited the supply of arms and military equipment to South Africa, a few arms exporting countries delayed action or followed restrictive interpretations of the United Nations recommendations. South Africa increased its military budget from $168 million in 1962-63 to $1,900 million in 1977-78. It acquired an enormous amount of sophisticated military equipment, and developed local manufacture of arms and ammunition.
While continuing to press the powers concerned to disengage from the minority regimes, the United Nations organs began to push for greater action in directions where there was broader agreement. Particular emphasis was placed on assistance to the oppressed people of southern Africa and their liberation movements, on dissemination information on the situation in southern Africa and on encouragement of action by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations to reinforce United Nations efforts.
Two important world conferences were held in 1977 with impressive participation of governments, liberation movements and intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations: the International Conference in Support of the Peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia, held in Maputo, Mozambique, from 16 to 21 May; and the World Conference for Action against Apartheid, held in Lagos, Nigeria, from 22 to 26 August.
The United Nations has recognised the legitimacy of the struggles of the national liberation movements for freedom, and has granted them observer status in its deliberations on southern African problems. It has encouraged the specialised agencies and other intergovernmental organisations - as well as churches, trade unions, anti-apartheid and solidarity movements and other non-governmental organisations - to take all appropriate action, each within its mandate, to isolate the minority regimes and assist the struggles for freedom.
In 1967, it established the office of the Commissioner for Namibia to help execute the decisions of the Council for Namibia, administer assistance to the Namibian people and mobilise public support to press for South Africa's withdrawal.
It also established a Centre against Apartheid, to help the Special Committee against Apartheid develop an international campaign, to expand information activity and to administer humanitarian and educational assistance to the victims of apartheid.
As a result of persistent efforts by the United Nations and other organisations, as well as by African and other Member States, the minority regimes are increasingly isolated.
The specialised agencies of the United Nations and other intergovernmental organisations have all excluded Southern Rhodesia, and have refused to recognise the South African administration in Namibia. Many of them accepted the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal authority for Namibia, and have invited the national liberation movements from the three countries to their conferences and meetings. South Africa withdrew from UNESCO in 1955 and has since been expelled from or obliged to leave many other intergovernmental organisations. None provides any assistance to South Africa or Rhodesia.
An important aspect of the effort to isolate the minority regimes is the encouragement of public action, especially in countries which continue to maintain relations with South Africa. Non-governmental groups have organised boycotts of South African and Namibian goods. They have exerted their influence to dissuade transnational corporations from collaborating with South Africa and from practising racial discrimination in their operations in southern Africa. The campaign to boycott racially-selected sports teams from South Africa has involved hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and sports enthusiasts in many countries, and has brought home to the white communities in southern Africa the extent of world-wide abhorrence of racial discrimination.
Several Western countries and other main trading partners of South Africa have taken further steps, however cautious and moderate, towards the implementation of United Nations resolutions. France, for example, announced in 1977 that it was halting supplies of military equipment to South Africa, and the Federal Republic of Germany has decided to close its consulate in Namibia. Scandinavian and other States have taken steps to stop new investments in South Africa.
The United Nations and related agencies undertook humanitarian and educational assistance to the victims of colonialism and apartheid in the early 1960s when repression greatly increased and sizeable numbers of refugees began to come out of southern Africa. In subsequent years, they established and encouraged programmes of direct assistance to the liberation movements, including help in preparing cadres for the future development of these countries.
The United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa -established in 1965 to assist political prisoners and their families in South Africa, Namibia and Southern Rhodesia - has received over $5 million in voluntary contributions.
The United Nations Educational and Training Programme for Southern Africa, also financed by voluntary contributions, has received over $10 million to train inhabitants of the three territories. It now administers over 1300 scholarships.
The Fund for Namibia, established in 1972, has received over $9 million. Part of this goes to the Namibia Institute, established in Lusaka in 1976, to train cadres for the future administration of Namibia.
The United Nations Development Programme has allocated substantial funds for assistance to national liberation movements, to be administered by UNESCO, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been assisting tens of thousands of refugees from the three territories. UNICEF provides assistance to mothers and children through the national liberation movements.
Few liberation struggles in history have received greater political support and concrete assistance from the international community.
The minority regimes in southern Africa are increasingly isolated and face mounting pressure. This has resulted in some movement towards settlements in Zimbabwe and Namibia, with United Nations participation in the process of transition to independence.
But the South African government remains adamant in rejecting majority rule and so long as it and its supporters resist change, there can be no secure peace in the region. The threat of a widening conflict, perhaps even a race war, with enormous casualties and inevitable repercussions beyond the region, will remain.
The United Nations is attempting, as a matter of utmost urgency, to maximise international efforts to avert this danger. Full observance of International Anti-Apartheid Year in 1978 can make an effective contribution to this effort.
INTERNATIONAL ANTI-APARTHEID YEAR
(21 MARCH 1978-21 MARCH 1979)
The International Anti-Apartheid Year which will begin on March 21, 1978, has a rather negative title - but nothing can be more positive than this year which was unanimously endorsed by 148 Member States.
It will begin with the onset of spring in the Northern Hemisphere - on a day which is also observed as the Earth Day - on a day which is the New Year's Day in many communities of the world.
Unfortunately, it is also the anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre of 1960 in South Africa - when scores of unarmed men, women and children were killed and wounded for a peaceful demonstration against pass laws.
Tragic though that event was, the Sharpeville massacre opened the eyes of much of the world to the danger of racism and led the United Nations and international community in action not only against apartheid but also against racism in general.
I may recall - especially as we are at the mid-point of the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination - that one of the first resolutions adopted by the General Assembly in 1946 was a resolution against racial discrimination. Nothing further seemed to happen while the Member States were preoccupied with other problems until the Sharpeville massacre and the independence of African States put racism near the top of the agenda. The General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 1963, to be followed by a Convention against Racial Discrimination, a Convention against Apartheid, an International Year against Racism, a Decade against Racism and so on.
The anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre of March 21, 1960, has been observed since 1967 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This year, it will also be the day of the launching of the International Anti-Apartheid Year - at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, at the European Headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris and in many capitals.
I said at the outset that this is a year of positive action, for a positive purpose, even if the title seems somewhat negative.
For a long time, a small minority in South Africa has dominated the country and appropriated most of its wealth. It established racism as a State doctrine, and tried to suppress all demands by the African people for human rights.
As the resistance of the black people increased - and as the whites began to lose faith in their so-called superiority - the successive governments began to resort to ever increasing repression and even massacres to keep the blacks down.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Africans owned most of the land in South Africa. Today they are excluded from nine-tenths of the land. By the beginning of the twentieth century, Africans and other blacks had a few rights, including limited voting rights and the right to property and residence. Today they have none.
The purpose of the campaign against apartheid is to end these inequities and injustices, which are the cause of the conflict in the country, and to enable all the people to enjoy their human rights.
Instead of a small minority governing the country, let the country be governed by representatives democratically elected by all the people. Let the destiny of the country be decided by all the people on the basis of equality. That is what the United Nations means by genuine self-determination.
The time has passed - not only in South Africa, but also in the whole world - when the darker skinned people will continue to minister to the needs of the lighter skinned people and accept crumbs from their tables. That is a legacy of the era of slavery and colonialism which cannot continue any more.
In the case of South Africa, this effort to widen the enjoyment of human rights from a small minority to the whole nation is not only a struggle for justice and to prevent a catastrophic conflict, but has come to assume tremendous historical significance.
Freedom in South Africa will mean that at last - after centuries of slavery and humiliation which resulted in tens of millions of deaths - the whole continent of Africa has achieved emancipation. It will mean a decisive turning point in the struggle to end racism all over the world.
The purpose of the International Anti-Apartheid Year then is not just to fight a repressive regime or system but to take a crucial step in building the basis for a new world order.
I have wished many times that the whites in South Africa would try to play a role in the resurgence of Africa and its re-emergence on the world stage. They think they are a kind of pioneers who developed a part of Africa. They have produced some great liberal thinkers. The Afrikaners, in particular, have been proud that they had carried on a brave struggle against oppression and imperialism, exactly eighty years ago, and built monuments in memory of that struggle. But then, as in the United States two centuries ago, they forgot that the blacks were equally human, and tried to consecrate racial inequality, a sure prescription for a civil war.
I come from a former colonial country, India. During the course of our long freedom struggle tens of thousands of people were imprisoned every few years. But again and again, the colonial regime tried to negotiate with the leaders - like Gandhi and Nehru - even when they were in jail. In South Africa, however, the minority government has consistently refused to sit down and talk to the genuine leaders of the people -and only recently began the farce of meetings with the tribal chiefs it designated as leaders.
When it puts people in jail for political offences, there is not even a remission. A life sentence means a sentence for life.
Thus, the government in South Africa has so far excluded a negotiated settlement.
Since there are no legal means for change, and since the government refuses to negotiate, the black people have no choice except to resort to illegal means - whether non-violent or violent or both.
The rest of the world has no choice except to exert all the pressure it can - to force the government to negotiate or, if it is far too intransigent, to surrender.
The International Anti-Apartheid Year is a means to mobilise the will and the strength of the international community for this purpose.
TRIBUTE TO PERCY QOBOZA
I believe it is most appropriate that the Ethical Humanist Award is being presented this year to Percy Qoboza.
Mr. Qoboza is an outstanding editor who built up the World as the voice of the black majority. Under his leadership it acquired the largest readership of any newspaper in South Africa, estimated at more than a million. This was not an easy task in a country where the press has to function under scores of restrictions, laws and regulations, where black journalists have to operate under constant harassment and serious practical difficulties and where the press is prohibited from even quoting Chief Lutuli, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, not to mention many other eminent black leaders like Nelson Mandela, Robert Sobukwe and Steve Biko.
Events following the massacre of African school children in Soweto two years ago with the massive police violence, the seething resentment of the black people, and their undaunted resistance confronted Mr. Qoboza with a challenge as a black intellectual and as an editor. He tried faithfully, within the laws, to report the events, to call for a dialogue by the authorities with the real leaders of the black people and to arrest the rapid drift towards a disastrous racial conflict. He upheld the conviction of all the black leaders that a lasting solution can only be based on justice, on the recognition that South Africa belongs to all its people. That is what the authorities bent on perpetuating racist domination could not tolerate.
Soon after the Soweto Massacre on June 16, 1976, the police sealed off the huge African township of Soweto, with a population of close to a million, and prevented white journalists from entering the area. It fell on the few black journalists living there to report the events to South Africa and to the world. We have a record of numerous black journalists who faced grave risks, and who were repeatedly assaulted by the police and detained for performing their duty. Many of them are still in jail without charges and without trial, held incommunicado.
In honouring Mr. Qoboza, we honour all the black journalists for their sacrifice and their outstanding service to truth.
It will be thirty years later this month since the apartheid regime came to power on the slogan of the "black danger". The real danger to the white supremacists was and is, however, the principles of the United Nations and the ethical values professed by humanity. The apartheid regime persecuted Percy Qoboza, not so much because he was a black editor, but because he was a voice of sanity and of truth and indeed of moderation as understood elsewhere. He could not be allowed to communicate with his own people and with the white people. By persecuting the courageous journalist, the apartheid regime has not succeeded in suppressing the truth or in containing resistance to injustice. In fact, underground and armed resistance by the Liberation Movement has greatly escalated in the past few months.
Solomon Mahlangu, the young South African, joined the ranks of the freedom fighters when the racist regime resorted to massacres of black school children. He was captured and executed by a neo-Nazi regime denounced by the entire world.
His last words speak for his courage and for the determination of his generation to make supreme sacrifices for the elimination of apartheid and the liberation of their nation.
On this occasion we extend our sympathy to his mother and our expression of solidarity to the African National Congress of South Africa.
There has hardly been a parallel in history to the indiscriminate killings of school children in Soweto and other South African townships.
The Pretoria regime thought that by its massive brutality, it could subdue the resurgence of resistance by the youth of South Africa. But, according to its own accounts, no less than four thousand young men and women left South Africa in the wake of the Soweto massacre to join the freedom fighters.
It executed Solomon Mahlangu in the hope of intimidating the freedom fighters - but if the past is any guide, the death of this young man will only swell the ranks of those who will be persuaded to take up arms, and to refuse to lay them down until they destroy the system of racist domination.
Many Heads of State and Government - including several from the Western countries - as well as numerous organisations around the world, appealed to the South African regime to spare the life of Solomon Mahlangu.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations made three appeals, and the Security Council of the United Nations held an unprecedented meeting to address a unanimous appeal to the Pretoria regime.
Yet, the South African regime went ahead with the execution in defiance of the world, the first execution of a political prisoner in more than ten years.
This execution is not only one more act of brutality or one more crime by the apartheid regime, or one more sacrifice by the liberation movement.
It is the unfolding of a new stage in the confrontation between the forces of freedom and the forces of oppression in southern Africa - and it must be the unfolding of a new stage in international action to destroy the forces which have engulfed southern Africa in conflict and threaten to bring about a holocaust.
Threat to Peace
The great majority of the Member States of the United Nations - the Asian, African and other non-aligned States, Socialist States and others - have constantly emphasised for many years, along with the World Peace Council and other organisations, that the problem in South Africa is not merely racism, colonialism and violation of human rights - obnoxious and intolerable though they are - but a threat to international peace and security. It was as long ago as 1952 - when the African National Congress launched the "Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws" - that the United Nations recognised that apartheid would inevitably lead to conflict.
It was twenty years ago that the African National Congress appealed for sanctions against South Africa - an appeal which was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1962.
Yet many people - even those who were firmly opposed to racism and recognised the legitimacy of the struggle for liberation - did not perceive the scale and potential of the danger to peace - just as, in earlier years, they did not recognise the menace that a self-styled Feuhrer represented in Europe.
The military budget of South Africa rose from 40 million rand in 1960-61 to 1550 million rand last year and is being increased to 1857 million rand in 1979-80 - an increase of no less than 3600 per cent.
Where can one find a parallel to this - and what more evidence does one need for recognising the existence of a serious threat to the peace?
In this period, the world has witnessed the massacres of Sharpeville, of Soweto and of Cassinga and many others in Zimbabwe, as well as in Zambia and Mozambique, against unarmed Africans.
Ever since 1961, there have been constant violations of the territorial integrity of neighbouring States by the South African regime, escalating into a massive invasion of the People's Republic of Angola in 1975 and repeated acts of aggression by the illegal regime in Rhodesia against Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana.
There is no more pretence of the non-existent right of "hot pursuit", but calculated aggression deep into the territories of other States - even States which are not contiguous, as in the case of the recent Rhodesian attack on Angola.
Nowhere can one find a parallel to such massacres and aggression with so little international response.
The South African regime has openly declared that when its security is involved, no rules would apply.
It was the present Prime Minister, P.W. Botha, who proposed the law to authorise the South African armed forces to move anywhere south of the Equator.
In the past few days we have again heard official assertions by him of an intention to establish regional hegemony and to fight the forces of freedom beyond the Zambezi.
The illegal elections in Rhodesia and the manoeuvres in Namibia are part of that strategy.
So is the execution of Mahlangu.
In this context, the evidence that the South African regime has already secretly acquired, or can soon acquire, nuclear weapons, underlines the enormous danger to peace. The situation in southern Africa, therefore, requires, the utmost attention of any organisation dedicated to peace.
Mobilise against Apartheid
The United Nations has called for an international mobilisation against apartheid - a mobilisation of all forces of freedom and peace - for the cessation of all collaboration with apartheid and to provide all necessary support to the national liberation movement of South Africa.
This mobilisation must encompass world-wide action for a full implementation of the arms embargo against South Africa, for an end to all nuclear collaboration with South Africa, for an end to all loans to South Africa and investments in South Africa.
We must make world public opinion aware of the enormous danger to world peace posed by the policies and actions of the apartheid regime.
We must also publicise the progress of the liberation struggle in southern Africa, including the beginnings of an armed struggle in South Africa itself.
We must demand that captured freedom fighters must at least be treated as prisoners of war.
The execution of Mahlangu must be viewed as a desperate act by a dying system in the face of the advances of the liberation struggle and of international mobilisation against apartheid.
The Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid said in a statement after the execution of Mahlangu:
"More than three centuries ago - on April 6, 1652 - Johan van Riebeeck, a Dutch commander, landed in the Table Bay to begin settler colonisation of South Africa.
"The Vorster-Botha regime chose the anniversary of that fateful day - April 6th - to execute Solomon Mahlangu.
"From now on, the Riebeeck Day, celebrated by the racists, should be observed as Mahlangu Day by the fighters against racist domination, and all their allies and friends, in order to bring a speedy end to the long era of oppression and humiliation of the African people in their own continent."
THE ACHIEVEMENTS AND THE CHALLENGE
The Special Committee and the Anti-Apartheid Movement have both been established in response to the needs and requests of the national liberation movement.
They have both recognised that the primary role in the struggle for liberation belongs to the national liberation movement, and that their own work is supportive.
They have both tried to build broadest support to the liberation struggle - irrespective of differences on any other issues.
They have both moved ahead in response to the changing requirements of the struggle, overcoming all distractions and pressures.
Their work has been totally complementary.
The United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity - together with anti-apartheid movements, especially in countries which continue to collaborate with the apartheid regime - form the core of the solidarity movement which today has to meet immense challenges.
The Special Committee against Apartheid has for a long time recognised the Anti-Apartheid Movement as the conscience of the British people and as an indispensable ally of the United Nations.
It began effective cooperation with the Anti-Apartheid Movement soon after its own establishment in 1963. It has not only consulted the Movement on numerous occasions and sent representatives to its meetings, but has repeatedly invited representatives of the Movement to its own meetings, seminars and conferences. Several of the leaders of the Movement were honoured guests of the Special Committee and of the Nigerian Government at the World Conference for Action against Apartheid held in Lagos in August 1977.
Even more important, many of the initiatives of the Special Committee have resulted from consultations with the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
We have cooperated on numerous campaigns - from the World Campaign for the Release of South African Political Prisoners at the time of the Rivonia Trial in 1963-64 to the recent launching of the World Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa.
Three months ago, the Special Committee organised an important seminar on nuclear collaboration with South Africa in cooperation with the Anti-Apartheid Movement and in the next few months another important seminar on the role of transnational corporations in southern Africa will be organised by the Movement, at the request of and in cooperation with the Special Committee.
I must pay tribute to the Anti-Apartheid Movement for its valuable and consistent support to the efforts of the United Nations in the cause of African liberation.
I must, in particular, express our great appreciation to the many leaders of the Anti-Apartheid Movement whom we have known and come to respect - people like Bishop Ambrose Reeves, Barbara Castle, David Steel, Joan Lestor, Jeremy Thorpe, David Ennals, Bob Hughes and Abdul Minty - as well as its officials from Dorothy Roberts, Rosalynde Ainslee and Ethel de Keyser to Mike Terry and his colleagues.
In paying tribute to the Anti-Apartheid Movement, we cannot but pay tribute to the national liberation movement of South Africa - one of the noblest movements of this century, and a pioneer, an inspirer and often a guide to other liberation movements.
It is the righteousness of its struggle, and the heroism and sacrifices of its militants, which have inspired a world-wide solidarity movement.
Where else can one find nobler documents of freedom than in the programmes of the South African liberation movement? Where else can one find more inspiring epics of freedom struggle than in the Defiance Campaign of 1952 and the defiance of children after Soweto - not to go back to the Battle of Isandhlawana in the last century?
Great Movement of Solidarity
But I would like to point out that if the liberation movement has its numerous martyrs, the solidarity movement too has its own share of heroes.
Hundreds and thousands of people in many countries have gone to jail, or have been subjected to assaults by the police or racists, or risked their careers, not to speak of the sacrifices of their time and money because of their convictions. I believe that on this occasion, we must also pay tribute to them, and be inspired by them.
The movement of solidarity with the South African people has a long history.
The Pan African Movement - at its very inception here in London in 1900 - called for international support to the rights and aspirations of the African people of South Africa.
The Indian National Congress proclaimed its solidarity long before the Indian Government raised the South African problem in international forums in 1946.
Freedom in South Africa was a major concern of the Garvey movement in the United States and the Caribbean in the 1920s. The struggle in South Africa was the foremost concern of the International Committee, later renamed Council on African Affairs, established by Paul Robeson in 1937, until it was paralysed during the cold war in 1951.
One can cite many other antecedents to the Anti-Apartheid Movement - most notably the Defence and Aid Fund led by the Reverend Canon L. John Collins, and the tireless labours of people like Lord Fenner Brockway.
But I believe that the Anti-Apartheid Movement, relatively young as it is, has had a special role. Its experience in Britain, as well as the experiences of similar movements which developed in many other countries, provide useful lessons for future action.
Twenty Years of Struggle
I would like to recall briefly the situation in 1959 when this movement was launched.
It was a time when the liberation movement - after the Defiance Campaign, the Congress of the People, the Women's anti-pass agitation and the resistance against forced removals - was subjected to severe repression through the notorious Treason Trial and the banning orders under the so-called Suppression of Communism Act.
The liberation movement had spread throughout the country, in the cities as well as the reserves, and had earned the right to recognition as the authentic representative of the people. But the apartheid regime was determined to stifle it by repression, and disorganise the people through the creation of so-called homelands under headmen and chiefs.
At the same time, driven by cold war calculations, the major Western Powers had reinforced their links with the apartheid regime. The Simonstown Agreements had been concluded only a few years earlier. The Western media had constantly tried to libel the liberation movement with the communist label.
It was in that context that the liberation movement appealed for support of decent men and women abroad - particularly to deprive the apartheid regime of its external support.
The sanctions resolutions of the Conferences of Independent African States and the Conferences of African peoples organised by the late Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, were the African response.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement here, with its boycott campaign, was the response in the West, and it helped establish anti-apartheid and solidarity groups in many other countries.
The response from the United Nations was to come soon - with the 1962 General Assembly resolution on sanctions, which established the Special Committee against Apartheid.
The sanctions campaign was thus launched at a time when the liberation movement was obliged by the apartheid regime to take the fateful decision to go beyond non-violent and legal struggle.
Today, twenty years later, we face a new situation, after the tremendous escalation of repression and resistance. Will the international community enable the liberation movements of southern Africa to destroy the racist regimes and emancipate the whole of the African continent - or will external forces allow the apartheid regime to bring about a wider conflict?
The new stage of the crisis in southern Africa, and of the liberation struggle, requires new strategies.
The United Nations and its Special Committee have called for an international mobilisation against apartheid - to isolate the apartheid regime and to lend full support to the national liberation movement, so that apartheid can be destroyed and the threat to the peace averted. They have made this call after consultation with the anti-apartheid movement and other public organisations.
In the past twenty years, as the solidarity movement developed at the governmental and non-governmental level, the situation in South Africa itself has grown from bad to worse.
There has been a great intensification of racist domination; the establishment of bantustans; a series of obnoxious repressive laws; the massacres of Sharpeville and Soweto; the executions of patriots from Vuyisile Mini to Solomon Mahlangu; and the tortures and killings of eminent leaders in detention.
There has been a tremendous military build-up, accompanied by numerous acts of aggression against independent African States. There is now the imminent danger of acquisition of nuclear capability by the apartheid regime.
Some people tend to feel despondent that the solidarity activities have been in vain. I believe that is very wrong. We should not underestimate the tremendous victories of the international campaign against apartheid.
The unanimous condemnation of apartheid by the international community - however hypocritical or superficial in the case of some - is of no small significance.
The arms embargo against South Africa, the funds for assistance to the oppressed people and the international convention against apartheid have hardly any precedents in history.
Here, in the United Kingdom, the abrogation of the Simonstown Agreements - essentially because of public pressure - was not an insignificant achievement.
I see the "Muldergate scandal", above all, as a tribute to the international campaign, and a sign of decadence in the apartheid regime.
We must recognise the growth of the anti-apartheid forces in the past twenty years and their potential strength if they are mobilised and concerted. Africa is no more a colonial preserve.
The climate in Western European countries is very different from that in 1959 when they were still fighting colonial wars or had not become reconciled to the loss of colonies.
Even the major Western Powers are conscious that their economic interests in independent Africa are more important than their stake in apartheid.
I do not ignore the danger ahead.
Ever since the debacle of the apartheid regime and the Western secret services in Angola, and especially since the Soweto massacre, there have been frantic attempts to stem the tide of revolution in southern Africa. The recent trends in some Western countries, and the resurgence of racist lobbies, are certainly a cause for concern.
It seems that some powerful politicians here and in the United States would like to hitch the future of their countries to the fortunes of the apartheid regime, and violate solemn commitments in the United Nations.
We must, of course, persist in our efforts to persuade everyone to join the campaign against apartheid.
But the struggle for liberation cannot wait until all the racists, the militarists and the profiteers from apartheid see the light. The anti-apartheid forces must be mobilised to block the overt and covert alliances with apartheid.
Public opinion in the Western countries must be made aware that the forces which seek to cement links with apartheid are a menace to the future of their own countries. They endanger the survival of the Commonwealth, weaken the United Nations, risk the growing economic relations with African countries and create a gulf between their countries and vast regions of the world.
They are also building a Frankenstein which may well become a menace to themselves, as Nazism was exactly forty years ago.
New Strategies
Twenty years is a short time, but these past twenty years have been too long a time for the oppressed people of South Africa to suffer increasing tyranny while other African countries became free. It is too long a time for the non-fulfilment of the decisions of the United Nations.
But perhaps no time is lost. Twenty or thirty years ago, the African people asked for little more than consultation by their rulers, the abrogation of some racist laws, and the beginnings of a move towards democracy.
Today, they are struggling for much more - the total destruction of the apartheid system and the transfer of power to the people.
The time lost will be made up in the speed and extent of transformation of the South African society.
Solomon Mahlangu, who was born around the same time as the Anti-Apartheid Movement, has become symbolic of the spirit of the liberation movement today. His last testament calls on us to rally all the potential strength of anti-apartheid forces - among the governments, in the trade unions and churches, in the campuses, among the communities of African origin all over the world - and wield it for a decisive confrontation with apartheid and its allies.
The United Nations, the OAU and the anti-apartheid movements will need to retool their strategies and structures, in cooperation with the liberation movements, for this international mobilisation against apartheid.
TRIBUTE TO BISHOP AMBROSE REEVES
I consider it a special privilege to come here to join in the tributes to Bishop Ambrose Reeves - and to Mrs. Reeves - and to bring to them and all their friends greetings from the United Nations.
Throughout his life, Bishop Reeves personified the principles of the United Nations.
I refer not only to his rejection of apartheid, but also to his concern for the underprivileged in this country and for peace in Vietnam.
I do not know if it was a mere coincidence that Ambrose Reeves became the bishop of Johannesburg when the liberation movement decided on a positive action programme for freedom.
After the Sharpeville massacre - when the liberation movement decided to send its representatives abroad - I wonder who persuaded the apartheid regime to deport Bishop Reeves so that he could assist them with all his vigour in promoting international action against apartheid.
But it was no accident that at a critical time in October 1963 - soon after Nelson Mandela and others were charged in the Rivonia trial - Bishop Reeves visited the United Nations as the first "petitioner" in the General Assembly against apartheid. That was the year when the United Nations established a Special Committee against Apartheid and assigned me as its secretary. That was the year of the appeal of Chief Lutuli to the conscience of the world.
Bishop Reeves came to the United Nations to make a magnificent response on behalf of the men and women of conscience around the world - to denounce the hypocrisy of the collaborators with apartheid and to call for the solidarity of the international community with the oppressed people of South Africa.
The Special Committee and I had the great privilege to honour Bishop Reeves and Oliver Tambo at the United Nations Headquarters - the first time a "petitioner" and a leader of a liberation movement were so honoured.
That, indeed, was the beginning of the formal recognition of African liberation movements by the United Nations - and of our long and fruitful association with Bishop Reeves and the British Anti-Apartheid Movement.
This observance is taking place most appropriately on Human Rights Day - a day which has a very special significance to South Africa, to Bishop Reeves and to the United Nations.
I have the great privilege to convey to you the greetings from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the presidents of three United Nations bodies on southern Africa.
ARMED RESISTANCE IN SOUTH AFRICA
One of the most significant developments in South Africa - and the least reported in the world press - is the growth of armed resistance by the national liberation movement since 1977.
A series of skirmishes have taken place in the border regions between the freedom fighters and the South African security forces. There have been many armed attacks against police stations, Security Police and informers in South Africa. South African police have announced the discovery of tens of arms caches at widely separated locations, indicating that the movement has succeeded in infiltrating large numbers of freedom fighters and considerable quantities of arms.
Though evidence of growing armed resistance is available from South African press reports and the proceedings of a number of political trials, the international press has only briefly reported a few incidents. It continues to convey the impression that the South African regime has succeeded in stabilising the situation after the uprising in Soweto and its aftermath - as it presumably did after the Sharpeville massacre two decades ago. This picture, of course, facilitates renewed foreign investment in South Africa which has rapidly increased after the interregnum following the Soweto massacre.
Admissions by the South African Regime
The South African regime itself does not minimise the seriousness of the situation, though it seeks to avert panic by persuading its supporters that its police are capable of dealing with it. It has taken extraordinary measures to counter the growing threat.
Brigadier C.F. Zietsman, Chief of Security Police, told the press on April 16, 1978, that police manning the "steel ring", which had been instituted on the borders in 1977, had been involved in several gun battles with ANC "terrorists" attempting to infiltrate the country from bases in Mozambique. He said: "The ANC is attempting to smuggle people into the large cities for urban terrorism while keeping up running attacks on the border to pin our manpower down."
J.T. Kruger, then Minister of Police, told the House of Assembly on May 12, 1978 that there had been 31 cases of sabotage in which 6 people had died and 41 injured. Ninety-one "trained terrorists" and 594 "untrained terrorists" had been arrested: 66 cases were before the courts under the Terrorism Act. He could not be expected, he said, to listen to essays on human rights while "terrorist bombs" were exploding in South African cities.
Brigadier Zietsman said in an interview on June 1, 1978, that an estimated 4000 black South Africans were undergoing military training in Angola, Libya, Tanzania and Mozambique.
Colonel H. Mulder, head of Johannesburg Security Police, warned on June 21, 1978, that South Africa was in a "virtual state of war".
Mr. Kruger said in May 1979 that 26 caches of weapons had been seized in the northern and eastern Transvaal alone.
Speaking in Potchefstroom on October 10, 1979, the new Minister of Police and Prisons, Louis le Grange, said that the South African Police had found large quantities of Russian and Czechoslovak arms and ammunition in the country. He said the ANC's activities during the past few years had been marked by an increase in the number of arms caches along and just inside South Africa's borders.
A New Stage of Struggle
It appears that this armed resistance has been carefully planned by the national liberation movement for several years, even before the liberation of Mozambique and Angola in 1975-76. The Soweto massacre, and the national uprising which followed, not only created a new situation in South Africa but led to the swelling of the ranks of freedom fighters by large numbers of youth. The resistance greatly increased since the end of 1977 when the first detachments of new recruits completed training and began to return to South Africa.
The armed resistance is clearly under the direction of the national liberation movement. The black consciousness movement and other groups, though they have played and continue to play an important role in the political struggle, seem to recognise that armed resistance can only be conducted by national liberation movements.
Available evidence also indicates that the armed resistance is almost wholly by the ANC and its military wing, Umkhonto We Sizwe ("Spear of the Nation").
The current resistance is, moreover, of different character from that of 1961-64 when there were hundreds of cases of sabotage and violence.
In the earlier period, South Africa was surrounded by colonial territories. The national liberation movement had little experience in clandestine activity. It had been legal until 1960 with large and open membership, as well as a long tradition of non-violence. There was no independent State on the borders of South Africa and the militants had little training. The regime resorted to mass arrests and ruthless torture of known supporters of the movement, in order to extricate information and suppress the resistance. Some members of the movement turned out to be informers and several succumbed to torture.
In the present phase, however, the resistance is led by well-trained freedom fighters who have apparently been carefully screened. The statements of the South African Police indicate that they are well armed - mainly with arms of Soviet and Czechoslovak origin - and that the bombs they have manufactured, presumably inside South Africa, are highly sophisticated. In many cases, the police have been unable to capture the freedom fighters in spite of all efforts. Few of those captured appear to have turned informers.
Equally important is the difference in the international context of the struggle. Since 1961, there have been momentous developments in Africa. Not only have most African countries become independent - three of them on the borders of South Africa by armed struggle - but have established an Organisation of African Unity with a commitment to the support of liberation movements for the total emancipation of the African continent.
The United Nations and the international community have recognised the legitimacy of the struggle of the national liberation movement of South Africa, including armed struggle, and called for the treatment of captured guerillas as "prisoners-of-war". While the Western Powers continue to provide strong support to the apartheid regime, they have become increasingly vulnerable to pressures by African and other States which recognise the liberation of Africa as a matter of national priority.
Counter Measures by the Government
Faced with this resistance, the South African regime has embarked on a number of measures to counter the growing threat.
On July 13, 1977, it announced that police from all parts of the country would be called up for border duty, in order to ensure intensive patrolling of the entire 2,000 km. border with Botswana, Rhodesia, Mozambique and Swaziland. This step was taken to prevent people leaving illegally for military training and to prevent further infiltration of people who had left for training after the Soweto massacre.
P.W. Botha, then Minister of Defence, told Parliament on March 28, 1978, that a 600 km. strip up to 10 km. wide along South Africa's border had been secured for the country's defence and for the prevention and suppression of "terrorism." Speaking during the second reading debate on the Defence Amendment Bill, Mr. Botha said that although the legislation was being introduced only then, the Defence Force had been carrying out the operation since January 1977.
The biggest military exercise ever undertaken by the South African Defence Force - Operation Quicksilver - was staged from May 2, 1978, on the border with Mozambique and Swaziland.
A new air base was inaugurated on July 2, 1978, at Hoedspruit in eastern Transvaal, 50 km. from Mozambique and 150 km. south of the Rhodesian border. Mirage fighters were stationed in the base.
This base, the tenth belonging to the South African Air Force, was described by Mr. Botha as an "extraordinary" achievement. He said there were plans during the coming two years to enlarge and develop the base.
In November 1978, another South African air base was opened at Madimbo in Venda, northern Transvaal, a bantustan which was to be granted "independence" in 1979.
In 1978, the government established a committee to investigate proposals to stop the depopulation of border areas. It includes representatives of the Departments of Agriculture, Defence, Planning and Statistics, the Police, and the South African Agricultural Union.
Kobie Coetzee, Deputy Minister of Defence, told the Senate on March 2, 1979, that the government intended to establish Kibbutz-type farms on the borders as a security measure. The State would buy farms and lease them to prospective farmers who had military training and undertook to become farmer-soldiers. Small defensible towns would be established on the borders and those towns may be used by the Defence Force as military bases.
A Marnet (Military Area Radio Network) was established by the Army in early 1979 in the northern Transvaal for communications linking the armed forces, police reservists, commando units, civil defence units and farmers. The system is to be extended to other border areas. U.S. News and World Report reported from Pretoria on March 17,1980:
"The escalation in terrorism has forced officials in the capital of Pretoria to order the mainly white army onto a war footing for the first time in the confrontation between blacks and whites.
"Some rural areas already resemble battle zones, just as did regions in neighbouring Rhodesia at the height of that country's civil war.
"Schools in the Middelburg area, 100 miles east of Johannesburg, have been issued sandbags. In northern Natal Province, close to the border with Mozambique, farmers carry weapons wherever they go and keep in contact with each other by radio. Police stations on the isolated frontier with Botswana have been attacked, and many farms in the region have been deserted by whites fearful of guerilla raids.
"Even in the cities, black terrorism has become a fact of life, particularly in the Pretoria-Johannesburg area.
"Additionally, the country's wide-open borders are being strengthened by a new network of military-designed roads. A thick fence of sisal plants is being grown along a 100-mile stretch of the boundary with Rhodesia to block infiltration. The Army also has moved into the Kruger National Game Park, which runs for 200 miles along the eastern border with Mozambique.
"On the drawing boards is a sizeable expansion of South Africa's standing Army of 48,500, about 70 per cent of them draftees. The increase probably will be achieved by inducting more non-whites, who now make up less than 5 per cent of the total men under arms. Overall strength of the SADF is 63,250, up 25 per cent from 1975. Active reservists number about 280,000, almost all white."
The Perspective
In the aftermath of the Sharpeville massacre, the national liberation movement decided to give up its strict adherence to non-violence, and declared that the regime could not be allowed to engage in violence without fear of retaliation. While "retaliation" may well be the short-term objective of the national liberation movement, the present resistance appears to be tied in with a longer-term strategy for "seizure of power."
On present evidence, the perspective would seem to be an escalation of infiltration of freedom fighters, establishment of arms caches inside South Africa, training of freedom fighters inside the country and a combination of armed resistance with struggles by workers, students and others.
The link between political struggle and armed struggle is clearly seen in the timing of guerilla operations demanding the release of Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu when a national campaign for their release was in progress. The massive public support among blacks for the guerillas killed at Silverton shows that the primary condition for the development of guerilla warfare - that is, public support - exists at the present time.
It may be expected that appropriate guerilla activities will be linked with struggles of workers and designed to force disengagement of foreign economic interests with South Africa.
Contrary to the propaganda of the South African regime, the national liberation movement is not involved in "urban terrorism." The incidents are as much in rural areas as in large urban centres. A number of incidents in urban areas took place when freedom fighters were apprehended as they were in transit.
Equally contrary to the propaganda by the Pretoria regime, the conflict is not on the borders with the independent African States with guerilla groups hitting at South African security forces and finding sanctuary, when required, in African States. It is inside South Africa, with incidents on the borders taking place only when small groups of infiltrators are attacked by the Security Forces.
The reaction of the South African regime, however, seems to be to threaten independent African States in order to pressure them to deny asylum to refugees and to prevent any transit of freedom fighters.
The large-scale counter-measures taken by it are focused not only on preventing infiltration through the international borders but at preparation for a "conventional war." "Operation Quicksilver" is illustrative.
These measures are coupled with the continuation of repression in South Africa, as well as "reforms" to divide the black people and entice a section into collaboration. These reforms have been encouraged and pressed by the military establishment which considers that military measures alone would be ineffective and costly.
The South African regime is also pressing its scheme for a "constellation of States" in southern Africa in order to integrate the bantustans fully into its military plans and to induce the neighbouring States to abandon their support to the national liberation movement.
The question arises as to whether the South African regime intends to use its military power against the neighbouring States in the hope of preventing them from providing sanctuary to freedom fighters and refugees, or to transform a war against guerillas into a conventional war against States in the region.
The defence of the frontline States will, therefore, need to be recognised as an indispensable complement to support for the national liberation movement.
Moreover, in the context of the enormous military build-up of South Africa, and its nuclear capability, there exists a grave danger to international peace which requires effective international action.
Meanwhile, inside South Africa itself, the prospect is a further escalation of repression in response to the growing resistance, as well as the capture of increasing numbers of freedom fighters.
The campaign for the release of South African political prisoners will need to acquaint world public opinion with the new trends. Its effectiveness will depend, in part, on convincing people of the implications of the recognition by the United Nations and the international community of the legitimacy of the struggle of the South African people, under the leadership of their national liberation movement, to eradicate apartheid, to seize power and to enable all the people of South Africa to exercise their right of self-determination. There will need to be awareness that despite all the precautions by freedom fighters, some innocents may suffer in the confrontations between them and the security forces.
The demand for the treatment of captured freedom fighters as prisoners of war, in terms of the relevant Geneva Conventions assumes particular importance.
We must recognise, first of all, that the black women of South Africa have not been discriminated and oppressed by black men but by the apartheid system, by the white minority in power which is poisoned by that system.
In saying this, I am in no way idolising or glorifying tribalism and traditionalism but merely analysing the present situation.
It is not black men who deprive the black women of education, of health care and of family life. It is not the black men who confine the women to barren reserves, who cause enormous illegitimacy rates.
It is the apartheid system and not the black men who have enforced the Natal Code which treats African women as children — just as women were treated in European codes some generations ago.
It is not the black men who have repressed women's movements, who have made "widows" of hundreds of thousands of women whose husbands are confined in mine compounds and so-called single men’s hostels for migrant labour, or have been jailed and tortured for their opposition to apartheid.
Apartheid is an anachronistic and totally reactionary system which pervades all areas of life. The test of reaction in all societies is, indeed, the treatment of its women. Apartheid is perhaps the worst.
Under apartheid, all women are discriminated against. There is a gradation, with the white men at the top and the African women at the bottom - with the African women earning no more than 8 per cent of the wages of white men.
So the women in South Africa understand that their struggle is not against their men, who are themselves oppressed and helpless, but against the system.
It is not a women’s problem but a problem of the destruction of an antediluvian and oppressive system, which regards black men as beasts of labour and black women as "superfluous appendages." It is part of a national and socio-economic revolution in southern Africa, to destroy slavery and neo-slavery, and create conditions in which human equality can be established.
Women have played an important role in all African liberation struggles, but perhaps nowhere have they played as important a role as in South Africa over the past many decades. They have fought not only because they are brutally oppressed, but for their children, for the integrity of their families.
Women have contributed scores of effective leaders of the trade union movement and the liberation movement. They have been great organisers of the people. Many of them have suffered harassment and brutal torture, but did not succumb. They have been an inspiration to their men and to their children.
Western Responsibility
There are many cases of discrimination and oppression in the world and one might wonder why the people of Montreal, of Canada and of North America should be concerned about oppression in distant lands — in South Africa and Namibia.
I will try to attempt to provide a few answers.
First of all, the continent of Africa has suffered many centuries of slavery, mass killings, plunder, and humiliation — largely at the hands of European and North American interests.
In our time, the African people have struggled at great sacrifice to regain their dignity and their rights.
Most of Africa has today achieved independence — except for South Africa and Namibia.
The unfinished struggle today is not only for the liberation of two territories but for the emancipation of the African continent — and, indeed, for burying a shameful era of world history.
Secondly, the Western countries bear a tremendous responsibility for the situation in South Africa and Namibia — and therefore, for facilitating the elimination of the apartheid system without massive bloodshed and suffering.
They have been constantly reminded of this responsibility by the national liberation movement of South Africa, by the African States and by the United Nations.
I would like to express my appreciation to the Government and people of Canada for recognising the international responsibility for the situation in South Africa, and for taking a number of concrete measures.
But there is much more that Canada can do and should do — both as a member of the Western community and as a nation — and there is much more others can do.
Only recently, we have had disclosures that a company which is located a few miles from here — on both sides of the border with the United States — the Space Research Corporation — has shipped tens of thousands of shells to South Africa. It had, in fact, supplied a powerful artillery system to South Africa.
The South African regime announced a few months ago that it had developed a 155 mm. artillery piece — and there is no doubt that it was obtained from the Space Research Corporation. A few days ago, the South African Prime Minister announced that they have an artillery rocket system.
South Africa is not so far from Montreal!
Is there any doubt that this artillery system is intended to massacre black South Africans, to attack independent African States and even to kill helpless refugees?
Yet, there is not an outcry from the outraged conscience of the people of Canada and the United States of America.
The people and nations of the world have, as a minimum, a duty to refrain from any assistance to the oppressive regime in South Africa — a duty to end all military, political, economic and other collaboration with that regime. They have a duty to stop supplying murderous weapons and nuclear technology to South Africa; to stop smuggling petroleum to oil its war machine; and to impose sanctions against South Africa.
Even that minimum duty has not been discharged.
Action by Women’s Organisations
As I have said, I do not regard the problem of women and children in South Africa as a matter of concern to women or women’s organisations alone. But there was reason to hope that the recent rise of consciousness of women, especially in the Western countries, would help the oppressed women in southern Africa.
The World Conference of Women, held in Mexico in 1975, called for solidarity with women under apartheid. But the results have been disappointing.
The women and their organisations have not fully recognised that their own struggles for equality cannot be fully just unless they help the liberation of women in southern Africa.
At the turn of the century, the Afrikaner people of South Africa fought heroically against the British for their own freedom, but the result has been a consolidation of the freedom of whites to oppress and exploit the black majority.
The struggle of women in the West cannot be for an equal sharing with men of the benefits from the oppression and exploitation of the black people of South Africa. Let them call on their Governments to boycott South Africa — let them boycott the gold and diamonds of South Africa which are produced by slave labour!
I would like to make a special appeal to women and women’s organisations to consider special programmes of solidarity with the women of South Africa.
The simplest thing perhaps is to write letters and send greeting cards to women in restriction and to the dependants of prisoners who are isolated and constantly harassed. These letters and cards mean much to them.
A few days ago in Paris, I met a French woman who was imprisoned with her husband in South Africa on the charge of assisting freedom fighters. She was detained for several months, although she was pregnant, and then released, but her husband was sentenced to twelve years in prison. She was not even allowed to go to South Africa to visit her husband in prison.
In Christmas 1978, she received some 600 cards and letters — mostly from Canada, because of the efforts of an organisation in Montreal — and she told me how much they meant to her and to her husband in jail.
Fortunately, her husband was able to escape from prison last December with the assistance of the underground movement.
I would suggest to you to adopt and assist women in jail or restriction or women dependants or widows of prisoners, and the women’s sections of liberation movements.
You can assist the liberation movement projects for refugees — such as clinics and crèches. You can help meet the urgent and special needs of women and children in the refugee camps — school books, footballs, sewing machines and the like.
But above all, I would appeal to you to provide all the political support needed by the women of South Africa and Namibia to destroy apartheid.