A fact that has emerged most clearly from the general debate Is man's fear of war —that is, a war which will involve the world in a thermo-nuclear holocaust from which no one on this earth, not even succeeding generations, will escape.
2. A number of speakers have made it clear that mankind cannot continue to live, with any sense of tranquillity, under this ever-present dread of impending disaster.
3. Speakers have, almost without exception, acclaimed the test ban treaty as a possible breakthrough, however limited, in at least one aspect of the nuclear threat. Some have welcomed the direct means of communication and contact between the leaders of the two major nuclear Powers. In both these developments they endeavour to see some glimmer of hope of a less dangerous, and therefore a more fruitful, form of international life.
4. This debate has therefore brought into clear relief how Governments and peoples are, as it were, clutching at every straw —and I do not use this word disparagingly— which may enable mankind to escape from the nightmare of complete destruction, which may lead to the conditions of international life that we would desire to hand down to those who come after us,
5. This fear must be heeded, and those directly responsible must now press on to the next logical steps in the field of disarmament —steps which would ensure, among other things, an effective system of inspection and control. The necessity of this was stressed by our Foreign Minister when he announced, on 17 September, that the Republic of South Africa had decided to accede to the test ban treaty.
6. But even if this fear should be removed, even if the fear of the employment of nuclear weapons and of pollution through tests, terrifying as that is, should be averted, mankind will still not have peace —that is, peace in the full sense of the word.
7. When it was announced that South Africa had decided to accede to the test ban treaty, my Government made this clear by indicating that there were also other threats to world peace, to co-operation and to the prosperity of mankind. In this connexion, mention was made of the continuation of ideological conflicts, with attempts by States to dominate and indoctrinate the minds of men, as well as intervention by States, in the prosecution of their ideological campaigns, in the domestic affairs of others under the guise of morality or service to humanity. These are everyday and ever-present threats which must be removed if we are to have real peace —a peace which would ensure the conditions of life for which mankind is so sincerely and deeply yearning.
8. And can it be claimed that everything that has been said from this rostrum during this debate has been designed to promote this kind of peace, that this kind of peace has really been promoted by all the previous speakers?
9. True enough, some speakers have made important contributions to this end. Many of them have put forward constructive ideas for promoting international co-operation in matters of common concern. And we have heard statements, some on controversial and delicate matters, which have been couched in language clearly designed to create and maintain a high and conciliatory tone, a tone which has been applauded as a happy augury for this Assembly. Yet it cannot be claimed that this debate has succeeded in bringing us back on to the road of real peace and harmony, the road which those who drafted the Charter at San Francisco had in mind.
10. The South African delegation has listened to all the previous speakers in this debate. We have listened with particular attention to the remarks of those who have, in the past, consistently shown hostility towards us. We have done so in the hope that we might detect an indication, however small, of some measure of goodwill, of a better understanding of our country's position and of the unique and delicate problems with which we have to deal, as well as of the principles according to which we are tackling those problems. We had hoped that, despite the attitude which had hitherto been adopted by some delegations, we should at least find less virulence in the feelings of those who have for so long sought to harm us and even to deny us our rights not only as a State Member of this Organization but also as a member of the community of nations.
11. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. We have heard from these speakers the same attacks, some more unbridled than ever before; we have experienced the same invasion of our sovereignty; and we have listened to the same distortions and unfounded allegations concerning our affairs. In fact, the majority of previous speakers has found it necessary to refer, in one way or another, to our affairs —and many of them in very critical terms.
12. To all these speeches we have listened without any form of protest. The South African delegation did not come to New York in order to engage other delegations in a dialectic contest. In our view such an approach to international intercourse is a sterile one. It will get us nowhere, and can only harm all concerned, including the overriding objective of peaceful coexistence. However, no one can, or will, expect me as the representative of South Africa to remain silent on these attacks and allegations to which I have referred —and I do not intend to do so. We have often said in the past, and I repeat today, that national pride is not the prerogative of any one nation, or of any single group of nations. To this I would add that truth and justice are not expendable attributes of morality or fruitful international intercourse.
13. If we are to have world peace, and if the nations of the world are to live in harmonious circumstances which would enable each one of them to devote its full attention and apply all its resources and energy to the solution of its own peculiar problems, then we shall have to put into practice those concepts that are fundamental to the rules of propriety and justice which must govern the affairs of the international community.
14. It is true, of course, that many of the incorrect statements concerning South Africa's affairs were based, not on hostility, but on real misconceptions and misinterpretations of the facts. The reason for this may well be that the impact upon the speakers concerned of the often vicious propaganda against us has created an image which others could not but view with disapproval. Now so far as those representatives are concerned I would only ask them to take a fresh look at the South African scene, and to do so with a greater measure of objectivity and a more open mind.
15. On two previous occasions full facts concerning our policies to which others take exception were given from this rostrum by the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs. He gave these facts voluntarily —not because it was incumbent upon him to account to the United Nations for the manner in which we conduct our internal affairs, but because he sincerely believed that an explanation of our position would be conducive to a better understanding by at least those who have been our traditional friends. Unhappily these full and clear statements have apparently lost their impact, or their impact has been engulfed in the emotionalism engendered in this Organization by those who would seek to deprive us of our heritage.
16. Where I refer to representatives whose Governments bear us no ill will and who would sincerely welcome a solution of our difficult problems, let me assure them that we do not deny them, or anyone else, the right to hold views differing from ours with regard to any matter of whatever nature. We also have our views as to what is taking place in the internal lives of other nations. But I submit that before they come to any final conclusion it would be better, and certainly fairer, to ensure that they are in possession of all the facts. I would also ask them once again, when they give expression to their views, always to consider whether they can properly do so in this forum in the light of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. They might also ponder the question whether what they say does not add fuel to the fire which already threatens to destroy the United Nations.
17. It is at this stage that I am obliged to refer to a matter which has been given some publicity and which I cannot therefore ignore. I refer to an invitation extended by my Government to the Foreign Ministers of the Nordic countries. The reason for the invitation was that some of those countries with which we have had long contact have in recent years shown a growing hostility to South Africa, a hostility strangely at variance with the attitude of many of their prominent citizens who know South Africa well and who are in a favourable position to judge our affairs.
18. According to our information, these Foreign Ministers were to meet and would discuss their countries' attitude toward South Africa, among other things. Our Government therefore decided that it should offer them the opportunity of, first of all, acquainting themselves with what was really taking place in South Africa, and an invitation was issued to each one of them to visit the Republic. They were invited as a group and at a time convenient to them, with every facility to go where they pleased and to meet whomsoever they wished. The invitation was extended to a recognized regional group of States which traditionally co-operate in international affairs, and for which South Africa is an important and expanding market, with notable potentiality for the future. The invitation had nothing to do with the United Nations.
19. In the course of this debate the Assembly has been informed of their refusal of the offer. To us it is a matter of regret that these Governments, although now apparently seeking to give a lead to the international community regarding its relations with South Africa, should have rejected an invitation which would have enabled them fully to inform themselves on the problems at issue, prior to any attempt on their part to formulate conclusions as to how these problems may best be resolved.
20. I need comment no further on this matter.
21. There are of course also the representatives of Governments who consistently seek to discredit us, and who are not prepared to view our affairs with any measure of justice, let alone any measure of goodwill. It is chiefly due to their remarks that I, as the representative of South Africa, am obliged once again to deal with certain aspects of our domestic life in order to ensure that the relevant facts are at least placed on the record. In doing so I shall endeavour to give only such information as is necessary, and I will, therefore, deal only with the most glaring cases of misrepresentation.
22. What are the main charges against my country- charges which have been made despite every effort on our part in the past to demonstrate the false assumptions upon which criticism of our affairs is based? I believe that I can summarize them in one single sentence, as follows: it is alleged that the South African people of European origin are temporary settlers with no right to a permanent homeland of their own in Africa; that we have taken the country which we claim to be our homeland from others and that our Government is therefore a "foreign" government; that we seek to maintain our position by coercion and perpetual repression and that our policy, which has been described as one of inherent racial hatred and superiority, is founded on a denial of the right of self-determination —all of which constitutes a threat to the peace of the world.
23. This is not so. And I shall endeavour to demonstrate the validity of my denial.
24. Our main problem, the one which overshadows the whole of the South African scene and which must therefore be given the highest priority in our domestic policies, is the relationship between the South African nation of European descent and the Bantu nations who live under the sovereignty of the South African Government. This is the problem which we must, first of all, dispose of before we can give our entire attention to such residual problems as may still be left, which affect other but smaller population groups. This does not mean that these problems, which I have termed "residual problems", do not receive attention. They do. Indeed they receive our constant attention, but we will be able to deal with them much more effectively after we have dealt with the position of the great numbers of Bantu who constitute several distinct and separate nations.
25. Let me, however, first of all say this. In order to achieve a proper understanding of the whole position it is necessary to recognize the fundamental fact that Africa is not the exclusive preserve of any one race, whatever the general image abroad may be. Africa has over the millenia of recorded history been the home of many widely differing nations. There is thus no single African race —just as little as there is a single Asian race or a single American race, etc. This is a fact of history which must always be borne in mind.
26. Returning to our main problem —that is, the position in South Africa of the South African nation of European origin and the different Bantu nations— I would also like to begin by placing this problem in its correct historical perspective.
27. The European population established itself on the southern tip of Africa more than three centuries ago, without in any way settling on land occupied by others. As for the Bantu peoples, they were migrating southward down the coast of East Africa; and it was nearly 150 years after the first white settlement that these two main groups met.
28. When this happened, border clashes of course took place periodically —and that was mainly during the first half of the nineteenth century; yet despite this, the Xhosa nation of today, for instance, is largely resident in the same area as it had occupied at the end of the eighteenth century when it first came into contact with the European settlement. Similarly in the North of the country there was very little displacement of other Bantu peoples. On the contrary, there has taken place in the twentieth century what has always been accepted as a temporary overspill of Bantu into areas which had already been settled by Europeans. There is therefore no foundation whatsoever for the allegation so frequently made that the Europeans deprived the Bantu in South Africa of land which was traditionally theirs. In fact, for many years the South African Government has augmented the traditional Bantu homelands, which have been kept intact, by adding to them land which the Government had to purchase from Whites.
29. It is against this background and in this perspective that our problem, and what we are doing with regard to it, must be viewed.
30. The fact which emerges —one which I cannot overstress, as it is fundamental in our position on the African continent— is that the South Africans of European origin have been forged into a single and a distinctive nation. It is no longer a European nation although it is closely linked with Western culture and civilization. It is a nation of Africa, with its roots and traditions deeply embedded in the soil of that continent. These roots cannot be destroyed; and the white South Africans claim for themselves all the inalienable rights of an autonomous and a separate nation. They further claim the right to live and to survive as a nation with its own distinctive identity —a fundamental right which, as will all other nations who wish to survive, they will defend by every means at their disposal.
31. It is true, of course, that today this nation of European stock has an over-all responsibility for promoting the welfare and progress of all those who live under the sovereignty of its Government. This has been the process of history. But it is essential that I reiterate what has been stated so often: in claiming for ourselves a distinctive destiny of our own, we do not deny to the emerging Bantu nations their right to achieve distinctive destinies of their own —each in his own homeland with its own culture, heritage, language and concept of nationhood. This is fundamental in our approach to the problem; and the Bantu are beginning, more and more, to accept the fact that the South African Government respects and will always endeavour to promote these rights of theirs, not only as moral rights but also as rights which we hold to be inalienably theirs.
32. In South Africa, natural differences —that is, the inherent different attributes and identities, and not the superiority or the inferiority of any one of these nations— which exist between the various national communities in the Republic have proved to us, over a period of centuries, that there can be no real and permanent solution in the circumstances which obtained in the past, A permanent solution can, therefore, only be found if each one of the nations concerned is afforded the opportunity of achieving full nationhood within its own traditional homeland with full political equality and not as a subservient people.
33. In this connexion, we of European origin are fortified in the pursuit of our aims by the lesson of history that the domination of one nation over another cannot afford a permanent solution.
34. These facts, as I have stated, have been proclaimed on many previous occasions. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs has clearly stated them from this rostrum, and I repeat them today.
35. But will you permit me in this connexion to quote from statements of our Prime Minister in which he outlined the fundamentals of South African policy. As far back as 1960, he stated as follows: "The essential condition [to a stable and prosperous country] is that racial domination will have to be removed. As long as domination of one race over another exists, there will be resistance and unrest. Consequently the solution should be sought by means of a policy which is calculated to eliminate domination in every form and in every respect. "In March 1961 he said: "We do not only seek and fight for a solution which will mean our survival as a white race, but we also seek a solution which will ensure survival and full Development —political and economic— to each of the other racial groups, and we are even prepared to pay a high price out of our earnings to ensure their future. The moral, as well as the political, problem is to find a way out of this extremely difficult and complicated situation, caused by the fact that no longer is the Bantu incapable or undesirous of participation in the control of his destiny. Nor are we any longer prepared to refuse the fulfilment of such ambitions in a form that is fair to everybody." The Prime Minister went on to say: "We want each of our population groups to control and to govern themselves as is the case with other nations. Then they can co-operate as in a commonwealth —in an economic association with the Republic and with each other ... South Africa will proceed in all honesty and fairness to secure peace, prosperity and justice for all, by means of political independence coupled with economic interdependence." In another statement the Prime Minister said this: "I envisage development along lines similar to that of the Commonwealth. In other words, I perceive the development of a Commonwealth of South Africa, in which the white State and the black States can cooperate together, without being joined in a federation, and therefore without being under a central government, but co-operating as separate and independent States. In such an association no State will lord it over any other. They will live rather as good neighbours. "
36. Prom what I have said and quoted it will therefore be clear that it has all along been our Government's objective to achieve the political independence of the various Bantu nations within their own homelands, and thus to eliminate domination in every form and in every respect, as well as to enable the Bantu homelands to develop into separate Bantu States.
37. I have quoted our Prime Minister's words on the aim of achieving an association based on the pattern of a commonwealth of nations, neither one subordinate in any way to another. This would, we are confident, forge a link which would establish permanent contact, as good neighbours, and co-operation with each other with regard to the many matters of common concern. In this connexion I shall again use his words. He said: "... seeing that we want to develop those areas for them" —that is, the Bantu— "can you not understand that we shall bring discrimination to an end by coming together and consulting at a high level on the basis of equality, of human dignity, through the establishment, for example, of a Commonwealth Conference of our own? "
38. Here we now have my Government's policy in so far as the charge of perpetual domination is concerned, and the manner in which we are marching towards a future which holds out hope of survival, of complete political independence, and of realistic contacts and co-operation. Here we also have the essence of orderly and planned self-determination, each in his own homeland.
39. As regards the concept of economic interdependence, it will be realized that it is necessary to bear in mind that that concept already finds full expression in our present relations. Moreover, as experience in other parts of the world has tended to show, political Independence without an economy which ensures a reasonable measure of economic viability often leads to great hardship as far as the masses are concerned. Our policy takes this into account and accepts the fact that these Bantu States, as they emerge, will still for a long time to come require considerable economic assistance-assistance which we are prepared to give. What my Government therefore has in mind, as a prototype, is something along the lines of the economic co-operation provided for in the European Common Market, This affords a pattern in which there can be no question of political domination but in which it is sought to strengthen the economy of each partner in a manner which is neither derogatory to its sovereignty nor a basis for economic imperialism. To this, many of the delegates, representing Governments who are members of the Common Market, will, I think, be prepared to testify.
40. In passing, may I refer here to the charge that our Government is adopting a policy of imperialism towards the territories of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland. This charge is clearly based on a completely incorrect interpretation of what was actually said by our Prime Minister. This is not the occasion or the place to deal with this matter, but in order to demonstrate the incorrectness of the accusations made by certain speakers from this rostrum, I shall read only one paragraph —the relevant one— of a statement made by our Prime Minister on 5 September. That paragraph is as follows: "I repeated very definitely that 'incorporation' was not sought, since this was against my Government's policy of separate development, which has as its objective the political independence of the Bantu nations. The reasons for this offer to inform the inhabitants of these territories ourselves were also clearly stated." I believe that these words will serve to dispose of this particular accusation or impression.
41. It has often been stated that, however realistic and moral our policy may sound when it is described in the terms which I have employed, the question still remains as to whether we are in earnest in our endeavours to achieve the objectives which we proclaim. We have long since realized that, having regard to the image which has been created outside the confines of our own country —an image which I have already sought to summarize when I dealt with the various allegations from this rostrum— in the final analysis we will have to rely on practical achievements and produce concrete results in order to convince the world of our bona fides as well as of the realism and practicability of what we have set out to achieve.
42. Fortunately we have now advanced so far that our achievements are already becoming visible. Within a few weeks from today nearly a million Bantu will go to the polls to elect their own representatives to the Parliament of the Transkei, a Bantu country which is now becoming self-governing. This is the proof of our good faith, of the realism of our policy and of the speed at which we have moved.
43. While large parts of South Africa are arid, the Transkei is situated in the heavier rainfall belt and in one of the most fertile regions of the country; it is nearly 17,000 square miles in area, and the people who will exercise their full political rights as citizens of that country, namely, the Xhosa nation which comprises some 3 million people, constitute almost one third of our total Bantu population. The Transkei is the traditional and the inalienable homeland of the Xhosa nation. It is now a new emergent State, with its own flag, its own national anthem and its own citizenship, and it will, after the elections, enter upon the final and most important phase of its constitutional development towards full independence.
44. Moreover, this month the entire civil service for the new Transkei Government is being transferred to the Xhosa people, and members of the South African civil service, seconded to the new service, will work there under the direction of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet of the Transkei. In this connexion, it may interest the Assembly to know that some 80 per cent of the civil service establishment will be occupied by trained Bantu personnel at the time of the transfer of the administration of the Transkei.
45. Of particular importance is the fact that the Constitution of the Transkei was drawn up by the leaders of the Xhosa nation themselves and thereafter approved by a plenary session of their own Transkei regional government, before ratification by the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. This Constitution is a blend of Western democratic concepts and the traditional Xhosa form of government, which in essence is also democratic. There is therefore no foundation for the charge that it is incompatible with true democracy. Furthermore, those who criticize the fact that a certain measure of authority is being withheld from the Xhosa nation by the reservation of certain governmental functions, which the South African Government will continue to exercise and administer, ignore the evolutionary nature of self-government, where the retention of certain powers by the sovereign legislature is normally regarded as a necessary, if temporary, transitional arrangement in the training of any people for the exercise of full and complete sovereign independence.
46. This evolution of self-government in the Transkei will provide a prototype for the development of self-government in other Bantu homelands in South Africa, but since the patterns in South Africa are so diverse the arrangements may not be identical and they will have to be adapted to the needs and the aspirations of each of the other emerging Bantu nations. Nevertheless, for every Bantu nation the issue of ultimate self-determination as set our by me remains a fully accepted objective of governmental policy.
47. Here, as I have stated, is real proof of what we are trying to do, and I leave it to all representatives of goodwill to judge whether our policy is inevitably doomed to failure, or whether the Government of my country should not be given an opportunity to proceed along these lines which, as must be evident, could well be the solution of a unique problem requiring a unique approach.
48. At this stage I would like to add that the suggestion that South African policy derives from, or is inspired by, racial hatred is one that does not bear even a superficial examination. The allegation emanates largely from those who are influenced by passions which may be familiar to them in their own environment but who know nothing about the South African scene. It derives also from the campaign conducted against us, in many cases by subversive forces whose activities inside South Africa we are obliged to combat by appropriate means, as is done in all other countries. No serious critic with full knowledge of the South African situation, however honest his criticisms may be in other respects, can legitimately subscribe to the thesis that the concept of separate development is founded on hatred of the Bantu. On the contrary, every South African concerned with policy-making understands only too well that friendship and mutual respect provide the only sound basis on which to build a healthy relationship between the white and the Bantu nations.
49. Equally wrong is the charge that the white South African nation is endeavouring to entrench its position because of fear. Let me assure this Assembly that fear is not an element in the motivation of our policies. Our Government is confident that it will ultimately succeed in the task it has set itself. Had it not been for this absolute confidence, based as it is on our own knowledge of our own affairs, we could not have withstood for so long the incredible onslaught on us both in and outside this Organization.
50. Now I come to the most serious allegation with which I feel I must deal, one with which we are of course familiar, namely, that the manner in which the South African Government is endeavouring to solve its admittedly complex and delicate problems constitutes a threat to world peace.
51. This allegation is mischievous; in fact it is mischievous in the extreme, for not only is it entirely unfounded, but it is deliberately designed to clothe this Organization with an authority which is not conferred upon it by its Charter. Those responsible for this allegation know full well that the United Nations cannot concern itself with matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of Member States —a principle not only enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, but one which is often repeated at other conferences, such as the most recent one at Addis Ababa. The representatives concerned therefore seek to promote the view that in the case of South Africa certain aspects of its domestic affairs threaten the peace of the world, that is the peace among nations.
52. I have been obliged to call this charge a mischievous one. In fact it is also a dangerous one. It is dangerous because, should this "escape route" find favour and support in the United Nations, then it requires but little imagination to realize where that route is going to lead the Organization and the world. As I have already indicated in a previous intervention, many of the Governments represented here are violently opposed to the doctrines according to which other Governments deal with their domestic affairs. I do not think it is necessary for me to quote examples to demonstrate this fact.
53. If what I have said is true —and I believe that there are few who will dispute this contention of mine— then surely it must be realized that if the fact that the manner in which South Africa deals with its own domestic problems is not to the liking of others can be invoked to substantiate a charge that we are threatening the peace of the world, then a similar charge could be brought against a number of other nations represented at this Assembly —and perhaps with greater justification. It is for this reason that I have said that the charge is not only mischievous but also dangerous. We reject it absolutely— and I believe that the principles of our policies, as I have explained them today, will have demonstrated the hollowness of this charge.
54. It is with satisfaction that my Government has noted that the hollowness of this charge is openly recognized also by a number of foreign spokesmen, spokesmen representing countries with a long tradition in international affairs and who can speak with authority on this matter,
55. But what is particularly strange about this charge is that it has come mainly from representatives of Governments that are continuously threatening South Africa with violence. Some of them have openly advocated aggression against our country —aggression, which is the greatest of all international crimes, and therefore in direct and absolute conflict with the Charter. Representatives need only refer to the various statements made and the resolutions adopted recently at Addis Ababa. And when those statements and resolutions are read, they should be read not only in conjunction with the Charter, but also with resolution 380 (V) adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of this Organization on 17 November 1950.
56. I shall read only the last preambular and the first operative paragraphs of this resolution, entitled "Peace through deeds". These parts read as follows: "The General Assembly, "… "Condemning the intervention of a State in the internal affairs of another State for the purpose of changing its legally established government by the threat or use of force,"1. Solemnly reaffirms that, whatever the weapons used, any aggression, whether committed openly, or by fomenting civil strife in the interest of a foreign Power, or otherwise, is the gravest of all crimes against peace and security throughout the world".
57. No, it ill becomes the representatives concerned to make the charge that it is South Africa whose actions constitute a threat to the peace. The aggressive intent is clearly directed against my country, a fact which Members of the General Assembly and the Security Council must certainly recognize. And I must reiterate here that our will and determination to defend and safeguard, by every means at our disposal, that which is ours is absolute.
58. However, it is not conflict we desire but peace- peace in order to proceed with our great task, a task which requires all our resources, all our energy and all our time.
59. Moreover, we want to live in peace and co-operate with all other countries, including those that are with us in Africa. In our relations with these African countries, co-operation in all matters of common concern was always a fundamental aim in South African policy. That this is so we have already demonstrated in a tangible way. They, however, have seen fit to deny us the opportunity of continuing the co-operation which proved so fruitful in the past.
60. This co-operation has covered a wide range of technical problems, and assistance has been rendered on a considerable scale; for example, by the world-famous veterinary laboratory at Onderstepoort, the South African Institute for Medical Research, the Bureau of Standards, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, and many other technical institutes. Millions of doses of vaccines have been dispatched to various African countries, and there has been a regular exchange of visits between technical experts. In the period 1960-1962 South African experts made forty visits to eleven different African States and territories, and in the same period experts from fifteen African States paid more than sixty visits to South Africa. Even now, South Africa contributes by way of financial aid and expert advice to combat, for instance, the breeding of red locusts in the swamps of Tanganyika and Kenya.
61. Although much of this technical collaboration has recently been rejected by the other African States, it is possible that as time passes, and as they achieve a clearer perception of our true aims, both in our own country and in our contacts beyond our frontiers, wiser counsel will prevail and co-operation in all fields of common concern may be resumed. For we are confident that, given the proper opportunity and atmosphere, we shall be able to make a material contribution in the pursuit of the orderly and peaceful development of Africa. In the meantime we continue to be prepared to render such assistance as we can in the circumstances prevailing in each case, when we are directly approached by the Government concerned.
62. I should like to conclude my statement by saying that I have not endeavoured to give a full picture of every aspect of our racial policies. Nor have I dealt with the considerable improvement in the well-being of the Bantu in South Africa. That was done, as I pointed out previously, on two occasions by our Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have given only such information as could serve to show up the hollowness of the charges against us —and this is what I set out to do.
63. I sincerely hope that, if criticism of our affairs is to continue in this forum, it will at least be expressed with greater moderation and in less hostile terms. Let us also at least receive credit for what we have achieved, under the most difficult circumstances —difficult not only because of the complexity of the problem but also because of the continuous misrepresentation and uncalled-for condemnation to which we have been subjected for so long.
64. We of course regard any discussion of our domestic affairs as improper, as contrary to the explicit terms of the United Nations Charter and also as contrary to the essential prerequisites for international harmony and co-operation. If, however, representatives allow themselves to be persuaded because of self-interest, or for any other reason, to invade our sovereignty, then let extravagant language be eschewed. Harsh words affect existing friendships and render potential friendships more difficult, in the complex and dangerous world in which we live, ft is becoming increasingly important that all nations should seek to concentrate on the issues which unite rather than accentuate the differences which divide.