I believe the solidarity of the international trade union movement — both in exposing and counteracting manoeuvres by the government or employers to suffocate the emergent trade unions through obnoxious regulations, police violence and mass victimisation of employees and in providing educational and material assistance as required — has also been crucial.

I was privileged to attend your special conference in London in November 1980 which prepared a concrete and comprehensive programme of action in support of the independent black trade union movement in South Africa. I have followed your work in implementation of that programme and have been gratified that the words have been matched by action.

The situation in South Africa continues to be grave in the trade union field as in the political and other fields.

In fact, the relentless moves to denationalise the Africans and exclude them from the political life of their country, the horrendous policy of bantustans and the use of some African chiefs to do the dirty job of inhuman repression, the forced removals, the new constitution designed to entrench white domination and divide the black people, the destabilisation and acts of aggression against neighbouring States, including the killing of unarmed men, women and children in raids into independent African States, have created a very explosive situation.

I believe the current talks between South Africa and neighbouring States cannot by themselves avert the danger of escalating conflict in South Africa and in Southern Africa as a whole, unless there is a radical change in South Africa itself towards the total elimination of apartheid and all its manifestations.

Unilateral solutions by the white minority will only aggravate the situation.

If the white minority, as I believe, shares the desire to avoid ghastly violence, the first step is for the authorities to have the courage to meet with Nelson Mandela and other leaders in prison to discuss a just and peaceful solution.

They should hold genuine consultations at the highest levels with the trade union, religious and other leaders who have emerged as the trusted spokesmen of the oppressed majority.

Women have played a heroic role in the struggle against injustice in many countries — there have been great heroines in the struggles for liberation in colonial countries, and in the struggle against slavery and racial discrimination in this country from the days of Sojourner Truth — but rarely have women played such a crucial role as in the liberation struggle of South Africa.

The "Year of Women of South Africa" should certainly highlight the humiliation of black women in South Africa — which is a crime and an outrage — but it is not an occasion for pity, but a time to pay tribute to them and do our duty to them.

The economy in South Africa is based on the so-called migrant labour system. African men are recruited from the reserves to work in the mines and factories. But their wives and families are not allowed to go with them. If the women want to visit their husbands, they have to go to an official and apply, for instance, that they need permission to "conceive".

There is no place in the world that I know where women are so humiliated.

Every year, tens of thousands of African men and women are being deported from cities; shacks built by Africans to have some family life are being bulldozed by the police and the army; and women are being deported to starvation in reserves — sometimes men and women to different regions because they come from different ethnic backgrounds.

I cannot think of such inhumanity anywhere and at any time except during the shameful period of slavery.

But I want to speak not of oppression but of resistance.

I might recall that the African women were the first to carry on large-scale, organised resistance against the obnoxious pass laws, way back in 1913 — and that was the first glorious episode in the modern national movement in South Africa.

In the 1920s and 1930s, for various reasons, the African women were the most militant leaders in the trade union movement which organised a million workers in struggle.

On August 9, 1956, the women organised a national, multiracial demonstration in Pretoria against pass laws — a historic demonstration which required tremendous organisational capacity. That was one of the greatest demonstrations under very difficult conditions in South African history.

I remember also a demonstration of Indian women on United Nations Human Rights Day in 1962. Police sent their dogs to attack and pull their saris, but they stood firm.

You know of the great demonstration of African school children in Soweto on June 16, 1976. The children decided to defy the police batons and guns, and many hundreds were killed and wounded. I can think of nothing like that massacre of children in history.

But what did their mothers do? Did they stop and scold their children for getting into trouble with the police? No, they stood by their children, in spite of all the pain and anguish, and brought out the adults in support.

All of us, all over the world, should bow our heads before them. You have heard of young freedom fighters — Solomon Mahlangu and three others — who were executed in South Africa. They are heroes.

But equally heroic are their mothers who stood by them. They did not tell their children to confess or beg for mercy to save their lives. They declared that they are proud of their children and will carry on the struggle until they meet their children in heaven. They too deserve our humble tribute.

A few months ago, this City College bestowed an honorary degree on Nelson Mandela, who has spent more than 21 years in prison for leading the liberation struggle and whose stature in South Africa and the world grows with every passing day. The United Nations has described him as a "prince among political prisoners" and he has, I believe, received more honours than any living person.

But we cannot think of him without thinking of his wife, Winnie Mandela.

They were married in 1958 and they have had hardly three years of normal married life.

Winnie Mandela has been restricted almost continuously since 1962, except for a brief spell in 1975. She has been constantly harassed and jailed. In 1970-71, she was detained for more than a year — and kept under solitary confinement for many months, although she had a heart condition, and cruelly interrogated.

At the time of the Soweto uprising, the African children looked up to her when she organised a committee of parents. The Government then banished her to a remote and small town. Until last year she was not allowed to see more than one person at a time. Three white women were even jailed for visiting her. Her bedcovers were confiscated as they had ANC colours. But she has remained steadfast as a magnificent symbol of the spirit of liberation, and of African womanhood.

She deserves honour, but I am sure that she would be the first to say that there are others who deserve it equally, if not more.

I think of Mrs. Albertina Sisulu — wife of Walter Sisulu, who is in prison with Nelson Mandela.

When the Sisulus were married, Anton Lembede, a leader of the movement, warned the bride:

"You are marrying a man who is already married to the nation."

But Mrs. Sisulu has been married to the nation as much as her husband.

She became a women's leader and founder of the Federation of South African Women. She was arrested many times and has been under restriction from 1964 to 1981. Her daughter, Lindiwe, was tortured in prison and escaped from South Africa.

I think of Rita Ndzanga, a trade union leader, and wife of another trade union leader, Lawrence. They were both detained for over a year in 1970-71 with Winnie Mandela, and tortured. They were again detained a few years later. Her husband died in prison, presumably of torture. But as soon as she came out of jail, Rita went back to organise the new trade unions.

I met her a few years ago and if I did not know, I could not have imagined what she had gone through.

I think of Emma Mashinini, a trade union leader, she was detained in solitary confinement for several months a couple of years ago. She had to be sent from prison to the psychiatric ward of the hospital. After her release, she was still very sick and fortunately the trade unions in Denmark arranged for medical treatment in Copenhagen. She went back to plunge herself in the trade union movement.

When I saw her a few days ago, she was full of spirit, as if nothing had happened or nothing could ever move her from her struggle.

I think of Shanti Naidoo, an Indian woman detained with Winnie Mandela in 1970. She was kept in solitary confinement for five months, and deprived of sleep for several days, to force her to testify against Mrs. Mandela. She refused and was sentenced to prison.

She is in London now and she never asks for sympathy for herself or her family, but only solidarity for the struggle.

I think of Ruth First, a journalist. Her 117 days in solitary detention in 1963 were recorded in a book and in a BBC documentary. After leaving South Africa, she was a tireless and effective campaigner for liberation. She wrote many books and became a professor in England and then in Mozambique. She was killed by a parcel bomb a couple of years ago.

I think of Mamphela Ramphele, a young doctor who set up a self-help clinic for black people in King William’s Town in the 1970s.

She was banished in 1977 to a remote area, some thousand miles from her town and dumped there. A few weeks later, she learned that the father of her unborn child, Steve Biko, the black consciousness leader, had been brutally tortured to death.

But she recovered from the tragedy and set up in the impoverished land a day care centre, a clinic, a feeding scheme, a library, a bursary fund, a literacy programme, a crèche, and a co-operative to serve the 50,000 people.

She was named the woman of 1983, by the Star, the major white newspaper of Johannesburg.

I think of many, many others:

Helen Joseph
Mary Moodley
Florence Matomela
Dora Tamana
Frances Baard

and so on.

If they were not black women of South Africa, there would be an outrage in the world. The major Western Governments would be denouncing apartheid and imposing sanctions. But in this case, we have occasional condemnations but little action.

I have often wondered, have we, who belong to the third world or to the oppressed peoples, done enough?

One hears of border problems and other conflicts in Africa, but do they matter at all when the dignity and honour of the African man or woman are at stake? When Winnie Mandela and others were being tortured, did any government warn the South African police against touching a black woman?

We can retaliate if we are determined.

If only the black people of this country are angry enough and committed enough not to tolerate the crimes against the black women of South Africa, we will very soon see the end of apartheid.

We should observe the Year of Women of South Africa by letting all the people know the atrocities in South Africa so that they will act. We should pay homage to the heroic women of South Africa.

But, above all, we should get angry and demand that all governments, all organisations, all institutions break with the regime in South Africa and unequivocally support the struggle for freedom.

This has been the achievement of the United Nations in the past and its concern in the case of South Africa and Namibia, the two countries which must gain freedom before the continent of Africa is emancipated from the shameful humiliation of five centuries.

If international public action was important in the case of the struggles in the colonies, it is even more important in the case of South Africa where a settlement by the sword within the national boundaries can lead to a catastrophe.

In the course of this colonial revolution in Africa, wherever the oppressed peoples had to resort to armed struggle, they have, of course, made enormous sacrifices. Many of the newly-independent countries also made sacrifices, and suffered pressures and acts of aggression, because of their support to the people of neighbouring countries.

Tunisia and Morocco, and even Nasser’s Egypt, were attacked for supporting the Algerian revolution.

Guinea, Zambia and Tanzania suffered numerous acts of aggression for supporting freedom in the Portuguese colonies, as did Zambia, Mozambique, Botswana and Angola for supporting freedom in Zimbabwe.

This spirit of solidarity and sacrifice of the African States has added a new dimension to the struggle for human freedom and demands our respect.

I would also like to emphasise that neither the oppressed people nor the newly-independent African States have ever initiated violence for the liberation of territories under colonial or racist domination.

It was invariably after the outlawing of peaceful movements and, indeed, after peaceful demonstrators were massacred, when they were left with little choice but to fight or surrender, that the national movements decided to go underground and take up arms.

In the case of South Africa, for instance, it was only after the Sharpeville massacre, and after the banning of ANC and PAC, that there was consideration of armed struggle by the national liberation movement. It was only after the gruesome massacre of school children in 1976 that the armed struggle was pursued in earnest.

Despite scores of acts of aggression by South Africa, there has never been a hostile crossing of the South African border by the armed forces of neighbouring States.

The South African Government also decided in 1960 to rely on force to stop the march of freedom southwards from the Congo of Patrice Lumumba, and embarked on an enormous military build-up.

We have been faced with the threat of aggression and acts of aggression since that time — the kidnappings of refugees from neighbouring territories since 1960, the intervention by the mercenaries in the Congo in 1961, the building of a military base in the Caprivi Strip in 1965 in violation of the mandate agreement, the war in Namibia since 1966, the intervention in Southern Rhodesia in 1967, the subsequent cooperation with the Ian Smith regime in attacks on neighbouring States and so on.

But a new stage was reached with the Portuguese revolution in 1974 and the accession of Mozambique and Angola to independence.

In 1975, South Africa launched a major invasion of Angola with the secret support and encouragement of external forces and since then, there has been an endless series of acts of aggression described by the frontline States as an "undeclared war" in the entire region.

This state of undeclared war has involved the violation of elementary canons of international law. Refugee camps have been bombed, killing unarmed women and children as in Cassinga. South African forces crossed borders, deliberately and callously killing unarmed persons who were asleep, including women and small children, cutting off their limbs, as in Maputo and Maseru.

Peoples who have secured independence after centuries of inhuman oppression were prevented from devoting attention to their economic and social development. In fact, their countries were devastated.

It is fashionable in some quarters to mock at the United Nations for its ineffectiveness and the non-implementation of its resolutions.

I would like to say that the United Nations, as an assembly of sovereign States, has to act through resolutions.

Some of the resolutions lead to direct action by governments. Some of them have an effect over a period of time. But most of them depend for effectiveness on the informed support of public opinion and its influence in persuading governments to act in accordance with the resolutions.

There is thus a partnership — or what the present Secretary-General of the United Nations has termed an alliance — between the United Nations and organisations like the sponsors and participants in this Conference.

This alliance has had significant achievements.

The South African Government has become increasingly isolated.

The United Kingdom terminated the only military agreement of South Africa — the Simonstown Agreement.

A mandatory arms embargo has been instituted against South Africa.

Rarely have liberation movements received as extensive moral, political and material assistance from as many sources as the movement in South Africa.

It was the isolation of South Africa, and the strength of public opinion, that prevented open support to South Africa in the invasion of Angola in 1975, forcing it to withdraw unconditionally from Angola in March 1976 and from Southern Rhodesia in 1979.

But, as we all know, international action has hardly been commensurate with the needs and the urgency.

Twenty-five years after the South African people and the African continent appealed for sanctions against South Africa — and I might add, twenty-five years after the boycott movement was established here in London by Archbishop Trevor Huddleston and others — most of the world governments, including a majority of Western States, agree in principle that sanctions are essential. But there are as yet no mandatory sanctions.

Thus, the international community has been unable to take the one effective and peaceful measure to deal with the situation in South Africa which is the source of the conflict all over southern Africa.

This call, designed to prevent the widening of conflict, failed to obtain universal response — since powerful Western States resorted to the concept of "cross-border violence", making no distinction as to the cause of violence, and thereby shielded South Africa.

As a result the crisis in southern Africa has escalated since 1975. The frontline States have suffered from aggression, subversion and economic pressures.

More recently, their suffering has been aggravated by an unprecedented drought which has affected all the southern African States.

The government of Angola has estimated the damage from aggression alone at over ten billion dollars. The government of Mozambique has estimated the damage from subversion, economic pressures and natural disasters at about five billion dollars, not to mention the loss of a hundred thousand lives. Zimbabwe has suffered not only from direct economic pressures but also from the destruction of communication lines in Mozambique.

I do not, therefore, intend in any way to try to convey the impression that the United Nations has been very effective in countering South African acts of aggression.

But it would be utterly wrong to scoff at the persistent efforts of the United Nations, with the support of a growing and now overwhelming majority of States.

In the United Nations, we certainly need to analyse the recent developments and consider any changes of strategy which may be necessary. There should be a new level of concerted action by governments and organisations in support of the international decisions.

If the United Nations has not succeeded, that is because some powerful governments have not been willing to impose effective sanctions against South Africa or to support all appropriate action under the United Nations Charter. They alone have the power to restrain the Pretoria regime and thereby restore the peace, or at least minimise and confine the conflict. Their policies have been confused and public opinion in their countries has not been effective enough.

Then there is, of course, the desire of those who see world affairs as a function of the cold war, and of inveterate racists who are not yet reconciled to the end of slavery and colonialism, to build South Africa as a bastion and a junior imperialist Power in southern Africa.

It appears that the lessons of the past have not yet been learned by some governments.

South Africa, however, is not coming to the negotiating table with the frontline States as a victorious Power dictating its terms to vanquished and devastated countries suing for its mercy — as its propaganda would ask us to believe.

Let us look back a little.

After the withdrawal of South African forces from Angola in 1976, there was no major aggression on that scale until 1981.

South Africa then escalated aggression because of its calculation that the change of administration in Washington and the intensification of the "cold war" provided it with immunity. A resolution condemning South African aggression against Angola was vetoed by the United States, while Britain abstained. But in the last few months, when the Security Council condemned South African aggression against Angola, and rejected linkage, there have been no American vetoes.

During recent years, the Pretoria regime became increasingly isolated, while Angola and Mozambique have extended their international relations. It became dependent on one Power — a super-Power, no doubt — but the interests of that Power are not identical to those of South Africa and it does not cherish isolation from its allies.

The South African regime was also unable to suppress the liberation struggle in Namibia, or to contain the growth of the resistance in South Africa, while the human and material costs of military operations in Namibia and Angola have caused growing concern within the white community.

On the other hand, the frontline States have always been exploring the possibilities of peaceful solutions.

The severe economic and other difficulties they have encountered are not the only reason why they embarked on direct talks with the South African regime to find means to facilitate the independence of Namibia, to strengthen their security and independence, and to avert an escalation of conflict.

The African States have never been opposed to negotiations and peace. In fact, they have always shown utmost concern for peace.

The special situation of the frontline States has always been recognised by the international community, ever since the independence of Lesotho and Botswana. As Non-aligned States, they have sought to avoid bringing in external Powers into the region at the risk of plunging the whole area into a wider conflict.

For States bordering on South Africa to negotiate with the authorities in that country on economic matters, or on avoidance of war, is not unnatural.

It would have been unfair to expect them to depend on third party mediation on every problem on the border.

The issue is not whether contacts or negotiations with the authorities in South Africa are appropriate, but the content of those negotiations.

From all available evidence, the frontline States remain firm and united in their opposition to apartheid, and in their support to the national liberation movements.

To me, it is inconceivable that the African States will ever forsake the national liberation movement of South Africa. No government in Africa can survive if it betrays the honour of Africa.

And, despite the present economic difficulties of African States, I do not believe that there will ever be a constellation of States in southern Africa dominated by a racist regime.

There is, however, genuine concern in many quarters that the arrangements resulting from the talks to prevent an escalation of conflict may create some difficulties for the liberation struggle in South Africa.

There will no doubt be consultations between the frontline States and the national liberation movement on this matter.

I am confident that the great national liberation movement of South Africa can overcome any difficulties, given the increased support of the international community.

Armed struggle is only one component of the liberation struggle. It is essentially inside the country: bases and transit facilities in neighbouring countries are only one factor in the strategy for an armed struggle.

Whatever the arrangements which may result from current negotiations, the struggle inside South Africa will go on —and assistance to that struggle will need to be intensified, especially by governments and organisations which are distant from the scene of conflict and by those which can exert maximum pressure on the authorities in South Africa.

Support to the liberation struggles and support to independent African States must remain the twin priorities of the international community in southern Africa.

It is not fair to expect the newly-independent States to bear unlimited burdens in support of a cause for which the entire international community has proclaimed its solemn responsibility.

The present situation requires both assistance to the independent African States and a massive increase in political and material aid to the national liberation movements.

The needs of frontline States to overcome the effects of drought and other disasters are very modest — and it is shocking that the assistance from the international community is inadequate and hundreds of thousands of people are suffering starvation.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the situation in southern Africa has been aggravated by the current international tension and the international economic situation.

The people of Asia, Africa and Latin America have frequently suffered from the intensification of the cold war. But this can be a temporary phenomenon — as in the case of the long struggle in Vietnam.

Meanwhile, every effort must be made to secure the unity of Africa and the Non-aligned movement, and an alliance of all committed States with the public opinion in major Western countries, in order to break the linkage between racism in southern Africa and its collaborators abroad.

The new constitution of South Africa, which has been imposed by decision of a white Parliament and endorsed by a white referendum, mocks all faiths as it invokes the Almighty while excluding the great majority of the people, the indigenous African people.

Millions of men and women have struggled for justice in South Africa for many decades by non-violent means. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his first "Satyagraha" in South Africa early in this century, Count Leo Tolstoy recognised it as the most significant moral movement in the world.

It is not surprising that men and women of religion have played a prominent role in the struggle for redemption in South Africa and Namibia, and in the international campaign against apartheid.

Our determination to rid South Africa and the world of apartheid is matched by our attachment to the vision of a non-racial society — our concern to avert a ghastly race conflict and promote reconciliation.

I salute those like Imam Abdullah Haron who gave their lives in this struggle, and the many who are today upholding their faith, defying incarceration and intimidation. They belong to many faiths, Christian and Moslem, Hindu and Jewish, Parsi, Sikh and traditional.

I salute the memory of the Reverend Michael Scott, Bishop

Ambrose Reeves, the Reverend Canon L. Johns Collins and many others who have, at great sacrifice, helped persuade Western Christian societies to reject totally the pretensions of the rulers of South Africa to represent Western Christian civilisation.

I pay tribute to Archbishop Trevor Huddleston who has earned respect and reverence across the lines of colour and religion, in South Africa and in the world, by his total rejection of apartheid and racism, and his love of all human beings.

Humanity can no more afford the survival of apartheid in South Africa. We must be moved not only by the enormous suffering endured by the people of South Africa and Namibia, and of the neighbouring African States, but by the gravest dangers ahead of us if apartheid is not abolished and if the racist tyrants can wield the nuclear weapon. We must counter the efforts of apartheid to corrupt the weak and the greedy in the rest of the world.

The struggle of the people of South Africa is a righteous struggle for a community of all men and women, without distinction as to race, colour or creed. It deserves and demands our unequivocal support whatever the means they choose.

We have a moral duty to cease all cooperation with the forces of evil and support the conscientious objectors in South Africa.

The religions of the world can and must play a key role in the mobilisation of governments and peoples of the world to destroy this evil system.

We thank those who have come to the colloquium. We seek their blessings and their guidance — and, above all, their commitment to persuade the short-sighted governments and vested interests to desist from collaboration with apartheid and facilitate the most speedy and peaceful elimination of apartheid.

From this great metropolis, which was the site of the first Pan African Congress of 1900 and the All Races Conference of 1911, in which delegates of many faiths urged the world to eschew racism — from this Greater London which has this year proclaimed itself an anti-apartheid zone — let us send a message of hope, faith and solidarity to the people of South Africa and Namibia.

I would like to express particular satisfaction at the impressive programme of action you have formulated and at the fact that you have recognised the importance of active participation by ethnic minorities and voluntary groups in the implementation of that programme.

As head of the Centre against Apartheid in the United Nations Secretariat, I would also like to express particular satisfaction that you have linked your efforts to eliminate racism in your society with action against apartheid in South Africa.

History has shown that no country can practise racism abroad or profit from racism against other peoples, and protect itself from the contamination of racism.

Most of humankind has suffered from racist humiliation, domination and exploitation during the past centuries.

Africa and the people of African origin all over the world have been the worst but not the only victims of the crime of racism during the shameful era of slavery and under colonialism.

In my work against apartheid in South Africa for more than two decades, I have become increasingly conscious of the international dimensions of racism, the power of the international alliances of racism, the influence of the vested interests profiting from apartheid and racism, and the effect of racism on the outlook and foreign policies of powerful nations.

On the other hand I have also become very conscious of the tremendous impact of the long and heroic struggle of the South African people in making people in other countries, near and far, conscious of the problem and making them part of the struggle against racism.

The struggle for the liberation of South Africa from racist tyranny has had to be fought not only in South Africa but in the capitals and communities of many other countries. The regime in Pretoria is well aware of this, and has been blatantly interfering in the Western countries.

The struggle against apartheid must be carried on at the international, national and community levels and in all relevant institutions.

It must be carried on in all aspects of life it affects — in education and housing, health care and employment — and also in international affairs, for racism has been and continues to be a menace to peace and security, and a source of war.

The struggle must be carried on by governments and international organisations and by local authorities and voluntary organisations.

As a civil servant, I must particularly emphasise the key role of members of the public service in this context. We must all see that no one is blind to racism and no one profits from racism.

The abolition of racism has become an urgent task of our time. It is a hundred and fifty years since the slave trade was abolished and over fifty years since the rise of Nazism.

After the completion of the colonial revolution, at least in its first stage of independence of nations, the main task of the international community has been to confront the problem of southern Africa where colonialism and racism have been intertwined, and to deal with racism and racial discrimination all over the world.

We attach utmost importance to the education of public opinion against racism in every country. But let us be aware that the victims of racism cannot patiently wait until all the people are educated, until even the racists are converted. Education cannot be an excuse for inaction; it must be a supplement to concrete action.

The oppressed majority of humankind and all other decent people must act together to promote legislative, administrative and other action without delay.

I would like to point out that while the colonial revolution has dealt a major blow to racism in the world, racism has in some respects become a more serious problem than before.

In South Africa, for instance, a racist regime has been able to acquire an enormous military arsenal and even nuclear capability, thereby posing a grave danger to world peace. The racist elements have lost their conviction that they are superior and are now desperately trying to deny equal opportunity to the victims of racism. The poor black people are obliged to pay school fees in inferior institutions, while the whites enjoy free education.

A new constitution is being enforced to entrench and perpetuate discrimination, and to prevent participation of black people in political life.

We are, therefore, obliged to deal with a racist offensive in South Africa and in somewhat different forms in certain other countries of the world.

It was here in London at the dawn of this century in 1900 that the first Pan African Congress declared, in the words of Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, that: "The problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the colour line." We are still confronting that problem. But in the course of the struggle against racism, long before 1900, the oppressed black people had a vision in Britain, in the United States and in Africa. They all felt that when racism against the black people - against the people of African origin who are at the bottom of the pile - is abolished, all oppression will disappear against all groups. And they have looked forward to a society, a non-racial society, in which there is freedom and equality for all the people.

And they have shown consistently, in spite of all the provocations, in spite of all the oppression, that they are still moved by that vision. And you see that today very clearly in the national liberation movement of South Africa.

It is the national liberation movement of South Africa and its friends who show concern for the white people of South Africa. While people who profit from apartheid in South Africa are driving the white people to suicide, the national liberation movement of South Africa has shown the path for security, freedom and the future of the white people.

But you cannot ensure the security or the freedom of the white people in South Africa if they insist on sitting on top of the volcano.

I would also like to point out that at the end of slavery in the United States, when the black people obtained a share of power in the southern States, the period of reconstruction was one of the most socially progressive periods. It was the enfranchisement of the black people which brought compulsory education to the whites in the American South.

When you confront racism, you confront all the forces which are opposing progress and you open the way for progress all over the world. When you abolish racism, you will make it easier to solve all other problems — the problem of women, the question of the aged and the disabled and all other social problems — because the forces that are against progress are the same on all these issues.

Finally, I would like to say that although this year has a negative name - Anti-Racist Year — the purpose of the anti-racist year or of the anti-apartheid campaign is very positive. It is to build a new world in which everyone will enjoy freedom and human dignity. Let us try to build it with faith, not with hatred, because we are sure that we will succeed.

I hope you will excuse me if much of what I have to say is a matter of common knowledge and common agreement to this audience.

Much of my adult life, as a United Nations official, has come to be devoted to promoting international understanding and support for the struggle for freedom in South Africa and at times, in other African countries. I have been inspired in my work by the conviction that solidarity with the oppressed people of Africa was not only my official responsibility but my duty as an Indian, and I have been guided by my own experience as an adolescent and youth in the Indian national movement in the thirties and early forties. That experience has taught me not to lose hope and faith in victory whatever the reverses in the course of a freedom struggle. It has also taught me to regard our own struggle for freedom as unfinished until imperialism and racism are abolished on this planet.

The national movement of South Africa has many similarities with our own movement in India.

In both countries, there were prolonged struggles against alien occupation and settlement led by the native rulers —climaxed in India by the War of Independence in 1857 and in South Africa by the famous battles between the Zulu Kingdom and British colonial troops in 1879-80.

After these acts of local or regional resistance failed, the people built up united national movements cutting across ethnic, religious, class and other barriers to struggle for their rights.

The founding of the African National Congress in 1912 — it was originally named the Native National Congress —paralleled the founding of the Indian National Congress nearly thirty years earlier. Both Congresses went through similar development — passing the stages of mere annual meetings of notables, petitions and appeals, to the organisation of the masses of people for resistance against oppression and humiliation.

The African Youth League was formed in South Africa in 1943 by the late Anton Lembede, Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and others. It was able to take over the leadership of the African National Congress in 1949 and obtain endorsement of its programme of positive action. And in 1952, the African National Congress, in alliance with the South African Indian Congress, led the historic Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws — a passive resistance campaign similar to our movements in the 1920s and 1930s — in which over 8,000 people courted imprisonment by defying segregationist laws.

Both the South African and Indian national movements were inspired by a common ideology — an admixture of Gandhism and Socialism.

But the course of the South African movement in recent years had to be somewhat different from that of the Indian movement since the white minority regime resorted to brutal repression and even massacres to suppress peaceful resistance and outlawed the African National Congress, as well as the Pan Africanist Congress, in 1960. The national liberation movement then felt obliged to give up its strict adherence to non-violence, and to organise underground and armed resistance.

The situation in South Africa in 1960 may best be compared to the situation in India in 1942. But while India was able to attain independence in a few years after 1942, the liberation movement of South Africa had to carry on a prolonged struggle under very difficult circumstances.

I believe that it is important to understand the role of armed struggle in South Africa, and I would like to make some remarks.

In South Africa, the liberation movement decided on armed resistance when the national movement had already spread all over the country and when various segments of the population had been organised. Armed struggle was one of the components of the struggle, supplementing legal actions wherever possible, as well as other non-violent means of struggle (even if extra-legal or illegal).

The situation in South Africa cannot be compared to that in the Portuguese territories where armed struggle was the main focus of struggle and nations were practically created through guerilla warfare.

Secondly, the national liberation movement in South Africa decided on an armed struggle at a time when the African people were seething with anger and there was a prospect of local or unorganised violence by the people.

The national liberation movement, by organising armed resistance, averted the danger of senseless terrorism and racial war, and channelled the urge for freedom into a united and purposeful movement to secure the transfer of power from a racist clique to all the people.

Thirdly, the problem in South Africa is not a colonial problem as in the rest of Africa, though the system of racist domination is a product of colonialism, and the dual economy in the country is colonial in nature.

Moreover, since the National Party, greatly influenced by Nazi ideology, came to power in 1948, the legacy of racism was reinforced by fascism.

The successive governments have not merely tried to preserve racist privileges but have attempted to dispossess and denationalise the African majority in order to ensure perpetual white domination.

The national liberation movement, for its part, has always seen the struggle, not as a struggle of the Africans or the blacks against the whites, but as a struggle of all the people against a racist-fascist regime. It has tried to organise not only the African, Coloured and Indian people but also the democratic whites in a united coalition for a non-racial democratic society.

The national liberation movement is the custodian of the interests of all the people of the country, while the racist regime is not only the oppressor of the great majority of the people, but undermines the security of the white minority.

This broad perspective has determined the strategy of the liberation struggle, including the armed resistance. That is why the freedom fighters have taken exceptional care, even risking their own lives, to avoid the killing of innocent persons.

Indiscriminate killing of whites in South Africa is not difficult. If the racist regime continues cowardly killings of the black people and the refugees in neighbouring territories, and if the white people support such killings, it is not inconceivable that there may be a bloodbath, despite all the restraint of the national liberation movement, with enormous international repercussions.

But for the present, as I see it, the perspective is not one of guerilla forces coming from across the borders and liberating South Africa, nor of uncontrolled and unorganised violence leading to an unpredictable outcome. It is rather a combination of national resistance, including armed resistance, under the leadership of the liberation movement, coupled with effective international action, leading to the overthrow of the racist regime and the establishment of a democratic government.

I felt it necessary to emphasise this since concentration of attention on the armed struggle as an isolated phenomenon would lead to erroneous conclusions.

The present crisis in southern Africa has resulted, not from any recent incidents, but from the developments over the past decade or two.

On the one hand, the South African national liberation movement recovered from the severe reverses of 1963-64.

There has been a phenomenal growth of popular mobilisation and resistance in the past decade. The independent black trade unions grew in membership from less than 50,000 to over 400,000. Students and youth. churches and communities have developed militant movements. The armed actions, led by the ANC, became more and more sophisticated and were closely linked with the popular mobilisation.

On the other hand, the Pretoria regime increased its military power, came increasingly under the dominance of the military establishment and escalated aggression, subversion and destabilisation against the neighbouring independent African States.

The military budget of South Africa which was less than forty million dollars in 1960 is now over three thousand million dollars.

South Africa, which could not even manufacture a rifle in 1960, is today the tenth largest arms producer in the world and is aggressively seeking markets for its military equipment in order to ensure the viability of its arms industry. It has even acquired nuclear capability.

After blatant acts of aggression, destabilisation, terrorism and economic warfare against neighbouring independent African States — in defiance of all international morality and law, and of numerous resolutions of the United Nations — the Pretoria regime has been able to oblige some of those States to negotiate agreements with it.

The Nkomati Accord between Mozambique and South Africa, and the revelation of an earlier agreement between Swaziland and South Africa, in particular, have caused grave disappointment among the black people of South Africa. Many ANC refugees and representatives have been removed from Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique. SWAPO has been restrained in Angola.

When one realises the enormous scale of South African aggression and destabilisation in the entire region, one cannot but appreciate the compelling reasons which induced some of the independent African States to negotiate with South Africa.

Angola and Mozambique have known no peace since their independence and their fragile economies have been devastated.

The material destruction in Angola, resulting from South African aggression, has been estimated at ten billion dollars at the end of 1982.

Mozambique has estimated its losses from South African aggression and natural disasters at four or five billion dollars.

South Africa has organised and equipped the M.N.R. for sabotage, kidnapping and murder in Mozambique — and the M.N.R. was recently estimated to have 12,000 men. Subversion in Angola has been on an even larger scale.

The South African regime has exerted enormous economic pressure against land-locked Lesotho, and assisted the so-called Lesotho Liberation Army in attacks against that country. Zimbabwe has been subjected to economic and military pressure, while the so-called "Radio Truth" is engaged in psychological warfare. Botswana and Zambia have not been spared.

The frontline State Summit in March 1982 described the situation as one of "undeclared war" by South Africa all over the southern African region.

Faced with the threat to their very survival, some neighbouring States have agreed to reduce or terminate the modest support they provided to ANC in its armed struggle —in accordance with the resolutions of the OAU and the decisions of the frontline State Summits — in return for an undertaking by South Africa to abandon the massive subversion against them.

Insofar as the international community was unable to prevent South African aggression and destabilisation, it can only express sympathy with the States concerned and, indeed, appreciation that they had not tried to plunge the region into a wider war with the involvement of Great Powers. It must, in fact, express gratitude for the sacrifices made by those States for the cause of freedom in South Africa and Namibia.

At the same time, it must seriously analyse the situation and reassess its strategy for freedom and peace in southern Africa.

The gravity of the crisis in southern Africa stems from the fact that some powerful forces in the West have found a community of interests with the racist regime in South Africa. They have condoned, if not connived at, the blatant acts of aggression and destabilisation by the South African racist regime.

Their sympathy for the Pretoria regime is not entirely new. but they have shown less hesitation in overtly associating with that regime, in attacking the national liberation movements and in exerting pressure on frontline and other States to abandon sanctions against South Africa. They thereby assist South Africa in the implementation of its "forward strategy."

Racist white South Africa cannot exist and does not intend to exist as a mere appendage of Europe or an isolated enclave on the African continent. Its objective is hegemony or dominance in the whole of southern Africa — as the central or the most powerful entity in a constellation of dependent States.

The recent acts of aggression and destabilisation were not intended merely to restore the buffers destroyed by the collapse of Portuguese colonialism, but to establish a South African "co-prosperity sphere" in southern Africa.

The Pretoria regime seeks, first of all, to utilise the difficulties of the neighbouring States to undermine the sanctions imposed on it since the Sharpeville massacre and break out of its isolation.

Secondly, it seeks to pressure the neighbouring States to accept the so-called independent bantustans, thereby violating unanimous resolutions of the United Nations and compromising their opposition to apartheid.

Thirdly, it hopes to extend its economic dominance in the whole area.

South Africa already has a substantial export trade in the area. Several of the African States have become dependent on communications through South Africa, especially as other means of communication have been destroyed by sabotage and subversion.

The transnational corporations play a key role in supplementing the regional economic policy of the South African Government, and a close cooperation has developed between the Government and private business since P.W. Botha became Prime Minister.

You may recall the Cape-to-Katanga axis — a complex of multinational companies with interlocking directorates — which dominated the economies of southern Africa and played a nefarious role in the Congo crisis of 1960. That axis was only partially disrupted by later events. The members of that complex are now playing a very active role in the region, in line with South Africa’s strategy.

The independence of African States is in grave danger as is the aspiration of the African people for the total emancipation of their continent, and of the people of African origin all over the world for their human dignity.

There is also a grave threat to the Non-aligned Movement, in which Africa holds a special place as a continent of non-alignment.

If the southern zone of Africa were to come under the hegemony of the Pretoria regime, wielding nuclear weapons and acting as the gendarme of a Western alliance in southern Africa and the Indian Ocean, the Non-aligned Movement may encounter its greatest reverse.

The Nkomati Accord may hopefully provide some much-needed respite to Mozambique.

But neither Mozambique, nor any other independent African State unwilling to accept the hegemony of South Africa, can be really secure so long as apartheid persists in South Africa. The independence and security of southern Africa can only be attained by the elimination of apartheid.

Many people around the world have jumped to the conclusion that the Nkomati Accord would make it impossible for the ANC to continue its armed struggle and that the liberation struggle would be set back by ten or twenty years.

I believe that is not the prospect, though the Accord does create difficulties for the ANC.

The ANC had no military bases or training camps or any concentrations of freedom fighters in Mozambique, and hardly any incursions of freedom fighters have been reported across the border between Mozambique and South Africa. The ANC can perhaps sustain the armed struggle inside South Africa at the present level even if that border is sealed.

In fact, I would be more concerned with the prospect of unorganised violence and killings inside South Africa if the black people feel frustrated and provoked by repression.

The talks and accords will become a serious problem only if the independent African States become so enmeshed with South Africa as to enable it to undermine sanctions against that country, or become so hostile to the national liberation movements as to deny even sanctuary to refugees, or abandon their commitment to total liberation of South Africa and advocate compromises and encourage third forces in conjunction with Western Powers.

There is no such prospect, as may be seen from the communique of the frontline States on April 29^th.

The authorities in South Africa do not see the accords as the beginning of a process of peaceful resolution of the situation in the region - especially inside Namibia and South Africa — in accordance with the United Nations resolutions. They see it as a means to gain time for the implementation of their master plan for South Africa and for southern Africa as a whole.

Inside South Africa, behind the cover of all the propaganda about adaptations of apartheid or relaxations of racist laws, their primary objective has been to entrench white domination by denationalising the African majority through the creation of so-called "independent" bantustans. Already, four such sham "States" have been created and over eight million Africans have been deprived of citizenship under South African law.

The new constitution, which is now being imposed, is designed to facilitate the process of turning South Africa into a white bastion by co-opting Coloured and Indian minorities, and excluding the African majority. The Coloured and Indian people will become subject to conscription into the armed forces when the constitution is implemented.

This Constitution, designed to widen the base for racism, has instead provoked widest opposition among the black people of South Africa. When the Coloured Labour Party decided to participate in the proposed elections, its leaders encountered such hostility among the Coloured people that they could not hold public meetings. Among the Indian people — 90 per cent of whom boycotted the last elections to the South African Indian Council — there has been a resurgence of political activity, with only a few members of the rump Indian Council agreeing to participate in the proposed elections. Among the African people, even those who had worked within the system of apartheid had to declare opposition.

The regime felt obliged to abandon referenda among the Coloured and Indian people. It has announced elections to the segregated Parliaments of the Coloured and Indian people in August, and is trying through repression, as well as various inducements, to counter a total boycott.

A serious crisis is, therefore, brewing inside South Africa and the authorities may well resort to severe repression of all opponents of apartheid.

The Indians in South Africa are faced with a critical choice.

While appreciating the pressures on them, I hope that no Indian will in any way cooperate in the manoeuvres of the regime to divide the black people and other opponents of apartheid, and dispossess the African people.

The great majority of Indians will no doubt boycott the elections, but I hope that even those who are considering participation will be persuaded by public opinion in South Africa and in India to recognise that the destiny of the people of Indian origin is with the indigenous majority, and that only a non-racial democratic system can provide them security.

The situation in southern Africa has become rather complex, though the basic issues are simple and our own choice is clear.

At a time when the mobilisation of the oppressed people in South Africa has reached an unprecedented level, the frontline States have been forced to abandon some of their own commitments to the liberation struggle in that country.

At a time when the international movement against apartheid has scored further advances, especially in the major Western countries, the international forces ranged against genuine liberation of South Africa have been able to regain the initiative. The problem of apartheid has become enmeshed, more than ever before, in a tense international environment.

The national liberation movement of South Africa and all its friends — Governments and organisations — need to increase their cooperation to retake the initiative and launch a determined offensive against apartheid, its practitioners, promoters and protectors.

I believe that in recent years, there has been some lethargy and indecision among the friends of liberation. There has been some illusion that the talks on Namibia and the advance of the struggle in South Africa would lead to progress without much additional international effort. There has been a serious lack of appreciation of the aggressiveness of the South African regime and the determination of its allies.

Both in the Non-aligned Movement and in the Organisation of African Unity, there have been suggestions that the struggle for liberation is near its end and that they should give priority to economic issues.

I believe that that assessment was totally wrong. Liberation can never be allowed to take second place. So long as the struggle for liberation is not completed, there is a constant danger of reversal in one form or another.

For more than two decades, the United Nations, on the recommendation of the Special Committee against Apartheid, recognised that the elimination of apartheid is a vital interest of the Organisation. It has followed a three-pronged strategy: (a) sanctions against South Africa to demonstrate to the white minority that apartheid will not be permitted to be entrenched in any form, and to weaken the military and economic power of the racist regime; (b) assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement in their legitimate struggle; and (c) mobilisation of world public opinion in support of international action against apartheid.

The Special Committee has pointed out with grave concern and distress that the policy of the present administration in the United States of America is diametrically opposed to this strategy. That administration has espoused "constructive engagement" with South Africa — of support to the alleged forces of peaceful change which seem to include the military-industrial complex of South Africa and the blacks who have agreed to work within the system of apartheid. It opposes the ANC and SWAPO as some kind of "Soviet-sponsored terrorists." It opposes United Nations efforts to mobilise public opinion for sanctions against South Africa and support to the national liberation movement of South Africa.

This approach of the United States is against that of the overwhelming majority of the Member States of the United Nations, including a substantial majority of Western States, so that the United States has been alone in opposing most of the General Assembly resolutions on apartheid.

The Special Committee has called for concerned efforts to persuade the United States to harmonise its policy with the views of almost all other States. In this connection, it has stressed the need for united action by Africa and the Non-aligned world, by Western countries and by public opinion in the West, especially in the United States.

While significant efforts have been made in this respect, regrettably they have fallen far short of the requirements.

It has been distressing that Africa in particular has suffered from bilateral disputes, aggravated by external forces, which have weakened the Organisation of African Unity.

I may recall that there have been disputes and differences in Africa which have threatened the OAU ever since its inception in 1963. But the over-riding concern of Africa for freedom and dignity, again and again enabled Africa to overcome the divisions and retain the unity of the continent in the struggle for liberation.

Unless Africa can now make a supreme effort to restore its unity for the emancipation of the continent, the liberation struggle in South Africa will continue to face great difficulties.

What applies to Africa and the OAU applies also, to some content, to the Non-Aligned Movement.

Hardly any movement in human history has attracted such wide support and solidarity in the world, from governments as well as people, as has the national liberation movement in South Africa.

It has received support from the international trade union movement, from religious bodies and from numerous other organisations.

Many countries have made substantial sacrifices to impose sanctions against South Africa and assistance has been provided to the oppressed people and their national liberation movement from many governments, organisations and individuals. Over one hundred cities in Britain have recently taken action against apartheid, as have many States and major cities in the United States — and these include Greater London and Washington, DC.

Nelson Mandela is perhaps the most honoured political prisoner in history.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement has been one of the most significant and effective public international movements of our time. Tens of thousands of people have made sacrifices in support of campaigns led by that movement in solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa.

But at the same time, the liberation struggle in South Africa has faced great odds—not only from the white minority which has been poisoned by racism and utilises the great economic resources of the country for repression, but from a triumvirate of powerful international forces — namely, the transnational corporations, the racist elements all over the world and the cold war mentality.

Transnational corporations not only strengthen the forces of racism in South Africa, but form lobbies against anti-apartheid action in the metropolitan countries, thereby corrupting their own societies.

While much has been written on the activities of the transnational corporations, we have not paid sufficient attention to the role of what we may call the "racist international."

Our hopes that the advance of the colonial revolution would lead to the demise of racism have not been fulfilled. I believe that until apartheid is eliminated in South Africa, we will not reach the turning point in the struggle against racism on this globe.

I am concerned that even some of those who are strongly opposed to racism believe that the elimination of racism will be a very long process with education as the main instrument. The victims of racism cannot wait for such a leisurely process, certainly not until racists are educated against racism.

A welcome development has been the development of an anti-racist movement in Britain, France and other countries with a programme which includes the abolition of institutional racism; a recognition that the issue is not one of rights of migrant labour, treatment of immigrants and other specific matters, but the acceptance that their societies are multiracial and that people of all racial origins must learn to live together in peace as equals; and finally dissociation from apartheid South Africa as a complement to the struggle against racism at home.

The third greatest source of sustenance to apartheid has been the cold war mentality in the West, and this has been long-standing.

I may recall that racist South Africa was a participant in the discussion of military plans by the colonial Powers in Africa after the Second World War, and one of the main promoters of the Middle East Pact in the 1950s. The Western Powers showed hostility to the ANC as early as the 1950s.

United States policy, in particular, has been influenced, except for brief intervals, by cold war calculations and supposed strategic concerns.

The South African regime has greatly benefited from the acute international tension in recent years by projecting the bogy of a Marxist belt in southern Africa.

It is because of the involvement of these international forces that the liberation movement in South Africa needs and deserves effective international assistance.

The situation in southern Africa is critical, but I believe that the glee of the racists can be made very brief.

The unity of the Non-aligned movement and its close cooperation with the national liberation movements is crucial for this purpose.

Radical rhetoric and ritual condemnations at international conferences must be replaced by concrete action.

There is an urgent need to increase assistance to the national liberation movements.

There is an urgent need to provide political and material support to the resistance inside South Africa.

Above all, there must be concerted action against the policies of the transnational corporations and the governments providing assistance to South Africa.

I may recall that, in 1981, the Non-aligned movement decided to take retaliatory action against transnational corporations collaborating with South Africa.

But that decision remains unimplemented.

I would suggest, as a single first step, that Non-aligned countries undertake not to purchase any military supplies from corporations providing such supplies to South Africa —and not to purchase oil from corporations which make illicit supplies of oil to South Africa.

We can justly feel proud of the contribution made by Indians to the great freedom movement in South Africa, beginning with Gandhiji’s Satyagraha in South Africa early in this century.

Dr. Yusuf Dadoo, the leader of the South African Indian Congress and Chairman of the South African Communist Party, who passed away last year in exile, played a tremendous role in mobilising the people of Indian origin in joint struggles with the African people, recognising that the interests of the oppressed African majority must be paramount.

The people of Indian origin have contributed their share in blood and suffering in the cause of freedom and justice — as can be seen from the many who were brutally tortured to death in detention, who have spent long years in prison and who have made material sacrifices.

The leaders of the African Youth League in the 1940s were rather wary of cooperation with people of other racial groups, but three decades of common struggle and sacrifice have forged such unity that the term "black" became popular in the 1970s, encompassing the African people, the so-called Coloured people and the people of Indian origin.

I would like to submit that for India, as much as for African States, support for the liberation struggle in South Africa is not mere solidarity but a vital interest.

India must be on the frontline — as, indeed, it was in the 1940s when it called for international action against racism in South Africa and when it imposed sanctions against the racist regime of South Africa at considerable sacrifice.

The independence of African States and the establishment of the Organisation of African Unity demand of us close cooperation with them, but do not reduce our responsibility for action or initiatives.

The world today is confronted with injustices and brutal repression in many countries. There are massive killings, tortures and jailings in several countries where the people have risen against oppressive systems.

In some small countries in Latin America alone, many more people are killed or jailed than in South Africa.

Some people who oppose action against apartheid, ask why the United Nations should devote special attention to South Africa, why it should "pick" on South Africa.

I have often asked myself that question, though for different reasons, because all of us need to be concerned with oppression anywhere in the world.

To me, the answer is clear. The struggle for freedom in South Africa has assumed a historic significance.

We, in India, should be able to appreciate this since we were conscious that our own struggle for freedom — in the most populous colonial country, the "jewel in the Crown" —had more significance than a struggle of one nation for independence. We believed that in fighting for our freedom, we were also fighting for the freedom of other colonial peoples.

The struggle in South Africa is the last stage of the struggle for the emancipation of the continent of Africa from five centuries of slavery, humiliation and inhumanity.

It is the last stage of the struggle against imperialism and colonialism — at least in their formal aspects — and a vital battle in the effort to rid the world of the scourge of racism.

The oppressed people of South Africa, in fighting for their own rights, are today also fighting for humanity, for ending a shameful chapter of human history and for facilitating a new world order.

That is why their struggle has been so difficult and prolonged. That is why their national movement — which has inspired and assisted freedom movements all over the region — has not yet succeeded but faces further odds today.

The recognition of the historic significance of the South African struggle demands of us to identify ourselves totally with that struggle. Our duty is not only to assist the national liberation movement of South Africa but also to confront the forces ranged against it — the international complex of profiteers, racists and militarists.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement and the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid were established around the same time, in response to the appeals of the leaders of the movement for freedom in South Africa. They were both intended to meet the need for constant efforts to inform public opinion of the crimes of apartheid and the struggle of the oppressed people of South Africa, to promote the isolation of the apartheid regime; and to encourage moral and material assistance to those struggling for freedom in South Africa.

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 the broadest support for the liberation struggle — irrespective of differences on any other issues — in the broader context of the struggle for the emancipation of Africa.

While the Special Committee as an intergovernmental body and the AAM as a public organisation had different mandates, they were both conscious of the need to combine diplomatic and public action and to concert action by governments and peoples committed to freedom and equality in South Africa.

Out of this common recognition developed a fruitful partnership between the two bodies. The Special Committee 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 invited representatives of the Movement to its own meetings, seminars and conferences. It also assisted the AAM in developing close cooperation with other UN bodies.

Even more important, many of the initiatives of the Special Committee have resulted from consultations with the Anti-Apartheid Movement. The historic resolution 1881 (XVIII) of the General Assembly, on the release of South African political prisoners, was adopted on October 11, 1963, during the Rivonia Trial, when the late Bishop Ambrose Reeves, former president of AAM, visited the United Nations. The Special Committee and the AAM cooperated on the World Campaign for the Release of South African Political Prisoners which was launched at that time.

The Special Committee sent a high-level delegation to the International Conference on Sanctions against South Africa, organised by the AAM in April 1964, helped publicise its results and pressed for action by the United Nations in the light of the conclusions of that conference.

The Special Committee decided to promote the sports and cultural boycott of South Africa as a result of consultations held during its special session in London in June 1968.

More recently, the World Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa was launched by the AAM, with the encouragement of the Special Committee.

The Special Committee and the AAM have co-sponsored or cooperated in organising many important international conferences — such as the World Conference for Action against Apartheid (Lagos 1977), the International Conference for Sanctions against South Africa (Paris 1981), and a series of seminars on military, nuclear, economic and other collaboration with South Africa.

These joint activities have resulted in almost daily contacts between the Centre against Apartheid in the United Nations Secretariat and the AAM. As head of the Centre, I have valued the cooperation with the leaders and staff of the AAM for over two decades.

Five years ago, I had occasion to say:

"The sanctions campaign was 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?"

Our hopes at the time that the international community would ensure that the liberation of the former Portuguese colonies would in turn lead to Zimbabwe’s freedom were realised in 1980. However, the emancipation of the racist strongholds of Namibia and South Africa now appears more distant than ever.

The South African regime has been able to plunge the entire region into conflict and crisis while intensifying its efforts to entrench apartheid through forced removals, creation of bantustans and the enactment of the new racist constitution.

It has found powerful friends to protect it from effective international action and assist it in massive propaganda to divert attention from the implementation of its "master plan" against the black people. Thus the crisis has deepened despite the tremendous growth of the movement for freedom in South Africa and the notable advances in the international mobilisation against apartheid.

The 25th anniversary of the AAM is, therefore, an occasion for a thorough study of the forces of freedom and those ranged against it, and for the formulation of new strategies. A redoubled effort for freedom and peace in southern Africa will require even greater cooperation between the United Nations and the Anti-Apartheid Movements of the world.

These statements are from unanimous resolutions of the General Assembly to which the Western Powers have subscribed. They did not vote for other propositions adopted by very large majorities declaring that the Pretoria regime is illegitimate and that the liberation movements recognised by the Organisation of African Unity are the authentic representatives of the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa.

We need to ask whether the Western countries have acted in accordance with the propositions to which they have repeatedly subscribed.

For instance, how many of the Western countries which have met with leaders of the racist regime received or held discussions with the leaders of the liberation movements? I believe the United States and the United Kingdom are not among them.

If the Western States do support the total elimination of apartheid, how can they regard the new constitution of South Africa which entrenches apartheid and totally excludes the African majority as a step in the right direction — as the United States does?

Why is the United Kingdom almost alone in withholding contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa — a fund set up to provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of persecution in South Africa, a fund which has been unanimously endorsed by the United Nations and to which almost all Western countries including the United States of America, France and the Federal Republic of Germany make contributions?

(The United Kingdom has not contributed to this Fund. which was set up in 1965, except on two occasions, in 1966-1967 and 1978-1979.)

A second theme in many of the United Nations resolutions for almost twenty years is the assertion that the Western States — particularly the main trading partners of South Africa, and more particularly the Western Permanent Members of the Security Council and the Federal Republic of Germany - are largely responsible for the tragedy in South Africa, together with the transnational corporations, financial institutions and other vested interests in their countries, because of their collaboration with South Africa.

This is a "controversial" assertion because the Western delegations oppose it, while most of the others vote for it.

The reference is not to historic responsibility, for instance of the United Kingdom, but to the actions since the apartheid regime came to power in 1948, since the oppressed people of South Africa and the African States appealed for sanctions against South Africa in 1958, since the United Nations General Assembly voted for sanctions on November 7, 1962.

The trade of some of the Western Powers with South Africa and their investment in South Africa have shot up.

Supplies of military equipment, technology and training have also been massive, despite the United Nations arms embargo since 1963, which was made mandatory in 1977 by a unanimous vote of the Security Council.

Since 1960, the South African military budget has increased from 36 million rand to over 3,000 million rand, and South Africa has acquired billions of dollars of military hardware. All of it comes from, or is produced with the assistance of, Western States and Israel.

I remember that when the Special Committee against Apartheid was established in 1963, some Western countries were claiming that they were not supplying arms for repression. They were not supplying rifles and batons which the Pretoria regime did not need, but only military aircraft, warships and so on.

Now some of them claim that they are not supplying finished and polished military equipment but only everything short of that so that the South Africans are obliged to assemble, polish and stamp the equipment as made in South Africa.

If anyone can prove that a bomber can be used for a civilian purpose — to spray pesticides or even to kill a few flies — that becomes dual purpose equipment according to recent statements from London and some other capitals and may be licensed for sale to South Africa.

Thirdly, the Special Committee against Apartheid has given three reasons why the Western Powers and interests concerned collaborate with apartheid and block international action for the elimination of apartheid.

The first is the profit motive. Billions of dollars of profit is derived from the exploitation of the people of South Africa, and that in turn develops lobbies for apartheid.

The second is the continued influence of racism in Western and other countries. The racist elements in the West support and feed on apartheid in South Africa — so that the struggle against apartheid in South Africa is linked to the struggle all over the world against racism.

The third is the cold war which seems to persuade some Western Powers or leaders or military brass that apartheid South Africa is a valuable ally, and must be accepted as a member of the "free world" — even at the risk that its admission will totally discredit the "free World" in the eyes of most of humanity.

The Special Committee against Apartheid has expressed dismay and distress at the policy of the present administration in the United States — which is diametrically opposed to the position adopted by the United Nations for over two decades, namely: (a) end collaboration with the apartheid regime; (b) support the national liberation movement; and (c) mobilise world public opinion for these purposes.

That three-pronged approach was endorsed unanimously by the International Conference on Sanctions against South Africa, held in Paris in May 1981, with the participation of a majority of Western States.

The Special Committee is convinced that the other Western States do not agree with the approach of the present United States administration.

But perhaps because of loyalty to their alliances, many of them have been influenced by the United States position, thereby drifting backwards or becoming less active in the campaign against apartheid.

The Special Committee has analysed the votes in the General Assembly. The votes of the United States have been almost wholly negative, and the United Kingdom follows. These two countries have become conspicuous even in comparison to other Western States.

The Special Committee can only depend on public opinion in the Western countries to persuade the governments to dissociate themselves from the current approach of the United States — to persuade the United States and not to be influenced by its errors — so that the Western world can count on respect and goodwill in the rest of the world.

The fact that the Pretoria regime has been able, because of the protection by Western Powers, to bully some neighbouring States and oblige them to accept the offer of a truce, does not make the regime peaceful.

The arrogance and aggressiveness of the Pretoria regime — or the propaganda in the West — should not persuade anyone that the racist regime has become more powerful or that it has been able to reverse history by a quarter century.

That regime is faced with a growing crisis and, in the face of growing resistance in South Africa and Namibia, its survival depends entirely on the benevolence of some Powers and forces in the West.

This is not a time to adjust to the prospect of the survival of apartheid.

I hope that the programme of action which will emerge from this Conference will not focus on responding to the propaganda and the moves of the Pretoria regime and its friends, but on means to break their unholy alliance and to ensure that all the needs of national liberation movements for external assistance are promptly met.

Even if I have to depart from the subject somewhat, I want to say a few words on the new racist constitution of South Africa — and speak as an Indian.

We too have kith and kin in South Africa — a million of them — as do Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia, not to speak of Africa.

This new constitution was meant to place the Indian and Coloured communities in a most difficult position, to force them to betray the African majority.

The Indian community in South Africa has a long tradition of struggle against racism in South Africa, beginning with Mahatma Gandhi almost a century ago — and India has a long tradition of support to that struggle. I need only recall that the late Dr. Yusuf Dadoo, who is buried here in London, symbolises the commitment of the Indian community to link its destiny with the aspirations of the indigenous African majority. In a somewhat different way, Abdul Samad Minty, founder and honorary secretary of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, also symbolises that commitment.

When any Western leader welcomes the racist constitution of South Africa as a step in the right direction, we have reason to resent that as an insult to India and people of Indian origin.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my great pride at the appeal by India to all people of Indian origin in South Africa to reject and refuse to cooperate with the new constitution.

I hope the whole world will unequivocally denounce that constitution when it is brought into force on September 3rd.

They hold the birthright of the Namibian people to freedom and independence hostage to the blackmail of the illegal occupiers of that country.

The colonial revolution in Africa in our time — as yet unfinished — has in its course encountered many attempts to undo the hard-won victories of the African people and to reverse the tide of history.

The Seminar on the Legal Status of the Apartheid Regime and Other Legal Aspects of the Struggle against Apartheid is coming to an end, and it is my duty to thank all those who have made this important Seminar a great success.

We have spoken and written for many years of the inhumanity of apartheid, and of the many external forces which buttress apartheid. But I believe many of us have not fully comprehended the enormity of the injustice, the ferocity of the enemy and the unscrupulousness of the collaborators with apartheid.

That is the reason for the present critical situation and the reason why even after decades of international condemnation of apartheid, there are suggestions that we must accommodate ourselves with apartheid in the name of realism or whatever.

On the other hand, many of us have perhaps not fully comprehended the nature and scope of the great liberation

movement of South Africa — with many streams flowing into a mighty river — which has not only written a glorious chapter in the history of struggle for freedom, but has inspired liberation struggles in many African countries and also in far-away India and the American South. It deserves not only our support but our faith in its inevitable triumph.

Although this is a legal Seminar, it has gone into the fundamental issues involved, because we cannot discuss law in isolation.

It has been said — and I confess I had also said it — that the struggle in South Africa is different from the struggle in the American South — because the law of the land was in favour of freedom in the United States of America while the law in South Africa is racist.

This Seminar has shown that even in the case of South Africa, there is a higher law, an international law, overriding the obnoxious and illegal racist laws.

The Seminar makes clear that those who collaborate with and sustain apartheid have been undermining the very fabric of international law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights — which was not accepted by the apartheid regime, but endorsed by the liberation movement — is a revolutionary document. It not only lays down the rights of people, but recognises the right to rebellion when those rights are denied.

Participants have made frequent reference to the Nuremberg principles and to the designation of apartheid as a crime against humanity.

In this connection, I would like to recall that as early as 1966 when colonialism and apartheid were denounced by the General Assembly as crimes against humanity, the Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonisation, Ambassador Collier of Sierra Leone, said:

"The world should not sit idly by and wait until events have culminated into a disaster of unthinkable proportions to proclaim in an international tribunal afterwards that crimes had been committed against humanity."