May 20, 1970(1)
I should like to express, not only on behalf of the Anti-Apartheid Movement based in London but also on behalf of our counterparts in Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Holland, our deep thanks for the close cooperation that has existed between the Special Committee and these organisations in the various parts of Europe. I should also like to thank the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the personal interest and concern he has expressed from time to time over the situation in South Africa and, in particular, for the close cooperation that has existed between us in London and the Secretariat and the Unit on Apartheid...
Whilst it is an honour and a privilege for a representative of the Anti-Apartheid Movement to appear before your Committee and make certain representations, I do so with mixed feelings and this is partly because of the danger of developing a tendency of substituting statements and resolutions as alternatives for action over the question of southern Africa as a whole. It is, of course, true that statements and resolutions can lead to action but a major paradox of our time is that increased international condemnation of apartheid is being accompanied by a growth rather than a reduction of South Africa's economic, diplomatic and political links with the rest of the world.
Growth of South Africa's links with other countries
During the past decade South African foreign missions have increased and their personnel doubled. This represents not only a growth of links with South Africa's traditional trading partners but also the establishment of fresh diplomatic, trade and political links with countries such as Malawi, Uruguay, Colombia and Taiwan.
The United Nations has repeatedly called for a reduction and a total end of all trade with South Africa - and yet, the Pretoria regime has never before traded as much and with as many countries as it does today. South Africa's traditional trading partners have certainly increased their stake in the apartheid system. For example, during the years 1961-1967 the exports of Italy to South Africa increased by 153 per cent; those of France during this period increased by 135 per cent; those of the Federal Republic of Germany by 113 per cent; those of the United States of America by 83 per cent and those of the United Kingdom by 71 per cent. Once again South Africa's increased volume of trade is partly accounted for by the establishment and growth of new trading links with other countries. For example, Japan alone increased its exports between 1961 and 1967 by 205 per cent.
Let us examine the question of oil. In the early 1960s at the United Nations and elsewhere efforts were made to impose an oil embargo against the Republic of South Africa. Today, not only does South Africa receive more oil, but she has also established reserve supplies in disused mines and international corporations are busily engaged in prospecting for oil in South Africa as well as the international territory of Namibia. South Africa has certainly never been better placed to counteract an oil embargo than at the present time.
Another example that comes to mind is the communication links that South Africa retains through the airline system. Several African countries have had some effect by preventing South African airlines from operating within their countries and from landing at their airports. But again, new routes have been established between South Africa and South American countries, as well as across the Indian Ocean to Australia and New Zealand, and the traditional links now carry more flights to and from South Africa.
If we turn to the arms embargo, which many consider to be the one major advance of the international community against the Republic of South Africa, we find once again total violation of the embargo by France and other countries and also major loopholes in the operation of the embargo by those countries which consider themselves to be complying with the Security Council's resolutions of 1963 and 1964. South Africa is now more powerful than ever before.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken frankly in this sense, not out of any feeling of despair but in the hope that if we assess the situation accurately and look back on the work of the United Nations and of Member States in relation to southern Africa, then may be that will lead us to more effective action in the future.
I have come to North America and to the United Nations to raise two very urgent issues that confront the international community with regard to southern Africa.
Lives of political detainees in danger
The first relates to the issue of political prisoners in the Republic of South Africa. Your Committee is aware of the fact that fifteen persons have been found dead whilst under detention or interrogation in the Republic of South Africa since 1963. Today there are twenty-two leaders in the Republic of South Africa who are kept in detention after the original charge failed against them, as well as the two witnesses who were brought to court and made allegations of torture. The Anti-Apartheid Movement, as well as our counterparts in the other countries that I have mentioned, have asked me to ask your Special Committee to make representations to ensure that the lives of these twenty-four persons, as well as others in detention in South Africa, are not in jeopardy today. We therefore ask that special initiatives be taken by the Secretary-General with a view to sending an international legal authority or other eminent person to the Republic of South Africa in order to see that these men and women are alive and well. In this connection your Committee is no doubt aware that students who have been demonstrating in protest against the detention of the twenty-two African leaders have been flung into prison and that other students have had their meetings and demonstrations banned.
I hope very much that the Special Committee will respond to the statement made by the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, at its annual conference held in London on 9 and 10 May, referring to the deaths of six people in prison in South Africa during 1969 and of fifteen people since 1963, and calling on governments and international organisations, as well as national committees all over the world to ensure that a similar fate does not befall any of the twenty-two.
With regard to the question of political prisoners, our movement welcomes the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly late last year recommending that those engaged in guerrilla combat in southern Africa should be treated as if they are prisoners of war. On this subject, we have made recommendations to your Committee when it came to London in 1968.
Increasing military collaboration with South Africa
The second urgent point to which I wish to draw your Committee's attention, Mr. Chairman, relates to the growing strength of South Africa today.
The Republic of South Africa is today the most powerful State in southern Africa. Following a decade of rapid militarisation it has emerged as the dominant regional power with its armed forces engaged in battles far outside its own borders. But in addition to becoming a regional power the Pretoria Government has ambitions to develop into a hemispheric power. Within the past few years South Africa has established naval links with countries in South America, and in 1971 Argentinian ships are once again due to take part in joint naval exercises with the South African Navy. There has been widespread speculation that South Africa and Portugal, together with Argentina and Brazil, intend to form a South Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There have also been reports suggesting that the Republic of South Africa has entered into naval arrangements with Australia and New Zealand to cover the Indian Ocean area.
A recent leak in a British newspaper suggests that the Conservative opposition party is considering a defence treaty to be established between South Africa, Britain, Portugal, Brazil and Argentina. But even more remarkable than these developments is the prospect, which we have mentioned in our publication on South Africa's Defence Strategy, of NATO entering into a military arrangement with South Africa.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home, ex-British Prime Minister and now Shadow Foreign Secretary, discussed with South African leaders in 1968 a plan to put the Cape Sea route under the protective wing of NATO. A number of similar proposals have found their way into recent issues of specialised military journals, some issued from NATO headquarters and others published in countries which are members of NATO.
These developments, Mr. Chairman, concern us because we believe that a move is afoot to encourage further military collaboration with the Republic of South Africa. We have already made representations to a few members of NATO, including the United States and Canada, and we hope that the Security Council will draw attention to these developments and adopt a far-reaching arms embargo resolution. In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party will now be campaigning for the general election announced for next month. The Conservative Party has always been committed to relaxing the partial arms embargo operated by the Labour Government since 1964. But recent speeches and statements by Conservative leaders alarm us because they not only cover the relaxation of the arms embargo but envisage the extension of the Simonstown Agreement and possible arrangements with NATO to help defend South Africa's so-called interest in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote a statement made by the Rt. Hon. Geoffrey Rippon, Member of Parliament and Defence spokesman for the Conservative Party. He said on October 21, 1969:
"Let me make this clear. A Conservative Party will reverse the present policy on the sale of arms. A Conservative Government will make full use of the Simonstown Agreement, fulfil our obligations under it and build upon it. In accordance with our clear commitment we will join with South Africa in playing our full part together in the strategic defence of the Cape route and of the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, not only in our own interests but in those of NATO and the whole free world."
You will understand, Mr. Chairman, why we feel a sense of urgency over this question in view of the general election. But there is not only the danger of a Conservative Government which will establish closer links with the Republic of South Africa. Earlier this year the Chief of the Western Fleet of Britain visited South Africa on what was supposed to be a normal routine visit before his retirement. We found later that he had had secret high level meetings with the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister of South Africa.
Security Council should cover loopholes in the arms embargo
In view of these considerations, the Anti-Apartheid Movements, both of Britain and of the other countries that I have mentioned, feel that it is timely for the Security Council to once again consider the issue of South Africa and the arms embargo and to cover the following loopholes in the embargo.
First, we do not know how many and which Western countries supply military patents to the Republic of South Africa. But we do know that in the short period between 1964 and 1965 - only one year of the operation of the embargo - the Defence Minister of South Africa claimed that the Republic had received more than 120 military patents. We have sought assurances from certain Western governments that they do not supply military patents to South Africa and are awaiting their replies. We hope that a future Security Council resolution on the subject will cover patents because the 1963-64 resolutions do not cover this area.
Second, there is the whole question of other military information which is not covered by patents and South Africa certainly benefits by this kind of military know-how.
Third, in those areas where the arms embargo has been effective, South African arms firms have had no difficulty whatsoever in obtaining capital from Western countries for investment in the domestic armaments industry. The Security Council should demand an end to the flow of finance capital which, directly and indirectly, helps boost the armaments industry in South Africa.
Next is the problem of skilled technicians from Western countries, in particular from Britain, migrating to South Africa and taking up employment in the armaments industry. We hope that Governments will take action to discourage and prevent their nationals from participating in and supporting the arms industry in this way.
Fifth, there is the question of training South African military and police personnel in other countries. There is no doubt that in Britain South African military personnel receive training. We have sought an assurance from the State Department that the United States does not train any such personnel. Once again, we are awaiting a reply.
Sixth, in the nuclear field there is extensive cooperation between Western countries and South Africa. The Security Council resolution should demand an end to this cooperation.
Finally, with regard to the operation of the arms embargo by the Government of the United States and the United Kingdom in particular, we are aware of the fact that the embargo has been compromised by the fact that these Governments continue to supply spare parts for equipment that was already sold to South Africa prior to 1964. For example, the Shackleton aircraft in South Africa are twelve years old and the South African Government has only been able to maintain and use them because they have been assured of continued supplies of spare parts. This is true also for warships and other military equipment. The Security Council resolution which we suggest must ban the supply of spare parts because the embargo itself is made meaningless so long as this type of military equipment continues to reach the Republic of South Africa.
We are often told by Western governments that it is difficult for them to draw a precise line between equipment which can be used for military purposes and equipment which cannot. In our view, when there is doubt, the decisions by these governments should be in favour of an embargo. For example, the United States Government sanctions the sale of light aircraft to South Africa and these small aircraft can be used inside the Republic for security operations. There is also the question of electronic and radar equipment which is at present supplied to the Republic of South Africa.
We ask your Committee and the Member States of the United Nations, in particular the African group, to take initiative to ensure that the Security Council adopts an all-embracing arms embargo to cover all the points that I have raised.
OAU resolution on the arms embargo
In this connection, I should like to mention that on a recent visit to Addis Ababa I had the pleasure to meet the once Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Diallo Telli, and had discussions with him and other officials of the Organisation of African Unity. Subsequently, the 13th ordinary session of the Council of Ministers of the OAU, meeting in February-March 1970, said in its resolution on apartheid and decolonisation:
"Reaffirms that any form of military and other cooperation with these minority regimes constitutes a hostile act against all African States and their peoples."
Point 7 of that resolution states:
"Requests the African group of the United Nations to draw the attention of the Security Council to the continued violations of its decisions on the arms embargo and call for effective measures to end these violations."
It is a matter of regret for the Anti-Apartheid Movement that so much time has passed between the meeting of the OAU and any resolution coming before the Security Council. We hope that our representations will speed up the process of achieving that objective.
Mr. Chairman, we are faced, as I said earlier, with a general election in Britain next month. In the meanwhile, alliance relationships are being developed with the Republic of South Africa by other States. This issue is important and urgent and requires immediate consideration.
The Cabora Bassa Dam
Now I should like to address a few remarks with regard to the Cabora Bassa Dam which is being constructed in the Tete Province of Mozambique. This project is the outcome of South African/Portuguese collaboration and the colonial power intends to settle one million white immigrants in the region and remove 24,000 Mozambicans now living there. There are at least two grounds on which the construction of this dam should not be supported. It is a strategic dam aimed to produce cheap electrical power as well as strengthen the white regimes in southern Africa by establishing a line of defence against the advance of African liberation. Secondly, Rhodesia will become a major benefactor not only as a recipient of electrical power but also as a supplier of materials in building the dam. As a result of these considerations, action by the Swedish Government has already led to the withdrawal of one of their companies from ZAMCO, the South African-based consortium which is building the dam.
We in the Anti-Apartheid Movement are pleased to learn that the Italian Government, which had originally agreed to provide export credits worth £20 million for materials to be used in the dam, has now rescinded that decision and withdrawn from the project. We are also conducting a public campaign against Barclay's Bank DCO which is supporting one of the companies that has submitted a tender for the construction of the dam.
We hope that the Security Council will give consideration to this dam, particularly in the context of the violation of the decisions on sanctions against Rhodesia.
Need for disengagement from South Africa
These proposals fit in with the broad policy of achieving the disengagement of Western countries from South Africa.
Whilst on the one hand international condemnation of apartheid increases, on the other hand fresh trade and investment links are established and existing links strengthened. The United Kingdom Government and the United States Government, for example, say to us that these links are important and that, therefore, they cannot take action which has been suggested both in your Committee and elsewhere. But Mr. Chairman, these links are not decreasing - they are increasing. If action against South Africa is difficult now because these links exist, with every day that passes action will become even more difficult and then there is the danger that if this trend continues, we will see intervention on the part of some of these Western powers on the side of the white regimes in southern Africa.
The sports boycott of Soutn Africa
Mr. Chairman, your Committee will be aware of the work of the Anti-Apartheid Movement on the question of sporting links with South Africa. In 1963 (when Mr. Brutus was in detention in South Africa) I was asked to represent both the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee, as well as the Anti-Apartheid Movement, at the Olympic conference in Baden-Baden. We secured South Africa's suspension. In the past few days we have heard that South Africa has now been totally excluded from Olympic sport. Earlier this year we organised massive demonstrations all over Britain in every city and town where the white South African rugby team played. We estimate that something like 50,000 people turned up at these demonstrations and at this moment our movement in Britain is preparing for a campaign against the imminent all-white cricket tour of Britain.
We have found that South Africa has its best friends in British sports organisations. At international sports conferences too, we have found representatives from the United Kingdom among the first to defend white South Africa. And yet, we have maintained our pressure in a country which is historically closely linked to South Africa. Whilst on the one hand we have powerful lobby groups which are very close to the Republic of South Africa and the other white regimes in that area, we also have, on the other hand, radical forces represented by the Anti-Apartheid Movement which represents a commitment on the side of the freedom fighters in southern Africa. For example, at one demonstration in Cardiff, young people and mineworkers carried not only placards asking for an end to racialism in sport, but also the names of the twenty-two African leaders who were standing trial at the time. I mention this, Mr. Chairman, to show the keen political awareness of those who are demonstrating outside the sports grounds.
New initiatives required
The Anti-Apartheid Movement has always believed that South Africa is a threat to world peace, and in view of South Africa's militarisation and offensive strategy in Africa, and the present military posture, we feel that it constitutes an added threat to the peace and security of Africa and of the whole world.
We also believe that it is no longer appropriate to consider South Africa in isolation from the other white territories of southern Africa.
On the question of liberation of that region, our Movement is committed to supporting the struggle of the people of southern Africa. We believe that it is only they who will finally bring about their own freedom. But the world has a responsibility to help that struggle. If the conflict develops into a major racial conflict, that will not be the fault of the liberation movement which has always conducted a non-racial struggle. The international repercussions of that conflict, which will be disastrous not only for Africa but for the world, will arise not only because of the responsibility of the white people of that region who wish to maintain power, but also the responsibility of the governments of the major Western countries which help to sustain and support the regimes in southern Africa.
Mr. Chairman, we face a racial holocaust in southern Africa which will have disastrous consequences for mankind as a whole. If certain countries are afraid of the pain that effective action will inflict on them, they should think for a moment of the pain that will be inflicted on humanity as a whole if we ever reach this state of catastrophe over the southern African situation.
We hope very much that Member States of the United Nations will decide that this is a time when the whole southern African issue requires new initiatives. We hope, in particular, that there will be a speedy response to our appeals to ensure that the lives of the twenty-two are safe and, secondly, that procedures be set in motion so that very soon, within a matter of days, the Security Council considers the whole question of the arms embargo. It is time for leadership and it is time for action and we hope that the governments of the world will respond to our request.
We, on our part, will continue to campaign in the way in which we have done for over ten years.
(1) United Nations Unit on Apartheid, Notes and Documents, No.17/70, May 1970