Changing World; 8; South African Essay, Part 2: One Nation, Two Nationalisms. Reel 2

Here the mounting pressure for economic integration is in direct challenge to existing conditions of social and political segregation. Most whites who have wore these injustices choose to remain silent. A few like the members of the Black Sash, a women's protest organization, feel they have a duty to persist in their criticism even though it has been called an exercise in futility. Jeans and Claire, president of the Black Sash, gives a clear picture of conditions she is protesting against. The African is in the urban areas for one purpose only and that is his labour. He is a temporary sojourner in the urban area and no African may be in an urban area for more than 72 hours without permission. He can have no rights in an urban area although

until this year when the Bantu Laws Amendment Act was passed he had a right to live permanently in an urban area though not to own his land. The Bantu Laws Amendment Act took away these rights. They have permission to work for a particular employer. When that contract is terminated the African has to return to his home in the country and is not allowed to take further employment without permission and so many of them find themselves endorsed out of the urban area. Migratory labour is usually temporary but in South Africa it is a permanent part of our economic life. The key instrument for white control of the Africans are the past laws which require everyone to carry reference documents or books known as passes. These men must have their

passes checked to obtain work. The reference book is a document which every African has to carry on his person. It has his photograph, his registration number, his tax receipts and where he was born the name of his chief and where his book was issued and also a service contract that is a contract of labour with his employer. It was the past law which triggered the infamous Shaftville massacre, the turning point in South African destiny. On March 21, 1960 a crowd of unarmed Africans assembled at the police station in the town of Shaftville, New Johannesburg

to demonstrate against the hated past laws, the police panicked and opened fire. 72 Africans were killed, 186 wounded. After Shaftville instead of easing the pressures which caused the explosion the government took the opposite course. Shaftville became an excuse to slap down African nationalism with the full force of legal powers and armed might. An emergency was declared and the infamous 90-day law was enacted. This law made it possible for people to be held merely on suspicion. The original 90-day detention could be renewed indefinitely without a trial. Effective police state measures have brought about relative tranquility at least on the surface. The 90-day law has been temporarily suspended although it can be brought back into force at a moment's notice. Alan Payton is pessimistic about conditions improving.

Well, the government claims quite openly and unashamedly that the reason why things are quiet is because the African people now accept that there is of separate development. That's not the reason at all. The reason is that African people have seen what power can do to men and women, destroy their lives. The government tries to convince both South Africans and tourists that the Bantu can be happily occupied with tribal rights and dances. This kind of synthetic primitivism is a result. White moderates, who were formerly a dynamic element in political life, are today divided and

indecisive in their opposition to the nationalist government's policy. Colin Eglin, himself or moderate, explains it this way. Many South Africans, the White South Africans are unhappy at the apartheid policies which are being practiced in South Africa and yet they see no real alternative to the practice of apartheid. They have a by and large been condition to accept that if political control slips away from the white man into the hands of the black man in South Africa, then in fact they will be a period of oppression of the white man and this will lead to his birth, his economic and his political downfall. Since Sharpville, almost all meaningful communication between white and African groups has finally been severed. The African freedom movement is rooted in a long history of nonviolence, but today this long tradition has been discredited and proved futile. Violence seems virtually inevitable. The government has outlawed the two major African

political parties, the ANC, African National Congress, has been in existence for over 50 years. The PAC, Pan-Africanist Congress, founded in 1959, led the Sharpville protest. Today, the leaders of both parties have been jailed, driven underground, or into exile. Chief Albert Lutuli is the patriarch of the Freedom Movement and President of the African National Congress. He has received the relatively light punishment of being banned, exiled to his rural homeland because of his world fame as a Nobel Peace Prize winner. A lifelong champion of nonviolent protest, Lutuli's recent acceptance of violence aligns him with the black African consensus. Violence under any circumstance is what I think to be encouraged. It's what I think to be encouraged. Now, if it comes, it's just like nations going to war.

It's an unfortunate thing, nations have to go to war. But you can have anticipated and say, now, man, I'll work for war. Nobody works for violence. Nobody works for a war. But sometimes, circumstances create that and I can't predict circumstances and say, now, look, well, it's all right that this happens now. But in any case, I think as human beings, we must regret that we can't solve our differences and have to resort to violence and war and so on. Raymond Kuneine, who heads the London Office of the African National Congress in exile, underscores the organization's firm position. We are going to use all forms necessary to get our freedom in South Africa, whether it is violence against those who are violent against us, whether it is violence against the property that those who reinforce economically the government, whether it is any type of violence possible. Our aim is to get our freedom and we are prepared to get our freedom at whatever sacrifice necessary.

ZB Mollete, London representative of the Pan-Africanist Congress, speaks in even more specific terms. The South African situation can only be resolved through bloodshed. That is, the African people taking arms against the oppressor, the foreign oppressor in the country. As for time, I think, very soon. The head of the Pan-Africanist Congress, Robert Subokui, has been jailed on Robin Island, the South African Bastille. The PAC represents the most militant of the younger generation who broke away from the African National Congress. Robert Subokui, president of the PAC, was arrested on the 21st of March when the massacre at Sharville and Lunga took place. He was subsequently charged and sentenced to three years, which time of imprisonment he served. After this, a special legislation was passed through

Parliament to enable the government to keep him in jail indefinitely. And in the words of the Minister of Justice Foster, when asked to release the men after serving his sentence, he said, not this one. And he continued that he would keep him the side of eternity. Imprisonment on Robin Island has also been the fate of Nelson Mandela, giant among African patriots. Mandela succeeded Lutuli as active head of the African National Congress. After Sharville, he operated underground until he was caught in 1962 and tried for conspiracy and sabotage. His remarks addressed to the court at the end of his trial have provided a credo for fellow freedom fighters. The ideological creed of the ALC is and always has been the creed of African nationalism. It is not the concept of African nationalism expressed in the cry drive the white men into

the sea. The African nationalism for which the ALC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfillment for the African people in their own land. South Africa is the richest country in Africa and could be one of the richest countries in the world. But it is a land of extremes and remarkable contrast. The whites enjoy what may well be the higher standard of living in the world while the Africans live in poverty and misery. The complaint of Africans, however, is not only that they are poor and the whites are rich, but that the laws which are made by the whites are designed to preserve this situation. Africans want to share in the whole of South Africa. They want security and a stake in society. Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country

because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white men fear democracy. When Mandela's trial was ended people gathered in front of the courthouse in Pretoria to await the verdict. The government radio broadcasts the voice of the presiding judge duet. The crime of which the accused have been convicted, that is the main crime. The crime of conspiracy is in essence one of high prison. The state has decided not to charge and the crime in this form. Bearing this in mind and giving the matter very serious consideration, I have decided not to impose the supreme penalty, which in the case like this would usually be the proper penalty for the crime. Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Immediately afterwards his wife, Winnie Mandela, was able to say a few words to encourage loyal friends and supporters. My husband has been fighting for the liberation of the African people, for the working harmoniously of all the racial groups in this country. I shall never lose hope and my people shall never lose hope. In fact, we expect that the work will go on. While the work of African patriots goes on out of sight, whites like Scott Pinar seem even more blindly confident in their ability to resolve the country's problems. I think that if we were to be left reasonably alone for the next five to ten years, we will manage to get some sort of solution. The difficulty at the moment is that the urban African and the urban African leaders are being used by outside influences. That's why we had

in the past few years, sabotage, murder. That was why we were forced to rule almost as if the country was in the state of emergency. And while these conditions obtain, it's very difficult to solve a problem of human relations. But we have indeed succeeded in bringing the rest in order to the country. The South African government's basic tactic in attacking Black African leaders and their political movements has been to equate African nationalism with communism. Africans, including Lutuli, have bitterly rejected this claim. But you should say that I'm a communist. But one must say this. Being one of the leaders in the liberation movement, we don't discriminate against people because of their own political outlook or of certain meanings. We don't say that this many is a righty, this one is a socialist, this one is a communist, we don't want an liberation movement because we have one common purpose

and that is freedom. In reacting to the communist issue, journalist Nath Nakasa indicates the real and present danger of relating the Cold War to race war. It is true, however, that all the three troubles that the Africans have seen in South Africa have not come from communism. They have come from a country which professes to be living by standards of Christian, Western civilization. Most Africans die without ever hearing about communism. All they hear about is the standards of Western Christian civilization. From whichever clue that is well known right around the world, a lot of troubles, a lot of unpleasantnesses which are South African, South African Africans have suffered. This also does mean that those who leave movements in South Africa know that they're unlikely to get assistance from the Christian, Western, civilized world, therefore they seek assistance

from elsewhere, like anyone else who's in a spot. You seek assistance where you can get him. The South African government advertises itself as a bulwark against communism and a stalwart friend of the West. The military might of South Africa could easily overpower the combined strength of the rest of the African continent. Since Sharpeville, military expenditures have increased fivefold. While the United States, Britain and other countries have stopped shipment of arms to South Africa, France and others have stepped in to fill the gap, and South Africa itself is becoming more and more self-sufficient in arms production. South Africa has all the resources and skills necessary to develop an atomic weapon. Its first nuclear reactor designed for non-military purposes went critical in the spring of 1965. It was built by Alice Chalmers, an American firm.

At the same time, attracted by the possibility of enormous profits, extensive foreign investment has come in. Over 90% of it from Europe and the United States. Our country's investment, second-order to Great Britain, is increasing at the fastest rate. Many South Africans know the United States only through the corporate and brand names they see everywhere, and the South African government has shrewdly exploited the presence of United States business and businessmen as an endorsement of its policies by the American people. The role of American business has received special emphasis because of the weakness of our official

policy. Dr. Carter believes that this is a problem American should face. I feel we've got a particular concern in the United States because this is our problem too. We condemn South African racial policy, but most Africans in that country and outside say, what are we doing about it? Here it is perfectly clear that American businessmen are engaging in the South African economy, they're reaping which profits, they're making very productive activities. We have a tracking station, we are intimately related to the prosperity which South Africa has, and we are gaining from it. They say, what does your condemnation mean if you are in this sense bolstering the regime? I think we have to take account of this position on their part. Whether it means that we should in some way dissociate ourselves with it, whether if crisis should occur in

Southern Africa, we would feel that we had to warn our businessmen that their participation might be contrary to American interest remains to be seen and decided in Washington. At the United Nations, the Court of World Opinion, Western nations are criticized particularly by representatives of Asian and African countries. Ambassador of Carmarof, of Guinea, the chairman of the UN Special Committee on Appartite. In these halls of the United Nations, we have heard many eloquent speeches of the Florence of apartheid and racial discrimination. We have also noted reports of actions by various 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 look more closely at the interest which benefit from apartheid. Perhaps the main beneficiaries are not the South African whites. Perhaps there are only the John D'Arms who are paid a commission to will the whip against the Africans who torul and sweat so that the powerful interests in far-off capitals in the United States if the United Kingdom, France, and elsewhere will acquire the gold and diamonds of South Africa. United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Adelaise Stevenson, has indeed eloquently deplored apartheid. We all suffer from the disease of discrimination in various forms. And at least most of us recognize the disease for what it is, a desfiguring blight. The whole point is that in many countries, governmental policies are dedicated to rooting out

this dreaded syndrome of prejudice and discrimination. While in South Africa, we see the anachronistic spectacle of the government of a great people which persist in seeing the disease as the remedy, prescribing for the melody of racism, the bitter toxic of apartheid. Although the United States has voted in favor of an arms ban, it has held to the position that it cannot interfere with the internal affairs of South Africa. For if the massive change that we all seek is to come and come it will, it must come from within. It will come when the supporters of apartheid realize that the way they have chosen is in the eyes of the world in which South Africa must live. Morally intolerable, politically unviable, and economically unprofitable.

The United States' scruples in abstaining from intervention in South Africa are not all together consistent with our record in relation to other countries when we felt our national interest was at stake. The questions of sovereignty and the extent of moral responsibility beyond national boundaries are raised by Alan Payton, speaking from within his beloved South Africa. I don't believe that one has domestic affairs which are no concern to anybody else. I admit that sometimes interference is foolish. I admit that sometimes the knowledge of South Africa in our time countries is badly based. But it seems to me that members of the human race are entitled to watch with critical appraisal what happens in other countries. If only the countries of Europe had taken Germany more seriously in the 1930s,

they might have been spared many of the troubles that plague the world today. It was a failure of the countries of Europe to know what was happening in Germany or to be indifferent to it. I don't believe that country should be indifferent. I don't believe there's any such thing as an absolute sovereignty. I'm sure that there'll be no peace for the human race either if nationalism goes mad. For the United States, South Africa presents a difficult and perilous dilemma. There is the problem of the Cold War fusing with the struggle between the black and white races. South Africa has aligned herself with the Western world of which we are the acknowledged leader. As long as we remain relatively aloof from the South African racial confrontation, we appear especially in the eyes of the Afro-Asian world to support the oppression by the white South African regime. Therefore it does not appear to be in the national interest of the United

States to have the friendship of the South African government if this friendship alienates us from a majority of the peoples of the world. But beyond the issue of self-interest, there is a moral question. Can any part of the world, indeed can the United States itself, part black and part white, remain outside the conflict as the races confront each other, as two nationalisms prepare to clash in South Africa? We believe this question calls for an early and positive American response. This is NET, the National Educational Television Network.