Adv. Vorster once referred to this speech as his "political confession". 1 It was in his second year as Prime Minister that Adv. Vorster made this now well-known Heilbron speech. As a result of disturbances in South African politics the Prime Minister found it necessary on this occasion to state his policy as Leader of the National Party clearly and categorically. The Premier dealt with a wide range of subjects that were of great topical interest at this time. There were among other things the Ecumenical Synod; interference from abroad in the Republic's domestic affairs; the student riots in the Republic; diplomatic relations, inter alia with Malawi; participation in the Olympic Games; the Coloured population of the Republic, and so on. In the ranks of especially the National Party this powerful and purposeful speech evoked great confidence and gave clear direction.
It is imperative for a leader of a political party to know exactly where he stands with his followers, but it is even more important for the followers to know where they stand with their leader. Whereas I heard from Adv. Froneman, 2 from Minister Van Rensburg, 3 where I stand with the Nationalists of Heilbron, the Nationalists of the Free State, it is my pleasant privilege to tell you here frankly where you stand with me and which way I want to go!
Now it is my pleasant privilege this afternoon to address a few words to you. The first thing I want to tell you is that in the two years that I have held this position it has become very clear to me that if the National Party suffers a setback, South Africa will be harmed irrevocably, and that must not happen under any circumstances. Furthermore, I want to tell you that the National Party has governed South Africa for the past twenty years and those of you who are older - the younger ones will from the nature of the case not understand - but just think back a little to what South Africa was twenty years ago and what it is today. Just consider for a moment how South Africa would have fared if the United Party had still been in power!
And do you know I want to agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Basic van Rensburg, politics is not such a difficult game. This always strikes me in Parliament when Sir De Villiers Graaff gets up to speak for he makes politics out to be such a terribly complicated thing. It worried me to such an extent that I once said to him: Oh, my friend, politics is not as complicated as you make it out to be; even you, if you applied yourself to it, would be able to participate in it with some success!
Politics really is not very complicated, but what is necessary in politics not only in South Africa, but in the world, is that people should have the courage of their convictions to speak frankly; should have the courage of their convictions to do the things that have to be done; should have the courage of their convictions to say certain things, however unpopular they may be.
Mr. Chairman, in my time I have not hesitated, nor will I hesitate today, to say things which might for the moment not be popular; never in my public career have I sought popularity. I want to tell you - no policy which any political leader may announce, no matter how popular he may be at that time, however much applause he may enjoy at that moment, can endure if that policy does not comply with the requirements of Christianity and morality; and I want you to judge the policy of the National Party today against the requirements of Christianity and morality. I notice that our policy has again come up for discussion at the Ecumenical Synod in the Netherlands 4 and I learnt to my disappointment that members of the Christian Institute in South Africa are also hampering South Africa's task even in that sphere; not only hampering South Africa's task, but that the Christians of South Africa are being placed under suspicion. 5 I am sorry that people indulge in this kind of thing; I find it a pity that people who once served as ministers of our Church and in some cases still do, indulge in this practice, for I want to tell you that the policy of separate development can be tested by any unprejudiced person against the requirements of Christianity and morality, and it will be found to meet all those requirements.
I also want to say that there simply is no other policy which can be applied in a country such as South Africa. I also want to go further and I want Mr. Japie Basson 6 in particular to pay attention to this - I am sorry I have to mention his name here now - but I want him in particular to note that for conditions such as those in South Africa there is no other policy than the policy of separate development, for if you do not have that policy you will have chaos and ultimately bring about the downfall of all population groups here in South Africa. South Africa's problems are unique and South Africa has chosen its solution. I do not want to say at all today that South Africa's solution is the solution for other people, because we believe every man is man enough to find his own solution to his own problems.
I also stated it very clearly to my guest 7 of the past few days, that we, the Whites, the Coloureds, the Asians and the Bantu, will work out our own solutions here in South Africa. We do not need the help or advice of anyone outside South Africa to do so. Therefore I do not at all want to make the statement that our solution should necessarily also be the solution for other people and other countries; but I am indeed prepared to say to you today - a time will come, and that time is rapidly approaching, when people will not only come to South Africa to enjoy its sunshine and scenery; but a time will come when people will come to South Africa specially to determine how it is possible for people of various languages, various colours, various backgrounds, differing points of view and convictions, to live together in one geographical area in peace and quiet as is the case in South Africa. That is our task, that is our calling, but there are people who are not satisfied with the peace and order in South Africa, and you saw what happened in France recently. A stable, mighty power suffered milliards and milliards of damage through a handful of student agitators who forced a great country like France almost to its knees. 8 Previously we in South Africa had problems with Communists and their hangers-on - Mr. Van Rensburg referred to what happened to them.
There are people who, surprisingly enough, still have not learnt their lessons, and there is something going on in South Africa at the moment about which I want to speak very clearly and slowly so that there can be no misunderstanding about it.
In the past I sounded a warning to the parents of children at certain universities who belong to the movement knows as NUSAS. They did not heed my warnings. I also warned the rectors of those universities - they too made light of my warnings. You know what the consequences were, you know what immeasurable sorrow was caused to parents through their children eventually landing in prison; you also know that I released many of them, because I took no pleasure in the thought of young children spending years in the prisons of South Africa. I hoped it would not be necessary for me to speak again, but NUSAS did not listen and in the meanwhile a new movement has come to the fore at certain universities, under the cloak of religion, known as the UCM. 9 I am starting to watch those movements again and when I have finished watching them it will not be my fault if action is taken. But now, during the past few days at Cape Town University and at the University of the Witwatersrand - I do not know whether it has spread to other universities yet - there have been certain agitations and they are allegedly called "sit-ins". I just want to state very clearly that I believe in the autonomy of universities, I believe that there should be as little interference as possible in that autonomy - I have much respect for the autonomy of the universities for I myself am the proud Chancellor 10 of one of our universities - and I grew up in that tradition. Therefore I want to state very clearly that I have great respect for the traditional autonomy of the university, but there is a limit which may not be exceeded and I want to take this opportunity this afternoon to say to the authorities, the various councils and others who are in control of those universities: I will give you a reasonable chance to find your own solutions to these troubles at Cape Town University and Witwatersrand University, since you are autonomous universities. But if you do not do so within a reasonable time, I shall do so myself and I shall do so very thoroughly; I think it would be well if not only the authorities at those universities but also the parents of those students took note of what I said here this afternoon.
I myself was a student - there are many of you who have children at university. From the nature of the case one makes many concessions to students, as one should do, and I who come into contact daily with the youth of South Africa have great appreciation for their actions. I have great appreciation for the fact that I know they will be able to bear the responsibilities of the future; I have appreciation for the fact that they are far better equipped than you and I were when we were their age to perform this task for South Africa, but there is a handful of people in South Africa who now want to bring those troubles which took place in Europe and America to South Africa in order to disturb the peace so as to make trouble here in South Africa - and I want to state very clearly that this will under no circumstances be tolerated by the Government and by myself.
I want to say furthermore: under difficult circumstances - you are all aware of it - I took over the reins almost two years ago, and to the best of my ability, according to the Light given me by the Almighty, I have tried to lead the way; I have done things, made pronouncements as Leader of the National Party and I want to tell you here this afternoon: I am thoroughly convinced, when I look at South Africa in the economic sphere, the cultural sphere, the military sphere, the security sphere - when I look at all those spheres in which the State must play a role - then I want to tell you: I know of no better way to govern South Africa under these circumstances than the way it was done in the past.
I want to account to you today for what has been done in those spheres and now I want to say at once that a prime minister is of course in the fortunate position that he has an alarming amount of advice and guidance at his disposal! You would be surprised at just how much advice I get. The other day, when there were certain people in Lusaka who wanted to visit Windhoek, and I did not feel like letting them see Windhoek - I received a letter from a man giving me advice on the matter, and he wrote the following: "Sir, I consider myself qualified to give you advice, for I myself have the intellect of a great leader - I just lack the nerve!" Now I want to tell you at once that in the present times, nerve is perhaps more important than anything else.
Every prime minister - and the honourable Mayor also referred to it over lunch this afternoon and I am grateful to him - every prime minister in any country, not only in South Africa, has his own specific problems and in most cases, if not in all, his problems differ from those of his predecessor. Adv. Strijdom's problems were totally different from those of the late Dr. Malan. Dr. Verwoerd's problems were quite different from those of Mr. Strijdom. My problems are quite different from those of Dr. Verwoerd. Every prime minister indeed has his own specific problems to deal with. He has his own specific approach to those problems, for he is the man responsible for solving those problems; all that he has in common with his predecessors is that all four of them were members of the same party and the same party principles applied to all four.
But let me tell you, and I notice it has become fashionable to make comparisons, let me tell you very clearly now: The methods which may have applied in Dr. Malan's time or in Adv. Strijdom's time, can no longer apply in 1968, because circumstances have changed radically since that time and it is a foolish prime minister who does not keep pace with changed circumstances; and I have to advance the National Party's policy; I have to implement the principles of the National Party with due regard for the changed circumstances of today.
Let me give you a few examples:
There is the question of diplomatic relations with Malawi. 11 Let me say at once: I accept full responsibility for the diplomatic relations entered into with Malawi. But what was the position? It is very easy to say it could not have happened in Dr. Malan's time or in Adv. Strijdom's time. Of course it could not have happened, for in their time there were no independent Black states in Africa! There were only Ethiopia and Liberia, and I ask you, who would have wanted relations with them?
We must bear in mind that the first African states started gaining their independence in 1958 when Dr. Verwoerd assumed office, but it is a fact that in his time Adv. Strijdom foresaw it, because he saw the way things were going and said that that time would come - and that time did come! 12 Now I want to say very clearly today that under the old National Party of Gen. Hertzog and Dr. Malan we had diplomatic relations with coloured states, i.e. with India. We had diplomatic relations with a coloured state in Africa - Egypt - until 1961 when they broke off diplomatic ties with us. But all I want to say very clearly today is that such ties have existed before. I do not want to hide behind them, I want to say it is just plain good sense to enter into good relations with all countries in the world; 13 on one condition - that there is no interference in one's domestic affairs; that one is not prescribed to and on the condition I stated very clearly at Oudtshoorn after I assumed office - on condition they take me as I am because I am not prepared to change or yield.
But these super-Afrikaners, 14 and I shall say more about those that condemn it this afternoon - they do not even know their history. In respect of Malawi, Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Rhodesia, even Zambia - we have had diplomatic relations for years; because we had them with the British who were then in charge in those countries; the British were nominally in charge, they no longer are. I also told my honoured guest and I want to say the same to you today - I said it at the Free State Congress, a few years ago - those of you who were there will remember it-I said we would have far better relations with the neighbouring Black states once the British had finally moved out, and it is so; but I say that in the days the British were in charge there, we had diplomatic relations with those people. We held many conferences with them and we should hold conferences with them and I want to state very clearly to you here this afternoon - we shall have to hold conferences with Southern Africa's Black states to an increasing extent since it is necessary and since it is good sense to do so. In the past it was necessary to hold conferences with the British officials on foot-and-mouth disease for the sake of protecting our farmers' cattle. Now the British are no longer there. Should I now say I refuse to hold conferences with the Black officials of Botswana, that foot-and-mouth disease can take its course, because I do not confer with a Black man? For years we held conferences on locusts with the British who were in charge there at the time. It is essential that the locusts be eradicated there. Should I now say I do not confer with a Black man, so let the locusts come and eat me up here? Surely it would be the height of folly on my part to want to do that. Therefore I want to tell you that these changed circumstances have meant that not only should we enter into the right relations with those people but as good neighbours we should from time to time confer with them. Sometimes we shall confer in their country and sometimes we shall confer here, but the fact that we hold conferences and the fact that we have diplomatic relations does not detract in any way from our policy of separate development and what is more it will never change our policy of separate development.
I stated South Africa's point of view very clearly to the Committee that was here to investigate whether South Africa should be permitted to participate in the Olympic Games. 15 I know there are people who expressed criticism about it, but what are the facts? Before the Olympiad in Tokyo, Black athletes were never mentioned, there was never any question of Black and Coloured athletes in the past for the simple reason that there were none, but we made them - you and I - because in terms of the policy of separate development we established the facilities for the Blacks and Coloureds to become athletes and they have now become athletes in terms of the policy we made - for which you are as responsible as I am.
But we have a type of person in South Africa - Mr. Van Rensburg also referred to this - who applauded us when we broke things down and you know how we had to do this. We had to demolish the entire old structure, because it was a United Party creation, and it goes without saying that we were loudly applauded while we broke it down, because one always earns more applause for doing so, but surely that is not why the National Party came along. Surely that is not the way in which the National Party governed South Africa in the past. We did not only break down. We also built up, and we did build. I cannot emphasise it strongly enough this afternoon that it is our Christian duty to do so and because it is part of our make-up, and we instituted the policy of separate development, not because we considered ourselves better than others, not because we considered ourselves richer or more educated than others. We instituted the policy of separate development because we said we were different from others. We prize that otherness and are not prepared to relinquish it. That is the policy of separate development. We have our land and we and we alone will have authority over it. We have our Parliament and in that Parliament we and we alone will be represented; that is why this past session it was my pleasant privilege to round off the work started by my predecessors: to abolish Coloured representation in Parliament; and it has been abolished once and for all. 16
But I did not merely abolish, because that is not what the National Party does. It is the easiest thing in the world to simply abolish - a baboon could do it, but one should also put something in its place. That is why the National Party - and I am just mentioning this as one example; I could give you many - did not simply abolish Coloured representation in the White Parliament, but we could tell the world with a clear conscience: For the first time the National Party has given political rights to the Coloureds in the Republic of South Africa - not just to the few who obtained them from the old British regime at the Cape because they wanted to use them against the Boers. For the first time we have given the Coloureds in the Republic a Coloured Persons Representative Council in their own political area - now I am not speaking of land area - where all Coloureds - not just the few who sat with the Whites - can exercise their political rights in their own way and by their own people. That is morality, that is policy, that is standpoint.
There is not just a negative side to the matter; there is also a positive side, but let me return to the subject of sport. I say we made those people because they - the coloured peoples of South Africa - did not have the facilities; but since the National Party came along in 1948 it has created those facilities for them and those facilities have yielded results - the Coloured and Bantu athletes have come to the fore. But that does nothing to the policy of separate development; it does not undermine the policy of separate development, because the Whites practise their sport separately, the Coloureds practise theirs separately, the Bantu practise theirs separately and so it will always be in South Africa as long as the National Party is in power.
But the Olympic Games are not just for Whites; they were instituted for all nations, languages and colours - we have known this since the first day we participated and already then the question arose, not in my time but back in Dr. Verwoerd's time: Must these coloured athletes, if they comply with the standards, participate: yes or no? And the decision was made in principle in Dr. Verwoerd's time and I accept full responsibility for that decision and I shall tell you why: All the world's Bantu, Black people - all the world's people of colour - can participate in the Olympiad. Should I prevent my own from participating along with the other Black people and other coloured people of the world? Have I a single moral right to do so, and I tell you no! Should it be only the American Negro who has a chance to win at the Olympiad? Or should I also give my own Black countryman a chance to do so if he can also run fast?
I want to repeat, it has nothing to do with deviating from the policy, it has nothing to do with detracting from the policy of separate development; on the contrary, it is the logical outcome of the policy of the National Party, because how often did you not hear Dr. Malan, Adv. Strijdom, Dr. Verwoerd and myself say that the policy of separate development does not only benefit the Whites, but also benefits the non-Whites, because in terms of that policy we created facilities for them which never existed under the old policy. We said you may not attend my university, but we did not leave it at that. We said we shall give you a university of your own. We said you may not attend my school but we said we shall give you a school of your own. That is morality, that is Christianity that has consistently been the policy of the National Party and that is how I shall apply that policy. I want you to understand me very clearly. And we entered into diplomatic relations with a Black state just as in the past we entered into diplomatic relations with coloured states. There are diplomatic representatives of the Chinese and the Japanese, and there will increasingly - as South Africa gains acceptance and as her interests dictate - be further diplomatic relations entered into with coloured states here in Africa and elsewhere as often as it is in the interests of the inhabitants - of the citizens of South Africa itself. That is the only test, and the entering into of those relations has nothing whatever to do with abandoning the policy of separate development.
I also want to say very clearly that there is no such thing as a first class or a second class diplomat. I also want to say at once that incidents might arise. That would not be the first time it happened. It happens in Europe, in America, throughout the world. From the nature of the case there will be incidents, but diplomacy is there specifically to prevent incidents. Then an ass came to me the other day and said: "Now, what would happen if America or Britain decided to send a Black representative to South Africa, would we have to take him?" You see, people do not only speak out of malice, they also speak out of ignorance. Before I can send a representative to any country, it is customary for me to ask the permission of that country. I have to say that I wish to send Mr. A. Here is his life history. This is what he looks like. This is his background. Are you prepared to accept him? And then that country says yes or no, and if it is no he simply does not go, or if I say no he simply does not come. I merely have to refer you to Dr. Malan's time when the Netherlands government refused to accept the late Dr. Otto du PIessis. 17 You remember that, not so? It has also happened at other times, but you see it is these clever people who speak not only out of ignorance but also out of malice.
I want to state today as Leader of the National Party: For two years I have exercised the greatest patience. Some of my friends and some of our people have started becoming impatient with me. I am no longer prepared to be patient with these malicious people.
I remain convinced that the way in which South Africa is being governed at present is the only way in which to safeguard our future, for let me tell you - and you took note of what my colleague, Dr. Muller, said last night as well as my colleague, Minister P. W. Botha, and what I have said on other occasions. I do not want to repeat it today. An extremely difficult time lies ahead and although it will be a difficult time, I steadfastly believe that we shall come through it. I have never doubted that. I believe that because truly, the older I become, the more I see the Hand of the Almighty in our being here, and not only our being here, but in our continued existence in South Africa. Of that I am convinced!
But I want to say that the survival not only of the Afrikaner, but of all the peoples of South Africa depends on our actions in the next few years. And I want to say to all of you sitting here today: We need every White for the struggle ahead. And now there are unfortunately some people among us - and this is a brand new phenomenon that has come to the fore lately; suddenly one of these prophets got up one morning and discovered that Afrikaans was in danger and the Afrikaner would not survive in his Fatherland, and now you are being told the story by some of them and I am going to mention a few of them. Now you get this story from that type of person and it just depends how much publicity he is after. If it is a little publicity he says he thinks our downfall is imminent. If he is after more publicity, he says the process has already started. And if he is after a great deal of publicity he says we have already fallen! That is the kind of person we are up against lately. But for us sitting here today, and there probably are not many English-speaking people at this meeting today, and what I say here today I am saying specifically because there are mainly Afrikaners like myself at this meeting.
If Afrikaans and Africanderdom went to ruin it would be an irrevocable catastrophe for South Africa. And it must not happen under any circumstances, for who has up to now preserved Afrikaans and Africanderdom? Not these people who hold symposia and talk big. The National Party brought Afrikaans and Africanderdom into being. That is good and right, and it is every man's duty to warn and guard against the downfall of his language and more specifically the downfall of Afrikaans and Africanderdom. But I want to say that Afrikaans is spoken in circles in which it was never spoken before. Today there is respect for Afrikaans from people who never had respect for it before. We should not complain that Afrikaans is going to ruin. We should take pride and rejoice that Afrikaans is progressing with rapid strides in South Africa! That is the approach each one of us should have. But if you listen to Terblanche and others, you have to conclude that this nation is doomed and my patience has run out with that kind of person. This bickering must end. This bickering which has been dealt with at one congress after another, about immigrants coming to South Africa. People suddenly seem to have discovered that in terms of the immigration scheme we shall go to ruin. And then they have even worked it out to the date when we shall supposedly go to ruin.
I want to state that the immigration scheme in progress started in the time of Dr. Malan and Adv. Strijdom. It was continued by Dr. Verwoerd and by me, and why did we do it? We did it because it is absolutely essential; because we are a young, developing country and do not have enough resources to do everything that has to be done in South Africa.
But you have that assurance and I want to give it to you again today. There will be no immigration scheme which will prejudice the survival of Afrikaans or the Afrikaner or materially change the composition of this people. Everyone knows this. The person who does not want to accept it as such is either ignorant or malicious!
One of the reasons why you are still meeting here at Heilbron as you are today is that South Africa is economically sound. If we were not economically sound we would no longer have been here today. And I want to tell you they made very fine calculations. I saw those calculations. They calculated how many people they needed to defeat us by force of arms. They came to the conclusion that they could do so in two ways. They could bring about our downfall with boycotts and sanctions. They made calculations and found that the economy of South Africa was too strong to succumb to boycotts!
And let me say that this Government was not caught napping. We expected those movements against South Africa, therefore we took certain precautions so that South Africa could counter and survive such a boycott-sanction onslaught. It cost us millions. You paid for it and paid dearly, but I want to tell you that it was the best assurance you have ever paid. Had they not known that South Africa was economically sound, we would not have been here today and I want to tell you we did not have enough Whites to do it. We had to get in skilled Whites from other countries to help us and I want to say that instead of condemning the immigration plan, thank the Lord there were people - White people - who were prepared to come and help South Africa in its hour of need to fight this battle!
And I feel so strongly about this matter that from this public platform I want to apologise to all the immigrants who came forward to help South Africa in its hour of need, for the insult that was hurled at them and I do so in the full realisation of my responsibility as the Leader of the National Party. I appreciate the fact that these people came forward. I appreciate the spirit in which they did so. I appreciate the help they gave us.
I repeat, not I, nor you, nor any one of us may be indifferent towards our language, or Africanderdom, but just as we must not be indifferent towards Afrikaans and Africanderdom, so too we must not be indifferent about the downfall of the White man. Let me tell you, if the White man here in South Africa goes to ruin, the Afrikaner will likewise go to ruin. The sooner we realise that, the better it will be for each one of us.
And then there are the new people seeking applause! These people and you would be surprised at the type of people with whom I come into contact. One of those people came to me and said: "The policy of separate development must be wrong, for the non-Whites accept it and if they accept it cannot be right!" Then another one came along and said: "The policy of the National Party must be wrong, for the English-speaking people accept it now and if they accept it must be wrong." That for which my predecessors and each one of you prayed and struggled, namely that the policy of separate development should be accepted by each of our population groups. That for which we worked, namely that there should be unity between Afrikaans and English-speaking people as far as love for and loyalty to South Africa are concerned. And I want to say to you today, the arrival of the Republic did something for all of us. The arrival of the Republic drew Afrikaans and English-speaking people closer together. The arrival of the Republic brought unity, notwithstanding the fact that we have two languages in South Africa and always will have. I see there is a young upstart intent on popularity over in Vereeniging who says we should have only one official language, namely Afrikaans. 18 What a fine thing! No doubt he earned applause, but where does that get one? Surely that is not fair.
I want to state very clearly: There are people who argue today that we have now become big and strong and no longer need the English-speaking people.
I want to tell you that as long as I am Leader of the National Party, I shall not cheat the English-speaking people who endorse the principles of the National Party, who love South Africa and are loyal to it. And if there are people who think it is sound politics to do so, I reject the idea with contempt. And if there are people who expect me to do it, then I refuse to do it and it will not be done by the National Party.
I want to say it now for the last time here today: We are coming across a type of person lately who would like to upset relations and who comes along and says: "Yes, this co-operation in the political sphere - that is the undoing of the Afrikaner." Has this not been the standpoint throughout the years and is it not the standpoint I advocated from morning till night, that my co-operation with the English-speaking Nationalist does not require me to give up my Afrikaner identity. I co-operate with him for the very reason that I am an Afrikaner and he co-operates with me because I am an Afrikaner. Just as little as I expect him to give up his identity, does he expect me to give up mine. We can work together with the retention of our identity, each with his own language, his own customs, his traditions, but a common love and loyalty binding us to one fatherland, South Africa!
I am specifically saying this here to an Afrikaans-speaking audience today. Let me tell the English-speaking people of South Africa - it is not this or that man who speaks for the National Party. It is only the leaders of the National Party who state the National Party's standpoint. It is not this or that writer, or this or that speaker who defines the policy of the National Party. The policy of the Nation. Party is being stated very clearly today by me as the Supreme Leader' that Party, and that policy is as follows: Not the policy of the old Unite, Party. I regret having to refer to someone who has passed away, but you know what the policy of the United Party was in the days when the late Mr. Wolfie Swart was the leader. He said on one occasion, and I still have the cutting: "I want my children to be neither English nor Afrikaans." Now what kind of being is that? If you are "neither English nor Afrikaans", you are nothing, and if you are nothing, you are a United Party man! That is not the kind of South Africa we want to build. We want to build a South Africa which on the one hand consists of the Afrikaner nation, the Afrikaners who are proud of their language, their customs and their traditions; and on the other hand there are the English-speaking people who love South Africa just as much, who endorse the policy of the National Party, who are standing shoulder to shoulder with our sons at Sibasa and on the terrorist front in Rhodesia and elsewhere. Those who would give South Africa their love and loyalty and, if need be, their lives. With those Afrikaners and those English-speaking people we must and shall build a nation in South Africa!
And this is no new message I am proclaiming. You who were at Bloemfontein at the time of the centenary celebrations, saw that our theme for the celebrations was we are building a nation! And we are building a nation out of those people who have different languages but a common love and loyalty, and I want to say very clearly today: My old colleague and personal friend, Mr. Alf Trollip," former minister, is much closer to me than is Jan Steytler, 20 with whom I grew up and who is the Leader of the Progressive Party.
I want to tell you in the first place it is not the language question that is at issue today, however important it may be, and I dare not underestimate its importance, but what is at issue is one's loyalty, one's view of the future of South Africa. In the first instance it is not a question of what language a man speaks - Jan Steytler speaks Afrikaans as I do, Marais Steyn sometimes speaks Afrikaans as I do -that is at issue, but one's view of the future. The point at issue is one's faith in the policy of separate development, one's faith in the survival of the White man here in South Africa - that is what is at issue and from the ranks of the people who believe thus - Afrikaans and English-speaking people alike - a nation will be built!
At present there is some quibble about the words "nation" and "people". I grew up to speak of the Afrikaner as the Afrikaner people - my people - our people - that is how I grew up. Today I still prefer - others might prefer other words - speaking of us as Afrikaners, as the Afrikaner people, but I believe it is not just the Afrikaner people who will live here, it is also the South African nation that has to come into being and there is no dispute about the concept of Afrikaner people on the one hand and South African nation on the other.
I said that a leader should know where his followers stand, but it is very important for the followers to know where they stand with the leader. I have told you how I see matters. If I am wrong, you must get yourselves another leader. If I am right, I expect the loyal support of every follower and I am aware that what hinders the building of the South Africa nation is a bunch of jingoes on the one hand - we still have them in South Africa, there are still some of them - and on the other hand we now suddenly have a group of super-Afrikaners - by the name of Du Preez, Van der Merwe, Terblanche and so on. And then there are some who are at present sitting on the fence! There are a group of people sitting on the fence at present and they have been there for a long time. I think the dime has arrived for them to make a choice. More than that I do not want to say, except this:
A time will come when I shall make it possible for them to make a choice.
I have said, and with that I want to conclude - every leader has his own problems, every leader has to deal with his own times. I say in all modesty that my problems are greater than those of my predecessors. I am not as well-equipped as my predecessors were, which makes my problem even more difficult, but I want to say that our biggest problem is this: to keep Southern Africa free of communism. You heard what Minister Botha said, you know what happened in Zanzibar and Tanzania, you know all about the infiltration that will take place now that Britain has withdrawn south of Suez and east of Suez. 21 You are aware of that problem confronting us and it is my task, in association with my colleagues, with the other members of the Government, the Senators and the Provincial Councillors you elected, to safeguard South Africa. May God give us the grace and strength to do so.
I in the first place have to bear the responsibility for that. I can bear that responsibility only if I can keep Southern Africa free of communism.
That I have to ensure, and I will use my influence and obtain the cooperation of other Southern African states, be they white or black, so that we may collectively keep communism out of Southern Africa. For that reason my predecessor, the late Dr. Verwoerd, started holding talks with black leaders. I want to tell you that the time will come when I shall have many talks with black leaders in Africa, so as to save Southern Africa from communism.
And that I will do and must do, for then I shall be serving South Africa's interests, then I can foresee the survival of the White man, and let me say immediately that I know, I know exactly how in the process I shall be slandered and denigrated by certain guardians of the national interests. I know this, but I did not take this task upon myself. You elected me as your leader and as long as I am in that position I shall, according to my lights, by the grace of God, with the courage of my convictions, do what is necessary in order that Africanderdom and the White man in South Africa may survive, because and with that I conclude, it is my conviction - and that conviction grows daily - that it is the National Party and only the National Party that can save South Africa from that which threatens it and from that awaiting it.
PV 132, INCH. Opening Address by the Hon. the Prime Minister on the occasion of the Cdfipis of the National Party of the O.F.S. in Bloemfontein, 77 September ig68, p. 13.
Adv. G. F. van L. Froneman was MPC for the Frankfort constituency (1943-1953); MP for the Frankfort/Heilbron constituency (1953-1970); Deputy Minister of Justice, of Mines and Planning (1968-1970) and Administrator of the OFS (1970-1974).
Mr. M. C. G. J. van Rensburg was MFC for the Bloemfontein South constituency 1953); MP for the Bloemfontein Central constituency (later Bloemfontein East); leader of the National Party in the OFS (1968-1970); Deputy Minister of Transport (1966-1968) and Minister of Posts and Telegraphs (1968-1970).
The meeting of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod was held from 12 to 13 August in Amsterdam. Cf. Die Burger, 24.7.1968. The delegates to the conference in Amsterdam were Dr. J. S. Gericke, Moderator of the General and the Cape Synod of the D.R, Church; Dr. J. D. Vorster, Actuary of the General and Cape Synod; Prof. F. J. M. Potgieter of the Stellenbosch Seminary and the Rev. P. E. S. Smith, Genera' Secretary.
The Star, 14.5.1968, reported Mr. Beyers Naude, Director of the Christian Institute, as follows: "We must start by convincing the White priests and members of the various African churches of the injustice inflicted upon the Non-Whites. If they are convinced, we must publicly protest as one big church". Cf. also Die Burger, 17.7.1968 and The Cape Times, 13.8.1968.
Mr. J. D. du P. Basson is the MP (UP) for the Bezuidenhout constituency.
Adv. Vorster is referring here to Lord Walston, chairman of the British Institute for Race Relations. Lord Walston was at this time also the Labour Party's chief spokesman on Africa in the House of Lords.
In France at this time it was the same groups of agitators who were behind the student unrest in Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States. Their modus operandi is allegedly not violent but rather what they term "permanent debate". Their technique is to provoke the government into using violence against them. Cf. Die Vaderland, 22.5.1968.
UCM is the abbreviation for University Christian Movement. The Star, 17.8.1968, reports in this regard: "Dr. Francis Wilson, a senior lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Cape Town, said today there was nothing about the UGM 'which remotely justifies the investigation being talked about'." Prof. Albert Geyser described the UCM as an "epoch-making" development. Cf. The Star, 3.6.1968.
Adv. Vorster succeeded Dr. T. E. Donges in 1968 as Chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch.
In December 1967 President Banda announced in the Malawian Parliament that Mr. P. A. Richardson, former Malawian Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had been appointed Malawi's representative in the Republic. Cf. Gail-Maryse Cockram, Vorster Policy, p. 140.
In the House of Assembly on a May 1957 Adv. Strijdom said the following in this connection: "... there will have to be contact between us (and independent African states) as governments, and ... in the course of time there will have to be ordinary relation and even diplomatic relations." Cf. Assembly Debates, Part XCIV, 18 March- 10 March, 1957 col. 5220.
In this regard see Die Burger, 2.2.1967. Leading article: "Our role in Africa has become more than a theoretical desire: it is already a movement with increasing momentum and purpose. It is our answer to the danger of isolation and siege that others have predicted and prepared for us." Cf. also Dr. P. S. van der Merwe's House of Assembly motion in respect of co-operation in Africa - Assembly Debates, Part XIX, 20 January - 10 March, 1967, cols. 412-18.
The Prime Minister is referring here to the Herstigte Nasionale Party which accused of deviating from the policy of the National Party as laid down by his predecessors.
A three-man deputation from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) under the chairmanship of Lord Killanin visited South Africa on a fact-finding mission. They met the Prime Minister in Pretoria on 12 September 1967. The other members of the Committee were Sir Ade Ademola and Mr. Reg Alexander. Cf. Die Burger, 14.9.1967 and The Friend, 6.9.1967.
Adv. Vorster took the initiative as Prime Minister to abolish Coloured representation entirely in the House of Assembly, with a view to the new political rights and opportunities being offered them in their own Coloured Council. On 28 February 1968 announced that the Coloured representatives in the House of Assembly would be abolished upon the establishment of the Coloured Persons Representatives Council. This gave all Coloureds throughout the Republic political rights in the sense that they obtained the opportunity to elect part of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. The other part of the Council is nominated.
As editor of Die Oosterlig Dr. Du Plessis allowed pro-German articles to appeal newspaper during the Second World War. As a result of these articles the Netherlands branded him a Nazi, so he was unacceptable to them as Ambassador. Dr. Du Plessis the first editor of Die Oosterlig in Port Elizabeth. He subsequently became editor of Die Volksblad in BIoemfontein. In November 1948 he was appointed Director of State Information. He held this position until 1953 when he was nominated as the National Party's candidate for Stellenbosch. In 1958 he succeeded the late Mr. P. J. Olivier as Administrator of the Cape. Dr. Du Plessis died suddenly on 28 April 1960 while visiting Oudtshoorn.
A reference to Mr. J . Raubenheimer, an attorney at Vereeniging, who in an interview with Mr. J. H. P. Serfontein of the Sunday Times said inter alia: "We should do exactly what the English are doing, namely use only our own language. Why should it automatically be assumed that English should be spoken whenever an Afrikaner addresses an English professional or business man." Cf. Sunday Times, 4.2.1968.
In the general election in 1948 Mr. Trollip opposed Adv. Vorster in Brakpan. He beat Adv. Vorster by two votes. Later on both of them served as ministers in the same cabinet, first under the premiership of Dr. Verwoerd, until Adv. Vorster succeeded Dr. Verwoerd as Prime Minister. Mr. Trollip was appointed Administrator of Natal in 1958 and in 1961 he became Minister of Labour in Dr. Verwoerd's Cabinet. He subsequently moved to the Department of Immigration and Indian Affairs, which he administered until his retirement in 1968.
Dr. J. van A. Steytler was MP for the Queenstown constituency (1953-1961). In 1959 he resigned from the United Party and, together with 10 other members of the UP in the House of Assembly, founded the Progressive Party of South Africa. He was also the first leader of the Progressive Party.
Mr. P. W. Botha, Minister of Defence, said in Pretoria on 1 April 1968: "With the withdrawal of Britain cast of the Suez and the consequent vacuum caused in the Middle East, and the stocking of arsenals in some African states by Russia and China, the dangers threatening South Africa today are greater than ever before." Cf. Die Burger, 2.4.1968. Cf. also in this regard for various viewpoints. The Cape Times, 16.1.1968; Cape Argus, 25.10.1967; The Star, 25.1.1968; Die Vaderland, 2.1.1968.