ROLE OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE AGAINST APARTHEID

 

I wish to pay my tribute to the Special Committee against Apartheid – not only to express my great appreciation to this Committee, to the service of which I have devoted more than half of my adult life, but also because the crucial role played by the Special Committee since its inception in 1963 is of utmost relevance to the theme of this special session.

The Special Committee was established in 1963 but its origins may be traced to the appeal of the freedom movement of South Africa in 1958 for international support and solidarity by way of sanctions against the apartheid regime, an appeal which found a ready response in the African Peoples’ Conference in Accra in December 1958, in the subsequent conferences of independent African States and in the formation of boycott movements (later re-named anti-apartheid movements) in Great Britain and other Western countries.

The gruesome massacre of Sharpeville in March, 1960, the banning of the African National Congress of South Africa and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania, and the activities of the leaders who went into exile to canvas international support led, after two years of effort by African States, to the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 1761 (XVII) of November 6, 1962, calling for sanctions against South Africa and establishing the Special Committee to focus world attention constantly on the situation in South Africa.

The next day Nelson Mandela was convicted for leaving South Africa illegally to meet African Heads of State and others. He told the Court:

"South Africa is out of step with the rest of the civilised world, as is shown by the resolution adopted last night by the General Assembly of the Union Nations ….."

He pledged to continue his struggle, sustained by the fact that "the overwhelming majority of mankind both in this country and abroad are with me."

The essential purpose of the Special Committee was, therefore, to draw world attention to the lessons of the Sharpeville massacre, to isolate the apartheid regime and to sustain the morale of those struggling for freedom in South Africa by promoting increased support to them by governments and peoples.

The Western powers and many other states declined to join the Special Committee – it was the first United Nations body boycotted by the Western and other group of States – and the Committee was regarded by many as at best a totally ineffective body entrusted with a "perennial" item on the agenda.

By its refusal to become frustrated by obstacles and by its dedication to its task, the Special Committee soon earned the respect and admiration of all states and numerous public organisations and individuals.

The Special Committee, I would venture to say, became a new phenomenon in the United Nations by its emphasis on action rather than words; by recognising the need to supplement diplomatic action by mobilising world public opinion in support of the struggle for freedom in South Africa and the resolutions of the United Nations; by its close cooperation with anti-apartheid movements and other public organisations, as well as men and women of conscience; and by its constant efforts toward concerted action by all United Nations agencies, governments, inter-governmental organisations and individuals.

Working in closest co-operation with the Organisation of African Unity and the South African liberation movements recognised by it – the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress – it tried to respond to the struggle and sacrifice of every organisation or individual in South Africa genuinely opposed to apartheid, and equally to the efforts of organisations and individuals in all other nations who were moved to demonstrate by action their solidarity with the struggle in South Africa.

It resisted bureaucratic attitudes and eschewed false notions of protocol in its determined, creative and imaginative effort to build a world-wide alliance of governments and peoples in support of the struggling people of South Africa. It tried constantly to confront the conscience of the world with the moral imperatives of the situation in South Africa, not only at times of great upsurges of resistance in South Africa but also when the oppressed people were trying to recover from the wounds of brutal repression and resume their struggle. In this process, it set many precedents which had a significant influence on the functioning of the United Nations and its family of agencies.

Precedents set by Special Committee

It was after the establishment of the Special Committee that petitioners from South Africa – a Member State – were first heard by United Nations organs.

The Special Committee was the first committee, and perhaps the only United Nations body, to arrange receptions in honour of leaders of a liberation movement at the United Nations Headquarters. The first such reception was held in honour of Oliver Tambo, Bishop Ambrose Reeves and Miriam Makeba in October 1963 and received much attention.

The Special Committee was the first committee to treat representatives of the liberation movements not as petitioners, but as honoured guests – and even to seat them on the rostrum.

It was the first committee to provide fares and subsistence allowances to assist representatives of liberation movements to attend its meetings and conferences. It was the first committee to invite papers by the leaders of liberation movements for publication by the United Nations.

The precedents set by the Special Committee were instrumental in facilitating the granting of observer status to the African liberation movements in the 1970s.

The Special Committee was the first committee which proceeded to accord recognition and respect to anti-apartheid movements and other non-governmental organisations committed to the struggle against apartheid – not only inviting them as guests to its meetings and conferences but giving them full rights of participation, arranging joint conferences and campaigns with them and, above all, consulting them constantly.

The Special Committee was also the first United Nations body to establish closest relations with the Organisation of African Unity, even before the General Assembly granted it observer status.

The Special Committee was the first committee to recognise the vital importance of disseminating information on United Nations’ concerns and efforts, especially in countries where governments failed to co-operate with the United Nations.

The launching of an information effort on apartheid, as long ago as 1965, was not in accord with United Nations information policy at that time. The initiative of the Special Committee led to similar action on Namibia and decolonisation, and in fact helped change the public information policy of the United Nations, well before the New International Information Order was envisaged.

The Special Committee, I believe, led all other bodies in the production of studies and information material of all kinds.

The Special Committee was the first United Nations body to launch the concept of a "campaign" by the United Nations – by calling for an international campaign against apartheid in 1966 and subsequently, after the Lagos Conference of 1977, for an international mobilisation against apartheid.

The Special Committee has perhaps done more than any other committee to forge the link between the United Nations and "We, the Peoples" in whose name the Charter was proclaimed.

The initiatives of the Special Committee in 1963 and 1965 in promoting humanitarian assistance by governments to political prisoners in South Africa and their families were without precedent, and led to one of the most important and worthwhile operations by the United Nations. The assistance was subsequently extended to political prisoners and their families in Namibia and Southern Rhodesia, and other humanitarian funds came into existence in later years.

The Special Committee became noted for some of the most imaginative activities – such as the sponsorship of one of the most impressive art exhibits of recent times. It led in organising international conferences of Parliamentarians, trade unions and others in support of United Nations efforts.

The campaigns it promoted and encouraged – such as the campaign for the boycott of apartheid sport – involved millions of people all over the world.

The activities of the Special Committee contributed greatly to United Nations action on racism and human rights. They had an impact, in the United Nations system and outside, on issues such as social responsibility of transnational corporations, the Olympic principle of non-racialism in sport, capital punishment and torture of prisoners.

Tribute to Diallo Telli and U Thant

Many chairmen and members of the Special Committee, many officials of the Secretariat and others deserve credit for the accomplishments of the Special Committee. I would like to mention two of them.

I must pay tribute to the late Diallo Telli, the first chairman of the Special Committee and the first Secretary-General of the Organisation of African Unity.

A great African patriot, he died tragically in his native land, which he loved deeply and of which he was immensely proud. His death was not announced immediately so that the Special Committee could not even observe a minute of silence in his memory.

I hope that the Special Committee will find ways, in cooperation with the OAU, to honour the memory of that great African.

The abiding interest of U Thant, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in the work of the Special Committee, indeed his special affection for the Committee, was crucial in the early years. His concern for the oppressed people of South Africa and his regard for the Special Committee encouraged every relevant unit of the United Nations Secretariat to lend its cooperation to the Committee and its secretariat.

I must also acknowledge the unfailing assistance received from his Chef de Cabinet, C.V. Narasimhan.

Partnership with Anti-Apartheid Movements

While the Special Committee was a pace-setter in the United Nations, it was, of course, not the initiator of many of the campaigns against apartheid.

For instance, assistance to political prisoners was initiated by the Reverend Canon L. John Collins in 1952. The campaign for the boycott of apartheid sport was launched by the British Anti-Apartheid Movement in 1962 and the cultural boycott of South Africa by the British, Irish and American anti-apartheid movements in 1964-65. The campaign for the release of Nelson Mandela, in its latest stage, began inside South Africa after the independence of Zimbabwe.

The Special Committee responded to the campaigns by lending moral, political and other support to enable anti-apartheid movements to reach larger segments of public opinion and by helping to internationalise national campaigns. The Special Committee and the anti-apartheid movements cooperated as companions in the struggle.

I wish to make special reference to this partnership because I feel that ill-conceived suggestions that the Special Committee should direct and dictate to anti-apartheid movements or other non-governmental organisations would only make the Committee irrelevant to the solidarity movement.

People who have been moved by the struggle in South Africa to make sacrifices – and many of the members of anti-apartheid movements have made great sacrifices for long years – cannot be expected to succumb to pressure or petty inducements from the United Nations, but will carry on according to their own convictions and assessments as they did before the Special Committee was established.

New Stage of Struggle

The theme of this special session is "the Struggle for Liberation in South Africa and International Response". I believe that the title is most appropriate since United Nations and international action has always been in response to the landmarks in the struggle in South Africa itself.

The passive resistance movement in 1946 against new discriminatory legislation against people of Asian origin and the African mine labour strike later in the year led to the consideration by the General Assembly of the racial problem in South Africa in the form of a complaint by India; the Defiance Campaign of 1952 to the consideration of apartheid and its repercussions; the positive action campaign and the national upsurge which followed the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 to discussion by the Security Council and subsequently to the General Assembly resolution on sanctions; and the Soweto uprising of 1976 to the mandatory arms embargo.

Each of these stages reflected a wider mobilisation of the people in South Africa and an extension of the struggle in defiance of escalating repression.

The developments in 1984 represent, in my view, a new stage in the struggle. The action of the Coloured and Indian people in rejecting privileges and inducements offered by the regime, and in fighting against the diabolic new constitution in alliance with the African majority, has few parallels in the history of nations, and is the result of common struggle and common sacrifices, as well as the righteous policy of the national liberation movement for several decades. The general strike in the Transvaal in November, 1984, in which a million workers joined in support of their leaders, was also of great significance.

The situation calls for a new and higher state of international action.

Treason Trial and Campaign for Release of Prisoners

The racist regime, of course, responds to the redoubled resistance by even greater repression. It has charged sixteen of the eminent leaders of the people with "high treason", threatening them with death penalty. They are led by Mrs. Albertina Sisulu, a women of great stature and indeed, majesty.

Her husband, Walter Sisulu, is serving a sentence of life imprisonment with Nelson Mandela. All her children have suffered imprisonment and her daughter was brutally tortured in prison. She herself was subjected to constant persecution for three decades. She was jailed in 1958 and separated from her infant child. She has been severely restricted for some twenty years. Yet, as soon as the banning order expired, she gave all her strength to the efforts to unite and mobilise the oppressed people against the manoeuvres of the racist regime to divide the black people and denationalise the African majority.

If Albertina Sisulu and her colleagues are guilty of high treason for resisting the new racist constitution, then so is the Special Committee, which denounced that constitution, and so are the General Assembly and the Security Council which declared it null and void.

I salute Albertina Sisulu and, as an Indian, I would like to add that I am proud of the leaders of the Indian people who have struggled along with her and are now in the dock of racist courts with her. The accused – African, Coloured and Indian – must be honoured for committing treason against racism.

I am glad that the Security Council has unanimously condemned the trial of the sixteen leaders. I hope that the Special Committee will publicise the trial widely and promote an international campaign to free the accused leaders.

But beyond that, I hope that all efforts will now be directed at forging a world-wide movement for the unconditional release of all political prisoners in South Africa, an abrogation of the bans on public organisations and the ending of all other repressive measures as a prerequisite for genuine consultations among the people for the elimination of apartheid and the establishment of a non-racial democratic South Africa.

The racist regime is in a serious crisis and is resorting to various manoeuvres. I find it most disconcerting that some powers extol the mere suspension of "forced removals", by a regime which has uprooted three and a half million people from their homes and land, as a welcome sign of change. Meaningful change in South Africa cannot come from that regime but only from the genuine leaders of the great majority of the people.

The progress achieved in the Union Nations as a result of the work of the Special Committee, the launching of the Free South Africa Movement in the United States and the advance of the anti-apartheid movements in other countries, as well as the struggle in South Africa itself, have created a basis for a new level of international action to enable the people of South Africa, at last, to exercise their right to self-determination.

Concerted Action

This Special Committee has from its inception striven to secure the widest international mobilisation in support of the struggle for liberation in South Africa. If it was obliged constantly to express its distress at those who impeded the struggle by their collaboration with the Pretoria regime, its purpose was not to condemn but to persuade by a fearless espousal of truth and by appeals to the conscience of nations which profess democratic values but reinforce racist tyranny in South Africa. Rejecting the meaningless consensus of mere condemnations of apartheid, it has helped build an ever wider alliance for action.

One need only point to the progress in votes since the General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII). While none of the Western powers supported that resolution, today a majority of Western powers support sanctions against South Africa and several of them are among the reliable friends of the Special Committee.

The Nordic countries alone, representing a fraction of one percent of world population, have contributed tens of millions of dollars in support of the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.

The resolution at the last session of the General Assembly, on "Concerted Action for the Elimination of Apartheid", co-sponsored by Western, African and other states, and moved by Sweden, can, I believe, be the basis for effective new action in the current year.

The Special Committee should urge all states which voted for that resolution to implement its provisions fully. It must exert all possible moral pressure on those few Western states, especially the major Western powers which failed to vote for the resolution, to co-operate. For this purpose, I would suggest urgent consultations with the anti-apartheid movements and others in the countries concerned.

Struggle of all Decent Men and Women

The time has come to proclaim that the issue is no more one of mere solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa.

South Africa is a beautiful country with a population of diverse backgrounds – the African majority whose interests must be paramount; the Coloured and Indian people who trace their origins to India, Indonesia and Malaysia; and the Whites who trace their origins to Europe.

The issue in South Africa is whether people of such diverse origins can live together in harmony. The struggle is between the great majority of the people, who have faith in humanity, and a small ruling group which regards human beings as no more than beasts. This is not merely an African concern but a challenge to the United Nations and humanity.

The declaration of the General Assembly in the 1960s that the elimination of apartheid is a vital interest of the United Nations must be fully translated into action and the entire family of United Nations’ agencies must be mobilised for concerted and continuous support to the struggle for freedom in South Africa.

Some people had hoped that with the progress of decolonisation in Africa, apartheid would be isolated and weakened, and that it would disintegrate under combined internal and external pressure.

But, instead, the apartheid regime has acquired enormous military strength and has seemingly obtained the goodwill of some forces, blinded by so-called strategic considerations, in its efforts to dominate the entire region. The hard-won freedom of African nations is at stake and the Non-Aligned Movement – to which Africa has subscribed as a continent – is threatened. The security and genuine independence of southern African nations has become dependent on the victory of the forces of freedom in South Africa.

The struggle for freedom in South Africa is, more than ever, the struggle of Africa, of the Non-Aligned world and of all decent men and women.

Carry forward the Heritage

I would like to end on a personal note.

I leave the United Nations Secretariat with immense satisfaction at what I have been able to contribute to African freedom, and also with an acute awareness of what remains to be done.

I must express my deep gratitude to the successive chairmen of the Special Committee, to all its members, to the OAU and the liberation movements, ANC and PAC, for the privilege of serving this Special Committee for over 21 years. I must also express my gratitude to many governments, anti-apartheid movements and individuals for their co-operation. I will cherish their friendship and affection which has meant much to me.

For me, concern for African freedom predates my employment in the United Nations. It was an extension of our own freedom struggle in India to which my late father, a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, made some contribution.

In my work here, I have come to know and respect the leaders of the South African people and their great freedom movement. I have known many leaders and militants, who have been brutally assassinated and tortured. I cherish the friendship of leaders of other African freedom movements I have known, like Amilcar Cabral, Eduardo Mondlane and Herbert Chitepo.

They will continue to inspire me for the rest of my life.

The South African press has reported my recent retirement from the United Nations Secretariat with the headline "Anti South African official is forced to quit his post", and sought to give the impression of a weakening of United Nations resolve against apartheid.

What they say about me matters little.

I love South Africa and will continue to love South Africa. For me, South Africa is its people, all its people, not the racist regime. Like the freedom movement of South Africa, I hate the system of apartheid but not the people with a white skin. I believe that great movement is the true custodian of the future of all the people of South Africa.

It matters very much, however, that the struggling people of South Africa and the leaders in prison are reassured that there will be no slackening of United Nations support to them until apartheid is totally eliminated and they are free.

It is up to you to provide that assurance by constant action to carry forward the great heritage of this Special Committee.

CONTRIBUTION OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS

The United Nations is an organisation of governments but its effectiveness in fulfilling its purposes depends on the informed and active support not only of governments but of the peoples of the world.

The Charter of the United Nations was formulated in the name of "We, the Peoples of the United Nations" and they must play their part in implementing its provisions both through the governments and through their voluntary organisations, agencies and institutions. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) form an important link between the "peoples" and the United Nations, not only through national governments but also directly.

On no issues have the NGOs played a more significant role in support of the United Nations than on the closely interrelated issues of decolonisation, apartheid and racism. And in no fields of its activity has the United Nations more actively sought the co-operation of NGOs than on the international campaigns for the liberation of South Africa and Namibia.

I am conscious of the very important role of NGOs on the over-riding issue of peace and disarmament, but the close co-operation between the United Nations and the NGOs in that field is more recent and has benefited from the precedents set on southern African issues.

In my many years of work in the United Nations Secretariat on African freedom, I have followed with close interest the work of NGOs in support of the liberation struggles in South Africa as well as Namibia and other nations, benefited greatly from their advice and tried to ensure close co-operation between the United Nations and NGOs. I appreciate this opportunity to make some observations, based largely on personal experience, on the past contribution of NGOs to the United Nations efforts for freedom in South Africa and Namibia, and their responsibility at this crucial time.

The Long History of the Solidarity Movement

Action by non-governmental organisations and individuals against racism in South Africa and in defence of the rights of the Namibian people began long before the establishment of the United Nations. The movement of solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa and Namibia has a long and glorious history.

The Pan African movement espoused the rights of the indigenous people in South Africa ever since its inception in 1900. It appealed to the Allied Powers in 1919 against the handing over of the administration of Namibia to the racist regime in South Africa. The Manchester Congress of the movement in 1945 was an important landmark in the struggle for Africa’s emancipation. Dr.W.E.B. DuBois, the leader of that movement, deserves great respect for his unceasing efforts for over six decades to expose the atrocities of racism in South Africa and Namibia and defend the rights of the indigenous people.

The Satyagraha led by Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa in the first decade of this century owed its success to public support in Britain and other countries. India, because of historical reasons, has a long record of solidarity. The Indian National Congress began denouncing racism in South Africa from 1894, and India imposed sanctions against South Africa in 1946, long before the liberation movement appealed for international sanctions.

The Anti-Slavery Society denounced South African racism and colonial oppression in Namibia almost since the turn of the century.

While successive British Governments were betraying their promises to the indigenous African people, many organisations and individuals in Britain promoted public support for their rights and for the representations of the African National Congress since it was founded in 1912. Lord Fenner Brockway deserves special mention for over six decades of his solidarity.

In the 1920’s Marcus Garvey helped promote support for the black people in South Africa and Namibia from the black communities in the United States and the Caribbean.

The Council on African Affairs, established in the 1930’s under the leadership of Paul Robeson, not only informed the American people of the oppression and the freedom struggles in Southern Africa but provided useful information and advice to many members of the United Nations during theearly years of the world organisation.

The boycott of South African racism also has a long history. Already in the 1920’s, E.M. Forster, the British novelist, sold his shares in South African gold mines in protest against the treatment of African miners.

International Movement

With the development of a militant mass movement in South Africa in the 1940s, and the great struggles led by the South African people, the international solidarity movement developed in many countries.

Several churchmen played an important role in the initial period. The Reverend Michael Scott, who participated in the Indian passive resistance movement in South Africa in 1946, and then helped bring the appeals of the Namibian people to world attention, inspired and persuaded many people in Britain to follow and assist the resistance in South Africa and Namibia.

The Defence and Aid Fund, which has made a tremendous contribution to the freedom movements in Southern Africa – through assistance and information – was founded by the Reverend Canon L. John Collins in London and had its beginnings in support for the great Defiance Campaign in South Africa in 1952. Around the same time, a Committee for Support of South African Resistance was established in the United States by the Reverend George Houser, who had been active in the non-violent civil rights movement, and it later became the American Committee on Africa.

Father Trevor Huddleston, now President of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement, was the first to appeal to the world for a boycott of South Africa in the 1950s. The boycott of apartheid sports was initiated by sports bodies in the USSR, India and other countries in the mid-1950s.

Following the appeal of the African National Congress in 1958 for international sanctions against South Africa, endorsed by the African Peoples' Congress in Accra in December of that year, the Boycott Movement was launched in the West in 1959 and developed into the Anti-Apartheid Movement, one of the most significant public movements of our time.

The anti-apartheid and solidarity groups, which emerged in many countries, helped the Southern African liberation movements to reach the public, and in many cases governments in their countries, to seek support for their struggles. This became particularly important since 1960 when the national liberation movements in South Africa actively sought international support in the wake of the Sharpeville massacre and the banning of ANC and PAC, and when SWAPO was formed in Namibia.

It is necessary to recall the history of this solidarity movement to emphasise the proper relationship which should obtain between the United Nations and the NGOs active against apartheid. The NGOs deserve respect as pioneers and as the first to respond to the needs of the developing struggles for freedom. The United Nations should benefit from their knowledge and experience, and treat them as valuable allies and partners. Attempts to control them are as unwise as attempts to exhort them to action are superfluous. The task is to find ways to work together in such a way that the United Nations and NGOs can make the maximum contributions within their respective competences and co-ordinate their efforts to obtain maximum impact.

The role of NGOs has been especially important in relation to the freedom struggles in southern Africa for several reasons.

NGO contribution to Freedom Movement

The moral issues in South Africa and Namibia are clear-cut and of universal significance. People all over the world were outraged at the inhumanity of blatant and violent racism, akin to Nazism, and inspired by the great non-violent campaigns in South Africa from the 1906 Satyagraha of Mahatma Gandhi to the defiance of "pass laws" in 1960, to the extent that they were informed of the situation. The national liberation movement was obliged, because of the violence of the regime, to abandon strict adherence to non-violence after the Sharpeville massacre. But the student uprising in Soweto in 1976 and the mass mobilisation by the United Democratic Front since 1983 have been essentially non-violent. The armed struggle, too, has been of a special character, avoiding the killing of innocent persons as much as possible, in order to avert a racial war and salvage a non-racial society. The struggle of the people in Namibia, led by working people and poor peasants dispossessed of their rights, has been particularly inspiring. Decent men and women could not be neutral or equivocal, much less divided, unless they were uninformed or misinformed.

The people of South Africa and Namibia became victims of inhuman colonial and racist violence because of the betrayal of some major powers and later because of the greed and alliances of a concert of colonial powers which showed little respect for the dignity of the lives of the majority of humankind.

South Africa was handed over to racist domination by the colonial power, Britain, not long after it had solemnly promised respect for the rights and aspirations of the indigenous people, as well as the Indian community. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers which designated Namibia as a "sacred trust of civilisation" became precisely the Powers which condoned the crimes of the racist regime against the Namibian people by preventing international action against it.

From the very first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1946, the newly-independent nations from the "Third World" espoused the cause of the oppressed people of South Africa and Namibia, while the Western colonial powers generally opposed their proposals for action. Debates in the United Nations could hardly change the situation and other forms of action were imperative.

Above all it was essential to arouse public opinion in the Western countries. This was a task which the United Nations could not effectively perform – except to the extent that the debates in the United Nations were adequately reported by mass media and had an impact on public opinion – but one that NGOs and public leaders could undertake.

NGOs are not bound by the constraints of governments, diplomats and civil servants. Moreover, many of the NGOs are led by men and women of dedication, who have made sacrifices in the cause of freedom and human rights, and thereby earned respect of the public. They are most effective in mobilising support for righteous causes.

Another important need was to obtain information on the developments and struggles in South Africa and Namibia and to disseminate information to the rest of the world. This was particularly vital in the case of Namibia in the early years.

The Pretoria regime stopped transmittal of petitions by the Namibian people to the United Nations and prevented them from leaving the Territory to seek hearings at the United Nations. In 1946, it even staged a fake "consultation" of the Namibian people through its commissioners and reported to the United Nations that a great majority of Namibians favoured annexation of their country by South Africa.

At that time, it was through the Reverend Michael Scott that the United Nations learned about the fraud perpetrated by the Pretoria regime in the guise of consultation of the indigenous people of Namibia, the dispossession and inhuman oppression of the people and the legitimate aspirations and appeals of the chiefs and people of Namibia. (I recall that one of the first petitions to the United Nations on Namibia was from the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.)

Valuable Services of NGOs

Since then, there have been many instances when NGOs performed a valuable service in acquainting the United Nations and the international community of developments in South Africa and Namibia, and transmitting messages from the fighters for freedom.

Third, because of the ruthless repression launched by the Pretoria regime, assistance to the political prisoners and their families, and other victims of repression, became imperative. But the provision of assistance inside South Africa and Namibia became increasingly difficult because of the hostility of the regime and, especially after the banning of the Defence and Aid Fund in 1966, much of the assistance had to be confidential and clandestine.

NGOs such as the Defence and Aid Fund and the World Council of Churches initiated the assistance. The United Nations recognised the need for governmental assistance in 1963, but it could only provide such assistance in cooperation with NGOs.

Fourth, NGOs can often provide useful advice to United Nations bodies on the attitudes in their countries with respect to southern Africa and on the means to secure greater support for the United Nations efforts.

They can, and often do, suggest new initiatives for international action and prepare public opinion for such initiatives. For instance, in 1966, the call by the International Conference on South West Africa, held in Oxford, under the chairmanship of the late Olof Palme, for the termination of South Africa’s mandate over Namibia was partly instrumental in facilitating action by the General Assembly on October 27, 1966.

Experience of the Special Committee

I would like to refer briefly to the efforts of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid and the Centre against Apartheid in promoting close co-operation between the United Nations and NGOs in action against apartheid.

The primary concern of the Special Committee since its inception in 1963 was to secure effective sanctions against the apartheid regime. It tried to do this initially by diplomatic efforts. The NGOs had a relatively minor role in its work – sending memoranda to it or appearing before it for hearings as petitioners.

But it soon became clear that the Western powers were not willing to take any action beyond a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa.

The Special Committee then recognised the need for a more active information effort in Western countries, independent of the governments, and sought the co-operation of the anti-apartheid organisations. In 1966, it launched the concept of an "international campaign against apartheid" in which the United Nations, Governments and NGOs were to participate as allies.

The NGOs began to be treated as guests at the meetings of the Special Committee rather than as petitioners. The Committee sent delegations to various capitals to consult with international and national NGOs.

It soon began to invite NGOs to its conferences, seminars and special sessions – providing expenses within its budgetary possibilities. More and more, the Committee avoided distinctions between government representatives and NGOs in the conduct of discussions. Within a few years, it even began to elect NGO representatives as officers of its conferences and seminars. The next step was to organise such events "by the Special Committee, in cooperation with" one or more NGOs or vice versa.

Grants to NGOs

A United Nations Trust Fund for Publicity against Apartheid was set up in 1975 and its resources were largely utilised for grants to NGOs to disseminate information against apartheid in consultation with the Special Committee and the Centre against Apartheid. Some NGOs, particularly the World Peace Council, even contributed substantial resources to such co-operative information activities.

Many of the publications of the Centre against Apartheid were prepared by the anti-apartheid and solidarity movements or other NGOs and experts associated with them.

Many of the proposals made by the Special Committee to the General Assembly or the Security Council had originated from suggestions made by NGOs. NGOs helped formulate the programme of action against apartheid by the General Assembly in 1976 and the revised programme approved in 1983.

The progress achieved in action against apartheid in the past two decades – especially the fact that the majority of the Western countries are now supportive of meaningful action – is the result largely of the co-operative effort of the United Nations and NGOs (together with the Organisation of African Unity and others).

The establishment of the NGO Sub-Committee on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Apartheid and Decolonisation in Geneva in 1973 – as a forum for liaison among committed NGOs – was an important development. The Special Committee and the Centre against Apartheid have cooperated closely with the Sub-Committee.

I wish to make reference to some lessons of the experience in the cooperation between the United Nations and NGOs in action against apartheid.

1. Governments and NGOs should not be seen as antagonists. The task is to promote co-ordinated action by committed governments and NGOs.

NGOs are a diverse community with many differences. In co-operating with the NGOs, the Special Committee and the Centre against Apartheid took into account the contribution of each NGO to the struggle against apartheid within its competence. They did not go by the consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, which was not particularly relevant.

Some NGOs may support all aspects of the activity of the Special Committee and some may only be able to contribute to certain campaigns – assistance to the oppressed people, for instance. What is important is, however, that they do their best within their mandates.

The activities, however, must be in harmony with the position of the United Nations and the liberation movements. NGOs which, because of their ideological bents, try to divide and disrupt the liberation struggle could not be reliable partners of the United Nations.

Institutions and Individuals

Anti-apartheid movements which concentrate on Southern Africa and are not influenced by considerations other than support to the liberation movements have a special role in the international campaign against apartheid.

At the same time, trade unions and other mass movements which reach millions of people and organisations of specific groups or with specific concerns, can also play a crucial role if they respect the primacy of the liberation movements in making decisions on the strategy for the freedom struggles in their countries.

The contribution of organisations such as the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organisation, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, the International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations, the World Peace Council and the World Council of Churches were often commended by the Special Committee. It has specially commended Mr. Romesh Chandra, Chairman of the NGO Sub-Committee and President of the World Peace Council, for his contribution – in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and others – in stressing constantly that the struggle for peace and the struggle for liberation are inseparable.

The Special Committee has always sought to promote universal support to the liberation struggle, irrespective of ideological and other differences on other issues. If NGOs are influenced, like some governments, by "cold war" to the extent of opposing concerted action, they cannot play an effective role in campaigns under United Nations auspices.

In their co-operative effort, the United Nations bodies and NGOs should be conscious of their respective competencies. If the United Nations bodies seek to arouse public opinion by spending their resources on travel and conferences – instead of giving priority to providing moral and material assistance to NGOs which have proved their commitment and competence – they may be wasting funds. If NGOs spend their efforts lobbying delegates to the United Nations instead of promoting public awareness and action, they lose their primary reason for existence.

United Nations bodies should exercise great care in providing appropriate assistance to NGOs. Any attempts to control NGOs whose strength is in their autonomy and independence, any moves to build up groups to rival NGOs which have proven their usefulness and any favouritism in disbursing grants would be counter-productive.

On the other hand, NGOs should avoid undue dependence on assistance by United Nations bodies.

Public action is now more important than ever and the NGOs can play a crucial role.

The great anti-apartheid demonstrations in Europe, the Free South Africa Movement in the United States, and the greater participation of musicians, artists and others in anti-apartheid activities are most encouraging.

There is an urgent need for closest cooperation by NGOs and the United Nations bodies with the great majority of states which are truly committed to liberation of Southern Africa, for the mobilisation of public opinion all over the world, specially in the territories of the major Western powers, to denounce the manoeuvres of the apartheid regime and its friends, to ensure the imposition and implementation of comprehensive sanctions against that regime, and to provide all necessary assistance to the liberation movements in order to enable them to perform their historic task of destroying apartheid and racist domination.

 

FREEDOM MOVEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA: ITS INTERNATIONAL IMPACT

All national movements for freedom and justice spread ripples beyond their national boundaries. But some stand out as beacons guiding and inspiring peoples all over the world and for generations. Such was the great freedom movement of Ireland, and I believe the movement in my own country, India. Such, indeed, is the movement for freedom in South Africa which has been engaged in a long and difficult struggle against an injustice that has hardly a parallel.

The unique oppression that has, since 1948, been described as apartheid – despite the pseudo-religious justifications given by its proponents – is contrary to all ethical values. It seeks the transformation of an African Country into one where the children

of the soil are aliens. It has forcibly separated people by "race" and even families as in the days of slavery. It has involved deliberate lowering of standards of education of Africans for an entire generation – because the "master race" has lost confidence in its superiority.

As against this has developed in the last century a movement which is unmatched in morality – a movement which rejects all hate and all racialism, which seeks to build a community of humankind, and which has been twice honoured by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in the persons of Chief Albert Lutuli and Bishop Desmond Tutu. Nelson Mandela, leader of this liberation movement, confined in prison for over 22 years by a regime which hoped he would be forgotten, has received more honours all over the world than any political prisoner. He stands more than ever as a symbol of Africa’s indomitable will to be free and of humanity’s rejection of racism.

The South African liberation movement inspired and assisted freedom movements in all neighbouring countries. Leaders of the former High Commission Territories – Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland – were among the founders of the African National Congress of South Africa and could count on the assistance of the latter when they formed their own movements after the Second World War.

The Southern Rhodesian Native Welfare Association, founded in the 1920s, had close contact with the African National Congress of South Africa, while the Southern Rhodesia Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union, formed around the same time, was inspired by the powerful South African body of the same name. In the 1940s, the Southern Rhodesian African National Congress was established after the pattern of the African National Congress of South Africa, and its main concern was also to protest against unjust "land apportionment" or rather the expropriation of ancestral African land by the European settlers and their descendants. After the Second World War, a Southern Rhodesian Youth League was formed and performed a similar function as the African National Congress Youth League of South Africa in revitalising the parent body.

Influence of ANC

SWAPO, the Namibian liberation movement, had its origins partly in the union of Ovambo workers formed in Cape Town in 1959. Eduardo Mondlane, the founder of FRELIMO of Mozambique, received his early political training and experience during his student years in the Transvaal, where he met many leaders of the ANC.

The influence of the South African freedom movement, in fact, extended much further afield in Africa since it was one or two generations ahead of freedom movements in many other African countries. Several leaders of those movements had studied in South Africa and had come into contact with the African leaders in South Africa. The hymn, God Bless Africa, composed for the founding conference of the African National Congress in 1912, became the hymn of freedom for many African nations in Southern Africa.

ANC had, from its inception, looked upon freedom in South Africa in the context of the redemption of the continent of Africa. It consistently opposed the ambitions and manoeuvres of the minority regime in South Africa to dominate the High Commission Territories, South West Africa and Southern Rhodesia.

The ANC delegation, which went to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 opposed the placing of South West Africa under South African administration in terms of a mandate agreement and espoused the cause of the African people of Southern Rhodesia. In 1946, when the President of ANC, Dr. A.B. Xuma, visited the United Nations in New York, one of his main concerns was to petition against the plans of the Smuts regime to annex South West Africa.

ANC participated since 1900 in Pan African Conferences, which brought together leaders from Africa, the Caribbean, the United States and Britain, and in the All Races Conference in London in 1911. In 1927, its President. Josiah Gumede, attended the Conference of Oppressed Nationalities in Brussels (which was also attended, among others, by Jawaharlal Nehru from India and Sean MacBride from Ireland).

The 1944 Manifesto of the ANC Youth League affirmed belief "in the unity of all Africans from the Mediterranean Sea in the north to the Indian and Atlantic Oceans in the South." Many of the leaders of the post-war freedom movement were members of the Youth League. Nelson Mandela was its Secretary.

Impact on India and United States

More impressive than the impact of the South African freedom movement on the rest of Africa is its influence on far away lands across the oceans.

In 1893, an Indian barrister, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, went to South Africa. He returned to India 21 years later as the Mahatma to lead the people of the largest colonial country to freedom. If Mahatma Gandhi had a significant moral influence on the course of the South African struggle, his experiences and experiments in South Africa were decisive in determining the character of the movement in India. We, in India, owe a historic debt to South Africa, to all its people.

Many decades later, when the African National Congress launched a non-violent passive resistance movement – the Campaign of Defence against Unjust Laws in 1952, in which 9,000 people, African, Indian, Coloured and White, courted imprisonment – the impact on the Black people in the United States was remarkable. The campaign shattered the stupid racist myth that the African and Black people were somehow incapable of an organised and disciplined non-violent resistance.

Soon after the launching of the Defiance Campaign, Paul Robeson wrote in July 1952: "Just imagine if you started something like that in the South – or even in New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Louisville and Los Angeles ….we’d have our civil rights."

The Black people in the United States were groping toward decisive and determined action for their dignity, and soon a civil rights movement was launched by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who had a strong identification with Black freedom struggles in Africa.

The Defiance Campaign and the struggles that followed its suppression in South Africa -the sit-in , the bus boycott, the potato boycott, the call for sanctions – had their parallels in the South of the United States.

The thousands of people who are now marching and courting imprisonment in the United States under the aegis of the Free South Africa Movement are, in a sense, repaying their debt to the South African freedom movement. The links that bind the non-violent passive resistance movements in South Africa, India and the United States are perhaps widely known.

In my work in the United Nations in promoting the international campaign against apartheid, I have been most impressed by the much wider impact of the South African struggle on many countries, especially in the Western world.

Role of Anti-Apartheid Movements

Since the Defiance Campaign of 1952, and especially the appeal of ANC in 1958 for a boycott of South Africa and the Sharpeville massacre of 1960, millions of people around the world have been moved to make sacrifices to show their concern for the oppressed majority in South Africa. The anti-apartheid movement became one of the most significant public movements of our time attracting people from all segments of life. Religious leaders have been prominent in the movement and many political leaders received their early training in it. Sportsmen and musicians have rejected offers of millions of dollars to play or perform in South Africa. Two thousand people in New Zealand went to jail in demonstrations against the tour of a South African rugby team in 1981. They have made sacrifices not out of pity for the oppressed millions in South Africa, not even merely in solidarity with the South Africans struggling for a non-racial society, but for their own sense of integrity.

Above all, I think of hundreds of activities of anti–apartheid movements who have sacrificed careers and worked with tremendous perseverance for over two decades to see that their own societies dissociate themselves totally from involvement in the crime of apartheid. They have countered vicious propaganda spread by the apartheid regime and its friends at a cost of tens of millions of dollars a year. Their work has had a significant impact in their countries, in focussing attention on the need for morality in foreign policy, at a time when the imperatives of the so-called "Cold War" seemed to overshadow the international commitments to "Four Freedoms", "One World", the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Charter and all other war aims of the Allies. They have helped people not only to be concerned about apartheid in far away South Africa, but also to become sensitive to manifestations of racism in their own countries. The campaigns against apartheid were instrumental in educating public opinion on other social issues.

Impact Far and Wide

I would like to give two instances of the wider effect of the campaigns against apartheid.

In 1971, students in Australia organised protests against a South African rugby tour and secured the support of churches, trade unions and others. The government of the day confronted them with harsh police measures and almost hysterical propaganda, hoping to return to power as the party of "Law and Order." Many young men and women were injured and some five hundred people were jailed. One of the immediate effects of this experience was the growing public awareness of racism in Australia itself and the development of the movement for the rights of the aboriginal people. Somewhat similar developments took place in New Zealand.

The issue of apartheid and the initiatives of the South African freedom movement and the anti-apartheid movements were instrumental in persuading the World Council of Churches to establish the Programme to Combat Racism in 1969. That programme not only assisted anti-racist movements in many countries but precipitated a healthy debate in the churches in the West on the problem of racism and the moral responsibility of religious bodies.

I am sure that in every Western country, and in many other countries, researchers can find evidence of the direct and indirect impact of the South African liberation movement and the anti-apartheid movement.

I must make special reference to the Nordic countries where the boycott movement spread rapidly in 1960 and began to have a significant impact on national life. There soon developed a solidarity with all African freedom movements and a friendship with independent African States. I would venture to say that this has been a significant development in international affairs since 1960. The Nordic governments and public have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance to the freedom movements in Southern Africa and to frontline States.

Goodwill from White Countries

The solidarity of the Nordic countries - and of other Western countries, among which Ireland deserves special mention -has been most helpful to the United Nations efforts against apartheid, especially in countering the ill-advised attempts of those who sought to drown the southern African freedom movements in the cauldron of the Cold War. Perhaps even more significant was the effect in preventing the growth of anti-White racism in Southern Africa and in Africa as a whole. If the national liberation movement in South Africa, and OAU, have consistently espoused non-racialism - despite all the crimes of the racist regime in South Africa - the goodwill and assistance they received from "White" countries was not an insignificant factor.

In the United Nations, the annual consideration of the South African situation until 1962, and the constant attention given to the matter since the Special Committee against Apartheid was established in 1963, have had a wide-ranging effect far beyond the growing consensus on total rejection of apartheid and support for the legitimate struggle of the oppressed people for freedom.

Many precedents were set, such as the recognition of liberation movements, the rejection of the legitimacy of the apartheid regime, the establishment of an inter-governmental fund for legal and humanitarian assistance to political prisoners and their families and, perhaps even more important, the effort by the United Nations to reach public opinion in countries which resist effective action against apartheid. The concept of a United Nations "campaign" was initiated on the problem of apartheid and adopted many years later on disarmament.

Although racism was a matter of world concern at the end of the Second World War, there was little action by the United Nations on racism until the Sharpeville massacre of 1960 and the independence of African States. Since then, the United Nations adopted a declaration and a convention on the elimination of racial discrimination and proclaimed Decades of Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.

The sensitivity resulting from the discussion of apartheid, and the precedents set thereby, facilitated action on such issues as social responsibility of transnational corporations and treatment of prisoners.

The South African freedom movement, and the public organisations supporting it, helped the entire system of United Nations agencies to undertake greater action on violations of human rights.

Movement with a Vision

The influence of this freedom movement on world opinion has invariably been wholesome. For it results from the fact that it has been one of the most ethical and inspiring freedom movements in this century. The African people, brutally oppressed, have been sustained by a vision of justice, reinforced by the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi and carried forward by such humanists as Chief Lutuli.

The South African freedom movement readily accepted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as its objective and chose the 26^th of June, the anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter, as its Freedom Day.

The African people and people of African origin, moreover, have been in the bottom of the pile in South Africa and elsewhere. Like the leaders of the struggle against slavery and the Pan African Movement, Chief Lutuli and other African leaders of South Africa have pointed out that the freedom of their people can be achieved only by freeing all the people including, in a way, even the oppressors degraded by their inhumanity.

Even when it felt obliged to abandon strict adherence to non-violence and undertake an armed struggle, the South African liberation movement has been most humane, eschewing militarism and terrorism, and showing great respect for human life. The restraint shown by the movement in the face of tortures of its members in prison and the cowardly and gruesome killings of its refugees in Lesotho and Mozambique, is truly remarkable.

No one could have morally blamed the African people if they had responded to the enormous violence of the racist regime by violence against the oppressors. If they chose that path and stooped to the level of morality of the regime, they could have killed many innocent Whites in the country where every White home has African servants and the whole economy is dependent on labour by the African majority.

But the leaders of the African people have been conscious that South Africa is a microcosm of the world with people of many racial origins. They sought to build a society in which all the people, Black, White, Brown or whatever, could live together. They were sustained in their faith as a result of common struggles in which the Coloured and Indian people, and even some Whites, participated, as well as by the support from all the regions of the world. The martyrs in the struggles include not only numerous Africans, but many Coloured people and Indians, as well as some Whites such as Bram Fischer, Neil Aggett, Ruth First and Jeanette Schoon.

In 1984 the Coloured and Indian minorities in South Africa rejected the privileges offered by the regime and with great courage, showed their full solidarity with the African majority by opposing a new racist constitution. That gesture has few parallels in history. Respected leaders of the Coloured and Indian communities are now charged with high treason along with African leaders and face the threat of a death penalty for their refusal to betray the African people. A movement with such a vision and such a record of inspiring people of all origins and backgrounds to strive and sacrifice for a just society deserves universal respect.

Seventy-five years, ago, on May 8, 1910, Count Leo Tolstoy wrote to Mahatma Gandhi, who was leading the Indian passive resistance movement in South Africa :

"And so your activity in Transvaal, as it seems to us at the end of the world, is the most essential work, the most important of all the work now being done in the world, and in which not only the nations of the Christian, but of all the world will undoubtedly take part."

The freedom movement in the past generation, under African leadership, encompassing all the people, is even more significant. It has, indeed, secured wide international support from governments, organisations and individuals irrespective of ideological, religious and other differences.

Role of Western Powers

But it is tragic and painful that freedom has eluded the people of South Africa, that the winds of change have not yet swept away the racist order in that country and that oppression has in fact increased despite the immense suffering of the people and the great sacrifices of the liberation movement.

The fact that two Africans from South Africa have been awarded Nobel Peace Prizes for 1960 and 1984 for the same struggle is, in a sense, an indictment of the international community which has been unable to secure the elimination of apartheid or even the isolation of a regime denounced unanimously by the United Nations for committing a "crime against the conscience and dignity of mankind." This failure should shame the civilised world, which already carries the moral burden of five hundred years of humiliation and rape of Africa.

A hundred years ago, in 1885, gold was discovered in South Africa. Instead of becoming a boon to the people, it has led to immeasurable sorrow for the children of the soil, who have suffered from the greed of the rulers and foreign economic interests.

More recently, framers of military and foreign policy in some countries professing to seek a "free world" have been carried away by short-sighted and ill-advised "strategic" considerations in dealing with South Africa, so as to make the oppressed majority an innocent victim of powerful forces.

While the great majority of Western states have come to support effective international action against apartheid, a few major powers and financial centres provide comfort to the racist regime. Their course is a sure prescription for a greater tragedy in South Africa and in the relations between the West and the rest of the world.

The people of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Federal Republic of Germany have a great moral responsibility.

I submit that the smaller Western countries – among them Ireland with its great heritage and its independence of military blocs – have a duty, particularly to exert all their influence on the major powers to persuade them to join in concerted international action against apartheid under the aegis of the United Nations.

The events of the past year should persuade the international community to act with a sense of urgency. The assessments of those who felt that any change can occur only through the benevolence of the racist regime and that it should be cajoled with such inducements as even acceptance of its suzerainty over the whole of southern Africa, have proved as erroneous as those of their predecessors, who believed that the centuries-old Portuguese colonialism could not be defeated by the African liberation movements.

The regime in Pretoria is now faced with a grave crisis and is unable to control the growing resistance of the African people whom it sought to deprive of their very nationality behind the cover of propaganda about so-called reforms within apartheid.

A delay in decisive international action can only mean that the international community has stood by and abandoned the people of South Africa to a catastrophic conflict. I hope that history will not indict us and that we will discharge the great moral debt that humanity owes to the great freedom movement led by Chief Albert Lutuli and other leaders who have, under severe tests, shown their attachment to non-racialism, human rights and democracy.

 

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE NEED FOR ACTION

For more than a year now, world public opinion has been shocked and outraged at the daily reports from South Africa of brutality by the police and the army against the black people, detentions and tortures, and indiscriminate shooting of peaceful demonstrators, even little children and infants.

The racist regime, despite all its military might, has been unable to contain the situation and is faced with a grave political and economic crisis.

This is not merely another campaign of resistance by the people or another crisis of the regime. The confrontation in the past year or two, I believe, is of historic significance.

The black people have carried on many campaigns against racist oppression during the past decades – for instance, the Defiance Campaign in 1952, the Positive Action Campaign in 1960, the Soweto uprising in 1976 – but the regime was able to restore "order" by resorting to new levels of repression and violence. It faced temporary economic and political difficulties but was able to overcome them.

Meanwhile, the regime was able to build up its economic and military power. Its military budget rose no less than a hundred times since 1960. On the other hand, the liberation organisations of the people were outlawed and most of their leaders were hanged, imprisoned, restricted or forced into exile. Numerous laws were enacted to prevent the organisation of effective resistance.

Yet, the freedom movement has overcome the reverses it had suffered and has emerged with greater force than ever to demonstrate the indomitable spirit of the oppressed people for freedom and human dignity.

The events of the past year show a greater mobilisation of the people than ever. There is a greater participation not only by the African people but by the Coloured and Indian people, and by democratic Whites.

Segregation Resisted

The racial segregation imposed by the regime at enormous human cost, as a means to suppress and subjugate the black people, has enabled them to turn the miserable ghettos into fortresses of resistance so that large areas of South Africa have become virtually "ungovernable". The police cannot enter the African townships without large military escorts.

The racist regime is unable to control the situation, even with the deployment of armed forces in African townships and the imposition of a State of Emergency.

In many ways, the situation in South Africa is similar to that in my own country, India, in 1942 when Mahatma Gandhi called on the people to "do or die." There was no going back.

Only a little over a year ago, we may recall, the Botha regime felt that it was so strong that it could break out of its isolation and, in fact, obtain recognition as a "regional power." It had devastated neighbouring states and had launched a so-called "peace process" with active support from the major Western powers. It proceeded to implement a new racist constitution as part of its "final solution" to turn South Africa into a White majority country by excluding Africans, and obtained the blessings, however qualified, of the United States government. Prime Minister Botha made an unprecedented tour of Western Europe in May-June, 1984. Many commentators predicted that the African National Congress had been virtually neutralised.

But, contrary to their predictions, the resistance in South Africa became more determined and spread wider. In August, spurning all the enticements of the regime and defying intimidation, the Coloured and Indian people boycotted the elections to the segregated chambers of the new Parliament, and made a fiasco of the new constitution. I can think of no parallel for such a rejection of privileges by minority communities in solidarity with oppressed majority: the liberation movement deserves great credit for its consistent espousal of non-racialism and its efforts to unite all the people of the country against the system of racist tyranny.

The regime, however, proceeded to enforce the new constitution on September 3, 1984, and that day was the beginning of the present phase of national resistance in South Africa.

In 1960, the regime was able to contain the situation within weeks by mass arrests. In 1976, it required several months. Some resistance continued even after that and many school children were killed, wounded and blinded until 1980, but the events attracted little attention by the world media.

Sustained Resistance

The present resistance is much wider and more sustained. It encompasses not only a million students, who have gone on strike but also millions of workers and entire communities. Religious leaders of various faiths have courageously resisted repressive laws. There is resistance by legal organisations as well as the underground movement and freedom fighters.

This may well be the beginning of a final confrontation between the regime of white domination and the black majority which has been struggling for over seven decades for the rights of citizenship.

The crisis of the apartheid regime and the resistance of the people present a challenge to the United Nations and the international community, as well as an opportunity to make a decisive contribution to enable the South African people to abolish apartheid and build a new society, thereby eliminating not only an evil system in South Africa but also an ever increasing danger to peace and stability in Africa.

The Challenge and the Danger

But unless really effective international action is taken at this time with a clear understanding of the present stage of confrontation in South Africa and agreement on the objectives of international action, the crisis will only grow deeper. Uncoordinated action and mere symbolic measures may only lull us into slumber and bring in a greater disaster.

On the one hand, the regime – which has resorted to new levels of repression and inhumanity at every crisis – is capable of further brutality if it is cornered or sees an opportunity to drown the resistance in blood.

On the other hand, the upsurge of the people, which has assumed unprecedented scope, has the potential to develop further, especially in the rural areas and the Bantustans. The resistance which is now primarily non-violent may become violent.

I am, therefore, concerned that inadequate action by the international community may lead to a bloodbath and a tragedy we seek to avert.

The United Nations should be enabled to play a central role in international action, building on the experience and lessons of the past four decades since it was seized with the problem of racism in South Africa in 1946. It is the most appropriate forum to work out common objectives, so that individual governments will not pursue contradictory approaches and complicate the situation. It has the authority, under Chapter VII of the Charter, to take binding decisions, so that the national measures now being taken by many states can be universally applied.

The Western governments, in particular, bear a special responsibility since only they can exert the pressures and provide the assistance necessary to avert enormous suffering and bloodshed in the process of liberation. I believe the Nordic countries can make a very special contribution, more than ever before, because of their loyalty to the United Nations and the spirit of solidarity, which has become a force in their public opinion.

The problem in South Africa is not that the Whites in that country are any different from Whites elsewhere or even that they are Whites. It is that power was transferred to a small privileged racial minority in that country in the aftermath of slavery and colonial rule, leaving the African majority at its mercy. The successive governments, responsible only to the minority, have sought to preserve and even enhance the privileges of the Whites through the humiliation, dispossession and suppression of the Blacks. The situation is essentially no different from that which developed in Southern Rhodesia in later years. The policies of the minority regimes – against morality and against the tide of history – were bound to provoke resistance and conflict.

The Issue in South Africa

There have been two constants in modern South African history.

On the one hand, the successive regimes in South Africa since 1910 have sought to preserve and perpetuate White denomination, in one way or another, as long as possible. Since apartheid came to power in 1948, there has been an attempt to enforce a "final solution", to make White domination and Black dispossession permanent.

Towards that end, the apartheid regime has constantly subjected Whites who espouse full equality to repression. It has prevented meaningful dialogue between Black and White leaders. For instance, Chief Lutuli was restricted in the 1950s when he began addressing White gatherings. A law was enacted twenty years ago prohibiting multi-racial political parties, thereby forcing the Liberal Party to dissolve.

On the other hand, happily, the national movement of the African and other oppressed peoples has always espoused, in spite of all the repression and violence to which it was subjected, a society in which all the people of the country – irrespective of race, colour or creed – could live together in harmony, enjoying equal rights. It has won the support and loyalty of some Whites in its struggle for such a society and has so far been able to avert a race conflict.

At the first meeting of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid in 1963, its chairman, the late Diallo Telli of Guinea, felt it necessary to stress that the task of the United Nations was not only to support the just struggle of the oppressed people of South Africa but to help extricate the Whites from the morass they had landed in.

Neither Africa nor the United Nations have ever viewed the problem as a conflict between Blacks and Whites. They have always stressed the need for a just and lasting solution in the interests of all the people of South Africa.

The United Nations has clearly stated, in unanimous resolutions, that the objective is the total elimination of apartheid, the dismantling of Bantustans and other structures of apartheid, and the establishment of a non-racial, democratic society in which all the people of South Africa will enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of equality.

It has recognised that the modalities of change are for the South African people to decide, in a national convention of the genuine representatives of all the people or by other such means. It has stressed that an indispensable pre-requisite for such consultations is the release of Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners, a general amnesty and negotiations with Nelson Mandela and other genuine Black leaders on the future of the country.

Apartheid Regime cannot be Agent of Change

Long experience has shown that real change in South Africa cannot come through so-called reforms by the racist regime.

To expect the minority regime, responsive only to the White voters, to build a non-racial society is to live in a dangerous illusion.

Successive governments have come to power in South Africa with the promise of preserving White domination. They have pandered to and encouraged the Whites who sought to put the Blacks in their place and aroused racist passions.

Whenever there is international pressure, they profess to make reforms and changes but the essential purpose of preserving White domination remains. The so-called reforms are accompanied by greater repression of the leaders of the movement for freedom.

In 1974, Prime Minister Vorster undertookto move away from all racial discrimination and promised major changes in six months. A few years ago, P.W. Botha made similar promises. The sequel, in both instances, was not meaningful change, but more repression.

In the past few months, Mr. Botha has again been announcing changes and reforms. These moves have not emerged from negotiations with the genuine Black leaders but have followed consultations with some Western powers which have totally misjudged the mood of the South African people and encouraged him last year to enforce a new racist constitution, thereby provoking the present crisis.

More Danger than Promise

It would be naïve to believe that there is already a change of direction from White domination to equality in South Africa with only the pace of change at issue – or that real change can ever take place through unilateral measures by the regime.

The crucial issue is the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and the beginning of negotiations with the resistance leaders as a first step towards change. Unless the Black leaders are involved in the process of change and unless the process is irreversible, the so-called "reforms" by the Botha regime can only be regarded as tactical manoeuvres to divide the opposition, divert attention and stabilise the situation before beginning another wave of repression.

There is more danger than promise in talks by major Western powers with the Botha regime on so-called reforms. Even more dangerous are suggestions that the Botha regime should negotiate with so-called "moderate" blacks who eschew the right to armed struggle. Any negotiations excluding the African National Congress – the premier organisation of the African people and the leading force in the present resistance – would be seen by the Black people as a fraud and a provocation.

Most of the Member States of the United Nations agree that the situation in South Africa is such that utmost pressure is required on the racist regime through comprehensive and mandatory sanctions. While there has been growing support to this view, especially since Nordic States endorsed economic sanctions in 1966, the major Western powers have continued to oppose sanctions for one reason or another.

Case for Sanctions

I believe that today the case for sanctions has prevailed.

Even the United Kingdom and the United States have felt obliged to implement some measures. But they seek to implement only a minimum of measures to assuage public opinion. They continue to repeat the worn-out argument that binding economic sanctions would hurt the Blacks. They continue to resist measures by the United Nations Security Council.

The proposal for international sanctions, however, came from the liberation movement of South Africa more than 25 years ago, when it launched a boycott in the country. In the past few months, Black leaders and religious leaders in South Africa have defied the law to call for sanctions and a recent poll has indicated that the Black people support sanctions.

To the best of my knowledge, the argument that sanctions hurt the Blacks in South Africa was first advanced by Eric Louw, the South African Foreign Minister. As this argument, picked up by the friends of the South African regime, became more discredited, the Botha regime found it necessary to threaten a few months ago that it would expel a million foreign Blacks from South Africa if sanctions were imposed.

There is no doubt that the apartheid regime will try to transfer any burden to the rightless Blacks. It has been doing that already, by transferring the effects of the recession and causing unemployment to millions of Blacks.

All boycotts involve some sacrifice. Only recently, the Black people in South Africa organised an effective boycott of White stores: they paid the price for a purpose.

But some sanctions - for instance, a ban on the supply of sophisticated technology and labour-saving machinery - can only increase the employment of Blacks.

The purpose of sanctions is not to devastate the South African economy nor even to punish the Whites. They will not by themselves bring freedom to South Africa. They are meant to assist the forces of freedom by weakening the racist regime and by obliging its supporters to shed their illusions. In that context, sanctions such as an oil embargo, prohibition of investments in and export of technology to South Africa, and a ban on import of coal, uranium, diamonds and agricultural products from South Africa are essential.

The national measures recently taken by several countries are important for psychological and political reasons, but their effect is limited since they are uneven and uncoordinated.

I am glad that co-ordinated action is being considered by the Nordic States and by inter-governmental bodies such as the European Community and the Commonwealth. I hope that these discussions will lead to binding action by the United Nations Security Council so that there can be universal implementation.

Determination of a Threat to Peace

As early as 1952, the Asian-African States warned that apartheid constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

But, as you know, the major Western Powers have constantly prevented, by their vetoes, a determination by the Security Council that the situation in South Africa constitutes a threat to international peace under Chapter VII of the Charter – thereby making that Chapter inoperative. In the meantime, there have not only been massacres in South Africa, but the apartheid regime has been carrying on a colonial war in Namibia, and has repeatedly invaded neighbouring States so that there is not a mere threat to the peace, but repeated breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.

The attitude of the major Western powers in refusing to recognise this reality – even though they have the right to veto any coercive measures – is nothing less than a gross abuse of power. They have prevented the Security Council from implementing its own mandate under the Charter.

On September 9, 1985, President Ronald Reagan of the United States signed an Executive Order on some measures against South Africa. The Order begins with the following sentences :

"I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, find that the policies and actions of the Government of South Africa constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

But not a threat to international peace.

On September 20, in a unanimous resolution on the South African invasions of Angola, the Security Council characterised them as a "serious threat to international peace and security" (Resolution 571). But the delegate of the United Kingdom rushed to assert that "it is not a resolution falling within the terms of Chapter VII of the Charter or constituting a formal determination thereunder."

I hope that at this critical time, all governments will exert their influence to prevail upon the major Western powers to desist from such tactics and enable the United Nations to utilise its authority under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Assistance to the Oppressed People

I am sure you will agree with me that assistance to the oppressed people – their liberation movements, trade unions and other organisations – is extremely important at this time.

I would only like to make two comments.

It is distressing that when the needs have greatly increased, the United Nations funds for assistance to southern Africans are stagnating or declining. The voluntary contributions to these funds and to similar funds outside the United Nations have no relation to the capacity of Member states to contribute. I hope that other Western states will be persuaded to match the Nordic countries in their contributions, so that the level of assistance does not decline further.

While many governments make at least token contributions to humanitarian and educational assistance, very few governments have yet been persuaded to provide assistance to the organisations struggling against apartheid. This is a matter that needs greater attention of public opinion in Western countries.

Apartheid can be eliminated

The freedom movement in South Africa has turned the offensive of the Botha regime into a crisis of that regime.

It has disproved predictions that the Black people cannot mount effective resistance because of the web of repressive laws, the power and ruthlessness of the security forces and the many Black informers recruited by the regime. It has buried theories that armed struggle cannot be carried on in South Africa, in the absence of secure bases in neighbouring states, especially because of the terrain and the balance of power.

It has obliged major financial institutions to impose sanctions against South Africa.

The apartheid regime is highly vulnerable to a combination of internal resistance and international pressure. Assessments in Washington last year that White domination will continue into the twenty–first century are as short-sighted as earlier assessments on Portuguese territories.

Apartheid can be eliminated, given a new level of international action. Happily, the South African freedom movement has earned understanding and support from governments and peoples in all regions of the world – more than any other freedom movement in history – and such action is, therefore, possible.

Regrettably, the United States Government, which could have played a very significant role, has almost been a part of the problem.

Its policy of "constructive engagement" has been based on the assumption that "White-led change" is the only realistic course, and that P.W. Botha can be the principal agent of change. Bishop Tutu and other leaders in South Africa have expressed great distress at this policy and have denounced it strongly. I believe it has been disastrous for the image of the United States foreign policy.

In my consultations as the head of the United Nations Centre against Apartheid, I did not find a single Western government which endorsed the policy of "constructive engagement" or felt that it was in the interests of the United States and the West. But hardly any government has spoken out warning the United States of its folly - as only a friend can do.

I hope that the Western countries, which have been supportive of the aspirations of the African people, will find ways, in private and in public, to persuade the United States Government to cooperate in international action against apartheid.

 

STRUGGLE AGAINST APARTHEID: INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION

Apartheid has become a bad word. It is now condemned unanimously by all governments of the world and, in fact, disowned by the regime in South Africa itself. But does it mean the same thing to all of us?

Apartheid - or aparthood - is generally understood as racial segregation and segregation is inevitably tied up with racial discrimination.

Apartheid is racial segregation and three and a half million people have been moved from their homes and land, often at the point of a gun, to enforce segregation.

There is gross inequality in South Africa, much more than in other societies which suffer from racial discrimination. A black worker does not earn 50 or 60 percent of the wages of the white worker, but 20 per cent or less. The government expenditure for the education of a black child is not a little less than that on a white child, but one tenth.

Moreover, racial segregation and discrimination are the official state policy in South Africa.

But apartheid is much more than institutionalised racial segregation and discrimination.

Its origins go back to the abolition of slavery and the beginning of diamond and gold mining and the plantation system in South Africa a little over a century ago. The Africans were forced through poll-tax, hut tax and other means to work in the mines and plantations where they were housed in compounds and kept in semi-slavery.

Immediately after Britain handed over self-government to the white minority in 1910, the Africans were largely dispossessed of land. In the aftermath of the First World War, when a serious "poor-white" problem developed, the white regime began to solve it by further restricting freedom of movement and employment of Africans. In 1924, the Stallard Commission declared categorically that the African should not enter the areas outside the reserves except to minister to the needs of the whites.

When apartheid became the official policy with the advent of the National Party to power in 1948, the policy itself was not new. The United Party of General Smuts, which lost power, was also committed to racial segregation and discrimination – even if it spoke of white leadership rather than white domination.

But there were at least three new elements.

First, the National Party gained power by a hysterical campaign about "black peril", mainly because there was an influx of Africans into the cities as labour for war-time industries. The government became, in a sense, the executive arm of a racist mob.

Second, this regime came to power at a time when the Whites had lost confidence in their innate superiority and the Blacks began losing their inferiority complex – partly because of the developments in South Africa itself and partly because of the colonial revolution in India and other Asian countries.

One of the first concerns of the government was to put the Blacks "in their place", and keep them inferior, through "Bantu education", rigid colour bar in employment and other means.

Third, the new regime, probably under the influence of Nazi ideology, looked for its own version of a "final solution" rather than merely trying to perpetuate white privilege as long as possible.

Hence, its systematic efforts to fan tribalism and create Bantustans so that the country can be turned into a White majority country, with the fiction of African rights in the scattered reserves turned into Bantustans. Already eight million Africans have been denationalised by the creation of four "independent" Bantustans.

The result has been virtual genocide for almost four decades.

In the nineteenth century, Africans owned almost all the land and the Whites had a few patches of land. By 1913, the situation was reversed: the Whites took 90 percent of the land and confined African land rights mainly to the reserves.

Until a few years ago, the official statistics of South Africa indicated that Africans constituted almost three-quarters of the population. The African population is now reduced by one third and, under the regime’s plans, there will hardly be any Africans by the end of the century.

The problem of apartheid is, therefore, rather unique. The solution should be seen not in terms of gradual removal of racial discrimination, but in the context of emancipation from slavery and colonialism or national liberation and redemption. To look to the present regime to eliminate apartheid through evolutionary reforms is a dangerous illusion.

The Movement for Freedom is rather Unique

The freedom movement in South Africa is also somewhat unique, because of the composition of South Africa’s population and the ideology which emerged during the course of the long struggle.

The establishment of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1912, uniting many tribes and classes, to strive for the rights of indigenous African people was a landmark in that struggle. The era of resistance by African kingdoms against alien occupation had ended before the dawn of the twentieth century. Power had been handed over to the white minority by the British government, ignoring the pleas of the Africans and violating moral commitments. The struggle of the African people became one for equal rights in a multi-racial society.

The unity of the people in the freedom movement was extended further soon after the Second World War when the ANC, the South African Indian Congress and the Natal Indian Congress agreed on cooperation. It was not only cemented but extended to the Coloured people in the Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws in 1952. The participation of some Whites in that campaign led to further widening of the front.

Thus, the confrontation in South Africa is not between an African majority and a white minority but between the great majority of the people and a racist regime.

There was a fraud of self-determination in 1910 with only the Whites participating in the decisions on the destiny of the country. The Africans were not even consulted at that time, nor ever since. They have been seeking genuine self-determination by all the people of the country on the basis of equality.

Because of the complexity of the economic and social structure of South Africa and the long struggle for liberation, there are many organisations in the freedom movement, as well as differences in ideological orientation.

But the freedom movement as a whole espouses the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. South Africa is a multi-racial country and the freedom movement is multi-racial, but the objective is a non-racial democratic society. Despite all the inhumanity of the white minority regimes, the freedom movement has always avoided reverse racialism.

Since Africans constitute the majority and are the most oppressed, their interest must be paramount and their leadership in the struggle is essential. But the liberation of the African people will be the liberation of all the people, including even the white minority.

The attachment of the freedom movement to non-racialism and the unity it has built across the colour lines have been demonstrated not merely in declarations but in practice.

About four years ago, when Neil Aggett, a white trade unionist, was killed in detention, there were demonstrations by African and other workers all over South Africa. In Johannesburg, ten thousand Africans defied the law to march in the funeral procession.

In 1984, the regime staged elections to segregated chambers of Parliament for the Coloured and Asian minorities, under a new constitution excluding the African majority. It tried to induce at least a sizeable percentage of these minorities to vote, through many inducements as well as intimidation, but the elections were boycotted by 85 percent of the voters. The resistance against the constitution, in fact, solidified the unity of the black people in the struggle against the racist regime.

Even more important, the regime has repeatedly and indiscriminately shot and massacred thousands of black people – not only unarmed demonstrators against racism, but women and children in the refugee camp in Cassinga and exiles in their sleep in Mozambique, Lesotho and Botswana. But the freedom movement, even when it felt obliged to abandon its strict adherence to non-violence, has refrained from killing innocent whites.

If the present crisis continues, some Whites may be killed despite the restraint of the freedom movement. There is also the danger of killings by splinter groups seeking attention or by infuriated crowds. But I believe that the leaders of the mainstream of the liberation struggle will refrain from terrorism because their restraint is not tactical but is based on firm attachment to the objective of a non-racial society. Only the international community, however, can prevent indiscriminate killings by the racist regime and the white racist terrorists.

International Involvement in Apartheid

The situation in South Africa is also rather exceptional in the scale of involvement of external interests in the system of oppression.

That system is a product of Dutch and British colonial conquest and administration and the handing over of power to the white settlers.

When diamonds and gold were discovered in South Africa foreign interests rushed to the country. In order to obtain cheap labour, the Africans were impoverished, forced to seek work as migrant labour, and subjected to stringent restrictions such as pass laws and curfew regulations. The foreign interests thus share responsibility for the system of oppression.

The development of the manufacturing industry, especially since the Second World War, did not lead to relaxation of restrictions but to adjustments between the interests of the white farmers, white mine owners and white industrialists.

Foreign investment in South Africa grew enormously and with it the foreign trade of South Africa.

The book value of United States direct investment has grown from about fifty million dollars during the Second World War to over two billion dollars now and the real value was estimated some time ago at fourteen billion dollars.

Until the Second World War, most of South Africa’s trade was with Great Britain. That has now become internationalised, with the United States, Great Britain and West Germany in a neck to neck race with about 20 percent each.

Apartheid has been extremely profitable to foreign investors and traders. In fact, an analysis of the foreign investments may show that they have shot up with hardly any new net flow of capital – that is, largely out of re-investment – while the repatriated profits are many times the capital.

Some years ago, an African Chairman of the Special Committee, comparing apartheid and slavery, commented that the Afrikaner rulers of South Africa were perhaps like the foremen holding the slaves under the whip and facing their anger, while the slave-owners were living in elegance in distant capitals. That may be an exaggeration, but there is no doubt that much of the profit from apartheid flows outside South Africa.

There are conflicts of interest between the racist regime and the business community. For instance, when the regime reserved skilled labour for white workers and they had to be paid exorbitant wages, some of the business community called for the opening of skilled occupations to blacks and "equal pay for equal work" so that they could reduce their wage bills.

Because of the divestment campaigns and other pressures, many corporations have declared adherence to the Sullivan principles and other codes. But whenever there is an industrial dispute and a strike, the instinct of the management is to call the police to break up meetings of workers and even deport them en masse to impoverished Bantustans.

At times, businessmen may take a longer view and advocate changes to diffuse tensions, while some politicians continue to pander to racist prejudice and resist any change. But the business community has been a part of the problem in South Africa. Its lobbies in Western countries have perhaps been the greatest hindrance to effective international action against apartheid. It can hardly be the main instrument for a change to an egalitarian society in South Africa.

Solidarity with South African Movement

Another important feature of the South African situation is that outrage at the inhuman oppression by the authorities and admiration for the humanism of the freedom movement have led to the development of a powerful international movement in solidarity with the struggle in South Africa.

International concern over South Africa has a long history. Until the end of the Second World War, this was mainly in Great Britain the imperial Power; India, because of treatment of Indians in South Africa; and the United States because of the missionary connection and the feeling of affinity among the blacks.

Since Britain was the colonial power, the British press had the most frequent reports from South Africa. Delegations of South African blacks, together with some liberal-minded whites, visited Britain on several occasions to plead for African rights. While they failed to prevent a betrayal of trust by the British Governments, they were able to meet and interest Members of Parliament, editors and others in the plight of the oppressed people.

In India, South Africa became a national issue and a major preoccupation of the national movement since racism in South Africa affected India’s national honour and dignity.

After the abolition of slavery, the province of Natal recruited labour in India on five-year indenture to work on plantations. Tens of thousands of Indians went to South Africa under such contracts. They were followed by traders and their assistants who settled in Natal and the Transvaal. In the course of time, the traders, as well as the labourers who went into market gardening after the expiry of indenture, became competitors to white traders and farmers. A vicious agitation against free Indians was organised by the whites and the local governments began to try to subject Indians to humiliating restrictions.

M.K. Gandhi, who arrived in South Africa on a professional assignment in 1893, became involved in organising resistance and stayed on in South Africa for 21 years. It was in South Africa that he led the first Satyagraha (non-violent resistance campaign) from 1906 to 1914. The authorities were obliged to make a number of concessions.

The humiliation of Indians in South Africa and their struggle attracted national attention in India. The Indian National Congress adopted resolutions on the matter from 1894.

India was to play a significant role in promoting international support for the freedom movement in South Africa from September 1, 1946, when a national government was formed under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.

American Interest

In the case of the United States, the initial contacts were due to the American missions in South Africa. The American Missionary Association, which established missions in Zululand, was greatly influenced by the abolitionist movement in the United States. The African Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States established a diocese in South Africa in 1893.

Through the efforts of these missions, scores of black South Africans were enabled to study in the United States, especially from about 1895 to 1915 when the South African authorities made that difficult. They enrolled in black colleges as well as in liberal institutions like Oberlin College and Wilberforce University.

This took place during the formative period of the African national movement in South Africa. The United States thus had some influence on the emerging leadership in South Africa and many Americans began to show an interest in the situation in South Africa.

Pixley ka Isaka Seme, the founder of the African National Congress in 1912, grew up at an American Congregational Mission station at Inanda, Natal. An American Congregational Missionary, S. Pixley, arranged for him to study at Mount Hermon School in Massachusetts. He then attended Columbia University, where he graduated with a B.A. in 1906, and proceeded for further studies in Britain. He was awarded an honorary doctorate by Columbia University in 1928.

Charlotte Maxeke, founder of the ANC Women’s League, spent several years in the United States. She toured the United States with an African choir in the 1890s and stayed on to study at the Wilberforce University in Ohio, where she graduated with a B.A. in 1905. At Wilberforce, she married another South African, the Reverend Marshall Maxeke. They returned to South Africa and founded the Wilberforce Institute, one of the leading secondary schools for Africans in the Transvaal. She was active in the freedom movement and welfare work until her death in 1939.

John L. Dube, the first President of the ANC, studied at Oberlin College and a theological seminary in Brooklyn.

Solomon T. Plaatje, the first Secretary-General of ANC, spent two years in the United States in the early 1920s and met the leaders of the NAACP and others.

Dr. A.B. Xuma, President of the ANC from 1940 to 1949, studied in the United States from 1913 to 1926 – at the Tuskegee Institute, the University of Minnesota, the Marquette University medical school in Milwaukee and the Northwestern University. His wife, who headed the ANC Women’s League for several years, was an American.

The University College of Fort Hare – an important intellectual centre for African leaders in Southern Africa – was founded largely with money from United States churches.

Dr. W.E.B. DuBois constantly publicised the plight of the African people in South Africa and their struggle ever since 1900.

Marcus Garvey had contacts with South African nationalist leaders in the 1920s and 1930s, and supported their demands.

In 1937, an International Committee on Africa (later renamed the Council on African Affairs) was established in New York following discussions by Max Yergen, a former missionary in South Africa, with Paul Robeson. It devoted special attention to publicity and action on South Africa and provided a forum for the leaders of the freedom movement in South Africa. The Council was perhaps the first organisation abroad devoted mainly to solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa.

It is necessary to emphasise the long-standing American contact with the South African freedom movement because some Americans have been repeating slanders of the racist regime that the liberation struggle in South Africa is Soviet-sponsored. There is more evidence to allege that the movement was sponsored in the United States long before there was a Soviet Union. The fact is, of course, that the movement was rooted in the soil of South Africa though it has had international contacts since its inception.

The United Nations

The establishment of the United Nations provided an important forum for the development of international solidarity with the struggle for freedom in South Africa, but it suffers from severe limitations in the exercise of its nominal authority.

Colonial peoples had to fight for their freedom after the war and millions of people laid down their lives before their nations attained independence. Freedom was not handed to them, by the oppressors or by the United Nations. The accomplishments and failures of the United Nations must be seen in terms of its contribution in support of those struggling for freedom. In some cases, it proved a potent force and in others not so significant.

The United Nations was born in a revolutionary period of history, but with different approaches to the new international order. Many of the governments which founded the Organisation saw it mainly as an instrument for maintaining peace through settlement of disputes between states, and promotion of disarmament. Freedom, human rights and economic and social cooperation were secondary objectives to be attained through the slow process of discussion, declarations and covenants.

While this was the structure that the governments of the time could agree upon, the movements of people under colonial and racist oppression, representing the newly emergent states and much of the world’s population, believed that colonialism and racism were the root causes of war and that there could be no peace unless those root causes were eliminated. For them, the ending of colonialism and racism was almost as important as disarmament.

At the first session of the General Assembly in 1946, for instance, the primary concerns of the Indian delegation were colonialism and racism, including racial discrimination in the Union of South Africa.

As the colonial revolution advanced, the number of Member States committed to this approach increased. The allies of the South African freedom movement increased in number and the South African regime became more and more isolated. The Non-Aligned or Third World states now constitute two-thirds of the membership of the United Nations. But the majority, by itself, cannot adopt binding sanctions.

It is also necessary to take into account several other forces in operation on the international scene.

On the one hand, because of the "cold war," some governments and military establishments, as well as segments of public opinion in the West, tended to protect the South African regime as a reliable ally and were amenable to be manipulated by it. The growing economic involvement of Western countries in South Africa built up lobbies in those countries with a vested interest in preventing international action against apartheid.

On the other hand, the independence of former colonial territories not only changed the balance in the community of states, but weakened racist forces in some former metropolitan countries. The development of the freedom movement in South Africa and the increasing ruthlessness of the regime had a growing impact on public opinion all over the world. Public opinion and public action increasingly influenced policies of governments in the West and restrained Western Powers from alliance with the South African regime.

Perhaps, my own main contribution in the United Nations was to promote cooperation between committed governments and public organisations in Western countries to provide as much moral, political and material support, direct and indirect, to the freedom movement as possible; to persuade individual Western states to move forward in action, however gradually, and take national measures, pending Security Council decisions; and to press the major Western powers to end their collaboration with the apartheid regime.

Significant results have been achieved though inadequate after decades of constant effort.

The United Nations has taken important decisions on such matters as the legitimacy of the freedom struggle and the illegitimacy of the apartheid regime. The apartheid regime has been excluded from numerous inter-governmental organisations and conferences.

Substantial assistance has been provided to the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movements.

The international anti-apartheid movement became one of the most significant and effective movements of the post-war world, involving millions of people.

Even in the field of sanctions, progress has been made.

A mandatory arms embargo has been instituted against South Africa by the Security Council in November 1977.

All major oil exporting states, including Western states, have undertaken not to sell their oil to South Africa.

With the development of the confrontation in South Africa, and the proclamation of the State of Emergency this year, several Western states imposed national sanctions, without waiting for a mandatory decision by the Security Council.

There are grave dangers ahead, since the Apartheid regime is not only desperate but has reason to believe that the major Western Powers are not fully committed to a transfer of power to the representatives of the majority of the population in South Africa. Whatever its temporary successes, the apartheid regime can and must be defeated. The essential requirement is to develop further the close cooperation between the governments truly committed to liberation in South Africa and the public organisations which are equally committed, in responding to the needs and appeals of the great freedom movement in South Africa.

"We, the people" in whose name the Charter of the United Nations was formulated must become the driving force of United Nations action against apartheid.

 

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

People in South Africa and abroad are now seriously discussing not only the final abolition of apartheid but the system that will replace it.

It is a very different atmosphere from a year and a half ago.

I must pay tribute to the great liberation movement of South Africa for this achievement - and also to the anti-apartheid movements and other groups which have struggled day after day for decades, to the frontline states and other committed governments – and last, but not least, to the Special Committee against Apartheid.

In February 1984, when there was much gloom and pessimism, I ventured to say that the apartheid regime was not so strong as pictured, but was faced with a political and economic crisis.

At this time, I would like to warn against over-optimism.

The apartheid regime is capable of much more violence. It is manoeuvring to control the situation by a combination of repression and moves to satisfy its external friends rather than the freedom fighters. We should not be taken by surprise if there is – and I am afraid there will be – a serious counter-offensive by the racists.

Let us not forget that the State of Emergency has not been terminated, but extended to wider areas. On November 1, the apartheid regime extended blanket immunity for its security forces and other officials to cover the entire country, not only the areas under the State of Emergency. Yet, the Security Council has not even discussed the implementation of its resolution of July calling for an end to the State of Emergency.

I think the moves in the United States to assist UNITA should be taken very seriously. This is not only a matter that affects Angola or Namibian independence. It will inevitably involve joint action (or "Parallelism") by the apartheid regime and a super power in total disregard of the OAU and a very grave danger of the widening of conflict.

The policy of "constructive engagement", I believe, has been a disaster not only for the South African people but also for the United States. Intervention in Angola can result in a much greater disaster – and I hope the friends of the United States will dissuade it from such a folly.

I would also take very seriously the attitude of the United Kingdom government.

Immediately after the Commonwealth summit, it not only declared in London that it would take no further action against apartheid, but its ambassador in South Africa chose to address the so-called black mayors on United Nations Day to welcome the "important changes" in South Africa and to argue against sanctions.

Her Majesty’s Government announced that it would not meet President Oliver Tambo because ANC is involved in a violent struggle – taking the cue from P.W. Botha. It used the Commonwealth Declaration as a pretext for vetoing the Non-Aligned draft resolution in the Security Council on Namibia.

Sir John Thomson, the United Kingdom representative, told the General Assembly that apartheid is an internal, not an international, problem – contradicting the position taken by the United Nations for over three decades and by the United Kingdom since 1963. When Botha talks of a dozen population groups in South Africa, Sir John sees even more. And he says very bluntly that the United Kingdom will not make any economic sacrifices by imposing sanctions against South Africa "because South African Government is pursuing bad policies."

I must draw your attention to the fact that in October, the Minister of National Defence of Chile, Vice-Admiral Patricio Carvajal, made a visit to South Africa and to the war zone in Namibia – and expressed "admiration" for the work of the South African Defence Forces.

How ironic that Chile was in the same month speaking on behalf of Latin America at the Day of Solidarity meeting of the Special Committee and at the General Assembly meeting on the 25^th anniversary of the decolonisation Declaration – and it is a member of the United Nations body entrusted with assistance to the political prisoners and their families in South Africa and Namibia.

I wonder whether this visit of the Chilean Defence Minister is for the reinforcement of the "alliance of pariahs" to defy the world or was encouraged by others.

Role of Special Committee against Apartheid

In the past year, there has been a breakthrough in international action – especially as regards national economic sanctions – though the measures announced so