On this occasion the Prime Minister mentioned the success he had already achieved in his attempt to normalise relations in Africa. He made mention of the positive reaction of Zambia and the Ivory Coast. He gave a vivid description of the events during the talks on Rhodesia at the Victoria Falls Bridge and during which he met President Kaunda of Zambia. Adv. Vorster also made reference to the failure to bring about peace in Rhodesia. The Prime Minister also discussed in detail the actions of the enemies of South Africa.

I do not only want to speak to you about detente as such, I want to speak to you about certain practical difficulties which one encounters on the road and which makes it easier at times and extremely difficult at other times. I spoke in the Senate as you might recall on the 23 October last year (1974). I felt at the time that I should speak on the subject because it seemed to me that that was the right psychological moment. You will recall that it was just after talks between Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa had broken down completely. And now I know that there are people who seem to think that as far as Rhodesia is concerned South Africa more or less barged in where it should not have barged in. Unfortunately there is an impression created by the very unfortunate, and I am not going to say more about it, the very unfortunate TV interview which my colleague and my friend had in Rhodesia, that if it had not been for South Africa's entry things could have gone much further 1. You will recall that prior to October 1974 there were talks between Mr. Smith and the ANC under Bishop Muzorewa. These talks as I have said, broke down completely and I can only refer you to the text of the statement that Mr. Smith made on the n November 1974. And I am only quoting you two paragraphs from that speech. He said inter alia: " Let me say a few words on our constitutional position. As you all know at the request of the British Government who believed that the ANC represented the views of Rhodesian Africans, I carried out a series of negotiations with Bishop Muzorewa, over a period of nearly nine months. We reached an agreement, but the extremists of his executive won the day, and threw it out. Thereafter, the same extremists rejected my invitation to a round-table conference and for some months now, little has transpired because the ANC has been dealing with certain personality problems in an attempt to put its house in order." And then he went on to say:

"However, the situation has been overtaken recently by new developments emanating from certain other countries. This means that once more there appears to be a possibility of settlement and I assure you that your Government will do all in its power to achieve this objective." In other words, I just want to make the point that at the time, everything was at a standstill, the terrorist build-up was greater than ever before and it was clear to every student of the situation in Southern Africa that we had arrived at a position where there could have been such an escalation of violence which had the potential and the very serious potential of enveloping the whole of Southern Africa. And it was then that I spoke in the Senate, that I addressed myself to African heads of State and put it to them bluntly that as far as Africa, but especially Southern Africa, was concerned, not we but they had reached the cross­roads and the choice was an escalation of violence leading ultimately to war or coming to an understanding with each other and with South Africa 2. Thereafter on the 26 October the President of Zambia made his Lusaka speech in which he referred to this Senate speech of mine as "the voice of reason for which Africa had been waiting for a long time." 3 He was wrong of course in saying that they had been waiting for that for a long time because we had, as you know, made approaches before that but unfortunately it fell upon deaf ears. 4 But earlier in that year I was invited by the President of the Ivory Coast to visit him and I spent a weekend with the President of the Ivory Coast and had a very full and frank discussion with him on the African and the South African situation. 5 He was not alone, there was another President present for the weekend but I am not talking about him because he says he does not know me and he has never met me. So, I leave it at that. An interesting man, the other President whom I am not naming; he is a very learned gentleman and he makes no bones about it that he is learned because he in fact is and he tried to impress me throughout the weekend just how learned he was and talking off the record I think this story is worth telling. Amongst others I took my younger son with me, he was my bat­man, and this particular gentleman said to me over lunch on the last day: "You know you can never really say that you are learned" and I also thought about that when Dr. Muller spoke, being a Latin scholar, "unless you have a sound basic knowledge of Latin". So I said to him:

"Yes I am inclined to agree with you. It is for that very reason that I think that my education has been neglected because I have only had six years to devote myself to the study of Latin." I looked at my son and of course he knows his father. But in fact it was historically correct because it was Std. 7, 8, 9, 10 and the first two years at University, that makes six all together. And I then said to him. "As a matter of fact, it was from my study of Latin that I evolved my political philosophy. You know the Roman saying swaviter in modo fortiter in re," and then we changed the subject immediately. He did not take me up on it. And when we came back into the room my son said to me: "My goodness, Dad you do take chances." He said: "What would have happened if he had called your bluff?" So I said: "My son, this is your first lesson in politics: there are times when you must take a chance and sometimes it works." But be that as it may. I think that the relations which we established way back in 1970 with President Banda and this particular visit to the Ivory Coast paved the way as far as Africa is concerned and I will always give credit to these two Presidents for what they did in tills regard. But I always said, and I always knew, that the key to this whole situation was Zambia and therefore for years my colleague and I did our level best to come to an understanding with Zambia. I had certain correspondents, certain talks through intermediators, with the President of Zambia which failed. That is history and I do not want to repeat it here this afternoon on account of the time factor. But after this speech of President Kaunda's messages were exchanged and ultimately we met each other when the conference on the bridge was arranged and I might say it was at South Africa's suggestion that this conference took place on the bridge. 6 I am not just going to tell this story for the sake of telling the story, it is because I want to illustrate a point. My colleague 7 and I went up to the Falls, we walked across the bridge and met the President on the other side of Zambia, he took us into the hotel where the con­ference took place and I tell this story because this is completely off the record. And we had hardly sat down when he said to me: "Mr. Prime Minister, I have a favour to ask." So I said: "No, with pleasure." And you must remember that a lot of troubled waters flew under my bridge and Kaunda's bridge. He said: "I am told that you tell a very good story about Amin. My colleagues and I have been waiting for this opportunity to hear you tell this story." And the story goes that, so I told him, that when Amin elevated himself to field-marshal he thought it was time to change the name of Uganda too. And he decided to change it to Idi. All the necessary steps were taken and the necessary documents were drawn but just before the Uganda Gazette was due to appear with the new change of name one of the few remaining wise men came up to him and said: Field-Marshal, I have given a great deal of thought to this change of name of Uganda to Idi and I am afraid we simply cannot do it, you must stop it immediately. So he said: What is wrong with the change of the name? Idi - beautiful name, name of the strongest man in Africa, name of the most bemedalled man in the world, what is wrong with that? He said: No Mr. Field-Marshal, there is nothing wrong with the name of Idi but it has just come to my notice this very day, that there is a country in the world with the name of Cyprus, they call the people Cypriots. I can sincerely tell you that I have never seen a man (Kaunda) laugh so much as he did on that occasion and later he asked me to repeat the story. And then I said to myself, how far have we got? We have got so far that we can laugh at Africa, together. It would not have happened a year before or three or four years before, but now we have reached the stage where we can relax, where we can laugh about Africa. He then felt that he must tell me a story too, a story which un­fortunately I had heard before but I pretended not to know it. And the story was about Van der Merwe who was supposed to have grown up with me, then went to farm in Zambia and he met me years later after that and I asked him what he was doing and he said he was farming in Zambia, best country in the world, very good Government etc. etc. and he asked me what I was doing and I then said to him that I was Prime Minister. And he said, Ag, where I come from we make the "K's" do that job. So I said to him, Where did you hear that story? and he said: "Seretse Khama told me that." I am telling these stories to illustrate the atmosphere. And I want to say to you that I have to a small extent travelled Africa, I have met many of these African leaders and it would be a mistake to assume that they love or that they like us, they certainly do not. But I want to say this in all sincerity, that they respect us and I found tremendous respect for South Africa in Africa, for the simple reason, I was told on ever so many occasions, a country which could stand up to the pressure of so-called world opinion as you did for so many decades, that is some country. But what is more we know that we can accept your word, we know that you pay your debts, and that you honour your agreements. And for that, gentlemen, I want to thank you, the businessmen of South Africa, for that reputation which South Africa enjoys, not only in Africa but which South Africa enjoys the world over. We honour our agreements and we pay our debts. You know a few years ago America published a list of all the countries in the world, with behind the names of each and every country all the billions of dollars which they owed to the United States under lend-lease or other agreements. And there was only one country in the world behind whose name was the word NIL and it was this country -South Africa. I sometimes genuinely feel that they hold it against us. But be that as it may, you as businessmen and as people just as interested in the future of this country as I or my colleague here are, you can rightly ask me: Now how far did we get? Then I can only say to you that first of all we got very much further than I thought possible when I spoke in the Senate on 23 October 1974. We got very very much further than when I spoke in my constituency on 5 November last year, asking for six months - not for myself or my Party or my Government - but for South Africa.

It is true that we have failed in reaching an agreement in Rhodesia. It is a pity and I want to make it very clear that as far as South Africa is concerned we have never meddled in Rhodesia's affairs, we have never twisted their arm, we have never prescribed to them, we have said all along in public and in private that a settlement in Rhodesia must come about as a result of talks between Rhodesians and Rhodesians only, Rhodesians, white and black. It is also true and that is why I read out this small paragraph from Mr. Smith's address, it is also true that I never ever said to Mr. Smith or to his Government that they must negotiate with the ANC. It was only after he himself had started the negotiations with the ANC and which failed as a result of the role which Muzorewa played that we came onto the scene and the only part we played at all times was to create the atmosphere to bring the parties together, to make it possible for them to find each other, to negotiate with each other. For that purpose numerous meetings of which the public do not know anything at all, which never appeared in the press, were held in Cape Town, Pretoria, Lusaka and Salisbury and everything that was done was done with the full knowledge, co-operation and consent of the Rhodesian Government. You might rightly ask me: Now if you fail as far as Rhodesia is concerned, docs that mean that your whole mission has in fact failed? Then I want to say to you in all earnestness that Rhodesia is but one aspect, but one facet of the whole problem. It does not mean of necessity that if you fail as far as Rhodesia is concerned, that the whole exercise has gone down the drain. Because what are the positive results, looking back after one year? We have achieved certain things. First of all we no longer shout at each other from a distance, we talk to each other around the table. And taking into account what has happened over decades I think, gentlemen, that that is progress in every sense of the word. But secondly we have built bridges, not only as far as the Rhodesian issue is concerned. We have built bridges between South Africa and many countries in Africa, and I stress the question of Africa, because it is clear to me that as far as the outside world is concerned we will never be able to sell ourselves to them unless we succeed in selling ourselves to Africa. There is no doubt about that, no matter how good our case, no matter what we do: as far as the outside world is concerned, they will judge us now and in the future according to how we get along with Africa and whether we normalise our relations with Africa. And I am pleased to say to you that, as far as many African countries are concerned, we have under the table nor­malised our relations and what is under the table today must of necessity be on the table tomorrow. We will normalise our relations with more African countries; we have opened certain avenues and lines of communication and I am not giving away secrets unnecessarily when I say to you, we have reached the stage where we can - and that we could never do in the past - where we can contact a number of African Governments in half an hour's time if it is necessary to do so. We have built bridges over which we have walked and can walk and should we ultimately not be successful in Rhodesia then some of those bridges will naturally be destroyed, but I say to you that many, if not most - and I certainly think most - of those bridges will remain. I have always said, and I want to say it here to you, that economic realities are forcing African leaders not only to have a second look at South Africa but to have a very honest look at themselves and their own future. They realise as well as we do, that the times we live in make it imperative that they must buy in the nearest and cheapest market and South Africa is that market.

And as I am standing before you this afternoon I want to say to you in all sincerity that I believe - and whether it happens in my time, whether it happens tomorrow or next year, makes no difference - the graph is on the up and that is all that counts as far as I am concerned. South Africa is the gateway to Africa and Africa can only and will only in the future be reached through South Africa. Not only do I believe that but I want to say to you in all sincerity that to a lesser or greater extent Africa also believes just that. They will never admit it in public, make no mistake about it, but they know that that is the position just as much as we know that that is the position and, therefore, apart from other considerations, economic realities will force African countries to come to an understanding with South Africa. The biggest hurdle we had to overcome was the fact that for years and years, and we are partly to blame for that, we called ourselves Europeans; everything we did was directed towards Europe. It is only lately that - and I feel very strongly about it -- that we went out from the standpoint that we are not of Europe but that we are of Africa, that we are part and parcel of Africa and that we have as much right as anybody else to be in Africa. We were looked upon as temporary sojourners; we were looked upon as Europeans who could be chased out of this part of the world back to the countries where we belong; we were looked upon as the last colonials. I can speak from practical experience: today it is accepted by the res­ponsible governments in Africa, that we have as much right to be in Africa as any other country and that being the case we have laid a solid foundation as far as the future is concerned. And we have made tremendous progress. Unfortunately time will not allow me to discuss that in detail but you must expect that the more progress we make, the fiercer will be the attacks by our enemies. I want to talk to you about this frankly. Who are our enemies? They are firstly the communists. We stand in their way because of the fact that we occupy this strategic position; we stand in their way because they badly want that which is to be found in the soil of South Africa. But gentlemen, our enemies are not only the communists, they are also the liberals all over the world and I frankly cannot do other than to make my point. Perhaps it is carrying coals to Newcastle, but I just want to make my point. There appeared in your Daily News of Thursday, September the 25th, one of the most readable articles that I have ever read about South Africa's situation, and that is by a representative of the Argus Group in New York, Ken Owen. He begins his article by saying: "South Africa has lately been coming under furious attack from American liberals in a fashion not seen since the escalation of the Vietnamese war in 1965." And he is perfectly right, it is so, and it is intensifying gentlemen, make no mistake about this. And he goes on to say further: "that South Africa is the most readily available cause for a liberal American with time on his hands and an unwillingness to examine the conditions of his own society." Powerful vested interests are at work. There are people who have made careers out of fighting apartheid from a distance. There are lawyers living entirely on foundation grants, academics whose reputation require a bloodbath in South Africa, churchmen who have made a profession of their indignation.

"To these vested interests, the prospect of a peaceful and evolutionary solution to the South African race problem represents a dire threat." How true; then he goes on to say: "Then there are elements in South African politics who have long nurtured alliances with overseas liberals, have fed them information and shaped their opinions. To them mitigation of foreign hostility represents a victory for the Nationalist Party." Unfortunately gentlemen that is so. You heard over the radio this morning that there was a resolution passed by a hundred to nil in the United Nations, that the United Nations will not recognise the Transkei when it becomes independent on 25 October of next year. It is still far away, but they pass the resolution now, well knowing that if the Transkei becomes independent then in fact -- whether you agree with the policy makes no difference, but that is the practical policy today of South Africa - South Africa has succeeded not only in theory as far as its homelands policy is concerned but it has also succeeded in practice to translate this policy into practice and, therefore, under all circumstances the Transkei must not become independent and everything possible must be done to upset it. Interestingly enough if you talk to these people, you find that one of the reasons why the Transkei should not become independent is because independence comes about peacefully; they say there must be something wrong, why do Transkeians not fight for it. Because they get it peacefully it is not good enough. But what, and this is where we all come in, do those people who do not want the Transkei and other countries to become independent, what do they in fact want? Nothing more, gentlemen, nothing less, than one man one vote for the whole of South Africa. Nothing more, nothing less than for South Africa to recognise and to say that as far as the Black peoples are concerned there is only one leader and that is Nelson Mandela who is serving time on Robben Island. 8 It was said to me, I know that only too well. It is said in South Africa and outside South Africa: It is not good enough. You are talking to the leaders of other African countries and you refuse to talk to the only leader of the Black people in South Africa, Nelson Mandela; in fact you keep him locked up.

The same thing has happened as far as South West Africa is concerned. Time was when they recognised only one man and that was Sam Nujoma as the only leader of South West Africa. 9 And as a matter of fact Sam Nujoma is neither an elected nor a natural leader of any other peoples of Ovamboland and SWAPO, his organisation, was born in Communistic sin and conceived in Communistic sin in Cape Town - not even in South West Africa. It was formed in 1957 in Cape Town by four White Communists. At first, interestingly enough, the name was OPO - The Ovamboland People's Union, later it was changed to the South West African People's Union. Despite the fact that SWAPO has a following of fewer than 5 000 people in the whole of South West Africa Sam Nujoma and his organisation is recognised by the United Nations as the only representative of South West Africa just as much as in the Black caucus and the Communist caucus in the United Nations, only one man is recognised as the true leader of South Africa and that is Nelson Mandela and the African Nationalist Congress of which he was the leader. In other words these people want to kill all efforts at achieving an understanding between the different population groups, because ultimately they want the system of one man one vote, they want a complete take-over of South Africa by Mandela and his crowd.

Therefore, you can understand how intimately it affects all of us, that we should succeed in normalising our relations with Africa and in coming to terms and an understanding with them, not only for our own sake but also for the sake of the Black peoples in our midst, also for the sake of the Coloured and the Indian peoples in our midst. I can candidly say to you that I have had more talks with Coloured, Indian and Black leaders than all my predecessors together. The times we live in make it imperative that that should be so. And I am pleased to say to you that, in spite of what is written in the press and in spite of what is said from time to time, we have over the years come to certain basic understandings which make me say to you today that as far as the future is concerned I have nothing but confidence that we will resolve -- and we are in fact doing it every day, every week -- our difficulties as between the various population groups in South Africa and will increasingly normalise our relations with Africa. I have no doubt that in the years to come we will succeed in achieving what we have set out to achieve. But in order to do that, and I must not keep you any longer, in order to do that, gentlemen, it is imperrative that as far as the outside world is concerned we must speak with one voice. When this argument comes from within South Africa, namely. "Yes, you talk to the leaders of other people but you do not talk to the real leaders of the people in South Africa", you can under­stand how difficult our position is made. You can understand how difficult our position is when it is said in newspapers and by people in South Africa that, as far as we are concerned, we are just a minority Government and that the minority speak on behalf of the majority of the people in South Africa.

I make no apologies for referring to the last thing and that is a leader in yesterday's Rand Daily Mail. You will recall that a film, -- The Last Grave at Dimbaza, was made: one of the most scurrilous films ever made about South Africa. With hundreds and hundreds of blatant untruths in it, that film was showed in America and our Ambassador was given time on TV to debate this with an American who was here once and who wrote a book about South Africa because he is supposed to be an authority now. 10 They debated this issue and you will recall from reports in the press that Mr. Botha created a tremendous impression and managed to destroy not only the film but also the arguments put for­ward by this American. One would have expected applause from every good South African for this extremely good work which was done by South Africa's Ambassador. What do we find instead? You find the first paragraph in the Rand Daily Mail yesterday: "What a shoddy deception that was on the American Television. Mr. Pik Botha, South Africa's Ambassador to the United Nations, mesmerising the uninitiated in the audience with facts that made better informed people's hair stand on end." Then follows a vicious attack on our Ambassador, Mr. Botha, for having spoken out on behalf of South Africa as he did. When it is said, gentlemen, by the American representative in UNO that the US deplores the detention of persons whose only act is the outspoken opposition to the system of apartheid, it is not taken up by the press and the people of South Africa because that, as I have said - in public - is a deliberate lie. People have been detained, people will be detained, I take full responsibility for that, but no man has ever been detained in South Africa simply for speaking out against the system of apartheid. That has never happened and it is a malicious lie to say that it has happened. But it is all part, all part, gentlemen, of the vicious campaign against South Africa and I for one do not expect those people who do not agree with me and my outlook in any way for one moment to white­wash me or my Government. Frankly in a lighter vein I can say that we can look after ourselves as it is at the moment. But we are all intimately concerned with South Africa and the trouble is that there are people, unfortunately, who cannot distinguish between the Government and South Africa. There are unfortunately people who think that if you say something good about South Africa it benefits the governing party.

This is what Ken Owen says and this is what I find in practice. The time has arrived, gentlemen, not to whitewash the Government or the ruling party, but the time has come for each and everyone of us and especially you, gentlemen of influence, to speak up on behalf of South Africa as you have never done before. Because, as far as the Government is concerned, we are there - whether you like us or not, that makes no difference -- we are there until 1979 and before that time, gentlemen, our future will be decided, because our future will be decided within the next two, three years. There is no doubt about that. Your future and my future is tied up with each other. Therefore this exercise of finding friends, creating ties and normalising relations and establishing trade relations goes a very long way towards creating a better understanding as between one nation and another. But the point I want to make is that in the next two or three years it behoves each and every one of us to speak up for South Africa as we have never done before. Not because we want to do this man or that party a favour, but because the highest interest of our country is at stake : the future of those of us who are growing old is at stake as well as the future of our children and our children's children.

There are people in the world outside fed by people from within South Africa who want to corrupt that future as far as they possibly can, but we should all stand together as South Africans and project this country as it is because I am perfectly prepared to hang for what I am: I refuse to hang for what I am not. Project South Africa to the outside world as it is and we can sell South Africa. I have experience of that: we can explain the position of South Africa to people of good­will, to unbiased people, to responsible people. I am glad to say to you that we have to a great extent succeeded in doing just that. And as far as I am concerned that is the one reason why I am in public life and why, as long as I have the strength, I will remain in public life to see whether I can see this through and whether in fact we can normalise our relations and come to an understanding.

I close by saying to you that I am not one of those people who keep harping on the same string that it is quarter to twelve; I am saying to you it is not quarter to twelve. It is the early dawn and I certainly be­lieve that this country has a great future, here in South Africa and to be of service to and to lead Africa. America, land-wise and population-wise more or less 5%, 6 % of the world, is responsible for nearly 50 % of the world's production. South Africa projected against Africa gives you the same figure: 5% to 6% land-wise and population-wise and res­ponsible for 50% of Africa's production. We have the potential, I believe we have the will, I believe we are called upon to do just that. I believe we will succeed.

---

1 See To the Point, 24.10.1975; Die Transvaler, 15.10.1975.

2 Senate Debates, 23.10.1974, col. 3428-38.

3 See The Pretoria News, 28.10.1974; Evening Post, 28.10.1974.

4 On the 15th September 1970 Mr. Vorster made an offer in the House of Assembly to form a non-aggression pact with any black state in Africa. See Assembly Debates, Part XXX, 31 August- 2 October 1970, col. 4207.

5 On the 21st September, 1974, Mr. Vorster and his party paid a visit to the Ivory Coast as the guests of President Felix Houphouet-Boigny. See To the Point, 19.9.1975, p. 7 and S. C. Nolutshungu, South Africa in Africa: A Study of Ideology and Foreign Policy, Man­chester, 1975, p. 274.

6 The talks on the Victoria Falls Bridge were the highlight of detente in Southern Africa in 1975. See Rand Daily Mail, 20.8.1975.

7 Mr. Vorster was accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Hilgard Muller.

8 Nelson Mandela was a prominent leader of the ANC and one of the ringleaders in Umkhonto We Siwe. See L. Strydom, Rivonia Unmasked, Johannesburg, 1965, p. 38; South African Observer, July 1964.

9 See To the Point, 17.9.1976, p. 55; Pretoria News, 7.9.1976.

10 Mr. Vorster is referring to Mr. Anthony Lewis of the New York Times. See Die Oosterlig, 28.10.1975; Rand Daily Mail, 27.10.1975.

BACK TO INDEX PAGE