At Issue; 4; South Africa and the UN

. . . . . . . . .

This week, the United Nations faces what many consider to be its most difficult question, a partate in South Africa. Just three years ago, a partate erupted into violence. The question now is, can the United Nations prevent another sharp bill massacre and its worldwide repercussions? . National Educational Television presents at Issue, a commentary on people and events in the news. At Issue this week, South Africa and the United Nations. Donald Grant is the United Nations correspondent for the St. Louis Post Dispatch. A partate is a South African word for racial separation. It is a fancy word for racial discrimination. It is this week an issue both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council at the United Nations.

The partate is the official policy of the government of South Africa. South Africans say they mean to put all Africans in separate areas called Bantu stands, shown by the outlined areas on the map, bringing them out only to work for the white man in the mines on the farms and in the industry. This project would result in confining more than three quarters of the people to 13% of the area of the country. The issue of a partate first came up in the United Nations in 1946. Some 28 resolutions have been passed, but the plight of the 13 million African people whose lives are subject to the whims of four million white people rose worse. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this subject is that no one except the white South Africans themselves defends a partate. One for instance, the resolution condemning a partate came up in the General Assembly on October 11th.

It was supported by 106 nations and only South Africa opposed it. Resolutions however in themselves solve nothing. The question before the United Nations is still what to do about the problem of South Africa. South Africa has modern cities, productive mines and factories, but it is basically a rural country still, a country of Africaner farms and African crawls. The white South Africans of Dutch origin, the Africaners, went there nearly 300 years ago, now they have nowhere else to go. The black South Africans have lived on that continent for so long as the story of mankind is known. There is a growing conviction in the United Nations that if South Africa's policy of a partate is not changed by peaceful means, it will be changed by a violent upheaval in which thousands of innocent men, women and children will die. Much of Africa and much of the world outside of Africa might well be sucked into the maelstrom of war.

Last year the General Assembly established a standing committee on a partate to meet the year around in an attempt to find a solution to this problem. At the first meeting of the Committee on April 2nd, Secretary General Usant was present and this is a part of what he had to say. The General Assembly and the Security Council expressed their serious concern that the racial policies of the South African government were not only not in conformity with its obligations and responsibilities under the charter of the United Nations, but that they were also a source of international friction and a danger to the maintenance of international peace and security. The lack of response on the part of the government of South Africa to the repeated recommendations and decisions of the United Nations organs has given rise to increasing concern among member states, a concern which I share.

I wish to add on this occasion that the attitudes of the South African government and its leaders as disclosed in recent statements concerning the role of the United Nations is also a matter of serious concern to us. What function can the United Nations serve? I asked the Chairman of the Special Committee on a Partate Ambassador Diallo Telli of Guinea of French-speaking nation. The simultaneous translation is by an official United Nations interpreter. At its Avaba conference found that there were only two solutions possible. The peaceful solution at the United Nations level which had been tried for 18 years and one to which the independent state of Africa trended. It is for that reason that four foreign ministers were delegated by the Chiefs of State last August to come to headquarters and submit this question of a part out to the Security Council.

If our peaceful efforts at UN level fail then the African people and their government have no other alternative than to defend themselves at all costs. The use of their armed forces in the framework of self-defense against apartheid. Therefore as I said there are only two alternatives. The peaceful solution which we prefer and the war which we would like to avoid but we cannot avoid if peaceful means fail. Africans believe apartheid is a threat to peace. They believe that in the event of an uprising the government of South Africa will use the most forceful measures and the free African nations quickly will become involved. A reputation of Sharpville could precipitate open warfare. Denmark among other nations has been deeply concerned about both the plight of the African people and the threat to peace.

Hermod Lanan of the Danish delegation at the United Nations told us about a plan his government has put forward in behalf of all the five Scandinavian countries. His first point was that the United Nations should try to persuade the South Africans to change their racial policy. Second he would encourage democracy there when apartheid is ended. Third he believes the United Nations could help in the transitional phase and fourth that a group of experts should work out the details. I asked Ambassador Lanan if he had received any reaction from the African nations. For obvious reasons some of our African friends tend to concentrate on our first point that of urging the security constant to consider steps suitable to influence the attitude of South Africa. At the same time they seem to show understanding for our all our three points. We on our part feel that peace and democracy are to be ensured in South Africa a balanced approach as suggested by us is absolutely necessary.

Has South Africa given any indication of its attitude? Well since the political ideas on which our thinking is based are completely incompatible in the philosophy supersistently adhered to by the South African government we can hardly expect much of a positive reaction from that side. Unfortunately South Africa the South African government so far seems to turn to continue the policies for apartheid to the bitter end. What were the considerations that led Denmark to put forward this plan? The question about apartheid has gone very deep in the heart of everybody in our country and we look with great concern towards the future. We think that apartheid may endanger peace in the someone part of Africa and we fear that from this may someday arise a broader danger to world peace.

Ambassador Alex Quayson Saki of Ghana had this to say. As you know some proposals have been advanced by Scandinavian countries in regard to certain guarantees which we of Africa should produce. They talk about guarantees of security of peace and freedom. We are prepared to give those guarantees and we think that the United Kingdom and the United States know that no African wants to drive away the white man from South Africa. And therefore they must accept our wait for it and accept these guarantees and go on to the next move which the Scandinavians have put forward trading partners dealing with this problem realistically. By dealing realistically with this problem it is clear that Ambassador Quayson Saki means that South Africa's trading partners chiefly Britain and the United States should stop trading with South Africa.

Defining the United States policy before the Security Council last August, Ambassador Adley Stevenson spoke of ending the export of arms from the United States to South Africa but did not promise to break off trade relations. Mr. President just as my country is determined to wipe out discrimination in our society it will support efforts to bring about a change in South Africa. It is in the United States interest to do this. It is in the interest of South Africa. It is in the interest of a world which has suffered enough from bigotry and prejudice and hatred. First we have affirmed and reaffirmed that apartheid is abhorrent. Our belief in the self-evident truths about human equality is enshrined in the chart. A apartheid in racism despite all of the tortured rationalizations that we have heard from the apologists are incompatible with the moral, the social and the constitutional foundations of our society.

Expect to bring to an end the sale of all military equipment to the government of South Africa by the end of this calendar year in order further to contribute to a peaceful solution and to avoid any steps which might at this point directly contribute to international friction in the area. South Africa is trade with Britain, the United States and other countries obviously is a vital point. I raised this issue in turn with Ambassador Lanham, Ambassador Ques and Saki and Ambassador Diallo Telly. From what I just said it is clear that the cooperation of the United States and the United Kingdom, the two principal trading partners of South Africa is certainly most important. The two countries can do a lot both inside the United Nations and outside. In the United Nations they can either support the stand which the affiliation and Latin American states and some non-Alan countries from Europe have taken to put pressure on South Africa or they could themselves as a few strongly about it now.

Advanced proposals which can help us solve the problem. The United States responsibility is also in the field of investment, trade and so on. As you know a lot of investment is going from here for the United States to South Africa and if tomorrow the US government puts his foot down and says no we're not going to do this, we're not going to trade with you. We think this is wrong, we are not going to trade with you. I'm sure that South Africa will succumb one day. Yes, on this point we've never hidden our feelings. First of all, since we'll start with the United States, we believe that they do have very important responsibilities as leaders of the West,

as permanent members of the Security Council and as such they have very specific responsibilities regarding the maintenance of international peace and security because the situation in South Africa as we see it is a direct and constant threat to international peace and security. And I think it's appropriate to say that for many years the United States either through the government or through their private enterprises have given military assistance to the South African government, have made private investments of great amount in South Africa and have also maintained a great flow of trade with South Africa. Directly or indirectly they have encouraged the policies of apartheid and furthermore since South Africa contends that it is defending the permanent values of Western civilization. We feel it extremely important that a country like the United States that enjoys good relations with the rest of the African continent should divorce itself officially and publicly from the attitude of Nazism that was instituted in South Africa.

But furthermore it was the United Kingdom that was the main supplier of weapons to South Africa. It is the United Kingdom that is the main supplier of capital goods to South Africa. It is furthermore the United Kingdom that has carried the greatest percentage of foreign and domestic trade. And therefore we say that as far as the United Kingdom is concerned it is not a secondary responsibility it bears. It is a primary responsibility it bears. The Republic of South Africa's delegation to the United Nations is headed by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs Mr. G. P. U. Stey who told the General Assembly he did not come to New York in order to engage in debate. I guess he met it. We tried to get Mr. U. Stey on this program but he declined as did other South African officials.

The South African government has never tried to mislead anyone that its apartheid policy means anything but domination and supremacy by the white race over the black race. It defends this policy as both right and necessary for the survival of the South African nation as it now is. Attacks on apartheid are said by the South African government to be an invasion of its sovereign right to run its own internal affairs. The South Africans are aware that when such sentiments are expressed stridently they arouse opposition in places like the United States and Britain. They are major trading partners. Britain faces an early election in which African issues are bound to come up. Voters in the United States which also will have a national election next year include Negro voters who feel an affinity with the African people. When Mr. U. Stey of South Africa spoke to the General Assembly on October 10th his tone was unusually mild. The fact which emerges, one which I cannot overstress as it is fundamentally in our position on the African continent,

is that the South Africans of European origin have been forged into a single and a distinctive nation. It is no longer a European nation although it is closely linked with Western culture and civilization. It is a nation of Africa with its roots and traditions deeply embedded in the soil of that continent. These roots cannot be destroyed and the White South Africans claim for themselves all the inalienable rights of an autonomous and a separate nation. They further claim the right to live and to survive as a nation with its own distinctive identity. A fundamental rights which as well, all other nations who wish to survive, they will defend by every means that they are disposed.

What are the free African nations doing about apartheid? That question was put to investor Diallo Telli. Since the very beginning all independent states of Africa spoke more or less decisively against the continuation of the policies of apartheid. And here again, it was at the time of the summit conference of heads of African states last May in Addis Ababa that a concerted and unanimous decision was taken for the first time. Now that decision was embodied in the determined opposition on the part of all independent states of Africa against the apartheid policies and to that end in order to coordinate the efforts of all states to help the nationalist in their struggle against apartheid in South Africa. And to that end again, a special 9-man committee was set up which has its headquarters at Dara Salam and its tasks are to give concrete and I would say material assistance to the nationalists of South Africa.

However to coordinate all diplomatic political and if no peaceful measures are available military efforts to give the nationalists of South Africa all the help they need in this struggle against apartheid. What is the future in South Africa, sir, for the European community there? On that point we have always been very clear and very precise. The future of the Europeans living in South Africa depends on the position that they take themselves. In other words, as far as we other Africans are concerned, we want those Europeans to be Africans 100% citizens of South Africa without privileges but without restrictions.

100% Africans, we don't want masters, we don't want slaves, we want equals, we therefore invite the whites of South Africa to remain Africans loyal to Africa and as are we ready to assist Africa to achieve the common welfare of all. Therefore the question of guarantees is an important question. We not only offer this to the Europeans in Africa but to the Europeans outside Africa. The only question we raise is that we do not want South Africa or elsewhere a democracy to be set up whereby the majority of the population is subjected. Oliver Tombow is an African from South Africa. When I first met Mr. Tombow in 1959 he was practicing law in Johannesburg. Now he is an exile deputy president of the African National Congress and organization banned by the South African government.

He has come to the United Nations seeking help for his people. If Mr. Tombow were to return to Johannesburg he would be put in prison or worse. I asked Mr. Tombow if an economic boycott aimed at any apartheid would not in fact hurt the African people along with the whites of South Africa. The fact of the letter is that we want the boycott, we want the sanctions, we want the isolation of South Africa. Not because it will not hurt us but because it will hurt those who are in a position to influence government policy. We are suffering enough and we can't suffer worse. But apartheid is a complete protection for the whites and the white voters and the sanctions would break through to us. They would place some havoc on us admittedly. This we don't mind but what is of importance is that the sanctions and the boycott would reach the people who have been protected so far by the lack of any action from outside. They have not been protected from action that we are capable of taking. It could be a good thing that so far we haven't taken all the action that we can take. But this is the importance of sanctions.

Mr. Tombow, what is the mood of the Africans in South Africa today? The mood of the African people is one of resentment, indignation of impatience. They have had enough of this kind of thing. And the amout is such that in fact over 5,000 of them have had to be put into jail. Will the white South Africans then ultimately be destroyed or driven into the sea? No, of course not. Of course not. Nobody wants to push them into the sea, they are not fish. They are people there, they live there, they have made their homes there. We have set so in numerous official statements. We can think of no reason why the white people or green people live there where green people cannot live happily together and talk to each other the way that you and I are talking now. It should be the land of everybody. It doesn't matter that they are white people. We don't even understand why they think they should be protected or that they as a nation they want to survive.

We don't understand what they want to, what the threat to their survival is. Africans are not a threat to the survival of anybody. What ever happened to the nonviolent protest movement in South Africa, Mr. Tombow? It ran into difficulties because we reached a position in which the nonviolence that we had adopted all along and was proving inadequate to the armed force. And we have had to be silent now about that nonviolence. This means that we have entered on a new era, on a new phase of our struggle, in which we abandon nonviolent methods where they are not suitable and use any others which we consider are likely to impress someone with the agency of our demands. Then is open civil war likely do you think?

When we talk of nonviolence, what occurs to one's mind first is violence. Now we tend to think also of civil war or even guerrilla warfare, something like that which has been experienced in the past. I think the safest way of looking at the South African situation is that if it is not nonviolence, then it is anything else that you can imagine. Anything without limit. In a world of confusing issues, here is one in which good and evil are clearly defined. The conscience of the world is not confused by the issue of racial oppression anywhere. The Cold War is not involved in South Africa. The United States and the Soviet Union are agreed that apartheid is an unmixed evil. Most of the people of the world are in one sense or another, colored. Dark faces are in the majority of the United Nations, which is a reflection of the world as it is. Morals aside, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union wishes to alienate this majority.

American Negroes, a part of this world majority, are listening to the words spoken by American diplomats, but they also are watching to see what the United States does about this issue. What the free African nations and others are asking is that the United States join a trade embargo against South Africa to induce peaceful change as preferred to violent change. Why a trade embargo? South Africa is a prosperous nation, at least the white South Africans are prosperous. The whole system of apartheid is built on cheap African labor. Also, and this is the key, it is a system that depends on foreign trade and foreign investments. Opponents of apartheid believe the whole system would crumble if foreign trade and foreign investments were cut off. South Africa has many trading partners, the largest of which is Britain. But American investments in South Africa also are large and profitable. Yet up until now, the United States government has opposed a trade embargo against South Africa.

The total of American investments in South Africa is estimated as something like $600 million. Over the last two years, while life for the African people has become worse, American investments in South Africa have increased by 25%. American investments in South Africa have helped sustain the cheap labor apartheid policy. Such investments have yielded dividends four times those in Latin America and nearly twice as much as investments in Western Europe have yielded. An affected trade embargo against South Africa would create many problems, including problems for American businessmen involved in South African trade. A price may have to be paid. Every day however, Africans are paying a price in human degradation for the continuation of apartheid. It seems clear that apartheid will end either peacefully or in a blood bath. Africans are prepared to pay that price if it becomes necessary. But the 32 free African nations are asking the United States to help avoid this catastrophe by inducing peaceful change in South Africa before it is too late.

This is the issue now before the United Nations. . . . . This is NET, National Educational Television. .

. . .