addresses by H.E.M. Achkar Marof

Permanent Representative of Guinea to the United • Nations and Chairman of the United Nations Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON AFRICA- 50 CENTS Published in 1965 by the American Committee on Africa 211 East 43rd Street, New York , NY 10017 (A French version of the pamphlet is available) Introduction ... George M. Houser

In this short collection of addresses by Ambassador Marof are to be found excellent descriptions of the real nature of apartheid, warnings of the grave dangers this policy holds for race relations in Africa and the world, and clear reminders of the responsibility borne by many forces outside South Africa for the perpetuation of these policies.

These addresses by a spokesman of new Africa deserve to be widely circulated and studied for they provide the background for important developments to be expected in the next round of discussions in the Organization of Af:J;"ican Unity and at the United Nations.

Except for one address given before the National Conference on the South African Cri­ sis and American Policy, sponsored by the American Committee on Africa and other organi­ zations, all were delivered at United Nations meetings. I wish to acknowledge with thanks the assistance of Mr. E. S. Reddy, Principal Secretary of the Special Committee on Apartheid, in collecting and editing the addresses.

At the time Ambassador Marof took over the Chairmanship of the Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid he pointed out that 27 General Assembly resolutions and five Se­ curity Council resolutions had been passed condemning in one form or another the Govern­ ment of Pretoria. But despite these resolutions, the situation continued to deteriorate daily. When the Special Committee began its work in 1963, 3, 000 Africans were jailed during the "Poqo" underground hysteria. There followed the 90-day detention law arrests when 700 were jailed without trial and thrown into solitary confinement.

At the same time, tens of thousands of innocent families were being "endorsed out" of "White areas" and sent to rural Reserves.

Scores were banished to remote areas; hundreds were banned or placed under house arrest.

Thus brick by brick the wall of apartheid has grown higher.

It is the task of the Special Committee to keep the world body and the world informed about these events and to press for action to tear down this wall. The South African Crisis 1. and American Action

I am happy to greet this Conference on "The South African Crisis and American Ac­ tion, 11 convened by prominent public organizations in the United States, in order to consider ways and means to contribute towards the end of racism in South Africa.

The Special Committee on Apartheid, established by the General Assembly over two years ago to review constantly the various aspects of the South African problem, and of which I have the honour to be the Chairman, has emphasized the crucial importance of public aware­ ness of the implications and dangers of South African racism and of tlie United Nations efforts to resolve the situation by international action. Economic sanctions, the only effective peaceful means now available to the international community to put an end to this cancer of racism in the southern part of Africa, can be successful only when they are supported by the Great Pow­ ers and the major trading partners, as well as the broadest segments of world public opinion.

The United States, as a great Power and a permanent member of the Security Council, bears a special responsibility with regard to mandatory action by the United Nations and the effective implementation of such action. The United States is also the second largest trading partner of South Africa and the second largest investor in South Africa - next only to the Unit­ ed Kingdom - and her support is of the greatest importance for the imposition of collective economic sanctions. Moreover, the United States, as the leader of alliances which include the major trading partners of South Africa, has a crucial role to play in ensuring that all States implement the decision of the United Nations.

We have, therefore, watched with great interest and appreciation the efforts of the American Committee on Africa, and the other organizations sponsoring this Conference, in enlightening the people of the United States on the realities and consequences of rampant rac­ ism in South Africa, in expressing solidarity with the efforts of the courageous fighters a­ gainst injustice in that country and in supporting decisive international action to secure a peaceful and just settlement of the problem.

I need not explain to you the injustice of apartheid - whatever new propaganda terms in which it is clothed from time to time - whether it is 11 separate development" or rr·separate freedom" or 11 orderly and peaceful coexistence. 11 Apartheid means that an African in South Africa has less than a tenth of the income of the White; that African children die twenty"-five times the rate of White children; that the cost per African pupil in school is one-fourteenth of the cost per White pupil. Apartheid means that Africans have no vote, except in some subordinate bodies, and that a thousand Africans a day are jailed under so-called pass laws

Address to the National Conference on South African Crisis and American Action, Washington, D. C., March 22, 1965

- 2 - --~ ------.~~-·-·

which deny them freedom of movement and employment in their country. Apartheid means that families are broken up and that an African woman cannot visit her husband in town with­ out a special permit from the magistrate certifying her desire to conceive a child.

Above all, apartheid means an endless humiliation of the African people in their own native land by a White minority led by racists who have the audacity to claim to be Christian and civilized.

The people and the leaders of Africa, resurgent after centuries of tribulations, have, proclaimed to the whole world that they will not tolerate the humiliation of their brothers any­ where and that the struggle of the South African people is, indeed, the struggle of all the two hundr~d million people of Africa. Every independent state of Africa has realized that its own independence is not complete so long as the African people remain subject to oppression in South Africa or in the Portuguese colonies or in other territories. The first act of every in­ dependent African state in recent years has been to break relations with the regime in Preto­ ria.

At the Addis Ababa Conference in 1963 and at every African conference, the African States have called on the Powers to choose the friendship of the racists and the colonialists or the friendship of the African people and the independent African States. Africa today is one body: you cannot step on a man's toes and seek to shake his hands warmly as a friend.

We are determined that the dignity of the African people in South Africa should be re­ stored. We are convinced that they will win, by peaceful means if the world is prepared to act in time and with firmness, or by violent conflict if they are forced to choose that path. The whole of Africa will be with them in whatever path they are obliged to choose.

We call for world-wide economic sanctions under the auspices of the United Nations because we prefer peaceful means and economic sanctions are now the only effective peaceful means.

We call for economic sanctions because, unlike the short-sighted racists, we look for­ ward to a future in which all the people of the country, whatever their color or religion, can live together in harmony on the basis of the recognition of.the equality of all men.

While we in Africa feel closest to racism in South Africa, it is not the problem of Af­ rica alone but of all humanity. It is one of the most serious challenges to the very existence and survival of the United Nations.

This problem has been before the United Nations for many years, but there is a grow­ ing realization today that this is not just one of the many agenda items or one of the many dis­ putes or crises, but a major threat to international peace.

After the Sharpeville incident five y~ars ago, the United Nations Security Council rec­ ognized, in a resolution on April 1,1960, that the situation in South Africa, if continued, might endanger international peace and security.

The situation has not only continued for five years, but steadily worsened. Despite

- 3 - •

the Security Council resolution, there was the State of Emergency, the mass arrests all over the country, the banning of the African National Congress and the Pan-Africanist Congress, the Sabotage Act, the 90 -day law and a host of other signposts on this descent to disaster.

Indeed, for a few weeks or months after Sharpeville, there was some hope that wis­ dam would prevail. World opinion was shocked. The stay-at-home strikes by African work­ ers, the tumbling of share prices and fall in the reserves led to hints that there may be a re­ assessment. But these hopes were short-lived, as the Great Powers refused to go beyond verbal condemnation of apartheid when the regime in Pretoria mobilized all its forces to sup­ press the resistance. Indeed, very soon, the main trading partners were vying with each other for trade with South Africa, offering her loans and rushing to invest in the country. They have supplied an enormous amount of war material and the military budget of South Af­ rica today is five times what it was at the time of Sharpeville.

The people of South Africa have been left with no choice except to resort to violence in their struggle for elementary rights.

As the regime in South Africa refuses to deal with them as people but relies 'on its arms and its allies, the situation is fast moving towards a violent conflict. Let there be no doubt that a conflict in South Africa will not remain local and limited, but will inevitably have the most serious repercussions in Africa and, indeed, the whole world.

Many eminent statesmen have drawn attention to the danger of a "race war" spa-rked by apartheid in South Africa.

The United Nations Group of Experts on South Africa, led by Mrs. Alva Myrdal of Swe­ den and Lord Caradon, the present British Minister of State at the United Nations, wrote in its report:

"The coming collision must involve the whole of Africa and indeed the world beyond. No African nation can remain aloo'f. Moreover a race conflict starting in South Africa must affect race relations elsewhere in the world, and also, in its inter.­ l national repercussions, create a world danger of first magnitude." United Nations Secretary-General U Thant declared in Algiers on February 3, 1964:

"There is the clear prospect that racial conflict, if we cannot curb and finally, eliminate it, will grow into a destructive monster compared to which the religious or ideological conflicts of the past and present will seem like small family quarrefs. Such a conflict will eat away the possibilities for good of all that mankind has hitherto achieved and reduce men to the lowest and most bestial level of intolerance and hatred. This, for the sake of all our children, whatever their race and color, must not be per­ mitted to happen."

Sir Alec Douglas -Home, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said at Southamp­ ton on 24 April 1964 that "the greatest danger in the world today - as deadly in its way as the atomic bomb - is the threat of racialism. "

- 4 ------~ij;!'"""'"'''

Lord Caradon, British Minister of State at the United Nations, declared on October 23, 1964, that in his opinion, the greatest danger facing the world was "racial conflict begin­ ning in Southern Africa and involving the whole of Africa, and eventually the whole world."

"This is far beyond anything we have seen before in the Congo or Cyprus or Suez. There is a much bigger possibility of a color war in which the world will inevitably be involved. It will not be sufficient to have a hastily-raised force to deal with the disorders on a vast scale. 11 In fact even Dr. Eric Louw, the well-known former Foreign Minister of South Africa, said on December ll, 1964:

"It seems to me that the world is forming up for a war between Whites and non­ ·whites."

In this context of the danger of a world-wide conflict undermining the very existence of the United Nations and all our hopes for sound relations between Africa and the West, the South African situation takes on a new and greater significance. It is not merely a problem of justice or human rights in one country, but of the future of humanity itself.

We are given various arguments and explanations as to the difficulties of enforcing economic sanctions. But the efforts and the sacrifices required are negligible compared to the dangers of inaction. The problem is not whether the world can afford to impose economic sanctions but whether it can afford not to take decisive action when peaceful means to stop the conflict are still feasible.

We are most distressed that instead of supporting the strongest international pressure and action, the main trading partners of South Africa continue to do business as usual. We wish to warn them that there will be no lucrative trade and no juicy profits when the day of ;;~~k~:mi~g co~es, if they have been identified as frl.ends of the present regime.

Speaking here in Washington, the capital of this great nation, I wish to make an earnest appeal to the people and government of the United States to realize the seriousness of the South African situation and to weigh every aspect of relations with South Africa on the basic test as to whether it promotes a solution or strengthens racism. You have come to understand the grave implications of discrimination at home: Africa has warmly welcomed your efforts to correct the situation.. But we appeal to you not to ignore the implications of relations with the racists abroad.

The African States arrl the Special Committee on Apartheid have warmly welcomed the decision of the United States in 1963 to stop arms shipments to South Africa.

We welcome the decision of the United States to discontinue joint exercises with the South African Navy. We welcome the decision of the United States to continue multi-racial re­ ceptions at its embassy in Pretoria.

But much more needs to be done.

- 5 - The foreign trade figures show a substantial rise in United States trade with South Af­ rica. We ask you to consider seriously whether this helps to perpetuate apartheid or to bring it to an end.

The news reports on American investments in South Africa are extremely disquieting.

During the past two years, precisely since the General Assembly resolution of Novem­ ber 6, 1962, requesting Member States to cut off economic relations with South Africa, anum­ ber of American companies have announced large-scale investments in South Africa.

Ford Motor Company is investing over $ll million; General Motors $42 million; Chrys­ ler, $35 million.

Caltex is building an oil refinery in Cape Town. Arne rican companies are also engaged in exploration for oil in South Africa.

The Newmont Mining Company and the American Metal Climax are putting in some $38 million into the copper mining project in eastern Transvaal.

American banks have increased the revolving credit to South Africa.

An agreement has been reported on the assembly of American aircraft in South Africa for use by the police and the armed forces.

These are but a few of the dozens of recent American investments in South Africa.

I would appeal to these corporations and others who may be contemplating investments to think of the implications and consequences.

These investments are going into such fields as automobile industry, and petroleum in­ dustry, which are being developed so that South Africa can resist economic sanctions and build up its military power for bloody suppression of any resistance by the people. The South African Government regards them as votes of confidence in its policies. They are being made against the earnest appeals of Chief Luthuli and other African leaders and against the decisions of a great majority of the United Nations.

The crisis in South Africa is extremely explosive and fraught with the gravest conse­ quences for the whole world. The government and people of the world have been patient for too long and the Great Powers have been indecisive. We can afford no further delay in taking decisive action.

I wish your conference all success in devising the means to promote such action.

- 6 - A Threat 2. to the United Nations

In adopting this report, it was not our intention to swell the archives of the United Na­ tions, which already contain considerable documentation on the question of South Africa. We have tried to present a detailed report so that the Governments of the Member States and the whole world may know of the gravity of the situation in South Africa and realize the impera­ tive need for urgent action to put an end to the fire raging in that country. Let no one say to­ morrow that he did not know the facts, that he was not warned of the imminence of a violent conflict whose consequences will be irreparable.

The United Nations has been discussing the question of apartheid for 18 years and we are no nearer a solution today then we were in 1946.

The South African regime was an anachronism in the United Nations in 1946, an Organ­ ization born out of the world's bitter experience in the war against Nazi racism. Today, it is not only an anachronism, but an outrage and a threat to the very existence of tlie United Na­ tions.

We have said a-gain and again - and we will not tire of repeating - that what we are fac­ ing here is not a simple problem of adjustment, by some Whites, to the new realities in Africa and the world. This adjustment may be difficult but we are prepared to deal with it with sym­ pathy and understanding.

We have said in this report that we seek a peaceful settlement of the problem and that we would welcome steps by the South African regime to determine the country's destiny in con­ sultation with the genuine representatives of all the people of the country as suggested by the Group of Experts. We have said in this report that "the United Nations seeks the security and prosperity of all the people of South Africa including the White people in a non-racial society."

This is not very new, for we have said it before, perhaps in different words. But I should like to say here that, as an African, I subscribe to this statement fully and without hesitation.

However, the regime in South Africa prefers to go on applying its fascist policy and, in so doing, not only does it oppress the non-Whites and even the Whites who stand up for ra­ cial equality, but it also endangers the security of the White population by kindling and fanning the flames of racial hatred. Even if the apartheid system had no other consequences than the danger in which it places the Whites, it is our duty to act to rescue them from the hands of the clique now governing the country.

Statement on the occasion of the adoption of the report to the General Assembly and the Security Council, November 30, 1964

- 7 - We have now reached a critical point, for it is not only the future of South Africa but also the viability of the United Nations itself that is at stake. The United Nations cannot co­ exist with rampant racism in South Africa which casts its shadow far beyond that country1 s borders. We have passed resolutions. We have appealed to the South African regime, con­ demned its policies and called on it to change them. We can no longer afford to accumulate useiess resolutions. As I said a few days ago, after the events of the past year recorded in this report - and particularly after the execution of Mr. Vuyisile Mini, Mr. Wilson Khayinga and Mr. Zinakile Mkaba - only those who insist on remaining blind can continue to deliberate whether simply another appeal or condemnation should be issued or other steps should be/aken under Chapter VI of the Charter, or whether it is time to take action under Chapter VII• ..!.

At this juncture, I wish to appeal to the Great Powers, namely, the United Kingdom, the United States of,America and France, and to the other major trading partners of South Af­ rica whom we have mentioned in our report, to think of the survival of the United Nations and their own future relations .with the rest of the world. We believe that the problem of apartheid will be solved whatever the means and the consequences; and I should like to say to the above­ mentioned States: if you cooperate with us, you can help to solve it through the United Nations, by peaceful economic means and without bloodshed. If you do not cooperate with us, there will be no other way out but violence that cannot be controlled by the strength of the South African Whites or even by the Great P.owers. This is the lesson of history and especially recent his­ tory.

And if we let this situation deteriorate until it is finally settled outside this Organization, it is hightly probable that there will be no more flourishing trade, and no more handsome pro­ fits for anyone. So let us have an end of mere words, of useless advice and of empty sermons in these halls, but rather let us take stock of the action that has been taken, is being taken and should be taken. Let it not be said that South Africa has accomplices here in·the United Nations who derive such great profits from apartheid that they will paralyze any action that should be taken.

Replying 3. to Dr. Muller

We took note of the speech made this morning by a representative who claims to be the representative of an African country -- a speech in which the orator endeavored to defend from this rostrum, with the audacity which characterizes the spokesman of any fascist re­ gime, a policy that has been condemned by the entire world.

Statement at the Plenary Meeting o£ the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 21, 1964 in reply to Dr. Hilgard Mull,er, the South African Foreign Minister. - 8 -

------~-- - It is well known that the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Na­ tions have constantly requested those who govern the South African settlers to respect the ob­ ligations incumbent upon them under the Charter, to renounce their policy of apartheid, and to put an end to the system of brutal repression practised against the adversaries of the ab­ ject and humiliating policy.

The General Assembly was entitled to expect from those who govern the settlers of South Africa, who have become the advocates of the most Machiavellian tribalism, that they would come here and report to us on the measures being taken by that Government to abide by the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council -- measures designed to put an end to apartheid, that hateful form of colonialism. On the contrary, the spokesman for the rac;ist settlers of South Africa used this forum in order to renew the scorn of his Govern­ ment for the United Nations and to pronounce anathema on most Member States.

He sought to create confusion and doubts in our minds by means of mollifying words designed to depict in rosy colors a situation that is unhappily notorious.

The Government of the South African settlers has taken inhuman measures of unprece­ dented gravity with a view to intensifying racial discrimination and oppression in South Africa, in violation of the Charter.

\ Its policies, abhorred by the entire world, have reached such proportions that they constitute an ever-growing threat to international peace. Thousands of those who are again~t apartheid, including nationalist leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Robert Sobukwe and Walter Sisulu, are languishing in prison. Chief Albert Luthuli, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, is being kept under constant surveillance under conditions of diabolical cruelty. Completely ig­ noring all the appeals made by the Security Council, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, by the Second Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries and by many Heads of State, the Government of South Africa has recently executed the valiant African patriots Vuyisile Mini, Wilson Khayinga and Zinakile Mkaba. Many other patriots are awaiting the executioner in the death cells of the Pretoria regime.

The United Nations has launched enough appeals and warnings. In our opinion, the time has come for effective action in order to prevent Mr. Verwoerd and his accomplices from committing ·new crimes bringing about a racial war which might well spread beyond the boundaries of the African continent. Above all, it is time for the commercial partners of the apartheid regime to adopt an unequivocal stand in line with their profess ions of faith, which. in words so vigorously condemn the fascist regime of South" Africa.

Allow me to make some observations on the affirmations made this morning and which we have taken note of on reading this infamous document. Here, this morning, reference was ma~e to a theory on the multinational situation in South Africa. All the representatives must have noted that the spokesman for that theory could not claim to represent what he had the boldness to call the various nations of South Africa. This morning that spokesman referred to peace and prosperity in South Africa, but who in this Assembly is unaware that that peace is the peace of prisons and tombs, and that the prosperity is but the prosperity of thieves at the expense of exploited populations?

- 9 - We have been told about the opportunity given to the various so-called African nations to decid~ on the regime of their choice. But we could put the question: since when have these populations been consulted as to their fate?

We were indignant this morning to hear from the lips of the representative of apartheid such words as "human dignity. tt It is an affront to Africa that th_e spokesman of the regime of repression of African populations should come to us here to speak of human dignity, because in his language that means the dignity of the white racist minority of 3 million whites in South Africa.

We have been told about the South African commonwealth. But who here does not know that only 13 per cent of the land in South Africa is reserved for a population that exceed 80 per cent and 20 per cent of the population holds all the wealth and all the fertile lands of that coun­ try. And the representative of the South African settlers had the audacity to launch an appeal to the African States, to whom he offered the assistance of his Government. There could be no greater insult than to invite African States to participate in the ferocious exploitation of their brothers, who are groaning under the system of exploitation of apartheid in South Africa.

The speaker this morning launched a challenge to the United Nations by affirming out­ right that any sanctions that might be adopted by this Assembly would only create conditions for bette.r development of the economy of South Africa. We hope that all Member States, and in particular those whose economic and trade relations contribute to strengthening the apar­ theid regime, will take up the challenge.

Africa; for its part, gave a solemn warning to the entire world at the Addis Ababa Con­ ference in May 1963. Never shall we forgive -- nor could we -- and never shall we forget -­ nor could we -- the crimes committed against our people. If the South African regime cdn­ tinues along this course leading directly to disaster, we are bound to call out with the m~rtyr Vuyisile Mini: Behold the advancing blacks, Verwoerd, look out for the advancing blacks!

On Executions 4. in South Africa

Today we mourn the execution by the authorities of Pretoria of two South Africa"ns for acts or alleged acts arising from their opposition to the inhuman policies of apartheid.

We have received information that Mr. Washington Bongco was secretly executed early in February without any news in the South African press.

Statement on April 7, 1965

- 10 - Mr. Bongco, a newspaper vendor, had been found" guilty" of being a member of the regional committee of the African National Congress in East London, of being the volunteer­ in-chief of the regional committee, of soliciting funds for the organization, and of engaging in acts of sabotage.

Sentencing him to death on 23 March 1964 in Queenstown, Mr. Justice Cloete denounced this "dreadful organization" to which Mr. Bongco belonged. He was refused leave to appeal and had been in the death cell at Pretoria Central Jail since July 1964.

Mr. Bongco, it may be noted, was arrested as early as February 1963 and brutally beaten. We have received a copy of a statement made by him in the death cell on 15 July 1964. I will•not read to you the story of the brutality inflicted on him by the police, although they ful­ ly knew that he was a T. B. patient. He had to stay in hospital for more than three weeks as a result of the assaults. He was then charged with nothing more than the trumped up charge that he was illegally in East London.

He was detained under the 90-day law in July 1963 and charged much later with sabotage when he insisted on suing the police for assault.

Even after the death sentence, he was told by the police on April 27, 1964, that his life would be spared if he gave evidence against other Africans. He refused.

In mourning the death of Mr. Washington Bongco, the courageous patriot of South Afri­ ca, I would like to say that in the opinion of decent humanity, the "dreadful organization" in South Africa is not the African National Congress, led by such outstanding men as Chief Luthuli, Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and Oliver Tambo, which has patiently sought a peace­ ful solution for half a century in the face of utmost brutality and provocation. The most dread­ ful organization in South Africa is the racist regime of the White minority which stands con­ demned today of wanton murder of patriots who struggle for .a new South Africa based on the principles of the United Nations Charter.

As we mourn the death of Mr. Washington Bongco let us remember also the three pa­ triots from Port Elizabeth executed on 6 November 1964 - Mr. Vuyisile Mini, Mr. Wilson Khayinga and Mr. Zinakile Mkaba.

Let us remember also the numerous members of the Pan-Africanist Congress who have been executed since the beginning of 1963. We have recently received an incomplete list of 47 of the persons executed.

The South African press thinks so little of the lives of Africans that it does not even announce or report the executions.

Today we mourn also the death of Mr. Frederick John Harris, 27 -year-old former chairman of the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee which opposed segregation in sports and advocated exclusion of segregated South African teams from the Olympics.

Mr. Harris, a teacher and a member of the Liberal Party since 1960, is one of those

- ll - few courageous White men in South Africa was believed passionately in racial equality, iden­ tified himself with the oppressed people and suffered persecution. His passport was seized in 1963. He was served with banning orders in February 1964 preventing him from continuing his work with the Liberal Party and the Non-racial Olympic Committee.

Like many others, he became convinced that there was no way left to influence the sit­ uation except by clandestine activity. When most of his colleagues in the underground organi­ zation, the African Resistance Movement, were jailed or fled the country, he tried to plan a spectacular demonstration. He placed a bomb in the Johannesburg station and telephoned the police so that the area would be cleared. The police did not act promptly and an elderly lady lost her life as a result of the explosion.

Under the prevailing circumstances in South Africa, the means of struggle are for the liberation movement to decide in the light of the conditions in the country.

The responsibility for the consequences lies very much on the rulers of Pretoria who, in defiance of the world and all sense of decency, created a situation which left no other alter­ native to decent people than to engage in violence.

In mourning the execution of Mr. Frederick John Harris, let me say that it will not be forgotten that in the struggle of the South African people this man, a member of the privileged group, gave his life because of his passionate belief in racial equality. This will serve to strengthen the faith of all those who fight against the danger of a "race war" and retain their faith that all human beings can live together in dignity irrespective of the color of their skin.

I have recently received a message sent by him from his death cell in Pretoria Central Prison in January. He wrote:

"The support and warm sympathy of friends has been and is among my basic re­ inforcements. I daily appreciate the accuracy of the observation that when one really has to endure one relies ultimately on Reason and Courage. I've been fortunate in that the first has stood up - my ideals and beliefs have never faltered. As for-the second, well, I'm not ashamed - I know I've shown at least a modicum of the second."

When I think of John Harris, the first White martyr in the cause of equality in South Africa, I am reminded powerfully of a great White American, a man who gave his life over a century ago - on December 2, 1859, to be exact - because of his passionate hatred of slav­ ery: I mean John Brown.

People said then that John Brown was eccentric, that he was unwise in attacking the arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia, and that his act would only strengthen the slave lords.

History has made a very different judgement. Whether the particular act of John Brown was right or wrong, wise or unwise, his cause was right and invincible.

Those whose hands are stained with the blood of John Harris have, unfortunately, not learned the lesson of John Brown.

- 12 - On that fateful day of 2 December 1859, as he left his cell to mount the scaffold, John Brown left his last message: "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with Blood."

Within two years, the nation was embroiled in a civil war in which it paid the price of half a million lives. The north resounded with the anthem:

John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in its grave, But his soul goes marching on.

I wonder if Dr. Verwoerd and his cohorts and apologists are seeking a repetition of his.tory.

The Special Committee has warned for more than a year that the continuation of execu­ tions of opponents of apartheid may have irreparable consequences on the situation in South Af­ rica.

With this series of wanton executions, in defiance of world opinion, the regime in Pre­ toria is leading the Whites on a suicidal path.

The warnings are already clear. I read in this Committee last November a message from Mr. Duma Nokwe, Secretary-General of the African National Congress, that the killing from now on would not be on one side only. Spokesmen of the African National Congress have been speaking of a new phase of struggle.

On 22 March 1965, Mr. Z. B. Molete, a leader of the Pan-Africanist Congress, said in Cairo that "the South African Verwoerdian Gestapo is maintained by reactionary violence and only revolutionary violence can overthrow the racist Verwoerdian brutes. "

It is getting too late to save the peace and ensure justice in South Africa.

We have again and again appealed to the Great Powers to assume their responsibilities· to avert the disaster which will certainly have the gravest consequences. of I think it is time that we consider seriously and urgently means by which we can per­ suade the Great Powers and the major trading partners to wake up, to stop equivocation and .:: act when there is still time . We should give the utmost attention to this problem and warn those western imperialist countries which are directly or indirectly helping the clique of Verwoerd to continue its crimes against the people that their policies and actions not only undermine the United Nations but cre­ ate the conditions for a race war on the African continent. Such a conflict, which we of Africa do not seek, will not be limited to Africa alone. The policies and attitudes of these countries, moreover, may lead them iater to line up on the side of the oppressors, as they often do, on some specious excuse or other, for example, fight against Communism for the defense of the "free world."

- 13 - I call on these countries, to realize the consequences of complicity with the racist op­ pressors of the African people, to desist now from supporting the South African regime and to join in the sacred fight against racism. The peoples of Africa, the peoples of Asia, all the colored peoples, and history, will not fail to pass judgement on those who are today, by their action and inactions, contributing to a holocaust compared to which, as Secretary-General U Thant said, the religious wars and the ideological wars of the past would be like mere family quarrels. Sanctions 5. Can Work

I have not had occasion to study thoroughly this voluminous document, but I feel a few general remarks are in order.

Contrary to the reports in the press, this Expert Committee did not indicate that eco­ nomic sanctions against South Africa are not feasible and effective, or even cast doubt on eco­ nomic sanctions. All three sets of conclusions show that they are feasible and will be effec­ tive. Even the conclusions of the so-called majority show that economic sanctions will be ef­ fective if, of course, they are applied universally. They stated that there are several a-reas of vulnerability in the South African economy.

What has happened, in fact, is that some of the members of the Committee, notably the United Kingdom, were disturbed to find evidence that economic sanctions would be effective. Not willing to subscribe to this conclusion, they have tried various tactical moves._

Thus we find the United Kingdom, the United States and others voting against the very moderate draft submitted by Ivory Coast and Morocco in a spirit of conciliation.

In the so-called majority draft, they laid disproportionate emphasis on the need for a blockade to prevent evasion by other States. One wonders as to which are the States against which the blockade would be directed. Certainly not against the great majority of States which support economic sanctions and are already implementing t):lem at considerable sacrifice. A blockade will be needed, presumably, against the major trading partners who happen to be, almost all of them, friends and allies of the United Kingdom and the United States. One won­ ders whether they are casting doubts on economic sanctions because they cannot be certain of the cooperation and good faith of their friends and allies.

Comments on the report of an Expert Committee of the Security Council on economic sanctions against South Africa, April 7, 1965

- 14 -

·-- Then there is a reference in the so-called majority conclusions to the hardships which may be faced by individual countries as a result of economic sanctions - with particular refer­ ence to the United Kingdom. Basutoland is thrown in to make the statement look more pala­ table. The so-called majority did not accept the simple statement suggested by Ivory Coast and Morocco to express belief that a spirit of sacrifice should prevail in a matter so impor­ tant to the international community as that of eliminating apartheid.

Presumably, according to the United Kingdom, the whole world should compensate the losses of those countries which now profit tremendously from the system of apartheid and which may lose these profits if there are economic sanctions.

The more we wait, the more these interests will build up their stake in South Africa, and the more 11 compensation" will they expect.

The truth is not that economic sanctions are difficult - and difficulties themselves should not deter the world on this grave matter - but that the United Kingdom and others are so attached to the profits they make from apartheid that they do not want to make the necessary sacrifices to deal with this grave problem. They are drifting in the face of a fire which may consume more than a few interests in South Africa.

I felt constrained to make these remarks because we have to dispel the misunderstand­ ing created in public mind by erroneous reports. We should put a stop to equivocation on this grave issue. We should tell the world that all the experts of the Great Powers in the Expert Committee have found not a single effective peaceful measure to deal with this situation except economic sanctions. At the same time, they not only oppose economic sanctions, but, even while the Expert Committee was sitting, poured capital and technical aid into South Africa.

We should fully expose the economic links which inhibit action against apartheid, en­ courage public opinion to understand the ramifications of apartheid and, 'thus, help persuade the major trading partners to act in accordance with their responsibilities under the Charter.

~-­ Guns and Cash ~· 6. for Apartheid J,

From its very inception in Aprill963, the Special Committee has emphasized the grave danger of military and police build-up in South Africa.

The Committee has repeatedly emphasized the need for a universal, comprehensive and sincere embargo by all States on supply of material or technical assistance which can be

Statement on April 20, 1965

- 15 - used by the South African Government for military and police purposes.

It may be recalled that in November 1964, I made a statement in this Committee on reports that certain States, France and Italy in particular, were continuing or contemplating supply of equipment sought by South Africa for military purposes. The Committee charged me with requesting the Secretary-General to convey its earnest hope to the Governments of France, Italy and other Powers that they would faithfully implement the decision of the Secu­ rity Council. The Secretary-General readily agreed to the request of the Special Committee, but I regret to note that we have had no clarification or assurance from the States concerned.

Meanwhile, the Chairman's attention has been drawn to numerous reports and state­ ments which should give rise to grave concern and alarm.

In October, 1964, an official of the French armed forces ministry was reported to have said that South Africa was among France's best customers for arms. Mr. Duma Nokwe, Sec­ retary-General of the African National Congress, noted that such supplies violated the terms of United Nations resolutions and described the statement as "one ff the most blatant and fla­ grant utterances ever made by a member of the United Nations".~

In January 1965, the South African press reported that an ammunition factory was be­ ing planned near Pretoria. Work on the factory would start "as soon as all the necessary in­ formation had been collected in America". '.if

In February 1965, the South African Minister of Defence, Mr. J. J. Fouche, declared in the Parliament that his problems regarding military purchases were becoming easier, not more difficult. :!J

Southern Africa, a weekly from London, friendly to the South African Government re­ ported on 26 February 1965:

"South Africa is believed to have made a large purchase of weapons within the past few days, and in Cape Town it'is thought that the order probably included ground to air missiles to take place of Bloodhounds which the Republic was to have received from Britain. There is also reported to be much speculation there as to where the Re­ public has placed the arms order. The most likely source of supply is thought to be France."

The South African Minister of Defence, Mr. J. J. Fouche, said in Bloemfontein on 22 March 1965 that excellent international cooperation with many good friends abroad had :made it possible for the South African Government to bring into the country in large quantities the most effective cannons and other modern arms that South Africa had ever bought. South Africa, he disclosed, had 120 licenses to manufacture various modern weapons in the country and, in ad­ dition, it had received all the blue-prints to produce these arms. A license had also been ob­ tained recently from a Western Government for the manufacture in the Republic of one of the most modern types of bomb. "South Africa", he said, "no longer has to go abroad to buy wea­ pons. Instead, Western Governments come to South Africa with offers to build arms factories in the country and to sell weapons to South African Forces". 'i/

- 16

- ~ ------~ ~ ------~- - The London Observer reported on 28 March 1965, that South Africa was trying to by­ pass the arms embargo imposed by many States through devious methods through intermedi­ aries in Britain and elsewhere.

On 6 April 1965, Le Mondereported:

"South Africa has decided to buy new military aircraft as well as anti-aircraft missiles, Sunday Express, a South African weekly has announced. It seems that the decision has been taken following the visit to South Africa of the American General Lauris Norstad, former commander-in-chief of NATO forces, who had talks with the South African authorities. General Norstad was reported to have drawn his hosts' at­ tention to the gaps in the defense of South Africa should a world war break aut."

On 7 April 1965, Le Monde reported:

"On his arrival in Johannesburg, Mr. Raymond Schmittlein, Vice-President of the French National Assembly and chairman of France-South Africa parliamentary group stated that France will continue to sell arms to South Africa and will tighten its trade and cultural relations with that country.

"Mr. Schmittlein whose remarks were publicized by the South African Press Association, added that General de Gaulle, during his recent talks with Mr. Harold Wilson, the British Prime Minister, had pointed out that France did not associate her­ self with the sanctions taken by other countries against South Africa because of its po­ licies of apartheid. France cannot agree with all aspects of South African policies, he said, but she cannot concede to other countries the right to take punitive action to com­ pel South Africa to change its policies. General de Gaulle emphasized the fact that every country has the right to have the Government of its choice. Mr. Schmittlein ad­ ded that at the United Nations France will continue to vote against any resolution designed to penalize South Africa. "

Not only is South Africa being supplied with arms and equipment, but assisted to pre­ pare for new forms of warfare - with rockets, poison gas and chemicals.

,~, In January 1965, the South West Africa People's Organization (S;w APO) charged that the West German Institute of Aeronautics had established a rocket and ionosphere station in South West Africa. SWAPO also pointed out that South Africa was engaged in the manufacture ... of poison gases.§.../

I would recall, in this connection, paragraphs 434 to 438 of the Special Committee's report of 30 November 1965, summarizing statements by South African officials that they were conducting research on and developing rocket-propelled missiles, poison gases and chemicals.

The Sunday Express of Johannesburg reported on 24 January 1965 that South Africa was paving the way to building her own artificial satellites and starting her own deep space program. The Government had also successfully sought permission from the United States space authori­ ties to use their chain of tracking stations if and when South African satellites are launched. This was done by special clauses inserted in the agreements made recently between the Gov-

- 17 - ernments of South Africa, France, and the United States. Satellite construction and launch­ ing in South Africa was some way off, but it was known that top-secret work on rocketry and satellites was already being done at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. The clauses in the agreements, the paper concluded, are to ensure promised cooperation from other countries before political pressure is brought to bear on them not to help South Africa.

The South African budget, introduced on 24 March 1965, provides for an expenditure of 210 million Rand ($294 million} from revenue account for defense. This is more than five times what was voted for in 1959-60, the year of Sharpeville. The estimate for police has been increased about $6. 4 million above last year. In addition, large sums will be spent from the "defense special equipment account" which is used for purchase of expensive arms from abroad. The estimates for manufacture of munitions in South Africa is being increased by $13. 4 million.

Two aircraft factories are being built in South Africa.

The first, near Johannesburg, is being established by a new company called the Atlas Aircraft Corporation of South Africa Limited. It is to start with production of jet trainers for the Air Force. It involves an investment of 47 million Rand ($65. 8 million}, a large part of which. is contributed by the Government.

Persistent press reports in South Africa and the United Kingdom indicate that this fac­ tory will assemble and manufacture the Macchi MB-326 jet trainers. These jets are manu­ factured in Italy by Aero Macchi. They are powered by British Siddeley Viper engines which are manufactured in Italy under license.

South African authorities have announced that the factory will bring a large number of technicians from abroad.

According to the British press, these jets can easily be converted into fighter-bombers efficient for anti-insurgent work.'!_/

The second aircraft factory is being set up by private interests in Welkom. It is to assemble light aircraft - Meyers passenger planes and Maulle Rocket planes. According to Southern Africa, a London weekly controlled by Britisf business and imperialist interests, these planes will be used by the police and military.§. Apparently, the Meyers plane is Bri­ tish and the Maulle Rocket is made in the United States.

These are some of the recent reports which should cause the greatest concern and in­ dignation to public opinion and to the Committee.

Who are the people who are acquiring these murderous weapons?

These are the people who are turning South Africa into a living hell for the non-Whites and creating hysteria among the Whites.

The South Africa press reported on 1 January 1965 that the Minister of Justice, Mr.

- 18 - 1

i'~ 1 t ,( Vorster, gave certain types of companies permission to have tear gas. Notification was given _,,i in the Government Gazette of 31 December 1964 that mining companies with a compound for ,,ffi -~ more than 300 workers, and companies recruiting workers and providing sleeping accommo­ ~ ~ dation for more than 300 persons can have tear gas. ol l ·~i In January 1965, several British newspapers displayed a strip of photographs showing ? a Johannesburg housewife demonstrating the new "bra holster" designed by a South African gun expert.

I quote from the Southern Africa News Features, London, 12 February,, 1965:

"According to the Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, many white South African housewives are wearing guns in their brassieres, even in their own houses. The guns are held in a "revolutionary bra gun holster" invented by two young Johannesburg gun experts, Fran<;ois Joubert and Willem Tyler. The holster carries a. 38 Special re­ volver.

"The inventors claim to have had more than 300 inquiries about their invention from all over the world, including from one of the largest arms dealers in Chicago who was anxious to sell the holster to American women. A television feature on it has been shown in 78 countries.

"Mr. Joubert claimed that 'this holster does not show at all, and is very safe. Many South African women are using it, especially midwives and p,rofessional women. I

"Joubert and Tyler run an intensive 'Security Course' for commercial firms, to train people in unarmed combat, and also on how to shoot in crowded streets. "

It was reported on 29 March 1965 that every household~r in South Africa would receive a copy of a brochure giving details of the "National Survival Plan,", prepared by the Division of Emergency Planning which is assigned the task of preparin-g measures against the conse,­ quences of enemy action and natural disasters on a national scale.

These people who are being supplied with arms are the very people who have murdered '\'ti numerous African-patriots; as well as John Harris, a White supporter of racial equality in his country.

.Jj, The United Nations has solemnly called on States to stop military assistance to South Africa. Africa has made it clear, as late as the recent OAU meeting in Nairobi, that the sup­ ply of arms or military assistance to South Africa are now regarded as aggression against the whole of Africa.

These reports that I have described demand an urgent and honest e:x;planation from the States concerned. They raise the serious question whether these Powers are trying to fool the people of Africa and the world with protestations of abhorrence of apartheid and declara­ tions of arms embargoes while secretly and deviously supporting the adventurous warmongers of Pretoria.

- 19 - I wish to declare solemnly that if any Great Power is contemplating a world war and planning for it on the assumption that the present fascist regime of South Africa would be its ally, it should recognize that the attitude of the people of Africa and the great majority of mankind towards that Great Power cannot but be influenced by their deep abhorrence of the policies of apartheid. We are not non-aligned in relation to the regime in South Africa: we are very much committed to struggle against this racist monster.

I am particularly pained and shocked at the attitude of the Government of France which carries a serious and solemn responsibility as a permanent member of the Security Council. With its experience of Nazi racism, France should know and appreciate the attitude of African peoples that the strengthening of the military power of the South African racists, who include many Nazis, is a threat to all Africa, and that the African people have the inherent right of self-defense against this threat to their honor, dignity and existence.

We had thought that France had given up its colonialist adventures and had chosen to seek the friendship of the peoples of Africa and Asia. We say to France that it is idle to ex­ tend one hand of friendship to us while handing guns to the South African racists with the other hand to murder defenseless African peoples.

We call on all Frenchmen to remember that the blood of Africans and Asians has mingled with French blood in the struggle against Nazism and remember also the hospitality that Africa gave to French resistance. We call on them to think seriously the consequences of supporting a regime in Pretoria which compares itself to the Secret Army in Algeria, and thus encouraging a race war. To say the least, this is not the path of grandeur or of glory.

In these halls of the United Nations, we have heard many eloquent speeches of abhor­ rence of apartheid and racial discrimination. We have also noted reports of actions by var­ ious Governments which directly contradict their speeches. We are tired of the equivocations, contradictions and hypocrisy which are the characteristic methods of certain great Powers.

We should, in all seriousness, try to analyze and expose the roots of the contradictions between the words and deeds of the Governments of the great countries which have chosen to buttress apartheid in practice while condemning it in empty speeches.

We should look more closely at the interests which benefit from apartheid. Perhaps the main beneficiaries are not the South African Whites. Perhaps they are only the gendarmes who are paid a commission to wield the whip against the Africans who toil and sweat so that the powerful interests in far off capitals in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and elsewhere will acquire the gold and diamonds of South Africa. Perhaps they are only the su­ pervisors of slaves who are paid to be cruel and attract all the hatred, while the genteel lords can live peacefully in their remote mansions.

We are not only concerned about the strengthening of South Africa's military potential, but also about the evolution of the economic relations between South Africa and several Mem­ ber States of the United Nations.

I wish to recall that in 1960 and 1961, with the Sharpeville incidents and the events

- 20 - . leading to the exit of South Africa from the Commonwealth, there was a serious economic crisis in South Africa. Foreign capital fled from the country and the reserves dropped sharp­ ly. The share prices on the stock market tumbled. The businessmen and the Government, and the White citizens generally, became seriously concerned and even spoke of re-assessment of policy and the need to abolish some discriminatory measures.

Soon, however, South Africa was bailed out by the International Monetary Fund and financial institutions in the United States and elsewhere. It became clear that the great Pow­ ers intended to take no action in the face of an open challenge to the Security Council resolu- tion of 1 April 1960. ..

As the representative of Ghana pointed out rightly at the meeting of 18 March 1965, Sharpeville became a turning point which did not turn.

The African States, supported by many others from other continents, pressed for ef­ fective action to force a turning point and on 6 November 1962, the General Assembly adopted the historic resolution 1761 (XVII) requesting Member States to end diplomatic and economic relations with South Africa, stop the supply of arms to it and break the communication links with it.

One would have expected that the main trading partners of South Africa, though they voted against the resolution, would at least show a decent respect for the opinion of a great majority of mankind and stop strengthening their bonds with the South African regime.

Ihstead, we find that these States have greatly increased their trade with South Africa, and increased their investme:pts in South Africa. If South Africa wished to build factories for arms and ammunition, they were ready to go in and provide the capital, machinery, technical assistance, licenses and skilled staff. If South Africa wished to build an aircraft industry or automobile industry or petroleum industry to strengthen its economy and make it less vulner­ able to pressures, it found no dearth of foreign investors to help. One may wonder why? For a simple reason that the exhorbitant profits under the apartheid regime were more important to these investors than the principles of the Charter or the resolutions of the United Nations or the voice of humanity. We should clearly state that the investors will not continue indefi­ nitely to draw profits from apartheid, for the South Africans will finally free themselves from i

... Hardly a week passed by since the General Assembly resolution of 6 November 1962 without some big corporation announcing investment in South Africa or an expansion of its ex­ isting investment.

I will not weary you with the details but here are a few of the investments announced in 196_3: Palabora mining project, with the participation of United States, British and Canadian companies and loans from German, $100 million; paper mill by the St. Regis Paper Company of the United States $9. 8 million; investment by the Associated British Foods, $14 million; automobile manufacturing plant of Ford Motor Company, $ll. 2 million; and another plant by. General Motors, $30 million. In 1964, a paper mill by the Crown Zellerbach International of San Francisco, $7. 5 million; automobile manufacturing by Chrysler Corporation, $35 million; manufacture of telecommunications equipment and railway signalling systems by Siemens of Germany, $35 million; expansion plans of African Explosives and Chemical Industries, half­ owned by the Imperial Chemical Industries of the United Kingdom, $74 million. - 21 - Cape Times wrote on 26 November 1964, that the recent projects involved a total for­ eign investment of more that 200 million Rand ($280 million}.

These investments represent an open challenge to the United Nations, to the OAU and to world opinion, and we hope that a black list of these companies will soon be drawn up.

The South African Government considers these investments as votes of confidence in apartheid and proudly quotes testimonials from the investors. Why not?

Mr. J. J. Palmer, representative of a group of New York and Chicago investors, said in November 1964 that he had chosen South Africa for a substantial investment because "it is the only country in Africa with a stable government. Every businessman wants a strong gov­ ernment to back him up and South Africa has it" . .1_/ In fact that man meant that South Africa is the only European ruled government in independent Africa.

In January 1965, Mr. Charles W. Engelhard, a prominent American investor in South Africa and Chairman of the American South African Investment Company, announced a record profit of almost 3 million dollars by his company in 1964 and dedared:

"This progress (in South Africa) in my opinion will be advanced if the rest of the world shows understanding to the problems which exist. Inaccurate reports, whether emanating from well-meaning sources or otherwise, only aggravate the diffi­ culties and play into the hands of Communist supporters •.• " ]!!./

I do not want to lower myself by commenting on this absurd siatement.

Also in January, the Norton Company of Worcester, Massachusetts, opened a new a­ brasives factory near Johannesburg. The Chairman of the Company, Mr. Milton P. Higgins, declared: .

"I think South Africa is going to remain a strong country, led by White people. I think foreign countries should leave South Africa alone. If they leave you alone you ,~:. will get on and do a great job. 11

That is the belie£ of another racist American citizen, who would be better advised to go and live in Alabama than to meddle in South African affairs.

In February 1965, Mr. J. H. Fulford, President of the Jeffrey Company of Ohio, opened a new factory in Germiston and said:

"We have complete faith in the soundness of the South African economy, full confidence in the stability of your country, and know that the substantial investment we have made in the past and the further investment we are presently making are all in good care. " 11 I

We will certainly be told that this statement is from a freedom-loving American citizen.

- 22 - On 20 March 1965,- General Norstad, retired NATO Supreme Commander, now Chair­ man of the Atlantic Council of the United States and President of the Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, flew into Johannesburg to negotiate some new investment and announced: "We have full confidence in South Africa - not only we as individuals but the United States and the American people as w.ell. 11 Referring to discussions in the United Nations about economic sanctions against South Africa, he said: "We hope that nobody will take any step that may 11 cause more trouble than it will .avoid. 1 JJ:.../

Mr. :Harold Boeschenstein, Chairman of the Owens-Corning Fiberglass Company, who accompanied General Norstad, added:

11 Any boycott moves do not reflect the general opinion of the people of the United States or of its businessmen. We have great appreciation of South Africa 1 s importance as an ally and as an economic force in the free world." J:i..l

This American, it thus appears, sees South Africa as part of .the "free world. 11 In this state­ ment, it seems that "free world" is synonymous with "imperialist world."

Not only is foreign capital pouring into South Africa, but South African business inter­ ests are investing heavily in Southern Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique. The "unholy alli­ ance" of the South African racists and the Portuguese and British colonialists in southern Af­ rica is being cemented by high finance, while the delegations of the great Powers are patient­ ly making pious speeches in the United Nations.

I have not gone into much detail on these economic aspects of the apartheid problem, as the Committee has ~lready agreed that they deserve thorough study and merciless exposure.

But, in referring to a few of the developments, I hope I have said enough to emphasize the urgent and imperative duty of all those opposed tp. racism and colonialism to take action.

I feel that we must demand that the Powers involved should answer to the world clearly and honestly whether they are, indeed, opposed to racism in South Africa.

We must demand that the strengthening of the military potential of South Africa should stop at once. No arms to South Africa and no assistance in building aircraft factories, auto­ mobile factories, and petroleum refineries, or in exploring for oil.

We must demand that all States should forthwith prohibit further investments by their nationals in South Africa.

We must demand that South Africa should be denied trade benefits, such as tariff con­ cessions in the United Kingdom, and sugar quotas in the United States - quotas which in the case of Cuba were abolished with a stroke of the pen.

- 23 - Towards 7. Violence

Day by day the intolerable situation in South Africa gets more serious.

We have referred to the numerous executions of political opponents in South Africa in blatant defiance of the Security Council resolution that irreparable harm would be done by such executions and calling on South Africa to desist.

We noted a few weeks ago that three persons in Port Elizabeth were sentenced to death.

We have just received news that six African prisoners in Pretoria Supreme Court were sentenced to death. The charges and the sentences show that the country is fast drifting to- wards a settlement by arms. '

Yet, the Powers most directly concerned continue their business as normal.

We have even received news that the Hawker Siddeley company of the United Kingdom is to supply jet aircraft engines to South Africa, for use by· the South African Air Force, de­ spite the arms embargo which was adopted by the Security Council and explicitly accepted by the United Kingdom. We are led to expect a new excuse: that these aircraft are civilian air­ craft though they may be used by the military in South Africa.

The South African people and indeed the African peoples are losing faith in the effec­ tiveness of the United Nations in solving this problem of apartheid, as they see what they re­ gard as no more than verbal jugglery in the councils of this Qrganization by some Member States, and the stack of resolutions with little implementation.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the South African people are in­ creasingly thinking of more positive action of their own with the support of African States and other friendly states against South Africa and its friends or allies as the next step. I, for one, can fully understand and appreciate their feelings, but I think that all those who value the role of this Organization should ponder over this situation seriously.

A few days ago, a committee of 35 citizens of Denmark was set up in Copenhagen to collect funds to tt support a more militant fight against apartheid in South Africa. tt Mr. ·Henning Carlsen, the Danish documentary film director, is chairman of the Committee.

At a press conference on 22 April 1965, attended by representatives of the African

Statement on May 6, 1965

- 24 - National Congress and the Pan-Africanist Congress of South Africa, spokesmen of the commit­ tee said that the funds would be used for anything including sabotage. The group felt, they said, . that the peaceful methods advocated at the United Nations were useless. They disclosed that similar committees would be established in France, Italy, Sweden, Norway and the United King­ dom•

. In this connection we should point out that on 12 April, the so-called Minister of Justice of South Africa told the Whites-only "Parliament" in Cape Town that there had already been two phases of sabotage in South Africa: the first had been carried out by unskilled saboteurs and the second by semi- skilled White "Commun~sts. 1 ~ (Among the so-called" Communists11 he includes many liberals and others, whom we have listed in our reports and who have not the remotest connection with Communism). The Minister continued that the next stage would see fully-trained saboteurs - people trained in Africa and elsewhere for the specific purpose of trying to overthrow the Government.

I have no official information on this matter - and I would not disclose it even if I had it - but it should surprise no one that oppressed people would find means to fight harder and harder in the face of obstacles, and never surrender.

I have said that the African people have a duty to give their unconditional support to the South African people whether they choose nonviolent means or violent means. The trend toward violence does not surprise us after the developments of the past few years. We have no doubt that the South African people will receive all necessary assistance. The question for us here is really the fate of the United Nations, the destiny of South Africa, and the future of race relations in Africa in particular and in the world in general.

At the last meeting, I made a statement on military assistance to South Africa and investments by foreign companies in South Africa, and made several suggestions.

I think it is necessary to expose to daylight all the forces which are reinforcing apar­ theid so that world opinion and international action will oblige them to desist.

Let me say again, so that there may be no misunderstanding, that our purpose is to secure the dignity and rights of all the people, of South Africa, irrespective o£ color. We are not anti-White, anti-European or anti-anybody else. It is the Whites of South Africa, and ~ their leaders, who are their own worst enemies. r We do not look upon the problem of South Africa as a cold war problem, or an East­ West or North-South problem. It is a problem of humanity, though particularly close to Af­ rica whose dignity and destiny are involved.

The so-called Western world -·particularly some states in the West - bear a special responsibility as they were responsible for creating this racialist state in Southern Africa, because they profit by this racialism and because they continue to support the present racist regime. It is not the Soviet Union or China or Poland which helped the dominance of racism in South Africa and reinforced it. The one most responsible is the United Kingdom, with a secondary responsibility borne by the United States, and a collection of so-called Western states. The solution requires that they desist from continued support to racism and that they

- 25 - undo the harm that they have done. .If, instead, they hide behind cold war arguments or make their plans according to cold war strategies, they will be committing a serious crime - a dou­ ble crime .:. in the eyes of history.

Our generation whicn has seen not only the agonies of imperialism in Asia and Africa and the bitter price we had to pay to end imperialism - in Ethiopia, Indonesia, Algeria and Kenya, for instance - but also the tragedies of involvement of the cold war in the process as in Vietnam and the Congo; we who have lived in a generation in which millions of innocent men, women and children, including some of the best sons and daughters of our nations, the flower of our youth, sacrifice~ in this whole process, cannot permit the exaction of this senseless toll in Southern Africa. A conflict • in Southern Africa, as we warned many times, may well be more dangerous than any conflict in the postwar era. But let no one think it will be a repetition of Kenya or Algeria. Today we have a resurgent Africa which will not stand idly by or limit its involvement, whatever its other preoccupations. Today the issue of racism is a world issue and cannot be confined and settled by local military superiority.

So we call on the responsible Western Powers to settle this problem now -without de­ lay and equivocation, and outside the framework of cold war or any other irrelevant considera­ tions. We are determined to do our share and we will not be impressed by lame excuses or the mythology or demonology of the cold war.

Cementing 8. the Unholy Alliance

For nearly twenty years now the United Nations has been trying to find a solution to the problem of apartheid. For more than two years the Special Committee has had this problem under constant study; during that period alone, the Security Council has adopted four resolu­ tions. The African States have been concerned with this problem for years and have adopted collectiv.e measures for its solution. The Asian states, as also many other states in the world, including the Scandinavian states, have taken an active part in this struggle against apartheid. Yet the situation in South Africa is going from bad to worse. Some well-intentioned people are even wondering whether all the international action taken in this matter ha.s not been in vain.

I think that we should ponder this question and examine the situation in all its aspects,

Statement on May 18, 1965

- 26 - so that we may be able to propose realistic and effective measures.

I am convinced that the doubts that have been expressed about international action re­ flect a naive and altogether superficial attitude towards apartheid.

Apartheid is not just a problem arising between the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa; it is not just a problem .created by the greed of the Whites of South Africa; it is not a co~or problem.

The Whites of South Africa are not allergic, if I may so put it, to the color black: they are only too pleased to exploit the black man and to profit from his work. They would have .seen no point in reducing the Africans to slavery if it had not been possible to force the:r;n to work for their masters.

As I tried to show1in my last statement, the discrimination to which the non-Whites in South Africa are subjected serves certain interests far beyond the frontiers of that country.

Among those interests, we may mention those of a large number of powerful companies of the City of London.

There are also 175 American firms operating in South Africa. The percentage of pro­ fits they make on their investments is fantastic: 20 per cent in 1961, 25 per cent in 1962 and 27 per cent in 1963.

There are also numerous trade and financialintereststhat are linked to colonialism in Angola, Mozambique and Southern Rhodesia.

Lastly, there are militarist elements who regard South Africa as a trustworthy ally and are afraid to see a world of free and independent nations appearing before their eyes.

In tackling the problem of apartheid we come up against the opposition of all these in­ terests, in one form or another. We must not be simple enough to think that we can overcome them by resolutions and speeches, but neither must we give way to discoura;gement: the cause of equality will end by overcoming the forces which today may seem sb formidable. We must persevere and not allow ourselves to be deluded or to delude others. Above all, we must determine clearly what are the forces upholding racism in South Africa and what are the for­ ces opposed to it.

We must study how the forces upholding racism operate and consider what methods must be used to defeat them. Only thus shall we be able to obtain clear ideas and adopt effec­ tive measures.

With your permission, I should like today to deal with some aspects of this problem.

In resolution 1761 (XVII) the General Assembly requested Member States to sever eco­ nomic relations with South Africa. We have seen, however, that on the contrary some States have increased their trade with South Africa and the volume of their investments in that coun­ try.

- 27 - Not only are the big investors interested in South Africa because it makes vast profits for them, but they seem to have conceived the idea of making that country a basis for opera­ tions which will give them access to larger areas.

In March 1965 the South African Press reported that the giant Leyland Motor Corpora­ tion of the United Kingdom had selected South Africa as the.base for a sales drive in the grow- . ing mark~ts in the Far East and that it planned to spend $140 million on this develop:rment pro- gram.-14/

In February 1965 it was announced that some American companies, the Rand Mines and the Eastern Stainless Steel Corporation, were building a plant, at the cost of $14 million, to produce 25, 000 tons of stainless steel a year. South Africa's annual consumption of stainless steel does not amount to 7, 000 tons, but the investors are said to be confident that they can easily sell the bulk of their production in Europe and North America. }:3_/

The General Assembly asked that air and' sea connections with South Africa should be broken off.

The African States have forbidden South African aircraft to fly over their territory or to use their airports, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII) and the re­ solutions of the African States. At the end of 1963 the air space of the African States was closed to South African aircraft. But what happened? Portugal allowed those aircraft to use new routes to Europe, and the colonial Powers, in particular the United Kingdom, continued to cooperate with South Africa in that respect.

South African Airways has been able to make profits and even develop its operations abroad thanks to· the help of Portugal and other non-African Powers. Recently it opened new offices at Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and San Francisco. It has bought new aircraft in the United States.

The Portuguese airline T. A. P. (Transportes Aereos Portugueses) has been serving Johannesburg since Aprill965.

The French airline UTA - formed by the merger of the UAT and the TAl - is contem­ plating putting jet aircraft into service on the Paris-Johannesburg flight in November 1965, for the transport of passengers and freight. It is also planning an "intensive campaign" to adver­ tise the tourist attractions of South Africa. }!:_/ The UTA is associated with Air Afrique, an airline partly owned by African States, which will undoubtedly follow its activities closely.

The BOAC is in process of negotiating a new agreement with South African Airways.

Lufthansa, the West German air line, has announced that i:t will go on serving South Africa even if some African States will not allow it to fly over their territory.

We are entitled to ask whether these States and the companies subsidized by States which help South Africa to defy the United Nations, and which try to profit from the sacrifices made by some African States and by other parts of the world, attach any importance whatso­ ever to the decisions of the United Nations or to the Organization itself. They seem to think that because they voted against General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII) they can disregard it and that they are entitled to do the very opposite of what that resolution recommends. Is that their attitude towards the General Assembly resolutions? We are obliged to ask that question in view of the somewhat different attitude they seem to adopt in other Committees. If the Gen­ eral Assembly's decision about the organization of military forces for peace-keeping opera­ tions is binding on all States, as they appear to suggest, who could logically maintain that the resolutions adopted by the same body with regard to economic sanctions are invalid?

Nevertheless, there is, of course, a certain logic in this illogical attitude.

We peoples of Africa have realized for a long time that efforts are being made to stem the liberation movement of the African countries. As the bastions of colonialism fall one after the other before the determined spirit of the African peoples, the enemies of Africa and their accomplices have decided to take up a firm position in the southern part of Africa, that is to say in South Africa, in the Portuguese colonies and in Southern Rhodesia.

An unholy alliance has been formed between the racists and the colonialists, with the object of keeping this part of Africa under tutelage. This alliance is being strengthened day by day. ·

Recent news reveals the frenzied activity of the Powers concerned to consolidate this alliance, which is directed against the African peoples and the United Nations.

On 13 October 1964 South Africa and Portugal concluded five agreements, on the follow­ ing points: assistance by South Africa in the construction of a hydroelectric plant in Angola; the supply of electric power in South West Africa by the Portuguese authorities; and an under­ taking by South Africa to give favorable consideration to all applications for the investment of capital or any other form of assistance in Mozambique and Angola.

On 30 November 1964 South Africa and Southern Rhodesia signed a new trade agree­ ment, which went into effect at the end of the year. Under this agreement tariff barriers were lowered in.order to promote the development of trade. According to the South African Press, its object is to hound British exporters out of the Southern Rhodesian market and to lay the foundation for the Common Market of Southern Africa advocated by Dr. Verwoerd.

It will be noted, moreover, that Southern Rhodesia is increasing its trade with the Portuguese colonies and that Portugal has concluded a new trade agreement with that coun­ try.

In March 1965 the South African Minister of Finance announced a loan of $7 million to the white minority Government of Southern Rhodesia.

In April, while the United Nations and the whole world were uneasy about Mr. Ian Smith's manoeuvres towards a declaration of independence by his racist Government, all sorts of encouragement poured in to him.

- 29 - ---

The David Whitehead group of British industrialists announced an expansion program for the textile i:q.dustry of Southern Rhodesia, at a cost of about l. 9 million pounds, or $ 5, 320, 000. -17/

A Spanish trade delegation arrived at Salisbury for talks with the Minister of Trade. ~/

A Japanese steel mission arrived in Southern Rhodesia on a one-month visit. Mr. M. N. Hirose, General Manager of the Kobe Steel Works and head of the mission, said that Japan was already importing 600, 000 tons of iron ore and 200, 000 tons of pig iron a year from Southern Rhodesia and that it would like to see those figures increased substantially in the next few years. The friendship between Rhodesia and Japan, he said, had developed rapid­ ly and had now become very close,..!.J/ no doubt because of Mr. Smith's intention of declaring the British colony independent.

We cannot fail to compare this situation with what we know to be the state of relations between South Africa and Japan.

Various South African companies whose interests are closely linked with those of in­ ternational investors are establishing themselves in the colonial territories.

At the end of last year it was announced that a fish-processing factory, costing $2. 8 million, had been installed at Porto Amelia in Northern Mozambique. The main shareholders of the company, which is called Indust:das de Pieze Nasa Senhora de Fatima (!NOS for short} are the Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa and Irvin and Johnson. They expect even­ tually to invest $42 million in this enterprise, which will have a chain of twenty-three catching stations and factories and twenty-one radio stations along the entire Mozambique coast. 20 1

In January 1965 the limited company Angola Investments, a South African group, ob­ tained control of the largest fishing enterprise in Luanda. ,This group, which has its own fish­ ing fleet and fish-meal plants, will also buy fish from other enterprises in Luanda• .]:JJ

There is apparently more to these deals than just fish.

Again in January 1965, it was announced that a South African, in partnership with two local businessmen, had acquired the Luanda trading company Martins and Macedo for about $1. 4 million. 2 2 I ·

On 5 February 1965 the Portuguese news agency ANI reported that a company under the direction of Castro Soromenho, but whose capital of 2. 5 million pounds is mainly South" A-fri­ can, had made a bid for a concession to exploit diamond deposits in southern Angola. 23/

The Portuguese colonialists, who have always been afraid of attracting too much for­ eign capital to their colonies, seem to be opening wide their doors to people from South Africa.

During the past few months negotiations have been going on concerning the exploitation of Angolan oil by South African interests. In December 1964 there were reports that South Af­ rica was seriously thinking of constructing a pipe line which would link the oilfields of Ango­ la to the railhead at Windhoek, in South West Africa; another proposal by South Africa was that

- 30 -

~- -- --~=------~ oil might be regularly transported in oil tankers from Walvis Bay to the Cape. 24/

In February and March 1965, Mr. W. B. Coetzer, Chairman of the South African min­ ing group Federale Mynbou, had talks in Lisbon about a possible participation in the Angolan oil industry with the Portuguese Government and the Belgian and Portuguese groups which con­ trol the concessions. It was decided that the talks should be continued. 25/

Before leaving for the talks, Mr. Coetzer told the Star of Johannnesburg that the com­ pany was seeking to participate not only for economic reasons but also because of the essential strategic importance it would have. He said: "If it becomes known that we can obtain oil from the Portuguese, it will be a great factor in influencing boycotters not to boycott South Africa seriously. The strategic aspect of this question is as important as the economic, particularly as Portugal and South Africa are fellows in world distress politically.'' 26/

South African companies already possess large interests in the British colony of South­ ern Rhodesia and they are still investing there.

. In February 1965 it became known that the Anglo-Am~rican Corporation of South Africa had acquired the mining assets of Felixbourg Mines, which has a concession to mine and :eros­ pectin the Felixbourg gold belt, about 28 miles south of Umvuma, in Southern Rhodesia. 27 I

Opening the pseudo electoral campaign in Southern Rhodesia recently, Mr. Ian Smith was asked at Bulawayo whether any European country had given him a firm assurance that it would support and guarantee his regime in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence. He replied that he had been given such an assurance and added: "It was given in the utmost confidence." He said that it would not be in the interest of Southern Rhodesia, or of those who had pledged their support, to divulge any more. 28/

I am sure that the members of the Committee can guess what country gave the assurance.

Mr. P. K. Vander Byl, Parliamenta:ry Secretary for Information in Mr. Smith's re­ gime, told the electors on 4 May:

"We (i.e. the Whites of Southern Rhodesia) are the leaders of the West and of the free world in Africa. "

So here we have the representatives of the fascist regime of the racist and colonialist minority in Southern Rhodesia proclaiming themselves leaders of the free world and the West in Africa.

Only a few days ago, Mr. Ian Smith, the so-called Prime Minister of the colony of Southern Rhodesia, told a Portuguese journalist from Mozambique:

"We (Mozambique, Angola, Southern Rhodesia and South Africa) shall have to work together to halt the threat from Communist-inspired black nationalism."

According to Mr·. Smith and his clique, African nationalism is Communist inspired.

- 31 - That is another absurdity.

He also said that the threats against Southern Rhodesia "give us an opportunity to strengthen our economic front, from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean." That is their well­ known theory of the Mason-Dixon line in Africa. We are, of course, well aware that Rhodesia touches neither the Atlantic nor the Indian Ocean. On the other hand, we know which countries are bounded by the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. In the face of these racist designs, to quib­ ble would simply amount to a desire to give them time to complete their infamous plans.

At about the same time, Mr. J. J. Fouche, the South African Minister of Defense, boasted at Bloemfontein that the manufacture of arms in South Africa was so advanced that South Africa could suf?ly all the neighboring States with weapons and might even export arms to Western Europe. __/

The day is probably not far off when South Africa will supply arms to the Portuguese colonies, Southern Rhodesia and perhaps even the United States, the United Kingdom, France and West Germany, by way of payment for the military assistance those Powers are giving it.

As I suggested in the address I made to the Conference held recently at Washington, every State should ask itself whether each aspect of the relations it maintains with South Africa, and each of its acts in relation to South Africa, strengthen or weaken apartheid. That is the first thing to do.

There has been much talk about economic sanctions, their feasibility, their desirabili­ ty or appropriateness, their results etc. Let Governments decide, as a first step, that they will not grant any special conces sian, any special consideration or any quota to the South Af­ rican Government.

I should like to cite a few specific examples in support of what I have just said.

The South African Department of Commerce announced in March 1965 that South Africa would take part officially in eighteen trade fairs in a dozen different countries during the pre­ sent year. 30/ Is it necessary for South Africa to be invited to these fairs and to be given these opportunities to help its trade and its propaganda?

South Africa still enjoys "imperial preferences" in the United Kingdom although it left the Commonwealth in 1964. On 10 December 1964 Mr. Edward Redhead, Minister of State, ~n­ formed the United Kingdom Parliament that South Africa was receiving preferences on about 60 million pounds worth of exports to the United Kingdom.

...::..: \ As I mentioned earlier, the United States has given South Africa a sugar import quota, which partly replaces that of Cuba. In February the United States Secretaryof Agriculture an­ nounced a quota of 100, 108 short tons for this year.

The French Government, too, grants import quotas for South Africa's agricultural pro- ducts.

Are these preferences and quotas really necessary and do they help to weaken apartheid?

- 32 -

~------~------Or is the United States Department of Agriculture unaware of the hatred of apartheid expressed here at the United Nations by the spokesmen of the United States Government?

·.. .. Atomic energy is a field in which Governments exert strict control and the assistance (, granted to South Africa in this respect is significant.

~- The Allis Chalmers Company of Milwaukee has constructed a research and test reac­ tor called "Safari" for the South African Atomic Energy Board at Pelindaba, near Pretoria. It achieved its initial chain reaction on 18 March 1965. 31/

Furthermore, there are South African atomic scientists studying in the United States and in France. South Africa is one of the ten countries in the world that would be able to manu­ facture nuclear weapons. Is this cooperation in the atomic field necessary and is it helping to weaken apartheid?

The United States has installed a radio station for space research at Hartebeeshoek, near Krugersdorp; the station is run by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of South Africa.

France is building a space tracking station near Pretoria which is expected to be in operation by the end of the year.

The United States has allowed South Africa to be party to an agreement on telecommu­ nication satellites and to have the benefit of telecommunications services through the United States Communications Satellite Corporation.

We are entitled to ask whether all these relations are necessary and whether they en­ courage or undermine apartheid. We are entitled to receive clear and forthright answers to this question from the States concerned. We are naturally very anxious to have these answers.

We know that recently the South African authorities informed the United States Govern­ ment that they would not allow the United States black members of the crew of the aircraft car­ rier "Independence" to go ashore and mix with the Whites if that ship were to call at the Cape.

We should like to know what the 20 million black Americans think of the actions of the representatives of 3 million South African Whites v.h o are still receiving United States aid and yet dare to treat American citizens in that insulting way. Does the United States Government prefer the 3 million South African Whites to the 20 million black American citizens? f The South African Government is still telling the Whites who support it that the so-called isolation of South Africa is a myth, that the Western Governments are secretly very well dis­ I posed towards South Africa and that South Africa is a bastion of the "Western World.'t l I wonder what the Western nations think of this statement. Do they think that Dr. f I Ve:rwoerd's fascism is in conformity with freedom as understood by the West? I ' I The South African Press has recently reported that South Africa will be called upon to ! I play an important part in the Anglo-American plans that are now being discussed for the Indian l I - 33 - r I Ocean region.

In this connection, I should like to draw attention to a letter dated 21 January 1963 and addressedto the Anti-Apartheid Movement in London by Mr. Alfred Wells, Executive Assis­ tant to the United States Ambassador in Londn:D. I have a photostat copy of this letter. It says:

"In any determination of our arms policy towards South Africa, consideration must be given to the fact that South Africa has always been firmly anti-Communist and a staunch member of the Western community of nations, while geographically that country occu­ pies a strategic position on one of the principal East-West communication routes."

What I have just read out is an extract from a communication from an official represen­ tative of the United States. Yet here at the United Nations the United States has repeatedly ex­ pressed its opposition to apartheid and its abhorrence of that regime. Is not that hypocrisy?

That letter was written a little more than two months after the adoption of General As­ sembly resolution 1761 (XVII) on 6 November 1962. We know that in August 1963 the United States announced an arms embargo, though with certain reservations with regard to the de­ fense of the so-called free world. I think, however, that we are entitled to expect a categori­ cal statement from the United States that there can be no alliance or common interests between the United States and the racist Pretoria regime, since the latter constantly professes its con- ..: tempt of the United Nations and of the principles of international cooperation. The United States has, we think, subscribed to all those principles.

The United Kingdom, for its part, is party to a military agreement with South Africa, signed on 30 June 1955, conceJ;ning "the joint defense of the maritime routes round Southern Af:dca." There is no doubt that the United Kingdom is assuming special responsibility for defense in Southern Africa. According to the South African Minister of Defense, this agree­ ment was revised in 1961, but needless to say the text of the 1961 Agreement is not available. We do not concern ourselves with the military plans of the Great Powers, but when these Powers take account of South Africa in their plans we are bound to express our anxiety and our opposition.

The members of the Committee will remember the statement that President Nyerere made recently in London, in which he said that Tanzania was determined to see Mozambique attain independence, either by peaceful means or by violence, and that if the West did not provide the necessary assistance, the arms needed to fight the Portuguese would be sought elsewhere. It must be recognized that, in this context, the military collaboration between the West and South Africa, which has become the bastion of the colonialists and racists of the region, presents an obvious danger.

In order to ensure a just settlement in South Africa and to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and complications of all kinds, and in fact in order to preserve the integrity of the Western Powers themselves and to help them to avoid historic errors, we must insist upon their put­ ting an end to all the compromising relations that they maintain with South Africa.

- 34 -

·-- A Responsibility 9. of the Great Powers

The Special Committee has now unanimously adopted a special report to the Security Council and the General Assembly and on this occasion, I wish to make a few remarks on the importance of this document. First of all I would like to say that I do not consider this report as a mere routine document of the Special Committee but as a call for action at this crucial stage of the South African question. This call for action is being made to the Security Council and the General Assembly, but more especially to the permanent members of the Security Coun­ cil who have a sacred special responsibility for the maintenance of peace, to the major trading partners of South Africa namely those who hold the key to a peaceful solution of this grave pro­ blem, and, indeed, to all the people of goodwill who need to exert their maximum efforts to prevent a catastrophe in South Africa.

The report does not advocate any miraculous or ingenious formulas or proposals. In that sense, it is not very novel. But let no one feel that the situation remains unchanged or that action can be put off indefinitely. The solutions which are possible today may be entirely irrelevant and worthless when the zero hour has struck.

We have always been patient in searching for a peaceful solution and in trying to per­ suade, by all means at our disposal, the Powers which have interests and can exert influence in South Africa to cooperate in effecting such a solution. But if these Powers refuse to act even now, because of selfish motives, not only will our patience end but, more important, the situation will itself demand that we sh.ould explore other ways and means. We may have no choice but to call on all States, organizations and individuals urgently to give all moral and -material support to the liberation movements in South Africa, and to ostracize the accomplices of the South African regime. We may have to accept the inevitability of a solution by force, a solution in which the United Nations may only play the role of a powerless spectator who has fallen into disrepute. in South Africa to cooperate in effecting such a solution. But if these Powers refuse to act even now, because of selfish motives, not only will our patience end but, more important,- the situation will itself demand that we should explore other ways and means. We may have no choice but to call on all States, organizations and individulas urgently to give all moral and material support to the liberation movements in South Africa, and to ostracize the accomplices of the South African regime. We may have to accept the inevitability of a solution by force, a solution in which the United Nations may only play the role of a powerless spectator who has fallen into disrepute.

If there is one thing new in this report, it is the affirmation of the conviction of the

Statement on the occasion of the publication of a report of the Special Committee, June 17, 1965

- 35 - Special Committee, based on a serious study of the problem, that all other means to deal with the situation in South Africa have been exhausted and that the United Nations now faces the in­ escapable and imperative duty to take decisive mandatory action. There is no longer room for procrastination and equivocation - whether clothed in sanctimonious and symbolic denun­ ciations of apartheid or hidden behind easy procedural maneuvers. Indeed, any hesitation to support decisive action and any resort to delaying or diversionary tactics will be judged by history as appeasement and abetment of racism and fascism in South Africa and as tantamount to the fanning of racial conflict in South Africa and perhaps in the world.

It is only a few days before the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Charter of the United Nations in San Francisco - a Charter which was born in the bloody and bitter strug­ gle against Nazi racism. Almost continuously during these two decades, the United Nations has been concerned with racism in South Africa, a racism elevated to a State policy by a clique which includes notorious sympathizers of the Nazis.

Can anyone discover the slightest amelioration of the situation - we ask this question because we cannot even speak of a solution - in these two decades? In fact, the trend has been continuously toward an aggravation since the inception of the United Nations.

Most of the members of this Special Committee were not Members of the United Nations in 1945, having been under colonial domination. But we were concerned with the problem of racism in South Africa, as it was inseparable from the problem of colonialism in Africa: our struggle for dignity required the ending of racism and colonialism for ever.

For more than a decade, it was extremely difficult in the United Nations even to obtain general agreement that the monstrous policy of apartheid was not an internal matter of the racist regime or to adopt resolutions involying even the mildest criticism of that regime. The United Nations was told by the "mature," the~" responsible" and the "experienced" Western Powers and their spokesmen that change had to come peacefv.lly from inside South Africa; that outside criticism and pressure does not help; that persuasion is better than coercion; and that all that the United Nations Members need to do is restrain their feelings, quote the Bible, per­ haps, appeal to the conscience of South Africa's rulers, hope for a change of heart and do no­ thing. This, broadly, was the United Nations record, before the revolution and independence of African States, until the Sharpeville massacre of 1960.

But these very powerful and so-called "responsible" members of the international community were not so inactive outside these halls of the United Nations. They were pouring investments into South Africa and deriving fabulous profits. They were making with South Af­ rica - which would not admit any people of African or Asian origin into its army - joint mili­ tary plans for the so-called defense of the African continent. They were full of praise for the South African regime for sending an air squadron to Korea and vied with each other to offer it all military equipment. Eric Louw, former Foreign Minister of Pretoria, might have been unpopular in the delegates' lounge of the United Nations, but he was received with open arms in Wall Street and the City of London, in the State Department and the Foreign Office.

What was the result? Was there the slightest improvement in South Africa? No, the very opposite happened day after day.

- 36 - -

- -~~ - -- The regime of the National Party, under the leadership of Malan, which came to power in 1948 with a minority of (White} votes, and which would have toppled if there was the slightest pressure by the Great Powers, by the United Kingdom, to name just one of them, consolidated itself and felt secure enough to implement the most vicious racist policies which were unpre­ cedented in the history of mankind. South West Africa was for all practical purposes integrated with South Africa. The few Colored voters were moved to a segregated electoral roll. The Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act, the so-called Immorality Act, the Separate Amenities Act, the Bantu Education Act, the Bantu Authorities Act, the notorious Suppression of Communism Act, the Public Safety Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Ind~strial Conciliation Act, the brutal suppression of the Defiance Campaign organized by the resistance in South Africa in 1952, the Treason Trial of 156 of the courageous opponents of apartheid in

1956 7 - these are but a few landmarks of the period that led to the massacre of Sharpeville.

After Sharpeville - and the fact that this event coincided with the upsurge .of indepen­ dence in Africa was no accident - the attitudes of the major Powers changed. Now they will vote for any condemnation of the South African regime - sometimes they use even stronger words than we do - but they will not recognize that the situation constitutes a threat to the peace under Chapter VII of the Charter and they will not support any effective or mandatory action. They will always look for means to postpone or divert action.

Even they cannot and do not deny that in these five years the situation has rapidly de­ teriorated. But they continue to oppose all the proposals for effective action, and they have not put forward a single proposal which they can justify with any conviction as effective. One can only assume that they are not too anxious to solve the problem at all if a solution involves the smallest material sacrifice.

We have had the Hammarskjold mission in 1960-61 which led to nothing. We have had the Expert Group in 1964 considering the means by which the South African situation may be resolved, and its report has been shelved. We have had the Expert Committee in 1964-65 con­ sidering the measures to resolve the situation. Its report seems to have had the same fate as the one produced by the so-called Expert Group.

We have had uninterrupted series of endless resolutions, missions and studies while the fire has been raging and bloodshed has continued. It is time that we stop this leisurely procedure, tantamount to blatant hypocrisy and lack of seriousness - for we must act before there is an explosion which may consume much more than we can imagine and may lead to ir­ remediable consequences.

We are told that the South African situation does seriously disturb the maintenance of international peace and security, but does not constitute a threat to the peace under Chapter VII of the Charter.

About a year ago, on 19 May 1964, to be exact, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, Ambassador Stevenson, was reported to have declared in Londen:

"The situation there (in South Africa) - repugnant as it is - does not, in our view, constitute a threat (to world peace) at present.

- 37 - "No country has said that they intended to invade South Africa. The United Na­ tions provision for sanctions can only be operated if that happens or if the situation in South Africa becomes bloody."

This was published in Cape Times on 20 May 1964, and apparently also in other papers. The report was not contradicted.

If this statement reflected the view of Ambassador Stevenson and of the United States Government, we can only express our amaz~ment.

It is only after some country invades South Africa - after blood has begun to flow in the streets of Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town - that the United States will contemplate effec­ tive action?

We have pressed patiently for economic sanctions precisely so that we can avoid ami­ litary solution and prevent the shedding of blood.

But if there is no choice but to seek a military solution - that is to say, if the United Nations Organization fails in its peaceful efforts as we fear - and if the liberation movements in South Africa seek material assistance in order to wage a liberation war, I have not the slightest doubt that it will not be "some other country" invading South Africa, but the whole of Africa supporting the liberation movements with the help of Asia and all anti-colonialist forces to rescue that part of the continent from the clutches of fascism. The pledge of the African States at the Addis Ababa Conference in 1963, and, indeed, at every African conference was not a formality, but the reflection of the determination of all the African peoples to rid the world of the scourge of racism and oppression.

And when the African States and the So.uth African liberation movements are compelled to seek a solution by the sword, they may be in no mood to a~k for any form of intervention from the Security Council or from any States which have frustrated a peaceful solution. The example of the Congo may be useful in this respect.

In the past few weeks, the spokesmen of the South African Government have been claim­ ing that a "cold war" against South Africa was being waged only by certain "extremist•• African States. The Minister of Defense of the South African regime claimed in the House of Assem­ bly on 16 February 1965 that some pockets of friendship were developing in Africa itself. The Foreign Minister claimed in the House of Assembly on 4 June 1965 that 11 extremist•• States in Africa were preventing the extension of South Africa 1 s diplomatic relations in Africa. Late­ ly, in the Disarmament Commission, the Ambassador of South Africa also referred to threats from "extremist•• States.

_ I would advise the South African regime not to fool itself and its friends not to swallow this propaganda and jump into miscalculations.

The attitude to apartheid, affirmed unanimously at every African conference, is not merely the attitude of Chiefs of State or Governments, but of all the people of Africa. It is inseparable from the affirmation of the dignity of Africa; and, in fact, it antedates our own in­ dependence since independence to us was inseparable from the restoration of the dignity of

- 38 - African men and women everywhere. The South African regime and its friends will be mak­ ing a grave error if they build their hopes on the search for "Uncle Tom" in Africa: These ignorant people who still believe in the supremacy of the White race intend to give the imp res~ sion of disunitv in Africa in order to place the problem of apartheid within the framework of r the "cold war." It is indeed a strange situation when the Great Powers, endowed with special respon­ t sibilities, refuse to recognize a threat to the peace when the South African regime itself does not seek to hide the fact. This regime has increased its defense budget from $56 million in 1959-60, the year of Sharpeville, to well over $300 million this year. It has put the whole country on a war footing and has passed laws which are more stringent than wartime laws.

I notice that the so-called Minister of Justice of the South African regime, Mr. Vorster, said in Parliament on 11 June that South Africa is "entering the final phase of sabotage. 11 "In the future, 11 he said, "we will be faced by saboteurs who are trained in the finest detail. f• As Sir Hugh Foot declared last summer - I must add that this was before he became Lord Caradon, the Minister of State of the United Kingdom and representative of the Labor Government to the United Nations - if the South African situation is not a threat to the peace, then words have lost their meaning.

Why then do some of the Great Powers resist a recognition of the clear threat to the peace and why then are they supported by the major trading partners of South Africa, and, it seems, only the major trading partners?

I must confess that I can discover no convincing reason except that they derive profit from the oppression of non-Whites in South Africa, hesitate to disturb the source of those pro­ fits and make Machiavellian plans of military alliance with South Africa to fight what they call Communism, as if, in their view, apartheid is a superior ideology to communism. They would certainly ally themselves with the devil to protect their exorbitant interests and their privi­ leges which are too obviously selfish to be tolerated' in our century.

In the annex to the present report we have given details on some of the powerful busi­ ness interests, far away from South Africa, which derive enormous profits from South Africa and which are attracted_ to that country by the fabulous opportunities created by the enslave­ ment of 14 million out of 17 million of its inhabitants. They have a stake in the stability of the system which keeps the non-White wages low, which forbids Africans from strikes, and which ensures an exorbitant rate of profit. While the United Nations condemns the policy of apartheid, they express their confidence in the Pretoria regime. They say, as Mr. ~ D~ Banghart, Vice-President of the Newmont Mining Corporation of America, said in 1962: "We know the people and the Government (of South Africa) and we back our conviction with our reputation and our dollars. 11

We will be told, of course, that business is business and that it has nothing to do with politics.

In fact, Mr. Edwin P. Neilan, Chairman of the Board of the United States Chamber of Commerce, speaking recently at Annapolis, Maryland, challenged the theory that investment by American business firms in South Africa amounts to support of the apartheid policy. "This

- 39 - certainly is not true," he said, "for it is the impact of these companies in hiring and training workers regardless of race that has done much to increase the impetus and effectiveness of the 2 South Africa program. tr 3 / I do not understand what South Africa program he means, but I do know that when he talks of hiring and training workers regardless of race, he is, to put it mildly, telling lies. For, the United States companies operate under South African laws which reserve all the better jobs for Whites and only leave the other jobs to Africans.

We regard the foreign business interests going into South Africa as, for all practical j purposes, the collaborators with the fascist South African regime and partners in racial dis­ crimination not only in South Africa but in the United States of America and other countries as well. They reassure the South African regime that it has powerful friends abroad. They help it to strengthen its military power and to build up self-sufficiency. The day is not far now when the 20 million American Negroes will join 200 million of their African brothers to tell the in­ I veterate racists what they are. 1 When we take exception to the increasing foreign investment in South Africa, we do so l not because we are opposed to foreign investment in general or to the companies involved, but because investment in South Africa strengthens the hands of the racist regime, for, according to the elementary rule of economics, investment is profitable only in countries offering a gua­ I rantee of stability. 1 We .can destroy the system of apartheid only when we eliminate profit from apartheid - the profit derived by the Whites in South Africa and that obtained by foreign business interests, firms and banks. Let the Governments of the United Kingdom, United States and other coun­ I1 tries prohibit companies registered in their countries from investing in South Africa and let 1 them refuse to allow any profits being received in their countries from South Africa. Only then I will the apartheid regime revise its attitude. !

In the Expert Committee of the Security Council, the' United Kingdom delegate, Sir Roger Jackling, spoke of the enormous cost of a naval blockade of South Africa - estimating it at between 70 million to 130 million pounds a year. As I said earlier, I do not see any great need for a blockade if the United Kingdom and its allies will faithfully implement the United Nations resolutions. But since this matter has been raised, I would make a very 'sim­ ple proposal, namely, that the United Kingdom, the United States and all other countries agree to allocate all the profits they receive from South Africa to a special fund to end apartheid. In 1963, that is the latest figure I have, the United States companies earned a profit of $86 million from investments in South Africa: they took out $40 million from the country and re­ invested the other $46 million. The profits have certainly gone up since that time. The United Kingdom companies, I am sure, earned more than the United States companies. If all >States will agree to devote an amount equivalent to their profits to support the efforts of the United Nations, we can secure the end of apartheid in a very short time.

Before I conclude, I would like to make a brief comment on the statement I quoted ear­ lier from the Chairman of the United States Chamber of Commerce that these foreign compa­ nies are performing a service by training non-White workers. I notice also a hint in state­ ments in the Expert Committee that the situation may be improved, or made more tolerable, by some small pressures which will induce South Africa to raise the wages of Africans or open

- 40 - some skilled occupations to them. Let me make it clear that such measures do not touch the issue at all. The day is long past, if ever there was one, when the Africans will be satisfied with a few more crumbs from the table of the Whites and will accept continued humiliation in '" return for the promise of a few more jobs.

The issue has to be faced squarely and with no illusions.

We present this report to the Security Council and the General Assembly as it is our duty to draw their attention to the need for a serious consideration of the problem and for tak­ ing urgent and decisive action.

It would seem to me most appropriate that the Security Council, according to its pro­ vision~! rules or procedure, should meet in the heart of Africa when it considers this problem again so that it can demonstrate to the African people that it shares their deep concern over the explosive situation in Southern Africa and intends to find a pacific and equitable solution. Let it meet in Africa and let the members of the Council look at the African people squarely in the face.

The time allowed by the oppressed masses of South Africa to the United Nations to seek a pacific solution to their tragedy has come near its end. Very soon, they will have no choice but to take up arms and ·crush their executioners, as has been done in Algeria, Kenya, Angola, Mozambique and so-called Portuguese Guinea. Who would then dare to blame them?

A Contribution 10. from the Netherlands

We are very happy to note that another contribution has been made for the relief and assistance to persons persecuted in South Africa for their opposition to the policies of apar­ theid and to their families. I am referring to the contribution of the Government of the King­ dom of the Netherlands which has decided to provide for an amount of 100, 000 Dutch Guilders ($28, 000) in the budget of 1966. ~/ .

I wish to convey on this occasion our most sincere appreciation to the Netherlands Government for their generous gesture of concern for the victims of racist oppression in South Africa. The decision of the Netherlands was particularly significant, as a majority of the Whites in South Africa belong to the Dutch stock.

Statement on June 17, 1965.

- 41 - I might also say that this gesture, coming from a former colonial Power, was hearten­ ing as reflecting a healthy change in moral attitudes not only in the Netherlands but in the world generally.

Today, we read a despatch from the Hague in the New York Times that the contribution of the Netherlands was welcomed with great joy almost unanimously in that country as a new effort by the Government to dispel the misunderstanding abroad that it supported the South Af­ rican Government.

We also see a despatch from Johannesburg that the gesture by the Netherlands aroused the anger of the South African racists.

Yesterday, the Foreign Minister of the South African regime told the racist Parliament in Cape Town that a formal protest had been made to the Netherlands "expressing the resent­ ment of the Government and the nation"; the ''nation~" of course, is the Whites and the Govern­ ment the fascist clique they have put in power.

The so-called Foreign Minister also said that South Africa was canceling negotiations for additional landing rights for the K. L. M. airlines and the planned visit of the South African naval chief of staff to Dutch shipyards.

It is reported that a so -called "spontaneous" demonstration is being organized against the Netherlands embassy in Pretoria.

All this, may I say, is merely because the Netherlands Government has made a con­ tribution to provide legal defense for people accused in courts and for relief to their families.

We know not only that people in South Africa are subjected to the most arbitrary and inhuman laws, but half of those prosecuted by the Government have been acquitted by the Courts because there was no shred of ev.idence against them. This was precisely because of the efforts of the Defense and Aid Fund which arranged for lawyers to defend the accused.

It is strange, after all that we have seen, that it is South Africa which threatens sanc­ tions against the Netherlands, a member of the Security Council and, in fact, the President of the Security Council during this month, not the Great Powers who impose sanctions against the racist regime in South Africa.

I call on the powers, particularly the United Kingdom, the United States and France, to look at this spoiled child of the so-called Western and Christian civilization which ~xists in Pretoria. You have coddled it long enough and it has only become more and more ruthless and inhuman. You who claim to stand for human rights and fundamental freedoms - will you take this latest challenge in silence? Will you or will you not support the Netherlands by warning the racists in Pretoria and contributing to Defence and Aid? Will you or will you not take decisive actinn as recommended by the Special Committee to end this shame and scandal of the regirr:e in Pretoria for which you hold no small responsibility?

We will watch with great concern - not only because of our desire for a peaceful solu-' tion but also because of our concern for the integrity of the ideals professed by your countries.

- 42 - An Appeal 11. for International Action

In this report, the Special Committee has tried, in clear and precise terms, to describe the main aspects of the situation in South Africa and to explain why the international community must take action now.

It has made a number of recommendations for action. I admit these are not very new, but, in :the Special Committee's view, they are nonetheless the most appropriate type of action at the present stage of the problem.

These recommendations fall broadly into three categories: (a) economic sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter, which the Special Committee and most Member States feel are the only effective means to resolve the situation; (b) humanitarian and other assistance to victims of apartheid; and (c) measures to inform world opinion. We attach great importance to all three aspects because they are complementary; we do not regard them as alternatives; and it goes without saying that the recommendations of the last two categories cannot be substitutes for the recommendations regarding economic sanctions.

I also wish to draw your attention to the recommendation for an international investi­ gation into prison condit10ns 1n South Africa; we made that recommendation in view of the alarming reports which have come from South Mrica and which-have appeared in the inter­ national press. I feel that such an investigation should be carried out with or without the cooperation of the regime in South Africa.

We are sometimes reproached by friends in the press corps for repeating our recom­ mendations and for not coming up every time with something novel which they can print.

I must reply, first of all, that we cannot tire of stubbornly and persistently pressing this matter, because the policy of apartheid is a permanent one in South Africa and its causes and consequences are constant. This policy threatens not only South Africa and Africa in general, but the whole world.

Secondly, I must say that how we solve this problem may be almost as important as whether we solve the problem.

Statement made at a press conference on 12 August 1965, on the occasion of the publication of the report adopted by the Special Committee on 10 August 1965

- 43 - We have here a struggle by millions of oppressed people against their racist oppres­ sors. These oppressors are doing everything to turn this struggle into a "race war" hoping to win by force, and expecting to get the sympathy of the so-called Western world.

Africa, for its part, does not want a race war which will destroy this organization and much more. That is why we have been anxious to emphasize the resistance by the few decent Whites in South Africa who have also been struggling for racial equality in their country. You may recall, for instance, my statement on the occasion of the execution of Mr. John Harris, a White South African, in Aprill965. We also attach great importance to the Western and Christian Powers joining this struggle on the side of the oppressed people of South Africa.

By their patience, the Africans have shown that they do not seek a race war and they do not want to involve this problem in the cold war.

But there is a limit to patience in the face of continued and intensified oppression in South Africa, and the inaction of the Great Powers.

I invite you to think of the following: Will it be very difficult to organize an African army to fight the racists in Southern Africa? If we need any weapons or equipment, do you think we will have great difficulty in getting them? Certainly not; but, then, it is clear that the Africans will not be able to save the Whites of South Africa. We are convinced that the South African people will win, but we cannot maintain that we will be able to save what we wish to save.

When we cross the limits of human patience, as I said, there will have to be other -'i recommendations and other strategies.

Meanwhile, we do what is humanly possible to convince the Powers which can put sense into the South African regime that they should do so, in their own interests and in the interests of all of us. Indeed, the question that faces the United Nations Organization per­ tains to the basic principle of the Charter, that of the maintenance of peace. Should the United Nations prevent the breach of peace in preventing war or should it try to restore peace with more or less chance of success after a war has been declared?

As we review the last year, we find that there is no hope of any solutin without inter­ national action -- peaceful action, as we have recommended, or violent action which is the only other alternative. We recommend that the Security Council reoognize, in all honesty, that this is a matter which· falls under Chapter VII and take the logical course of actioD;,• If the United Nations or, more precisely, the Security Council accepts the assertion that the application of sanCtions under Chapter Vli of the Charter is the only peaceful solution, its refusal to take decisions to that effect would be tantamount to recommending the other method, namely, ttwar of national liberation." We are at a turning point. If the Security Council does not assume its responsibilities, the United Nations would prove that it cannot find a solution. The movements of liberation would then have to draw their ownconclusions.

- 44 - Before I conclude, I wish to say a few words to the United Kingdom as the United King­ dom bears a special responsibility on this matter, and as it occupies the President's Chair in the Security Council this month.

At the eighteenth session of the General Assembly in 1963, when the first report of the Special Committee was discussed, a British Minister of State, a Minister in the Con­ servative Government, told the Special Political Committee that we were rather too pessimistic and too radical. He thought there were some hopeful signs in South Africa and pointed to the establishment of a 11 Christian Institute" by Reverend Beyers Naude, a former leader of the Dutch Reformed Church, to study solutions to the problem.

We, of course, told the British Minister of State, very politely, that he should not fool himself• or try to fool others.

Now, the Government in the United Kingdom has changed and we have a new Minister of State at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, who has seriously studied the problem as member of the United Nations Group of Experts and who has made very honest and cogent observations on the situation.

In May 1965, the South African police searched the Christian Institute and Rev. Beyers Naude himself for four hours to find evidence to incriminate him in 11 subversive activities" and prosecute him. They asked him to empty his pockets and even put their hands in his pockets.

They found, according to a Government statement in Parliament, one piece of evidence and confiscated it. That piece of evidence, gentlemen, is a green and white pamphlet called "A New Course in South Africa, 11 published by the United Nations Office of Public Informa­ tion. It is the report of the United Nations Group of Experts on South Africa with Mrs. Alva Myrdal as Chairman and Lord Caradon --then Sir Hugh Foot-- as a member. (I understand that Sir Hugh Foot was the rapporteur of the Expert Group.)

I think we might tell the United Kingdom to face the issue honestly, stop looking for non-existent rays of hope, and take the action that is indispensable.

I have used the word "honestly" because I have read an announcement by the South African Information Department that fifteen members of the Imperial Defence College, London, headed by Sir Deric Holland-Martin were due to arrive in South Africa on ll August, that is yesterday, for a six-day tour of the country. In fact, we read in the South African press that they will visit, on their tour, the 11 Bantustan" of Transkei and also the African township of Sharpeville. I need hardly comment.

Honestly, I ask, is this consistent with the responsibilities of the United Kingdom under the Charter of the United Nations or the ideals that the Government of the United Kingdom professes before the world?

- 45 - I would also like to appeal once again to France, to her Government and to the French people, not to sacrifice their true interests in Africa and in the Third World in order to satisfy the lust of gain of the gun-dealers and the pressure groups who have not forgotten their failures in Algeria and would like to transfer to South Africa their unholy crusade in favor of white supremacy. The French vocation forbids the French Government to streng­ then any racist and fascist regime anywhere in the world even if the racism and the fascism are directed against Negroes or other colored people.

- 46 - FOOTNOTES

1. Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter provides for mandatory decisions by the Secu­ rity Council to deal with threats to peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Chapter VI provides for recommendations for peaceful settlement of disputes: the recom­ mendations are not binding.

2. Tanzania Standard, Dar es Salaam, 28 October 1964.

3. Sunday Times, Johannesburg, 10 January 1965.

4. South African Digest, Pretoria, 26 February 1965.

5. Southern Africa, London, 2 April 1965.

6. Tanzania Standard, Dar es Salaam, 12 January 1965.

7. Daily Mail, London, quoted in Spotlight on South Africa, Dar es Salaam, 27 November, 1964.

8. Southern Africa, London, 5 February 1965.

9. Southern Africa, London, 4 December 1964.

10. Information Service of South Africa, New York. Business Report, 5 February, 1965.

11. South African Digest, Pretoria, 19 February 1965.

12. Information Service of South Africa, New York. Business Report, 26 March 1965.

13. Ibid.

14. Cape Times, 11 March 1965.

15. Cape Times, 24 February 1965. Information Service of South Africa, New York. Business Report, 5 and 12 March 1965.

16. Southern Africa, London, 26 March 1965.

17. Southern Africa, London, 9 April 1965.

18. Southern Africa, London, 30 April 1965.

19. Southern Africa, London, 30 April 19 65.

- 47 - 20. Southern Africa, London, 4 December 1964.

21. Southern Africa, London, 22 January 1965.

22. Southern Africa, London, 22 January 1965.

23. AFP, 5 February 1965.

24. Associated Press, 4 December 1964.

25. Information Service of South Africa, New York. Business Report, 26 March 1965.

26. Southern Africa, London, 29 January 1965.

27. Southern Africa, London 12 February 1965.

28. Southern Africa, London, 7 May 1965.

29. Information Service of South Africa, New York; South African Summary, 7 May 1965.

30. Information Service of South Africa, New York; Business Report, 26 March 1965.

31. Information Service of South Africa, New York; Business Report, 26 March 1965.

32. Southern Africa, London, 7 May 1965.

33. The Special Committee made an appeal to all states and organizations to contribute towards providing legal assistance for persons persecuted by the South African Government, and relief for their families. Several governments announced contributions for this purpose.

- 48 - The American Committee on Africa is the oldest existing organization through which Americans of all races can identify with, express their sympathy for, and give active support to, the emancipation of Africa.

An important part of its activities has always been to raise funds for victims of racism and colonial oppression in Africa. Those wishing to contribute to the defense and aid of southern African political prisoners and their family may do so by earmarking gifts specifically for this purpose.

More information on apartheid in South Africa is available in two recent publications of the Committee: "The South African Crisis and US Policy," a 64-page position paper (specially -reduced rate -50~); and "Partners in Apartheid - US Policy on South Africa, " (50~). H. E. M. Achkar Marof, Chairman of the Special Committee on Apartheid since September 1964, is one of the most experienced African diplomats in the United Nations and has been particularly noted for his activity on colonial and racial problems. He served as Vice -Chairman of the U.N. Special Committee on Portuguese Territories in 1962. In 1963, he was elected Chairman of the Fourth Committee of the General As­ sembly, which deals with colonial problems.

Born in Coyah, Guinea, on 5 July 1930, Mr . Achkar was educated in Conakry and the Breguet Engineering School in Paris. From 195 7 to 1959, he was Director of the Ballets Africains (cultural ensemble of French West Africa). He joined the Foreign Service of the Government of Guinea in 1959 and has since been with the Permanent Mission of Guinea to the United Nations. Promoted to the rank of Ambassador in January 1963, he became the Permanent Representative in 1964.