1. Mr. President, my delegation joins with others in conveying to you its good wishes for a successful and fruitful term in office, and in extending to the delegations of the three new Members our good wishes for the continued progress and prosperity of their respective countries.
2. Never in the development of international intercourse has there been a stage which has demanded such restraint and patience, so much effort and perseverance in the struggle for the control of man's passions and ambitions as today. We are living in a world in which international relations have, in many respects, become infinitely more complicated and often more delicate than ever before, and when we consider the course of recent events with, in particular, the addition to the ranks of the atomic Powers, the growing disregard for the rule of law, the military infiltrations across peaceful frontiers, we cannot but be conscious of the terrible dangers which are jeopardizing orderly and fruitful dealings among States — causing the hope of lasting peace to recede even further into the background of our expectations.
3. Let us but consider the impact of recent developments on the functioning of the United Nations and on the manner in which we have sought to deal with each other in this world Organization. It is my submission that in doing this we shall find that the differences between nations, or between groups of nations, have more often than not been aggravated rather than settled or even improved.
4. A careful study of our debates will show how often emotion hag been the cause of estrangement, and even hostility, instead of goodwill and co-operation; and, what is even more serious, this estrangement and hostility have often been engendered in the service of ambitions which can in no way be reconciled with the objectives which those at San Francisco had in mind. Moreover, the manner in which these ambitions have been pursued and exploited has led, not only to a disregard of explicit provisions of the Charter, but also to unconstitutional and even vindictive practices — practices which can usually be pursued with lesser inhibitions against a smaller and weaker nation.
5. It is for these reasons that the changes which have taken place in international intercourse, and their consequences in this Organization, require unremitting vigilance, for, if permitted to continue, they are bound to gain momentum, and the United Nations will stray even further from the safe course which was charted for it in 1945, until international comity ceases altogether to be safeguarded by the law of nations and the sanctity of international instruments.
6. It is here that we should recall that the community of nations whose representatives assembled at San Francisco, imbued as they were with all men's desire for peace in the fullest sense of that word, set out to achieve one principal purpose: to create conditions in which a realistic and secure form of coexistence could be ensured, a form of coexistence firmly founded upon the rule of law, which is the essential prerequisite of harmonious and fruitful co-operation. This desire to preserve peace is as authentic and as universal now as it was in 1945, and continues to be the very raison d'6tre of the United Nations.
7. In this regard we must ever bear in mind that the Charter was essentially a compromise between the views of different nations with different national identities, cultures, institutions and forms of government. The Charter, as finally accepted, was infact the highest common denominator among the various nations in their search for a formula to achieve a common purpose. Its provisions were accepted as such by the Governments concerned, and its overriding objective of safeguarding the peace by the creation of this Organization to implement the Charter principles was acclaimed by men and women of goodwill throughout the world.
8. The Charter, in particular, embodied certain provisions designed to safeguard the sovereignty of all Member States, guarantees without which few countries, if any, would ever have been prepared to ratify the Charter. Certain major Powers, having the capacity to protect themselves against any incursion into their sovereignty, were favoured with the right of veto. Others, the vast majority, who did not possess that measure of power and had thus to rely on the rule of law, were obliged and content to place their confidence in the guarantee, contained in Article 2, paragraph, that they would be safe against such incursions. These are the facts of history, facts which cannot be changed by any form of power politics, persistent abuse or rationalization.
9. In the course of the present debate we have listened with great interest to suggestions by representatives as to how the Charter should be adapted in order to meet the special requirements of the present time.
10. It is, of course, fitting that we should constantly face the fact that the world Organization must be able to fulfil its functions in the world as it is today. We must constantly explore what steps should be taken to enable the Organization, within the proper scope of its constitutional competence, more effectively to fulfil its primary objective of ensuring international peace and security, and to deal with the basic and legitimate needs of present-day international life.
11. Indeed, the Charter, as originally drafted and accepted, recognized the need for adaptation and growth and provided, in particular, for its own amendment to meet the essential requirements of a changing world. Of primary importance, however, is the fact that the manner in which the Charter could, and can, be amended was clearly defined and remains an explicit provision in the constitution of this Organization. Any amendment which, in the view of the Member States, is dictated by changed circumstances, can be effected constitutionally, as is the case with the proposed enlargement of the Security Council and of the Economic and Social Council. Any other means of attempted amendment, as well as any tendency to give the Charter meanings other than those which its authors originally had in mind, must necessarily be ultra vires and consequently null and void. The growing practice of amending the Charter by a process of interpretation, in order to achieve aims not initially provided for, must always remain legally unacceptable and will have to be avoided if the United Nations is to remain a legitimate instrument in international affairs and contribute to the peaceful coexistence of all nations and the happiness and prosperity of mankind.
12. Now, as all are aware, no attempted revision of the Charter has, as yet, come into force. It is, therefore, the Charter exactly as it stands which must be observed by the Organization in dealing with any problem which falls within the limits of its competence.
13. As long as this is the case, we have no alternative but to continue to perform our functions within the clearly defined framework of the existing Charter, whatever imperfections some of us believe it to have. If we fail to do so, our actions in the United Nations must be without legal sanction, and international law will cease to govern the relations between States.
14. It is my submission that the Charter has seldom been permitted to operate properly and its true worth has never yet been fairly tested. It is not to the Charter, as it is, which we should ascribe certain difficulties, but rather to the manner in which its provisions have so often been set aside and circumvented.
15. South African representatives have stated that before from this rostrum—for it is from experience that we can speak. How often have we had to protest against the ever-growing practice of violatirig the principles of the Charter, and how often have we been denied the protection it purports to guarantee to every Member State? I shall not again traverse the ground we have covered so often before — but I do say this: it has now become an open question how long it will be possible for other Member States successfully to invoke Article 2, paragraph 7, in cases where they find themselves opposed by a majority.
16. I might conclude my remarks on this point by one further observation. It has become a platitude to say that the world is steadily shrinking and that the nations in many parts of the world now live on each other's doorstep. Nevertheless, it is true; and equally true is the fact that, because of this, the area of friction between nations, especially those with entirely different traditions and ways of life, has increased correspondingly. This, and the danger of such friction leading to conflict, can be ignored only at our peril and, therefore, if ever there was a time when the sovereignty of nations required to be respected and interference in each other's affairs avoided, that time is now.
17. Permit me at this juncture to emphasize again that those who drafted the Charter of the United Nations not only presupposed and entrenched the sovereign equality of all Member States, but also accepted, as a fact of international life, that this Organization would be composed of nations with different cultures, traditions and forms of government. In so far as these differences were natural differences, they had perforce to be recognized, for they cannot be eradicated, however much certain Member States may — when it does not affect their own identities — wish to do so. Ethnic differences have, throughout recorded history, usually led to separate national identities and ways of life, which, in turn, have found expression in the constitution of different nations with independent statehoods.
18. Indeed, the emphasis on the right of each people to attain independent nationhood is perhaps one of the most significant phenomena in the development of international relations at the present time. The various peoples of the world, conscious of their nationhood and fired by their own legitimate national aspirations, have, in most cases, achieved their independence, and the subservience of one nation to another is something which is rapidly disappearing from international life. This development, despite the upheavals, the dislocation, the many hardships and other difficult and sometimes even hazardous consequences, is an inevitable outcome of man's age-old and constant struggle to achieve a destiny of his own.
19. It is against this immediate background of what is fundamental in our Charter — the recognition of basic differences in culture, tradition and forms of government, coupled with emphasis on the right of each people to attain nationhood — that I deem it necessary to refer to certain aspects of our national life. In doing so, I must, however, repeat what we have constantly stated, namely, that my Government does not regard itself accountable to the United Nations for the manner in which it governs our country. If I feel obliged to speak about our domestic affairs, it is simply in order to place before all those who are prepared to listen objectively, the facts of our position as they really are, and not as some believe them to be.
20. I do so also because I do not wish to take up the time of the Assembly by exercising separately the right of reply to the various charges which have been launched against South Africa in the course of this debate.
21. Here I find that the main objection to the policy of my Government is that it is alleged or believed to be one of perpetual domination by one section of the population over the others. I want to state most categorically that this charge is completely unfounded and unjustified.
22. Let me say first of all that those who belong to the South African nation, of European descent, hold no brief for the domination of any nation over another. On the contrary, we are strongly opposed to it, with an opposition which is rooted in our traditions and history. For a large section of this nation was itself, for a long time in the past, subjected to foreign domination.
23. Moreover, and this I must of course emphasize as strongly as I can, we are not settlers or foreigners on the continent of Africa, as we are so often stated to be by those who would deny to us our inheritance in our fatherland. We are no more settlers or foreigners in Africa than the millions of people of European or Asian or African descent who today live in the new world are foreigners there, although their ancestors, like ours, came centuries ago from other parts of the world. No, we South Africans of European descent are a nation in our own right, just like all the nations in the new world.
24. In addition to this, we live and are rooted in a land which we took from no other people. That land is our only home; we know no other. We are also part of Africa. We have been part of Africa for more than 300 years. And, like any other nation, we too are entitled to insist upon our right of self-determination. We claim it as an inalienable right which we shall never surrender. It is a right in defence of which we, like others, on more than one occasion, have taken up arms.
25. We are, however, not the only nation within the borders of South Africa, living in a traditional territory of its own. For South Africa is, in fact and in the first place, a multinational country rather than merely a multiracial country. Apart from the South African nation of European descent, it includes the homelands of a number of other nations having their own separate identities, each with its own undeniable right to separate nationhood in a land which has always likewise been its own. Here I refer to the various Bantu, nations, differing from one another in language, culture, traditions and in everything else that determines national identities, rights and aspirations — differing as do other nations of the world, of whatever race, colour or creed, on whatever continent they may be found. Because of what has happened in the course of history, all these nations are at present still under the sovereignty of the South African Parliament, but progressively they are developing towards self-government and ultimate independent statehood.
26. May I in this, context emphasize that our problem in South Africa is different from the so-called racial problems of certain other countries with multiracial populations. In those countries a multiracial structure is not accompanied, as with us, by a multinational character. There may be problems of interracial adjustment, but these are questions of adjustments within the ambit of a single nationhood. The crucial difference is this: our task in South Africa is not primarily that of solving a problem of races; it is a problem of nations, a problem of bringing about a situation where peaceful coexistence of the various nations living in our country will be possible. We believe that this can only be achieved by the independent development of each people towards the full realization of its separate nationhood and the recognition of the light of each nation to govern itself in accordance with its own national traditions and aspirations. This is a principle fundamental in our policy of separate development, a policy which is profoundly different from the caricature of apartheid which is commonly presented by our critics, some of whom wish to promote chaos in South Africa rather than stability, intolerance rather than understanding.
27. In spite of what our critics say, in spite of the utterly false charge that the way in which we conduct our internal affairs constitutes a threat to world peace, we are implementing our policy in a peaceful and orderly manner, with the growing support of all the peoples concerned. The absurdity of the charge is patent from the fact that we have order and prosperity in my country to an extent which stands comparison with conditions obtaining in most other countries in the world.
28. While we are thus implementing a policy of peaceful coexistence, most of our critics advocate a policy for South Africa which, if enforced, will not only lead to strife and violence, but is also in conflict with the Charter. For these critics suggest that we should seek to establish in South Africa a fully integrated multiracial society, thus completely ignoring the rights of the various distinctive nations comprising nultinational South Africa. Here the question must be asked: into what particular pattern is it considered that the various nations of South Africa ought to integrate? If it is into the white South African pattern, this would surely constitute a form of colonialism in a different guise. Could that for one moment be justified? What right has the white population to believe that its culture should necessarily be desired by other peoples? And would there be any better justification for selecting, for example, the Zulu nation, or the Xhosa nation, as the nucleus around which the various South African communities should be integrated? No, and this is why we adhere to what is with us an issue of first principle — that all the nations in South Africa should be free to develop as they themselves may wish to develop, borrowing what they will and rejecting what they will, from the experience of other nations.
29. With this in view and taking into account the history, culture and psychology of each of the nations in South Africa, it is our objective to provide to every individual the fullest chance of development within his own nation and, where possible, in his own national homeland. And not only that, for it is similarly our objective to enable all our national groups increasingly, to come together to consult on problems of mutual interest and concern on the basis of equality and mutual respect for human dignity, through the establishment of high-level consultative machinery. In this way we are confident of our ability also to eliminate discrimination among the various national groups. For when each of these groups has reached a stage of effectively administering and controlling its own affairs, both the practical and psychological basis for discrimination will rapidly disappear.
30. What I have been saying is certainly nothing new. It has been stated repeatedly by my Prime Minister and by other members of the South African Government. There are, of course, those critics of our policy who, in many cases with questionable motives, reject our declarations of policy as empty words or as political propaganda. Many of these critics are simply not prepared to listen to argument. But addressing myself now to those who are so prepared, may I, as an earnest of the sincerity and the bona tides of my Government, remind them of the immense efforts that my Government is making to accelerate that process of transition which, we are convinced, will result in the recognition by all concerned of the equality in status, in human dignity and in political autonomy and independence, of the distinct nations in South Africa.
31. I need not now go into the details; but is it not generally admitted, even by many of our critics, that what is being done for the educational, social and economic uplift of the developing peoples in South Africa is comparable with the contribution of almost any other nation towards the advancement of the developing peoples of the world? We are happy to be doing this and more, because we believe that the services and the aid which are being made available, and will in increasing measure be required, are indispensable prerequisites for the development of South Africa's peoples, each into its full and equal nationhood.
32. It is thus that we are striving to eliminate all forms of political inequality and to move towards our goal of sovereign equality for all the nations at present living within the boundaries of South Africa. It is thus that we achieve peaceful coexistence and good-neighbourliness and avoid friction and hostility.
33. What I have said today must be read in conjunction with what was stated by our delegation from this rostrum during last year's general debate [1236th meeting], when the leader of our delegation quoted from a number of statements by my Prime Minister in rebuttal of the persistent allegation that the white nation in South Africa seeks to maintain its position by coercion and perpetual repression. During last year's general debate the South African delegation gave a brief account of what was about to take place in the Transkei — a territory some 17,000 square miles in area, constituting the homeland of the Xhosa nation, comprising over 3 million people — almost one third of our total Bantu population, and situated in the heavier rainfall belt, and in one of the most fertile regions of South Africa.
34. What we foreshadowed at that time has since come to pass. On 20 November 1963, over 600,000 voters, approximately 69 per cent of the Transkeian electorate, went to the polls for the election of the first Legislative Assembly in the territory. This considerable percentage of electors who exercised their democratic rights serves as an indication of the confidence with which they have accepted their new system of government, in terms of a constitution designed by themselves — not by the South African Government. The inaugural session of the Assembly of the Transkei was held in December 1963, when the first Cabinet, consisting of a Chief Minister and five other Ministers, was elected. At the same time, an official Opposition was formally constituted. In May 1964, the Transkei Assembly, at its first full session embarked upon its legislative and budgetary programme for the ensuing year.
35. Of importance is the fact that the public service establishment of the Transkei Government consists of 2,500 officials and 10,000 other employees and that over 80 per cent of this establishment consists of trained Xhosa officials. Those who are not Xhosa, who have been borrowed from the Republic temporarily and only for as long as they are required, fall entirely under the direction of the Transkeian Government. Furthermore, the Transkeian Government and its administration are functioning with increasing efficiency and, despite the difficulties with which that country will inevitably have still to contend, there is no doubt in our minds that it will indeed achieve the maturity and the capacity to accept ultimately all the responsibilities which are inherent in full sovereign independence.
36. The implementation of a policy of preparation for independent nationhood requires, in our view, a great deal of time, as well as careful planning, patience and above all devotion and idealism on the part of those undertaking the difficult task of leading a people towards self-government and full independence. But, thanks to adequate planning, plus the experience so far in the Transkei, we have now reached a stage where implementation is taking place with greater speed, For what I have said is by no means the whole picture. What we have succeeded in doing so far, considerable as we deem it to be, is admittedly but the beginning. Although great progress has been made in the Transkei, this is, of course, only one of the Bantu homelands. There are a number of others, each one of which is receiving continuous attention, and in each area development is making rapid strides.
37. The first objective in the case of all is self- government, but the pace will vary according to local circumstances and the wishes of the peoples concerned. Experience in the Transkei may prove a guide-line, but the pattern of development of the other Bantu nations need not be identical, or even similar. Again, it will depend on the wishes of the peoples themselves. Broadly speaking, however, the edifice of self-government is being built from the bottom upwards, starting with a system of local authorities', then district authorities, then regional authorities, leading finally to a national administration, thus providing a stable basis of experience for the full national unit when it secures self-government. This we see as the very essence of successful democracy. In the case of most of the Bantu nations the stage of the regional authority has already been reached. The extent to which the Transkei becomes a visible and viable success will make it so much easier for other regional authorities to decide to follow a similar path. That success is already being achieved and is providing the foundation stone for the complete implementation of our policy — the attainment of a Commonwealth of South African States, politically independent and economically interdependent.
38. With respect to economic interdependence, may I emphasize that we do not seek any form of cooperation, whether economic or political, which will have as a result the economic domination of one State by another. This applies no less to our relations with other States and territories in southern Africa, than it does to our relations with the Bantu homelands. It is our firm desire to avoid in these relationships any possible element of economic colonialism or economic imperialism. In Africa, in the past, other Powers have not always shown the same interest in avoiding economic colonialism, and many Africans have accordingly resented the pattern of economic development which emerged under the colonial system and which some of them claim has continued into the post-colonial era in a form of neo-colonialism. Many have similarly maintained that the introduction of expatriate enterprises on a large scale had, in practice, the effect of handicapping or stultifying the development of indigenous enterprise, when the indigenous inhabitants were themselves in a position to undertake such tasks. It is South African policy, on the other hand, to discourage and to prevent this kind of development, and instead to provide know-how, managerial assistance and capital in industry and in agriculture, so that the Bantu nations may themselves progressively undertake responsibility for their own economic development. Control thus does not pass into alien hands, and white enterprise does not take over and exclude citizens of the Bantu homelands from what should be the enjoyment of their own heritage.
39. It will be seen that the type of co-operation envisaged is an economic association which will take account of the special circumstances between the several independent States, without the surrender of their sovereignty, but with a view to the common goal of economic stability for each, without which independence, in the full sense of that term, can never be maintained.
40. In this context, may I add that South Africa is only too willing to assist other States in Africa in technical and similar fields of co-operation, whenever the Governments of the States indicate that such assistance would be welcome.
41. Let me assure representatives that my Government is fully sensible of the magnitude of the task which it has undertaken. We realize, only too well, that there are still many obstacles ahead and that we shall have to continue to exercise patience, to accept sacrifices, and above all to persevere, in a situation which is not only complex, but unique, requiring a solution which, therefore, must also be unique and hence the more exposed to criticism. It is regrettable that most of our critics single out for their attacks certain phases in the development of our policy, while they ignore its broad principles and ultimate aims. An objective analysis of the latter will indicate that, with due regard to the special circumstances obtaining in South Africa, we are, in fact, moving towards the goal set forth in the Charter, namely: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on - respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. We are firmly convinced that what we have chosen is the only right and just course, and we can only hope that as our policy continues to bear fruit, its merits will be recognized.
42. The picture I have given of our policy and its implementation has not been a detailed one and certainly does not reflect the progress which has been made in many other aspects of the development of the Bantu who live in South Africa. I have also not covered, in this review, what is being done to assist the Asian and Coloured population groups towards the attainment of control over their own interests. Nor have I dealt with what is being done for the very large number of Bantu who live in the homeland of the white South African nation, with the opportunities offered to them in respect of employment, education,' housing, social and health services, and so on, and how they are preparing themselves for the important role, politically and otherwise, which awaits them in their respective homelands. I have refrained from doing this because statistics, of themselves, seldom carry conviction in an address of this kind. It is perhaps more useful to refer to a fact which is all too commonly overlooked by those who so constantly condemn us and who seek to persuade the nations of the world to resort to sanctions against us.
43. This fact is that, in addition to those of our own Bantu who work in the homeland of the white South African nation, there are close on one million foreign Bantu, many of whom have entered our country in a clandestine manner, in order to seek avenues of employment which they could not find elsewhere and to avail themselves of a host of services which are provided on a scale far exceeding what they would have in the lands from which they come. These foreign workers, who come of their own volition, enjoy the same social services and privileges which are provided to the South African Bantu, and even exemption from South African taxation. This stream of Bantu immigrants from outside the borders of the Republic constitutes an eloquent response to those who contend that the lot of the Bantu in the homeland of the white South African nation is a form of exploitation and oppression approximating to serfdom. But the presence of nearly one million foreign Bantu has also Its bearing upon the efforts of those who seek to organize economic boycotts against us. For it will surely be realized that, should a boycott be applied leading to a measure of unemployment, we would be forced to reserve such employment we might have to offer for the people of South Africa, and that these foreign workers would have to leave our country and seek employment elsewhere. I make this comment primarily for the information of those who would wish to approach these matters with realism and objectivity.
44. Apart from the influx of foreign Bantu, the successful implementation of our policy is evident from the growing support which it is receiving from the vast majority of the non-white people. They, to an increasing extent, appreciate the real significance of our policy and the promise which this policy holds out for their own future. The measure of progress is the degree of contentment among all our peoples, as reflected in the industrial peace, prosperity and economic boom conditions now prevailing. Indeed, nearly every visitor to South Africa is surprised to discover that the picture of South Africa presented to him overseas, a picture of violence and unrest and agitation, finds no reflection in the actual situation.
45. This distorted picture derives mainly from the activities of a small minority whose actions are highlighted abroad and e specially in this Organization. This minority, comprising elements not only from the Bantu peoples but from all the major population groups in South Africa, was engaged in a largely communist-inspired conspiracy to overthrow the State by violence. It included in its ranks men who did not hesitate to kill and who nevertheless were hailed as martyrs and heroes by those who claim that their convictions were based on "opposition to the policies of apartheid". Nothing could, in fact, be further from the truth. The individuals who have figured most prominently in the records of the United Nations are those who have been found guilty of taking human life or who have engaged in high treason.
46. In addition to what I have already said earlier in this address about the dangers inherent in departure from the letter and spirit of the Charter, I feel it incumbent upon me now to draw attention to one other example, namely, the denial to a Member State of a principle fundamentally entrenched in the Charter. I refer to the principle laid down in Article 51 of the inherent right of self-defence of every sovereign State. Representatives must be well aware of the efforts now being made to deny to South Africa the means to implement this important right. But what is involved here is more than merely a right; it is also a duty. For every State has a duty to defend its peoples — all its peoples — against aggression. It is a duty which in present circumstances no self-respecting State can ever shirk, however much we may all look forward to the time when, under United Nations auspices or otherwise, a fully controlled and effective system of international disarmament may make the possession of defensive weapons unnecessary. It is a duty which South Africa will certainly not shirk, whatever sacrifices are involved.
47. Efforts have also been made to restrict still further this inherent right of self-defence by endeavouring to secure the application of measures which it is hoped will undermine South Africa's economy. Nevertheless, we have every confidence in our ability to maintain the stability and progress of our economy. It has in the past shown remarkable resilience and all our peoples are determined to ensure that it will continue to expand. We have had some experience of the application of economic sanctions and are not unprepared for their future extension, for during the last war South Africa, like many other participants, was subjected to naval blockade and was forced to rely largely upon its own resources. The result was a boost to South African industrialization — an industrial revolution which transformed the South African scene and, inter alia, made it the workshop of the Allied armies in the Middle East.
48. In this statement I have dealt with certain trends and developments in the United Nations which l believe could have far-reaching implications, not only for the future of my own country and its peoples, but also for the future of the Organization itself and consequently of the entire world. In doing so, I have presented to this Assembly certain basic facts concerning South Africa's own affairs, in the hope that these will assist representatives in understanding our contention that neither South African governmental policy nor actual conditions in South Africa provide the least justification for denying to my country, and to my country alone, the rights provided to all Member States under the Charter.
49. I have also done so because my Government is convinced that we shall succeed in our task, as we are indeed already succeeding, and that our success will be a positive and important contribution to peaceful coexistence, which is essential if mankind is to progress to universal prosperity, international harmony and tranquillity. We do not believe that the diversity of peoples and cultures, if each is respected and permitted to reach its full potential, need impede or prevent such coexistence. Rather do we believe, as did the founders of the United Nations, that this will enrich life and allow man to achieve his ultimate destiny. The United Nations Organization can, if it plays the part in international life for which it was originally designed, become an important and, indeed, the main instrument in furthering the peaceful coexistence of different national cultures, traditions and aspirations, thus achieving that international harmony which alone can provide a basis for peace and security for all States, big or small, powerful or weak.