Extract from a speech made in the House of Assembly on 15 September 1970 during the Prime Minister’s Vote

On this occasion the Prime Minister dealt with various important matters, including the World Council of Churches, the Republic's policy in respect of the Black states in Africa and the arms sales to the Republic. In a particularly effective manner, clearly and unambiguously. Adv. Vorster went on to explain to the House the basic principles underlying the policy of separate development. He pointed out that the White, the Afrikaner and the English-speaking person, in all respects had a right to live and work in South Africa. Naturally, this does not negate the identity of the Non-White; on the contrary, it merely confirms that every population group in the Republic has the right to preserve its own identity.

Further to the debate we have had on the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the policy of the hon. member for South Coast, ¹ I now want to deal with certain other matters of policy. But before doing so, I want to refer again, in case I perhaps forget to do so before the time for this debate expires, to a matter to which I referred earlier on, a matter to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred when he started speaking. I am referring here to the decision taken by the World Council of Churches and to the strange, to put it very mildly, reaction which came from the member churches of the World Council here in South Africa. ² In the press statement I issued, I said that this matter could not be left at that. Nor is it, therefore, my intention to leave it at that. I made an appeal to member churches to come to their senses, and I want to afford them every opportunity in order that the members of those churches may express their views on this matter. I do not want to leave it in the hands of leaders alone, but because churches are involved here and because I have respect for all churches, I want to afford the church members, the managing bodies, the church councils of the various churches every opportunity for taking action in this regard. But I want to make the matter very clear, and as far as this is concerned, I believe that I shall also have the full co-operation of the Opposition. I am pleased that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he will lend me his co-operation in that regard. If they do not decide to dissociate themselves from this organization, I would be neglecting my duty as the head of the Government if I did not take action against them. If I allowed more money to be collected in South Africa for transmission to that organization, if I allowed churches which are members of the World Council of Churches, and wish to remain members, to send representatives to conferences of that body, and if I failed to take action - and here I am speaking in the full realization of my responsibility - against clergymen who allow pam­phlets, such as the one to which I shall refer in a moment, or pamphlets with a similar tenor, to be distributed at their churches on Sundays. Last Sunday night a pamphlet was distributed in the Anglican Church at Stellenbosch. This pamphlet, under the heading "Money for Terrorists", reads, inter alia, as follows:

"It is easy enough to display righteous indignation towards the World Council of Churches, but what surely is needed, is a little calm and clear thought. In assessing the morality of any action, three factors need to be considered:

• (1) the motive;
• (2) the deed itself; and
• (3) the consequences.

As far as the motive is concerned, we are ignorant. Might it have been something like this: Evolution is obviously better than revolution, but where there is no hope of progress, desperate situations demand desperate remedies. Violence is evil, yes, but the South African way of life is an even greater evil. Faced with the choice of these two evils, we must choose the lesser."

I have only read part of that pamphlet, but here it states that one has to choose between, on the one hand, violence and the murder of innocent women and children which it implies, and, on the other hand, the South African way of life. They say that the South African way of life, which is not only my way of life but also that of hon. members opposite, is the greater evil, and then the implications arising from that are clear. I say that the clergyman concerned, or one of the clergymen concerned -I do not know how many there are - in that particular congregation is a person who is enjoying the temporary hospitality of South Africa; he is here on a temporary permit. ³ His time has run out. There can be no doubt about that. I want to say this now, and I say it in the full realization of my responsibility: We have others here who have come to South Africa with the same motives, and if in the time that lies ahead hon. members see people being sent out of the country, they must know why it is being done. Then representations to the effect that they are such good Christians who are doing such good work here in South Africa, must not be made to me. I say that I have the greatest respect for any church, because I love and respect my own church. May the Good Lord save me from ever taking or having to take action against any church! This is not something one wants to do. Nor is this what is involved here, but what is in fact involved here is certain individuals with whom com­munism and the downfall of South Africa weigh much more heavily than does the preaching of the eternal Word of God amongst us sinners here in South Africa. I shall leave that aspect of the matter at that.

But before I proceed to the next point, I want to say that this contribution, this support given to terrorists, is not a new thing. This is not something which only took place yesterday or the day before, it is a matter which has been under discussion for a very long time. Last year already it was under discussion in the Netherlands, where a meeting was held and where Mr. Beyers Naude of South Africa was present. ⁴ He owes South Africa an explanation of what was discussed there and what his share was in regard to that discussion. And when this Dr. Blake here a week or so ago, he was already aware of this decision that taken. ⁵ He had talks with, inter alia, the Executive Council (Moderafuur) of our Church, and he did not say a word about it to them. This is now one Christian as against another Christian. And this in spite of the fact that this aspect of the matter was raised; moreover, the gentleman concerned had the temerity to insist on two occasions that I see him, as he was terribly concerned about good relations with South Africa. Now I am very grateful, because I knew what they were engaged in doing, for having told him straight out that I did not want to see him and why I would not see him.

We are aware of what has been done and said by South Africa's enemies over the past number of years. We are aware of the way in which a conference has just been held in Lusaka again. ⁶ We are aware of the way in which a conference of the so-called non-aligned countries that took place there. I do not intend to discuss the implications of that congress straight away; there will be another opportunity for doing so. But I do think that I owe it to hon. members to say that one of the reasons why the congress was held in Lusaka was this. Now, I want to say at once that there are many African states which are not associated with it and which will not or do not want to be associated with it either, but the inner circle is composed of those who are inclined towards communism, in spite of their non-alignment, which they emphasise, and they passed a certain resolution quite some time ago. The first two Secretaries-General, Trygve Lie and Dag Hammarskjold, were Whites; I do not remember who the third one was. Then U Thant came along. They believe that the time has now arrived for a Black man to become the Secretary-General of the UN. They have been searching assiduously; in former years already they had ambitions in this direction, and now it has been decided that Kaunda of Zambia will become the next Secretary-General of the UN. I do not think it is necessary for me to make any comment in this regard. I can picture to myself a UN with Dr. Kaunda as its Secretary-General. I think the world has no illusions as to what will become of the UN. But as far as I am concerned, it is a question of the lion which entered the mother-in-law's tent and the son-in-law's reaction to it; that is precisely what my reaction is.

That brings me to relations between us here locally, us as Whites and our Black people, and between South Africa as a White state and the Black states surrounding us. Hon. members are aware that it is our policy to enter, wherever it is possible, into friendly relations with Black states. We have not merely said this; we have also confirmed this in practice, and that policy will be implemented further in practice. When, shortly after I had become Prime Minister, ⁷ I had the privilege to be the guest of my colleague Minister Botha at a military parade, I pointed out that we had no ambitions whatsoever of ever attacking any of the Black states, because it was contrary to our policy, because it ran counter to the course of our history to impute such ambitions to us, and because, if there are people who want to look for such motives, they in any case did not have anything which we wanted. On another occasion, at Rustenburg, I said, when Kaunda had made the absurd claim that we wanted to attack him, that he had nothing which we wanted and that the only thing we expected from him was that he should govern his country in such a manner that it was in the best interests of his own people, for if Zambia was governed well, it would be to the advantage of Southern Africa, with which we are intensely concerned.

In regard to the arms sales to South Africa by other countries - the names are not relevant here - there are those who are ill-disposed to­wards us and who are continually proclaiming from the rooftops that it is our intention to use those arms not only for oppressing Black people in South Africa, but also for invading and oppressing Black states. Zambia and Tanzania, for instance, were mentioned as examples. Ostensibly we shall, by means of these arms, attack and oppress the Black states. I understand that in the British House of Lords a high-born lord reported­ly mentioned the rivers in which we would use submarines in order to carry out this devilish work. I want to make it clear once and for all that if this were our intention, and now I do not want to be misunderstood, to oppress Black people here in South Africa by force of arms, and if it were our intention to attack Black states situated close to us, we would not even need a tickey's worth of gunpowder from any overseas country to be able to do so. We can manufacture all the arms for that purpose here in South Africa, and we do in fact manufacture them. For that purpose, therefore, we do not need these, but we have reached the stage where, on behalf of South Africa, I must in this Parliament tell the world now that we are not asking for arms for the purpose of attacking Black people locally or any other people locally or any other state, but we are only asking for arms because we see the communist threat un­furling before our eyes in this part of the world. We want to arm our­selves not only so that we may protect ourselves against the onslaughts from outside, but also because we have the interests of the free world at heart. In spite of that undertaking, the reproach is still being levelled constantly - and hon. members will be astonished to hear by what people, people who ought to be informed - that we are merely throwing up a smokescreen because we actually want to use those arms for the purpose of attacking Black people and Black states in Africa. Long ago, when I was the guest of my friend here, I said that the people in our Black states were the most fortunate people in the world because there was no need for them to spend a cent on armament in their Budgets and because they knew that we would not attack them and that they had nothing to fear from us. In spite of everything we said and in spite of the fact that one expects these people to know better, this has still not found acceptance in certain circles, and because I am aware of that, I want to say on behalf of this hon. House and on behalf of our country to-day that I am prepared to enter into a non-aggression pact with any Black state, irrespective of whether they are our immediate neighbours or Black states further north, such as Tanzania, Zambia and other states in Africa. I am prepared to enter into a non-aggression pact in terms of which we shall not attack them, and I hope that this story will not come to an end. I am also prepared to take the initiative in that regard.

I am prepared to enter into a non-aggression pact with all neighbouring countries as well as with other countries in Africa. I want to make that clearly understood. Having said this and having declared myself prepared to take the initiative, I hope that the ill-informed and scandalous stories about South Africa's aims and objects will cease.

It must be very clearly understood that there are two things which we in South Africa will not tolerate. The first thing we shall not tolerate is communist domination in Southern Africa. We shall rise against it and oppose it with all the means at our disposal. We thank God that these means are not slender at the present moment. But we shall resist communist aggression with everything in our power. The second thing is that we shall fight terrorism, and today I want to repeat the policy standpoint of the Government. We shall fight terrorism, not only in our own country, but also in any other country in Africa where the Government requests us to do so. Let there be no doubt about that. There is another matter about which there must be no doubt either. We see how matters are building up and the resolutions being passed at the con­ference of the so-called non-aligned countries. We see the moral support they are receiving from churchmen, as we also witnessed again with shock in recent times. We are aware that problems in this regard will not arise tomorrow or the day after, but that, on a larger scale than has ever been the case before, these people are building up forces to be used against South Africa later on. We are aware of what is happening in that regard. Therefore, I am not saying this in order to cause hon. mem­bers to become panicky, but I am merely referring to what is being prepared for the future. A great many of their plans have miscarried, but we must take into account that these plans may succeed. If these plans are in fact carried out, I want to say here today with all the responsibility I can muster that, if these plans which are being laid against South Africa on such a large scale and the proposed build-up of terrorist forces become a reality and if terrorists were to invade South Africa from certain countries with the permission of those countries, we shall resist them. If they take to flight we shall chase them, and we shall do so right into those countries from which they came. Since I spoke slowly, I hope that my words will be conveyed outside exactly as I used them here this afternoon.

I started by saying that we have a policy of seeking friendship with African states, and that we shall develop it further. However, we are not only concerned with developing relations with other African states. In time to come it will be of cardinal importance to us to preserve good relations here in South Africa. Let none of us, whether we are National Party or United Party supporters or whether we are one or two Pro­gressive supporters, have any illusions about the fact that good race relations will be of cardinal importance to us in time to come. I think that we may very profitably devote the rest of this discussion, because this matter is of such cardinal importance, to an exchange of views on this matter. I think it is not only a good thing for me to state my views on the matter, but also a good thing for the Leader of the Opposition his.

I want to start with myself. With the experience I have gained over the years, I set myself the task four years ago - the day before yesterday it was four years since I assumed this office - not only of promoting those good relations, but also of bringing myself to a close account of precisely how it must be done and in terms of what policy. I am sorry that I am now going to take up hon. members' time for a rather long while, but, in view of the importance of the subject involved here, I do not think that there is any need to apologize for doing so. As I stand here before you this afternoon, I am taking an unshakeable stand on the policy of separate development, because it is, to my mind, the only policy which is going to make it possible for South Africa's people of various colours, languages, religious convictions, outlooks and originating from various parts of the world, to lead a peaceful existence here. I am very much aware of the fact that there is hardly any policy in the world which has been so attacked, disparaged and made to look as suspect as this very policy. I am aware of the hatred and the antipathy existing in the world in respect of this policy. With few exceptions, I do not think, without being conceited, that there is an hon. member in this House who has had more talks on this matter than I have had. I do not think there is any policy which has been more misunderstood, owing to the false pro­paganda made about it over a period of years, false propaganda made on purpose, not only in the outside world, but also by South African authors here from South Africa. In saying this, I do not want to suggest that we on our part have not made mistakes here and there either, for we are all human. I readily grant that. But the mistakes which we made on our part, are not responsible for one per cent of that misunderstanding which prevails in regard to this matter.

Let me make this very clear to the outside world once again, for in the main this is what I am discussing this afternoon, that when I talk about separate development, and about the philosophy on which it is founded, I must, first of all, show what it is not. Then I want to repeat, because I was very much in earnest, the first words I said when I assumed this office four years ago. I said that separate development was not the denial of human dignity, and I added to that: "Nor is it so intended." One must be realistic and realize that there are people who unfortunately see this in separate development, but any person who sees this in separate development, is misinterpreting it. I want to state further what it is not. I do not base my policy on the premise that I think I am better than another person is. Who am I? A creature of God, just as he is. Shall I presume to say that I am better than he is? For that reason I do not deny his human dignity and for that reason I do not pride myself on being better than he is. Nor do I found my policy on the fact that for the present I may perhaps be more learned than he is, for in the long run he may become just as learned as and perhaps more learned than I am. Who am I to pride myself on that? There were coloured states which already had gunpowder when my ancestors were still crawling about in holes. Why then would I pride myself on that and accept it as the basis of my policy? Nor do I rely on the fact that for the present we are richer than the coloured peoples are. Wealth is transient, and what is acquired by the one today, can be acquired by the other one tomorrow and can be lost by the other one. Therefore, this is not my philosophic basis.

What is fundamental to my policy, is the following: I believe that the Whites, the Afrikaners and the English-speaking people, have a right to be here in South Africa. They are not colonialists. They are people whose legitimate roots are here in this country. This holds good for Afrikaners and English-speaking people alike. The land which belongs to them, belongs to them legitimately, because they did not rob or steal it from anybody. I believe that they have the right to maintain themselves as white people and to preserve their identity as white people. This is their right. That right which I claim for myself, i.e. that of being a white person, I also grant to every non-white person living here, to be himself. For the sake of the record and those who are so fond of attacking us - not only me, but also that side of the House - I want to say that black people have gone to prison in South Africa. Many black people have already gone to prison, but, upon my word of honour, under this Government or any other Government here in South Africa, whoever they may have been, a black Zulu has never been imprisoned for having said: "I want to be a good Zulu." Never has a Xhosa been imprisoned for having said: "I want to be a good Xhosa." Never has a black man landed in trouble for having said: "I want to be myself. I want to build my nation. I want to serve it."

Our accusers say that people have been imprisoned here in South Africa for having wanted to be themselves. This has happened in Cyprus, Malawi and even in Zambia. I am referring now to the old regime, when President Banda was imprisoned for demanding self-determination for Malawi. Here in South Africa a Bantu person has never landed in trouble for having requested and demanded self-determination for his people. On the contrary; we are in fact guiding them along the road to self-determination; we are in fact educating them into being mature enough for self-determination: we are in the process of training them and making them and their land receptive to self-determination. If hon. members or the outside world ask me when it will happen that they follow their own course, I can merely reply once again that this Parliament has passed certain legislation and that any black state is free to come to this Parliament and say that its time has arrived and that it wants to follow its own course. This Government, or whatever other Government may be in power, will deliberate and nego­tiate with that state. As there are dozens of matters to which considera­tion will have to be given, those talks will probably have to be held over very long periods. There are channels of communication and there are numerous other matters which will have to be discussed. One cannot mention all of them in the space of a speech made in the House of Assembly. But this does not affect the principle.

I want to make the principle very clear. It is that if there is a desire to hold discussions, we shall be obliged and ready to hold discussions on that matter. From the nature of the case we would rather see that these are deferred until more development has taken place in those black states so that they may be more viable for they will have to stand on their own feet. ⁸ But it is by no means my intention to make it a condition that they must be viable before they have that right to approach us. This is an inalienable right which they have to exercise tomorrow if they want to do so. I hope that I have now disposed of this aspect of the matter. If there is anything which is not clear, I shall gladly reply to it. This is the road which I am indicating for the black people, because I as a white man demand for myself the right to preserve my white identity.

In the second place, I am pursuing this policy because it is necessary for our continued existence - and it does not matter what political party we belong to - that friction be restricted to a minimum. There has to be contact. ⁹ I again want to make it very clear that there is more contact under this Government, in the right manner, than there has ever been before. This holds good for myself and all the Ministers and officials and others who are involved in the matter. We all know what friction is and what friction can do. Friction has to be restricted to a minimum.

I want to tell you and the world outside what we envisage with every measure we take. Whether or not hon. members agree with it, whether or not it is always correct, does not matter. Whether or not it achieves its object, does not matter either. The underlying motive is honest, and that is that through that measure we should like to eliminate friction. Any measure which is merely aimed at hurting, wounding, forcing down or oppressing a person of a different skin colour, is wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle, unambiguously wrong - and I say this here with emphasis. The philosophy underlying my policy is not only that I want to eliminate friction and that I want to preserve my own identity; I also want to create chances and opportunities for people of a different skin colour, opportunities which, this is what I believe in my heart, cannot be created under any other policy, and cannot possibly be created under any other policy.

This being so, we on this side of the House stand for the policy that the homelands should be guided towards maturity so that they may stand on their own feet; for this reason this side of the House believes in the right of self-determination for those homelands; for this reason this side of the House believes that it will be wrong in principle to bring the black man into this Parliament either directly or indirectly; for this reason this House proceeded to abolish Indian representation in this House, ¹⁰ representation which was made possible by that side of the House, ¹¹ for this reason this side of the House went all the way by also abolishing representation of Coloured people by Whites in this House. ¹² We have established alternative machinery for them; we have placed them on a road of their own. You heard me saying that I could not see the end of that road yet. I am not the only one who said that - my predecessor also said so and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also said so on occasion.

But then it was abused by people who said that I did not have any policy, that I did not know what the policy should be and that our children would have to decide what policy would have to be pursued. I indicated the policy and said that the development had to be away from each other and not towards each other - each on his own road, whatever the end of that road may be. We are not static; everything develops as the years go by. If necessary, I shall come back to this matter again.

Whereas this is the basis of my policy - and I have tried to state this in as short a time as possible - and whereas I believe in separate residential areas, just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he does, and whereas the Leader of the Opposition also accepts the principle of separate Voters' Rolls now, there are two questions which I want to put to him in the first instance. How often have I not heard him and his lieutenants saying that they will repeal the Group Areas Act in the event of their coming to power! In this regard I want to put an element­ary question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: How can you have separate residential areas - something for which you say you stand - if you do not have a Group Areas Act to establish those separate residential areas? Otherwise I do not understand it. The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Population Registration Act in season and out and cast suspicion on it. But how can he have separate Voters' Rolls for Whites, Bantu, Coloureds and Indians if he cannot say who is a Bantu, who is an Indian, who is a Coloured person and who is a white person? If one does not classify them, how can one have separate Voters' Rolls?

Mr. S.J. M. Steyn: What about South West?

South West is a small province. There one could perhaps arrange it administratively, but can one arrange it in this complex South Africa?

Mr. J. O. N. Thompson: We arranged it.

Oh, in the past we had the Coloureds on the common Voters' Roll and we argued about whether they could read or write; we argued about whether or not they could sign their names. We can argue this out. I say it is impossible. There will be many hon. members here who will be able to argue about it profitably, but, as I have already taken up a great deal of time, I do not want to allow myself to be tempted now into discussing this matter with hon. members.

But in all fairness I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a few questions, to which I hope he will give me replies. Since I have now stated the philosophic basis of my policy, I am not only interested in them as a politician, but also because his replies will tell me how he feels about this question of friction in the future. I adopt the attitude, as I have in fact done, that Black people will be represented here neither directly nor indirectly. The hon. the Leader says that he will give the Black people eight representatives, but they will be Whites. He will give the Indians two, and they will be Whites. He will give the Coloureds six, and they can be either Coloureds or Whites. I do not want to say anything today about the implications of that or what hon. members have to say about it. For the moment I am interested only in the philos­ophic approach of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I may not forget this either; I must argue another matter with him. i.e. nation­hood. But before coming to that, I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader. If the hon. the Leader says that it is good and right that the Bantu should be represented here but that he should be represented by Whites, on what grounds does he say that? Does he say it on account of the fact that they are Black people and Indians? This is very important. They may not come here; one gives them eight representatives, and does one deny them the right to have Black or Indian representatives merely because they are Black or Indian people? It is important to know this. Secondly, it is important to me to know why one adopts an attitude like that. Does one adopt that attitude because one says that the Indians and the Bantu are too undeveloped to represent their own people here them­selves? Thirdly, does one adopt the attitude of saying that one does not begrudge them representation and it is good and right that they are good, but they may not be Black or Indian people because they are too irresponsible to exercise those rights here themselves? It is important to know what the philosophic basis is. And, fourthly, does one merely say this because one first wants to soften up these people to this aide and that one is later on not going to do this after all? These are the four matters of which I was thinking. I am obliged to put these questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a result of the attitude adopted by him in contrast with the attitude adopted by us, i.e. that the nation to which we are referring, is the nation which is being built out of Afrikaners and English-speaking people here in South Africa. We have made a great deal of progress along that road, and I am grateful for the fact that I myself have played a role in that regard.

But while I am dealing with that point, I once again want to make a very urgent appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His defence in the debate on the motion of censure was not good enough. One of the factors which is an obstacle to our becoming a nation, composed of Afrikaners and English-speaking people, is disregard of language and language rights. One hurts a person terribly, irrespective of whether he is an Afrikaner or an English-speaking person, by disregarding his right to his language. The hon. member for South Coast will recall my saying to him on a previous occasion that if he knew about any instance where my people were hurting his people in that regard, I would take it amiss of him if he did not tell me about it; in such cases I shall take action against it, for it is absolutely and undeniably wrong. I am taking a very strong stand on that matter. I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for South Coast:

So as not to be misunderstood let me put it this way to the hon. member for South Coast: It has happened in the past in Natal, where the United Party has the majority in the Provincial Council, that MEC's have been elected who cannot speak or understand Afrikaans. It has happened that Afrikaans delegations who went to see members of the Executive Committee could not be understood by members of that Executive Committee, so I am told. Sir, that is not good enough for the year 1970. If there is any Minister on my side who is not able to speak in English to members of deputations and to understand them when they speak to him in English, then he will not remain in this Cabinet for one single moment. If there are members of the Executive Committee in the Nationalist provinces who likewise do not understand English and can­not speak English and consequently cannot receive an English-speaking deputation, I will see to it, if it is brought to my notice, that such an MEC is removed because no man has the right in this country to take up that position unless he can serve the peoples of this country in both languages.