46 General Assembly---Ninelenth Session-Annexes

46 General Assembly---Ninelenth Session-AnnexesIn the Middle East-pressure on the oil-producing countries, world, youth andstudent organizations, and political parties,(g) Concerted action to blacklist firms which trade w~ith sensitive to pressure attimes of election.South Africa and thrive on aparthcid must be planned, Informa- (i) Informationservices should counter the propaganda of tion must be disseminated to showSouth Africa's trading the South African Government and the South AfricanFoundarelations with the rest of the world, and, by contrast, the tion shouldargue the unanswerable case against apartheid andof Ahfrica and Asia wth, the, ret otr the d .so influence public opinion.trading position of Africa and Asia with the rest of the world. (j) These and otheractivities call for the establishment of a(i) Appeals should be made to Heads of State, the trade permanent body tofurther the movement for economic sanctionsunion movements in all countries, the major religions of the and to co-ordinateactivity on the international plans.DOCUMENT A/5741*Letter dated 8 October 1964 from the representative of Pakistan to the Secretary-General[Original text: English][9 October 1964]I have the honour to refer to resolution 1761 (XVII) adopted by the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations on 6 November 1962, and the recommendationsmade therein to the Member States with regard to the policies of apartheid of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa. The former PermanentRepresentative of Pakistan, in his letter dated 14 October 1963 addressed to theChairman, Special Committee on the Policies of apartheid of the Government ofthe Republic of South Africa (A/AC.115/L.9/Add.11), had informed of themeasures taken by the Government of Pakistan towards the implementation of thesaid resolution.I have now been instructed by my Government to inform you further of themeasures taken towards the fulfilment of the implementation of this resolution.The Government of Pakistan, on 7 October 1964, issued a notification banning allexports from Pakistan to South Africa with immediate effect. Simultaneously theMinistry of Communications issued instructions to all Pakistan shippingcompanies to the effect that Pakistani ships shall not enter South African ports.These measures have been taken in compliance with the provisions of GeneralAssembly resolution 1761 (XVII), which, inter alia, called upon Member States torefrain from exporting goods to South Africa and to prohibit their ships fromentering South African ports.

*Incorporating document A/5741/Corr.l.The General Assembly resolution also called upon Member States to break offdiplomatic relations with the Government of the Republic of South Africa; toclose their ports to all vessels flying the South African flag; to boycott all SouthAfrican goods; and to refuse landing and passage facilities to all aircraftbelonging to the Government of South Africa and companies registered under thelaws of South Africa.The Government of Pakistan has complied with these provisions. Pakistan hasnever established diplomatic or consular relations with South Africa nor has it anyintention of doing so until the South African Government abandons its racistpolicies. Landing and passage facilities have been refused to South Africanaircraft and Pakistani ports have been closed to vessels flying the South Africanflag. Furthermore, import of South African goods into Pakistan and any sale ofarms and ammunition or military vehicles to South Africa have been banned.The decision today of the Government of Pakistan to ban exports to South Africaand to prohibit Pakistani vessels from calling at South African ports completesactions by Pakistan to give effect to all the provisions of the said resolution.(Signed) Syed AMJAD ALl Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UnitedNationsDOCUMENTS A/5825 AND ADD.1**Report of the Special Committee on the Policies of apartheid of the Governmentof the Republic of South Africa** Also issued as S/6073 and Add.l.DOCUMENT A/5825[Original text: English/French] [8 December 1964]CONTENTSPageLETTER OF TRANSMITTAL...................................................INTRODUCrION ......................................... .... ..........48ParagraphsChapterI. REvIEW OF THE WORK OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ...............18-134A. Report of 13 September 1963t ..................................... 18-25-t Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Annexes,agenda item 30, documents A/5497 and Add.l.

Annex No. 12 47CONTENTS (contilmed)B. Consideration of the question by the General Assembly and the Security 26r31Council, October-December 1963 26-3.C. Consideration of the programme of work of the Special Committee,January 1964 p. ... o..i , 3-37D. Consultation with the Group of Experts established in pursuanceof the Security Council resolution of 4 December 1963.. 3-40

E. Consideration of the repressive measures against opponents of the policies ofapartheid and hearing of petitioners, March 1964 ....... ....41-53F. Report of 23 March 1964 to the General Assembly and the SecurityC ouncil ..... .......................................... .. .. 54-55G. Appeal to Member States, organizations and eminent personalities inconnexion with the trials and death sentences in the Republic of SouthA frica . ....... .. ........ ....................... ......... 56 60H. Letter to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries concerningappropriate means of achieving an effective embargo on the supplyof petroleum and petroleum products to South Africa ................. 61-63I. Visit of the delegation of the Special Committee to London to attend theInternational Conference on Economic Sanctions against South Africaand to hear petitioners 6..0and tohear etitiners ............... ............. .............. 649J. Report of 25 May 1964 to the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil ...... ............................................ ...91-94K. Consideration of the question by the Security Council June 1964... _. 95-98L. Consideration of the programme of work of the Special Committee,July 1964 ............ ............................ ............. 99-102M. Consideration of repressive measures against opponents of the policiesof apartheid in the Republic of South Africa... ...... .103-114(a) Detention of Abram Fischer................................ 104(b) Rejection of appeals against death sentences on Vuyisile Mini,Wilsonx Khayinga and Zinakile Mkaba ........................... 105-110(c) Hearing of a petitioner concerning the banning order served onChief Albert J. Luthuli 11(d) Execution of Vuyisile Mini, Wilson Khayinga and Zinakile Mkaba 112-114N. Appeal to Member States concerning relief and assistance to familiesof persons persecuted by the South African Government for their opposition to thepolicies of apartheid ....15-120O. Consideration of papers on the pattern of foreign trade of the Republicof South Africa and foreign investments in that country ......... 121-128P. Letter to the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity... 129Q. Request to the Secretary-General in connexion with arms shipments toSouth Africa 130-132R. Consideration of the present report to the General Assembly and theSecurity Council .............. ............................ 133-134II. REwvEw oF DEVEOPMRNTS SINCE THE REPORT OF 13 SEIrEMBsE1963 .......... 135-365A. Non-compliance with resolutions of the General Assembly and theSecurity Council and reaffirmation of the policies of apartheid .......... 165-2D7(a) Non-compliance with resolutions of the General Assembly and theSecurity Council .......................... .................. 165-180(b) Rebellious attitude and hostility towards the United Nations, andscorn of world public opinion............. 11-189(c) Reaffirmation of the policies of apartheid ............. .......... 190-195

(d) New propaganda line,.. ..................................196207B. Pursuit of apartheid . . ........ ... ..... - . . ............ 208-365(a) The Bantu Laws Amendment Act of 1964 (Act No. 42 of 1964) .. 211-232(i) M ain provisions of the Act .. ....... ....................... 214-22(ii) Opposition to the Act .................. 1......... ........ 22-222(b) Residential segregation and related measures outside the African 223-232reserves . . . . . . . ....(i) Implementation of the Group Areas Act, No............. 233-25841, 1950?i 233-247(ii) Expulsion of Africans from "white" areas ..... ... 248-256(iii) Removal of "black spots". ............................. 257-258(c) Establishment of councils and committees for non-white racial groups 259-298(i) The Coloured Persons Representative Council Act of 1964 (ActNo. 49 of 1964) 262-278(ii) Establishment of a National Indian Council ............... 279-291(iii) Establishment of urban Bantu councils and boards .......... 292-293(iv) Establishment of consultative and management committees forthe Coloured people and Indians ............. ............. 294-298(d) Other apartheid measures outside the African reserves ............. 299-339(i) Apartheid in education 304310(ii) Apartheid in em ployment .......................... ..... .. 311-319(iii) A partheid in sports . . .. ....................... ..... .... . 320-324(iv) Apartheid in scientific organizations. 325-327(v) Apartheid in recreational and cultural facilities..... ...... 328-332(vi) Curtailment of interracial communication.................333-339(e) Developments in the Transkei and other African reserves .......... 340-365(i) Elections to the Transkei Legislative Assembly . '. ... 341-346(ii) Establishment of the Democratic Party and the Transkei NationalIndependence Party..................... ........ 347-353t Official Records of the Security Council, Eightcenth Year. Supplcnent forOctober, November and December 1963, document S/5471.

48 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesCONTENTS (continued)Cha pter Paragraphs(iii) First session of the Transkei Legislative Assembly........ 354-359(iv) Developments in other reserves ......................... ..360-365C. Danger of violent conflict ........................................ 366-401D. Build-up of military and police forces ............................. 402-481(a) Increase in defence and police budget ...................... ...410-415(b) Increase in strength of military and police forces .................416-428(c) Civil defence plans .......................................... 429-433(d) Defence research ..........................................434-438(e) Manufacture of arms and ammunition in South Africa ............. 439-452(f) Import of military equipment . ...... ... 453-464

(g) Military co-operation with other countries ....................... 465-468(h) International concern over military build-up in South Africa ........ 469-481 E.International opposition to the policies of apartheid_ .............. .482-528(a) Actions by Member States ................ 483-487(b) Protests against apartheid in the specialized agencies and otherintergovernmental agencies and conferences ..........................488-514(i) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations..... 491-493(ii) International Atomic Energy Agency ...................... 494-495(iii) International Civil Aviation Organization: Africa-Indian Ocean AirNavigation Meeting, November 1964 ............ 496(iv) International Labour Organisation .......................... 497-502(v) International Telecommunication Union: African Broadcasting Conference.Geneva, October 1964 ........... 503-504(vi) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, March-June 1964................................. ..505-507(vii) Universal Postal Union ........................... 508-509(viii) W orld Health Organization...................... ..... 510-514(c) Non-governmental protests and boycotts ......................... 515-528F. Some economic aspects of the situation in the Republic of South Africa . 529-573(a) Recent economic growth in South Africa ....................... 531-544(b) Increase in the foreign trade of the Republic of South Africa ...... 545-558(c) South African reaction to proposals for economic sanctions ....... 559-573111. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... . ... ......................574-641A. Recognition of the threat to international peace and security ............ 591-595B. Application of economic sanctions ........................ .. 596-617C, Other measures .................... ....................... 618-639(a) Relief and assistance to the families of all persons persecuted by theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa for acts resulting from theiropposition to the policies of apartheid ............. 618-622(b) Investigation of treatment of prisoners ............................ 623-625(c) Publicity for United Nations efforts against the policies of apartheid and theinforming of world opinion of the dangers of the policies of apartheid ...................... ................... 626-637(d) Enlargement of the Special Committee .......................... 638--639D. Summary of recommendations ............................ 640-64AnnexesPageI. Replies received from Member States to the appeal by the Special Committee,dated 23 March 1964. in connexion with the trials and death sentences in the Republic of South A frica ........ . ... ....... ........ ................... . 111II. List of documents (excluding reports of the Special Committee) circulatedbetween 13 September 1963 and 30 November 196411.......................... 18III. Direction of imports and exports of the Republic of South Africa .......... 121

Letter of transmittalNew York, 30 November 1964Sir,I have the honour to send you herewith the report adopted unanimously on 30November 1964 by the Special Committee on the Policies of apartheid of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa.This report is submitted to the General Assembly in pursuance of operativeparagraph 5, sub-paragraph (b), of General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII) of 6November 1962, and of operative paragraph 2 of General Assembly resolution1978 A (XVIII) of 16 December 1963.Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.(Signed) ACUKAR MarofChairman,Special Co'mmittee on thePolicies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South AfricaHis Excellency U Thant,Secretary-General of the United Nations, New York.

Introduction1. The Special Committee on the Policies of apartheidof the Government of the Republic of South Africa was established by GeneralAssembly resolution 1761 (XVII) of 6 November 1962, with the following termsof reference :"(a) To keep the racial policies of the Governmentof South Africa under review when the Assemblyis not in session;"(b) To report either to the Assembly or to theSecurity Council or to both, as may be appropriate,from time to time."It is composed of the following eleven members: Algeria, Costa Rica, Ghana,Guinea, Haiti, Hungary,Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines and Somalia.2. At its first meeting on 2 April 1963, the SpecialCommittee elected Mr. Diallo Telli (Guinea) as Chairman, Mr. Fernando Voliojim~nez (Costa Rica) as Vice-Chairman, and Mr. Matrika Prasad Koirala(Nepal) as Rapporteur.3. On 10 March 1964, Mr. Koirala resigned hisoffice in view of his departure for Nepal. On 23 March, the Special Committeeelected Mr. Ram C. Malhotra(Nepal) as the Rapporteur.4. Mr. Diallo Telli (Guinea) took leave of the Committee on 30 July 1964following his election as Administrative Secretary-General of the Organization ofAfrican Unity. On 24 September, the Special Committee elected Mr. AchkarMarof (Guinea) as the Chairman.5. On 5 April 1963, the Special Committee established a Sub-Committee onPetitions composed of the representatives of Algeria, Ghana, Nigeria and the

Philippines. Mr. S. H. Okechuku Ibe (Nigeria) was Chairman of the Sub-Committee until 22 January 1964 and was succeeded by Mr. E. C. Anyaoku(Nigeria). The Sub-Committee has submitted thirteen reports since 13 September1963 (A/AC.115/L.33, L.37, L.40, L.44, L.50, L.66, L.72, L.74, L.76, L.80, L.85,L.95, L.101).6. The following representatives have served on the Special Committee since 13September 1963:ALGERIARepresentativeH.E. Mr. Abdelkader Chanderli (until 28 August 1964)Mr. M. Tewfik Bouattoura Alternate RepresentativesMr. Kemal HaceneMr. Abdelkader Boukhari Mr. Raouf BoudjakdjiMr. Abderrahmane BensidCOSTA RICARepresentativeH.E. Mr. Fernando Volio Jim~nez Alternate RepresentativeMr. Jos6 Maria AguirreGHANARepresentativeH.E. Mr. Alex Quaison-Sackey Alternate RepresentativesMr. Nathan Anang Quao Mr. Emmanuel Yawo AgorsorAnnex No. 12 4Annex o. 1249RepresentativeH.E. Mr. Matrika(until 10 March H{.E. Mr. Ram C.Prasad Koirala 1964) MalhotraNIGERIARepresentativeH.E. Chief S.O. Adebo Alternate RepresentativesMr. E. C. Anyaoku Mr. S. H. Okechuku Ibe Mr. 0. M. A. Abiola Mr. MustafaZubairu PHILIPPINES RepresentativeH.E. Mr. Privado G. Jim~nez Alternate RepresentativeMr. Hortencio J. Brillantes AdviserMr. Virgilio C. NafiagasSOMALIARepresentativeH.E. Mr. Hassan Nur Elmi Alternate RepresentativesMr. Ahmed M. Darman Mr. Abdulkadir Scek Mao7. By resolution 1978 A (XVIII) of 16 December 1963, the General Assemblynoted with appreciationMr. Kwaku Mensa Akude Mr. Joseph Benjamin PhillipsGUINEARepresentative

H.E. Mr. Diallo Telli (until 30 July 1964) H.E. Mr. Achkar Marof AlternateRepresentativeMr. Nanamoudou Diakite Mr. MBaye Cheik Omar HAITIRepresentativeH.E. Mr. Carlet R. Auguste Alternate RepresentativesMr. Raoul Siclait Mr. Alexandre Verret Mr. Loonard Pierre-Louis HUNGARYRepresentativeH.E. Mr. Kiroly Csatorday Alternate RepresentativesMr. Arpid Prandler Mr. J6zsef Horvath MALAYSIARepresentativeH.E. Mr. Radhakrishna Ramani Alternate RepresentativesMr. Peter S. Lai Mr. Zain Azraai bin Zainal Abidin NEPAL

General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesthe reports submitted by the Special Committee in 1963,1 and strengthened itsmandate by requesting it "to continue to follow constantly the various aspects ofthis question and to submit reports to the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil whenever necessarv". The General Assembly requested theSecretaryGeneral to furnish the Special Committee with all the necessary meansfor the effective accomplishment of its task and invited the specialized agenciesand all Member States to give it their assistance and co-operation in the fulfilmentof its mandate.8. In accordance with its terms of reference the Special Committee has submittedtwo interim reports to the General Assembly and the Security Council since thereport of 13 September 1963 submitted to the eighteenth session of the GeneralAssembly. In the first of these reports (A/5692), submitted on 23 March 1964, theSpecial Committee reviewed the developments since its previous report of 13September 1963, with special emphasis on the repressive measures against theopponents of the policies of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa. In thesecond report (A/5707), submitted on 25 May 1964. on the eve of the renewedconsideration of the question by the Security Council, the Special Committeereviewed the subsequent developments in the Republic of South Africa andtransmitted the report of the delegation of the Special Committee on theInternational Conference on Economic Sanctions against South Africa, held inLondon from 14 to 17 April 1964.9. In its resolution of 18 June 1964,2 the Security Council took note of thesereports of the Special Committee with appreciation.10. On 30 November 1964, the Special Committee decided unanimously tosubmit the present report on developments since 13 September 1963 to theGeneral Assembly and the Security Council.11. The report is divided into three parts. The first part contains a review of thework of the Special Committee in pursuance of its mandate under GeneralAssembly resolutions 1761 (XVII) and 1978 (XVIII). The second part is devotedto a review of the main developments relating to the racial policies of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa since 13 September 1963. The thirdpart contains the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee,

with special reference to the means of dissuading the Government of the Republicof South Africa from pursuing its policies of apartheid.12. The following annexes are attached to the report: AnIC.r I. Replies receivedfrom Member Statesto the appeal by the Special Committee, dated 23 March 1964, in connexion withthe trials and death sentences in the Republic of South Africa:Annc.r II. List of documents (excluding reports ofthe Special Committee) circulated between 13 September 1963 and 30 November1964, and_nnc.x III. Direction of imports and exports of theRepublic of South Africa.1 First and second interim reports-see Offcil Records of the General Assembly.Eighteenth Session, Annexes, addendum to agenda item 30, documentA/5497/Add.1, annex III; report of 13 September 1963-see Officia Records of theGeneral Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Annexes, addendum to agenda item 30,document A/5497. 20fficial Records of the Security Council, Nineteenth Year,Supplement for April, May and June 1964, document S/5773.13. In view of the great intensification of the repressive measures by the SouthAfrican Government against the opponents of apartheid during the period underreview, a detailed note on the repressive measures has been prepared and attachedas an addendum to this report.14. The Special Committee wishes to record its great appreciation to Mr. DialloTelli (Guinea) for his invaluable contribution as its Chairman from April 1963 toJuly 1964 and to Mr. M. P. Koirala (Nepal) for the exemplary performance of hisduties as Rapporteur until March 1964.15. The Special Committee also wishes to express its appreciation to the heads ofthe various specialized agencies for their co-operation in the fulfilment of itsmandate. It also notes with appreciation the assistance rendered by many non-governmental organizations and individuals.16. The Special Committee wishes to record again its gratitude to the Secretary-General for his unfailing interest in its work. It also wishes to express itsappreciation to M5,1r. Vladimir Suslov, Under-Secretary for Political andSecurity Council Affairs, and Mr. M. A. Vellodi, Director for Political andSecurity Council Affairs.17. Finally, it wishes to express its appreciation to Mr. Enuga S. Reddy, thePrincipal Secretary, and to the other members of the Secretariat assigned to theCommittee who have discharged their duties with remarkable efficiency anddevotion.Chapter I. Review of the work of the Special CommitteeA. REPORT OF 13 SEPTEMBER 196318. In its report of 13 September 1963,3 submitted to the eighteenth session of theGeneral Assembly, the Special Committee transmitted a detailed review of thesituation in the Republic of South Africa which made it clear that the Governmentof the Republic of South Africa had not only not complied with the GeneralAssembly resolution 1761 (XVII) of 6 November 1962 and the Security Councilresolutions of 1 April 19604 and 7 August 1963,- but had taken further measures

which aggravated the tension within the country. It stated that the utterly negativereaction of the South African Government made it essential that the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council consider, with no further delay. "possible newmeasures in accordance with the Charter, which provides for stronger political,diplomatic and economic sanctions, suspension of rights and privileges of theRepublic of South Africa as a Member State, and expulsion from the UnitedNations and its specialized agencies".19. The Special Committee considered it essential that the General Assembly andthe Security Council should: (a) take note of the continued deterioration of thesituation in the Republic of South Africa in consequence of the continuedimposition of discriminatory and repressive measures by its Government inviolation of its obligations under the United Nations Charter, the provisions of theUniversal Declaration of Human3 Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighteenth Session, .-nnxes,addendum to agenda item 30, document A/5497. 4 Official Records of theSecurity Council, Fifteenth Year, Supplement for April, Moy and June 1960,document S/4300. 5 [bid., Eighteenth Year, Supplement for July, August andSeptember 1963, document S/5386.

Annex No. 12 51Rights and the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council; (b)affirm that the policies and actions of the Republic of South Africa areincompatible with membership in the United Nations; (c) declare thedetermination of the Organization to take all requisite measures provided in theCharter to bring to an end the serious danger to the maintenance of internationalpeace and security; and (d) call upon all United Nations organs and agencies andall States to take appropriate steps to dissuade the Republic of South Africa fromits present racial policies.20. The Special Committee further deemed it essential that all Member States becalled upon to take requisite measures speedily to implement the relevantprovisions of General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII) of 6 November 1962 andthe Security Council resolution of 7 August 1963. It felt that Member Stateswhich had taken effective measures in this respect should be commended, andthat an urgent invitation should be addressed to all others to take action and reportwithout delay. It felt, moreover, that the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil should express disapproval of the actions of certain States which hadtaken measures contrary to the provisions of the resolutions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council on the policies of aPartheid of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa.21. The Special Committee felt that the States responsible for the administrationof territories neighbouring the Republic of South Africa should be called upon toprovide asylum and relief to South African nationals who were obliged to seekrefuge because of the policies of apartheid and to refrain from any action whichmay assist the South African authorities in the continued pursuit of their presentracial policies.

22. Further, in view of the persecution of thousands of South African nationals fortheir opposition to the policies of apartheid and the serious hardships faced bytheir families, the Special Committee considered that the internationalcommunity, for humanitarian reasons, should provide them with relief and otherassistance. It recommended that the Secretary-General should be requested, inconsultation with the Special Committee, to find ways and means to provide suchrelief and assistance through appropriate international agencies.23. With regard to the request to the Member States by the General Assembly thatthey refrain from exporting all arms and ammunition to South Africa (resolution1761 (XVII)). and by the Security Council in its resolution of 7 August 1963 thatthey cease forthwith the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition of all types andmilitary vehicles to South Africa, the Special Committee submitted thefollowing supplementary recommendations: (a) Member States should berequested not to provide any assistance, directly or indirectly, in the manufactureof arms, ammunition and military vehicles in South Africa, including the supplyof strategic materials, provision of technical assistance, or the granting oflicences; (b) Member States should be requested to refrain from providingtraining for South African military personnel: and (c) Member States should berequested to refrain from any form of co-operation with South African militaryand police forces,24. The Special Committee further suggested that the General Assembly and theSecurity Council give consideration to additional measures, including thefoIlowing, to dissuade the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa from its racial policies: (a) recommendation to all internationalagencies to take all necessary steps to deny economic or technical assistance tothe Government of the Republic of South Africa, without precluding, however,humanitarian assistance to the victims of the policies of apartheid, (b)recommendation to Member States to take steps to prohibit or discourage foreigninvestments in South Africa and loans to the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa or to South African companies; (c) recommendation to MemberStates to consider denial of facilities for all ships and aircraft destined to orreturning from the Republic of South Africa; (d) recommendation to MemberStates to take measures to prohibit, or at least discourage, emigration of theirnationals to the Republic of South Africa, as immigrants are sought by it toreinforce its policies of apartheid: and (e) study of means to ensure an effectiveembargo on the supply of arms and ammunition, as well as petroleum. to theRepublic of South Africa, including a blockade, if necessary, under aegis of theUnited Nations, 25. Finally, the Special Committee felt that Member Statesshould be urged to give maximum publicity to the efforts of the United Nationswith respect to this question and take effective steps to discourage and counteractpropaganda by the Government of the Republic of South Africa, its agencies andvarious other bodies which seek to justify and defend its policies.B. CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION BY TiE GENERALASSEMBLY AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL, OCTOBERDECEMBER 1963

26. The reports of the Special Committee were considered by the GeneralAssembly at its eighteenth session and by the Security Council from 27November to 4 December 1963.27. On 11 October 1963 the General Assembly, considering reports to the effectthat the Government of South Africa was arranging the trial of a large number ofpolitical prisoners under arbitrary laws prescribing the death sentence and thatsuch a trial would inevitably lead to a further deterioration of the alreadyexplosive situation in South Africa, thereby further disturbing international peaceand security, adopted resolution IS I (XVIII) by 106 votes, with South Africaalone voting against. Thie General Assembly recalled its resolution 1761 (XVII)of 6 November 1962 and Security Council resolution of 7 August 1963, whichcalled upon the Government of the Republic of South Africa to liberate allpersons imprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for having opposedthe policy of apartheid, and took note of the Special Committee's report whichstressed that the harsh repressive measures instituted hy the South AfricanGovernment frustrate the possibilities for peaceful settlement, increase hostilitvamong the racial groups and precipitate violent conflict. The operative part of theresolution read:"1. Condemns the Government of the Republic of South Africa for its failure tocomply with the repeated resolutions of the General Assembly and of the SecurityCouncil calling for an end to the repression of persons opposing apartheid; "2.Requests the Government of South Africa to abandon the arbitrary trial now inprogress and forthwith to grant unconditional release to all political prisoners andto all persons imprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for havingopposed the policy of apartheid: "3. Requests all Member States to make allnecessary efforts to induce the Government of South Africa to ensure

General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesthat the provisions of paragraph 2 above are put into effect immediately;"4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly and theSecurity Council, as soon as possible during the eighteenth session, on theimplementation of the present resolution."28. When the Security Council resumed consideration of the question on 27November 1963, it was clear that the South African Government had not heededthe General Assembly's request in operative paragraph 2 of resolution 1881(XVIII), despite the efforts made by Member States in accordance with operativeparagraph 3 and reported by the Secretary-General in documents A/5614 andAdd.1-3.6 It continued with the trials of opponents of the policies of apartheid andother repressive measures against them.29. On 4 December 1963 the Security Council unanimously adopted aresolution,7 deploring the refusal of the South African Government to complywith its resolution of 7 August 1963 and to accept the repeated recommendationsof other United Nations organs, and stating in its operative part:"1. Appeals to all States to comply with the provisionsof the Security Council resolution of 7 August 1963;"2. Urqently requests the Government of the Republic

of South Africa to cease forthwith its continued imposition of discriminatory andrepressive measures which are contrary to the principles and purposes of theCharter and which are in violation of its obligations as a Member of the UnitedNations and of the provisions of the Universal Declarationof Human Rights;"3. Condemns the non-compliance by the Government ofthe Republic of South Africa with the appeals contained in the above-mentionedresolutions of the General Assemblyand the Security Council;"4. Again calls upon the Government of South Africa toliberate all persons imprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions forhaving opposed the policy of apartheid;"5. Solemnly calls upon all States to cease forthwith thesale and shipment of equipment and materials for the manufacture andmaintenance of arms and ammunition in SouthAfrica;"6. Requests the Secretary-General to establish under hisdirection and reporting to him a small group of recognized experts to examinemethods of resolving the present situation in South Africa through full, peacefuland orderly application of human rights and fundamental freedoms to allinhabitants of the territory as a whole, regardless of race, colour or creed, and toconsider what part the United Nations mightplay in the achievement of that end;"7. Inzites the Government of the Republic of SouthAfrica to avail itself of the assistance of this group in orderto bring about such peaceful and orderly transformation;"8. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to keepthe situation under observation and to report to the Security Council such newdevelopments as may occur, and in any case not later than 1 June 1964, on theimplementation ofthis resolution."30. On 16 December 1963 the General Assembly adopted resolution 1978 (XVIII)on the reports of the Special Committee. In the operative part of resolution 1978A (XVIII), adopted by 100 votes to 2, with one abstention, the General Assemblystated:"I. Appeals to all States to take appropriate measuresand intensify their efforts, separately or collectively, with a view to dissuading theGovernment of the Republic of South6 Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Annexes,agenda item 30.7 Official Records of the Security Council, Eighteenth Year, Supplement forOctober, November and December 1963, document S/5471.Africa from pursuing its policies of apartheid, and requests them, in particular, toimplement fully the Security Council resolution of 4 December 1963; "2, Noteswith appreciation the reports of the Special

Committee on the Policies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa, and requests it to continue to follow constantly the various aspectsof this question and to submit reports to the General Assembly and to the SecurityCouncil whenever necessary;"3. Requests the Secretary-General to furnish the Special Committee with all thenecessary means for the effective accomplishment of its task;"4. Invites the specialized agencies and all Member States to give to the SpecialCommittee their assistance and cooperation in the fulfilment of its mandate." 31.In resolution 1978 B (XVIII), adopted by 99 votes to 2 (Portugal and SouthAfrica), with no abstentions, the General Assembly took note that the SpecialCommittee had drawn attention in its report to the serious hardships faced by thefamilies of persons persecuted by the South African Government for theiropposition to the policies of apartheid and had recommended that the internationalcommunity for humanitarian reasons provide them with relief and otherassistance, Considering that such assistance was consonant with the purposes andprinciples of the United Nations, the General Assembly requested theSecretaryGeneral to seek ways and means of providing relief and assistance,through the appropriate international agencies, to the families of all personspersecuted by the Government of the Republic of South Africa for theiropposition to the policies of apartheid; invited Member States and organizationsto contribute generously to such relief and assistance; and invited theSecretaryGeneral to report to the General Assembly at its nineteenth session onthe implementation of the resolution.C. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK OFTHE SPECIAL COMMITTEE, JANUARY 196432. At its meeting on 9 January 1964, the Special Committee considered itsprogramme of work in the light of General Assembly resolutions 1881 (XVIII) of11 October 1963 and 1978 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963, and Security Councilresolution S/5471 of4 December 1963.33. The Committee noted with satisfaction that its reports had been noted withappreciation by the General Assembly, the Security Council and the MemberStates and that its work had contributed to the adoption of the resolutions by thetwo principal organs on the question of the policies of apartheid of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa, The situation in the Republic ofSouth Africa, however, continued to deteriorate daily as evidenced by the brutalrepression against all those who opposed the policy of apartheid and the contemptshown by the South African Government for the decisions of the competentorgans of the United Nations. In considering its programme of work, therefore,the Special Committee took into account the increasing seriousness of thesituation, as well as the strengthening of the Committee's mandate.34. Members of the Special Committee felt that the Special Committee should co-operate, as appropriate, with the group of experts appointed by theSecretaryGeneral pursuant to Security Council resolution S/5471. While hopingthat the efforts of the Secretary-General and the group of experts would be

successful, the Committee considered it essential that the United Nations and theinternational community should be prepared to

exercise ever-increasing pressure on the South African Government, along thelines of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, for thepurpose of persuading it to abandon its racial policies.35. The Special Committee, therefore, requested the Secretary-General to arrangefor the preparation of detailed studies, in the light of the decisions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council and the recommendations in the report of theSpecial Committee, on (a) the direction and composition of the foreign trade ofSouth Africa, with special reference to trade in petroleum and other strategicmaterials ; and (b) the sources and distribution of foreign investments in SouthAfrica. In response to the request, the Secretariat submitted documentsA/AC.115/L.55 and L.56; see also documents A/AC.115/L.55/Add.1 andAdd.1/Corr.1 and 2, and L.56/Rev.1.36. At the same meeting the Special Committee, through the Secretary-General,addressed an invitation to the specialized agencies inviting their assistance andco-operation in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1978 A (XVIII)and suggesting that it would be useful if the agencies could appointrepresentatives to discuss the possibilities of co-operation and to attend themeetings of the Committee as observers (see A/ AC.115/L.49 and Add.l-3).37. The replies from the heads of the specialized agencies offering their assistanceand co-operation were communicated to the Committee. The Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization,International Labour Office and the International Atomic Energy Agencyappointed .bservers to attend meetings of the Special Committee (ibid.).D. CONSULTATION WITH THE GROUP OF EXPERTSESTABLISHED IN PURSUANCE OF THE SECURITYCOUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 4 DECEMBER 196338. In pursuance of operative paragraph 6 of the Security Council resolution of 4December 1963. the Secretary-General established a Group of Experts composedof Mrs. Alva Myrdal (Chairman); Sir Edward Asafu Adjaye: MXlr. Josip Djerdja(Mr. Djerdja resigned from the group in March 1964); Sir Hugh Foot and Mr. DeyOuld Sidi Baba.39. Officers and members of the Special Committee kept in contact with theGroup of Experts during the period of its existence.40. On 9 March 1964, the Special Committee held a meeting with the Group ofExperts, and issued a communique in which it stated:"An exchange of views on the terms of reference of the expert group under theSecurity Council resolution of 4 December 1963 reflected general agreement onthe respective roles of the two bodies in the pursuit of the objectives of the UnitedNations. "The exchange of views between the members of the Special Committeeand the Expert Group took place in an atmosphere of frank cordiality.

"It was agreed that the Special Committee and the Expert Group should continueclose contacts with each other in the discharge of their respective mandates."(See United Nations Press Release GA/AP/18 of 9 March 1964).No. 12 53E. CONSIDERATION OF THE REPRESSIVE MEASURESAGAINST OPPONENTS OF THE POLICIES OF apartheidAND HEARING OF PETITIONERS, MARCH 196441. When the Special Committee reconvened on 9March 1964, it was obliged to devote its attention principally to the question ofrepressive measures launched against opponents of the policies of apartheid in theRepublic of South Africa, despite the resolutions of the General Assembly and theSecurity Council. It considered a report by the Rapporteur on these repressivemeasures& and took note of a number of communications received by theCommittee, particularly in connexion with the Rivonia trial of Nelson Mandela,Walter Sisulu and other leaders, and the death sentences passed on several leadersof the African National Congress in Port Elizabeth.42. The Special Committee also heard the following petitioners: Miss MiriamMakeba, South African singer, at the twenty-sixth meeting on 9 March 1964;Miss Marv Benson, author of African Patriots9 and other book's, at the twenty-eighth meeting on 11 March 1964; and Mr. Oliver Tambo, Deputy President ofthe African National Congress of South Africa, and Mr. Tennyson Makiwane,member of its national executive, at the twenty-ninth meeting on 12 March 1964.43. The petitioners referred to the trials of South African leaders then under way,the mistreatment of numerous detainees and the hardships endured by theirfamilies. They appealed for urgent action by the international community to savethe lives of persons involved in the trials, particularly of the defendants in theRivonia trial, and to secure the liberation of all persons imprisoned, interned orsubjected to other restrictions for their opposition to the policies of apartheid.44. Appealing to the Special Committee for quick and concrete action, MissMakeba stated that the people of South Africa had sought their basic human rightsby every possible means, facing bans, banishment, gaol and even death. Butinstead of improving, their situation grew worse day by day. Whenever UnitedNations organs adopted resolutions, the hopes of the people were aroused, only tobe disappointed when the resolutions were ignored and defied by the SouthAfrican Government. The Special Committee should ensure that false hopes werenot raised again and that the South African Government was forced to cease thehumiliation and persecution of the South African people.45. Miss Makeba added that there was already too much hate in South Africa andthat it would overflow if the world kept silent while the Government proceededalong its brutal course. She appealed to the Committee, and through it to all thecountries of the world, to do everything possible to save the lives of the SouthAfrican leaders, empty the prisons of those unjustly imprisoned, and help thepeople to win their right to human dignity.46. Miss Mary Benson spoke of a number of men and women in South Africawho were on trial under laws providing for death sentences, particularly thedefendants in the Rivonia trial, who were known to her personally. She

emphasized that it was profoundly important to South Africa, to the Africancontinent, and to the world at large that leaders like Nelson8 Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Anno.xes,agenda item 30, documents A/5614 and Add.1-3.9 London, Faber and Faber, 1962.

54 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesMandela, Walter Sisulu, Lionel Bernstein, Ahmed Kathrada and Govan Mbekimust not be allowed to die.47. Speaking of the plight of families of persons persecuted by the South AfricanGovernment for their opposition to the policies of apartheid, Miss Bensonemphasized the urgent need to implement General Assembly resolution 1978 B(XVIII I on relief and other assistance for these families so that the anguish of theSouth Africans concerned may be alleviated even a little. There wereorganizations in South Africa and London which could distribute funds, hit theirresources had become ever more inadequate in the face of the growing needs.48. Finally, Miss Benson referred to the misery and uncertainty faced by theAfrican poitulation arainst the background of a fantastic wave of prosperity forwhite South Africa, with increasing investment especially from the UnitedKingdom and the United States. According to the South Africa Foundation, theaverage dividend in South Africa was 12.6 per cent compared with 6.6 per cent inWestern Europe, while United States companies were earning profits of up to 27per cent on capital invested in South Africa. That was "interest on the edge of avolcano," to quote the editor of the Investor's Chronicle, London. The massiveforeign investment in South Africa, in her view, was the major obstacle to effortsto bring about change in that country. Miss Benson concluded that economicsanctions were surely the obvious civilized form of action as diplomatic pressureshad long ago failed to make any impact on the South African Government.49. Mr. Oliver Tambo, deputy president of the African National Congress, statedthat, claiming to act in the name of "Christian" civilization and "Western"democracy, the South African Government was tirelessly persecuting the Africanpeople and other opponents of its policies. This persecution was encouraged byforeign investments which had continued to pour into the country. Whiteimmigrants, mainly from the United Kingdom, had recently been entering SouthAfrica in large numbers to share in the exploitation of African labour.50. If South Africa was enjoying an economic boom, that was doubtless partlydue to a sense of security induced by the arms supplied to the South AfricanGovernment by its friends, as well as by the imprisonment of the leaders of theliberation movement. It was hardly necessary to point out that the supposedstability was unreal. It was pertinent, however to ask who bore the greater guilt-those who enforced racialist policies, or those who furnished the capital technicalknowledge and manpower for the carrying out of those policies.51. Mr. Tambo said that his organization felt that the Special Committee, inseeking modes of action against apartheid. should consider means whcieby suchaccomplices could be made to reconcile their public protestations with theirdeeds. For it was dangerous to continue pretending that the joint condemnation of

apartheid by its opponents and its supporters would dislodge a system which drewits resources from a combination of economic power, military strength and theunbridled use of brute force. The fact that respected leaders of the South Africanpeople now stood in danger of losing their lives, he said, added to the importanceof identifying those who gave to the South African Government the financial andmaterial encouragement it needed for the continuing of its policies and practices.52. Referring to the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill then before the South AfricanParliament, Mr. Tambo stated that in one of its key clauses it established anetwork of so-called "Aid Centres" which were in fact slave-labour detentioncamps, designed to entrap all Africans outside the bantustan areas and distributethem as black labour to white masters and farmers throughout the country. Thepractice of catching Africans in the streets and selling them to white farmers,which had been outlawed by the courts some years previously, was beinglegalized under the Bill which made of the African merely a chattel.53. Mr. Makiwane, member of the National Executive of the African NationalCongress, recalled that in July 1963 his organization's delegation had drawn theattention of the Special Committee to the prominent role played by certaincountries-notably the United Kingdom, the United States, Belgium, France andthe Federal Republic of Germany-which were supplying oil to the machinery ofapartheid by their close economic collaboration with South Africa. He said thatimmigrants from the United Kingdom and other countries were employed forwork which could equally well be done hby Africans.F. REPORT OF 23 VMARCI 1964 TO THE GENERALASSEMBLY AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL54. On 23 March 1964, the Special Committee unanimously adopted anurgent report to the General Assembly (A/5692) and the Security Council (S/5621 ) drawing attention to the grave new developments in the Republic ofSouth Africa, in particular the death sentences already pronounced and themenace of death sentences to and execution of political prisoners opposed toapartheid. It expressed its conviction that positive and dynamic action by theprincipal organs was essential to avert a violent conflict in South Africa "whichmight have serious international consequences and which it is the duty of theUnited Nations to prevent by employing all the means available to it under theCharter".55. The Special Committee stated, inter alia:"13. While continuing to review the situation in SouthAfrica and constantly seeking an adequate solution, the Special Committee hasreached the conclusion that it is indispensable to make an urgent report to theSecurity Council and the General Assembly in view of grave new developmentsin the Republic of South Africa, namely, that some political prisoners opposed toapartheid have just received death sentences, others are threatened with the samepenalty,and all of them risk being hanged."14. The Special Committee, being convinced that effective mandatory measuresmust be taken urgently to meet this grave situation and to prevent irrevocableconsequences, recommends, as a first step, that the Security Council should

demand that the South African Government should:"(a) Refrain from the execution of persons sentenced todeath under arbitrary laws providing the death sentence for offences arising fromopposition to the Government'sracial policies:"(b) End immediately trials now proceeding under thesearbitrary laws and grant an amnesty to all political prisoners whose only crime istheir opposition to the Government'sracial policies;"(c) Desist immediately from taking further discriminatorymeasures;"(d) Refrain from all other actions likely to aggravatethe present situation.

Annex No. 12 55"15. The Special Committee recommends that, unless the "The UnitedNations General Assembly has entrusted theSouth African Government complies within a brief time- Special Committeeon the Policies of apartheid of the Govlimit with the aforementioned minimum,but vital, demands, ernment of the Republic of South Africa with the taskthe Security Council, in conformity with the terms of of keeping the variousaspects of the South African GovernChapter VII of the Charter and on the basis ofthe recom- ment's racial policies under constant review. The latestdemendations of the General Assembly and the Special Coin- velopmcnts inSouth Africa are causing grave concern tomittee, should take new mandatory steps to compel the South the SpecialCommittee, which has pointed out, in the report African Government to complywith the decisions of the of 23 March 1964 to the General Assembly and theSecurityCouncil. Council, that the intensification ofracial discrimination and"16. The Special Committee considers it essential that the brutal repressivemeasures being taken against individualsthe Security Council should set a time-limit for the South and organizationsopposed to the policy of apartheid areAfrican Government to take necessary steps to prevent the creating a situationwhich becomes more explosive with eachsituation from becoming disastrous. The Council would, in passing day andwill, if it continues, inevitably have seriousthis way, be making clear its determination to secure com- internationalrepercussions.pliance, by effective international measures, with that Gov- "The SpecialCommittee is concerned, in the first inernment's obligations under the resolutionsof the Council stance, with the trials of hundreds of persons, including and theCharter of the United Nations. many prominent leaders of themovement for racial equality,

"17. The Special Committee further recommends that the which are nowunder way. These trials, conducted underSecurity Council should specially request all the main States arbitrary laws whichviolate the fundamental principles of which maintain close relations with theSouth African Gov- universal justice and human rights and which prescribe theernment, and thus bear an important responsibility in this death penalty for actsof resistance to the policy of apartheid, connexion, to do all in their power,separately and collec- are continuing despite the unanimous appeals of both thetively. to oblige the South African Government immediately General Assemblyand the Security Council, for their abanto comply with the minimum, but vital,demands contained donment and for the liberation of all persons imprisoned,in paragraph 14 above, interned or subjected to otherrestrictions for having op"18. The Special Committee reaffirms that thewillingness posed the policy of apartheid. These trials have alreadyof the major trading partners of South Africa, and of other resulted in thepassing of death sentences on three prominent States which maintain closepolitical and economic relations leaders opposed to the policy of apartheid andmay well with that country, to implement fully the measures recom- doirreparable harm to the efforts of the United Nationsmended by the General Assembly and the Security Council to find a peacefulsolution to the situation in South Africa.is the most effective means to dissuade the South African "The SpecialCommittee has therefore decided to addressGovernment from pursuing its policies of apartheid. It is an urgent appeal toyou to exert all your influence to induceessential that these Powers should urgently use all their the Government ofSouth Africa:influence to save the lives of persons facing death in SouthAfrica for their opposition to apartheid, to secure an amnesty "(1) To refrain fromexecuting the condemned political in conformity with the decisions of the GeneralAssembly leaders and to spare the lives of the persons threatened withand the Security Council, and to induce the South African the death penalty inSouth Africa;Government to fulfil its international obligations with a view "(2) To put an endto the tortures and the various to resolving peacefully the present grave situationin the humiliations inflicted on the opponents of apartheid in SouthRepublic of South Africa. Africa;"19. Finally, the Special Committee wishes to emphasize "(3) To liberate thepolitical prisoners whose only crimeagain the extreme gravity of the situation in South Africa is their opposition tothe South African Government's policyand the imperative need for effective action in order to of apartheid;prevent a catastrophe in that country. Such action offersthe only hope of a peaceful solution to the situation, which "(4) To abandon itspolicy of apartheid, which is contrary is deteriorating daily. The Special

Committee believes that to the United Nations Charter and the UniversalDeclarationmandatory measures are essential to prevent irrevocable of Human Rights.consequences and to strengthen the efforts of the United "We have the honourto send you herewith for your inforNations to achieve its objectives, which are tobring about mation the report of the Special Committee of 23 March theabandonment of the policies of apartheid and to ensure 1964. in which theCommittee gives an account of recent the full enjoyment of human rights andfundamental freedoms developments and makes recommendations forappropriateby all the inhabitants of South Africa. international action.""20. The Special Committee feels that the Security Coun- 7. Pursuant to thedecision of the Special Commitcil, as a principal organ of the United Nationsendowed with peffective enforcement powers under the Charter, should as- tee, the officersaddressed this appeal to the Heads of sume its decisive responsibilities inconnexion with the situa- State or Government of Member States, through thetion in South Africa. The Special Committee is convinced Permanent Missionsto the United Nations, and to a that positive and dynamic action by the SecurityCouncil number of other eminent personalities and organizations.is essential to prevent a violent conflict in South Africa, 58. The SpecialCommittee notes that a large numberwhich might have serious international consequences andwhich the United Nations is in duty bound to prevent by of Member Stateshave taken action in response to thisevery means available to it under the Charter." appeal. The SpecialCommittee also received communications from several Mlember StatesreaffirmingG. APPEAL TO MEMIBF-R STATES, ORGANIZATIONS AND theirfirm opposition to apartheid and informing theENIINENT PERSONALITIES IN CONNEXION WITH THE SpecialCommittee of action either already taken orTRIALS AND DEATH SENTENCES IN THE REPUT'LIC proposed tobe taken by them in response to its appeal.OF SOUTH AFRICA The substantive parts of thesecommunications are56. At the 31st meeting on 23 March 1964, the reproduced in Annex 1.Special Committee approved the following appeal 59. In connexionwith the efforts of the Special(A/AC.115/L.70) to be addressed by the officers of Committee with regardto the trials and death sentencesthe Committee to Member States, organizations and in South Africa, itmay be noted that the African Groupeminent personalities in connexion with the trials of at the United Nations, ata meeting on 25 March 1964,

persons opposed to the policies of apartheid in the heard a statement on thismatter by the Chairman of theRepublic of South Africa and the passing of death Special Committeeand issued the following cornsentences:muniqu6:

General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexes"The African group had an urgent meeting today in which it heard the Chairmanof the Special Committee on apartheid, Ambassador Diallo Telli of Guinea."Ambassador Diallo Telli reported on the explosive situation which hasdeveloped in South Africa following numerous trials of South AfricanNationalists, resulting in death sentences."The African group wishes to express its profound indignation against this savagerepression of the South African patriots which threatens to plunge South Africaand the entire Continent into a bloody conflict. "The African group stresses that inthese trials and death sentences it is in fact all the African States that are beingtried by the racist government of South Africa."The group regards this as a challenge directed to the whole African Continentand accepts the challenge. "The African group condemns the South AfricanGovernment for its pursuit and intensification of its policy of apartheid. Thegroup further insists for the immediate abandoning of the make-believe trials, thesecurity for the South African leaders and the liberation of all the personsarrested, detained or submitted to other restrictions for having opposed apartheid."60. Moreover, on 27 March 1964, the SecretaryGeneral took note of therecommendations of the Special Committee and made an urgent and earnestappeal to the South African Government "to spare the lives of those facingexecution or death sentences for acts arising from their opposition to theGovernment's racial policies, so as to prevent an aggravation of the situation andto facilitate peaceful efforts to resolve the situation".H. LETTER TO THE ORGANIZATION OF PETROLEUMEXPORTING COUNTRIES CONCERNING APPROPRIATE MEANS OFACHIEVING AN EFFECTIVE EMBARGO ON THE SUPPLY OFPETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TO SOUTH AFRICA61. In connexion with its conclusion that effective action should be taken tosecure speedy compliance by the South African Government with certainminimum demands, the Special Committee recalled the provisions of GeneralAssembly resoultion 1899 (XVIII) of 13 November 1963 under which all Stateswere urged "to refrain . . . from supplying in any manner or form any petroleumor petroleum products to South Africa". It decided to request the Organization ofPetroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for its observations on the appropriatemeans of achieving an effective embargo on the supply of petroleum andpetroleum products to South Africa (see A/AC.115/SR.28 and SR.31).62. Accordingly, on 23 March 1964, the Chairman sent the following letter to theSecretary-General of OPEC."The Special Committee of the Policies of apartheid of

the Government of the Republic of South Africa, which was established underGeneral Assembly Resolution 1761 (XVII) of 6 November 1962, is seeking waysand means of inducing the Government of South Africa to abandon its racialpolicy of apartheid. It is convinced that effective international action is essentialin order to eliminate the explosive situation in South Africa, which, if it continues,will haveincreasingly serious international consequences."In this connexion, the Special Committee has recommended study of means ofensuring an effective embargo on the supply of petroleum to the Republic ofSouth Africa, including, if necessary, a blockade under the auspices of theUnited Nations."The Special Committee notes that some of the principalpetroleum-exporting countries belonging to OPEC have already prohibited theexport of petroleum and petroleum products to the Republic of South Africa,while others haveinformed the General Assembly that they are prepared to take part in applyingsuch measures if they are carried out by all the principal petroleumn-exportingcountries. "The Special Committee also notes that in resolution 1899(XVIII) of 13 November 1963 on the question of South West Africa, the GeneralAssembly urged all Member States to refrain from supplying in any manner orform any petroleum or petroleum products to South Africa."In view of the foregoing and of the urgent need for effective action to deal withthe explosive situation in South Africa, the Special Committee has asked me torequest you to inform the Committee of OPEC's observations on the appropriatemeans of achieving an effective embargo on the supply of petroleum andpetroleum products to South Africa."I shall be grateful for any information or comments which OPEC can offer theSpecial Committee in this connexion." 63. In a reply dated 13 April 1964, theSecretaryGeneral of OPEC stated that the important subject raised in the letter hadbeen discussed at a session of that Organization's Board of Governors whichdecided that the matter should be discussed by each country's representative withhis Government. Copies of the letter had been forwarded to the Governments ofMember Countries with the request that their views and comments should becommunicated to the Secretariat as soon as possible.I. VISIT OF THE DELEGATION OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TOLONDON TO ATTEND THE IN"LF',;TONAL CONFERENCE ONECONOMIC SANCTIONS AG\IN0TSOUTH AFRICA AND TO HEAR PETITIONERS64. On 3 April 1964, the Special Committee decided to send a delegation,consisting of its officers and members of its Sub-Committee on Petitions, toattend as observers the International Conference on Economic Sanctions againstSouth Africa, held in London from 14 to 17 April.'0 The delegation wasauthorized to hear petitioners during its visit to London.65. On its return, the delegation submitted a review of the InternationalConference which the Special Committee transmitted to the General Assembly

and the Security Council as annex TI to its report of 25 May 1964 (see A/5707).The delegation noted:".. after a study and discussion of papers by well-knownexperts on the various aspects of the question of economic sanctions against SouthAfrica, the Conference reached the conclusion that the situation in South Africaconstituted a grave threat to international peace and security. It considered that theSecurity Council should define this situation as a threat to the peace in terms ofArticle 39 of the Charter so that mandatory action could be taken under theauspicesof the United Nations."The Conference noted that as all efforts towards moralsuasion had failed over many years, the only effective means, short of militaryaction, to change the situation in SouthAfrica was the imposition of total economic sanctions."The Conference came to the conclusion that total economic sanctions werepolitically timely, economically feasible and legally appropriate. To be effective,economic sanctions should be total and universally applied, and must have theparticipation of the main trading partners of South Africa."These conclusions, in the view of the delegation of theSpecial Committee, deserve serious consideration by the competent organs of theUnited Nations."10 The delegation consisted of the following: Chairman: Mr. Diallo Telli(Guinea); Rapporteur: Mr. Ram C. Malhotra (Nepal) ; Chairman of the Sub-Committee: Mr. E. C. Anyaok (Nigeria); Members of tle Sub-Comnittee: Mr.Joseph B. Phillips (Ghana)), Mr. Virgilio Nafiagas (Philippines); Mr. SalimKeramane (Algeria) also participated in the hearings. Mr. Fernando VolioJim~nez (Costa Rica), Vice-Chairmal, was unable to accompany the delegation.

66. The delegation of the Special Committee alsoheard a number of petitioners during its visit to London, including representativesof South African organizations opposed to the policies of apartheid and otherswho could provide it with useful information on the situation in South Africa. Thehearings of the Committee and the memoranda received by it (seeA/AC.115/L.65) emphasized: (a) the urgent need for effective action to save thelives of prisoners under trial for their opposition to the policies of apartheid and toavert the present disastrous course in the country; (b) the need for earlyimposition of economic sanctions against South Africa as the only peaceful meansavailable to the international community: and (c the great responsibility whichrests on the few countries which have the closest relations with the Governmentof the Republic of South Africa, particularly the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates of America.67. Mrs. Barbara Castle, Member of Parliament and Honorary President of theAnti-apartheid Movement. stated that the Movement was very broadly based andnon-partisan and had contributed significantly to the growing realization in theUnited Kingdom of the implications and dangers of apartheid. The AntiapartheidMovement was carrying on a campaign for a total arms boycott of South Africa,

and felt that the United Kingdom Government's undertaking not to send any moreweapons that could be used exclusively for the suppression of the South Africanpopulation did not go far enough. It felt that the time had come for more effectiveaction to be taken on the South African issue, and had sponsored studies ofeconomic sanctions against South Africa. It was one of the sponsors of theInternational Conference on Economic Sanctions.68. Mrs. Castle added that the Anti-apartheid Movement recognized that theUnited Kingdom had a special role in relation to South Africa because of theimnortance of its trade with and size of investment in South Africa. While theMovement did not underestimate the difficulties of applying effective economicsanctions, it believed that the alternative was a drift to greater violence and agreater threat to peace. Economic sanctions were, therefore, in the best interest ofthe United Kingdom, as well as the people of South Africa and of internationalpeace. 69. Canon L. Tohn Collins, Chairman of Defence and Aid Fund, ChristianAction. London. stated that his organization was concerned with the politicalstruggle for freedom in South Africa and had always felt it vital and necessary togive support, without any discrimination whatsoever, to those who were fightingfor their freedom.70. Speaking of the past activities of the Defence and Aid fund, he stated that ithad raised funds in the United Kingdom for legal defence in the treason trial of1956; for the supply of inadequate but at least minimum subsistence for thefamilies of the accused: for the care of the victims of the Sharpeville incident andfor support to the activities of the South African Defence and Aid Fund. But thetime of ease for raising enough money, certainly as far as the United Kingdomwas concerned. had passed, and it was almost impossible to raise money in SouthAfrica itself, because of the political implications for those who gave money. TheDefence and Aid Fund was, therefore, faced at the most critical time with lessmoney available.5771. Canon Collins felt that it was absolutely vital that General Assemblyresolution 1978 B (XVIII) should be implemented as widely as possiblethroughout the world to enable the Defence and Aid Fund to meet a vast need. Hesaid that the need was too great for a level of voluntary giving which had hithertobeen relied upon; the very minimum for the most important trials under way was£245,000 for defence, and at least another £50,000 for aid to dependants.72. Canon Collins said that the persistent attempt to remove the leadership of allsensible resistance to apartheid and to block all efforts towards political freedomwas an offence against the international conscience and made it inevitable thatpeople who had for years been concerned with non-violent resistance found thatthey must turn to other methods.73. Mr. Barney Desai, President of the Coloured People's Congress of SouthAfrica, stated that, since its coming into being ten years previously, the ColouredPeople's Congress had been the most active and articulate political bodyexpressing the utter revulsion of the Clonureds to the concept and practice ofapartheid and the rejection of efforts to consign them to the status of docile"appendages of the white people". Because the Coloureds called for the oneness

of South Africa and its people, and rejected apartness which was the veryantithesis of their existence as a people having been descended from Bushmen,Hottentots, Whites, Africans and Indians, and because they had been committedactively to resist the domination of one race by another they had very logicallyjoined the dynamic alliance of the African ational Congress, the South IndianCongress, the Congress of Democrats and the South African Congress of TradeUnions.74. Mr. Desai emphasized that the Coloured people did not desire any specialprivileges as a people and that their demand had been for full equality in theircountry and full participation in the government of their land. He referred to theColoured Representative Council Bill, then before Parliament, and described it asan even greater fraud than the Transkei Constitution Act.75. Mr. Desai appealed to the Special Committee for strong and decisive actionagainst the Republic of South Africa. He said that his organization was convincedthat so long as the United Nations resolutions on sanctions were not mandatory onevery member of the world body, no impression would be made on the oppressorsof non-white people of South Africa. His organization believed that, in addition,an embargo of strategic materials, enforced by a naval blockade, should beurgently considered by the Security Council.76. Mrs Ruth First, a South African journalist and writer, who had recently beenreleased from a long period of detention without trial, spoke mainly about theplight of political prisoners in South Africa. She said in part:"South Africa today lives in what amounts to apermanent state of emergency, because increasingly over the years the legislationhas been a reflection of the growth of political lawlessness on the part of theGovernment. Certain basic provisions of the rule of law, for example habeascorpus provisions of our law, have been suspended. permanently, not for any stateof emergency which is due to last only a specific period of time, but permanently.Men who appear before courts for political crimes and are sentenced to periods ofimprisonment cannot serve their periodA ?V_ I

58 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesof imprisonment and hope to emerge at the end of that period free men havingpaid their debt to whatever society South Africa is offering today. The politicalprisoners are incarcerated for all time. While this growth of political lawlessnesshas been a constant process and has been going on over many years, a turningpoint was reached with the passing of the General Law Amendment Act, for it isclause 17 of this Act which provides for ninety-day detention in South Africa.This was a turning point in the sense that it is no longer now so hit and miss, thetactic of the Government is to lock up for all time the political prisoners. It isbecoming a daily affair and the conventional method of procedure."77. She spoke of the torture in South African prisons-"a torture which does notleave scars, which does not leave bruises that can be shown to a court of law", andto the psychological torture of detaining men and women incommunicado insolitary confinement for periods of indefinite duration to force them to give

information on political movements and on other political workers. She herselfhad been detained and asked to disclose the whereabouts of her father, who was inhiding at the time. She was asked to indicate why her husband had found itnecessary to leave the country. Her brother, who had never been interested inpolitical affairs, had been detained for three weeks, as reprisal for the inability ofthe political police to arrest her father.78. Mrs. First said that the outcome of the Rivonia trial, taking it at its blackest,could precipitate a period of the most desperate racial clash in South Africa andcould put an end to any hopes of solution. She appealed to the United Nations forspeedy action to save the lives of the political prisoners and to induce the SouthAfrican Government to abandon its policies of apartheid. The South AfricanGovernment, she said, judged its chances of survival not by the resolutions of theUnited Nations but by its trading partners, its import and export figures and itsprofits, and believed that the United Kingdom and the United States, in particular,would not act against apartheid. She suggested that the most peaceful and the leastdamaging method of action would be mandatory sanctions enforced by a navalblockade.79. The Right Rev. J. Joost de Blank, former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Townand now Canon of Westminster Abbey, London, stated that the weight ofChristian and other religious opinion was opposed to the policies of apartheid.Members of the Dutch Reformed Churches of South Africa, which representedmost of the Afrikaans-speaking people of South Africa and which had no contactor fellowship on that basis with the Netherlands churches, were, however, ingeneral in support of the South African Government's racial policy. Speaking as aChristian, he said, he found that an impossible attitude to adopt.80. He drew the delegation's attention to the role of the Broederbond (theBrotherhood), a secret society which had been closely intertwined with membersof the South African Government and with the centres of power in the Republic ofSouth Africa.81. He said that a great part of the white population of South Africa favouredracial discrimination, and that it would be grossly unfair to separate those whowere for apartheid and those who were against apartheid as being those who wereAfrikaaners and those who were British by race and origin. The main Governmentpartyand the main opposition party were opposed to the creation of a truly multiracialsociety. There was, however, a significant group of Whites who were liberal intheir outlook and efforts, including many professional men and women'sassociations, such as the "Black Sash", who were striving very hard to bring anend to the present injustice and to sow the seeds for a better nation where co-operation would replace differentiation and discrimination in the future. He statedthat although the smallness of the group could not be denied, its power and itspotentiality were much greater than many people were prepared to acknowledgein South Africa.82. In conclusion, Dr. Joost de Blank said that unless the apartheid legislationcould be brought to an end within the foreseeable future, no one could expectanything but bloody violence in South Africa.

83. Speaking on behalf of six members of the Committee of the Afro-Asian-Caribbean organizations, London, who had been on a hunger strike from 9 to 15April 1964 in the courtyard of the church of St. Martinin-the-Fields, TrafalgarSquare, London, in protest against the trials and repression in South Africa, Mr.Manchanda said that the South African Government maintained one of the mostoppressive regimes in the world and threatened the lives of the outstandingleaders of the South African people like Nelson Mandela, Water Sisulu, LionelBernstein, Ahmed Kathrada and Denis Goldberg. The people of South Africawere left with no choice but to resort to armed resistance against the brutalviolence of the Government. The organizations he represented believed that whileSouth Africa should be isolated in world public opinion, diplomatically andeconomically, it was also important that the great Powers which gave sustenanceand perpetuated the racist r6gioe in South Africa, particularly the United States ofAmerica and the United Kingdom, should also be put in the dock and should alsoface public opinion.84. Thabo Mbeki, son of Govan Mbeki, one of the accused in the Rivonia trial,said that for decades his father, together with the rest of the African people, hadappealed to the white Governments of South Africa, not for the exaltation of theAfrican people to a position of dominance over the white, but for equality amongthe peoples. The only reward they had earned was the brutal might of SouthAfrican law which had sought to bend human reason and feeling to the barbarityof madmen. He said that the defendants in the Rivonia trial were men of thegreatest integrity who would grace any Government in which they served. Notingthat they were accused of treason and of plotting to overthrow the Government byviolent means, Mbeki said that they had acted in defence of people that theGovernment had sought to silence and subjugate with a whip and instruments ofwar. The fact was inescapable that the trial was not only their trial as individuals,but a trial of all that they had stood for, which was not war but peace among freeand equal men. Mbeki concluded by appealing to the Special Committee and tothe entire world not to allow the leaders at the Rivonia trial to die at the hands ofthe South African Government.85. Yusuf M. Dadoo, representative of the South African Indian Congress, statedthat the Indian community comprised almost 600,000 persons who lived in SouthAfrica, had made it their home, and were Africans in every sense of the word. TheIndian people had asked for no special privileges and had thrown in their lot

Annex No. 12 59completely with the African people and with the other oppressed people in thestruggle for human rights, justice and liberty. Mr. Dadoo said that the Indianpeople were confronted with genocide. The Group Areas Act, enacted in 1950,affected them particularly as the African people had already been segregated intoseparate areas and robbed of their land. The Indian people were being driven intoghettos far from the cities where they had been living, and were being cut offcompletelyfrom the econonic and social life of the country.86. Speaking of the situation in South Africa in

general, Mr. Dadoo stated that a racial war was being carried on by the SouthAfrican Government, backed by the armed and police might of the State, againstthe non-white people in the country. Violence had been used by the police atevery conceivable opportunity, even when the non-white people demonstrated ina peaceful manner for their rights. The non-white people were confronted with thechoice of submitting to tyranny and a life of ignominy, or meeting the violence ofthe Government with determined resistance on their part.87. Yusuf M. Dadoo felt that effective and mandatory economic sanctions shouldbe applied against South Africa. He maintained that the non-white people ofSouth Africa were prepared for whatever sacrifices might come as a result ofeconomic sanctions. Rejecting the argument that sanctions would tend to hardenwhite public opinion in South Africa, Mr. Dadoo stated that the large majority ofthe white people of South Africa supported the Government because they stood tobenefit from the apartheid policies. White public opinion rallied in support of thefascist South African Government because its allies, in particular the UnitedKingdom and the United States of America, which had very considerableinvestments in South Africa and derived enormous profits out of the apartheidpolicies, resisted effective action. Economic sanctions would make the whitepeople realize that they could not continue to live a life of luxury from theexploitation and the blood of the nonwhite people.88. Leon Levy, National President and official representative abroad of the SouthAfrican Congress of Trade Unions, gave an account of the discrimination againstAfrican workers, the restrictions on African trade unions and the sepressivemeasures against African trade union leaders. He said that a section of the whitepopulation, which enjoyed the fruits of apartheid, was not prepared to opposeapartheid and that the South African Government was prepared to hang tradeunion leaders, political leaders and all those who opposed apartheid, in order tosecure the financial rewards of such a system.89. Mr. Levy said that the workers of South Africa were deeply concerned withthe need to find a solution to the problem. His organization favoured theapplication of economic sanctions against South Africa. Its members rejected theargument that economic sanctions would hurt those whom it was meant to help,and were prepared for sacrifices if need be.90. All the petitioners, except Thabo Mbeki. submitted memoranda and writtenstatements elaborating their oral statements. A memorandum was also sub. mittedbv Mrs. Rosalynde Ainslie and Miss Dorothy Robinson of the Anti-apartheidMovement, London5 11 The full texts of the petitions, memoranda and wrttenStatements are reproduced in the report of the delegatial of the Special Committeeon the Policies of apartheid ai the hearing of petitioners in London, 13 and 18Apri 1964 (A/AC.115/L.65).J. REPORT OF 25 MAY 1964 TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLYAND THE SECURITY COUNCIL91. After taking note of the report of the delegationand considering the developments in the Republic of South Africa from 23March, the Special Committee submitted a further report to the General Assemblyand the Security Council on 25 May 1964 (A/5707) in view, particularly, of the

forthcoming consideration of the question by the Security Council at the requestof fiftyeight Member States. These Member States had requested the conveningof the Security Council to resume consideration of the serious situation existingin South Africa in the light of the report of the Group of Experts12 and the newdevelopments in the Republicof South Africa. They stated:"Our respective Governments are particularly disturbed bythe extreme measures, and more specifically the imposition of death sentences,which have been taken against a largenumber of African political leaders."The situation in South Africa, which, in the words ofthe Security Council resolution of 7 August 1963,1.3 'is seriously disturbinginternational peace and security', has deteriorated still further in the wake ofrecent events in that country, as is clearly apparent from the interim report of theUnited Nations Special Committee on the Policies of apartheid of the Governmentof the Republic of South Africa, which was submitted to the General Assembly asdocument A/5692 and to the Security Council as documentS/5621."The South African Government's negative reaction to theSecurity Council's resolution of 4 December 1963, in particular, and theworsening of the situation as a result of the continued application by theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa of its policy of apartheid are a matterof deep concern to world public opinion and especially to the countries of Africaand Asia, which consider that the Security Council should take effective measurest obtain the compliance of the South African Government with the earlierresolutions of both the General Assembly and the Security Council and thedischarge of its obligations as aMember State."The undersigned Governments are convinced that positiveand urgent action by the Security Council is essential to prevent a conflict inSouth Africa of unforeseeable consequences for Africa and for the world."92. In its report of 25 May 1964 (A/5707), the Special Committee stated, interalia: "5. The South African Government has shown no willingness to comply withthe resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council or to take theminimum steps recommended in the last report of the Special Comniatee.On the contrary, it has continued to persecut, opponents of the policies ofapartheid and passed ,--' discriminatory legislation depriving the non-wh;-t of thefew remaining ribts. The rrs,.it, .- r;ae situation, and particularly the urgent needfor effective measures to save the lives of those who have already been, or maybe, sentenced to death, has given r;se to the need for this ,iew report, pursuant totheterms of reference of the Special Committee."6 The trial of Nelson Mtandela, Walter Sisulu and otherlealers of the people and opponents of apartheid was resumed a', 20 April 11)64and continues in Pretoria under arbitrary and iniquitous laws, which violate thefundamental principles of universal justice and human rights and prescribe the

death penalty for acts of resistance to the policy of apartheid. A number of othersimilar trials are taking place in the country. In those which have already beenconcluded, numerous persons have been given the most severe sentences forbelonging to the African National Congress and the Pan12 Official Records of theSecurity Council, Xinetcpth Ycar, Supplement for April, May and June 1964,document S/5658.13 Ibid., Eighteenth Year, Supplement for July, August and September 1963,document S/5386.

60 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesAfricanist Congress, nationalist political movements which are banned, or for actsarising from opposition to the policies of apartheid."7. Meanwhile, the Parliament has passed the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill whichalso violates the fundamental principles of human rights and further aggravatestension in the country."S. These developments are greatly increasing the threat of violent conflict inSouth Africa which is bound to have the most serious repercussions in thecontinent of Africa and in the world. The statement of Nelson Mandela at his trialin Pretoria on 20 April 1964 (A/AC.115/L.67) and the evidence of other accusedin that trial, show clearly that the policies of South African Government have leftno effective means of protest and redress to the opponents of apartheid in SouthAfrica except resorting to violence."9. The Special Committee has taken note of the urgent and earnest appeal by theSecretary-General to the Government of South Africa on 27 March 1964 to sparethe lives of those facing execution or death sentences for acts arising from theiropposition to the Government's racial policies, so as to prevent an aggravation ofthe situation and to facilitate peaceful efforts to resolve the situation, as well assimilar appeals by a number of Chiefs of State, non-governmental organizationsand prominent personalities."10. The Group of Experts established in pursuance of the Security Councilresolution of 4 December 1963" has also emphasized the imperative and urgentneed for an ,amnesty for all opponents of apartheid, whether they are under trialor in prison or under restriction or in exile'.** It also recommended the formationof a fully representative national convention to set a new course for the future ofSouth Africa."11. The Special Committee has noted that the Prime Minister of South Africaand other leaders of the South African Government, since the publication of thereport of the group of experts, have arbitrarily and summarily rejected any stepstowards compliance with the recommendations of the group of expe,'ts. The SouthAfrican Government bas also denounced the Secretary-General's appeal of 27March and thus challenged the demands of all Member States as declared inresolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.'15. The Special Committee feels that the course being pursued by theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa, particularly with regard to the trialsand persecution of opponents of apartheid and leaders of the non-whitepopulation, in open defiance of the appeals and demands of competent United

Nations organs, is leading to a rapid aggravation of the situation and isprecipitating a violent conflict. It feels it essential that the competent UnitedNations organs, and the States which bear special responsibilities in this matter inview of their close relations with South Africa, hould take decisive measuresbefore irreparable harm is caused - the peace in South Africa and beyond. TheSpecial Committee, therefore, again recommends that the Security Councilshould:"(a) Declare that the situation in the Repubic of South Africa constitutes a threatto the maintenance of international peace and security;"(b) Take all necessary effective measures to sqve the lives of the South Africanleaders condemned for acts arising from their opposition to the policies ofapartheid;"(c) Call upon all States and international organizations to utilize all theirinfluence to ensure the fulfilment of tht minimum but vital demands indicated inthe last report of the Special Committee;"(d) Address a special request to all States which maintainrelations with South Africa, etpecially the United States"- Official Records of the Securiy Council, Eighteenth Year,Supplement of October, November and December 1963, document S/5471."** Ibid., Nineteenth Year, Supphment for April, May andJune 1964, document S/5694, annex, para. 44."of America, the United Kingdom, and France, permanent memoers of the SecurityCouncil, to take effective measuresto meet the present grave situation;"(e) Decide to apply economic sanctions, in accordancewith Chapter VII of the Charter, as long as the Government of South Africacontinues to violate its obligations as aMember of the United Nations."16. In conclusion, the Special Committee wishes to emphasize that, in itsopinion, effective mandatory action is imperative to avoid the most seriousconsequences arising from the policies of apartheid of the Government of SouthAfrica, and that the Security Council is entitled to take such action under theprovisions of the Charter. It expresses the hope that the Security Council willassume its full responsibilities on this question in accordance with the Charter andwith the active co-operation of all the great Powers concerned, whose role isdecisive in this matter,"93. In submitting its report of 25 May 1964 the Special Committee emphasizedonce again the urgent need for mandatory action under Chapter VII of the Charter,with the active co-operation, in particular, of Governments that maintain closerelations with the Government of the Republic of South Africa, in order to avertviolent conflict in South Africa, which is liable to have serious internationalconsequences.94. On 29 May 1964, the African group at the United Nations, after taking note ofthe report of the Special Committee and having heard the African representativesin the Special Committee, issued a communique in which it stated:"...the African Group notes with great anxiety that

during the year following the Conference of Addis Ababa the situation in SouthAfrica, in spite of all the efforts exerted by the United Nations. has continued toworsen steadily to the point where it now constitutes a very serious threat to themaintenance of international peace and security.The Group believes that this serious deterioration is due not only to the defiantattitude and criminal obstinacy of the South African Government but also to thelack of effective co-operation on the part of that Government's major partnerswho, in spite of all appeals, have refused to undertake the only effective action tochange the catastrophic course of events in South Africa, namely, economicsanctions."The African Group adopts the recommendations containedin the 25 MAay report of the Special Committee stressing the imperativenecessity for mandatory action in the form of economic and commercial sanctionsso as to forestall a racial explosion in South Africa with unforeseeableconsequences."The African Group appeals once again to the partners ofSouth Africa and, in particular, to the Governments of the United Kingdom, theUnited States and France, the only permanent members of the Security Council tomaintain rela'ions with the Government of Pretoria, (a) to take all necessarymeasures in order to prevent the execution of the nationalist leaders condemnedfor their opposition to apartheid and (b) to support all economic sanctionsdesigned to bring about, by peaceful means, an end to the intolerable policy ofapartheid which has been unanimously condemnedby international opinion."Finally, the African Group, in the face of the extremegravity of the situation, desires to recall the unanimous and solemn appeal whichthe African Heads of State, meeting in Addis Ababa, had sent out to the greatPowers, whichread as follows:"'The Summit Conference of Independent African Statespurposely intervenes and asks the great Powers to stop giving, without exception,either directly or indirectly, any support or assistance to all colonialistgovernments who would use this assistance to repress African movements 6national liberation ... ; announces to the allies of colonial Powers that they mustchoose between their friendship for Af-ican peoples and their support to powerswhich oppressthee peoples.'

trSattId

Iei1 vi imCOt....... i .cL.x~,a reSu Ltng from the policies ofapartheid, the Security Council adopted resolutionS/5773 on 18 June 1964 taking note with appreciation of the reports of the SpecialCommittee and of the Group of Experts, deploring the refusal of the SouthAfrican Government to comply with pertinent Security Council resolutions anddeclaring in its operative part:"1. Condemns the apartheid policies of the Governmentof the Republic of South Africa and the legislation supporting these policies, suchas the General Law Amendment Act,and in particular its ninety-day detention claube;"2. Urgently reiterates its appeal to the Government ofthe Republic of South Africa to liberate all persons imprisoned, interned orsubjected to other restrictions for having opposed the policies of apartheid; "3.Notes the recommendations and the conclusions in the report of the Group ofExperts;141bid., Nineteenth Year, Supplement for April, May and June 1964, documentS/5761.L. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK OFTHE SPECIAL COMMITTEE, JULY 196499. At its 37th meeting on 10 July 1964, the Special Committee considered itsprogramme of work in the light of the developments since its report of 22 May,including in particular the Security Council resolutions of 9 and 18 June, as wellas the sentences in the Rivonia trial and the new wave of acts of sabotage andarrests in June and July.100. The Committee felt that, in view of the trend of events in South Africa, theUnited Nations should intensify its efforts to bring international pressure to bearagainst the South Africnn Government in ordor to persuade it to abandon itspolicies of apartheid. It noted that the establishment by the Security Council of anexpert committee to undertake a technical and practical study of measures whichcould be taken by the Council did not affect the mandate of the SpecialAnnex No. 12 61"The African Group expresses the hope that this appeal "4. Urgently appealsto the Government of the Republicwill finally be heard and that the great Powers to whom of South Africa:the Group addresses itself will manifest concretely, during "(a) To renouncethe execution of any persons sentencedthe forthcoming Security Council debates, their unequivocal to death for theiropposition to the policy of apartheid; desire to bring about an effective and rapidend to the policy "(b) To grant immediate amnesty to all persons detained ofapartheid of the South African Guvernment." or on trial, as well asclemency to all persons sentencedfor their opposition to the Government's racial policies;

K. CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION BY THE SECURITY"(c) To abolish the practice of imprisonment withoutCOUNCIL, JUNE 1964 charges, without access to counsel orwithout the right of95. The Security Council resumed consideration of prompt trial;"S. Endorses and subscribes in particular to the main conthe question in June1964 at the request of fifty-eight clusion of the Group of Experts that 'all thepeople of SouthMember States and took into account the reports of Africa should bebrought into consultation and should thusthe Special Committee as well as the report of the Group be e-nabled todecide the future of their country at theof Experts appointed by the Secretary-General pursuant national level';to the Security Council resolution of 4 December 1963. "6. Requests theSecretary-General to consider what assist%. On 9 June 1964 the Council adopteda resolu- ance the United Nations may offer to facilitate such conion14recalling the provisions of General Assembly sultations amongrepresentatives of all elements of the popuesolution 1881 (XVIII) of 11 October1963 and of lation in South Africa;he Security Council's resolutions of 7 August 1963 and "7. Invites theGovernment of the Republic of SouthDecember 1963 concerning the arbitrary trials and Africa to accept themain conclusion of the Group of Expertsreferred to in paragraph 5 above, to co-operate with theepressive measures against opponents of apartheid in Secretary-Generaland to submit its views to him with respectSouth Africa, and noting with great concern that the to such consultationsby 30 November 1964;rbitrary Rivonia trial instituted against the leaders of "0. Decides to establisha committee of experts, composedhe anti-apartheid movement had been resumed and of representatives ofeach present member of the Securityhat the imminent verdict to be delivered under arbitrary Council, to undertakea technical and practical study, andaws prescribing long terms of imprisonment and the report to the SecurityCouncil as to the feasibility, effeceath sentence might have very seriotsconsequences. tiveness, and implications and measures which could, asappron its operative part the resolution read: priate, be taken by theSecurity Council under the United"1. Urges the So ith African Government: Nations Charter;"9. Requests the Secretary-General to provide to the com"(a) To renounce theexecution of the persons sentenced mittee of experts the Secretariat's materialon the subjectsto death for acts resulting from their opposition to the policy to be studied by thatCommittee, and to co-operate with the of apartheid;committee as requested by it;

"(b) To end forthwith the trial in progress, instituted "10. Authories thecommittee of experts to request allwithin the framework of the arbitrary laws of apartheid; and States Members ofthe United Nations to co-operate with it"(c) To grant an amnesty to all persons already imprisoned, and to submit theirviews on such measures to the Coininterned or subjected to other restrictions forhavtng opposed mittee no later than 30 November 1964, and the committee thepolicy of apartheid, and particularly to the defendants to complete its report notlater than three months thereafter; in the Rivonia trial;"l. Invites the Secretary-General in consultation with ap"2. Inzites all States toexert all their influence in order propriate United Nations specialized agencies toestablish to induce the South African Government to comply with aneducational and training programme for the purpose ofthe provisions of this resolution; arranging for education andtrainiog abroad for South"3. In ites the Secretary-General to follow closely the Africans;implementation of the resolution and to report thereon to "12. Reaffirms itscall upon all States to cease forthwiththe Security Council at the earliest possible date." the sale and shipment toSouth Africa of arms, ammunition97. of all types, military vehicles, andequipment and materialsTwo days after the adoption of this resolution, for the manufacture andmaintenance of arms and ammunitionght of the nine accused in the Rivonia trial were con- in South Africa;rted. They were sentenced on 12 June 1964 to life "13. Requests allMember States to take such steps asprisonment. they deem appropriate to persuade theGovernment of the98. After further consideration of the question of race Republic of SouthAfrica to comply with this resolution."nflc i q,,- ¢ . ... ~UL1I- isz ..e. po.c.es. .

62 General Assembiy-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesCommittee which was charged by the General Assembly with followingconstantly the various aspects of the question. The Special Committee was in noway precluded from recommending action before the submission of the report ofthe expert committee, if it felt that the situation required such action.101. The Committee decided to give special attention to the question of repressivemeasures against opponents of apartheid in South Africa and to consider at anearly date the papers submitted by the Secretariat on the foreign trade of SouthAfrica (A/AC.1 15/L.55) and foreign investments in South Africa (A/AC.115/L.56). It requested the Secretariat to revise these documents in order to bring themup to date, and in accordance with this request, the Secretariat prepareddocuments A/AC.115/L.55/Add.1 and L.56/Rev. 1.

102. The Committee also decided to submit a report to the General Assembly atits nineteenth session.NI, CONSIDERATION OF REPRESSIVE MEASURES AGAINSTOPPONENTS OF THE POLICIES OF apartheid IN TIlEREPUBLIC OF SOLTTh- AFRICA103. The continued and intensified repression against opponents of the policies ofapartheid in the Republic of South Africa, despite the Security Council resolutionsof 9 and 18 June 1964, led the Special Committee to devote several meetings tothis aspect of the problem. A brief account of the Committee's proceedings on thisaspect is given below.(a) Detention of Abram ;Fischer104. On 10 July 1964, the Special Committee received the news of the detentionof Abram Fischer, leader of the defence team in the Rivonia trial, and authorizedthe Acting Chairman to issue a statement expressing its serious concern. Inaccordance with this decision, the Acting Chairman issued the followingcommunique:"The Special Committee on the policies of apartheidof the Government of the Republic of South Africa, at its meeting today,discussed the reported arrest by the police authorities of the South AfricanGovernment of Abram Fischer, an attorney, who a few weeks ago led the defenceof Nelson Mandela and sevenothers accused of sabotage."The Committee expressed its very serious concernwith regard to an action which could be interpreted only as an act of reprisalperpetrated by a Government against a legal counsel for having fulfilled hisduties in the face of serious odds."This arrest, in the view of the Committee, shedslight on the conditions under which legal proceedings are conducted under thepresent r~gime of the Republic of South Africa." (See United Nations PressRelease GA/AP/33, 10 July 1964.)Fischer was released soon afterwards, but was again arrested on 23 Septemberand charged with furthering the aims of an unlawful organization.(b) Rejection of appeals against the death sentences on Vuyisilc Mini, WilsonKhayinga and ZinakileMkaba105. The Special Committee held a special meeting on 9 October 1964 to considerurgently the news that the appeal against the death sentences passed in March1964 against three leaders of the African National Congress, Vuyisile Mini,Wilson Khayinga and ZinakileMkaba had been rejected. Members of the Committee expressed grave concernover the danger to the lives of these three men and the inevitable consequences ofexecutions in defiance of the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.They agreed that world opinion should immediately be alerted in an effort toprevent such an eventuality.106. Consequently the Special Committee unanimously decided to issue acommuniqu6 in which it stated :

".. the Special Committee on the policies of apertheidof the Government of the Republic of South Africa expresses its grave concernover the news that the appeals of Vuyisile Mini, Wilson Khayinga and ZinakileMkaba, leaders of the African National Congress in Port Elizabeth, against thedeath sentences passed on them in March 1964have been rejected."it notes that the trial of these militant opponents of thepolicies of apartheid is in violation of the repeated resolutions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council calling on the South African Government toend its ruthless repressive measures against the opponents of the policies ofapartheid and seek a peaceful solution based on racial equality. It recalls that theSecurity Council, in its resolution S/5761 of 9 June 1964, urged the South AfricanGovernment 'to renounce the execution of the persons sentenced to death for actsresulting from their opposition tothe policy of apartheid'."The Special Committee, therefore, urgently demands thatthe South African Government refrain from the execution of the death sentences,which would seriously aggravate the situation in South Africa, and take steps tocomply with the resolutions of the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil."The Special Committee urgently appeals to all States,organizations and individuals to utilize all their influence to save the lives ofVuyisile Mini, Wilson Khayinga and Zinakile Mkaba and to persuade the SouthAfrican Government to grant an amnesty to all persons imprisoned, interned orsubjected to other restrictions for having opposed the policy of apartheid." (SeeUnited Nations Press ReleaseGA/AP/38, 9 October 1964.)107. On the same day, in accordance with the decision of the Committee, theChairman transmitted the communiqu6 to the Secretary-General with a requestthat it be sent to the South African Government.108. The Secretary-General subsequently informed the Chairman that he hadtransmitted his letter and the Special Committee's communiqu6 to the PermanentRepresentative of South Africa to the United Nations on 9 October and hadexpressed the hope that the South African Government would see fit to showclemency to the men sentenced to death, in the spirit of the Security Council'sresolution of 9 June 1964. The Secretary-General added that he had alsotransmitted similar appeals by President Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United ArabRepublic on behalf of the Second Conference of the Heads of State orGovernment of the Non-Aligned Countries and hv the Chairman of the Africangroup at the United Nations.109. On 22 October 1964, the Secretary-General communicated to the Chairman acopy of a letter dated 21 October received from the Permanent Representative ofSouth Africa, stating, inter alia, that "the South African Government have nointention whatsoever Of answering the communications to which your letter gavecover and which are obviously yet another attempt organized under Communist

influence by political forces hostile to South Africa to interfere in the judicialprocesses of a Member State" (see A/AC.115/L.93).

Annex No. 12 63110. At the 44th meeting on 26 October 1964, the Chairman and members of theCommittee deplored the discourtesy with which the South African Governmenthad seen fit to reject the appeals to spare the lives of the three men condemned todeath. They denounced as absurd the charge regarding Communist influencewhich they said was another proof that the attitude of the South AfricanGovernment was such that only decisive steps by the international communitycould meet the grave situation.(c) Hearing of a petitioner concerninq the banning order served on Chief Albert .Luthuli111. On 29 October 1964 (45th meeting), the Special Committee heard astatement (see A/AC.115/ L.94) by Mrs. Mary-Louise Hooper, a former personalassistant to Chief Albert J. Luthuli. Mrs. Hooper drew the Committee's attentionto the restrictions imposed on Chief Luthuli under the five-year banning orderserved on him on 24 May 1964. She said that the lack of onthe-spot medicalattention was shocking in view of the fact that Chief Luthuli was 66 years old andhad suffered an extremely grave heart attack about ten years earlier. He had beenin hospital for many weeks after that attack and again during the state ofemergency in 1960 when he had been assaulted by a prison warder. The heartattack had left Chief Luthuli with dangerously high blood pressure, which shouldbe constantly watched by a physician.(d) Execution of Ffvyisile Mini. [Vilson Khayinga and Z.nak ie Mkaba112. The Special Committee held an emergency meeting on 6 November 1964 onreceiving the news that Vuyisile Mini, Wilson Khayinga and Zinakile Mkaba hadbeen executed that morning in the Pretoria Central gaol.113. The Committee observed a minute of silence in memory of these three men.Members of the Committee expressed shock and indignation at the news andemphasized the need for effective international action to avoid the rapidaggravation of the situation.114. The Committee unanimously decided to issue the following communiqu6:"At an emergency meeting held today, the Special Committee on the Policies ofapartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa expressed its shockand profound indignation over the news of the execution of Messrs. VuyisileMini, Wilson Khayinga and Zinakile Mkaha, three African National Congressleaders in Port Elizabeth. "The Special Committee strongly condemns thisruthless and criminal act which not only constitutes a challenge to world publicopinion, but also a flagrant violation of resolutions of the General Assembly andSecurity Council, particularly of the resolution of the Security Council (S/5761)of 9 June 1964 urging the South African Government 'to renounce the executionof persons sentenced to death for acts resulting from their opposition to thepolicies of apartheid'."The Special Committee draws the attention of the international community to thegrave and irreparable consequences which are bound to result from the course

being followed by the South African Government. It reaffirms its determination toredouble its efforts, in the discharge of its mandate, to assist the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council to adopt decisive measures to ensure anurgent solution to this problem."The Special Committee urges all States, particularly those States which by stillmaintaining close relations with South Africa bear a special responsibility in thismatter,now to take energetic steps, in accordance with the reso* lutions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council.to ensure the abandonment of the disastrous policy of* apartheid of the South African Government."tN. APPEAL TO MN[EMBER STATES CONCERNING RELIEFAND ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES OF PERSONS PERSECUTED BY THESOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT FORTHEIR OPPOSITION TO THE POLICIES OF apartheid115. At the 40th meeting on 24 September 1964,the Acting Chairman recalled the Committee's recommendation to the eighteenthsession of the General Assembly concerning measures for relief and assistance tothe families of persons persecuted for their opposition to the policies ofapartheid,5 and the subsequent adoption by the General Assembly of resolution1978 B (XVIII) requesting the Secretary-General "to seek ways and means ofproviding relief and assistance, through the appropriate international agencies, tothe families of all persons persecuted by the Government of the Republic of SouthAfrica for their opposition to the policies of apartheid". He recalled that theSecretary-General had informed the General Assembly that he would contact theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in order to seek assistance forSouth African refugees and the International Committee of the Red Crossregarding assistance for families inside South Africa. The Secretary-General hadannounced on 13 March 1964 that the High Commissioner was ready to co-operate in the matter. Arrangements for assistance to families inside South Africa,however, could not be made because of certain difficulties. The Acting Chairmansaid that the officers of the Special Committee had felt that they should discussthe matter with the Secretary-General in view of the desperate needs of thousandsof families in South Africa and consider the desirability of an appeal by theSpecial Committee to all States and organizations.116. The Special Committee then decided to requestits officers to convey to the Secretary-General its concern over the plight offamilies persecuted by the South African Government for their opposition to thepolicies of apartheid, to seek information on the progress made in theimplementation of resolution 1978 B(XVIII) and to consult with him on the question whether the Committee could beof any assistance in the matter at the present time.117. Following the meeting with the SecretaryGeneral, the officers suggestedthat an appeal be addressed by the Special Committee to Member States, throughthe Secretary-General, and also to appropriate organizations, requesting them to

contribute urgently and generously to existing relief organizations pending theconclusion of other appropriate arrangements.118. The Committee approved the suggestion and on 26 October 1964 adoptedthe text of an appeal which was circulated as document A/AC.115/L.98. It read inpart as follows:"In spite of all Security Council and General Assemblyresolutions demanding the abandonment of the policies of apartheid, theGovernment uf the Republic of South Africa has continued to implement itsrepressive law; providing extremely harsh penalties for belonging to or furtheringthe aims of the major African political organizations and for15 Official Records of the Genwral Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Anmnexes,addendum to agenda item 30, document A/5497, para. 513.

64 (eneral Assernbly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesacts of protest and resistance against the Government's racial policies. Theimplementation of these laws has resulted in the detention of thousands ofpersons, many of whom are being tried or awaiting trial, thus facing long periodsin prison or life impricouinteni ur even death sentences. Hundreds of persons havebeen imprisoned under Section 17 of the Ceneral Law Amendment Act of 1063,which provides for the detention of persons without trial for periods of ninetydays at a time. Numerous pcrF4,ns have heen subjectel to banishment, housearrest, hanning orders and other restrictions which often prevent them frompursuing their occupations. The distress and misery caused by these repressiveactions to the families may easily be imagined. Numerous families have beendeprived of their breadwinners. Children have been separated from one or both uftheir parents."When brought to trial, many an opponent of the policies of apartheid facesfinancial difficulties and has to rely on benevolent organizations for legalassistance, support of families and payment of bail."It appears from communications received by the Special Committee fromorganizations concerned with relief and assistance to the victims of repression inSouth Africa that they are in urgent need of funds to provide even minimum legalassistance and relief to numerous persons who have been gaoled or brought totrial under repressive laws."The Special Committee is attaching herewith communications received by itfrom three organizations-Amnesty International, Defence and Aid Fund(International) and Joint Committee on the High Commission Territorieswhichhave been engaged in relief and assistance for the victims of persecution by theRepublic of South Africa and which offer their services in implementing thepurposes of General Assembly resolution 1978 B (XVIII). "The SpecialCommittee notes that the Amnesty International, sponsored by eminentpersonalities from many countries, 'adopts' prisoners and detainees in SouthAfrica who do not advocate violence and also assists refugees from South Africa.The Defence and Aid Fund, established in the United Kingdom in 1956, withCanon L. John Collins as Chairman, has so far contributed about £300,000 to thevictims of the policies of apartheid and maintains contact with South Africa

through local committees. Its efforts have been appreciated by prominent SouthAfrican opponents of apartheid, including Chief Albert Luthuli, winner of theNobel Peace Prize. The Joint Committee on the High Commission Territories,representative of a number of voluntary organizations, is concerned with the reliefand assistance of South African refugees in the High Commission Territories andin Northern Rhodesia. "The Special Committee also notes that the World Councilof Churches has, in July 1964, earmarked $60,000 for legal aid for politicalprisoners in South Africa and for assistance to their dependants, and is seekingfurther contributions for this purpose."The Special Committee wishes to make an urgent appeal to Member States tocontribute generously to the fulfilment of the purposes of General Assemblyresolution 1978 B (XVIII) through these voluntary organizations or through otherappropriate channels of their choice, and to give the widest publicity to this appealin order to encourage charitable foundations, organizations and individuals intheir countries to make generous contributions."119. The Committee authorized its Chairman to transmit the appeal to appropriateorganizations.120. By a letter dated 12 November 1964, the Permanent Representative of Indiato the United Nations informed the Committee that his Government had decidedto contribute a sum of 25,000 rupees ($5,250)in response to its appeal (see A/AC.115/L.100).0. CONSIDERATION OF PAPERS ON THE PATTERN OFFOREIGN TRADE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTHAFRICA AND FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THATCOUNTRY121. In October 1964, the Special Committee began consideration of the patternof foreign trade of the Republic of South Africa and foreign investments in theRepublic of South Africa. It had before it papers prepared by the Secretariat onthese questions at its request (A/AC.115/L.55 and Add.1 and Add.l/Corr.l and 2, L/56 and Rev.1).1"122. On 20 October (42nd meeting), the Special Committee heard a statement(A/AC.115/L.92) by Mr. Ronald Segal, convener of the International Conferenceon Economic Sanctions against South Africa, held in London in April 1964.123. Mr. Segal stated that despite the boycott campaign abroad and the continuingunrest at home, the South African economy was booming. Economic strengthhad merely added self-assurance to intransigence, and the richer the State, themore repressive and exacting it had become. The vast majority of nonwhites werebecoming even poorer; indeed, South African prosperity was no more than make-up on the face of a leper. Violence was an increasingly evident and acceptedfeature of life in South Africa, while welltried methods of repression were beingincreasingly pursued.124. Recalling the findings of the International Conference on EconomicSanctions, Mr. Segal stated that total economic sanctions against South Africawere necessary, urgent, legal, practical and likely to cost South Africa's principaltrading partners much less than their representatives had been accustomed toclaim. Now that the United Nations had recognized the danger to world peace

represented by South Africa's policies, unremitting pressure must be exercised onthose States, particularly on the permanent members of the Security Council,which still had close commercial relations with South Africa and Japan whichhaving increased its trade with South Africa by 500 per cent since 1956, was fasttaking over from the United States as South Africa's second trading partner. Itwould not be surprising if countries now boycotting South Africa were to regardcontinued trading with the Republic by others as an act of hostility to themselvesand take punitive actions accordingly.125. In conclusion, Mr. Segal thought that the recent general election in theUnited Kingdom provided some small encouragement. He stated: "The struggle tofree the subjugated peoples of South Africa will not be easy or short; but it mustsucceed, if the world is to survive in racial peace, and weare all to escape the deepening dusk of humanity."126. During the discussion of the papers on the pattern of foreign trade of theRepublic of South Africa and foreign investments in the Republic of SouthAfrica, members of the Committee emphasized the importance of the complianceby all States, particularly by the major trading partners of the Republic of SouthAfrica, with the resolutions of the General1' See also communications from the delegations of Ghana (A/AC.115/L.84) andof India (A/AC.115/L88) with regard to the first of these documents, andcomments by the representatives of Ghana and Malaysia at the 43rd meeting(A/AC.115/SR.43), and the statement by the Principal Secretary of the SpecialCommittee at the 44th meeting (A/AC.115/ SR.44).

Annex No. 12 65Assembly and the Security Council concerning measures to dissuade the SouthAfrican Government from its racial policies. Reference was made in thisconnexion to the resolutions of the Assembly of the Heads of State andGovernment of the Organization of African Unity and the Second Conference ofthe Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries. Severalmembers expressed regret at the continuing close economic relations with SouthAfrica maintained by a number of countries and declared that such relationsconstituted an encouragement to the South African Government to continue topursue its policies.127. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee decided, at thesuggestion of the Chairman, that the Special Committee's forthcoming reportshould recommend an appeal to South Africa's principal financial and tradingpartners that they comply with the resolutions of the General Assembly and theSecurity Council and take effective steps to induce the South African Governmentto change its policies. It also decided that the report should also recommend aninvitation to the United Kingdom immediately to cease the supply of arms toSouth Africa, and to other States to do the same and not to replace the UnitedKingdom as suppliers of arms.128. With regard to a proposal by the representative of Guinea to establish a sub-committee to study and report on the economic aspects of the problem,particularly the question of foreign trade of South Africa and foreign investment

in South Africa, the Chairman noted that there was general agreement inprinciple. It was decided, however, to defer action on this matter until thecompletion of the present report of the Special Committee.P. LETTER TO TIIE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THEORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN UNITY129. With regard to another proposal by the representative of Guinea for theestablishment of relations with the Organization of African Unity, the SpecialCommittee decided on 4 November 1964 (46th meeting) that it should convey itsdesire for constant contact with that Organization and seek such contact throughthe Secretariat pending the establishment of formal relations between theUnited Nations and the Organization. It authorized the Chairman to send thefollowing letter to the Secretary-General of the Organization:"The Special Committee on the Policies of aparthrid of the Government of theRepublic of South Africa established by the General Assembly of the UnitedNations to follow constantly the various aspects of the racial policies of the SouthAfrican Government and to report to the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil, has taken note of the decisions of the Organization of African Unity onthis question. The Special Committee felt that it would be desirable to establishconstant contact with the Organization of African Unity in the fulfilment of thetask assigned to it by the General Assembly."The Chairman intends to discuss with you or any other competent official ofyour organization, at an appropriate time, the useful measures to be taken in orderto meet the wish of the Committee."In the meantime, the Special Committee has requested the Secretariat to transmitits various documents to you for your information. In return, it would like toreceive from the secretariat of your organization, any documentation relevant tothe question of the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa.Q. REQUEST TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL IN CONNEXION WITHARMS SHIPMENTS TO SOUTHAFRICA130. On 17 November 1964 (50th meeting), theSpecial Committee took note of the declaration by the United KingdomGovernment that it had decided to impose an embargo on the export of arms toSouth Africa, that current contracts would be fulfilled, and that the contract tosupply sixteen Buccaneer aircraftwas still under review.131. On 19 November (51st meeting), the Committee took note of press reportsregarding approaches by the South African Government to other countries forarms and, on the proposal of the representative of Nigeria, authorized theChairman to meet with the Secretary-General to request him (a) to convey theSpecial Committee's appreciation to the United Kingdom Government for itsdecision and its hope that the United Kingdom would take the logical course ofcancelling the Buccaneer contract as well; and (b) to convey the SpecialCommittee's earnest hope to the Governments of France, Italy and other Powersthat they would faithfully implement the decision of the Security Council.

132. The Chairman subsequently informed the Committee that he had conveyedthe request to the Secretary-General on 23 November.R. CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT REPORT TO THE GENERALASSEMBLY AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL133. On 29 October 1964 (45th meeting), the Rapporteur presented to the SpecialCommittee an outline of the draft report which the Committee had decided tosubmit to the nineteenth session of the General Assembly, including an indicationof the main developments to be covered in it. On the basis of this outline, whichwas accepted by the members, and the drafts of the various sections of the reportwhich were circulated, the Committee began a general discussion with particularemphasis on the conclusions and recommendations.134. Members of the Committee expressed agreement that the situation in theRepublic of South Africa had greatly deteriorated during the period under reviewand that it was essential that the United Nations organs, particularly the SecurityCouncil, should recognize it as a serious threat to the peace and take decisiveaction. They reiterated that in the present circumstances, economic sanctions werethe only peaceful and effective means to resolve the situation. They attached greatimportance to publicizing the United Nations efforts against the policies ofapartheid and favoured the strengthening of the Special Committee in order toenable it to discharge its mandate even more effectively.Chapter ii. Review of developments since thereport of 13 September 1963135. The second part of the report which follows is devoted to a review of thedevelopments relating to the policies of apartheid in South Africa since 13September 1963. Before embarking on a detailed narration of the developments,however, it may be desirable briefly to note some of the most important trends ofthe period under review and to consider their significance in the

General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexeslight of the international concern over the situation in South Africa.136. Maiy leading statesmen have recently expressed serious anxiety over thegrave danger of a violent conflict arising from racism in southern Africa and itsinevitable international repercussions.137. The Secretary-General of the United Nations said in an address to theAlgerian House of Assembly on 3 February 1964:"There is the clear prospect that racial conflict,if we cannot curb and finally eliminate it, will grow into a destructive monstercompared to which the religious or ideological conflicts of the past and presentwill seem like small family quarrels. Such a conflict will eat away the possibilitiesfor good of all that mankind has hitherto achieved and reduce men to the lowestand most bestial level of intolerance and hatred. This, for the sake of all ourchildren, whatever their race and colour, must not be permittedto happen."13S. The Group of Experts established in pursuance of the Security Councilresolution of 4 December 1963 stated in paragraph 31 of its report: "Violence andcounter-violence in South Africa

are only the local aspects of a much wider danger.The coming collision must involve the whole of Africa and indeed the worldbeyond. No African nation can remain aloof. Moreover a race conflict starting inSouth Africa must affect race relations elsewhere in the world, and also, in itsinternational repercussions, create a world danger of firstmagnitude."17139. Sir Alec Douglas-Home, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said atSouthampton, England, on 24 April 1964 that "the greatest danger in the worldtoday-as deadly in its way as the atomic bombis the threat of racialism", 140. Mr.Dean Rusk, Secretary of State of the United States, said in Washington, D.C., on26 September 1964, in an address to the American Negro Leadership Conferenceon Africa: "A peaceful reconciliation of divergent interestsin southern Africa could have a beneficial effect onthe current balance of forces in the world."The alternative could well be an unwanted andunnecessary period of conflict which could shatter the friendly and mutuallybeneficial African-European relations that exist throughout the continent today."141. Sir Hugh Foot (now Lord Caradon), Minister of State for Foreign Affairs ofthe United Kingdom, said on 23 October 1964, that, in his opinion, the greatestdanger facing the world was "racial conflict beginning in southern Africa andinvolving the whole of Africa, and eventually the whole world"."This is far beyond anything we have seen beforein the Congo or Cyprus or Suez. This is a much bigger possibility of a colour warin which the world will inevitably be involved. It will not be sufficient to have ahastily raised force to deal with the disorders on a vast scale."142. The explosive situation in South Africa is thus not an isolated phenomenonbut one that contains the17 See Official Records of the Security Council. NineteenthYear, Supplement for April, Alay and June 1964, document S/5658, annex.seeds of a much wider and much more catastrophic conflict.143. The Special Committee has already drawn attention to the gravity of thesituation in South Africa, and its inevitable repercussions, and called for vigorousand decisive measures to put an end to the threat to international peace andsecurity. The General Assembly and the Security Council have recognized thatthe situation is seriously disturbing international peace and security, called on theSouth African Government to abandon the policies of apartheid and end theregime of ruthless repression by which these policies are imposed, and requestedall States to take steps to persuade the South African Government to comply withtheir decisions.144. The present report shows clearly that the situation continues to deteriorate asthe South African Government has ignored and defied all requests and demandsof the competent United Nations organs, continued to violate the fundamentalprovisions of the Charter, and proceeded with its course of more discriminationand more repression, thus aggravating the danger of a bloody conflict.145. The South African Government, it may be noted, admits that the presentsystem of domination of 13 million non-whites by 3 million Whites cannot

continue. But it clings to the hope that three fifths of the non-whites who liveoutside the African reserves can be dominated for ever if only world opinion isdeceived and Africans divided by an offer to transform these reserves intofraudulent African "states" and the 8 million Africans in the white Stateproclaimed by fiat as alien labourers.146. With this policy of working towards the partitioning of South Africa into awhite state and several African states, the Prime Minister, Mr. H. F.Verwoerd, claimed on 5 June 1964 that the present South African Governmentwas adjusting to the change in the spirit in the world and in Africa in recent yearsis147. The Government has hastened to take away the few rights enjoyed by theAfricans outside the reserves and, in effect, to denationalize them. The BantuLaws Amendment Act of 1964 enacts in effect,1i Mr. Verwoerd declared in the Senate on 5 June 1964:. . . the situation in the world changed after World WarII. A new outlook developed and that new outlook spread across the world and ithad the effect of emancipating States in Africa. One cannot escape from it that thechange in outlook also reached our country . - . The result was that we all had totake account of it that the old easy arrangement was disappearing and that we nowhad to give account to ourselves in what direction we should lead and developSouth Africa . . . So what did we do? In our opinion we had to seek a solution in acontinuation of what was actually the old course, namely, of separation. While,however, seeing separation in the light of the older arrangement as something thatends at a certain point, self-rule under the care of a guardian, we now had toadjust ourselves and be prepared to carry that separation further . . The facts arethat I am prepared to make an adjustment within my policy, but I am not preparedto sacrifice my nation by a process of adjustments against policy."I am prepared to make an adjustment by the developmentof the course I decided upon by working it out more clearly and to carry it furtherand further to its logical conclusions . . ."Our object is to ultimately get rid of discrimination byseparating black and white increasingly." (The Senate of the Republic of SouthAfrica, Debates (Official Report),5 June 1964, cols. 4691, 4692 and 4697.)

Annex No. 12 67the Government's contention that the African should be regarded as a meretemporary immigrant in the 'white" State, that he should only be permitted toenter the ",white" State to minister to the needs of the white man and that heshould he entitled to no expectations except the receipt of a proper price for hislabour. It provides for complete control over every African in this "State", wherehe would bewithout roots or rights and insecure.148. The Government continues to force racial segregation of Whites, Africans,Indians and Coloureds in the cities and towns through group areas, removal of"black spots," influx control, and a host of other measures. Settled communities

where there have been no problems from the presence of different races aredisrupted and divided up on racial lines with buffer strips between them.Hundreds of thousands of families are uprooted, businesses ruined and livelihoodsjeopardized to satisfy the political plans of the Government.149. The Government then spends ever more effort on propaganda to justify itsinjustices, relying at home on the silencing of authentic and representativeopposition and abroad on pandering to racial prejudices and on the services ofbusiness interests which profit by racial discrimination in South Africa.150. It claims that its policy is one of "separate development" or "orderlycoexistence". Each racial group will exercise its rights within its own sphere andthe "sky is the limit" for its advancement within its sphere.' The Africans can votein bantustans, while the Coloured people and the people of Indo-Pakistani origincan vote for separate Councils. Indeed, they will all have "one man, one vote".151. A closer look at this scheme, as analysed in this and the earlier reports of theSpecial Committee, lays bare its utterly fraudulent and iniquitous character.152. The Africans, who constitute three quarters of the population, are expected tofind their destiny in the reserves (13 per cent of the area of the country) which areunable to provide sustenance even for two fifths of the African population. Thesereserves, carved up into eight "nations", are to be the dumping ground for theAfricans not wanted in the "white" State, and reservoirs for unskilled labourneeded in the "white" State and its "border industries". The fact that the firstbantustan in the Transkei can raise no more than a small fraction of its budgetfrom local taxes shows clearly the limits of opportunities for Africans underapartheid.153. The Government has already proceeded to establish a Coloured PersonsRepresentative Council and a National Indian Council and has promised to grantthem, in due course, certain legislative powers. But they can be no more thansubordinate councils so long as the ultimate authority is in the all-whiteParliament, elected only by the Whites except for a handful of seats allotted towhite representatives of Coloured voters. They can be no more than instruments9The Deputy Minister of the Interior, of Education, Arts and Science of Labourand of Immigration, Mr. M. Viljoen, stated on 7 November 1963 that "in theBantu homelands the sky is the limit to the ambitions and aspirations" ofAfricans. South African Digest (Pretoria), 14 November 1963. The Minister ofColoured Affairs, of Community Development and of Housing, Mr. P. W. Botha,said in an interview in March 1964:"... within their own group, their future-like the skyis unlimited. Everythingdepends on them." (The Cape Times, 28 March 1964.)to facilitate apartheid and perform administrative functions in the segregatedcommunities.154. These plans for partition and segregation areimplemented without consulting the non-white people and, indeed, in the face oftheir strong opposition. The destiny of all the people is to be decided by aGovernment elected by Whites alone, with little more than faint opposition fromthe United Party which is also committed to racial discrimination. They areimposed by increasingly restraining communication across racial lines, by

suppressing all resistance to apartheid and by banning or gaoling the leaders ofthe non-white peopleor forcing them into exile.155. Repression has become an inseparable complement to the policy of apartheidas it ignores the vital interests of the great majority of the people and isdirected against them.20156. Year after year the Government has increasedits repressive powers. It can now ban, detain or banish any one indefinitelywithout trial, and keep him entirely outside the protection of the courts and cut offfrom contact with family and friends. As shown in the present report, it has usedthese powers with little restraint.157. Repression is no longer limited to the leaders of the non-white movementsand their friends and allies among the Whites. The rights of all men-white andnon-white-are whittled away. Many Whites who abhor the policies of apartheidhave been persecuted. Indeed, the Government and its supporters tendincreasingly to claim that any dissent from the official policy is a form of treason.158. The Government claims that this virtual state of siege is essential to ensurethe survival of the Whites, but its legislative and administrative measures toprevent all peaceful resistance to apartheid have only tended to provoke violencewhich may precipitate a bitter conflict which can only endanger their survival.Not only the non-white leaders but many \Vhites who hate racism have come toaccept violence as the only way to secure a non-racial society. Mr. Percy Yutar,prosecutor at the Rivonia trial, said in his concluding address on 25 May 1964:"Were it not for their (South African Police) action South Africa would todayhave found itself embroiled in a bloody and savage civil war."2' 159. Violenceand fear of violence have been features of the South African scene in the recentperiod and the Government has countered with the "Sabotage Act" and otherarbitrary legislation. Nine persons have been executed in the past year for actsarising from opposition to apartheid and thirty-five persons, including one White,await execution. These executions threaten to aggravate the already explosivesituation.160. The South African Government replies to protests by the United Nations andworld public opinion against these executions, trials and detentions by claimingthat such protests constitute an interference with judicial processes in SouthAfrica. Such a claim is2')As Mrs. Helen Suzman, Member of Parliament and a leader of the ProgressiveParty, said on 9 March 1964:"-lpartheid and the rule of law are incompatible, for wherepeople are governed by consent there can be no discrimination.But if people are not governed by consent they must be governed by force and therule of law must disappear." Professor P. V. Pistorius, another leader of theProgressive Party said: "it is impossible to perpetuate white domination unlessthere is a series of laws to effect repression" (Rand Daily Mail (Johannesburg), 10March 1964). 21 The Cape Times, 26 May 1964.

68 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexes

utterly misleading. The interventions of the United Nations and world opinion arenot against the acts of the judiciary, which only interprets and applies the law, butagainst the arbitrary laws which violate the fundamental principles of justice andlimit the discretion of the judiciary, as well as the acts of the executive whichutilizes these laws for enforcing racial discrimination.161. The tensions created by the policies of apartheid and repression have led theGovernment to embark on a massive expansion and strengthening of the securityforces at great cost, as described in this report. The defence budget has risen farabove the level reached at the height of the Second World War. As the PretoriaNews commented on 17 March 1964, this is the price paid for the "defence of ourright to practice apartheid within our borders in the face of mounting worldhostility".162. The revulsion felt by humanity at the racial policies of the South AfricanGovernment, and the anxiety over the dangers of those policies, have beenreflected in the imposition of total diplomatic and economic sanctions againstSouth Africa by many States; the cessation of arms supplies to South Africa bythe United States. the United Kingdom and several other States; the world-wideprotests against repression in South Africa: boycotts of South African goods inmany countries; and the increasing public demands for economic sanctionsagainst South Africa under the auspices of the United Nations.163. The South African Government, however, has resisted these pressures in thehope that decisive action will not be taken against it because of the reluctance ofits major trading partners to implement economic sanctions. It continues on itscourse on the assumption that it can implement its plans by building up itsmilitary power and suppressing all resistance.164. The increasing pressure of world opinion, the continued intransigence of theSouth African Government and the eruption of resistance in South Africa intoviolence have combined to create an ever more serious threat to internationalpeace and security.A. NTON-COMPLIANCE WITH RESOLUTIONS OF THE GENERALASSEMBLY AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND REAFFIRMATION OFTHE POLICIES OF apartheid(a) Non-compliance with resolutions of the General Asscmbl, and the SecurityCouncil165. During the period under review, the Government of the Republic of SouthAfrica has continued to refuse to comply with the decisions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council on the question of the policies of apartheid,and has persisted in its hostile attitude towards the United Nations.166. It may be recalled that on 7 August 1963 the Security Council expressed itsconviction that the situation in South Africa was seriously disturbing internationalpeace and security; strongly deprecated the policies of the South AfricanGovernment in its perpetuation of racial discrimination as being inconsistent withthe principles contained in the United Nations Charter and contrary to itsobligations as a Member State of the United Nations; and called upon thatGovernment to abandon the policies of apartheid and discrimination, and to

liberate all persons imprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions forhaving opposed the policies of apartheid.167. The Government of the Republic of South Africa claimed, in acommunication of 11 October 1963, that the Security Council did not have thejuridical power to take the action envisaged by its resolution of 7 August 1963and that the resolution could not have any binding effect on the Republic of SouthAfrica or any other Member State.168. On 11 October 1963 the General Assembly took note of reports that theSouth African Government was arranging the trial of a large number of politicalprisoners under arbitrary laws prescribing the death sentence and considered thatsuch a trial would lead to a further deterioration of the already explosive situationin South Africa, thereby further disturbing international peace and security. By avote of 106 in favour, with South Africa alone voting against, the GeneralAssembly adopted resolution 1881 (XVIII) condemning the South AfricanGovernment for its failure to comply with the resolutions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council calling for an end to the repression of personsopposing apartheid; and requesting it to abandon the arbitrary trial andforthwith grant unconditional release to all political prisoners and to all personsimprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for having opposed thepolicies of apartheid.169. The South African Government, however, stated in a note dated 14November 1963,22 addressed to the Secretary-General, that no reply could beexpected to General Assembly resolution 1881 (XVIII) as it constituted flagrantinterference in South Africa's judiciary and was beyond the competence of theUnited Nations.170. As the South African Government proceeded with its course of increasedapartheid and increased repression despite the above resolutions, the SecurityCouncil on 4 December 1963 unanimously adopted a resolution, in which it. interalia. urgently requested the South African Government to cease forthwith itscontinued imposition of discriminatory and re)ressive measures which werecontrary to the principles and purposes of the Charter and which were in violationof its obligations as a Member of the United Nations and of the provisions of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights: condemned the non-compliance by theSouth African Government with the appeals contained in the resolutions of theGeneral Assembly and the Security Council: and again called upon the SouthAfrican Government to liberate all persons imprisoned, interned or subjected toother restrictions for having opposed the policies of apartheid. The SecurityCouncil also requested the Secretary-General to establish, under his direction, asmall group of recognized experts to examine methods of resolving the presentsituation in South Africa through full, peaceful and orderly application of humanrights and fundamental freedoms to all inhabitants of the territory as a whole,regardless of race, colour or creed.171. The South African Government again failed to comply with the SecurityCouncil resolution and, in a communication dated 5 February 1964, described itas an "unparalleled attempt at deliberate interference" in the internal affairs of the

Republic and "yet another flagrant example of the application of the 'doublestandard' ". It added that any form of co-operation with22 Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Annexes,agenda item 30, document A/5614, para. 3.

Annex No. 12 60the Group of Experts established under the resolutionwas out of the question.23172. On 27 March 1964 the Secretary-General drewthe attention of the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the deathsentence recently passed on three leaders of the African National Congress in PortElizabeth and to several trials in the country, involving a number of leaders of theAfrican National Congress and other political organizations, under legislationwhich provides for death sentences. In the light of the resolutions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council, and the recommendations of the SpecialCommittee, he requested the Permanent Representative of South Africa "toconvey my urgent and earnest appeal to your Government to spare the lives ofthose facing execution or death sentences for acts arising from their opposition tothe Government's racial policies, so as to prevent an aggravation of the situationand to facilitate peaceful efforts to resolve the situation" (see United NationsPress Release SG/SM/48, 30 March 1964).173. In a reply dated IS May 1964 the PermanentRepresentative of South Africa took exception to the Secretary-General'shumanitarian appeal on the grounds that it "could be construed as castingsuspicion on, or bringing into disrepute, the South African judiciary and SouthAfrican judicial processes", and the matter was sub judice as the three accusedhad been granted leave to appeal against both the verdict and the sentenceimposed, and that the appeal constituted intervention in a matter of purelydomestic concern of South Africa (see United Nations Press Release SG/SM/74,18May 1964).174. On 20 April 1964, the Secretary-General transmitted to the Security Councilthe report of the Group of Experts which recommended, inter alia, that "all effortsshould be directed toward the establishment of a national convention, fullyrepresentative of the whole population of South Africa, to set a new course for thefuture", and made suggestions concerning "the establishment of such a nationalconvention, the assistance which the United Nations and other internationalorganizations may offer to the people of South Africa to help them resolve thepresent situation and the means to concert pressure on the South AfricanGovernment to accept a peaceful and democratic solution through a NationalConvention".24175. In a letter dated 22 May 1964, the Permanent Representative of South Africaclaimed that the report of the Group of Experts "consists to a large extent ofinaccuracies, distortions and erroneous conclusions on false premises", anddeclared that "for obvious reasons the South African Government can see no

useful purpose in commenting on the detailed proposals for a national conventionand its agenda".25176. On 9 June 1964 the Security Council adopted resolution S/5761 urging theSouth African Government to renounce the execution of the persons sentenced todeath for acts resulting from the opposition to the policies of apartheid; to endforthwith the trial in progress, instituted within the framework of the arbitrarylaws of apartheid; and to grant an amnesty to all persons already imprisoned,interned or subjected to other restrictions for having opposed the policy of23 Official Records of the Security Council, Nineteenth Year, Supplement forAIpril, May and June 1964, document S/5658. 24 Ibid.25 Ibid., document S/5723.apartheid, and particularly to the defendants in theRivonia trial.177. In a reply dated 13 July 1964,26 the PermanentRepresentative of South Africa reiterated that "South Africa regards interventionby the United Nations in the judicial processes of a Member State as completelyillegal and ultra vires the United Nations Charter".Transmitting the judgement given in the Rivonia trial, "without prejudice ... to thelegal position of the SouthAfrican Government in this matter", he added:"It is evident both from the discussion in theCouncil and from the text of the Council's resolution that deliberate attempts havebeen made to distort, in the eyes of the United Nations and of world publicopinion, the nature of the case against the defendants in the Rivonia trial and torepresent the trial as an executive act undertaken by the South AfricanGovernment to secure the imprisonment of certain individuals for having opposedthe policy of apartheid."The South African Government rejects with contempt the imputations against theSouth African judiciary which are inherent in this misrepresentation. It isconfident that a perusal of the judgement in the Rivonia trial will enable anyimpartial observer to appreciate that the charge that the defendants in the Rivoniatrial were prosecuted 'for having opposed the policy of apartheid' is a perversionof the facts."178. On I8 June 1964 the Security Council adopted a resolution reiterating itsappeal to the Government of the Republic of South Africa to liberate all personsimprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for having opposed thepolicies of apartheid. It urgently appealed to the South African Government: "(a)To renounce the execution of any personssentenced to death for their opposition to the policyof apartheid;"(b) To grant immediate amnesty to all personsdetained or on trial, as well as clemency to all persons sentenced for theiropposition to the Government'sracial policies;"(c) To abolish the practice of imprisonment without charges, without access tocounsel or without

the right of prompt trial."It invited the South African Government to accept the main conclusion of theGroup of Experts that "all the people of South Africa should be brought intoconsultation and should thus be enabled to decide the future of their country at anational level", to co-operate with the Secretary-General in promoting suchconsultation among representatives of all elements of the population in SouthAfrica and to submit its views to him with respect to such consultation by 30November 1964.179. On 16 November 1964, the Permanent Representative of South Africatransmitted a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs describing the resolutionas intervention in matters falling within the domestic jurisdiction of a MemberState and as seeking the abdication of its sovereignty in favour of the UnitedNations. The Minister of Foreign Affairs refrained from responding to the appealand invitation to the South African Government.27180. Meanwhile, on 6 November 1964. Vuyisile Mini, Wilson Khayinga andZinakile Mkaba were exe26 Ibid., Aincteenth FYear, Supplement for July, Augustand SePte;',ber 1061, document S/5817. 2711id.. Supplemnet for October, .,oeherand December 194, docvment S/6053.

70 General Assembly--Nineteenth Session-Annexescuted in defiance of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil and despite the urgent appeals by the Secretary-General, the SpecialConunittee, the African group at the United Nations, the Second Conference ofthe Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries and numerousinternational organizations.(b) Rclcllous attitude and hostility towards the UnitedNations, and scorn of world public opinion181. While the South African Government continued to refuse to comply with thedecisions of the principal organs of the United Nations, its leaders have attackedthe United Nations and its decisions and the attitude of Member States towardsthe policies of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa, and rejected any policychanges in response to world opinion.182. Some of the statements of the South African leaders are summarized below:183. On 18 September 1963 Mr. Eric Louw, then Minister of Foreign Affairs,stated that if the United Nations ceased to exist it would be a "blessing".28 184. Inregard to the Security Council resolution of 4 December 1963, the Minister ofPosts and Telegraphs and of Health. Mr. A. Hertzog, stated on 16 December:"The object ,f4 our enemies is to obliterate the whiteman.. . The struzgle of today is practically the same as that of our ancestors,except that it is being waged more ruthlessly. The enemies of today are like thoseof long ago._. [who] tried to ban arms consignments to theVoortrekkers..."29185. In his review of international affairs at the end of the year 1963, Mr. Eric H.Louw, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared: "The question is often put tome: 'How do you

see the future of the United Nations?' My reply invariably is that if it continues onits present course, and if the General Assembly continues to be used as a forumfor airing grievances and for attacking Member States, then the Organization willsooner or later come to an inglorious end-'unwept, unhonoured and unsung'-except perhaps by the Afro-Asians,who will have lost a useful weapon of attack."3186. Speaking in the House of Assembly on 21January 1964, the Prime Minister, Mr. H. F. Verwoerd criticized the "obsession"of bodies like the United Nations with the relationship between Whites andnonwhites, and declared:"I contend therefore that present-day internationalpolitics prove that the world is sick, and that it is not up to South Africa to allowherself to be dragged into that sickbed. It is white South Africa's duty to ensureher survival, even though she is accused ofbeing isolated under such a policy..."Furthermore, I contend that the West is sick andnot only the world as a whole. The West is closest to us. There we find our naturalfriends ... The tragedy of the present time is that in this crucial stage of present-day history, the white race is not playing the role which it is called upon to playand which only the white race is competent to fulfil. If the Whites of America andof Europe and of South Africa were dissolved in the stream of the black masses,what would become of the future of the world and25 Reuters, 18 September 1963.29 The Cape Times, 17 December 1963.30Southern Africa (London), 3 January 1964.of the human race? What would become of its science, its knowledge, its form ofcivilization, its growth, its peace, etc. ?"What we are dealing with here is the preservationof the white man and of what is his, and only in respect of what is justly his,coupled with the recog.nition of the other people's rights s187. Referring to South Africa's withdrawal from the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations on 18 December 1963, he continued:"... the Republic, at a time when there was nodemand that South Africa should withdraw but when our friends createddifficulties, decided of its own free volition no longer to remain a member of abody in which in any event South Africa had no particular self-interest. In thesame way we shall use our judgment in a sensible and careful manner in respectto other world organizations. That also applies to theUnited Nations.'32188. With regard to South Africa's membership in the United Nations, the PrimeMinister stated in the House of Assembly on 24 April 1964:"... South Africa's membership of various bodiesis dependent upon what is in the best interests of South Africa in the opinion ofthe Government... I reject as absolutely incorrect and untrue the insinuation thatcontinued membership is the only proof of our readiness to fight for South Africa

and that we are leaving South Africa in the lurch when we give up ourmembership under certain circumstances.There are circumstances in which one serves the best interests of one's country bynot being a member of a particular body and in which one serves the best interestsof one's country ... by choosing one's own methods of fighting. The same thingapplies to the United Nations. The policy of South Africa is to remain a memberof the UN as long as it is considered to be in the interests of South Africa. Ifcircumstances should arise under which it will no longer be in the interests ofSouth Africa, then shewill no longer remain a member."33189. On 25 April 1964 the Prime Minister declared at a National Party rally atPaarl that South Africa would stand firm in the face of outside pressure. He saidthere were two reasons for confidence, first, the path chosen by the Governmentsatisfied the basic requirements of justice to all sections of the population, andsecond, South Africa was one of the bastions of white civilization andChristendom: "The whole world is dependent on ... the white nations. Africa willfall into chaos and disorder without the protecting hand of the white nations." Headded that the Western Powers were willing to make concessions to the AfricanStates on one point after another to win their votes in the United Nations, andexpected the South African Government to make the same sort of concessions.South Africa, he said, would be sacrificing her existence once she started to makeconcessions."I believe that there will come a time when thePowers will draw the line and will refuse to be pushed any further ... It seems thatthe boycotts and other threats are bringing the Western Powers31 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates(Han.sard), 21 January 1964, cols. 53 and 54.3' Ibid., cols. 60 and 61.33 Ibid., 24 April 1964, cols. 4899 and 4900.

Annex No. 12 71to a point where they will eventually have to decidewhether they can make further concessions."34(c) Reaffirmation of the policies of apartheid190. As may be seen from the above review of responses to United Nationsdecisions, the Government of the Republic of South Africa has continued toreaffirm its racial policies and has rejected any modification in the direction afracial harmony based on racialequality.191. In a statement in the House of Assembly on23 April 1964, that is. three days after the publication of the report of the Groupof Experts established in pursuance of the Security Council resolution of 4December 1963, the Prime Minister, Mr. H. F. Verwoerd, stated that in anyattempt to "link up the various racial groups in one multiracial society, themajority group will and must eventually become the dominant group... From amultiracial society we can expect no other result than... one man, one vote, or

black domination ... If South Africa wants to achieve its objective of remainingwhite, there is only one method, and that is to segregate the Whites and theBlacks".5 Hecontinued:"Integration has proved an outright failure ... Weshall be able to prove that it is only by creating separate nations thatdiscrimination will in fact disappear in the long run. . . They (the African States)want their ideas to triumph in our country so that the white man can disappearfrom this country...,36 192. Indeed, the Prime Minister declared at a NationalistParty rally at Klerksdorp in November 1963:"Once one started to make concessions one wouldhave to go all the way and that would never succeedin South Africa."Even some of our own people are now advocatinga change in our point of view, saying that it will have to come sooner or later.This is particularly so inclerical circles."But I want to warn these people that they areon the wrong track."3y193. In a New Year's Eve broadcast, the Prime Minister described South Africa'scourse as the giving of each racial group "attainable ideals in its own communityunder its own leaders". He added that loss of control by the white man would ruinthe economy and bring misery to all sections of the population. The Whites were,therefore, justified in refusing to commit national suicide and in fighting for self-preservationY8 194. The Minister of Transport, Mr. B. J. Schoeman, told theHouse of Assembly on 23 January 1964: "The policy of this party is todiscriminate. That is why we discriminate.""9195. Whatever policy adjustments have been made by the South AfricanGovernment, and these are noted in subsequent sections of this report, they areentirely within the framework of the fundamental principles34 The Cape Times, 27 April 1964; South African Digest (Pretoria), 1 May 1964.U Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Dcbates (Hansard), 23 April1964, col. 4816. 361bid., cols. 4814-4821.37 The Cape Times, 4 November 1963. ISibid., 1 January 1964; So-uthern Africa(London), 3 January 1964.39Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 23 January1964, col. 171.of aPartheid and are only meant to facilitate the imposition of apartheid.(d) New propaganda line196. The South African Government, however, hascontinued to present the policy of apartheid-the policy of "separate development"or "orderly coexistence" as it is described-as reasonable and just or as the onlypracticable policy which can satisfy the interests of the Whites and also providesome benefits to the nonwhites. It has attempted to persuade non-whites to acceptthis policy as the only attainable objective since racial equality would be resisted.It has sought to argue that it was willing to grant equal rights to non-whites, but

that the controversy was only as to when and where these rights would beexercised. It has made assiduous efforts to project these propaganda lines inan effort to confuse opinion at home and abroad.197. A few statements by Government spokesmenduring the past year are illustrative.198. The Minister of Bantu Administration andDevelopment, Mr. M. D. C. de Wet Nel, said at the opening of the TranskeiLegislative Assembly inDecember 1963:"We have one fatherland and we all belong toSouth Africa. White and Bantu need each other and must help each other. Ourtechnical knowledge and competence are necessary for the development of yourarea. Our prosperity is your prosperity and our strength is your strength. Likewiseis our safety your safety and towards the outside world we standtogether as children of South Africa."40199. The South African Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Mr. Carel de Wet,stated in March 1964: "It seems to me that separate development andhappiness with progress for all are bedfellows..."My Government stands immovable on our birthright as a distinct white nation tosurvive and rule in those parts of South Africa which we have settledand civilized ... 41"We are working with black nationalism, notagainst it ... The sun is shining for all in the Republic of South Africa."42200. The Minister of Economic Affairs and of Mines, Mr. N. Diederichs, said atthe United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva on8 April 1964:"The experience of my country, which extends toas great a diversity of peoples as can be found in any land, indicates that capacityfor development isfound among all peoples."It is indeed our policy freely to extend the processof development among all the peoples of South Africa and notable successes havebeen achieved among allof them."43201. The Prime Minister said in a Republic Day broadcast on 31 May 1964:"It (the Republic) is planning for a happy andprosperous coexistence for all its peoples.."It seeks to embark the peoples entrusted to its care on their own adventurousfuture and will not4°Southern, Africa (London), 20 December 1963. 41 South African Digest(Pretoria), 26 March 1964. 42 Quoted in The Observcr (London), 22 March 1964.43 The Cape Times, 9 April 1964.

72 General Assembly-Nineteclutch greedily at their land which is theirs to governand to develop.'4

202. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. H. Muller, speaking in the House ofAssembly on 8 June 1964. described the Government's policy as one of freeingnations-a process which would give each population group what it deserved as itsown.45203. The Prime Minister said in Vryburg on 8 August 1964 that it was a fallacy tosay that racial friction and clashes were the results of the Government's policy.The aim of the policy of separation was to eliminate friction and discrimination.Discrimination could only be eliminated if every race was allowed to develop toits fullest capacity within its own sphere. Once one started to make concessions ina State with more than one race group, the pressure for further concession,became stronger and stronger. Such a policy would lead to discrimination. Onlythrough separate development could discrimination be eliminated.46204. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Muller, said in Cologne, Germany, on30 September 1964: "Full implementation of our policy will bring about asituation in which discrimination will disappear."47205. The South African Government describes its racial policy as a "four-streampolicy" for the parallel development of the four main racial groups-the Whites, theColoured people, the people of Indo-Pakistan origin and the Africans. TheAfricans would exercise political rights in the reserves which constitute less than13 per cent of the territory. The Whites would exercise sovereignty in the rest ofthe country, while the other two racial groups would be granted certain legislativeand administrative powers through the establishment of national and localcouncils.206. Central to this policy is the view that the population of South Africa does notconstitute a single nation, but several nations and that the ultimate objectiveshould be a commonwealth of nations in which no nation would dominateanother. For instance, the Prime Minister said, as quoted in the communication of22 May 1964, from the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the Presidentof the Security Council: "We want each of our population groups to control and togovern themselves as is the case with other nations. Then they can co-operate in acommonwealth-in an economic association with theRepublic and with each other..."I envisage development along the lines similar tothat of the Commonwealth. In other words, I perceive the development of aCommonwealth of South Africa. in which the white State and the black States canco-operate together, without being joined in a federation, and therefore withoutbeing under a central government, but co-operating as separate and independentStates. In such an association no State will lord it over any other. They will liverather asgood neighbours."'48207. The main reason for the rejection of the possibilitv of a unified Stated wasexplained in June 1964 by Die Burger. a pro-government newspaper, which notedin reference to the report of the Group of Experts44 Ibid., 1 June 1964.4 Ibid., 9 June 1964.46 Ibid., 10 August 1964.

47 Ibid., I October 1964.48 Official Records of the Security Council, Nineteenth Year.Supplement for April, May and June 1964, document S/5723.enth Session-Annexesestablished in pursuance of the Security Council resolution of 4 December 1963:"They want us to stand for a united South Africa,for then they have us in the crush-pen that leads to black majority government.After all, if under such circumstances we should resist that final result, then theircharge of permanent supremacy is proved beyonddoubt."... the truth is that standpoints which presuppose an undivided South Africa are atpresent playing into the hands of our enemies. South Africa can no longer bedefended on that basis in the international council chambers. If we say that we aregoing to remain undivided, then they say that we must accept the consequences ofthat, namely progress in the direction of 'one man, one vote' and black majoritygovernment . . . But they cannot get past theprinciple of separate freedom, as a principle.'49B. PURSUIT OF apartheid208. The essence of the racial policy of the South African Government, asindicated earlier, is to deprive the African of all rights in 87 per cent of the area ofthe country, which is to form the "white" State, in return for limited self-government and promise of eventual self-government in the scattered Africanreserves, which account for 13 per cent of the area of the country, reconstituted asseveral "national homelands". All Africans would be regarded as citizens of these"homelands". The majority of Africans, however, live in the "white" area andgreatly outnumber the Whites: their status would be that of alien labourers withno rights, and they can expect nothing more than payment for their labour,housing and perhaps consultation on municipal affairs.209. The Coloured people and the Indians who constitute more than a third of thepopulation in the "white" area would be minorities, but they too would have noright of representation in the sovereign Parliament.They would be entitled only to segregated councils which would eventuallyreceive powers to legislate forcertain matters affecting their own communities.210. In implementation of this policy, the Government has adopted significantmeasures during the past year. The Bantu Laws Amendment Act. No. 42, 1964,has been promulgated to deprive the Africans of all rights of residence, movementand employment outside the reserves and place them under total administrativecontrol. The Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, No. 49, 1964, hasbeen promulgated and the National Indian Council set up as a step towards thefulfilment of the promise of segregated and subordinate legislative bodies.Meanwhile, tinder the Group Areas Act. No. 41, 1950, all urban areas are beingdivided on racial lines at the cost of uprooting hundreds of thousands of non-white families. Large numbers of Africans, especially women and children, arebeing expelled from towns and sent to the reserves. Racial separation is being

enforced in every sphere of activity, including education, sports and scientificassociations.A "hantustan" has been established in the Transkei andothers are being prepared.These developments are reviewed below under thefollowing heads :(a) The Bantu Laws Amendment Act of 1964 (ActNo. 42 of 1964).49 The Cape Times, 3 June 1964.

Annex No. 12 73(b) Residential segregation and related measures outside the African reserves.(c) Establishment of councils and committees fornon-white racial groups.(d) Other apartheid measures outside the Africanreserves.(e) Developments in the Transkei and other Africanreserves.(a) The Bantu Laws -Imendment Act of 1964 (Act No. 42 of 1964)211. The Bantu Laws Amendment Bill of 196410 was introduced in Parliamenton IS February 19(4, passed in the House of Assembly on 7 April and in theSenate on 15 May. and assented to by the State President on 15 May. The Act notonly consolidates a number of existing legislative provisions concerning Africansoutside the reserves, but adds significantly to previous legislation in order toensure total administrative control over their residence, movement andemployment.212. The essence of the legislation was explained hy Mr. M. C. Botha, DeputyMinister of Bantu Administration and Development, in the House of Assembly on7 April 1964 as follows: "Dominating all this is the one aspect of our policy,namely that the Bantu's presence in the urban areas is justified by the labour hedoes... 1"Every Bantu must obtain permission to enter andto live in an urban area or a proclaimed area; he must obtain permission at theBureau to work there or he must obtain permission to enter from the localauthority official concerned. That is fundamentallynecessary in each case."5213. Mr. Greyling, a National Party member of the House of Assembly, explainedon 4 March 1964: "...there is no such thing as 'the rights of aBantu' in the white area. The only rights lie has are those which he acquires byperforming certain duties.Those duties which lie performs give him the right of sojourn here. The officialsin these labour bureaux, in considering whether they are going to allow a Bantu toremain here, will have to give priority to the consideration as to whether thatBantu has carried out his duties as a worker, and not whether he has a supposedright which has been invented forhim by members of the United Party.'

(i) Main provisions of the Act214. In terms of this Act, all urban areas and any other areas the Minister soproclaims would be "prescribed areas". A network of municipal, district andregional labour bureaux would be established in the offices of the Bantu AffairsCommissioners. No African who is not seeking work may remain in theseprescribed areas without obtaining permission from the district or municipallabour officer. Any person employing in a50 The Bantu Laws Amendment Bill was originally published in February 1963and aroused widespread opposition. An abridged version was enacted as Act No.76 of 1963, and was reviewed in the report of the Special Committee of 13September 1963 (see Official Records of the General .4ssembly, EighteenthSession .4nnexes, addendum to agenda item 30, document A/5497, paras. 190-194 and 222-227). The remaining provisions, as revised, were introduced on ISFebruary 1964. 5Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates(Hansard), 7 April 1964, col. 3809. 52 Ibid., col. 3808.". Ibid., 4 March 1964, col. 2463.prescribed area an African who has not been granted such permission, is liable tothree months' imprisonment,215. The district or municipal labour officer maygrant or refuse permission for an African to be in a "prescribed area". He mayrefuse to sanction the employment or the continued employment of any Africanand cancel the contract of employment between any employer and any African ifhe is satisfied, inter alia, that thie contract is not bona fide; that the African hasnot been released from the obligation of rendering service to his previousemployer: that he refuses to submit himself to a medical examination; or that suchemployment "impairs or is likely to impair the safety of the State or of the publicor of a section thereof or threatens or is likely to threaten the maintenance ofpublic order, provided the Secretary (for Bantu Administration andDevelopment) concurs in such refusal or cancellation".216. Any African who is refused permission by the municipal officer to take upemployment or whose contract has been cancelled may be referred to an "aidcentre" or to the district officer who may offer him "suitable work" either in hisarea or in another area or nav require him and his dependants to leave thelirescribed area within a period determined by him.4 The Bantu AffairsCommissioner may hold a court in an "aid centre" and exercise jurisdiction overthe employment and repatriation of an African to his home, last place ofresidence, settlement, rehabilitation scheme or "any other place".217. An African who fails to comply with an order received at an "aid centre"may he endorsed out of an urban area. Appeals can be made to the Chief BantuAffairs Commissioner against a removal order, but it is left to the discretion of theBantu Affairs Commissioner to permit the African to remain in the prescribedarea pending his appeal.218. Any authorized officer may arrest without warrant any African in aprescribed area if he has reason to believe that the latter is an "idle or undesirableperson" and take him before a Bantu Affairs Commissioner. The definition of an"idle person" has been widened and includes any African who is unemployed,

though capable of being employed; fails to provide support to his dependants;who has refused suitable employment offered to him by a labour bureau on threeconsecutive occasions; who has on more than two consecutive occasions failed tokeep employment for at least one month due to his own "misconduct. neglect,intemperance or laziness": who has been discharged on more than three occasionsduring any period of one year due to his own misconduct: or who fails to departfrom the area concerned within the specified period after he was ordered todepart. Bona fide housewives, women over 60 and men over 65 are exempt fromthis provision.219. The definition of an "undesirable person" includes any African who has beenconvicted (a) more than once over any period of five years of an offence such asrape, robbery, arson and fraud. included in the third schedule of the CriminalProcedure Act, No. 56, 1955: (b) more than once in a period of three years of theuse of habit-forming drugs or the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor; (c) of anoffence involving public1 The Act states that an African shall not be detained at an "aid centre", but thatnothing shall prevent any African who is unemploycd or who is in an areaunlawfully from being admitted to an aid centre at his own request.

74 Ceneral Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesviolence or violence to an officer concerned with Bantu Affairs Administrationwhile he was carrying out his duties; (d) of possession of unlicensed firearms; or(e) of political offences such as riotous assembly, membership of bannedorganizations or sabotage.220. If an African is declared "idle" or "undesirable" and cannot prove otherwise,he may be removed to "any place" indicated by the Bantu Affairs Commissioneror detained in custody pending his removal, or "detained" in a "retreat" or "farmcolony" and made to perform labour as prescribed.221. The Act lays down a number of conditions to be complied with for anAfrican woman to be allowed to enter or remain in prescribed areas.55222. The Act authorizes the State President to make regulations on a wide varietyof aspects of an African's life including the control and siting of housing,facilities, recruitment and "treatment and disposal".(ii) Opposition to the Act223. The Bill was strongly opposed in Parliament by the United Party and the solemember of the Progressive Party. They pointed out that under previouslegislation, Africans in urban areas acquired residence rights if they had been bornin the area and had lived there continuously, or had worked for one employer fornot less than ten years and had continuously resided there lawfully for not lessthan fifteen years.56 Even these limited rights were now removed as they wereleft to the discretion of the Chief Bantu Commissioner. The right of an African tosell his labour freely and the right to have his wife and family with him were alsotaken away. The assurances of the Government that the new Act would beadministered humanely and that the intention was merely to ensure better co-ordination and control, failed to allay the fears of the opposition.57 224. Sir deVilliers Graaff, leader of the United Party, said on 18 February 1964 that the Bill

would turn all Africans outside the reserves into a "vast floating pool of labour,from which individual units couldr, By the repeal of section 23 (d) (i) of the original Act, African women have beendeprived of the statutory right to enter an urban area to visit their hushands for aperiod of 72 hours (usually known as a "conception visit") if their husbands badbeen in the area for two years.5 Native (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, sub-section(1) of section 10.57 5'. for instance, the followittg passage from the letter of 22 May 1964 from thePermanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations to the Presidentof the Security Council:"A detailed exposition of the ohectives of the legislationwould fill many pages, but by way of illustration it can be said that Bantuemployed in "white" areas will continue to be so employed, that those who loseemployment in "white"areas will he placed in employment by the Bantu labour bureaux in "white" areaswherever employment is available, and that only if employment is not availablewill the question arise of resettlement in the Bantu homelands. There is no denialof the freedom of the Bantu to work and live in "white" areas in so far asemployment is available. Indeed, large numbers of Bantu are recruited foremployment in "white" areas and others are assisted in various ways to obtainsuch employment. The over-all objective is to coordinate and canalize ,ill fascetsof labour supply and demand, in order to avoid flooding of the labour market,unemploymentand inadequate housing."It remains to he seen whether the hardships which thecritics of the legislation envisage, will in fact bc experienced by the Bantuconcerned. The South African Government is confident that time and experiencewill provide the proof of the good intentions underlying the legislation." (OfficialRecords of the Security Council, Nineteenth Year, Supplementfor April, May and June 1964, document S/5723).be detached from time to time".58 He stated on 7 April that the Bill "is placingofficials in a place where they are invading the sphere of the courts... and there arevirtually no safeguards as to how those powers are going to be exercised"."225. Mrs. Suzman, Progressive Party member of the House of Assembly,charged:..*. The Government does not consider the blackman as a human being. It does not regard him as a person with the normalaspirations of a human being and the normal aspiration to have a secure familylife."6oShe said on 7 April that the Government appeared to imagine the African as a"disembodied pair of black hands", present in the "white" areas to work for thewhite man as long as required, without normal wants and natural demands of ahuman being."'226. Senator R. D. Pilkington Jordan (United

Party) stated on 4 May that the Bill "converted the Bantu into labour slaves". Hesaid it was the death warrant of a host of rights Africans had enjoyed as citizens ofSouth Africa, and gave wide powers to junior officials against which there was noright of appeal except to other officials.62227. The Star (Johannesburg) commented on24 February 1964:"The Bantu Laws Amendment Bill is being representedby some as merely a tightening of influx control. It is, of course, something muchmore fundamental than that. It is an attempt to change, once and for all, the wholestatus of the urban African to conform with the apartheid theory."Some forty years ago the Stallard Commission onNative Labour laid down the principle on which this Bill is based. 'The nativeshould be allowed to enter urban areas, which are essentially the white man'screation, when he is willing to enter and to minister to the needs of the white man,and should depart therefrom when he ceases tominister.'"As a factual statement of the situation this was hardlytrue then, and nearly half a century of urban progress and rural decay hasdestroyed any validity it may have had."There is now a large permanent urban African classwhose members, to quote one of them, were 'born, bred and buttered' in the townsand know no other home or way of life. To attempt to destroy such a class bylegislationis humanly and economically indefensible."Economically, because its stability and the skills thatdepend on stability are urgently needed in the towns (and 5, Republic of SouthAfrica, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 18 February 1964, col. 1517.5i Ibid., 7 April 1964, col. 3759.(o ibid., 25 February 1964, col. 1952.1 Ibid., 7 April 1964, col. 3795.62 The Se'iate of the Republic of South Africa, Debates (Official Report), 4 May1964, cols. 3184 and 3185.On 24 February 1964, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration andDevelopment, Mr. M. C. Botha, argued that it was not correct to say that the "so-called rights" of Africans were being removed. The Act affected only the Africanswho were in "white" areas illegally, or who were "work-shy", "idle","undesirable" or "superfluous". Such persons could be removed tinder theprevious legislation. The new Act only extended the definition of persons whocould be removed. He objected to the contention that the Act removed thecitizenship rights of the Africans in urban areas. Fundamentally, he said, allAfricans were restricted from residence in urban areas without special permission,Certain categories had been exempted from this restriction, under Section 10 ofthe Native Urban Areas Act, but these exemptions from restrictions were not"rights of citizenship" or "any rights" but simply arrangements for Africans toremain in urban areas. (Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates(Honsard), 7 April 1964, cols. 1861-1864 and 3809).

Annex No. 12 75never more so than hw) and because there is no comparable demand in the'homelands' nor any prospect of such ademand arising in the present generation."The Government is not in fact attempting directly toreducc the number of urban Africans. It is trying instead to convert them into arotating labour force, with nopermanent roots or family life in the towns."The cost in human terms of this policy if logicallyapplied will be incalculable, It may in practice not be so applied, simply becausethe disruption it would cause would throw the whole of South Africa's risingeconomy out of gear and create unmanageable difficulties in the 'homelands'."The individual hardship will, nevertheless, be immediateand the insecurity general and paralysing."228. The South African Institute of Race Relations stated on 28 February 1964:"The Institute is convinced that by its contemplated actions the Govenrment willcause a further deterioration of race relations and by imperiling the security of themajority of Africans imperil the security of all peoples in the Republic. .. It is ofthe opinion that in addition to undermining security, it will heighten instability,discourage Africans from acquiring that sense of belonging to a community whichis essential to the development of ordered social life, and inhibit the growth of anAfrican middleclass."063229. The Christian Council of South Africa, representing twenty-eight churches,said in March that the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill "infringes on certain basicChristian concepts concerning family life and the dignity of the individual".C4230. The Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops of South Africa condemned theBill on 17 March 1964 as "a negation of social morality and Christian thinking".The Conference stated that the Bill: "... is an invasion of primary human rights...deprives African citizens of a strict right to residence, movement and employmentoutside the Bantu areas, that is. in four fifths of the entire Republic. It would stripthe African of his basic freedoms in the country of his birth, making himdependent upon the possession of a permit to explain his presence anywhere, andat any time, outside the 'Bantu homelands'. This is not consonant with any conceptof the dignity ofthe human person."65231. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Rev. OwenMcCann, stated on 1 May 1964:"The Bantu Laws Amendment Act treats theBantu as a labour unit, not considering his personal dignity and the rights flowingfrom this dignity. It disregards the family obligations he may have, and in factcontinues the sad break-up of family life which is one of the evils of the system.We know it is disastrous to family life-that it induces instability of marriage, mal-education of the offspring and delinquency and leads to immorality."6

232. The Interdenominational African Ministers' Association of Southern Africa,an organization of African ministers of all denominations, representing fourmillion South African Christians, said in a press statement in May that it wasconvinced, in spite of the ministers' assurance to the contrary, that the Bantu 63Race Relations News (Johannesburg), March 1964. 04Rand Daily Mail(Johannesburg), 4 March 1964. 65 Reuters, 17 March 1964.66 The Cape Times, 2 May 1964.Laws Amendment Act would disrupt African family life:"We wish to emphasize that the African ministersof all denominations have been law abiding and have always opposeddisobedience to the laws of the State, but have now reached a point wherelegislation such as this places the African minister in an unenviable position ofstanding for Christian justice and at the same time having to convince theAfricans that suchlaws are for their good."In a memorandum to the Minister, the association asked that the Bill be amendedand that there be no hindrances in the way of husbands and wives coming togetherand living with their children.67(b) Residential segregation and related measuresoutside the African reserves(i) Implementation of the Group Areas Act, No. 41,19502.33. The Group Areas Act, No. 41, 1950, which provides for the forcibleseparation of racial groups, continues to be implemented actively though theGeneral Assembly has repeatedly called upon the South African Government torefrain from enforcing its provisions (see General Assembly resolution 395 (V) of2 December 1950, 511 (VI) of 12 January 1952, 615 (VII) of 5 December 1952and 719 (VIII) of 11 November 1953).234. Numerous group area declarations have again been published during theperiod under review, ordering the clearing of a number of settled communities.8'7 Ibid., 19 May 1964.68 The declarations issued between 6 November 1962 and 30 August 1963 werelisted in the report of 13 September 1963 (see Official Records of the GeneralAssembly, kighteenth Session, addendum to agenda item 30, document A/5497,para. 162). The following declarations of group areas have been issued since 30August 1963 and published in the Government Gazette on the dates indicated:13 September 1963-Group areas for Coloureds and Indiansat Ermalo, Transvaal; for Whites at Ottoshoop, Transvaal;18 October 1963-Group areas for Coloureds at Hawston,Cape;25 October 1963-Group area for Indians at Mountain Rise, Natal;1 November 1963-Group areas for Whites and Coloureds atRiversdale, Cape; for Whites at Algon Park, Port Elizabeth, Cape; for Whites andIndians at Krugersdorp, Transvaal; for Whites at Randfontein, Transvaal; forWhitesand Coloureds at Roodespoort, Transvaal;

22 November 1963-Group area for Whites at Somerset 'Kest, Cape;6 December 1963-Group areas for Whites and Coloureds at Tarkastad, Cape; forWhites and Coloureds at Malmesbury, Cape;3 January 1964-Group areas for Coloureds at Ventersburg, Orange Free State;7 February 1964-Group areas for Coloureds at Fauresmith, Orange Free State;21 February 1964--Group area for Whites at Springs, Transvaal;28 February 1964-Group area for Whites and Coloureds at Piketberg, Cape;13 March 1964--Group areas for Whites and Coloureds at Swellendam, Cape;20 March 1964--Group areas for Whites and Indians at Greytown, Natal;26 March 1964-Group areas for Whites, Coloureds and Indians at Standerton,Transvaal;10 April 1964-Group areas for Whites at Victoria West, Cape; for Whites andColoureds at Villiersdorp; forWhites and Coloureds at Upington, Cape;24 April 1964-Group areas for Whites at Dullstroom, Transvaal; for Whites atBelfast, Transvaal; for Whites at

General Asseinbly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesThe Minister of Planning, of Economic Affairs and of Mines, Mr. J. F. NV. Haak,announced on 10 September 1964 that 771 group areas had been proclaimed fordifferent races in 183 centres by the end of July. These orders required theremoval of hundreds of thousands of non-whites from areas in which they hadresided, in many cases, for several generations.235. The proclamations in Durban alone, issued on 4 October 1963, involved theeviction of nearly 10,000 families." The recent proclamations in Transvaal aredesigned to resettle virtually all of the 38,000 Indians"0 on the Rand, thusenforcing almost total residential segregation of Indians in the Transvaal.7123(. The declarations, as a rule, reserve the central areas of the town to Vhites,and require the relocation of non-whites in communities on the outskirts withbuffer zones separating each community from the other. The non-whites haverepeatedly complained that such moves ruin their businesses and necessitatelong journeys to work.72237. Relatively few Whites are affected by group areas proclamations.73Machadodorp, Transvaal; for Whites and Coloureds atJansenville, Cape;8 May 1964---Group area for Wlhites at Carletonville, Transvaal;5 June 1964-Group areas for Whites at Athlone, District ofWynberg; for Whites at Southfield, Cape;19 June 1964-Group areas for Whites and Coloureds at Griquatown, Cape; forWhites and Coloureds at Ritchie,Cape;26 June 1964-Group areas for Whites and Coloureds atNapier, Cape;24 July 1964-Group areas for Whites at Naboomspruit,Transvaal; for Whites and Coloureds at Cape Peninsula,Cape;

31 July 1964-Group area for Coloureds at Pietermaritzburg,Natal;7 August 1964-Group areas for Whites, Coloureds andIndians at Potchefstroom, Transvaal; for Whites and Coloureds at Calvinia, Cape;for Whites and Coloureds atHeidelburg, Cape;28 August 1964--Group area for Whites at Stellenbosch,Cape;9 October 1964-Group area for Coloureds at Riviersonderend, Cape;23 October 1964-Group areas for Whites at Kimberley,Cape; and for Whites at Waterval-Boven, Cape;30 October 1964-Group areas for Whites and Coloureds atFrench Hock, Cape; and for Whites and Coloureds atBredasdorp, Cape ;13 November 1964--Group areas for Whites at Nigel, Transvaal; and for Whitesand Coloureds at Sutherland, Cape.61 The N.CT Vork Times, 7 October 1963. A deputation of persons of Indian andPakistan origin from Cato Manor, Durban, complained to the Minister ofColoured Affairs, of Community Development, and of Housing, Mr. P. W. Botha,on 21 November 1963, that although their community made up only a tenth of thenon-African ipulation, it had been oblieed to make nine tenths of the sacrificesunder the Group Areas Act. They stated that 125,0C0 persons of Indian andPakistan origin had been affected, compared with 4,000 Whites and 10,000Coloureds (Rand Daily Mail (Johannesburg), 22 November 163; The Cape Times,22 November 1963). 70 The term "Indian" is commonly used to refer to people ofIndo-Pakistan origin.71 The Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 5 October 1963.72 Mr. S. Lotter, a delegate to the annual conference of the Trade Union C,,uncilof South Africa, proposed on 14 April 1964 that the Government should considerpaying a travelling allowance to non-white workers who wvere forced to live longdistances from their jobs through the implementation of the Group Areas Act. Hepointed out that the train and bus fares represented a serious hardship to lowerincome groups (The Cap" Times, 15 April 19641.. An exception was Residencia, a town 12 miles from Verceniging, with apopulation of 2,000 Whites. The town was proclaimed a white area in 1962, butthe residents protested238. The group areas declaration for Standerton, issued in March 1964, reservesthe central area for the \Vhitc and requires the Indians and the Coloured people tomove about a mile from the town centre. Four hundred Indian families, some ofwhom settled there seventy-five y'ears ago. are affected. They claimed that themove would mean complete ruin for their trade, as their white customers are notlikely to go to shop in the segregated area.74239. A ten-block area in the centre of Stellenbosch, the home of 2,000 Colouredpeople, was declared a "white" area in August 1964. Coloured people had lived inthis area for about two centuries. A spokesman for the Coloured community saidthat the decision affects, in addition to the homes, six schools (including the only

Coloured secondary school in the area), four churches, a mosque, a cinema andabout ten shops and businesses. The order was reported to have embittered theColoured community.75240. The Indian and Coloured communities of the three Eastern Transvaal townsof Belfast, Dullstroom and Machadodorp became "displaced" persons as a resultof a group areas proclamation designating the three towns as all white. TheDepartment of Community Development said that no group areas were beingproclaimed for Coloured people and Indians because there were so few ofthem.70 Waterval Boven was also declared white and no area was set aside forthe Indians who had settled there thirty years ago.241. The residents of District Six of Cape Town had expected the area to bedeclared a Coloured group area as a result of a public investigation held on 29January 1962. but an order for reinvestigation of the area, issued in March 1964,aroused serious concern in the community. Dr. M. A. Ebrahim, chairman of theWorkers' Civic League, said on 6 March 1964:"This whole area has been the cradle of theColoured people for 300 years. If it is declared "white", the losses to the Colouredpeople will bevery great indeed."The majority in the area are hard-working peoplewho live near their place of employment. If theyare forced to move they will suffer economically."It is a fact that where an area has been declaredanything but a non-white area, the non-white properties are bought for next tonothing."However, when they are forced to move to adeclared area. the prices of land are fantasticallyhigher than the municipal or market valuation."If people are forced to move from this area, itmeans they will lose their places of worship, their mosques and their schools-quite a few of which havebeen started with the money of the people."This area has always been a multiracial areawhere everybody has lived together in harmony."77 242. Group areas underconsideration in the Cape have evoked strong protests from the residents. Bothbecause there was no buffer between it and Evaton with a population of 65,000Africans. The Cabinet decided in August 1964 to buy out Residencia and declareit a non-white area. The Chairman of the village council commented: "TheCabinet's decision is generally welcome, but by many with tears in their eyesbecause of the deep roots they will have to pull out so painflly" (The Cape Times.14 August 1964).74 The Cape Times, 2 April 1964.7-,Ibid., 14 and 15 September 1964.76 The Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 27 April 1964.77 The Cape Tiics, 7 March 1964.

Annex No. 12 77Whites and Coloured people have opposed proposals to Africans to obtainpermits or exemption to remainproclaim group areas in the Faure-Firgrove-Macassar outside the reserves.Beach district. A Moslem priest expressed particularconcern as Sheikh Joseph's tomb, the most sacred place On 5 November1963, the Deputy Minister ofin South Africa for Moslems, was in the area."" Bantu Administration andDevelopment, Mr. M. C.Botha, urgently appealed to white employers to help243. The Schotche Kloof Islamic Brotherhood So- the Department limit thenumber of Africans in "white"ciety condemned the move to clear the Malay quarter areas to a minimum. Hestated that measures would and Schotche Kloof, Cape Town. of 'disqualified per-have to be taken against employers if the necessary"ons' as "cruel and inhunan" and charged that it would co-ooeration was notobtained8destroy the "exemplary coexistence" of Moslems andChristians in the two areas. 9 250. 0n 28 January 1964, theMinister of Bantu244. In connexion with reports that an area round Administration andDevelopment, Mr. M. D. C. deClaremont, Cape Town, which includes two mosques, Wet Nel, stated that in1963, 3,103 Africans had beenmay be declared "white." Iman Haron of Claremont endorsed out of the CapeTown municipal area, 660said on 6 October 1964 that Mala s had lived in the out of the Cape DivisionalCouncil area and 19,650 out area before the Whites. He added: "Many years agohe Johannesburg municipal area8the Pharaoh tried to uproot a people, and he ended 251. He told the House ofAssembly on 24 Januaryup in the sea. I wish our honourable Prime Minister i964: would take meed ofthis.te H o"... think of the industrial development that has245. In Transvaal, members of the Hindu COMMu- taken place over those[past] ten years. All thatnitv observed 15 November 1963 as "a day of anguish development demands aterrific labour force. It wasand sorrow in thousands of homes". A statement issued a miracle that wemanaged to put a stop to the unin that connexion said that Indians were entering"a controlled flow of Bantu to South Africa. We put moment of crisis" causedby the Group Areas Act and a stop to it. And the tide has already started to turn.that it was "a solemn and religious duty to say that The year before last 100,000Bantu had already left mass uprooting of people, no matter what colour, is the"white" areas. Do you know, Sir, that we haveagainst all moral and religious scruples".s More than sent back a considerablenumber of foreign Bantu 100 Indian school children were caned for having stayed

over the past two years?... Just think of the 2,000 away from classes on thatday.82 Rhodesian Bantu whom I removed from the vicinity246. Police used police dogs to disperse several of Port Elizabeth.Approximately 20,000 foreignhundred Indian women who had come from many Bantu have passedthrough our border posts, Bantuparts of the Transvaal to Pretoria on Human Rights who will not return toSouth Africa. .. Bantu areDay, 10 December 1963, to present a protest to the daily returning to their ownareas... You have thePrime Minister on the application of the Group Areas Mdondtzani project nearEast London where 60,000 Act. They had carried a memorandum which readhave been resettled in the Bantu area. We are busyin part: with that; we shall shortly start inPietersburg: there"The ruthless application of apartheid is causing are 180.000 at Durban who willshortly be settledgrave concern to our people. Its implementation in in the Bantu area; Dalmeny75,000; Pietermaritzburg the form of group area, job reservation and other38,000; Rustenburg, 9,000; Potgietersrust 6,000measures involves loss of homes, impoverishment and (already settled) :Newcastle over 12,000; Pretoria assault on our dignity and self-respect,over 50000. Just think of these few projects, and"As a woman, I request you to take steps that more are in process ofdevelopment. That will meanwill restore security to a people whose only 'crime' that within the following fewyears over 550,000 is colour and race."83 Bantu, from the"white"" areas, will be settled in their247. Several Indians continued to resist orders under own areas." '8 the GroupAreas Act. In Ventersdorp, three Indians-Dr. Mahmood Motara, Mr. Ebrahim Amodjee and 252. Many of theAfricans who have been expelledMr. Bhula Lakhoo-defied a notice to move to a new from urban areas asunqualified have been in thoseIndian area in the bare veld outside the town. They areas for long periods andhave lost contict ,-,itl, t':e served one month's imprisonment and declared on theirreserves. Frequently, the men are permitted to remain, release in November 1963that they stood by their con- but the wives are told to leave with their children.victions even if it meant going back to gaol. Dr. Motara 253. The Press reportedthe case of Mr. Charles was again sentenced to four months' imprisonment inDyidi, a 57-year-old African plumber, who had liver! March 1964 for refusing tovacate his home and con- for more than fifteen years in Paarl. He was injuredsulting rooms. Ventersdorp Indians closed their shops while working in a forestoutside Gonda and returned on the day of his conviction.84 to Paarlwhere he earned a meagre income from mis(ii) Expulsion of Africans from"white" areas cellaneous jobs. He and his wife were taken to court

in April 1964, fined and ordered to return to Cala, his248, The Government has continued to expel thou- birthplace, where they andtheir three children would sands of Africans from the urban areas to the reserveshave to share a mor ( under the influx control regulations which require nineother personss87"Ibid., 14 and 15 May 1964.7 Ibid., 7 October 1964. 85South African Di~ies; Prrtria). 21Novembur 196380Ibid., 16 October 1964. "Roblic of th Africa ic, ,ousc of.ovmhr Debates81 South African Press Association, 4 November 1963.82Rand Daily Mail (Johannesburg), 23 November 1963. (IIaisard), 28 January1964, col. 403. "3Ibid., 11 December 1963. 41'"7 . 2-4 JanuaryI064, cols. 2S2 and 2,3.84 Ibid., 19 November 1963 and 10 March 1964. -" The CaPe Times, 22April 1964.

7(;v,! A,.ribl.-Ninccclh 2e-.'on-Annexcs254. The Government is proceeding with its plan to remove Africans from theWestern Cape in order to reserve the area for Whites and the Coloured peopleY9255. While the Government has been "endorsing out" Africans in pursuance ofthis plan, however, the number of African workers has actually been increasing asa result of industrial expansion and new construction. Migrant workers, withoutfamilies, are substituted for these resident for many years.256. Mr. Oscar Wollheim, Chairman of the South African Institute of RaceRelations, Cape Western Region. in a statement on 23 July 1964, warned of theconsequences of this situation:"The Institute is gravely concerned about the-rowing restlessness of the African population of theWestern Cape."It cannot be expected that people with no security of tenure and liable to beremoved at any time should develop a sense of responsibility towards and a stakein their environment and the community ofwhich they are a part."Figures which have been quoted recently indicatethat 3,103 Africans were endorsed out of the CapePeninsula in 1963.'In the first five months of 1964, 2,250 Africanswere introduced into the same area-which works outat about 5,400 a year."If you are going to need 5,400, why send 3,103home? All this travelling is at the expense of the African himself who is thelowest paid person in thewhole economy."Very many of those endorsed out were living andworking here with their families. They are replaced

by 'single' migrants on contract."Or they themselves, after going through a cumbersome and long-drawn-outadministrative procedure, may get permission to come back on a contractbasis without their families."All this effort is not reducing the African population of the Western Cape whichis, in fact, increasing as the demand for labour from commerce, industry andagriculture increases."The only difference is that the disparity of numbers between African men andwomen is increasing and has now reached the dangerous figure of aboutseven to two in the Cape Peninsula."The Medical Officer of Health of the Cape TownCity Council has reported that the number of illegitimate African births exceededlegitimate Africanbirths in the peninsula in the past three years."In this situation, without the steadying influenceof their wives and children and a home environment.men can easily turn to violence in their frustration."The Government's policy of removing Africansfrom the Western Cape is manifestly impossible of achievement, but the attemptsto implement this policy are resulting in ever-increasing social and economicdisruption both in the Cape and in the'homelands'."9080 Over 250,000 Africans are now employed in this area. The Governmentreiterated that the removal would be accomplished gradually without dislocationof the economy. 90 The Cape Times, 24 July 1964.(iii) Removal of "black spots"257. The Government has continued its efforts to eliminate "black spots" (Africanowned land outside the reserves).25,. The Government recently ordered 280 members of the Bapedi tribe to movefrom the Dornkop farm about twelve miles from Middleburg in EasternTransvaal. to farms in Sekukuniland. The Bapedi, who had bought the land in1905 and built schools, churches and a cemetery, refused to move and theGovernment decided to expropriate the land. The Chieftainess of the tribe,Miriam Ramaube, refused to hand over the books relating to the ownership ofland to the Bantu Affairs Department: she said that the books belonged to the tribeand that the tribe had asked her not to hand them over. In May 1964, she wasgiven a suspended sentence on condition that she handed over the books.91(c) Establishment of councils and committeesfor non-white racial groups259. To counteract criticism that the policy of apartheid denies any place in theGovernment of the country to Indians and the Coloured people, as well as theAfricans in the "white" area, the Government has established separate advisoryand administrative bodies for these racial groups. These bodies are now partly orwholly nominated by the Government, and are purely advisory, but it hasindicated that they would become elective and would gradually be endowed withlegislative powers. The Government claims that by instituting elections on

universal franchise for these bodies, it would satisfy the desire for "one man, onevote" in separate racial spheres. "White" control would be retained as the electoralroll for Parliamentary elections would remain almost wholly white.260. The major non-white political organizations have strongly opposed theestablishment of segregated councils as designed to facilitate the imposition ofopartheid, and their supporters have boycotted these councils.261. The Government, however, has proceeded with its plans. The ColouredPersons Representative Council Act, No. 49, 1964, has been passed and theNational Indian Council set up. The first urban Bantu local council has beenestablished. These and other developments are briefly reviewed below.(i) The Coloured Persons Representative Council Act of 1964 (.Act No. 49 of1964)262. The Coloured Persons Representative Council Bill was introduced in theHouse of Assembly on 26 February and was promulgated on 26 May 1964.9' Itprovides for the establishment of a Coloured Persons Representative Council inthe place of the present Council for Coloured Affairs.263. The declared intention of the Government is to establish the Council to carefor the special interests of the Coloured population while retaining only tokenrepresentation for them in Parliament through white members. Prime MinisterVerwoerd told the House of Assembly on 21 January 1964: "... Our policy is thatthere will be a ColouredLegislative Council which will care for the interests of the Coloureds; the leaders... will form an execu91 Ibid., 23 April 1964; Rand Daily Mail (Johannesburg), 21May 1964.92 The Act came into operation on 2 October 1964 (Govern. nsent Gazette, 2October 1964).

tive body. This Council will deal with matters affecting the Coloureds only. Theother matters, affecting the country as a whole, will be dealt with by thisParliament as it is constituted at present, and the representatives of the Colouredswill remain white,as they are now. That is our policy."'3264. The Minister of Coloured Affairs, of Comnmnity Development and ofHousing, Mr. P. W. Botha, stated on 10 April 1964 that the object of the Bill wasto establish "a representative Coloured council for the Republic which, with itsexecutive committee, can be the mouthpiece of the Coloured population; whichcan serve as a means to consultation between the Republican Government and theColoured population, and can serve as an instrument by means of which Colouredleaders in the sphere of local government, education. communal welfare and ruralareas can lead and serve their community.'94 He added: ".I must reject thestandpoint that the onlybasis for proper consultation and goodwill is an equal franchise on the sameVoters' Roll... The safety and good order and progress of South Africa as a Statewith a Christian character are closely dependent on the continued existence of thiswhite nation with its strong position of power in southern Africa. The continued

existence of the white man is also the best guarantee for the safety and progress ofthe Coloureds as a minority group in the area of whiteSouth Africa."95He described the Bill as "a serious attempt along the road which we regard as theonly possible one, the road of neighbourliness with diversity and the recognitionof each section's rights in its own circle, the preservation of the rights of theWhites, but also the right of emancipation for those who are under our tutelageand who must be taught to assume greater responsibilities towards their ownpeople."96 265. The Act provides for the establishment, with effect from a date tobe determined by the State President, of a Coloured Persons RepresentativeCouncil of South Africa with thirty elected members and sixteen membersnominated by the State President. Coloured persons who are South Africancitizens and over the age of twenty-one years, and not disqualified, are entitled toregister on the Coloured voters' list and vote in the elections to the Council.97266. The Council is authorized to advise the Government, on request, in regard toall matters affecting the economic, social, educational and political interests of theColoured population of the Republic, and generally to serve as a link and meansof contact and consultation between the Government and the Colouredpopulation.267. The Act also provides for the establishment of an executive committee of theCouncil consisting of five of its members. The Chairman of the executivecommittee is to be designated by the State President and the four members electedby the Council. The executive committee is to carry out the functions of93 Republic of South Africa, Hou'se of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 21 January1964, Col. 71. 94 Ibid., 10 April 1964, cot. 3999. : Ibid., col. 3994.96 Ibid., col. 4003.9 7The Minister of Coloured Affairs, of Community Development and ofHousing, Mr. P. V. Botha, stated that the first election to the Council wouIil 1-eheld in 1966 (South African Digest (Pretoria), 5 March 1964).No. 12 79the Council, except in so far as the making of laws is concerned, while theCouncil is not in session, and deal with the following matters in so far as theyaffect Coloured persons: (a) finance; (b) local government;(c) education; (d) community welfare and pensions; and (e) rural areas andsettlements for Coloureds.268. The management of finance is assigned to the Chairman. The executivecommittee is to designate one of its elected members to exercise and perform, onits behalf and under its directions, the powers, functions and duties incidental toeach of the remaining four matters.269. The State President may by proclamation in the Government Gaz.ette conferupon the Council the power to make laws in respect of any of the above fivespecialized subjects. No bill may be introduced in the Council, however, exceptwith the approval of the Minister of Coloured Affairs, of CommunityDevelopment and of Housing, to be granted after consultation with the Minister ofFinance and the Administrators. Every bill passed by the Council is subject toassent by the State President. A law assented to by the State President and

promulgated by the Secretary for Coloured Affairs would have the force of lawas long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of Parliament.270, The Minister of Coloured Affairs, of Community Development and ofHousing told the House of Assembly on 10 April 1964 that for the present theCouncil is to have no powers except to advise the Government at its request. Hestressed that the Coloured people were now for the first time being givenuniversal franchise, and added: "... there can be no objection to the principleof one man, one vote, if it applies to a population group and within its own circle.There can only be objection to the principle of one man, one vote, if it means thatthe 'one man, one vote' of other population groups is used to decide the fate of aparticular population group, in this case the Whites, whose existence in thiscountry guarantees the safety alsoof the other groups."9271. The Bill was opposed by the Opposition parties and the representatives of theColoured people in the House of Assembly.272. The United Party opposed the Bill on the grounds that it was another step onthe road of "separate development" and that it would estrange the Colouredpeople from the Whites. The leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff, saidthat the Bill gave the Coloured people, ".. . the most Westernized group amongstthe non-European peoples, a definitely inferior type of council, a council withlesser powers and fewer powers than the Legislative Assembly now being createdin the bantustan, in the Transkei.'"'273. Mr. A. Bloomberg, a Coloured representative in the House of Assembly, saidthat the Bill perpetuated the status of the Coloured people as "second-rate citizensin their own country". He called on the Government to restore common franchiserights to the Coloured people as ordinary citizens and "enable them to be directlyrepresented in this Central Parliament as full98 Republic of South Africa, House of .-ssembly Debates (Ha."sard), 10 April1964, col. 4000. 99 Ibid., 30 April 19'.4, col. 5228.

Ceneral Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexescitizens of South Africa in common with their fellow Whites.."100274. Mr. C. Barnett, another Coloured representative, said that the Bill was "afarce and a mockery" which offered no political future to the Coloured peoplebecause political rights, to be of any value had to be rights equal to those of the\Whites and entitling them to have a direct say in the country's government."'275. Mrs. Helen Suzman (Progressive Party) said on 14 April 1964:"To represent this Bill which nives the Colouredpeople universal franchise to elect an utterly impotent body (which is what theColoured Representative Council is) as a worth-while substitute for Common Rollrights to elect members to represent them in this Parliament ... is a hollow sham.The real things that matter to the Coloured people such as group areas, jobreservation and things of that nature, will never fall within the province of theColoured Representative Council. They will only be discussed in this Parliament .. . What the Coloured man wants and needs, is exactly the same as the white manwants and gets in South Africa. In other words, education, free, compulsory and

universal, so that their children may be able to develop, to the greatest possibleextent, their potential abilities. Secondly, unrestricted economic opportunity sothat they may thereafter use their training and their ability to the greatest possibleextent. Thirdly ... real political power which will mean something to them; thatmeans a vote on the Common Roll for the Parliament that makes the laws thatgovern the lives ofthese people.'0112276. The Bill was also criticized by many Coloured leaders outside theParliament. Mr. M. D. Arendse, a member of the Council for Coloured Affairssaid:"\While the Bill purports to give some legislativeauthority to the proposed new Representative Council, such power will be sorestricted and hamstrung that the council will not be able to initiate legislation,let alone assist legislatively."In fact the Bill, as it stands, will confer virtualdictatorial powers on the Minister of Coloured Affairs, enabling him firmly tocontrol the new Council and indirectly all aspects of the life of the Colouredpeople, from the cradle to the grave.''10277. Mr. Norman Daniels, a Coloured member of the Cape Town City Council,said:"The Coloured people have never asked for aseparate parliament, advisory or otherwise."The Coloured people have shown their strongfeelings against the present Council for Coloured Affairs by boycotting the so-called elections for the Council. I am sure the same thing will happen whenpeople are asked for a separate Coloured'parliament'."'04278. Mr. Barney Desai, President of the Coloured Peoples Congress of SouthAfrica, stated before theoo Ibid., col. 5250.101 Address to the Institute of Citizenship, reported in The Cape Times, 15 May1964.I02 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Honsard), 14 April19(4, cols. 4208 and 4- 0).103 The Cape Times, 15 April 1964.104 Ibid.delegation of the Special Committee on 13 April 1964 that the Bill was a "fraud"and "just a matter of constitutional hocus pocus" (see A/AC.115/L.65).(i) Establishment of a National Indian Council279. The Government has also set up an advisory body for people of Indian andPakistani origin.280. The Minister of Bantu Education and of Indian Affairs, Mr. W. A. Maree,announced on 26 November 1963:"It is the intention, in accordance with government policy, to establish in thecourse of time a representative Indian council which will eventually consist of

elected representatives with legislative and administrative powers in all mattersaffecting directlythe Indian community...".105281. Representatives of the community refused to co-operatey 'i but theGovernment arranged a conference of senior officers of the Department of IndianAffairs and about 100 "delegates"'17 in Pretoria on 10 and 11 December 1963 asan initial step towards the creation of a consultative machinery.282. The Minister told the conference that he had invited them as democraticallyelected leaders of the Indian community could scarcely be found because of"agitation, intimidation and internal strife" and as there was a "dire need forconsultation". He continued:"If the required co-operation is still withheld itwill not mean that I shall refrain from going ahead with the task entrusted to me.But I shall do so as I see fit and nobody will be entitled to accuse me then oftaking matters into my own hands withoutfirst having consulted you."The Minister warned the people of Indian and Pakistani origin that theGovernment had difficulty in engendering an adjustment of outlook amongitsfollowers "who for many years were used to saying that the Indians are a foreignpeople who should go back to their countries of origin".108283. The Conference was reported to have accepted the Government's plans forthe formation of a National Indian Council.09284. On 3 February 1964 the Minister announced the establishment of a NationalIndian Council of twenty-one members (to be increased to twenty-five) as "purelyan administrative arrangement to provide the machinery for contact between theGovernment and the Indian community. In due course, and after neces10" SouthAfrican Information Service, 25 November 1963.10OThe Transvaal Indian Congress declared, for instance, that "no self-respectingInidian will serve on a body designed to implemient upartheid". (Reuters, 10December 1963).107 The Minister of Bantu Education and of Indian Affairs stated that it had beendecided to invite persons who had proved by tlicr actions ihat ihey had theinterests of the community at heart (Rand Daii'y Mail (Johannesburg), 13November 1963).'os 5"outhrn .Africa (London), 20 December 1963. Mr. Maree said the proposedcouncil could "pave the way for an eventual democratically elected council,"which in time would control those affairs of the Indian community that might bedelegated to it by Parliament . . . Among matters upon which the council would beconsulted were: (1) how it could be developed into an elected body with powersto legislate and administer; (2) improvement of sch,ol facilities: (3) establishmentof local govcrilment for Indians and by Indians in their own cities, towns andresidential areas; (4) giving Indians a share in industrial development: (5)establishing Indian-run hospitals;(6) care for the aged and infirm; and (7) creation of more employment facilities."109 Southern Africa (London), 3 January 1964.

Annex No. 12 8!sary consultation, legislation will be introduced for the creation of a statutorycouncil." He added that the establishment of the Council created an official linkbetween the Government and the Indian community and showed "proof of theGovernment's willingness and desire to cater for the needs of Indians in the sameway as the needs of other sections of the population are being catered for".'285. Mr. J. H. van der Merwe was appointed Chairman of the Council.286. The first meeting of the Council was held in Cape Town from 23 to 25March 1964. The Minister told the Council that it "will go a long way towardsrelieving the frustration which might have existed in the past". He added that ifIndians felt frustrated they might well ask to what extent their plight was due tothe reckless and irresponsible words and actions of some of their compatriots."'287. The National Indian Council has had little support from the Indiancommunity.288. Mr. R. N. Bhoolia, Vice-President of the Transvaal Indian Congress said inFebruary 1964: "The National Indian Council is worthless and is an attempt togive false hopes to our people. The Indian people will never accept apartheid andhave always regarded themselves as an integral part of the South Africanpopulation, The only acceptable solution is to put us on a general voters' roll-notto separate us.""12 289. He added that the National Indian Council was "aracialist group Council based on apartheid ideologies"."It can only work within the framework ofapartheid. It cannot create any material changes in the position of the Indiancommunity. In the past fifteen years of apartheid many have lost homes andbusinesses."The Council is an instrument of apartheid. TheGovernment is trying to implement its apartheid legislation against the Indiansunder the guise that some Indians approve of this, thus hoping to mislead worldopinion that the Indians in South Africa accepttheir present position.""3290. Three members of the National Indian Council-Mr. Jack Naidoo (Vice-Principal of the M. L. Sultan College, Durban), Mr. B. Rambirith (lecturer at theIndian University College at Salisbury Island), and Mr. A. S. Kajee (businessmanfrom Durban)were booed by most of about 500 people when they made their firstpublic appearance as Council members at the Merebank Indian Ratepayers'Association.14291. The executive committee of the Cape Peninsula Traders Associationunanimously decided to "reject the creation of the Government-sponsoredNational Indian Council as a representative of the Indian people"."5(iii) Establishment of urban Bantu councils and boards292. The first urban Bantu council was established at Welkom (Orange FreeState) on 8 November 1963.110 Agence France Presse. 3 February 1964. Ill South African Digest (Pretoria), 3April 1964. "2 Ibid., 13 February 1964.

113Sunday Times (Johannesburg), 9 February 1964; quoted in Spotlight optSouth Africa (Dar es Salaam), 28 February 1964,114 The Cape Times, 1 June 1964. 115 Ibid.The council consists of eight elected and four appointed members representingvarious ethnic groups.16 293. In Cape Town, however, for the third time in threeconsecutive years, the City Council was unable to find enough interested Africansin the Langa township to enable the Langa Native Advisory Board to function.Notices were distributed in the township asking for nominations for election to theeight seats, but none was received."7(iv) Establishmnent of consultative and nmnagement committees for the Colouredpeople and Indians294. Consultative and management committees are being established for theColoured people and the Indians in segregated communities set up for them underthe Group Areas Act, No. 41, 1950. These committees are seen as a prelude to theeventual formation of town councils in these communities. Meanwhile, they areconsulted by City Councils on proposals affecting the respective communities, buttheir advice is not binding.295. On 14 April 1964, the first Indian Consultative Committee of five memberswas appointed at Laudium, a township established under the Group Areas Act forIndians evicted from Johannesburg."8296. In Transvaal, the first Coloured management committee of five memberswas appointed by the Provincial Administrator in September 1964. One of themembers refused to accept the appointment.19297. As the Cape Town City Council did not nominate members for the threeColoured management committees in the City, the Provincial Administratorappointed the members"10298. The Minister of Coloured Affairs, of Community Development and ofHousing told the House of Assembly on 31 January 1964:"... In the Transvaal two consultative committees were established on 15 October1963 in terms of the relative ordinance in the Coloured areas of Eersterus atPretoria and Alabama at Klerksdorp. Approval was also granted in principle forthree consultative committees to he established in the Indian areas of Laudium atPretoria, Lenasia at Johannesburg and Primindia at Brits. In the Cape Provinceapproval in principle was granted for the establishment of three managementcommittees in the Coloured areas at Bellville, Goodwood and Paarl as well as forten consultative committees in the Coloured areas at Aliwal North, ForthBeaufort, Fraserburg, Moorreesburg. Piketberg, Prieska, Richmond, SaldanhaBay, Victoria West and Vryburg. The establishment of further committees isbeing considered.""'1116South African Driest (Pretoria), 7 November 1964. 117 The board is to havetwelve members-the chairman and three other members appointed by the Counciland eight elected by the residents. To comply with the law, the Council has everyyear appointed the chairman of its Bantu Affairs Committee and three Africans torepresent it on the board. Since the Langa and Sharpeville riots in 1960, possiblecandidates were reported to have been nervous about public participation in anelection for an official consultative body (The Cape Times, 10 April 1964).

118 South African Information Service, 15 April 1964; South African Diqest(Pretoria), 24 April 1964. 119 The Cape Times, 24 September 1964. 120 Ibid., 24June 1964.121 Republic of South Africa, House of .4sscmbly Debates (Hansard), 31 January1964, cols. 544 and 545.

82 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexes(d) Other apartheid measures outside the African reserves200. Meanwhile, the Government has continued not only to implement but tofurther extend apartheid measures to separate racial groups and restrict interracialcommunication.300. Pass laws to control the movement of Africans continue to be enforced andmass raids conducted in African locations. As a result, the average number ofAfricans in prisons increased to more than 51,000, the highest since 1948.122301. The classification of persons under the Population Registration Act, No. 30,1950, continues. Complaints are received from many families in which somemembers are classified as white and others as Coloured, and from many otherswho claim to have been wrongly classified and thus subjected to seriousdifficulties.302. Prosecutions continue under the Immorality Act of 1957. as amended, whichprohibits carnal intercourse between members of different groups: 745 personswere prosecuted under this Act in 1963, and 364 convicted.23303. A few of the other significant developments in this respect are briefly notedbelow.(i) Apartheid in education304. Segregation in education is being extended and completed. It was reportedthat a faculty of medicine would be established at the University College of theNorth. African students would be enrolled in this segregated institution in early1965, and would then be barred from the medical schools of the Universities ofthe Witwatersrand, Cape Town and Natal.124305. African pupils are being removed from Coloured schools in Cape Town from1 January 1965 though African schools are not adequate and the syllabus in theseschools is quite different.125306. In January 1964. when the principal of the Trafalgar High School,Claremont, was told to remove the nine African pupils in the school, 600 of the650 pupils went on a protest strike.126307. Growing evidence of falling standards as a result of the segregated educationand other reasons has continued to cause concern. The total enrolment of Africanpupils has increased but the funds devoted to their education have notproportionately increased. While the white children receive free education, theGovernment grant for African education is set at a fixed amount so that additionalfunds have to be collected from taxes on Africans.308. The Minister of Bantu Education and of Indian Affairs, Mr. W. A. Maree,told the House of Assembly, in answer to questions on 4 February 1964, that1,710,857 African pupils were enrolled in primary schools. Only 53,683 African

pupils, however, were in secondary schools; 5.720 in vocational and technicalschools, and 630 in university colleges. Of the total number of122 The Cape Times, 11 June 1964.123 Republic of South Africa, House of .-ssembly Debates (Hansard), 19 June1964, col. 8638.124 The Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 9 November 1963.125 There is only one African High School in Cape Town and no Indian HighSchool (The Cape Times, 26 October 1964).126 The Cape Times, 26 October 1964.African pupils, only 2.27 per cent were in standard VII and 0.06 per cent instandard X.127309. The Minister stated on 29 May 1964 that of the 211,629 African childrenwho began school in 1951, only 19,970 reached high school and only 1,040reached matriculation in 1963.128310. Though the non-whites constitute a large majority of the population,there were only 3,682 nonwhite students in the universities in 1963 comparedwith 45,705 white students.129(ii) Apartheid in employment311. Job reservation, intended mainly to reserve certain professions to whites,continues in force.312. A Government Gazette Extraordinary issued in October 1964 reserved allsupervisory and control jobs and some skilled jobs in the motor assembly industryto Whites. It laid down the minimum percentage of Whites who must beemployed in the motor assembly industry: the percentage varies between twentyand sixty-five in different towns.'30 It is reported that at least 150 Coloured andIndian workers at an assembly plant in Durban may be dismissed as a result ofthis order.'3'313. Some of the results of job reservation are disclosed in information providedby the Minister of Transport in answer to two questions in the House ofAssembly: (a) in the road motor transport service, 1,222 white drivers areemployed but no non-white is employed as a driver;1'2 (b) in the railwaysadministration, all skilled jobs are held by Whites.138314. Job reservation was again criticized at the annual conference of the TradeUnion Council of South Africa on the ground that one racial group was beingfavoured at the expense of others. The conference unanimously passed aresolution to petition the Government to end job reservation.'34315. Opening the congress of the Co-ordinating Council of South African TradeUnions on 7 November 1963, the Deputy Minister of the Interior, of Education,.A-1 '11 I 'f ic, Labour and of Immigration, Mr.Marais Viljoen, said that the Government would not relax the job reservation lawsdespite the scarcity of manpower.35316. The Local Road Transportation Board of the Cape decided on 25 July 1963that white taxi owners could employ only white drivers who could carry onlywhite passengers and that Coloured taxi owners could employ only Coloureddrivers who could carry only Coloured passengers. More than 100 Coloured taxi127 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 4 February

1964, col. 713. '2s Ibid., 29 May 1964, col. 6850, Mrs. Suzman commented thatthis drastic fall was caused by several factors: children being taken away fromschool at an early age so that they can earn money to augment the family income;the drastic weeding out through denial of continuation certificates; and a seriousscarcity of accommodation in high schools (The Cape Times, 30 May 1964).125 The non-whites included 1,471 Africans, 1,428 Asians and 783 Coloureds(replies by the Minister of the Interior and of Education. Arts and Sciences, toquestions in the House of Assembly; see Republic of South Africa, House ofAssembly Debates (Hansard), 18 February 1964, col. 1492). 130 The Cape Times,20 October 1964. 131 Ibid., 30 October 1964.132 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 25February 1964, col. 1919, 133 Ibid., 28 February 1964, cols. 2146 and 2147. 134The Cape Times, 16 April 1964. 135 Ibid., 8 November 1964.

Annex No. 12 83drivers were dismissed in Cape Town as a result of this regulation.'36 Thedecision, moreover, caused legal confusion as the Cape Town municipalregulation required taxi drivers to carry any passengers if requested to do so.317. The decision of the Local Road Transportation Board was appealed both bythe drivers and by taxi owners who complained of difficulty in finding whitedrivers. The National Transport Commission decided on 27 April 1964 that whitetaxi owners may employ Coloured drivers so long as only passengers of theowner's race were conveyed.137318. Several taxi drivers were arrested on 19 May 1964 for violating theregulations and a spontaneous strike of taxi drivers took place. The chargesagainst those arrested were subsequently withdrawn.38319. Five taxi operators were ordered to appear before the Local RoadTransportation Board to show cause why their certificates should not be cancelledor suspended for violating the regulation. Their attorney. Mr. S. L. Gross, arguedthat it was difficult for a driver to decide in a fraction of a second to which racethe prospective passenger belonged He said "the driver must take a decisionwhich in higher circles is causing great difficulty". The Chairman of the Board,Mr. J. H. Lasky, warned the taxi owners that it was their responsibility to watchthe drivers and be on the look-out all the time.39(iii) Apartheid in sports320. The Minister of the Interior and of Education, Arts and Science, Senator J. deKlerk, reaffirmed the Government's position, stated in IQ62, that it would notapprove South African teams composed of white and non-white sportsmencompeting abroad or foreign teams so composed entering South Africa. Separateteams of different racial groups from South Africa may compete with any teamabroad. Within the Republic. hnwever, Whites must compete only against Whites,and nonwhites against non-whites.140321. The South African Press has reported that the Minister intends to introducethe Protection of Race Relations Bill to enforce rigid apartheid in virtually altcultural, sporting and entertainment fields.

322. In June 1964, the South Africa Athletic Union sent a contingent of ninewhite and two non-white athletes to Europe, but the president of the Union, Mr.Matt Mare, made it clear that they were not being sent as a South African teamand that "the Whites will represent the Whites of South Africa and the nonwhitesthe non-white population".'4'323. The segregation in sports has led to international protests. Protestdemonstrations took place in London, Oslo and other cities when South Africanathletes appeared in international competitions. The invitation136 The Cape Times, 22 November 1963. Apartheid in connexion with taxipassengers was introduced in Cape Town as early as 1950, when the policy waslaid down that holders of existing taxi licences would be allowed to carry bothwhite and non-white passengers, but new applicants for licences would beallowed to carry passengers of one racial group only unless they gave goodreasons for exemption. Very few new licences have been granted since that timefor the conveyance of all races (The Cape Times, 12 June 1964).1.7 The Cape Times. 2R April 1064. 138 Ibid., 20 and 30 May, 2 and 12 June1064. 139 Ibid., 13 June 1964.14 Associated Press, 21 October 1964. 141 The Cape Times, 9 June 1964.to South Africa to compete at the eighteenth Olympic Games in Tokyo waswithdrawn in August 1964 as the South African Olympic Committee declined todissociate itself publicly from the Government's policy of banning interracialsports events.324. The International Football Federation decided on 8 October 1964 to suspendSouth Africa indefinitely because of its apartheid policy. A proposal to expelSouth Africa was also presented at the meeting of the International AmateurAthletic Federation Congress in Tokyo on 22 October 1964, but it was rejected by145 votes to 82.(iv) Apartheid in scientific organications325. Mr. Jack Basson (United Party) said in the House of Assembly that scientistswere worried about the Government circular sent to scientific organizations in1962 warning them that grants-in-aid would be withdrawn if they did not followthe Government's policy of racial separation. Most of the seventeen scientificorganizations in the country had no non-white members: only about fourteen of atotal membership of about 14,000 were non-white. But many of them were alsoaffiliated to organizations abroad, and scientists were exceedingly worried lest theGovernment's policy lead to further isolation from the rest of the world.'4326. The Minister of the Interior, and of Education, Arts and Science, however,declared that the Government would not deviate from its policy that associationsshoul-t arrange their affairs separately for Whites and non-whites and that thenecessary contact should be created only at their highest level by way ofaffiliation, federation or other means. Subsidies for the financial year 1964-1965would be paid as previously, but would not be renewed after that year toassociations which did not give effect to the Government's policy.143327. Professor W. J. Talbot, Secretary of the Royal Society of South Africa, saidthat seven societies had decided not to alter their constitutions: one had decidednot to reapply for a grant and six were adopting a "wait and see" attitude.14

(v) Apartheid in recreational and cultural facilities328. The imposition of apartheid on the beaches, in libraries, recreational facilitiesand civic buildings in Cape Town is indicative of the Government's anxiety tohasten maximum separation of the races.329. In January 1964, the Administrator of the Cape, Mr. Malan, gave notice tothe Cape Town City Council that unless it put up notices by 22 February 1964that certain beaches were reserved for \Vhites, he would be compelled to act inaccordance with the Separate Amenities Ordinance of 1955 and put up notices atthe cost of the Council.145 The Council, however, could not designate alternatebeaches for non-whites because the whole question was "bedevilled by the GroupArea Act" and available areas were reserved by the Government for142 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 13 May1964, cols. 5959 and 5060. 14' Ibid., 14 May 1964, col. 5989. 144 The CapeTimes, 23 May 19(4. 14' The Department of Community Affairs had ruled thatnon-whites could no longer use several beaches which had been traditionally usedby them because they were in white group areas. The deadline was subsequentlyextended pending further discussions (The Cape Times, 1, 8, 10 and 25 April1964).

84 General Assemnbly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesother purposes. The deadline was extended pending further discussions.14'330. The Administrator warned the City Council on 12 April 1964 that, unless itintroduced apartheid in all the libraries by 1965, as contemplated by theProvincial Library Service Ordinance No. 4 of 1955, the subsidy for free libraryservices would be withdrawn.147331. The Department of Housing, the approval of which is required for theconstruction of new civic buildings in "group areas" has usually insisted that suchbtuildings be for one race only. Cape Town's plan for a Civic Hall and Library atThree Anchor Bay was approved only on such a condition. Members of the CityCouncil protested that this policy, requiring the duplication of civic halls andamenities, made costs prohibitive.332. The Administrator of the Cape also announced that the proposed opera houseon the Cape Town Foreshore would be reserved only for Whites. This arousedstrong opposition from many organizations and individuals who pointed to thegreat interest of the Coloured people in the opera and their significant contributionto opera in South Africa.'48(vi) Curtaihnent of interracial conmunication333. The Government is using all its powers to curtail interracial communicationexcept at the level and in the form approved by it.334. An important development in this respect was the declaration by the PrimeMinister, Mr. H. F. Verwoerd on 8 September 1964 that Whites had no right tointerfere in the politics of non-white racial groups which were being grantedseparate councils. He referred in particular to the activity of the ProgressiveParty.'49335. Permission was refused for a Progressive Party meeting at Genadendal in theSouth Cape Coloured Representatives' constituency, where the Party ran a

candidate to the Provincial Assembly. The Secretary for Coloured Affairs statedthat parties led or controlled by Whites would not obtain permission for suchmeetings.'s5336. The Government is reported to be planning legislation to prohibit politicalparties controlled by Whites from taking part in elections for non-white Councilsor engaging in political activities in non-white communities. Individual whitecandidates will, however, be allowed to participate if nominated by non-whiteparties, as only Whites can represent the Coloured people in the Parliament andthe Cape Provincial Council.151337. Both the Progressive Party and the Liberal Party, which admit non-whitemembers, denounced the proposed move.146 The Cape Times, 28 May 1964.147 The Cape Town City Council has provided separate facilities in mostlibraries, but not yet in the Central Library. The library service is heavilydependent on subsidy (The Cape Tines, 18 April 1964).148 The Cape Times, 1 and 16 June 1964.14 Ibid.. 9 September 1964.1 O Ibid., 11 September 1964.15, The Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 19 September 1964.338. The Prime Minister reaffirmed on 23 April 1964 that Government officialswould not attend multiracial parties given by the Diplomatic Corps.152339. The Minister of Defence said on 7 April 1964 that members of the DefenceForce had been told not to accept invitations to multiracial social gatherings,including the National Day celebrations where one gathering was arranged forWhites and another for all races."'(e) Developments in the Transkei and other African reserves340. In its report of 13 September 1963, the Special Committee analysed themoves to establish limited selfgovernment in the African reserve of Transkei as astep towards the creation of a series of "bantustans". It pointed out in conclusion:"145. These moves are engineered by a Government inwhich the African people concerned have no voice and are aimed at the separationof the races and the denial of rights to the African population in six-sevenths ofthe territory of the Republic of South Africa in return for promises of self-government for the Africans in scattered reserves which account for one-seventhof the territory."146. These reserves contain less than two-fifths of the African population of theRepublic, while many of the Africans in the rest of the country are largelydetribalized and have little attachment to the reserves."147. The bantustans were not demanded by Africanleaders, but were imposed against their wishes. The leaders of the African peopleare silenced, entry into reserves by Whites is controlled by permit, and, underProclamation 400, the Transkeians are denied freedom of assembly and speech."148. The self-government granted to Transkei at presentis limited in many ways...'149. The scheme aims at reinforcing tribalism andutilizing the tribal system against African aspirations for equality.

"150. The 'national units', made up of scattered reserves, are not economicallyviable. They do not provide a minimum standard of living even for the existingpopulation of less than four million ... They have few known mineral resources,and they are almost devoid of industries. Their economies depend largely on theexport of their labour to the 'white' areas, at the rate of over half a million migrantlabourers a year. The Transkei is dependent on Government grants even for itsadministrative costs ..."153. The creation of bantustans may, therefore, be regarded as designed toreinforce white supremacy in the Republic by strengthening the position of tribalchiefs, dividing the African people through the offer of opportunities for a limitednumber of Africans, and deceiving public opinion."54(i) Elections to the Transkei Legislative Assembly341. Elections to the Transkei Legislative Assembly took place on 20 November1963. Under the provisions of the Transkei Constitution Act, only forty-five outof the 109 members of the Assembly were elected; the four paramount chiefs andthe sixty chiefs of the Transkei, appointed and paid by the Government of152 The Cape Times, 24 April 1964.153 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Ilansard), 7 April1964, cols. 3737 and 3738.154 Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Annexes,addendum to agenda item 30, document A/5497.

Annex No. 12 85the Republic, were automatically members of theAssembly.342. The Government announced that 880,425 persons-414,238 men and 466,187women-had registered as voters. Of the total registered voters, about 610,000 hadregistered in the Transkei and about 270,000 outside the territory.155343. One hundred and eighty candidates were nominated for the forty-five seats.The election contest was mainly between supporters of Chief Kaiser Matanzima,head of Emigrant Tembuland, who supported the policy of "separatedevelopment" or apartheid, and the supporters of Paramount Chief Victor Poto ofWestern Pondoland, who opposed that policy in principle, and called formultiracialism and a more democratic legislature.156 The issues in the elections,however, were rather unreal as the Government had made it clear thatmultiracialism could not he allowed in the Transkei. Paramount Chief Victor Potostated that though he was in favour of a multiracial Transkei, he realized that hewould not be able to do much to promote it before the Transkei was totallyindependent.157 344. Moreover, the elections were conducted under a State ofEmergency and with many of the most prominent leaders like Nelson Mandela,Walter Sisulu and Govan Mbeki in gaol and others like Oliver Tambo in exile.345. Despite the clear evidence of the Government's support for ChiefMatanzima, and the repression of the opponents of apartheid, two thirds of all theelected seats were won by supporters of Paramount Chief Poto. This was widelyinterpreted as a repudiation ofapartheid by the Xhosa people.

346. Chief Matanzima, however, was elected Chief Minister on 6 December 1963by 54 votes to 49, having obtained the support of a large majority of thechiefs.158 A Cabinet of six members was announced on 11December.159(ii) Establishment of the Democratic Party and the Transkei NationalIndependence Party347. The two major groups in the Legislative Assembly proceeded to formpolitical parties. 348. On 7 February 1964, the supporters of Paramount ChiefVictor Poto formed the Democratic Party155Under the Transkei Constitution Act, Nn. 48, 1963, all Africans born in theTranskei, all Xhosa-speaking persons in South Africa and all Sotho-speakingpersons linked with Sotho elements in the Transkei were regarded as "citizens" ofTranskei.1- 6For a summary of the main points of the manifestos of Chief Matanzima andParamount Chief Poto, see document A/5692, annex II, para. 59 and footnote 45.557South African Digest (Pretoria), 21 November 1963.158 On 7 August 1964, Chief Sigwebo Mhlango, a member of the LegislativeAssembly, announced that he was joining the Opposition Democratic Party andstated that he had earlier supported Chief Kaiser because of threats by certainGovernment officials that he would otherwise lose his rights as a traditional chief.He claimed that most of the chiefs who had supported Chief Kaiser had also beenintimidated (The Cape Times, 8 August 1964)."59The opposition members objected to the appointment of Chief GeorgeMatanzima, brother of Chief Kaiser, as Minister of Justice on the ground that hehad been struck off the roll of attorneys on 6 June 1963 by the Supreme Court atGrahamstown which had found him guilty of misconduct in the administration oftrust funds. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. M. D.C. de Wet Nel defended Chief George Matanzima and said that he had repaid allhis debts. (Southern Africa (London) 24 January 1964; Die Burger (Cape Town),11 February 1964.)and declared that its objects included retention of the Transkei as an integral partof South Africa, together with the development of a non-racial loyalty to theGovernment of the Transkei, as well as the South African Government.Membership was to be open to all races. The party decided not to link up with anyother political party or movement in South Africa.16e Paramount Chief Poto saidthe objective of the party was "democracy and multiracialism for all in theTranskei and eventually all in South Africa".sec 349. At a conference in April1964, the party elected Paramount Chief Victor Poto as its leader and ,fr.Knowledge Guzana, an attorney, as National Chairman. The conference called onthe party leaders to seek the repeal of Proclamation 400 of 1960 (the TranskeiEmergency Regulations), the abolition of the 90-day detention clause, the repealof all "discriminatory" laws, the recognition of African trade unions, and theestablishment of factories in the territory'l2 350. Paramount Chief Victor Potocalled for African representatives in the South African Parliament. He said:"The partial self-government in the Transkei, whatwe now have, is only the beginning of our dream

to get to the central government."He added that the present Government in the Transkei had a basic defect: it aimedat further consolidating separate development on the "evil basis" that "directs usto drive away the Europeans with whom we have developed the Transkei".163351. In his first speech in the Legislative Assembly, Paramount Chief Poto saidthat it had always been wrong to separate people, and that segregation had neverbeen accepted by the people, but forced down their throats by the Governments.e4352. Meanwhile, Chief Kaiser Matanzima announced in March 1964 that hisgroup would be known as the Transkei National Independence Party. He declaredthat the party would contest any attempt to alter the principle of separatedevelopment to one of integrated multiracialism.353. The programme of the Transkei National Independence Party stated that itrecognized the Transkei constitution as its statutory basis, and would only alterthe constitution "when it becomes necessary for the more efficient functioning ofadministrative action". It was convinced that commercial concerns now in thehands of Whites "must progressively be taken over by the Bantu with the co-operation of the Government of the Republic of South Africa".165(iii) First session of the Transkei Legislative Assembly354. The Transkei Legislative Assembly was opened on 5 May 1964 by StatePresident Swart who said that after gradual development over the years, thepeople of the Transkei now had an "all Westernized system of governmenttogether with its attendant institutions", and that this was "another importantmilestone on the road to the development of the Bantu people". He assured theAssembly that the Republic of South Africa would continue to assist the Transkeiand that11OThe Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 8 February 1964.561 Reuters, 9 February 1964.162 The Cape Times, 6 April 1964. la The Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 2May 1964. 164 The Cape Times, 7 May 1964. 165 South African Digest(Pretoria), 26 March 1964.

86 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesSouth African civil servants would train their successors in office.355. The first piece of legislation before the Assembly was the AppropriationsBill for 1964-1965. It provided for an expenditure of R15,510,000 ($21,714,000).356. The revenue was estimated at R16,126,000($22,576,400) of this, R13 million ($18.2 million ) was the grant from theGovernment of the Republic and RI million (.l .4 million) w:.s to he derived froma general tax to he collected lv the Government of the Republic from Transkeian"citizens" living or working outside the Transkei.'1 The Appropriations Bill wasapproved on 26 May by 55 votes, with the Democratic Party ahstaining from thevote.'G7357. Another bill adopted at this session was the Transkei Education Bill. Thedebate reflected the unpopularity of "Bantu education" introduced by the SouthAfrican Government. Following a series of motions by the members of the

Democratic Party, the Legislative Assembly set up a Select Committee andsubsequently approved its recommendations that the "Bantu education" syllabusbe abandoned and that the official language (English or Afrikaans) of the parents'choice be introduced as the medium of instruction from standard III on?1s358. The Assembly also considered several other motions by the DemocraticParty. A motion recommending the immediate repeal of Proclamation R.400 of1960 (the Transkei Emergency Regulations) was opposed by the Minister ofJustice, who pointed out that the matter was entirely within the competence of theGovernment of the Republic, and was rejected by 52 votes to 40.'6359. Another motion to ask the Republican Government to relax the influx-control regulations which restrict the freedom of movement of the Africans waspasset with the agreement of the Chief Minister. Mr. B. S. Rajuili, a DemocraticParty member, told the Chief Minister: "Even if it means you must go on yourknees, and plead, please plead for the relaxation'16 The Cape Times, 14 May 1964. The South African Minister of Finance said inhis budget statement in March 1964 that, in addition to the grant to the Transkei, atotal of R1,298,000 ($1,817,200) would be paid to officials of the Department ofBantu Administration stationed in the Transkei.161 The Cape Times, 27 AMay 1964.168 The Commission of Inquiry into the Teaching of the Official Languages andthe Use of the Mother Tongue as Medium of Instruction in Transkeian PrimarySchools (known as the Cingo Commission), appointed by the South AfricanGovernment in 1963, had reported strongly in favour of instruction in the mother-tongue. African educators and parents had complained that such instruction,especially in higher grades, separated Africans on tribal lines and caused a fall ineducational standards. They had suggested that instruction in an official languageof the Republic be introduced at an early age and that the choice of the officiallanguage be left to the parents (Liberal Opinion (Pietermaritzburg), July 1964;South African Digest (Pretoria), 3 July 1964).Opposition members also criticized the appropriation of R4,176,000 ($5,846,400)for education as inadequate though somewhat higher than the expenditure in theprevious year which was R3,832,000 ($5,364.800).Mr. Knowledge Guzana, national chairman of the Democratic Party, said that itwas "a drop in the ocean" considering the population of the Transkei. Hesuggested that the Transkei should appeal to Western countries for help if theSouth African Government did not have enough money for a "proper" educationsystem in the Transkei (The Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 9 May 1964).169 The Cape Times, 28 May 1964.of these nefarious regulations.'70 A third motion that "rehabilitation schemes" beintroduced in the Transkei only with the consent of the local people, was carriedby one vote as a number of supporters of the Government abstained on the vote,or were absent.17'(iv) Dcvelopiuents in other reserves360. The Government is continuing its efforts to establ;bsh "bantustans" in otherAfrican reserves.

361. The Press reported in February 1964 that plans for a "zulustan" for the 2million Zulus in Natal had met with resistance, particularly from Chief GatshaButhelezi and Chief Ntando Magwaza.172 Zulu chiefs and leaders protestedstrongly against a letter received from the Secretary of Bantu Administration andDevelopment in January 1964 indicating that the Zulus had no power "to acceptor reject" the establishment of lPantu authorities under the Bantu Authorities Actof 1951.173362. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr M. D. C. deWet Ne!. said on3 March 1964, in reply to questions in Parliament. that following consultationswith the tribes in Natal and Zululand, 111 tribes had asked for the establishmentof the authorities, thirty-eight were not in favour and ninety had not yet decidedon the matter.17 He rejected a referendum on the question of the establishment ofa zulustan".175363. The Minister stated, however, that his policy was not to impose the Bantuauthorities on unwilling tribes.1' After the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissionerhad reiterated this assurance and had appealed to Chief Buthelezi and histraditional Council to co-operate with the Government, it was reported that ChiefButhelezi had agreed not to oppose the Bantu authority system.77361. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said on 19 August1964 that the report of the interdepartmental committee on State lands in Zululandwould be available soon and that it would then be possible to decide finally theborders of the Zulu homeland."78365. The Minister was reported to have stated in September 1964 that the nextbantustan would be established in "Tswanaland". a patchwork of reserves nearBechuanaland, within about two years. The Mini7o Ibid., 11 June 19,14.171Liberal Opinion (Pietermaritzburg), July 1064. These schemes for soilconservation have been unpopular as they involved demolition and removal ofhomes without compensation, compulsory labour and, in some cases, reduction orloss of fields by administrative decision.17 Quoted in Spotlight oi South Africa (Dar es Salaam), 6 March 1964.Paramount Chief Cyprian was reported to have accepted the bantustan policy inprinciple, hut faced consderable opposition from the Zulus. At a meeting of theZulu chiefs in March 1963, Chief Buthelezi, a cousin of Paramount ChiefCyprian, demanded a referendum on whether the people wished to participate inthe Bantu Authority system.173 The Cape Times, 12 March 1064.174 The establishment of local Bantu authorities and a territorial authority for thearea is a prerequisite to the establishment of a "zulustan" on the lines followed inthe Transkei.1i'5 The Senate of the Republic of South Africa, Debates (Of5cial Report), 3"March 1964, cols. 1674 and 1675; Republic of South Africa, House of AssemblyDebates (Hansard),3 March 1964, cols. 2323 and 2324.176 Ibid.177 The Cape Times, 12 March 1964.

'78 Ibid., 20 August 1964.

Annex No. 12ister indicated that it may be granted self-government even before the variousreserves were consolidated.'79C. DANGER OF VIOLENT CONFLICT366. The promulgation of legislation closing all avenues for peaceful protestagainst the Government's racial policies, and the ruthless repressive measuresinstituted against all opponents of the policies of apartheid, have increasinglypersuaded non-white leaders and white opponents of apartheid that the onlyavailable and effective means within South Africa for registering protest andsecuring change is underground activity and violence. The struggle for equalityhas been carried on in South Africa for many years, and the leaders of the non-whites have shown a strong attachment to non-violent means. From 1961,however, leaders and supporters of the African National Congress and the Pan-Africanist Congress were reported to have been converted rapidly to anacceptance of violence as an inevitable and justifiable element in the struggle asthe Government met peaceful demands with force and in view of the danger of thespread of terrorism by isolated groups which would have further intensified racialtension. Since then, other elements seem to have accepted this view.367. As Dr. Joost de Blank, until recently Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town,said in January 1964: "Repressive legislation leads to more violence and morerepressive legislation until such time as it reaches a pitch when it will have toblow."180 368. He told the delegation of the Special Committee in London inApril 1964: "What... is amazing to the person who lives inSouth Africa, is the continuing patience and... the continuing goodwill of theAfrican towards white people in the country where he is exploited anddiscriminated against day in and day out, month aftermonth, year after year..."... unless this legislation can be brought to anend in the foreseeable future, no one can look for anything but bloody violence inSouth Africa. This, it seems to me, is unavoidable and inescapable" (seeA/AC.!15/L.65).369. It may be recalled that the South African Government alleged that anunderground organization called the Poqo, associated with the Pan-AfricanistCongress, was responsible for the many acts of violence, including disturbances atPaarl, the killing of five Whites at Bashee Bridge and the attempted violence atQueenstown in 1962. It charged that the Umkonto we Sizwe ("Spear of theNation"), established by leaders of the African National Congress, had organ179The weekly edition of The Star (Johannesburg) stated on 19 September 1964:"The area known as Tswanaland consists of at least sixlarge and many more small African reserves dotted aboutthe far Western Transvaal and the Northern Cape."A process of consolidation-often against the wishes of the tribesmen themselves-has been going on for some years, but essentially the areas, inhabited by the

Tswana ethnic group, are sprawling, scattered reserves impossible to consolidatecompletely without radical movement of Whites."18 Quoted in Spotlight on South Africa (Dar es Salaam), 25 January 1964.ized a large number of acts of sabotage beginning in December 1961.181370. The existence of a new underground organization called the AfricanResistance Movement (ARM), composed mainly of white liberals, was reportedin the summer of 1964.1 2371. Spokesmen of the Pan-Africanist Congress and leaders of the Umkonto weSizwe admitted that they had resorted to underground activity, involving sabotageor certain forms of violence, since 1961 by which time the two major Africanorganizations had been banned.372. Panafrica, bulletin of the Pan-Africanist Congress published in Algiers,stated on 15 September 1964:"After Sharpeville, the country sank into silence. All theknown leaders of all the liberation movements were imprisoned. However, thePan-Africanist Congress continued its operations, for a great many of it. leaderswere not known to the police. .Ioreover, two years later several high-ranking PACleaders were released, having served theirsentences."Slowly, and with the greatest circumspection, the localcommittees were re-formed. Since the name Pan-Africanist Congress was banned,the PAC called itself the Poqo.Recruitment and preparations were going on everywhere.The centre of preparations was Maseru, the capital of Lesotho (Basutoland),where Potlako K. Leballo, general secretary of the movement and the PresidentialCouncil, established their headquarters. The PAC decided to launch a full-scalearmed attack on the settlers, and, in particularon the gcndarnierie stations."Unfor'aiately, th., Government disco'ered the plan andas a result thousands of Africans were arrested. Despite this setback., the PACsucceeded in carrying o-'t several attacks, in the course of which a number ofpolicemen and,,vcrnment puppets were killed.,."The P'si, campaign was thus both a victory ais a defeatin the s:ro, gzle for freedom. On the one hind the PAC shoo', the Government toits foundations and showed that the time for moderation and non-violence wasover. On the other hand, the movement lost in this campaign a great many of itsfinest sons, who were executed or imprisoned."'\ hat is certain is that the people have not lost heart,that the moderate movements no longer have a place in the South Africansituation, and that the PAC has survivedand is gaining increasing popular support."373. It may be recalled that many of the accused in the Rivonia trial, includingseveral prominent leaders of the African National Congress, were charged withleadership of the Umkonto we Sizwe and responsibility for acts of sabotage fromDecember 1961. The defendants stated that the Umkonto we Sizwe had been

established in 1961 and that it was distinct from the African National Congressthough subject to political guidance from the latter. Nelson Mandela said on 20April 1964:14... I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage.I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I181 The Minister of Justice said on 10 March 1964 that there had been 203serious cases of sabotage since December 1961. (The Senate of the Republic ofSouth Africa, Debates (Official Report), 10 March 1964, col. 1980.)152An anonymous caller telephoned The Cape Times on 19 June 1964 and said:"This is the African Resistance Movement-the ARM. VWe have struck our firstblow against South Africa" (The Cape Times, 20 June 1964). On 22 June, TheCape Tines received a circular purporting to come from the ARM (ibid., 23 June1964). A telephone call to the Press in Johannesburg on 10 September claimedthat a fire near Jeppe railway station on 9 September was a reprisal by ARM forthe death of Mr. Suliman Saloojee (ibid., 11 September 1964).

88 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexeshave any love of violcnce. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessmentof the political situation that had arisen after many ye:ars of tyranny, exploitationand oppression of mny people by the \\hites...6... Firstly. we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence b theAfrican people had sxc,,me inevitable, and that unless responsible Ica(!ershil wasgiven to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaksof terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility betweenthe various races of this country which is not produced even by war.Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the .African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of whitesupremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had beenclosed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either toaccept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose todefy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse toviolence; when this form was legislated against, and when the Governmentresorted to a show of force to crush opnosition to its policies, only then did wedecide to answerviolence with violence..7. But the violence which we chose to adopt was notterrorism. We who formed Umkonto were all members of the African NationalCongress, anid had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiationas a means of solving political disputes. \Ve believed that South Africa .!in~n~uto all the people who lived in it, and not ti one group, be it black or white.We did not want an inter-racialwar, and tried to avoid it to the last minute ..."17 .... The hard facts were that fitfy years of nonviolence had brought the Africanpeople nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer rights. It maynot be easy for this Court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time thepeople had been talking of violence --of the day when they would fight the white

man and win back their country, and we, the leaders of the African NationalCongress, had nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and topursue peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in 1slay and June of1961. it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a non-racial state by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers wkere beginning to loseconfidence in this policyand were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism..."19. At the beginning of June 1961, after a long andanxious assessment of the South African situation I and some colleagues came tothe conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would beunrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace andnonviolence at a time when the Government met our peacefuldemands with force."20. This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It wasonly when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had beenbarred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of politicalstruggle, and to form Umkonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired sucha course, but solely because the Government had left uswith no other choice..."23 ...we felt that the country was drifting towards acivil war in which Blacks and Whites would fight each other.We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war could mean the destruction of whatthe ANC stood for; with civil war racial peace would be more difficult than evertoachieve , . ." (see A/AC.115/L.67).374. A number of other trials, which are briefly reviewed in this report, show thatacts of sabotage were organized all over the cottntry and that the orga-nizers included men and women of all races who had patiently struggled by non-violent means for a long time and were not daunted by persecution.375. A wave of sabotage followed the conviction of the accused in the Rivoniatrial.376. On 14 June 1964, two days after the sentences in the Rivonia trial, a "pipebomb" planted at the post office at Vrededorp, a suburb of Johannesburg, blewout the windows and damaged the ceilings of the bttilding.i377. On 19 June 1964, two 100-foot steel pylons in the Western Cape, nearDurbanville and at Vlottenberg, were wrecked by dynamite. Another explosionbrought down a high-voltage pylon in Sundra, Transvaal. There was another blastnear Pretoria."'378. On 22 June 1964, a series of explosions brought down a power pylon on afarm near Stellenbosch, about thirty miies east of Cape Town.""379. On .3 July 1964, a telephone booth at the Plimville post office was blastedand there was extens-ive daniage to the main building) '380. The Minister of Justice, Mr. B. J. Vorster, said in a statement on 5 July 1964.after extensive police raids and detentions in the main cities, that the police hadsucceeded in detecting and finding in Johanniesburg a very powerful radiotransmitter, certain time-bomb mechanisms and related elements which could be

used for sabotage purposesis7 He disclosed on 9 July 1964 that another radiotransmitter, 100 lb. of dynamite, and a large variety of other sabotage material hadbeen discovered by the police in Cape Town.""s381. On 10 Augtsst 1964, railway signal cables were cut between luldersvlei andKrasifontein in Cape Town and two Coloured men were arrested.""382. On 24 July 1964, a time-bomb in a suitcase exploded on the main concourseof the Johannesburg station and at least twenty-five persons were injured.'°383. The Commissioner of Police, Lieut.-Gen. J. M. Keevy, said on 26 July 1964that the Security Police had found two secret arsenals and detained forty personsin the previous three weeks and had broken the back of the new sabotageorganization, the African Resistance Movement, which was active mainly in theWitwatersrand and Cape Town.91384. Early in August 1964, a time-bomb was thrown into the Matroosfronteinpost office in the Cape but failed to explode.'52385. On 19 September 1964, saboteurs made unsuccessful attempts to blow uptwo post offices in Dube and Jabavu, Johannesburg. Explosions occurred in bothplaces but the damage was slight.tsai1' Reuters, 15 June 1964.184 The Cape Times, 20 June 1964; The .ew 1ork Times, 20 June 1964, DieBurger stated that these two acts of sabotage "are the biggest yet experienced inthe Western Cape . . . This is the first time that saboteurs have succeeded inblowing up the giant power pylons of Escom". Quoted in The Observer (London),21 June 1964.1 5 Reuters, 22 June 1964; The New York Times, 23 June 1964.18 The Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 4 July 1964.187 The Cape Times, 6 May 1964.188 Ibid., 10 July 1964.189 Ibid., 11 August 1964.190 Ibid., 25 July 1964.191 Ibid., 27 July 1964.192 Ibid., 14 August 1964.193 Ibid., 21 September 1964.

Annex I386. The Government countered this underground activity and violence bymassive repression. It claimed that repression had succeeded in putting down suchactivity.387. Statements by the leaders of Opposition parties and others seem to reflectsome doubts about such claims.388. After the judgement in the Rivonia trial, the leader of the Opposition, Sir deVilliers Graaff, expressed concern that the accused men seemed to have had a"significant degree of support from the voteless section of our population. It is mysincere conviction-and I believe it is the sincere conviction of my party thatprobably one of the major reasons for the support of this underground, politicalseething in

South Africa is the fact that millions of the people of South Africa are deniedlegitimate political outlets". He warned that by denying a voice to all racialgroups in Parliament, the Government was imperilling South Africa."'389. In July 1964, after the raids on hundreds of homes. Sir de Villiers Graaffnoted that the homes of a number of very distinguished persons had been raidedand asked whether there was an abuse of power by the police or "suspicions ofplots involving such important sections of our people that the very existence ofthe State is threatened".195 He added:"The tragic fact is that efficient Security Policeand a busy Minister may well not solve our problems till the Government facesthe basic facts of the South African situation and asks itself why theseunderground activities are getting the alarming measures of support they appear tohave done from bothblack and white."'96390. Moreover, while the Government claims that it has the situation undercontrol, its statements and actions imply that the danger has not passed.391. The Minister of Justice stated on 10 March 1964 that a large number ofpersons had left South Africa for training in sabotage and were trying to return.Estimates of those who had left varied from 900 to 5,000. More than 150 hadbeen caught on their return.197392. Police were said to have been troubled by many of the detainees who hadelected to stay in gaol rather than answer any questions.98393. Finally, many observers, as indicated below, have stated that the danger ofviolence would exist so long as the Government's racial policies continued.394. After the explosion at the Johannesburg Station, Mr. B. Zackon,Chairman of the Cape Branch of the Liberal Party, issued a statement reaffirmingthe Party's condemnation of violence as a solution to the racial ills of theRepublic, and adding:194Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 15 June1964, col. 8187.195 The Cape Times, 6 July 1964.196 Ibid., 13 July 1964.197 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansrard), 10 March1964, col. 1938. Commanding General P. H. Grobbelaar said in a broadcast inSeptember 1964 that the South African Defence Force had intensively studiedguerrilla warfare since 1956 and could ensure that guerrillas would not meet withthe same success in South Africa as they had in some other countries (Spotlighton South Africa (Dar es Salaam), 2 October 1964).108 The Cape Times, 13 July 1964."Until the Government changes its policies, or thevoters change the Government, we fear these irresponsible protests will continueand no amount ofpolice action will stop them.'"55395. The Chief Rabbi, Israel Abrahams, said in Cape Town that the "outrage" hadtaken place "only since peaceful protests of non-white organizations have beenottlawed and no heed paid to Opposition criticisms" and appealed to the

Government "to institute discussions with freely elected representatives of allsections of the community before more outrages of this kind finally ruin all hopesof a peaceful solution to the race problems of South Africa".""396. The Cape Western region of the "Black Sash" also reiterated its abhorrenceof violence and said that the cause of the incidents of sabotage and terrorism wasthe "repeated refusal by successive Governments to redress basic injustices andthe indignities suffered by the vast majority of the people in this multiracial SouthAfrica".201397. Another source of serious concern during the period under review has beenthe evidence of intimidation and violence by private individuals and groupsagainst opponents of the policies of apartheid.398. Several acts of intimidation have been reported at the University of CapeTown.399. On 17 October 1964, shots were fired through the windows of the homes ofMr. Peter Hjul, banned chairman of the Liberal Party in the Western Cape, Mr.Fred Carneson, banned former editor of New Age, and Mr. R. Tabakin. All threeasked for policeprotection.-5"1400. There has also been considerable evidence of activity by South Africanvigilante groups in neighbouring territories. Forward, Pretoria (October 1964)gave the following list of incidents in these territories in the previous year:"On I1 August 1963, Kenneth Abrahams, a 26-year-old Coloured doctor fromCape Town, was kidnapped in Bechuanaland, while on his way from Ghanzi toLobatsi. "On 29 August 1963, a chartered East African AirwaysDakota, chartered to fly fugitives Arthur Goldreich and Harold \,olpe fromFrancistown, was mysteriously blown up on the airstrip."e(n 26 July 1064, the new refugee centre, known as the \White House, two milesfrom Francistown, was blown up."On 10 August 1964, Mrs. Rosemary Wentzel disappeared from her home in BigBend, Swaziland, and was later detained by the police at Ermelo, Transvaal andheld under the 90-day law."On 28 August, Dennis Higgs, former lecturer at the University of the\Vitwatersrand, was forcibly taken from his house at Lusaka, and left bound andgagged in a motor van at the Zoo Lake, Johannesburg, where he was arrested bythe Security Police."The paper added:"Mystery telephone calls to Johannesburg newspapers by a man who claimed tobe the leader of the group which kidnapped Higgs, said it was 30 strong, had noname, and operated from the Protectorates. "\Vhoever they are, the kidnappersand wreckers have displayed an uncanny insight into police investigations and19 Ibid., 28 July 1964.200 Ibid.'01 Ibid.202 Ibid., 19 and 20 October 1964.

90 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexes

a remarkable knowledge of persons wanted by the Security Police."Not until Higgs was kidnapped did the public know thatlie was ol the list of police suspects in connexion withrectcitt allegerl acts of sabotage."It is obvious that there tcxits a highly organized, wellinformed, expertly trained,abundantly financed 'cloak and 'ltcer' group, dedicated to act against allegedsaboteurs and refugees in areas beyond the normal scope of [he SouthAfrican police."401. It may be noted that no person is reported to have been arrested inconnexion with the above incidents.D. BuILD-up OF MILITARY AND POLICE FORCES402. In its previous reports, the Special Committee has reviewed the tremendousexpansion of military and police forces in South Africa to meet the grave situationcaused by the imposition of the policies of apartheid and indicated that thisexpansion is itself likely to have serious international repercussions.403. The build-up of military and police forces has continued during the periodunder review.40j. State President C. R. Swart declared in his opening address to Parliament on17 January 1964:"It is gratifying to be able to mention that theprogramme to equip our Defence Force is proceeding according to plan, and thatdefence research and local production of defence requirements are progressingsatisfactorily ... It is also encouraging to note that the expansion of the DefenceForce enjoysthe general support of the nation.20.3405. Although the Minister of Finance, Mr. T. E. Dbnges, claimed on 17September 1963 that South Africa could cope with any "Army of Liberation"which did not receive financial and military support from at least two greatPowers.24 the defence budget was greatly increased in 1964-1965.406. Defence expenditure has almost quintupled since 1960-1961 when the large-scale expansion of military forces and the purchase of modern equipment began,and now far exceeds the expenditure incurred in the Second World War.407. A document entitled "White Paper on Defence, 1964-1965", tabled by theMinister of Defence in the House of Assembly on 3 June 1964, indicated that thisexpansion followed a military appreciation made in 1960 of the possible threat toSouth Africa's peaceful existence and safety "as a result of unsettled worldconditions". The Government sought to ensure that the Defence Force could act"immediately, efficiently and uninterruptedly" whenever that might be considerednecessary. In the first phase of the naval expansion programme, which had beenalmost completed, major equipment worth more than R130 million ($182 mil203The Senate of the Republic of South Africa, Debates (Official Report), 17 January1964, col. 9. 204 The Cape Tines, 18 September 1963.lion) had been purchased or ordered since 1960, "and further orders areenvisaged". Strategic airfields for operational purposes were being constructed invarious parts of South Africa in addition to the existing military airfields. Defencematerials and fuels were being stored at strategic centres to be issued without

delay in times of mobilization. More and more men were being sent overseas tostudy the handling of munitions and techniques of modern warfare "and to keep intouch with military opinion in other countries".205408- The Minister of Defence, Mr. J. J. Fouch6, said on 26 September 1964 thatthe naval expansion programme carried out under the Simonstown Agreement hadbeen concluded. Because of financial and other obligations regarding thisexpansion, South Africa had not been able to expand its naval air force as rapidlyas it would have wished to do. But orders had been placed for naval strike aircraftand naval reconnaissance aircraft. South Africa would "obviously require moremajor strategical equipment in future, as the defence of a country cannot beallowed to become static'. He expressed the hope that "circumstances will againenable us to do big business with the United lKingdom to our mutual advantage".He added that a possible embargo on the sale of major armaments to South Africacould not only "weaken the defence of an acknowledged Western outpost" butwould deprive South Africa of "the essential means to fulfil our moral obligationto Western allies during a general war".208409. In view of widespread international opposition against arms deliveries toSouth Africa, the South African Government has been anxious to deny that theimport of arms was intended for internal purposes. Meanwhile, it hastremendously expanded the manufacture of arms and ammunition within thecountry.(a) Increase in defence and police budget410. On 16 March 1964 the Minister of Finance, Mr. Dhnges, introduced a recorddefence budget totalling R210 million (or $294 million), and stated that theincrease was to "discourage foreign aggression" and counter "threats which havebeen hurled at our country, threats, which at another time would have called downthe condemnation of the civilized world. If I do not believe that these threats willbe translated into action, it is only because I know-and those who threaten usknow-that our defences are strong and getting stronger by the day".207-s411 The budget estimate for police also represented an increase of over 7 per cent.412. A comparison of the budget estimates shows that the estimates for defencehave nearly quintupled in the past five years from R43,591,000 ($61,027,400) toR210 million ($294 million), and the total security budget has more than tripledfrom R79,791,000 ($111,707,400) to R259,129,oo ($362,868,800).2015 Ibid., 5 June 1964; The Star (Johannesburg), 3 June 1964.206 The Cape Times, 29 September 1964. 207-8 Republic of South Africa,HIouse of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 16 March 1964, col. 3041.

Annex No. 12 91ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR DEFENCE AND POLICE1960-1961 19,,3-1961 1964-1965Rand Dollars Rand Dollars Rand DollarsDefence ....................... 43,591,000 (61,027,400) 121.5)4,000, (170,245,600)210,000,000 (204,000.000)Police ........... 36,200,000 (50,680,000) 45,870,000 (64,218,000)49,192,000 (68,868,800)

TOTAL 70),791,000 (111,707,400) 167,474,000 (234,463,600) 259,192,000(362,868,800)SoURCE: Republic (Union) of South Africa, Esutmates of thc Expenditure to bedefrayed from Revenue Account during the years ending 31 .MIarch. 1961. 1g itand 1965.a To this should be added 1-R26.1 1,000 ($36555,-100) provided from the LoanAccount as contribution to Defence Special Fquipment Account and RIO million($14 million) provided in all additional estimate for defence. The Minister ofFinalice stated on 28 April 1964 that the Department of )cfence had not spentabout k15 million (o;21 million) or its appropriation for 19631061 as a result oftl.a y in the completion of certain large contracts. (Repullic of South Africa,House of Assembly Debales (Hansard), 28 April 10(14, col 5101.)413. In addition, the Minister of Finance announced million ($322 million)for Defence and R51,792,000on 28 April 1964 that R20 million ($28 million) from ($72,508,800) forpolice.the surplus for the financial year 1963-1964 would be 415. Some of theitems of expenditure where inadded to the Defence Special Equipment Accnunt.2creases in budget estimates have been impressive are414. The appropriations for 1964-1965 were R230 indicated below:1963-1961 1964-1965Rand Dollars Rand DollarsArmy Stores, services and equipment .............. ... 7,607,000 (10,649,800)17,152,500 (24,013,500)Aircraft, aircraft stores, servicesand equipment .............. 10,225,000 (14,315,000) 15,008,000 (21,011,200)Naval stores, services and equipment ...... ............ 3,914,000 (5,479,600)6,803,000 (9,524,200)Bombs, ammunition and pyrotechnics ......... .... . 13,428,500 (18,799,900)17,938,500 (25,113,900)Mechanical transport, horses anddogs ....................... 5,229,000 (7,320,600) 18,860,500 (26,404,700)Special equipment and reservestocksa ...... ........... 29,511,000 (41,315,400) 58,812,5(10 (82,337,500)M\anufacture of munitions ...... 23,572,000 (33,000,800) 33,002,500(46,203,500)SouRCE: Republic (Union) of South Africa, Estimates of the Expenditure to bedefrayed from Revenue Account during the years ending ,1 March 1961. 1964 ad1965.a The firtre for 1963-1964 includes R26,111,000 ($36,555,400) from LoanAccount. The figure for 1964-1965 includes appropriation of R20 million ($28million) from the previousyear's budget surplus.(b) Increase in strength of the military and police forces416. The South African Defence Force consists of: (a) The Permanent Force, orthe standing army (the army, air force and navy);

(b) The Citizen Force, comprising volunteers and citizens drawn by ballot andenrolled in the force; and(c) The Commandos, comprising volunteers and citizens not drawn by ballot forenrolment in the Citizen Force.417. The Permanent Force is kept relatively low but has undergone a steadyexpansion. It is planned to increase it to 14,926 during the current year.STRENGTH OF THE PERMANENT FORCE1960-1961 1963-19, 1)6.119,5 Officers ...... .. .. .... 1,275 2,079 2,271Other ranks ............ 7,744 11,699 12,655TOTAL 9,019 13,778 14,926SOURCE: Estimates of Expenditure, 1960-1961, 1963-1964, 1964-1965.209 He stated that it was not the intention that this money should be spent duringthe financial year 1964-1965 (Republic of South Africa, House of AssemblyDebates (Hansard), 28 April 1964, col. 5101).418. The Citizen Force consists of men called to service annually to serve for fouryears. According to the White Paper on Defence, published by the Government inJune 1964, the number of men called up for the Citizen Force increased from2,000 in 1960 when the training period was only two months, to 16,527 in 1965with a training period of nine months.210 The recruits would be attached to fournew regiments after the completion of their training.21419. The strength of the Commandos has been increased from 48,281 officers andmen in 1960 to 51.487 this year.21 2 The Minister of Defence, Mr. Fouch6,announced at the end of May 1964 that, in the future, all members of Commandounits would have to serve for four years and would have to undergo specialtraining courses. Comnando members would no longer have to pay for theirweapons. but would be issued with rifles, bayonets and uniforms. In other words,they would become ahnost the same as the pre-war Active Citizen Force soldiers.-"321) The Cape Times, 4 June 1964; The Star (Johannesburg), 4 June 11)64. Underthe Defence Amendment Act of 1961, the period of training of members of thisForce was increased to nine months in the first year and three months in thefollowing years."I' Southern Africa (London), 10 April 1964. 212 JNlhite Paper oi Defence, TheCape Times, 4 June 1964. 213 The Cape Times, 9 June 196-.

92 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexes420. The Minister of Defence announced on 13 July 1964 that the planning of AirCommando squadrons was nearly complete and that he had authorized theestablishment of twelve squadrons.'14 He also assured support for civilian flyingclubs as these clubs, their pilots and aircraft, would form an integral part of thedefence system in time of war.2'5421. It may be noted that the Defence Force is entirely white, except for theColoured Corps established recently. Instructors for this Corps are now beingtrained. It is intended that they will be able to take over more and more of theadministrative jobs such as drivers, storemen, clerks, stretcher-bearers. The camp

of the Coloured Corps in Cape Town is being prepared to accommodate 600 to700 men for training.216422 The police force has not been greatly increased, but has been supplementedby a large police reserve and assured of support by the Armed Forces in dealingwith internal disturbances.STRENGTH OF POLICE FORCE1960-1961 1963-1964 1964-1965Whites ............... 13,452 14,560 14,862Non-whites .... 14,635 14,783 14,784TOTAL 28,087 29.343 29,646SoURcE: Estimates of Expenditure, 1960-1961, 1963-1964, 1964-1965.423. According to the annual report of the Commissioner of Police for 1963, theactual number of policemen was 27,440, including 13,770 Whites and 13,673non-whites. There were, however, 3,573 white sergeants and only 1,116 Africansergeants.27 African policemen, moreover, do not carry firearms. White controlover the police is further strengthened by the police reserve.424. The Minister of Justice stated on 3 March 1964 that the strength of the policereserve was 19,663, out of which 19,313 were Whites, 231 Coloureds and 119Indians.218425. A spokesman at Police Headquarters, Pretoria, said on 18 August 1964 thatthe strength of the police reserve had reached 17,554 and that reservists wereattached to almost every police station in South Africa. He said that the schemewas proving a big success and that the police were well satisfied with the workdone by the reservists. The reserve, which now exceeds the total strength of theregular white police force, consists of four groups:214 The Star (Johannesburg), 13 July 1964. The Air Commando, announced in1963, is designed to give air reconnaissance support to Commando units.'r15 The Star (Johannesburg), 13 July 1964.216 The Cape Times, 18 June 1964.217 Ibid., 30 May 1964.218 Of these, 16,220 Whites, 187 Coloureds and 87 Indians had alreadycompleted their basic training and were doing duty on a temporary and voluntarybasis to gain the requisite practical experience; and 3,093 Whites, 44 Colouredsand 32 Indians were undergoing training. The Minister stated that branches hadbeen established for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and that a branch forAfricans would be considered when it was deemed expedient. He recalled that thepolice reserve had originally been planned at a total of 5.000 but stated that inview of the interest displayed, the ultimate strength would not be determined atthat stage. (Republic of South Africa, Housc of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 3March 1964, cols. 2314 and 2315.)(a) Group A men would be regarded as full-time police in times of emergency.They would be paid if called up and would carry out normal police duties;(b) Group B reservists are the "home guard" men who would do two hours policeduty a day in their own residential areas during emergencies;(c) Group C reservists are employees responsible in emergencies for the securityof important installations and services at their places of work; and

(d) Group D men are plattelanders who would constitute a civilian riot forcecarrying out police duties in the initial stages of any emergency until regularpolice arrive in sufficient strength. There are 4,981 men in group A; 8,960 ingroup B; 2.530 in group C and 1,083 in group D. Many of the reservists are doingtwo hours and more duty a month with the police at present.219426. The Police Amendment Act, No. 64, 1964 provides for a police reserve ofofficers who have retired or resigned from the force. Under this Act, theCommissioner of Police, or any commissioned officer acting under his authority,is authorized to employ any member of the police reserve of officers in the policeforce.427. Large numbers of civilians are being trained in the use of firearms. TheMinister of Justice, Mr. B. J. Vorster, stated on 11 September 1963 that 27,250women in South Africa belonged to pistol clubs where they received instructionfrom police officers.220428. The widespread ownership of firearms appears to be creating difficulties.Brigadier L. J. Steyn, Divisional Commissioner of Police for the Witwatersrand,was reported to have stated in August 1964 that people in Johannesburg were tootrigger-happy. Shooting incidents were reported almost daily in the city.22(c)Civil derfnce plans429. Press reports indicated that, in April 1964, the Government had drawn up amaster plan for civil defence in the event of riots or war. The plan would providefor reception centres for civilians, hospital facilities and the concentration ofrescue workers at points near "target areas".'22430. Senior officials of the office of the Director of Emergency Planning weresubsequently reported to have visited major cities to make preliminaryarrangements such as first-aid training.223431. The Press has also reported the approval by the Government of a nationalsurvival plan to ensure the safety of South Africa in the event of war, uprisings orany other emergency. It includes special steps to protect strategic installations,including harbours, petrol storage depots, power stations and other key points.Fenc-s would be put up around all places declared to be of strategic importance,and they would be subject-v The Star (Johannesburg), 18 August 1964.Ibid., 11 September 1963.21 it was estimated in 1960 that there were 100,000 firearms in Johannesburg--one to every four white men, women and children. Since then several thousandmore licenses have been issued for firearms (The Star (Johannesburg), 11 August1964). About half of South Africa's three million Whites are reported to possessfirearms (The New York Times, 8 June 1964).222- Snday Times (Johannesburg), 26 April 1964.=",3 The Cape Tinies, 19 May, 1 June, 24 June and 13 August 1964.

Annex No. 12 93to security controls as stringent as those imposed duringWorld War II.

432. The Government has set up a special committee of police and defenceexperts to compile a list of military and strategic installations which would bedeclared "protected areas" in case of emergency in terms of the General LawAmendment Act, No, 37, 1963. Under this Act, the Minister of Justice maydeclare protected areas by notice in the Government Gazette and direct the ownersof such areas to erect security fences, refuse admittance to all persons notauthorized by the Minister and institute other precautionary measures at their ,lwnexpense. He may also designate any person "in the service of the State", andspecifically military personnel, to take charge of any such installation. TheMinister of Defence stated that special units of the Commandos would beresponsible for the security of strategic installations, and that Africans would beexcluded from all duties connected withthe security of such installations.433. The Commissioner of Police, General J. M.Keevy, announced on 24 August 1964 that the policehad completed their list of strategic installations.224(d) Defence research434. Defence research, begun in 1962 with the collaboration of the Council forScientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Defence Force, was activelypromoted and expanded. Close contact was maintainedwith industry and the universities. 225435. Early in September 1963, it was announced that the CSfR was recruitinghighly qualified scientists to be sent overseas for two years for the necessarytraining to conduct research into the construction of rockets.220436. On 27 October 1963, Professor L. J. le Roux, Vice-President of the CSIR,said that South Africa was perfecting methods to combat internal danger and repelpossible surprise attacks from without. He added that the newly establishedRocket Research and Development Institute was developing a rocket-propelledground-to-air missile. He also indicated that a naval research institute would soonbe established to study scientific methods to protect the Republic's harbour andcoastline.227437. Professor le Roux stated on 7 November 1963 that the South AfricanGovernment was studying recent developments in airborne weapons, includingpoison gases known to be capable of massive devastation, in order to strengthendefences against surprise attacks from the air. He said that gas was coming backas a low-cost weapon of frightening power and added:"We appreciate that these poisons are capable ofbeing delivered in vast quantity by aircraft or longrange missile and they can havea destructive effect similar to that of a nuclear bomb of 20 megatons.These gases are ten times more poisonous than any other substance you canname... We must be alertto such dangers."228224 Ibid., 26 August 1964. The listed installations include certain factories, petrolstorage points, power stations, etc. Anyone who enters a protected area withoutauthority can be gaoled for periods of up to fifteen years. 225 South AfricanDigest (Pretoria), 31 October 1963. 226 Ibid., 5 September 1963.

227 Ibid., 31 October 1963; The New York Times, 28 October 1963; AgenceFrance Presse, 28 October 1963. 228 Reuters, 7 November 1963.438. On 23 August 1964, The Sunday News (NewYork), reported that Professor W. E. Schilz, Dean of Science at PretoriaUniversity, had recently told an Air Force meeting in Johannesburg that chemicalweapons might be the nation's only effective answer to aggression byneighbouring countries. "Schilz said that considering the viciousness of allweapons, chemicals might be considered relatively humane. He also pointed outthat the rural character and dispersed population of South Africa's neighbourswould make their nativesalmost invulnerable to normal weapons if war came."(e) M'anufacture of arms and ammunition in ,South Africa439. Manufacture of weapons and munitions inSouth Africa has been greatly expanded in recent years, The budget provision forthe manufacture of munitions has increased almost a hundredfold over the pastfiveyears as follows:Rand Dollar1960-1961 ...... . ... ..... . 368,000 (515,200)1961-1962 ..... .... .... 3,341,000 (4,677,400)1962-1963 ... 14,289,000 (20,004,600)1963-1964 .... ..... . 23,572.000 (33,000,800)1964-1965 . . . .... . 33,002,500 (46.203,500)SoucE: Estimates of Expenditure, 1960-1961, 1961-1962,1962-1963, 1963-1964, 1964-1965.440. The Minister of Defence, Mr. J. J. Fouch6, said in September 1963 thatSouth Africa still needed certain types of arms, but that so much progress hadbeen made with the production of arms and ammunition that South Africa wasnow almost independent of foreign sources of supply. If the threats of certaincountries to stop supplies to South Africa were carried out, he foresaw greatprogress in the manufacture of arms in the country. He claimed that SouthAfrica's problem was no longer to persuade arms manufacturers of other countriesto produce arms in South Africa, but rather to decide whose requests for theestablishment of factories should be accepted.2441. Mr. Fouch6 added on 14October 1963 that South African production of arms, ammunition and explosiveshad risen 80 per cent in the past four years and that the variety of arms andammunition manufactured was three times as great as during World War II,despite the greater complexity of modern weapons.220 He said in December 1963that South Africa had not been buying arms for internal use for some time andthat it either had, or was manufacturing, all arms needed for internal security.2"5442. He stated at a Republic Day meeting on 30 May 1964 that South Africaneeded no arms from abroad "to maintain internal security". It would be "an eye-opener" to opponents of South Africa to see what arms were beingmanufactured3"443, According to statements in Parliament and also press reports,"': South Africais self-sufficient in

"29South Africai Digest (Pretoria), 19 September 1963."22"Agence France Presse, 14 October 1963; The Cope Times, 15 October 1963.23i Sosuthern Africa (London), 20 December 1963. 232 The New Yorke Times,31 May 1964. 23-3 Statement by the Minister of Defence in the Senate (Senate ofthe Republic of South Africa, Debates (Official Report), 26 April 1961, cols. 3691and 3692). See also iKomodo (Pretoria), December 1960; The New York Times,26 March and 4 June 1964; Rand Daily Mail (Johannesburg),8 August 1964.

General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesthe production of small arms and ammunition. These are produced by the SouthAfrican Mint, the Defence Ordinance factories and the three factories set up bythe African Explosive and Chemical Industries Ltd., a private company with acapital of RIO million ($14 million) frim Imperial Chemical Industries of theUnited Kingdom and R 10 million ($14 million) from de Beers ConsolidatedMines Ltd. Tear gas and ammunition for small arms used by the South Africanarmy are nmnufactured in these factories, The Defence (rdinance \Vrtksholp atLyttleton, near Pretoria. manufactures 3.5 inch anti-tanik- rockets and 3-inchaircraft rockets.444. Moreover, the FN 7.62 automatic rifles, manufactured under a Belgianlicence, have been produced this year.234 On the occasion of the presentation ofthe first rifle to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence welcomed therepresentative of the Belgian FN munition factory, Mr. de Gunst, and said: "Weare indeed glad that you are here to share our joy on this occasion."235445. South Africa has also undertaken manufacture of the Panhard armoured carunder licence from France.236446. A notable development in this connexion is the recent decision tomanufacture aircraft in South Africa.447. For some time, there have been reports of plans to manufacture jet trainers inSouth Africa to replace the ageing Harvard propeller-driven trainers.448. The Miles Aircraft Company of the United Kingdom registered a SouthAfrican subsidiary in 1964 with plans to establish a factory in Cape Town at acost of R1,500,000 ($2,100,000) to build Mark IT Miles Student aircraft.237 Itwas noted that this move "could short-circuit any political interference from ahostile British ruling political party",238 449. In August 1964, the Prime Ministerand the Minister of Defence announced that an aircraft industry would beestablished in South Africa, and that jet trainers for the Air Force would he thefirst aircraft to be manufactured locally.239 450. The Press reported that theGovernment had given closest consideration to the French FougaMagisterCM-170 and to the Italian Macchi, and had decided to manufacture the Macchiunder licence. The transaction was reported to involve more than £15million sterling.240451. The Atlas Aircraft Corporation has been formed by the Bonus InvestmentCorporation (BONUSKOR) and other companies with a capital of RIO million($14 million).241 Mr. M. S. Louw, Chairman of

234 The FN 7.62 automatic rifles were first purchased by South Africa in 1960and the licence to manufacture obtained. Assembly and partial manufacture of therifles began in 1961 and the first rifles made fully in South Africa tested in 1964(Komando (Pretoria), December 1960, and Rand Daily Mail Joliannesburg), 8August 1964). 235Northern News, 25 September 1964, quoted in Spotlight onSouth .,1frica (Dar es Salaam), 9 October 1964. 236 The New' York Times, 26March and 4 June 1964.2. . The engine of this aircraft is French and is made by the same company whichproduces the jets for the Alouette helicopters used by the South African Air Force.2?8 The Cape Times, 25 June 1964.239 Ibid., 3 August 1964; The Star (Johannesburg), 30 August 1964.240 Le Monde (Paris), 17 August 1964. The engines for Macchi jets are made inthe United Kingdom. 241 The Cape Times, 10 September and 11 November1964.Bonuskor, said in September 1964 that the factory would be in production withintwo years. He added: "We have established contacts all over the world, and willbe bringing in technicians and scientists from abroad in the very near future.'242452. Meanwhile, the Munitions Productiom Act,No. 87, 1964, was promulgated in June to provide for the establishment of aMunitions Production Board empowered to manufacture and supply anymunitions required by the State.243(f) Import of military equipment453. The South African Government has continued to import military equipmentfrom abroad. Delivery of the three modern anti-submarine frigates ordered by theSouth African Navy in the United Kingdom has been completed. The PresidentSteyn arrived in Cape Town in September 1963 and the President Pretorius inSeptember 1964. South Africa has also commissioned two refitted destroyers, theSimon van der S'tel and the Jan van Riebeeck. It is expanding dockyard facilitiesat Simonstown for the Republic's war fleet 244454. The South African Government was reported to have ordered sixteenBuccaneer Mark II naval strike aircraft, and the equivalent of four more in spares,in October 1963 at a cost of more than £20 million sterling. The Daily Telegraph,London, reported in September 1964 that an order for sixteen more of the aircraftwas under negotiation.246455. A spokesman for the manufacturers of these aircraft was reported to havestated in September 1964 that a possible change in the United KingdomGovernment would not affect the early delivery of the Buccaneers to SouthAfrica. He added that the exact delivery date was kept secret, at the request of theSouth African Government, but "they will be handed over within months".246456 The South African Government was also re, ported to have negotiated for thepurchase of Bloodhound Mark II anti-aircraft missiles from the United Kingdom.The Sunday Times of London quoted an official of the British AircraftCorporation as having confirmed on 15 August 1964 that negotiations for a £ 15million order had been going on for many months and had reached an advancedstage. After discussion with the United Kingdom Government, however, thecompany decided to delay the negotiations until after the general election.247

457. The victory of the Labour Party in the general election in the UnitedKingdom in October 1964 led to uncertainty as to the further shipments of armsfrom the United Kingdom to South Africa.458. The South African Minister of Defence, Mr. J. J. Fouch6, said on 16 October1964, however, that he did not think that the change of government in the UnitedKingdom would have any adverse effect on South African weapon purchases. Hesaid: 242 gunday E.rpress (Johannesburg), 13 September 1964, quoted inSpotlight on South Africa (Dar es Salaam), 9 October 1964.243Goverinnt Gazette Extraordinary, 7 July 1964. The composition of the Boardwas announced on 21 September 1964 (The Cape Times, 22 September 1964).244 South African Digest (Pretoria), 3 April 1964.21-- The Cape Times, 4 September 1964.246 The Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 19 September 1064.247 The Cape Times, 17 August 1964.

reA rrca in considerable 'confidence'. This was done to lessenthe political repercussions from the delivery flight."The Canberras were bought at a very fair price and arefuIly equipped tactical strike aircraft."A senior South African officer made it clear to me thatthe type of equipment the Republic wanted to buy could notbe regarded as 'anti-black'."It was because of South Africa's firm desire to contribute towards the militarystrength of the West that itwanted this sophisticated and costly equipment."If South Africa cannot huy British equipment, the orderwill go to a European country, probably France or Italy.Both have the equipment available and have been trying hard for the sale."249 Agreement on the Defence of the Sea Routes round Southern Africa, andAgreement relating to the Transfer of the Simonstown Naval Base, 30 June 1955(see Exchanges of Letters between the Governments of the United Kingdom andthe Union of South Africa, June 1955, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office(Cmd. 9520)). 250 The Cope Times, 16 November 1964.(h) International concern over the military build-up in South Africa469. Widespread international concern over the military build-up in South Africawas reflected in the2,5l South African Digest (Pretoria), 21 November 1963. Further orders werereported to have been stopped in December 1963.The South African Press reported that a double-barrelled anti-aircraft gun, fullyautomatic and radar-controlled, was demonstrated to the Press on 12 October1964. It is not known whether this new weapon was manufactured in South Africaor imported as the Defence Headquarters instructed the Press to withholdinformation regarding its make and characteristics (The Cape Times, 13 October1964).

25-- Delivery of these aircraft was reported to have begun in June 1963. Thesquadron is believed to number seventeen. South Africa had earlier purchased 50Aloiette jet helicopters from France (The New York Times, 26 March and 4 June1964). 253 The Cape Times, 19 May 1964. 254Ibid., 28 October 1964.2-5, South African Digest (Pretoria), 22 May 1964.Annex No. 12 95"I know that Mr. Wilson has said that he will not 461. On 25 November 1964,the Prime Minister ofdeliver anything to South Africa in that line. But if the United Kingdomannounced that the shipment ofMr. Wilson decides not to, South Africa will simply sixteen Buccaneers wouldbe sanctioned, but no furtherhave to turn to some other country to buy the weap- South African contractswould be entered into. Heons which she intended to buy in Britain for 90-odd added that shipment ofspares for the sixteen Bucmillions."211 caneers wouldbe allowed as and when required.459. On 15 November 1964, the Prime Minister, 462. Meanwhile, theSouth African Government hasMr. H. F. Verwoerd stated that if the United Kingdom continued to seek armsfrom other countries.did not fulfil the contract for the delivery of Buccaneer 463. The SwissFederal Cabinet announced inaircraft, "then the Simonstown Agreement249 can no November 1963 that ithad authorized a Swiss firm,longer be maintained". He added that if the United Oerlikon, to deliverseveral anti-aircraft guns andKingdom withheld arms from South Africa, "we shall explosives to SouthAfrica. It stated that export ofbe foiced to buy them on the black market" .25o these weapons had beenpermitted because they were460. On 17 November 1964, the Prime Minister of exclusively for airdefence.211he United Kingdom, Mr. Harold Wilson announced: 464. South Africa wasalso reported to have received"The Government have decided to impose an embargo a squadron of MirageIII-C jet fighters from Franceon the export of arms to South Africa. during the period underreview.252"Since the Government took office no licences for the (g) llIilitarv co-operationwith other countries export of arms to South Africa have been issued. It haso-erlion it the r Couninow been decided that all outstanding licences should be 465. Despite theresolutions of the Security Council revoked except where these are known torelate to current and the General and the universal condemnacontracts withthe South African Government. The contract tion of the military and police build-

up in South Africa, to supply 16 Buccaneer aircraft is still under review, someother States have co-operated with the South"Outstanding commitments by the Ministry of Defence Afric.an Government inthe military field.will be fulfilled. Imt as from t,,day no new contracts will 466. As indicatedearlier, South Africa has been be accepted for the supply of military equipment.The able to import large quantities of military equipment. Ministry of Defencewill proceed with manufacturing agree- South African nationals have obtainedtraining in the ments that ave already been concluded but not yet use of thisequipment and the country has receivedexecuted. licences, capital and capital equipment forthe local"Licences for the export of sporting weapons and am- manufacture of arms.munition will be revoked and shipment will be stopped 467, South Africa hasmaintained amicable relations,forthwith. In other cases when licences are revoked, fresh in the military field,with Portugal. The commander licences will be issued to the extent necessary topermit the of the South African Air Force visited Lourenco execution of currentcontracts. Marue S o veber Ai6 Force vi i o o frenco"These decisions bring the Government's policy into line Marques in November1963 at the invitation of the with Uni:ed Nations resolutions on this question, thelatest ander of the air force in Mozambique. The Conof which was the SecurityCouncil resolution of June 18." mander-in-Chief of the South African armedforces,Commandant-General P. H. Grobbelaar, visited lo248Ibid., 17 October 1964. TheDaily Telegraph (London) zambique in May 1964 at the invitation of theComported on 8 October 1964: mander-in-Chief of the armedforces in Mozambique,"The South African Government is waiting until after Rear Admiral SarmentoRodrigues." General Jodo the General Election to place in Britain a 'huge' orderfor Carrasco, officer commanding the military area of Momilitary equipment,possibly worth £75 nmillion, over the next v d October 1964.254few years. The order will be given at once if the Conservafives win.468. South Africa participates in the annual naval"It will be for 15 more Buccaneer Mark IIs, about 200 exercises around the Cape,known as "Exercise Capex". training aircraft to be built in South Africa underlicence The United Kingdom and Portugal took part in the but fitted withBristol-Siddeley engines, and some antisubmarine helicopters.latest exercise organized by the South African Navy"South Africa also wants to order two submarines and in May 1964. The exerciseinvolved anti-submarine, naval equipment of an anti-submarine nature, includinganti-aircraft and convoy operations designed to gain Sapons.experience of local conditions in the defence of the sea,. ecently six Canberra bombers were flown intn South routes around SouthernAfrica.2 5

96 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesSecurity Council resolutions of 7 August 1963,256 4 December 1963267 and 18June 1964;2-' General Assembly resolutions 1761 (XVI!} of 6 November 1962and 1978 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963; and the responses of Member States tothe Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, including the decisionannounced bv the United States Government in August 1963 that no arms wouldbe supplied to South Africa beyond the end of 1963.470. Particularly notable in this connexion has been the recent growth ofsentiment against arms shipments to South Africa in the United Kingdom, whichhas traditionally been the principal supplier of arms to South Africa.471. It may be recalled that under the Simonstown Agreement of 1955 providingfor co-operation in the defence of the sea routes around the Cape, the UnitedKingdom agreed to supply South Africa with naval vessels. In pursuance of thatAgreement, South Africa purchased three anti-submarine frigates which weredelivered in 1963 and 1964. Also under this agreement, the United Kingdomsupplied Westland Wasp helicopters which can be used on these frigates forsubmarine spotting.472. In recent years, in response to concern over the racial situation in SouthAfrica, the United Kingdom Government declared that its policy was not toexport to South Africa any arms which would enable the policy of apartheid to beenforced.473. A number of British organizations expressed dissatisfaction with thisposition and argued that a distinction between weapons which could be used fordefence against external attack and weapons which could be used for internalrepression could not be maintained. They stated that the United Kingdomcontinued to supply spare parts for the Saracen armoured personnel carriers, suchas those which had been used at Sharpeville in 1960, and that the aircraft suppliedby the United Kingdom could be used for internal repression. They called for atotal ban on the supply of military equipment as well as spare parts.474. Opposition to arms shipments increased in 1963 when the Press reportedapproval by the United Kingdom Government of the sale of Canberra Mark B12and P.R.3 aircraft and Buccaneer Mark II lowlevel jet attack aircraft which werenot covered by the Simonstown Agreement.475. Public opposition in the United Kingdom to the supply of arms to SouthAfrica was encouraged by an appeal sent by Chief Albert J. Luthuli in May !963and published in London.259 In this appeal, Chief Luthuli said that the SouthAfrican Government "has insanely committed itself to rule by the machine-gunand the armoured car; has elected to go down in a messy welter of blood anddestruction rather than work out a clean and honourable solution". He stated thatit had marshalled "the whole ferocious panoply of war" for that purpose, andadded: "Saddening as this is, there are other features of thesituation which increase our sadness. Those who are providing the Governmentwith these terrifying weapons of2.-,; Official Records of the Security Council, Eightenth Year, Supplement forJuly, August and September 1963, document S/5386.

257 Ibid., Supplement for October, Novembcr and December 1963, documentS/5471.251 Ibid., Nineteenth Year, Supplement for April, May and June 1964, documentS/5773.250 Peace News (London), 24 May 1963.destructin are countries which allegedly care for human fruedom. Certainly, someof them have a proud record in the defence ,f human liberties. Almost all of themhave known the travail of war, of conflict against ruthless oppression: haveknown the bitterness of race hatred and the wounds of armed conflict. Yet thesecountries today, and Britain foremost among them, are guilty of arming thesavage Nationalist Party rhgime. The Saracens built in Britain have already left anindelible blot on the history of my country; now it seems that your Buccaneersand your tanks must leave their foul imprint..."I would ask yon in particular to unite in protesting, voc;feronsly andunremittingly, against the shipment of arms to South Africa. On this issue let ourvoice be clear and untiring: 'No arms for South Africa!' "When you contemplatethe mass of cruelly repressive legislation, when you observe the horrifying, pitifultoll of human suffering and indignity, and when you see the way this fair countryis blasted b% the racially insane, let your cry be: 'No arms for South Africa!' "Andwhen you visualise the terrible havoc which may be wreaked on South Africa,havoc of which Sharpeville was the merest minor portent, by the most deadly anddestructive military weapons known to modern man, let your cry be: 'No arms forSouth Africa!'"I direct a special appeal to all the workers of the world who sharewith us, not only the common brotherhood of labour, but who in many instanceshave shared with us a common suffering and hardship. I appeal to them to maketheir voices heard and to show their unity with us not only in words but in actions.To those working in the factories where these deadly weapons are manufactured Isay, make sure that your labour is not used to produce the weapons which willdeal death to the people of my country. And to those having any part in thetransaction-the dockworkers, the sailors, the airport workers and all others, I say:'let vour opposition be shown, not only in your cry "No arms for South Africa,"but also in your resolute refusal to lend your labour for this foul purpose.'"Perhaps it is futile to appeal to those who put profits before justice and humanlives. Nevertheless, in all sincerity I appeal to them to pause and rethink theirsense of values which puts material values before human lives. For this is themeaning of their making available their murderous wares to the South AfricanGovernment... "To the nations and governments of the world, particularly thosedirectly or indirectly giving aid and encouragement to this contemptibleNationalist r~gime, I say: 'Cast aside your hypocrisy and deceit; declare yourselfon the side of oppression if that is your secret design. Do not think we will bedeceived by your pious protestations as long as you are prepared to condone,assist and actively support the tyranny in our land.'"The text is your stand on the principle: 'No arms for South Africa!' Noexpressions of concern, no platitudes about injustice will content us. The text isaction-action against oppression."

476. On 16 October 1963, the British Council of Churches expressed concernover the abstention by the United Kingdom on the Security Council resolution of7 August. After discussion by a delegation of the Council at the Foreign Office,its Executive Committee issued a statement on 16 December calling upon theGovernment "to reconsider its policy concerning the sale to South Africa offurther British-built or licensed military equipment or spare parts of any kindwhatsoever, capable of use on land or in the air for purposes of internalrepression".477. The question of arms shipments has been repeatedly raised by Labour Partymembers in the United

Annex No. 12 97Kingdom Parliament.260 A few recent examples may (a) Action byMember Statesbe noted:nd 483. African Member States continued toshow(a) On 12 March 1964. Mr. Harold Wilson, leader rave concern over the matterand a determination to of the Labour Party, asked for an assurance that there takeand promote effective measures to secure the would be no shipment of armsoutside those specified abandonment of the policy of apartheid. The Council inthe Simonstown Agreement. of Ministers of the Organization ofAfrican Unity, at(b) On 23 April 1964, Mr. Harold Wilson suggested its second regular session,held in Lagos from 24 to that the Government's representations to South Africa29 February 1964, reaffirmed that "sanctions of every on repressive measureswould be greatly strengthened kind represent the only remaining means ofpeacefully if the Government ceased its equivocal attitude on an resolving theexplosive situation prevailing in South arms embargo on South Africa.Africa", and submitted recommendations to the Heads(c) On 28 April 1)4, Mr. Harold Wilson asked of State and Government topromote such a solutionthe Prime Minister to publish all the figures of arms (see A/5692, annex III).shipments to South Africa in 1963. 484. The Assembly of Heads ofState and Govern(d) On 16 June 1964, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker ment of theOrganization of African Unity, at its firstsaid: "We should forthwith stop all exports of arms, ordinary session in Cairo,17-21 July 1964, endorsing We should go further, I think, and draw up a list, withthe recommendations made by the second session of our allies and, if possible,with other Powers, of the Council of Ministers, reiterated its appeal to all trategicgoods whose export to South Africa should countries to apply in the strictestmanner the economic, be banned." diplomatic, politicaland military sanctions already de47S. The Government, however, took theposition cided by the United Nations General Assembly and that the UnitedKingdom and South Africa had a corn- Security Council; appealed to the majorcommercial mon interest in the defence of the sea routes around partners of theSouth African Government to disconthe Cape, that the arms supplied to South

Africa were tinue the encouragement they were giving to the mainintended firstand foremost for defence against ex- tenance of apartheid by their investmentsand comternal attack, that the South African Government had mercial relationswith the Pretoria Government; and not ordered more military equipment than itcould rea- decided to take the necessary steps to refuse any sonably require forthis purpose, and that a total ban aeroplane or ship or any other means ofcommunication on arms shipments would harm the economy of the going to orcoming from South Africa the right to flyUnited Kingdom. over the territories of Member States orutilize their479. A change of policy is anticipated with the recent ports or any other facilities.Moreover, convinced of change of government in the United Kingdom. Mr.the necessity of urgently intensifying action to furtherPatrick Gordon Walker, then Secretary of State for the application of sanctionsagainst the South African Foreign Affairs, said on 1 October 1964 during theGovernment, the Assembly appealed to all oil-producing election campaign: '"Weshould stop all arms-anything countries to cease, as a matter of urgency, theirsupply that could be described as weapons." of oil and petroleumproducts to South Africa; called480. The South Africa Working Party of the British on all African States toimplement the decision of the Council of Churches submitted a report inSeptember Summit Conference of Independent African States at 1964suggesting, inter alia, that the supply of any Addis Ababa to boycott SouthAfrican goods and to further arms to South Africa be prohibited forthwith, ceasethe supply of minerals and other raw materials The Council, in a resolution on 20October, commended to South Africa; and requested the co-operation of all thereport to the member Churches and decided to seek countries, and in particularthe major trading partners an early opportunity to discuss the British policy ofSouth Africa, in the boycott of South African goods towards South Africa withthe Secretary of State for (for the texts of the resolutions, see document A/Foreign Affairs. AC.1 15/L.83).481. The announcement by the new Government of 485. The SecondConference of the Heads of Statethe United Kingdom on 17 November 1964 that it had or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held in decided to impose an embargo on arms to South AfricaCairo, 5-10 October 1964, stated that the Government has aroused hopes for aneffective international em- and peoples represented at the conference had decidedbargo in fulfilment of the relevant decisions of the that they would not toleratemuch longer the presence Security Council. rE. INTE .NATIONAL OPPOSITION TO THE POLICIES OFapartheid482. World-wide opposition to the policies of apartheid and the ruthlessrepressive measures by which these policies have been implemented, reached anew peak during the period under review. The adoption of General Assemblyresolutions 1881 (XVIII) of 11 October 1963 and 1978 (XVIII) of 16 December1963, and the Security Council's resolutions of 4 December 1963, 9 June 1964

and 18 June 1964, by unanimous or nearly unanimous votes, reflected therevulsion felt in all Member States at the racial policies of the South AfricanGovernment and an awareness of the serious dangers likely to result. 26°As earlyas March 1963, Mr. Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, called for a banon arms shipments.0m Me Rnepuolic ot South Africa in the comity of nations. It declared that theinhuman racial policies of South Africa constituted a threat to international peaceand security. It regretted that the obstinacy of the Pretoria Government in defyingthe conscience of mankind had been strengthened by the refusal of its friends andallies, particularly some major Powers, to implement United Nations resolutionsconcerning sanctions against South Africa. The Conference, therefore, calledupon all States (a) to boycott all South African goods, especially arms,ammunition, oil and minerals to South Africa; and (b) to break diplomatic,consular and other relations with South Africa if they had not yet done so. Itrequested the Governments represented at the Conference to deny airport andoverflying facilities to aircraft and port facilities to ships proceeding to and fromSouth Africa, and to discontinue all road or rail-

98 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesway traffic with that country (for the text of the resolution, see documentA/AC.115/L.91).4S6. At the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting, held in London, 8-15 July1964, several Prime Ministers called for the application of economic sanctionsand an arms embargo against South Africa.261487. The action taken by these and many other Member States in response to theresolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council and the appeal ofthe Special Committee concerning trials and death sentences in South Africa,showed widespread determination to do all they could to resolve the situation inSouth Africa.(b) Protests against apartheid in the specialized agencies and other inter-governmental agencies andcon rfoncs488. The abhorrence of the policies of apartheid by world public opinion and therefusal of the South African Government to pay heed to world opinion has led tothe withdrawal of South Africa from a number of international organizations or itsexpulsion by them.489. South Africa withdrew from the United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization several years ago. During the past two years, SouthAfrica has withdrawn from, or has been suspended or expelled from, theInternational Labour Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, theCommission for Technical Co-operation South of the Sahara and the Council forScience in Africa. South Africa has been excluded from numerous Africanregional meetings and its presence at various international conferences led tovigorous protests.

490. Some of the main developments during the period since 13 September 1963are reviewed below.(i) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations491. At the twelfth session of the Conference of the FAO in Rome, 16 Novemberto 5 December 1963, the Government of Ghana proposed a constitutionalamendment to provide for the exclusion of a member or associate member whichhad persistently violated the principles contained in the preamble to theConstitution of the Organization. The sponsor of the amendment and itssupporters stated that the absence of such a provision in the Constitution hadprecluded the possibility of giving effect to the demand of the African States forthe exclusion of South Africa by reason of its policies of apartheid. Theamendment received 47 votes in favour, 36 against and 11 abstentions, and wasnot adopted as it failed to receive the required two-thirds majority. :fi Thecommuniqu6 issued at the close of the meeting stated:"'The Prime Ministers reaffirmed their condemnation of thepolicy of apartheid practised by the Government of the Republic of South Africa.Some Commonwealth Prime Ministers felt very strongly that the only effectivemeans of dealing with the problem of apartheid was the application of economicsanctions and an arms embargo. It was recognized, however.that there was a difference of opinion among Commonwealth countries as to theeffectiveness of economic sanctions and as to the extent to which they regarded itas right or practicable to seek to secure the abandonment of apartheid by coerciveaction, of whatever kind. But the Prime Ministers were unanimous in calling uponSouth Africa to bring to an end the practice of apartheid, which had beenrepeatedly condemned by the United Nations and was deplored by public opinionthroughout the world."492. On 5 December 1963, the Conference adopted a resolution, with SouthAfrica alone voting against, to decide that the Republic of South Africa would nolonger be invited to participate in any capacity in FAO conferences, meetings,training centres, or other activities in the African region, until the Conferencedecided otherwise. 262493. Subsequently, on 18 December 1963, the South African Government gavenotice of withdrawal from membership in the FAO.(ii) International Atomic Energy Agency494. On 1 October 1963, during the seventh session of the General Conference ofIAEA, twenty members from Asia and Africa submitted a joint declarationrecalling that membership of the Agency was open to those States whichsubscribed to and acted in accordance with the principles of the United NationsCharter and noting that the South African Government had continued to maintainthe policies of apartheid disregarding a!1 United Nations resolutions condemningsuch policies. They (a) condemned the policies of apartheid of the South AfricanGovernment; (b) deprecated the South African Government's irresponsibleflouting of world opinion by its persistent refusal to put an end to its racialpolicies; and (c) appealed to all Member States to use their utmost endeavours tosecure in the shortest possible time a review of South Africa's apartheid policy inthe context of the work of the Agency.

495. At the eighth session of the General Conference in September 1964. nineAfrican members signed a joint declaration that South Africa could not representAfrican countries. Several African countries asked that South Africa be removedfrom the Board of Governors.(iii) International Civil Aviation Organization: AfricaIndian Ocean AirNavigation Meeting, November1964496. At the Africa-Indian Ocean Regional Air Navigation meeting which openedon 23 November 1964 in Rome, the representative of the United Arab Republic,speaking on behalf of the African States, expressed regret at the presence of SouthAfrica and stated that they did not desire to participate in any discussion whichmight be initiated by South Africa.(iv) International Labour Organisation497. The question of South Africa was considered at the 48th session of theInternational Labour Conference in Geneva, June-July 1964.49,S. On 7 July 1964, the Conference unanimously adopted ,.n instrument ofamendment to the Constitution of the Organisation to empower the GeneralConference to expel from membership any Member which the United Nations hadsuspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership.499. On the same day, the Conference adopted, by 253 votes to 24, with 35abstentions, another instrument of amendment to the Constitution providing forthe suspension from the Conference of a Member found by the United Nations tobe flagrantly and persistently2 2 Earlier, the second FAO Regional Conference for Africa, which had beenconvened in Tunis in November 1962, was unable to proceed with its work as theAfrican representatives refused to sit with the representative of South Africa.

Annex No. 12 99pursuing by its legislation a declared policy of racialdiscrimination such as apartheid.500. On 8 July 1964, the Conference unanimouslyadopted a "Declaration concerning the Policy of Apartheid of the Republic ofSouth Africa" and "1\n ILO Progr2mme for the Elimination of Apartheid inLabourMatters in the Republic of South Africa".501. The Government of South Africa on II March1964 addressed a communication to the DirectorGeneral of the InternationalLabour Office stating that it had decided to withdraw from the Organisation.This communication followed recommendations adopted by the Governing Bodyof the Organisation, at its session from 13 to 17 February 1964, which formedthe basis for the decisions of the Conference.502. Subsequently, the South African Governmentwas reported to have sent a circular to all State departments and to all State-aidedinstitutions informing them that they should not react to any requests forinformation or aid of any kind from the InternationalLabour Organisation.263

(v) International Telecommunication Union: AfricanBroadcasting Conference, Geneva, October 1964503. At the African Broadcasting Conference convened by the InternationalTelecommunication Union in Geneva, it was decided on 13 October 1964, on theproposal of the delegation of Algeria, that the representatives of South Africa beexpelled. The vote was 27 in favour, 9 against and 2 abstentions (thirteendelegations did not participate in the vote).504. The Conference decided on 19 October 1964to suspend its work sine die following an announcement by the secretariat that itwas obliged to withdraw its services as the decision to exclude the South Africandelegation was contrary to a provision of the International TelecommunicationConvention.(vi) United ATations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, March-June 1964505. On 26 March 1964, the representative of India, speaking on behalf of theAfro-Asian Group, Yugoslavia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Jamaica, at the seventhplenary meeting of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,said that it was the desire of those delegations that the delegation of South Africabe excluded from participation in the Conference, and that they were determinedto ignore the presence of that delegation. 506. In a subsequent communication, thedelegations from Eastern Europe associated themselves with the attitude of theabove States.507. The great majority of delegations walked out of the conference room whenmembers of the South African delegation spoke.(vii) Universal Postal Union 508. The Congress of the Universal Postal Union inVienna, 29 May to 10 July 1964, approved by a simple majority a declarationsponsored by thirty-one member countries from Africa strongly condemning "'thepolicy of apartheid and the oppressive measures practised by the South AfricanGovernment", declarinprofound indignation at the presence of the South Africandelegates, contesting "the minority representation263 The Cape Times, 6 August 1964.of the South African Government" and demanding "their expulsion from theUniversal Postal Union".The President thereupon asked the South African delegation to leave theconference hall.509. A proposal that South Africa should not beallowed to adhere to the new Constitution and conventions of the Union wasrejected on 9 July by 58votes to 56, with 5 delegations absent.(viii) World Health Organization510. When the thirteenth session of the RegionalCommittee for Africa of the Vorld Health Organization opened in Geneva on 23September 1963, the representative of Mali, speaking on behalf of the AfricanStates, recalled the decisions of the Summit Conference of Independent AfricanStates held in Addis Ababa, 22-25 May 1963, and stated that it was impossible for

the representatives of the African States to sit with those of South Africa. Herequested the expulsion of South Africa, failing which the representatives of theAfrican States would be obliged to leave.511 The session adjourned sine die on the next daywhen the majority of members left the meeting.512. The Seventeenth World Health Assembly,meeting in Geneva, adopted a resolution on 19 March 1964 suspending the votingprivileges of South Africa in WHO in accordance with article 7 of the WHOConstitution which provides for suspension of voting privileges "if a member failsto meet its financial obligations to the organization or in other exceptionalcircumstances". The resolution also requested the Executive Board and theDirector-General of WHO to submit to the Eighteenth World Health Assemblyformal proposals with a view to the suspension or exclusion from the organizationof any member violating its principles and whose official policy was based onracial discrimination. The vote on the resolution, sponsored by thirtyfour MemberStates from Africa and the eastern Mediterranean region, was 66 in favour, 23against and6 abstentions.264513. The South African delegation withdrew from the Assembly after theresolution was adopted.28s 514. The South African Government did not send arepresentative to the session of the Regional Committee for Africa, held inGeneva from 14 to 21 September 1964.(c) Non-governmental protests and boycotts515. During the period under review, there has been a tremendous world-widedemand by non-governmental organizations and individuals for the release ofpolitical prisoners in South Africa, and against the Rivonia trial and the deathsentences on opponents of the policies of apartheid such as Vuyisile Mini, WilsonKhayinga and Zinakile Mkaba. Organizations of churches, workers, women,youth, students, teachers and others, repre264At the thirty-fourth session of theExecutive Board which ended on 29 May 1964, none of the three draft resolutionsconcerning the formal proposals which the Seventeenth World Health Assemblyhad requested the Board to make received the required two-thirds majority.-65The Prime Minister, Mr. H. F. Verwoerd, told the House of Assembly on 26March 1964 that South Africa had decided "not to withdraw voluntarily frommembership of the World Health Organization, in spite of the provocation whichso rightly led its delegation to leave the meeting at which the unjustifiabledecision was taken" (Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates(Hansard), 26 March 1964, col. 3706).

100 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexessenting hundreds of millions of members, have participated in protests againstaparthcid and repression in South Africa and in demands for an immediateamnesty to all prisoners.''516. Cimiittees to campaign against apartheid have been formed in manycountries, including Australia, Austria. Canada, France, Germany, India. Ireland,Israel. Japan. Netherlands, Norway and Sweden and the United Kingdom.

517 A number of communities and organizations have boycotted South Africangoods in protest against the policies of apartheid.518. In the United Kingdom, several town councils have decided to boycott SouthAfrican goods. Among these are the councils of Aberdeen, Cardiff and theborough of St. Pancras, London. Shops of three large co-operatives in SouthWales are boycotting South Africn goods.267519. In Norway, the State-run Norwegian Wine and Spirits Company announcedon 20 April 1964 that it would stop using South African brandy in the productionof its popular brands."G8520. In Denmark, several chain stores boycotted South African products.2"9521. In the Netherlands, the campaign of the South African Committee for aboycott of South African products received considerable public support.270522. Many playwrights have declared that they would refuse permission to havetheir plays performed in South Africa and many artists have refused invitations tovisit South Africa.27'523. Numerous sports organizations have shown their revulsion against apartheidby excluding South African segregated teanis from international competitions.524. Boycotts of South African goods have been organized by dockers inAustralia.525. In May 1964, Sydney waterside workers refused to unload 100 tons of SouthAfrican haddock from a Norwegian ship Havflak and called on the AustralianCouncil of Trade Unions to place a ban on all South African goods so long as thepolicy of apartheid continued.272 They held several stop-work meetings on thisissue.273 Nearly 100 Sydney waterside workers were dismissed on 3 August1964 when they refused to work on the Dutch freighter Straat Madus which, theyclaimed, was carrying South Africancargo.Y4 Sixty Sydney waterside workers refused in September 1964 to work onthe freighter New Zealand Star which carried 1,000 tons of frozen fish from SouthAfrica, and 4,500 workers stopped work in the port296 The documents of the Special Committee contain details on these protests.See, for instance, the letter of June 1964 from Mr. J. Thorpe, M.P., HonorarySecretary of the World Campaign for the Release of South African Prisoners(A/AC.115/L.75)."7 The Cape Times, 8 and 11 May 1964, 26 June 1964.268 Ibid., 21 April 1964.2,9 Ibid., 22 April 1964.270 Ibid., 2 and 17 April 1964.271 "The Beatles", a British quartet, announced on 10 July 1964 that they wouldnot perform in South Africa because of racial segregation (The Cape Times, 11July 1964).In Ireland, twenty-eight playwrights, including Mr. John McCann, the LordMayor of Dublin, Mr. Samuel Beckett, and the late Mr. Sean O'Casey signed adeclaration refusing rights for performing their plays before segregated audiencesin South Africa (The Cape Thies, 23 September 1964). 272 The Cape Times, 30May 1964.271 ibid., 2 and 17 June 1964.

*'7 Ibid,, 4 August 1964.in sympathy with them.275 Four thousand waterside workers in Sydney stoppedworking for an hour on 24 September 1964 in protest against South Africa's polic'of apartheid276 Four hundred dock workers in Freemantle, at a meeting on10 September 1964,reaffirmed their decision to protest against the handling of cargoes to and fromSouth Africa.277526. Public support and demands for economic sanctions against South Africahave been increasing. Communications from a number of organizations, insupport of economic sanctions, were published as Coinmittee documents.',"527. The International Conference on EconomicSanctions against South Africa, held in London in April 1964, reflected widesupport among non-governmental organizations for economic sanctions.528. Total or partial economic sanctions were recently supported by the TradesUnion Congress in the United Kingdom on 9 September 1964; the AmericanNegro Leadership Conference on 28 September 1964; and the British Council ofChurches on 21 October 1964.F. SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION INTHE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA529. The intransigence of the South African Government has been encouraged bythe recent boom conditions in the economy which have tended to preventwidespread realization of the negative effects of racial discrimination oneconomic growth, and to conceal the reality of the increasing political isolation ofthe country. This boom is reflected in and supported by the increase in the foreigntrade of the Republic, especially with its major trading partners.530. The Government claims that the country need not be unduly concerned overeconomic sanctions as it is economically strong and its major trading partnerswould not participate in such sanctions. It has, however, taken some steps such asthe development of arms production and the encouragement of oil prospecting inorder to meet any threat of economic sanctions.(a) Recent economic growth in South Africa531. The South African economy has recently experienced a boom because of therapid development of secondary industry and the high level of activity maintainedby the gold mining industry. The great27', Ibid., 11 September 1964.276 Ibid., 25 September 1964.277 Federal officers of the Australian Waterside Workers' Federation werereported to have explained on 10 September 1964:"We believe there should be a ban on the handling of allSouth African goods by Australians, remembering that SouthAfrican unions have called for such a ban."We have called on the Australian Council of TradeUnions to impose sanctions."Failing that action, the federation has not applied such a

ban, but the members have continued to make their protest at being called upon tohandle the goods of a country which is isolated in the world by its refusal toaccept worldopinion" (The Cape Times, 11 September 1964).278 See communications from the Second Conference of the International TradeUnion Committee for Solidarity with the Workers and People of South Africa,Accra, 9-11 March 1964 (A/AC.115/L.63); Trades and Labour Council ofQueensland, Australia (A/AC.115/L.72) ; Irish Anti-apartheid Movement(A/AC.115/L.74) ; Union of Australian W\ omen, Western Suburbs Branch(A/AC.115/L.74); International Confederation of Free Trade Unions(A/AC.115/L.74); Women's International League for Peace and Freedom(A/AC.115/L.82. and Canadian Union of Students, Ottawa, Canada(A/AC.115/L.86).

Annex No. 12 101increase in the military budget has contributed signifi- 538- The scarcity ofskilled manpower is acute in cantly to this boom.270 theengineering and the building industries, the mer532. The Minister of EconomicAffairs and of chant marine, railways, post offices etc. The GovernMines,Mr. N. Diederichs, claimed in the Senate on rnent has encouraged whiteimmigration to meet this30 March 1964 that South Africa was enjoying a wave scarcity. The Minister ofLabour and of Immigration,of prosperity such as it had never experienced and such AT r. A. E. Trollip, saidin the House of Assembly on as was being experienced by few countries in theworld. 5 June 1964 that last year the Government brought In spite of threats ofsanctions and the application of 1.200 skilled workers to the country asimmigrants,boycotts, he said, the economy was one of the most but the rate ofimmigration has proved inadequate todynamic in the world."" meet the demand.533. Mr. I. B. de K. Wilmot, Deputy Governor 539. Mr. H. F.Oppenheimer. chairman of the Afriof the South African Reserve Bank, said in abroadcast can Explosives and Chemical Industries, said on 5 April on 26 July1964 that the gross national product in real 1964 that, because of the acutescarcity of skilled manterms had risen by 7 per cent in 19()2 and 7.5 per centpower, the company would have to abandon or postpone in 1963.2"some of the R90 million ($126 million) worth of53,1 The South African Reserve Bank reported in projects they wereconsidering for the next few years.August 1964. in its annual economic report for the He said that there was ascarcity at all levels and inyear ended June 1964. that, from the economic and all jobs, not only in thecompany but in South Africafinancial point of view, 19(4 year was one of the best as a whole. Mr. G. E.Hughes, general manager of ever in South Africa. The gross national product, ac-the company, added that this lack of skilled manpower cording to the provisional

estimate, was about R7.000 had been building up for some years, but hadbecome million ($9,800 million) compared with R6,330 million acute because ofthe prosperity of the country. In($8,862 million) in the previous year, representingmigration was not an answer to the problem, as it wasan increase of 10.5 per cent at current prices and about "just a drop in thebucket". The problem in the country 8 per cent in constant prices. Gross privatefixed invest- was that it had a very small white population fromment was RS00 million ($1,120 million), or an increase which it could drawsk'Illed manpower.284of 19 per cent over the previous year. Fixed investment 540. The policy ofapartheid, it may be noted, leads by the Government and other public authorities,ex- to an uneven distribution of the benefits of the currentcuding public corporations, increased by about 12 per prosperity.cent to R460 million ($644 million). Manufacturing 541. The boom has led toa great increase in profitsoutput was on the average about 16 per cent higher and share prices,particularly of industrial companies.than during the previous year. Merchandise exports According to a survey ofprofits of all industrial andincreased by R116 million ($162.2 million) to R1,066 commercial companies,the profits in 1963 were on the million ($1,492.4 million) and the net gold outputby average 30 per cent over 1962. Share prices increased R40 million ($56million) to R699 million ($978.6 by an average of 36 per cent during the sameperiod.285million). Private consumption increased by R430 mil- On the other hand, thepresident of the Associated lion (S602 million) to about R4,500 million ($6,300Chambers of Commerce, Mr. E. P. Bradlow, statedmillion) ,282 on 11 September 1963 that "in the midstof a boom535. There are signs that the growth rate is slowing great numbers of people areliving on or below thedown as the excess productive capacity is exhausted bread!ine". He describedthe life of the unskilled Afriand the economy begins to face a number of bottle-necks, can worker as "an unlovely struggle against over536. The EconomicAdvisory Council met in Feb- whelming odds" and said "the Bantu isfortunate if heruary and reported, according to a statement issued can go through life avoidingdestitution". He added:by the Prime Minister on 2 April 1964, that "the degree "It is no longer possibleto cherish the illusion that of surplus capacity which existed in the economy ayear black men are indifferent to their economic position ago, has now almostcompletely disappeared in respect and that poverty does not arouse in them thesame of unemployed labour and machinery capacity". It added burningresentment as it does in other peoples."-86 that the inadequacy of railwaytransport and the bottle- 542. The Prime Minister, Mr. H. F. Verwoerd, neck of

trained manpower could retard economic noted in a statement on 1 April1964 on the reportdevelopment.537. The scarcity of skilled manpower is tied up 2-3iIbid., 6 June 1964.The total number of immigrants in 1963 was 37,573 and thevery closely with the policy of apartheid. Because of number of emigrants 7.225.as against 20,076 immigrants and the policy of racial discrimination, skilled jobsare 8,945 emigrants in 1962 (ibid., 21 March 1964). largely reserved to theWhites and the country is not The rate of immigration is even higher in 1964:during theable to make more use of the skills of non-white first six months of the year,21.189 immigrants arrived inSouth Africa compared with 15,176 in the first six months ofworkers. Thus, there is a scarcity while there are 1063 (ibid., 16 September1064).millions of unemployed or under-employed. The Minister of Labourand of Immigration, Mr. Trollip,said in the House of Assembly on 8 June 1964 that at least271)The Minister of Defence, Mr. J. J. Fouch6, said on 9 40,000 immigrantswould come to South Africa in 1964. ProsSeptember 1964 that defence contractsin the current financial pects were that the number of immigrants would set arecord, year would earn R.35 million ($49 million) for South African especiallyfrom the United Kingdom (ibid., 9 June 1964). industries. He added: "The factthat D~efence is spending so Authorities in Pretoria were quoted as saying inAugust 1064 much is one of the greatest inducements for new industrial that fearsof future anti-white developments in the new African development" (The CapeTin, 10 September 1964). Slates were increasing immigration to South Africa.Of the280 The Cape Time, 4 March 1964. 14,986 immigrants who arrivedin South Africa in the firstfour months of 1964, nearly half were fron African territories2811bid., 27 July 1964. Population increase in South Africa hibid., 5 August1964). is about 2.3 per cent per year, so that the increase in per capita 2H4 FhcCape Tnies, 6 April 1964. income in 1963 is about 5 per cent.Focus '61 (Rondebosch), March 1964.282 The Cape Times, 14 August 1964. 286 Tire Star (Johannesburg),11 September 1963.

102 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesof the Economic Advisory Council, that the economic progress achieved in 1963was confined mainly to the metropolitan areas. Industries had not developedrapidly in border areas-areas on the borders of African reserves-despiteGovernment encouragement. He continued;"There are not yet sufficient employment opportunities in the border areas andBantu homelands tokeep pace with the increase in Bantu population.

"In certain areas great poverty exists. This appliesparticularly to the Ciskei, where there has been economic stagnation for manydecades..."The social problem has reached serious proportions there, while the rate ofdevelopment has up tothe present been low."28T543. Government supporters have stressed that African wages in industry hadrisen in 1963 by an average of 8 per cent while the wages of the white workershad risen by only 5 per cent. But, as Mr. H. F. Oppenheimer pointed out in June1964, these percentages were meaningless because of the extreme differencesbetween the wage bases. European wages had risen from an average of R1,953($2,734) to R2,060 ($2,884), an increase of R107 ($150), while African wagesrose from R392 ($549) to R422 ($591), or an increase of R30 ($42).28 Theprimary reason for the low increase in non-white wages is the fact that non-whiteworkers are denied trade union rights and freedom of choice with regard toemployment.544. The Government views the current prosperity as not only an opportunity toundertake large development projects such as the Orange River scheme, but as ameans to promote apartheid. The development plan for South West Africa, theplans for industries on the borders of African reserves and the increasedallocations of funds for segregation in the urban areas are designed to strengthenracial separation. Moreover, a large part of the new resources are utilized forincreasing the military build-up and for projects to counter possible economicsanctions.(b) Increase in the foreign trade of the Republic of South Africa545. The economic prosperity of South Africa has been reflected in, andaccelerated by, the sharp increase in the country's foreign trade, as shown in thefollowing table.TOTAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTHAFRICAa(Millions of dollars, f.o.b.)ExportsYear Total Gold Exports1960 ....... ..... .. 2,040.9 802.8 1,554.01961 .... ...... . 2,018.9 685.7 1,406.41962 ....... . 2,017.4 684.7 1,436.51963 .................. 2,219.6 832.7 1,696.7SOUR CE: Statistical Office of the United Nations Secretariat.a General trade.546. An analysis of South Africa's foreign tradein 1963 reveals the following regional distribution:27 The Cape Times, 2 April 1964.288 The Star (Johannesburg), weekly edition, 27 June 1964.(a) Africa accounts for 6.7 per cent of the imports and 11.8 per cent of theexports. The colonial territories in Africa contribute over half of these imports andabout nine tenths of these exports.

(b) Europe accounts for 56.2 per cent of the imports and 55.1 per cent of theexports. The Eastern European countries account for less than 1 per cent of theimports and exports.(c) The American continent accounts for 21.7 per cent of the imports and 11.3 percent of the exports. The United States of America and Canada account for 20.4per cent of the imports and 10.4 per cent of the exports.(d) Asia accounts for 14 per cent of the imports and 11.4 per cent of the exports.Japan and Iran account for 7.3 per cent of the imports and 7.9 per cent of theexports.547. A small number of countries account for most of this trade, as shown in thetables below:EXPORTS' BY PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES OF DESTINATION, 1963CumulativePrincipal Countries Percentage percentageUnited Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland . .............. 30.1 30.1United States of America............ 8.9 39.0Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland 83 47.3n ................. ..... 1 - 7.8 55.1Italy . .... ..............Federal Republic of Germany . B elgium .......... ............F rance .... .... . . ..... ..N etherlands ...............M ozam bique ........................5.5 60.65.4 66.04.3 70.33.5 73.82.7 76.51.5 78.0SouRcE: Republic of South Africa, Department of Customs and Excise, MonthlyAbstract of Trade Statistics (Pretoria), January-December 1963. a Excluding gold.IMPORTS BY PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN, 1963Cumulative Percentage percentagePrincipal countriesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and N orthern Ireland .................United States of America ...........Federal Republic of Germany ......... Ja pan ... ...... ......... ....C anada .......... ..... ..........Ita ly . ................... ...Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland F rance ........ ...............Iran ......... ...N etherlands ....... ................9.8 29.8,6.9 46.7V0.7 57A

4.7 62.13.4 65.52.8 68.32.7 71.02.6 73.62.6 76.22.5 78.7SOURCE: South Africa, Department of Customs and Excise, Monthly Abstract ofTrade Statistics (Pretoria), JanuaryDecember 1963.548. A few countries substantially increased their trade with South Africa in 1963,and accounted for the bulk of the growth in South Africa's foreign trade.

I0J0P PCI.vgn, nvestment, nowever, has increased because of the high rate of undistributedprofits.552. The flow to South Africa of British private direct investment-includingundistributed profits-has averaged about $36 million annually in recent years. Inthe 1959-1962 period the yearly flow of investment(c) South African reaction to proposals for economic sanctions559. In view of the growth of the economy and of foreign trade, despite theeconomic sanctions imposed by a number of States, spokesmen of the SouthAfricanAnnex No. 12 103INCREASES IN TRADE WITH THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH ARIOCA toSouth Africa represented 7 per cent of total BritishBm'wE-RE 1962 AND 1963 overscas direct investments. In 1962, themost recent(Millions of rand) year available, investment amounted to $38 million.Thisrepresented a considerable recovery from the depressedIn...... i,, 1 ... ., level of $22 million in 1961, which marked the low export., toisnpo t, f- omCogntry South Afrca S-th . f ia" point of the four-year period.United Kingdom of Great Britain 553. Private United States directinvestment, thoughand Northern Ireland .58 30 (,resscd initially, increased rapidlyafter SharpevilleadNer Irepublo eman .... 58 30 reaching a level of $55 million in 1963.The relativeFederal Republic of Germany. 27 6 size of recent direct investmentflows to South Africa

United States of America ....... 37 2 is broadly similar to the relativemagnitude of UnitedFrance 10 - States investment holdings in the country.Thus, bothItaly .... .... 5 3 the value of investments at the end of 1963and averageCanada 16 3 direct investment flows in 1960-1963amounted toJapan -s 52 about I per cent of the United States total.Netherlands 5 -2 554. Earnings from foreign investmentin SouthAfrica in recent years have reached very substantialSOuRcE: Republic of South Africa. Department of Customs levels. Thus, in eachof the years since 1960 payments and Excise, Monthly AIbstract of TradeStatistics (Pretoria), of interest, dividends and branch profits to foreigninJanuary-December 1963. vestors have exceeded $260million. The bulk of thisa Excluding gold. outflow has been accounted for by directinvestmentearnings, though payments on other investments have549. In view of General Assembly resolution 1899 been also very large. (XVIII)recommending an end to the supply of petroeum and petroleum products to theRepublic of South 555. The importance of South Africa to British Africa, andsimilar resolutions by the Assembly of the overseas business has already beensuggested in earlier leads of State and Government of the Organization sections.The earnings of companies from direct invest.f African Unity and the SecondConference of Non- ment provide an additional measure of the importanceAligned Countries, it may be noted that petroleum and of South Africa to Britishfirms as well as an indication ttroleum products are imported from a small numberof its importance to the country's balance of payments. f countries.Earnings of British firms from South African investments rose from $59 millionin 1959 to $80 million in1962, and the proportion of earnings in South AfricaMPORTS OF PETROLEU M AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS BY THE tototal earnings from 9 to 13 per cent. Earnings from REPUBLIC OF SOUTHAFRICA, 1962, BY PRINCIPAL COUNTRES direct investments in SouthAfrica accounted for a OF ORIGIN considerably higherratio of total earnings than theratio of investments in South Africa to the total ofPercentage Perce agt British private foreign investments, which amounted to 7per cent in 1962.etroleum, crude and partly refined: 556. United States investors havealso found SouthIran ............................ 93.6 93.6 Africa a source of substantial revenues.Earnings rose

Iraq ............................ 4.4 98.0 from $50 million in 1960 to $86 million in1963. A'troleuni products: rough indication of the relatively highyields obtainedIran ................ 36.1 36.1 from investment in South Africa may beseen in a comAden .... ............. .... 15.7 51.8 parison of the ratio of SouthAfrican to total UnitedBarein ............... .. 14.3 66.1 States direct investment earnings with theratio of theUnited States of America ....... 9.6 75.7 value of South African to totalUnited States directSaudi Arabia ..................... 6.4 8z investment overseas. In 1963 these ratioswere 1.9 perAustralia ........................ 3.7 85.8 cent and 1 per cent, respectively.Jnited Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland 3.5 89.3 557. In short, while there has been, inrecent years,Netherl elas ......... 2.6 91.9 a net outflow of capital-excludingundistributedNetherlands Antilles ......... 2.3 94.2 profits-from South Africa, it isapparent that investorndonesia ................ 0.9 95.1 confidence was, at least to some degree,restored inthe years immediately following Sharpeville. The flowof private direct investment-including reinvested earni50. Foreign capitalinvestment continues to play ings-has been at a substantial level in the case ofignificant role in the economic development of the boh o t e ma rin sosinS uhA ic , he U td public of South Africa (see A/AC.1 15/L.56/Rev.1) both of themajor investors in Sobth Africa, the United United Kingdom and the UnitedStates are the Kingdom and the United States (ibid.).ing creditor countries by a wide margin. 558. Foreign capital investment, itmay be noted, is51. There has been a net outflow of capital-ex- significant not only because ofits volume but also belingust ed p - hepiva cause it isaccompanied by technological and industrialigundistribute prft-ro h rivate "know-how", licences and capitalequipment.lic sectors of South Africa since 1959. Private "ko hu"liecsadaptlqimn.5as Re Th lea(5clud pub

General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesGovernment have been expressing confidence that effective economic sanctionswould not be imposed or implemented and that South Africa can survive the

expected pressures. They have argued that though South Africa was, to someextent politicaly isolated, it was not isolated in other fields.560. i\Ir. Eric Louw, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, said on .30 October 1963.that it stood to rc: son that countries like the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates of America which had a profitable export trade with South Africa, shippingand air services to South Africa, and large investments in the country, would notbe prepa red to support proposals for sanctions. He added that the Republic's hugegold production also influenced their attitude.--"-)561. On 21 January 1964 the Prine Minister, Mr. H. F. Verwoerd stated:"In most spheres of international relations, therelations between South Africa and those states with which it is important for usto keep in touch and to co-operate, and with which we have also had goodcontacts and sound co-operation through theyears., are excellent.2 "562. The Cape Times reported on 4 April 1964 that the Government's topeconomic advisers confidently believed that South Africa's big trading partners,including the United Kingdom and the United States, would dissociate themselvesfrom any attempt to pressure the South African Government into changing itspolicies by refusing to buy South African products. Though trade boycotts had cutthe limited trade that South Africa carried on with a number of African countries,the expansion of other markets had more than compensated for the loss.563. The Minister of Economic Affairs and of 1Iines, Mr. N. Diederichs, said inthe House of Assembly on 19 May 1964 that economic sanctions against SouthAfrica would not succeed. As a result of threats and the "psychological war"being waged against South Africa, he said, the country was developing anddiversifying its secondary industries and becoming largely self-sufficient. Officialand unofficial boycotts of South African goods had not affected the country'seconomy, but had harmed African countries boycotting South Africa. He addedthat South Africa was too valuable a market and supplier of raw materials, goldand other minerals to the countries that really counted.564. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. H.Muller, said in the House of Assembly on 8 June 1964 that South Africa wasactually not as isolated internationally as some people alleged.291 565. TheMinister of Finance, Mr. T. E. D6nges, said ;n Hong Kong on 23 September 1964that the boycott had a "negligible" effect on the South African", The Cape Times, 31 October 1963.290 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates(Hansard), 21 January 1964, col. 52.201 He added: "There is, for example, daily contact betweenSouth Africa and many countries of the world in practically every sphere. Justtake the example of our international trade.In 1963 our exports increased by R35,000,COO, an increase of more than 4 percent. Foreign capital investments in South Africa last year reached a new peak.The investments of the USA increased by 20 per cent since 1961 and Britishinvestments in South Africa increased by R200.000,000 in 1963 alone. Then thereare continuously missions and groups of businessmen from overseas visiting

South Africa, and South Africans who do the same." (Repuhlic of South Africa,House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 8 June 1964, col. 7375.)economy which was "buoyant". He said that South Africa's imports had risen by46 per cent in the past two years while exports had risen by £58 million to £533million2i566. The Opposition United Party, however, has been expressing concern that theresistance of major NV\strn Powers toward economic sanctions was weakeningand that South Africa would be particularly vulnerable to economic sanctions asforeign trade played an important role in its economy, with exports equivalent toone quarter of the gross national product and imports to one fifth of the grossnational product.23567. The Government has taken a number of steps to counter the threat ofeconomic sanctions and to promote self-sufficiency.568. Reference has been made earlier to the large expenditures for themanufacture of arms and ammunition in South Africa.569. The Strategic Mineral Resources Act was passed in 1964 to establish anaccount for the promotion of prospecting and mining of oil and other strategicminerals in the country, and for the processing of such minerals. The account wasopened with R15,000.000 ($21 million) from the budgetary surplus for thefinancial year 1963-1964.570. In view of South Africa's dependence on imported petroleumn and itsconsequent vulnerability to an embargo on petroleum supplies, the Governmenthas taken vigorous steps to encourage exploration for petroleum in South Africaand South West Africa. The Minister of Economic Affairs and of Mines, Mr. N.Diederichs, said in the House of Assembly on 21 April 1964 that the geologicalsurvey section of his Department had been instructed to organize its activities in amanner which would give priority to investigations relating to natural oil and tothe granting of assistance to concerns which were actively prospecting for naturaloil.294571. Prospecting rights were granted to about a dozen persons or undertakingsand the search for oil is proceeding urgently.25572. The capacity of the South African Coal, Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd.(SASOL) plant for the production of oil from coal is being increased and theestabl;shment of another plant is under consideration.573. Recognizing its vulnerability with regard to shipping, South Africa isexpanding its maritime fleet. The South African Marine Corporation has recentlyacquired four refrigerated ships, increasing its fleet to fourteen. A contract forthree ships was signed with shipbuilders in the Netherlands on 29 October 1964,and an order for two more is planned.26Chapter III. Conclusions and recommendations574. The foregoing review of the developments since the Special Committee'sreport of 13 September 1963217 makes it clear that the Government of theRepublic of South Africa has continued to reject and defy the92 The Cape Times, 24 September 1964.293 Ibid., 29 April and 15 October 1964.

294 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 21 April1964, cols. 4600 and 4601. 2--, The Cape Times, 4 May 1964; The Star(Johannesburg), weekly edition, 23 May 1964."16 The Cape Times, 30 October 1964.0.71 Oicial Recardd of the General Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Amwtxes,addendum to agenda item 30, document A/5497.

Annex No. 12 105decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council on the question ofrace conflict resulting from its policies of apartheid.575. It has refused to comply with the requests and demands to abandon itspolicies of apartheid which, the General Assembly and the Security Councildeclared, were contrary to the principles and purposes of the Charter and inviolation of its obligations as a Member of the United Nations and of theprovisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Instead, it has extendedthe imposition of the policies of apartheid by such grossly discriminatorylegislation as the Bantu Laws Amendment Act. No. 42, 1964.576. it has not complied with the demands of the General Assembly and theSecurity Council to liberate all persons imprisoned, interned or subjected to otherrestrictions for having opposed the policies of apartheid; to abolish the practice ofimprisonment without charges, without access to counsel or without the right toprompt trial: to end forthwith the trials instituted within the framework of thearbitrary laws of apartheid; and to renounce the execution of the personssentenced to death for acts resulting from their opposition to the policy ofapartheid. Instead, it has greatly intensified the regime of repression by passingnew repressive laws, by imprisoning and persecuting large numbers of opponentsof the policy of apartheid and conducting numerous trials of such persons underarbitrary laws. It has carried out executions in defiance of the decisions of theSecurity Council, as well as urgent appeals by the Secretary-General and of worldpublic opinion.577. The Special Committee recalls that, in its reports of 23 March (A/5692) and25 May 1964 (A/5707), it had expressed the gravest anxiety over the irrevocableconsequences likely to result from the carrying out of death sentences against theopponents of the policies of apartheid and the imperative need for urgent anddecisive action under Chapter VII of the Charter.578 The Special Committee regards the recent execution of Vuyisile Mini,Wilson Khayinga and Zinak;le Mkaba, despite the repeated intervention of theUnited Nations organs and the appeal made by the Heads of State who weremeeting in Cairo at the Second Conference of Non-Aligned Countries, as a directchallenge to the United Nations and the Heads of State who made the appeal, achallenge which the Organization cannot ignore. These executions have seriouslyaggravated the explosive situation and prove that opportunities for a peacefulsolution may cease to exist unless mandatory measures are implemented withoutdelay. The Special Committee expresses serious anxiety over the fate of otherpersons awaiting execution for acts arising from their opposition to apartheid. TheSpecial Committee likewise expresses its apprehension that further executions

would give drastic impetus to the rush of events in South Africa towardswidespread and open racial conflict which could engulf Africa, and turn thecourse of events away from all hopes of a peaceful settlement of the crisis.579. Moreover, by establishing a r~gime of repression, the South AfricanGovernment has left the nonwhite people and even white opponents of racialdiscrimination with no effective means of defending their vital interests andfurthering their convictions except clandestine activity and violence.580. The South African Government has spurned the invitation of the SecurityCouncil to avail itself ofthe assistance of the Group of Experts, established in pursuance of the SecurityCouncil resolution of 4 December 1963,298 in order to bring about a peaceful andorderly transformation in South Africa through full application of human rightsand fundamental freedoms to all inhabitants of the territory as a whole, regardlessof race, colour or creed. It has failed to respond to the invitation of the SecurityCouncil to accept the main conclusion of the Group of Experts that "all the peopleof South Africa should be brought into consultation and should thus be enabled todecide the future of their country at the national level"..299 581. The SouthAfrican Government has thus refused to participate in a search for a positivealternative to the policies of apartheid by peaceful means and has insteadcontinued to aggravate the explosive situation in the country by the intensifiedimposition of discriminatory and repressive policies. It has proceeded to expandgreatly its military power to crush internal resistance and threaten other Stateswhich proclaim a determination to ensure the fulfilment of the purposes of theUnited Nations Charter in South Africa. The danger of violent conflict in SouthAfrica is graver than ever, as is the threat of a wider conflict resulting therefrom.582. The Special Committee has expressed its strong conviction that the situationin South Africa constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security.The policies of apartheid are a constant and intense provocation to the people ofAfrica and to the United Nations and the entire humanity. They threaten toprovoke an international conflict, the dangerous prospects of which are increasedby the growing militarization of South Africa.583. This assessment of the Special Committee has been confirmed by the reportof the Group of Experts and endorsed by a large majority of Member States intheir official statements and in conferences such as the Assembly of Heads ofState or Government of the Organization of African Unity and the SecondConference of Heads of State or Government of the NonAligned Countries.584. The Special Committee has stated that the situation in South Africa is suchthat it calls for urgent and energetic action by the General Assembly, the SecurityCouncil and other organs of the United Nations and the specialized agencies, aswell as other organizations and individuals. It has laid great emphasis on the needto encourage widest awareness of the dangers of the situation and to rally thewidest support by Governments and public opinion for decisive action to resolvethe situation.585. In this connexion. the Special Committee has emphasized its firm convictionthat the problem in South Africa lies in the fact that the South AfricanGovernment has established racial discrimination as a state policy. It has stressed

that the South African Government has, by seeking to suppress and silence thenon-white population, restricted in various degrees the freedoms of all the SouthAfrican people, endangered the security of the white minority it seeks to representand tended to precipitate a disastrous conflict. It has rejected as absurd the SouthAfrican claim to represent""'Official Records of the Security Council, Eighteenth Year, Supplement forOctober, November and December 1963, document S/5471.299 [bid., Nineteenth Year, Supplement for April, May and June 1964, documentS/5658, para. 8.

106 General Assembly-Ninetecnth Session-AnnexesWestern or Christian civilization and declared that efforts to resolve the situationin South Africa are not and should not be influenced by extraneous considerationssuch as the cold war. It has called for international action with the sole aim ofsecuring the vital interests of all the people of South Africa, irrespective of race,colour or creed, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. Itis convinced that the implementation of the principle endorsed by the SecurityCouncil that "all the people of South Africa should be brought into consultationand should thus be enabled to decide the future of their country at the nationallevel" represents an appropriate method for a peaceful resolution of the situation.586. The Special Committee feels that the failure of all efforts to persuade theSouth African Government by appeals or the exercise of moral pressure and offersof assistance in the search for a peaceful solution, indicated that such efforts canhave no positive effect unless they are accompanied by decisive measures toconvince the privileged group in South Africa that the international community isdetermined to oppose the continuation and intensification of discrimination and tofrustrate moves towards that end.587. The Special Committee has, therefore, expressed its firm conviction that theapplication of economic sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter is now theonly effective peaceful means for assisting to resolve the situation.588. The Special Committee notes that this view was also shared by the Group ofExperts and advocated by the International Conference on Economic Sanctionsagainst South Africa, the Organization of African Unity, the Second Conferenceof Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries and the largemajority of Member States.589. The Special Committee feels that in view of the gravity and the constantaggravation of the situation, such mandatory action should be taken by the UnitedNations without further delay.590. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Special Committee feels thatthe situation in the Republic of South Africa should be considered again withoutdelay by the General Assembly and the Security Council and that decisivemeasures should be adopted to meet the dangers to international peace andsecurity. The Special Committee herewith submits a number of recommendationsto assist the principal organs in the consideration of the question.A. RECOGNITION OF THE THREAT TO INTERNATIONALPEACE AND SECURITY

591. The Special Committee is firmly convinced that the situation in the Republicof South Africa, which has greatly deteriorated in recent months, constitutes aserious threat to the peace in terms of Article 39 of the Charter. It considers that aclear recognition of this threat by the Security Council is imperative to enable theimplementation of decisive mandatory action which is required to resolve thesituation before all the possibilities of a peaceful solution are eliminated. TheSecurity Council cannot afford to wait to take action when such foreseeableconflicts as those in South Africa could be prevented by its timely and decisivemandatory action.592. The Special Committee notes that the Security Council, while expressing itsstrong conviction that thesituation is seriously disturbing the maintenance of international peace andsecurity, has refrained from determining it as a threat to the peace in terms ofArticle 39 of the United Nations Charter. This failure to define the situation interms of the appropriate Charter provisions is due mainly to the reluctance ofcertain permanent members of the Security Council which are also among themajor trading partners of South Africa.593. The Special Committee is convinced that these Powers should recognize theexistence of this threat as an objective fact and the ineffectiveness of furtheraction under any provisions of the Charter outside the scope of Chapter VII toresolve the situation. It hopes that they will be persuaded by the influence of theopinion of the vast majority of Member States that, by delaying effective action,they are not only permitting the threat to develop into alarming proportions anderupt into violent conflict, but also weakening the authority, prestige andeffectiveness of the United Nations.594. The Special Committee, therefore, recommends to the General Assemblythat, at the earliest practicable date, it record the conviction of the large majorityof Member States that the situation in the Republic of South Africa constitutes aserious threat to 'the peace, thus calling for mandatory measures provided for inChapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and invite the Security Councilto take necessary action without delay to resolve the situation.595. The Special Committee feels that a massive endorsement of such adeclaration by all Member States would not only help persuade all the permanentmembers of the Security Council, but would ensure the widest support for actionto be taken by the Security Council.B. APPLICATION OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS596. The Special Committee has emphasized that economic sanctions are the onlyavailable means for a peaceful solution of the situation in South Africa. It hasfurther emphasized that economic sanctions would be effective if they wereimplemented by all States, more particularly by all the major trading partners ofSouth Africa (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UnitedStates of America, Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Italy, France,Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Iran, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland).30o TheCommittee feels that the Government of the Republic of South Africa would notbe able to carry out its policies of apartheid if it did not enjoy the economicsupport of these trading partners.

597. The Special Committee notes with satisfaction that a large number of Stateshave taken economic measures against South Africa during the period underreview, despite the serious sacrifices involved, in pursuance of the provisions ofoperative paragraph 4 of General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII).301 It notes30o As indicated in the tables in chapter II, these are the principal countries ofdestination of South Africa's exports and/or principal countries of origin of SouthAfrica's imports in 1963. Details on the direction of trade of South Africa, in1963, based on South African official statistics, are given in annex III,o The text of operative paragraph 4 reads as follows: "4. Requests Member Statesto take the following measures, separately or collectively, in conformity with theCharter, to bring about the abandonment of those policies:

Annex No. 12 107further that a number of States have implemented the decision of the SecurityCouncil that they "cease forthwith the sale and shipment to South Africa of arms,ammunition of all types, military vehicles, and equipment and materials for themanufacture and maintenance of arms and ammunition in South Africa".598. The Special Committee recommends that theStates which have taken effective measures in implementation of the decisions ofthe General Assembly and Security Council be commended, and that all otherStates be invited to take action and report without delay.599. The Special Committee notes that the requestin operative paragraph 4 of General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII) reflects theconsidered opinion of the great majority of Member States, based on theproposals of the opponents of the policies of apartheid in South Africa and thedecisions of African and other States. It feels that Member States should respectthat decision of the General Assembly, consider in good faith and in allseriousness means of complying with that decision, and, above all, refrain fromany actioncontrary to its provisions.600. The Special Committee, however, notes thatseveral States. including the major trading partners of South Africa, have opposedeconomic sanctions, or expressed doubts regarding economic sanctions, andadvanced various reasons for not abiding by the request in operative paragraph 4of General Assembly resolution1761 (XVII).601 The Special Committee feels that these Powers should be called upon to takenote that continued economic and other relations which encourage theintransigence of the Government of the Republic of South Africa are incompatiblewith opposition to apartheid and with concern for the authority of the UnitedNations; and that such relations are a likely source of friction with many States,particularly in Africa and Asia, which have already implemented economicsanctions and are determined to oppose by every means at their disposal thedegradation of non-white people in South Africa.602. The Special Committee recalls that the International Conference onEconomic Sanctions against South Africa, held in London in April 1964, brought

together recognized experts in various fields and helped to counter the reasonsadvanced against economic sanctions. The Conference concluded that economicsanctions were feasible and practicable and that the adverse effect of economicsanctions on the economies of the major trading partners and on internationaltrade would be marginal, though certain special interests might be seriouslyaffected (see A/5707, annex 11).302"(a) Breaking off diplomatic relations with the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa or refraining fromestablishing such relations;"(b) Closing their ports to all vessels flying the SouthAfrican flag;"(c) Enacting legislation prohibiting their ships from entering South African ports;"(d) Boycotting all South African goods and refrainingfrom exporting goods, including all arms and ammunition,to South Africa;"(e) Refusing landing and passage facilities to all aircraft belonging to theGovernment of South Africa andcompanies registered under the laws of South Africa;* Many of the papers submitted to the Conference were published in documentS/AC.14/L.2. The report by the delegation of the Special Committee, whichattended the Conference as observers (see A/5707, annex II) was communicatedto the General Assembly and the Security Council on 25 May 1964.603. The Special Committee expresses the hopethat the aggravation of the situation in South Africa, and the recent considerationof the question of economic sanctions in the United Nations and outside, willpersuade all States, particularly the major trading partners of South Africa, of thedesirability, appropriateness and urgency of economic sanctions against SouthAfrica.It further expresses the hope that the technical study by the Committee of Expertsestablished in pursuance of the Security Council resolution of 18 June 1964 willfacilitate an early mandatory decision by the Council for effective economicsanctions to be applied byall States under the auspices of the United Nations.604. The Special Committee, meanwhile, reiteratesits grave concern that certain States have increased their trade with the Republicof South Africa, despite the nrovisions of General Assembly resolution 1761(XVII), thus frustrating the effect of the sacrifices of other States, and that someStates continue to fail to implement fully the decisions of the Security Council,having made reservations or qualifications concerning compliance with thosedecisions. The Special Committee considers that such an attitude constitutes anencouragement to the South African Government to continue its present racialpolicies and challenge the authority of the United Nations.605. The Special Committee notes in this connexion that it had expressed itsappreciation for the decision of the United States Government in August 1963 andthe United Kingdom Government on 17 November 1964 to stop the supply ofarms to the Republic of South Africa and the hope that these Governments would

take further vigorous steps to dissuade the South African Government fromcontinuing with its racial policies03606. The Special Committee considers that the United Nations should insist thatall States, which have not yet done so, follow the example of these two majorsuppliers of arms to South Africa. The United Nations should, moreover, make itclear to all States that continued supplies of arms to the Republic of South Africa,and any moves to replace the United States of America and the United Kingdomas suppliers of arms, would constitute a challenge to the authority of the UnitedNations and a step towards the intensification of the threat to international peace.607. The Special Committee therefore recommendto the General Assembly andthe Security Council that they express regret at the actions of State- which havenot complied with the provisions o" operative paragraph 4 of General Assembly-solution 1761(XVII) or have failed to implement the decisions in operative paragraph 3 of theSecurity Council resolution of 7 August 1963,304 reaffirmed and elaborated inoperative paragraphs i and 5 of its resolution of 4 December 1963305 andoperative paragraph 12 of its resolution of 18 June 1964.0a 3The Special Committee expresses its regret that the United KingdomGovernment subsequently announced that it would allow the supply of Buccaneeraircraft to the Republic of South Africa under the outstanding contract.304 0fficial Records of the Security Council, Eighteenth Year, Supplement forJuly, August and September 1963, document S/5386.30STbid., Supplement for October, November and December 1963, documentS/5471.306 bid., Nineteenth Year, Supplement for April, May and June 1964, documentS/5773.

General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexes608 With regard to the shipments of arms to the Republic of South Africa, theSpecial Committee is convinced that a distinction Letween arms for internalsecurity and arms for external purposes is unjustifiable. The Special Committeecannot accept the view that South Africa has the right under Article 51 of theCharter to obtain arms from abroad. The Special Committee believes that anyincrement to the armed strength of South Africa, especially if this increase comesin the form of the most modern and murderous weapons, whether denominated asfor external defence or not, will only serve to bolster the arrogant self-confidenceof the South African Government in its ability to continue its repressive measuresin support of the policies of apartheid and intensify its defiance of the UnitedNations and world public opinion with impunity.609. The Special Committee recalls that, in its earlier reports, it made certainspecific recommendations on the basis of the decisions of the Security Counciland the General Assembly (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above). It wishes to reiterateand elaborate these recommendations for the consideration of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council.610. With regard to the request to all States by the Security Council in itsresolutions of 9 August and 4 December 1963. respectively, to cease forthwith the

sale and shipment to South Africa of arms, ammunition of all types, militaryvehicles, and equipment and materials for the manufacture and maintenance ofarms and ammunition in South Africa, the Special Committee recommends thatall States be requested:(a) To prohibit the provision of technical assistance or capital and the granting oflicences for the manufacture of arms and ammunition in South Africa;(b) To prohibit any assistance in the manufacture in South Africa of aircraft, navalcraft or military vehicle s;(c) To deny training facilities to members of the South African armed forces;(d) To refrain from joint military exercises with the South African armed forces.611. The Special Committee further suggests for the consideration of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council that(a) All international agencies, in particular the spe-ialized agencies, including theInternational Bank for Retnnstruction and Development and the InternationalMonetary Fund, be requested to take all necessary steps to deny eunomic ortechnical assistance to the Government of the, Renublic of South Africa withoutprecluding, however, humanitarian assistance to the victims of the policies ofapartheid:(b) All States be requested to prohibit or discourage investments by their nationalsin the Republic of South Africa, and the granting of loans and credits to the SouthAfrican Government and South African companies;(c) All States be requested to deny facilities for all ships and aircraft destined to orreturning from the Republic of South Africa;(d) All States be requested to prohibit or discourage the emigration of theirnationals to the Republic of South Africa.612. The Special Committee further recalls that it had recommended a study ofmeans to ensure an effective embargo on the supply of petroleum to the Republicof South Africa, including a blockade, if necessary, under the auspices of theUnited Nations.613. Taking note of the discussion of this question at the International Conferenceon Economic Sanctions against South Africa, the decisions of the Organization ofAfrican Unity and the Second Conference of Heads of State or Government of theNon-Aligned Countries and the communiqu6 of 12 November 1964 by theCommittee of Experts set up by the Security Council (see United Nations PressRelease SC/2654, 12 November 1964) as well as the Committee's ownconsideration of the question, the Special Committee feels that action on thismatter is now appropriate, timely and essential.614. The Special Committee, therefore, recommends that all States be requestedto take immediate steps to prohibit the supply of petroleum and petroleumproducts to the Republic of South Africa and that all oil-exporting countries berequested to co-operate in this action. The Special Committee, moreover,recommends that all States be requested:(a) To prohibit the petroleum companies and shipping companies registered intheir countries from carrying supplies of petroleum and petroleum products toSouth Africa;

(b) To take appropriate measures to discourage and prevent such companies fromany action which helps to circumvent the embargo;(c) To prohibit the supply of machinery, technical assistance and capital for theproduction of petroleum and petroleum products as well as synthetic substituteswithin South Africa.615. The Special Committee, moreover, feels that urgent consideration should begiven to other measures such as an embargo on the supply of rubber, chemicals,minerals and other raw materials to South Africa, and on the purchase of gold,diamonds, iron ore and other minerals from South Africa; the blacklisting ofcompanies assisting in the manufacture of arms and ammunition in South Africa;and the denial of all technical assistance, capital and machinery for themanufacture of motor vehicles and rolling stock in South Africa.616. In connexion with the question of economic sanctions, the SpecialCommittee expresses its conviction that total economic sanctions, universallyapplied and fully implemented, constitute the only effective means for achieving apeaceful solution. It has given particular consideration to certain specificmeasures in the hope that such measures, along with a declaration ofdetermination to impose total economic sanctions, would persuade the SouthAfrican Government to take steps to comply with the resolutions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council, such as a general anmesty to all personspersecuted for acts arising from their opposition to apartheid and an agreement toconvoke a national convention of the genuine representatives )f all the people ofSouth Africa to decide the destiny of the country in free discussion.617. The Special Committee therefore recommends to the General Assembly andthe Security Council that they:(a) Decide on total economic sanctions against the Republic of South Africa untilthe South African Government agrees to comply with its obligations under theCharter of the United Nations;

Anne(b) Institute the measures indicated earlier, as amatter of urgency, to persuade the South African Government to take steps tocomply with the resolutionsof the General Assembly and the Security Council.C. OTHER M\IEASURES(a) Relief and assistance to the families of all personspersecuted bi, the Government of the Republic of South Africa. for acts resultingfrom their opposition to the policies of apartheid618. The Special Committee reaffirms its recoimendation that the internationalconmumity, for lhu1manitarian reasons, should provide relief and assistance tothe thousands of South African nationals who have been persecuted for theiropposition to the policies of apartheid and whose families face serious hardship.619. The General Assembly endorsed this recommendation in resolution 1978 B(XVIII) of 16 December 1963 and, after consultation with the SecretaryGeneral,the Special Committee addressed an urgent appeal to Member States to contributegenerously to the fulfilment of the purposes of this resolution through the existing

voluntary organization or through other appropriate channels of their choice, andto give the widest publicity to the appeal in order to encourage charitablefoundations, organizations and individualsin their countries to make generous contributions.620. The Special Committee feels that action in thisrespect is urgent and imperative in view of the massive repression of theopponents of the policies of apartheid during the past year as detailed in thepresent report.621. The Special Committee therefore recommendsto the General Assembly that it invite all States and organizations to contributegenerously to the relief and assistance of all persons persecuted by the SouthAfrican Government for acts resulting from their opposition to the policies ofapartheid and to their families.622. The Special Committee regards this as ahumanitarian gesture which should in no way weaken the international concern tosecure a general amnesty for all opponents of apartheid persecuted by the SouthAfrican Government.(b) Investigation of treatment of prisoners623. The Special Committee has been gravely concerned over the numerouscharges of ill-treatment and torture of opponents of the policies of apartheid inpolice custody and in prisons in South Africa. It has received copies of swornaffidavits by many former prisoners and has taken note of statements of formerprisoners who escaped from South Africa concerning brutalities inflicted on themand on their colleagues. The present report contains some details on such chargespublished in the press or submitted to South African courts.624. The Special Committee notes that the charges concern many prisons andpolice stations in South Africa and have led to inferences that torture and tthird degree methods have become a common practice For are condoned by the Executive. It feels that the t volume of evidence and thegravity of charges are such that an impartial international investigation is S calledfor in order to establish the truth and ensure n the punishment of the guilty.t625. The Special Committee, therefore, recommends c that:x No. 12 109(a) An international commission composed of eminent jurists and prison officialsbe set up to investigate charges of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners inSouth Africa;(b) This commission be authorized to investigatethe affidavits by former prisoners, interview present and former prisoners andlook into the conditions inprisons, and report as soon as possible;(c) The Government of the Republic of South Africabe invited to provide facilities for such an impartialinvestigation.(c) Publicity for United Nations efforts against the

Policies of apartheid and the informing of warld oPinion of the dangers of thepolicies of apartheid626. The Special Committee, considering the problem of apartheid as a matter ofconcern to all humanity, has always emphasized the need for the widest publicityfor United Nations efforts to resolve the situation in South Africa. It has attachedthe greatest importance to informing people all over the world of the UnitedNations concern over the matter and to obtaining their support for effectiveUnited Nations action.627. The Special Committee regards it as crucial for the future of the UnitedNations and for amicable race relations everywhere that there should be fullawareness of the dangers of racialism in South Africa and of the imperative needto promote an end to racial discrimination. It considers it essential that everyeffort should be made to counteract the racialist propaganda conducted by theSouth African Government and its defenders. It regards it as imperative that theseinterests, which profit from racial discrimination and oppression in South Africa,should be exposed fully to the pressure of public opinion.628. The Special Committee feels that the specialized agencies of the UnitedNations can contribute greatly, each within its own field of competence, inincreasing public awareness of the consequences of the policies of apartheid inSouth Africa and the means to bring about a society based on racial equality. TheUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, with itsexperience in combating racial prejudice. can make a significant contribution bydevoting adequate resources to the question of apartheid in the Republic of SouthAfrica. The International Labour Organisation can play a very useful role byvigorously implementing its "Programme for the Elimination of Atpartheid inLabour Matters in the Republic of South Africa".629. The Special Committee has welcomed observers from the InternationalLabour Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, theWorld Health Organization and the nternational Atomic Energy Agency to itsmeetings. It hopes that this contact wil encourage concerted and igorous activityby these agencies regarding the quesion of apartheid and that such activity willalso be ?romoted through arrangements for co-ordination beween the UnitedNations and its specialized agencies. 630. The Special Committee feels thatMember tates can make a significant contribution by dissemiating information toorganizations and individuals on he seriousness of race conflict in South Africa.They an, moreover, provide broadcasting and other facilities )r organizationsopposed to the policies of apartheid

General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-Annexesso that they may be enabled to reach the widest audiences in South Africa andoutside.631. While expressing its great appreciation to the Secretary-General for his co-operation in publicizing the Special Committee's activities, the Committee feelsthat tie may be requested to use his influence to encourage internationalorganizations to participate actively in combating the policies of apartheid.

632 The Special Committee attaches great importance to the participation ofUnited Nations associations, UNESCO national commissions and nationaland international organizations of churches, workers, teachers, students,sportsmen and others in this activity.633. The Committee finds it essential that sufficient budgetary and otherresources should be made available to enable it to collect and disseminate allrelevant information, to maintain constant contact with nongovernmentalorganizations concerned with the question and to promote the fullest awareness ofUnited Nations efforts on this matter.634. The Special Committee attaches the greatest importance to the abovemeasures because of its conviction that the United Nations should play a positiveand active role in this matter as it affects the purposes and Drinciples of theOrganization and its authority. It feels that, because of the great dangers ofracialism, there should be full public awareness and support of United Nationsaction on this question. The United Nations must actively show that the policiesof apartheid threaten to bring about a disastrous and widespread conflict and makeclear that the United Nations seeks the security and prosperity of all the people ofSouth Africa, including the white people, in a non-racial society.635. The Special Committee, therefore, recommends to the General Assemblythat it:(a) Invite Member States to encourage and provide facilities for the widestdissemination of information to promote awareness of the dangers of the policiesof apartheid and support for the United Nations activities on this question;(b) Invite the specialized agencies to take concerted and active measures, in co-operation with the SecretaryGeneral and the Special Committee, to promote thedissemination of such information;(c) Request the Secretary-General to encourage international organizations todisseminate such information;(d) Allocate adequate budgetary and other supportfor the efforts of the Special Committee in this field.636 The Special Committee recalls the recommendation of the Group of Expertsthat the Security Council should invite all concerned to communicate their viewson the agenda for the national convention, fully representative of all the people ofSouth Africa, to set a new course for the future, which was suggested by theGroup. The Group recommended that such an invitation should be addressed toall representative groups including political parties, congresses at present bannedunder the Unlawful Organizations Act, No. 34, 1960, and other South Africanorganizations such as the churches, universities, trade unions, associations ofemployers, chambers of commerce, bar associations, institutes of race relations,the Press and allother representative groups.307o07 ibid., document S/5658, annex, para. 119.637. In view of the refusal of the South African Government to entertain thissuggestion of the Group of Experts, the Special Committee feels that the UnitedNations should encourage consultations and discussions among all availablegroups, particularly those subscribing to the purposes and principles of the

Charter, regarding the future of the country. The Special Committee has been incontact with many representative South African organizations and prominentSouth African nationals, and feels that these contacts should be further extendedand efforts made to promote the consultations and discussions suggested above.The Special Committee feels, moreover, that the United Nations should seek theassistance and advice of international organizations concerned with race relationsin promoting such consultations and discussions.(d) Enlargement of the Special Committee633. Finally, the Special Committee considers it essential that it be strengthenedto fulfil more effectively the important mandate assigned to it by the GeneralAssembly. It feels that the full participation in the Committee of the permanentmembers of the Security Council, who bear a special responsibility for themaintenance of international peace and security, is essential for that purpose.While hoping that the major trading partners of South Africa who bear a specialresponsibility for the perpetuation of the policies of apartheid will soonimplement effective measures to comply with the decisions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council, the Special Committee feels that theparticipation in its activities would be useful. The Committee further considersthat a wider geographical distribution of membership can contribute greatly to theeffectiveness of the Committee. It considers that the Secretariat should also beproportionately strengthened to ensure adequate services to facilitate greateractivity by the Special Committee in promoting a peaceful solution to the graveproblem of the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic of SouthAfrica.639. The Special Committee, therefore, recommends that its membership beenlarged to include permanent members of the Security Council and the presentmajor trading partners of the Republic of South Africa, and to ensure a widergeographical distribution in its membership.D. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS640. The Special Committee recommends to the General Assembly that, at theearliest practicable date, it:(a) Record the conviction of the large majority of Member States that the situationin the Republic of South Africa constitutes a serious threat to the peace, thuscalling for the mandatory measures provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter,and that economic sanctions are the only available means for a peacefulsolution of the situation;(b) invite the Security Council to take necessaryaction without delay to resolve the situation.641. The Special Committee recommends, for theconsideration of the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil, that they:(a) Decide on total economic sanctions against theRepublic of South Africa until the South African Government agrees to complywith its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, and institute the

Annex No. 12

measures indicated below, to persuade the South African Government to takesteps to comply with the resolutions of the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil;(b) Commend the States which have taken effectivemeasures in implementation of the decisions of the General Assembly and theSecurity Council on this question; and invite all other States to take action inimplementation of these decisions and report withoutdelay;(c) Express regret at the actions of States whichhave not complied with the provisions of operative paragraph 4 of GeneralAssembly resolution 1761(XVII) or have failed to implement the decisions on military assistance to theRepublic of South Africa in operative paragraph 3 of the Security Councilresolution of 7 August 1963, reaffirmed and elaborated in operative paragraphs 1and 5 of the resolution of 4 Deccmber 1963 and operative paragraph 12 of theresolution of 18 June 1963;(d) Request all States:(i) To prohibit the provision of technical assistanceor capital for the manufacture of arms and ammunitionin South Africa;i (ii) To prohibit any assistance in the manufacturein So" th Africa of aircraft, naval craft or militaryvehicles;(iii) To deny training facilities to members of theSouth African armed forces;(iv) To refrain from joint military exercises withthe South African armed forces;(e) Request all international agencies, in particularthe specialized agencies, including the International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment and the International Monetary Fund, to take all necessary steps todeny economic or technical assistance to the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa without precluding, however, humanitarian assistance to the victimsof the policies of apartheid;() Request all States to prohibit or discourageinvestments by their nationals in the Republic of South Africa. and the granting ofloans and credits to the South African Government and South Africancompanies;(g) Request all States to deny facilities for all ships and aircraft destined to orreturning from the Republic of South Africa;(h) Request all States to prohibit or discourage the emigration of their nationals tothe Republic of South Africa;(i) Request all States:(i) To prohibit the supply of petroleum and petroleum products to the Republic ofSouth Africa, with a special appeal to all oil exporting countries to cooperate inthis action;

(i) To prohibit the petroleum companies and shipping companies registered intheir countries from car- i rying supplies of petroleum and petroleum products Ito South Africa;(iii) To take appropriate measures to discourage a and prevent such companiesfrom any action whichhelps to circumvent the embargo; In(iv) To prohibit the supply of machinery, technical t assistance and capital for theproduction of petroleum and petroleum products, as well as synthetic substitutes,d within the Republic of South Africa; m(') Request all States to prohibit the supply of rubber, chemicals, minerals andother raw materials to South Africa, and the importation from South Africaof gold, diamonds, iron ore or other minerals;(k) Request all States to refuse all technical assistance, capital and machinery forthe manufacture of motor vehicles and rolling'stock in the Republic ofSouth Africa;(1) Invite all States and organizations to contributegenerously to the relief and assistance of all persons persecuted by the SouthAfrican Government for acts resulting from their opposition to the policies ofapartheid and to their families;(m) Establish an international commission to investigatte charges of ill-treatmentand torture of prisoners in the Republic of South Africa; authorize the commissionto investigate affidavits by former prisoners, interview present and formerprisoners and look into the conditions in the prisons, and report as soon aspossible; and invite the Government of the Republic of South Africa to providefacilities for such an impartialinvestigation;(it) Invite Member States to encourage and providefacilities for the widest dissemination of information to promote awareness of thedangers of the policies of apartheid and support for the United Nations activitieson this question; invite the specialized agencies to take concerted and activemeasures, in co-operation with the Secretary-General and the Special Committee,to promote the dissemination of such information; request the Secretary-Generalto encourage international organizations to disseminate such information; andallocate adequate budgetary and other support for the efforts of the SpecialCommittee in this field;(o) Enlarge the membership of the Special Committee to include permanentmembers of the Security Council and the present major trading partners of theRepublic of South Africa, and to ensure a wider geographical distribution in itsmembership.AnnexesANNEX IReplies received from Member States to the appeal by theSpecial Committee, dated 23 March 1964, in connexion with the trials and deathsentences in the Republic ofSouth Africa*ALRANrA

Extract fronz a letter dated 21 July 1964 from the Chairmon of the Presidiunm ofthe People's Assembly of the People's kepm blic of Albania[Original text: French]The Government of the People's Republic of Albania has constantly requestedthat everything possible should be done o put an end to the shameful racialdiscrimination and the nhuman policy of apartheid in South Africa. It maintainsno relations with the Government of South Africa, nor does t intend to establishrelations with South Africa until the atter's Government abandons its policy ofapartheid. Reiterating our firm opposition to all racial discrimination nd to thepolicy of apartheid of the Government of South tfrica, and the determination ofthe people and the Governnent of the People's Republic of Albania to contributeto he abolition of thit discrimination and that policy, we ask the*The substantive parts of the communications are reprouced here. The full textsof replies are reproduced in docuents A/AC. 15/L.70 and Add.1-4.III

112 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesUnited Nations to take effective measures to force the racist Government of SouthAfrica to cease immediately the persecution of the opponents of apartheid and toabandon that policy.\We hope the work of the Special Committee oin the Policies of apartheid of theGovernment of the Republic uf South Africa will pr,,ew niecul in this respect(A/\1'.Il5/L.70/ Add.41.ALGERIAExtract fron a letter dated 12 JIme 1964 from the Presidentof the Republic of Algeria[Original text: French],In May 1063, at the Conference ,,f I leads of African States and Governments,certain decisions were taken with a view to defeating the racist policies of thePretoria Government. The Algerian Government immediately carried out thosedecisions. More recently, by an absolute majority, the Algerian NationalAssembly decidced to break off completely all economic relations with SouthAfrica. This practical step only reatfirms the determination of the AlgerianGovernment and people to continue the fight all are already waging.True, some results were obtained at the International Labour Conference, and theConference of the Food and Agriculture Organization. However, the presentcriminal behaviour of the Pretoria authorities justifies the concern which prevailson our continent and explains the increasingly vigilant attitude of all AfricanStates. The challenge hurled at Africa and the entire world must be answered bymeans other than resolutions. Practical solutions must be found and carried out.Any passive attitude can only encourage the most reactionary and sinister forcesto persist in their fatal designs, which constitute a serious threat to the future of tleUnited Nations.Consequently. you will understand, Sir, why the Algerian Government hastens toreiterate to you its determination to do everything in its power to ensure thevictory of the legitimate aspirations of its sister people of South Atrica, and to

give it total and unconditional support until such time as an end is put to alldomination or discrimination, all exploitation of man by man, all humiliation,bullying and torture.That attitude, in addition to making for an era of justice throughout Africa, canonly strengthen peace and ensure the maintenance of international balance(A/AC.l15/L.70/Add.2).BaLCIUExtract front a letter dated 24 Jle 1964 fron the PermanintRepresentativ'e of Belgfium to the United Nations[Original text: French]The authorities of my country have repeatedly condemnedall policies of racial discrimination. In his statement at the eighteenth session ofthe General Assembly, on 8 October 1963, Mr. P. H. Spaak, Vice-Premier andMinister for Foreign Affairs, said, inter alia, on the subject of the policies ofapartheid of South Africa:". .. there are some policies which cannot prevail and someprinciples which cannot be accepted ... The problem of South Africa is even morescriou, for here we are not concerned simply with a policy that is probablydoomed to failure: it is a question o the United Nations making clear its disapproval 'f principles that run counter to the fundamental principles of the Charter..."[1233rd meeting, paras. 117and 118].What is more, in his replies of 27 September 1963 and29 January 1964 to the letters from the Secretary-General of the United Nationson the implementation of the Security Council resolutio.ns concerning theshipment of arms to South Africa, Mr. Spaak once again emphasized that theBelgian Government and Belgian public opinion alike condemned theI Summit Conference of Independent African States, held atAddis Ababa, 22-25 May 1963.policies of apartheid pursued by the Government of South Africa.I am also authorized to inform you that the Belgian authorities will take advantageof any appropriate opportunity to remind the Pretoria Government once again thatBelgium is opposed to the policies of apartheid and wants human rights respectedthroughout the world (A/AC.115/L.70/ Add.2).BULGARIAAppeal addressed to the President of the Republic o SouthAfhrica by the Chairman of the Presidium of the National lssceihlv of the People'sRepublic of Bulgaria (communicated by letter dated 22 May 1964 from thePermanent Representative of Bulgaria to the United Nations)[Original text: French]Having learnt of the death sentences passed on the South African militantsVuyisile Mini, Zinakile Mkaba and Wilson Khayinga, who are fighting for humanrights in the spirit of the decisions of the United Nations, I appeal to yourhumanitarian feelings and your feelings of human justice to take whatever actionmay prove necessary for the annulment

of the death sentences passed on these South African citizens, and also for therelease of all the other militants who have taken part in the struggle for humanrights and are now in prison.Such action on your part would be welcomed with great relief and gratification bypublic opinion in my country, and, I am sure, throughout the world.I am convinced, Mr. President, that you will take action to spare the lives of theseSouth African citizens (A/AC.115/ L.70).BYELORuSSIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICAppeal dated 13 June 1964 addressed to the President of the Republic of SouthAfrica by the President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of theByelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (conimunicated by letter dated 2 July 1964from the Permanent Representative of the Byelorussiarn Soviet SocialistRepublic to the United Nations)[Original text: Russian]It is with a feeling of deep alarm that I have learned of the numerous deathsentences pronounced against citizens of the Republic of South Africa, includingVuyisile Mini, Zinakile Mkaba, Wilson Khayinga and other active participants inthe movement to secure human rights and freedoms in accordance with UnitedNations decisions.Insoired by feelings of humanity and justice, I urgently appeal to you on behalf ofthe Byelorussian people to do everything in your power to obtain the revocationof the death sentences pronounced against the above-mentioned individuals andthe release of all those participants in the movement for human rights who arenow held in prison. The adoption of a decision along these lines and action tocomply with other United Nations resolutions would meet the most pressingdemands of public opinion throughout the world (A/AC115/L.70/Add.3).CA M BODIAMessage front the Head of State of Cambodia to the Presidentof the Republic of South Africa (conmnunicated by letter dated 3 July 1964 frointhe Permanenst Representative ofCambodia to the United Nations)[Original text: French]Cambodia is most disturbed about the fact that the SouthAfrican authorities are continuing their policy of apartheid, which is contrary tothe United Nations Charter and to human rights, and in particular about therepressive measures thathave been unleashed against opponents of that policy.

Annex No. 12On behalf of Cambodia and the Khmer people, I request Your Excellency not tocontinue a policy which is contrary to all laws both human and divine, to refrainfrom executing political leaders opposed to apartheid, and to liberate all whoseonly crime is to declare that all men are brothers (A/AC.115/ L.70/Add.3).CANADA

Extract from a note dated 6 Noresnber 1963 from the Permaneit Represrentativeof Canada to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (enclosed in aletter dated 11 AMay 1964 front that representative)[Original text: English]Canada ... will support any proposals or measures whichoffer hope of a constructive and lasting solution to the problem of racial relationsin South Africa... The Canadian Government is deeply concerned over the failureof the South African Government to abandon its apartheid policies and inparticular over intensification in the past year of repressive measures againstindividuals in South Africa who oppose these policies.Canada, therefore, joined with 106 Members of the UnitedNations in voting in favour of resolution 1881 (XVIII).On a number of occasions during the past year and in particular since thebeginning of the eighteenth session of the General Assembly, the CanadianGovernment has made clear to representatives of the South African GovernmentCanada's urgent desire to see a change in the policy of the South AfricanGovernment and an end to repressive measures including the arbitrary trials andarrests of individuals for political offenceswhich were referred to in resolution 1881 (A/AC.115/L.70).CHILECable dated 28 April 1964 addressed to the President of theRepublic of South Africa by the President of Chile (coinssuinicated by letter dated29 April 1964 from the PermanentRepresentative of Chile to the United Nations)[Original text: Spanish]Guided solely by the deep conviction of the Chilean peopleand Government that human rights and fundamental freedoms must be protectedand all forms of racial discrimination eliminated from the world, and with nointention of intervening in the internal affairs of South Africa, I appeal to you touse your exalted influence in order that the political leaders opposed to apartheidmay be spared the death penalty. It is also my hope that racial harmony based onequality before the law, without any discrimination on grounds of colour or ethnicorigin, may prevail in the Republic of South Africa, so that the country may take aglorious part in the advancement of the international community, in conformitywith the principles of the United Nations Charter (A/AC.l15/L.70).CHINAMessage from the M rinister of Foreign. Affairs of China (conmunhcated by aletter dated 9 June 1964 front the ActingPertnanent Representative of China to the United Nations)[Original text: English]My Government's views on the apartheid policy are well known. Racialdiscrimination in any form and under whatever guise is repugnant to the Chinesepeople. It is entirely alien to the Chinese culture and tradition. In the GeneralAssembly, in the Security Council, as well as in other organs of the UnitedNations, the representatives of China have made it unmistakably clear that Chinais unalterably opposed to racism and all its manifestations.

In accordance with this consistent position, the Chinese delegation has supportedGeneral Assembly resolution 1881 (XVIII) of 11 October 1963 and SecurityCouncil resolution S/5471 of 4 December 1963, in which appeals were made tothe Government of South Africa to abandon the arbitrary trials and grantunconditional release to all political prisoners, and to cease forthwith itsimposition of discriminatory and[Original text: Spanish][In view of the developments in South Africa] I, as chiefexecutive of a country where respect for human life and the equality of humanbeings are fundamental principles of the Constitution, very respectfully urge youto ask the South African Government, through the United Nations:(1) To refrain from executing the condemned political leaders and to spare thelives of the persons threatened with thedeath penalty;(2) To put an end to the tortures and the various humiliations inflicted on theopponents of apartheid in South Africa;(3) To liberate the political prisoners whose only crime istheir opposition to the South African Government's policy ofapartheid;(4) To abandon its policy of apartheid, which is contraryto the Unuted Nations Charter and the Universal Declarationof Human Rights.This petition is based on elementary ethics and on the profound humanitariansentiments of the Costa Rican people, and has no other aim than to see that justiceis done where ithas so far been lacking (A/AC.115/L.70/Add.4).CUBAExtract from a letter dated 12 3ay 1964 from the President of the Republic ofCuba[Original text: Spanish]...The Cuban Government supported the recommendationsin resolution S/5471 of the United Nations Security Council and undertook not tomaintain diplomatic, consular or trade relations with the Government of SouthAfrica.In full agreement with the spirit of the said resolution and in conformity with theprinciples of racial equality, the Cuban Government also offered its support forany measure aimed at eradicating in any part of the world the brutal policy ofdiscrimination, which is a blemish on the face of humanity. The RevolutionaryGovernment of Cuba maintains no relations of any kind with the Republic ofSouth Africa and is therefore unable individually to exert any influence upon theGovernment of that country. For the same reason, I am unable personally to takeany action of that kind. However, both the Cuban Government and I are preparedto join our voices and actions to the effective measures aimed at preventing theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa by peaceful means from continuingto apply the brutal laws of apartheid and to endanger, because of their

international repercussions, the peace and security of nations(A/AC.l15/L.70/Add.l).DENIMARKExtract from a comnniqu6 issned after the meeting of theForeign llinisters of the Nordic Countries in, Copenhagen on 13-14 April 1964(enclosed in a letter dated 22 May 1964 from the Permanent Representative ofDenmark tothe United Nations)[Original text: English]* .. The Ministers . expressed deep concern over the South African Government'scontinued unwillingness to co-operate with the United Nations. They supportedthe United Nations urgent appeals to the South African Government to refrainfrom execution of persons sentenced to death, to end trials now proceeding and torelease the political prisoners,repressive measures which are contrary to the principles and purposes of theCharter.The Chinese Government will continue to co-operate with your Committee andother organs of the United Nations in their efforts to bring about the complianceof the Government of South Africa with the above-mentioned resolutions (A/ AC.115/L.7G/Add.4 ).COSTA RICAExtract rom a letter dated 30 May 1964 front the Presidentof the Repisblic of Costa Rica11,3

114 General Assemnbly Nineteenth Session-AnnexesThe Ministers noted that, since they last considered the problem of apartheid inthe autumn of 1963, the Security Council had in December 1963 unanimouslypassed a resolution which inter alia established a group of experts to examine thevarious aspects of the problem. They found it of great significance that theSecurity Council now is seized with the question. It is their hope that the report ofthe group of experts, which is expected in the near future, will provide a usefulbasis for the Council's further consideration of the question... (A/AC.115/L.70).EcUAORExtract from a letter dated 30 April 1964 from the PermanentRepresentative of Ecuador to the United Nations[Original text: Spanish]The Ecuadorian Government has no diplomatic or consular relatiors with theRepublic of South Africa. For this reason, it is unable to exert its influencedirectly with the Government of that State. However, I have been giveninstructions, which I have carried out, to inform the Permanent Representative ofthe Republic of South Africa in a friendly way of the concern felt by theEcuadorian Government over the possible imposition of the death penalty onpolitical leaders, a proceeding which would be contrary to the principles whichEcuador has unswervingly followed ever since this penalty was abolished in thenineteenth century (A/AC.115/L.70).

GUATEMALAExtract from a letter dated 13 May 1964 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs ofGuatemala[Original text: Spanish]The Committee's concern is fully shared by the Guatemalan Government. whichhas given permanent instructions to its delegation to the United Nations to keep avigilant watch on the distressing situation which has arisen in that country. TheGovernment and people of Guatemala have repudiated and will always repudiateracial discrimination, which prevents rapprochement between peoples andintelligent and brotherly coexistence.Concerned at the magnitude of these problems which youare endeavouring to solve in a manner favourable to the majority of the blackpopulation of the Republic of South Africa, I should like to inform you that theGuatemalan Government will do its utmost to assist the United Nations in itsefforts to find a solution to this situation and thus alleviate the suffering of apeople which deserves the esteem and respect of allthe free nations of the world (A/AC.115/L.70).GUINEAExtract from a letter dated 8 June 1964 from the President of the Republic ofGuinea[Original text: French]The South African authorities would certainly have alreadyabandoned their inhuman policies of apartheid if all the economic sanctionsrecommended by the United Nations had been applied by Member States,particularly by those which have trade ielations with South Africa. Yetinternational public opinion is aware of the dangers to international peace andsecurity from policies based on alleged racial superiority,oppression and enslavement.It is also aware that such policies seriously jeopardize theefforts being made by all peace-loving and freedom-loving nations of the worldfor better understanding among men andpeaceful coexistence among States.World opinion therefore insists that the repression againstAfrican nationalists in South Africa should cease. Accordingly, we demandenergetic practical measures, which should no longer be mere recommendations.We welcome the decisions taken by the Council of Ministers of the Organizationof African Unity at Lagos and by the London Conference on apartheidand we want the sanctions recommended to be applied immediately by all StatesMembers of the United Nations.The time has therefore come for concerted and unflinching action by all AfricanHeads of State, supported by their peoples. The time has also come for practicalaction by all men who really love peace and justice. No more shedding ofcrocodile tears over the misery of our brothers in South Africa and themonstrosities of apartheid but united action by all to put an end to this disgrace tomankind (A/AC.115/L.70/Add,2).HAITI

Extract from a letter dated 16 May 1964 from the President of the Republic ofHaiti[Original text: French]In my personal capacity, as leader of the New Haitian Revolution, which calls formore social justice and general wellbeing for the masses;On behalf of the proud Haitian nation, which because of its revolutionary mission,enriched with the blood and sweat of its past struggles against slavery, hasalways, throughout its history, supported measures for the emancipation of thepeoples of America and fostered a living and unselfish solidarity;I condemn the policy of apartheid practised by the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa against my courageous African brothers who have been too longoppressed through the enthronement of an outmoded concept; I reaffirm mystrongest and most whole-hearted support for all measures and all effortsembodied in an action by the Organization which has the high and imperativemission of safeguarding the universality of the principles of the United NationsCharter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Let !he South African Government, in this year of grace of our era of progress andhuman conquests, confronted by an international conscience thirsting for justice,peace and fraternity, abandon the inhuman system of anachronistic and degradingcolonialism and, by complying with the recommendations of the United NationsSpecial Committee on the Policies of apartheid, bring about the triumph, to itsgreater glory, of the principle of the equality of all races (A/AC.115[ L.70/Add.1).HUNGARYAppeal addressed to the President of the Republic of South Africa by thePresident of the Presidential Council of the Hungarian People's Republic(transmitted by letter dated14 May 1961 fro'm the Mini.'ir for Foroign Affairs)[Original text: English]I have been deeply shocked to learn that the authorities ofthe Republic of South Africa are keeping in prison and torturing numerouspatriots whose only crime is their opposition to the apartheid policies of theGovernment and their adherence to progressive ideas. In a series of actionsinstituted against such patriots in court and otherwise, even deathsentences have already been passed.In the name of the dignity of human personality, in viewof the lofty principles of equality of races laid down in the Charter of the UnitedNations Organization, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in anumber of decisions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and theSecurity Council, I ask you, Mr. President, to use your influence with theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa to annul without delay the deathsentences pronounced in the case of the patriots opposing the policies of racialpersecution, to release the political prisoners fighting for racial equalitY and otherprogressive ideas, to stop the proceedings taken against them and to put an end tothe policies of apartheid.This step would afford relief to world public opinion and promote the lessening ofthe great tension prevailing on the

African continent because of apartheid policies.I sincerely hope, Mr. President, that you will not ignore myrequest (A/AC.115/L.70).

Annex No. 12 115INDIA in accordance with the spirit of the Charter of SanFranciscoExtract Irans a letter dated 10 August 1964 from the' I'erma- the problems createdby the policies of apartheid of the Cynent Representative of India to the Un;itedNati enent of South Africa (A/AC.115/L.7/Add.2I.[Original tt: En glish]The Government of India do not maintain diplomatic, consular, trade or any otherrelations with South Africa. We have already fully implemented all the variousresolutions of theUnited Nations in this behalf.The Government of India will, however, continue to maintaina total L.oycott of relations with South Africa. We have always extended, and willcontinue to extend. our fullest co-operation to other States as also the SpecialCommittee in securing the implementation of measures designed to liquidate theinhuman and immoral policies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa and towards the attainment of justice, freedom, equality and dignityfor all the people of SouthAfrica (A/AC115/L.70/Add.4).INDONESIAExtract froni a letter dated 3 M1ay 1964 from the First DeputyPrime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of idonesia.[Original text: English]You are aware, Ar. Chairman, of the fact that the Indonesian Government hassupported every effective measure to induce the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa to abandon its policies of apartheid which are contrary to the UnitedNations Charter and the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights.The Indonesian Government has taken all appropriate measures requested by theUnited Nations and the Security Council resolutions on the policies of apartheidof the Government ofthe Republic of South Africa.It is indeed a difficult and tedious undertaking to securecompliance of said resolutions by the Government of the Republic of SouthAfrica, but we shall all persevere until ourcommoa objective has been achieved...His Excellency, President Soekarno. has expressed his keenpersonal interest in this problem and wishes me to convey the assurance to youthat the Government of the Republic of Indonesia will not cease giving thisproblem its full attention in a constant endeavour to find a more effective way toimplement the relevant United Nations resolutions, the main substance of whichare summarized in the four points mentioned in your letter.

In this connexion the Government of the Republic of Indonesia will use itsinfluence wherever and whenever it has the utmost effect(A/AC.115/L.70/Add.3).ITALYExtract fron a l:tter dated 16 June 1964 from the Permanent Representative ofItaly to the United Nrations[Original text: English]Italy, which has never concealed its firm opposition to all forms of racialdiscrimination, follows with deep concern the development of events in SouthAfrica and, besides taking all necessary measures for the application of therelevant resolutions of the Security Council, has on many occasions expressed itsviews and used its influence in the hope of contributing to a peaceful solution ofthe problems of apartheid.As tn the trials which are being held in South Africa sgainst the people who areopposed to the policies of apartheid, may I reiterate that my country shares theconcern and the feelingq of the Committee and of all the countless personalitieswho have expressed their views thereon. In particular Italy, which in itsConstitution has abolished capital punishment and solemnly reaffirmed thepolitical freedom of all its citizens, will continue to co-operate in all appropriateways with the Special Committee, and with the other United Nations bodies Centrusted with the study of this issue, with a view to solving,JAMAICAExrr, t fr, a letter doted 29 . April 1694 from the Minmistry of External Affairs ofJamaica[Original text: English]Jamaica has neither diplomatic, consular nor trade relationswith South Africa, and does not intend that such relations should be initiated orrestored until the policies of apartheid of that Government have been abandoned.Furthermore, the Government of Jamaica does not believe that the rulers of SouthAfrica are likely to heed any appeals addressed to them and will, it is felt, onlyrespond to more tangible action (A/AC.1 15/L.70).JAPANExtract from a letter dated 17 July 196-1 front the DeputyPermnanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations[Original text: English]The basic position of the Government of Japan with regardto the trials in South Africa of the leaders of the anti-apartheid movement is fullyreflected in its reply dated 9 December 1963, to the inquiry of the Secretary-General in connexion with resolution 1881 (XVIII), (A/5614/Add.3,S/5457/Add.3).The Government of Japan is gravely concerned about subsequent developments ofthe situation in South Africa and wishes to take this occasion to reaffirm itspreparedness to avail itself of every opportunity to appeal to the Government ofSoutn Africa to abandon forthwith the policies of apartheid and also its readiness

to support any proposal which will bring about a peaceful solution of theproblems of racial strife (A/AC. 115/L.70/Add.3).NETHERLANDSExtract from a letter dated 18 July 1964 front the Permanent Representative of theNetherlands to the United Nations[Original text: English]The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands continues to rejectcategorically the policy of apartheid and is deeply concerned with the situationdeveloping in the Republic of South Africa. During successive sessions of theGeneral Assemblv, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has neverfailed to state beyond any doubt its feelings in this regard, reflecting the profoundconvictions of the Netherlands people.The Netherlands Government is of the opinion that only through collective actionwithin the framework of the United Nations can the Government of the Republicof South Africa be induced to abandon its policy of apartheid. The Kingdom ofthe Netherlands will continue to give its full support to any constructive proposalto this effect (IA/AC.115/L.70/Add.3).NEW ZEALANDE.rtract from a note dated 15 July 1961 from the PermcnestRepresentative of Ne,:(, Zealand to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (communicated by letter dated 25 .4ugst 1,61t fromn that representative)[Original text: English]Both by its support of United Nations resolutions, including, in particular, GeneralAssembly resolution 1881 (XVIII), and through independent representations, theNew Zealand Government has sought to appeal to the Government of SouthAfrica concerning the application of this policy and the treatment of opponents ofit. In conformity with resolution S/5761, he New Zealand Government will takeany appropriate occasion to make further representations on this matter to theSouth African Government (A/AC.1l5/L.70/Add.4).

116 General Assemnbly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesPHILIPPINES guarantees, the actions contemplated mightachieve an effectopposite to that which we desire, namely to ensure respect Letter dated 29 Junelo)4 front the Secretary of Foreign for the non-whites and justice and equalityamong all socialAffairs tenclosed in a letter dated 20 July 1964 from the and ethnic groups in thecountry. Permanent Represntoti-" of the Philippines to the Unittd Thisconsideration, naturally, should not retard the effortsNations) which are being made throughout theworld to improve the[Original text: English] lot of coloured people (A/AC.115/L.70).The Philippines remains unalterably opposed to the policySOMALIA

of apartheid which is contrary to the ideals of justice and freedom and violatesthe United Nations Charter and the E.tract from a letter doted 12 Hay 1964from tle PresidentUniversal Declaration of 1lunian Right. This opposition has of the SomaliRepnblic (transmitted by letter dated 21 Maybeen manifested in the United Nations through consistent 1964 from thePermanent Representative of Somalia to thesupport by the Philippines of resolutions condemning apartheid United Nations)in the General Assembly and in the Security Council.[Original text: English]The Philippines views with grave concern the present potentially dangeroussituation fostered by South Africa's policy The Somali Government hasconsistently endeavoured, and of apartheid and therefore stands ready to exertdiligence will continue to do so, at all sessions of the United Nations,within the United Nations towards the furmulation of measures Afro-AsianGroup, the Organization of African Unity and to deter the Government of SouthAfrica from carrying on a other international conferences, to attack thesepolicies of thepolicy which is deplored and condemned by the majority of South AfricanGovernment. Furthermore in this context, themankind (A/AC.1lS/L.70/Add.4). Somali Republic, onattaining its independence, immediatelysevered all diplomatic and other relations with the Government of South Africa.POLANeD In 1962, my Government issued decreesforbidding any whiteExtract from a letter dated 22 May 1961 from the Permanent South Africancitizen to enter this Republic; prohibiting anyRepresentative of Poland to the United Nations Somali citizen to travel inSouth African ships or aircraft;prohibiting South African aircraft to overfly the Somali Re[Original text: English]public, and banning the importation of goods into this territory,I should like to inform you, Excellency, that Mr. Aleksandet or the exportation ofgoods from this Republic into South Zawadski, President of the Council of Stateof the Polish Africa.People's Republic, sent an appeal to Mr. Charles Robert Swart, I and myGovernment can assure Your Excellency and the President of the Republic ofSouth Africa, on 30 April 1964, members of the Special Committee, that we willdo all that asking him to take all necessary steps to revoke the death is possibleto implement any measures designed to deter the penalty passed on the threedistinguished leaders of the move- South African Government from carrying ontheir present ment for respect of human rights, Messrs. Vuyisile Mini, policiesof brutal oppression against the indigenous inhabitantsZinakile Mkaba and Wilson Khayinga (A/AC.I15/L.70). of South Africa.The Somali people are linked with all other freedom-lovingRo-iANIA nations in their total abhorrence of apartheid, andracial discrimination, and we sincerely hope that other Governments Extract froni

a letter dated 16 July 1964 from the Chargd will geni'inely observe and givetheir full support to the resod'affaires, Permanent Mission of Romania to theUnited lutions of your Committee (A/AC.115/L.70).Nations[Original text: English] SUDANExtract from a note verbale** dated 29 June 1964 from the The RomanianPeople's Republic, according to its consequent stand of rejection of the apartheidpolicy promoted Pernanent Representative of Sudian to the United Nationsby the Government of the South African Republic, does not[Original text: English]maintain any kind of relations with the South African Republic and condemns thearbitrary actions, the racial discriminatory The Sudan Government, in itscondemnation of the perpolicy of this Government and the repression to which thesistence of the Government of the Republic of South Africamilitants for the abolition of the apartheid policy in the South in its policies ofapartheid, maintains a complete diplomatic, African Republic are subjected.economic and commercial boycott of that Government.The Government of the Romanian People's Republic, sup- ... The SudanGovernment will spare no effort to induceporting the objectives of resolutions 1761, S/5386 and S/5471 the Government ofthe Republic of South Africa to give effect of the United Nations GeneralAssembly and Security Coun- to the purposes and objectives outlined in theletter datedcil, considers that the strict implementation by all States of 23 March 1964 of theChairman and Officers of the Special the measures advocated by them woulddeprive the South Committee referred to above (A/AC.115/L.70/Add.3).African Government of support and encouragement in promoting its apartheidpolicy (A/AC.ll5/L.70/Add.3). SYRIAExtract from. a note verbale dated 17 June 1964 front the RWAxxoAPermanent Representative of Syria to the United NationsExtract from a letter dated 6 May 1964 from the President[Original text: English]of the Republic of RwandaThe Syrian Mission is pleased to inform the Chairman of[Original text: French] the Special Committee that the Syrian Governmentagreed on 12 September 1963 to implement fully the provisions of MyGovernment, as it has always done in the past, will con- resolution 1761 tXV'I)adopted by the General Assembly at tinue its unremitting struggle on behalf of thecoloured peo- its seventeenth session, as well as all the provisions of pies ofSouth Africa, especially within the framework of the resolution S/5386 of theSecurity Council dated 9 August 1963. Organization of African Unity.. Furthermore, the Syrian Government has neither diplomaticWe cannot refrain from pointing out how important it is relations nor bilateralagreement with the Government of Southto find an adequate means of preventing the various economic, Africa. diplomaticand other sanctions taken against South Africa

from being turned exclusively to the disadvantage of the **A copy of theSouth Africa Boycott Act, No. 30, 1963, wasBantu peoples of that country. We feel that, without such attached to the noteverbale.

¢CKs hna coM obPSdoUKinthe whi apaI h Her1238 Mai 1881 last NatiUNITED STATES OF AMERICAExtract front a letter dated 11 May 1964 from the Per,aancntRepresentative of the United States of America to theUnited Nations[Original text: English]The United States supported General Assembly resolution 1881. On that occasion,Ambassador Plimpton declared that 'the United States is uncompromisingly andirrevocably opposed to legislation such as the legislation under which thesedefendants are being tried, which permits incarceration-and[Original text: French]I have the honour to ackiowledge receipt of the letter which Your Excellenciesaddressed to His Holiness Paul VI on 23 March 1964 asking him to intervene infavour of victims of racial conflict in South Africa and to encourage theprotection and recognition of humnan rights in that country.The Sovereign Pontiff, who has examined your letter, wil not fail to use his goodoffices, as in similar cases in the past, within the limits of his possibilities and ofmethods in keeping with his spiritual mission, in order that the lives of personsthreatened with execution may be spared and the rights of the human personrespected.Annex No. 12 117The Syrian Government will always co-operate in applying which puts on thedefendant the burden of proving himselfall the resolutions and recommendations by the different organs innocent.' TheUnited States Government also recognized, as of the United Nations(A/AC.115/L.70/Add.4). Ambassador Plimpton said at the time, theright of any countryto conluct the defence of its citizens against violence, withTHAILAND proper safeguards for the accused.

Extract from a letter dated 6 Jul' 1064 front the Director- Ti" United States hasrepeatedly supported appeals to theGeneral, International Organi.atioas Department, Ministry South AfricanGovernment to liberate persons imprisoned of Foreign Affairs of Thailandfor opposing apartheid. It voted for Security Council resolutionS/5386 of 7 August 1963, which calls upon the Government[Original texrt: Engjlish] of South Africa 'to liberate all persons imprisoned,interned[The Government of Thailand] has always opposed the or subjected to otherrestrictions for having opposed the policypolicy of apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South of apartheid.' Italso supported Security Council resolution Africa and has all along extended itsco-operation to the S/5471 of 4 December 163, which reiterated that appeal.United Nations in dealing with this matter. Consequently It eontiie, to suppoitit.His Majesty's Government will continue to make every effort Nfay I reiteratethat the United States shares the concernto act in conformity with the resolutions or decisions adopted of the Committeeover the circumstances giving rise to the by the United Nations(A/AC.115/L.70/Add.3). security trials in South Africa, the laws underwhich opponents of apartheid are being detained and the consequencesUKRA\INIAN SOV IET SOCIALIST REPULIC that could ensue bothfrom the trials and from persisting inthe policies of which the trials are an aspect. I can assureAppeal addressed to the President of the Republic of South you that the UnitedStates will continue to examine carefully Africa by the President of the Presidiumof the Supreme the circumstances and opportunities to assist in a humane andSoviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (con- just resolution of thesepressing problems (A/AC.115/L.70). nmuicated by' letter dated 25 lay 1964 fromthe PermanentMisson of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to the'nitcd Nations) UppER VOLTA[Original text. Russian] Extract from a letter dated 14 July 1964 from thePresident of the Republic of Upper VoltaThe Ukrainian people have learnt with profound alarm andoncern that Vuyisile Mini, Zinakile Mkaba and Wilson[Original text: French]hayinga, citizens of the Republic of South Africa, have been [The situation inSouth Africa] which flouts the most eleentenced to death for taking part in themovement for securing inentary principles of humanity, cannot last; whatremains to uman rights in accordance with United Nations resolutions, be done,therefore, is to organize swiftly the active solidarity On behalf of the Ukrainianpeople, I appeal to you in the of all countries which are really anxious to see theprinciples ame of compassion and humanity to use your authority to of theUnited Nations Charter upheld. This, however, is probommute the deathsentences passed on Vuyisile Mini, Zinakile ably one of the cases where great

declarations of intention [kaba and Wilson Khayinga. I also appeal to you to assistin can be seen falling short of practical application. taining the release fromimprisongent of all other s.artici The long-advocated solution of concertedeconomic pressureAtiononyourpart in the monriftese awould have brought the Pretoria Governmentto terms long Action on your part in the spirit of these appeals will un- beforethis; in practice, however, we find that those who'btedly meet with universal understanding and satisfaction befre th s a orwe find tha thos hoA/AC.15/L70).describe themselves as our best friends are the very ones to/AC.15/L.70). supply that Government with the bulkof its war arsenal andNITED KitGeoss OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND themilitary means for its acts of provocation.These considerations ought not, it is true, to prevent positive'tract from a letter dated 23 April 1964 from the Permnanent and decisivesolutions from being worked out and-more imNoepresentatiae of the United Ktigdo of Great Britain and portant-applied, by the United Nations; but experiencetends Northern Ireland to the United Nations to show that, here again,an additional goad is needed, gen[Original text: English] erally in the form of a'trouble spot'.At all events, a spur to effective action might be providedam instructed by Her Majesty's Government in the United by a sharperawareness, among the independent African States igdom to inform you that theyhave, in representations to as a whole, of present-day realities in South Africa; fornot South African Government, made clear the repugnance least amongparadoxes is the fact that the excesses described:ch they and the British people feel for the policy of in the Special Committee'sreport are largely unknown to thertheid and the measures used to enforce it. In this connexion general public who,generally speaking, view the South African ave been asked to invite yourattention to the speeches by problems as something 'ideological', distant and evenunreal Majesty's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs at the(A/AC.115/L.70/Add4). 8th plenary meeting on 11 October last year, when Heresty's Government voted for General Assembly resolutionHOLY SEEon political trials in South Africa, and on 17 Octoberyear at the Special Political Committee of the United Communication dated 30April 1904 front the Secretary of Stateons (A/AC.115/L.70).

118 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesThe Encyclical of Pope John XXIII -Paccm in Terris-states that relations betweenpolitical commnlities must be harmonized in truth and freedom.. \ common origin,an equal Redemption, a similar fate unites all men and calls upon them to formtogether a single Christian family.

List of documents (ex 1iA/AC115/L.32 A/\C.1t5/L,33 A/Ai115/1_.34A,. \C 115., I 1_35 A/AC.115/L.36 A/AC.115/L.37 A/AC.115/L.38 A/AC.1!5/L.39 A/AC.115/L.40 A/AC.115/L.41 A/AC.115/L.42 A/AC.115/L.43A/AC.115/L.44 A/AC.I15/L.45 and Add.1 A/AC.115/L.46 A/AC. 115/L.47A/AC.115/L.481 A/AC.115/L.49 and Add1-4 A/AC.115/L.50 A/AC.ll5/L.5IA/AC.115/L.52 A/AC.115/L.53A/AC.115/L.542 A/AC.115/L.55A !AC.115/L.55/Add.1and Aldi/Corr.iand 2A/AC.115/L.56and Rev.lA/AC.115/L.57 A/AC.115/L.58These principles of justice, of freedom an'l of peace, based on the natural law andon the message of the Gospel, which constitute a basic element of themagisterium of the Church, are also deeply imilanted in the United NationsCharter and the Universal Declaration of -luman Rights.ANNEX 11celuding reports of the Special Committee) circulated between September 1963and 30 November 1964Le:tcr dated 9 Septemlbr i063 from Mi. Barry F. Mason, Ithaca,New York, USARelmrt of tile Suo-CommitteeLetter dated 11 September 19{63 from the (,eneral f eta heInternational Confederation of Free Trade Unions t: the i. rt5.General of the United NationsLetter datkd 4 Septemln ir 1963 addressed to the "1 S dith beeretaryof State- by the Becharaland -''- Part:.Pe'ess statement dated 12. ScptLlb, r 1963 by t!je Afrcan t,.2 :1Congress, LaudonReport of the Sub-CommitteeLeter dated 30 September l'463 from the Pan- kfr cans Con rr-sof South Africa,Maseru, Basutoland, regarding the su .cstion topartition South AfricaLetter dated 2f) November 1963 from the Pan-Africanist Congressof South Africa, Maseru, Basutoland: Sobukwe's lfe in jeopardy Report of theSub-ConolitteeLetter dated 19 November 1963 from the Pan- \fricanist Congressof South Africa, Maseru, BasutolandCommunication received from a group of persons in Germany Statement issuedby the Meeting of the Bishops of the C ii-ch of Norway, November l',(communicated by the Permanent . s-ionof Norway to the Unitcd Nations) Report of the Sub-Committee

Letter dated 20 February IT64 from Mr. Noel H. Salter, Secretary, InternationalDepartment, the British Cotmcil of ( 1-Al. ::h. Ludon Letter dated 21 February1964 from Mr. Jolhn Lang, D;rector,D~efenec and Aid Fund, Christian Action, LondonLetter dated 21 February 164 from -he Reveretnd Mih,_c! Scott, tle AfricaBureau, LondonN ,te on repressive measures against opponents of the policy of apartlicid in theRepu.lic of South AfricaCommunications from the specialized agencies of the United t;cnsReport of the Sub-CommitteeLetter dated 22 February 1064 from Mr. B. S~n',b. Secretary,South African Peace Council, Johannesburg, South AfricaLetter dated 26 February 1964 from Mr. John Lang, Director, Defence and AidFund, Christian Action, LondonLetter dated 3 March l);)4 from Mr. George Houser, Exocntive Director,American Committee on Africa, New York (enclosing copies of statements bySouth Africans detained under tha ninetyday Detention Act)Nite on developmnts since the report of the Sp.-cial Committeeto the General Assembly at its eighteenth sessionThe pattern of foreign trade of the Republic of South Africa:prepared by the Secretariat at the request of the Special CommitteeThe pattern of foreign trade of the Republic of South Africa-revisedstatistical tables (prepared by the Secretariat at the request orthe Special Committee)Foreign investment in the Republic of South Africa (prepared bythe Secretariat at the request of the Special Committee)Le ter dated 2 March 1Q64 from Mr. Peter Benenson, Secretary,Amnesty International, LondonResolution on apartheid adopted at the second regular session of theCouncil of Ministers of the Organization of African UnityI See A/5692, annex 1.2 Ibid., annex II.x3

Annex No. 12 119A/AC.115/L.59A/AC.115/L.60 A/AC.115/L.61 A/AC.115/L.62 A/AC.115/L.63A/AC.1 15/L.64 A/AC. 1!5/L.65 A/AC.115/L.66 A/AC.115/L.67A/AC.115/L.683A/AC. 115/L.69 A/AC.115/L.70and Add.l-4A/AC.1 15/L.71 A/AC.115/L.72 A/AC.] 15/L.73 A/AC.]I5/L.74 A/AC.115/L.75A/AC.115/L.76 A/AC. 115/L.77 A/AC.115/L.78 A/AC.115/L.79 A/AC. 115/L.80A/AC.]15/L.81 A/AC. 115/L.82 A/AC.115/L.83A/AC.115/L.84 A/AC.115/L.85 A/AC.115/L86 A/AC.115/L.87 A/AC.I15/L.88

A/AC.115/L.89Letter dated 13 February 1964 from Mr. Duma Nokwe, SecretaryGeneral of theAfrican National Congress of South Africa,addressed to the Secretary-GeneralText of declaration signed by 143 international personalities in connexion withthe trials in South AfricaThree cables concerning death sentences in Port Elizabeth, SouthAfricaLetter dated 24 March 1964 from Mr. Raymond Kunene, Londonrepresentative, African National Congress of South AfricaLetter dated 17 March 1964 from Mr. John K. Tettegah, SecretaryGeneral, GhanaTrade Union Congress, enclosing a memorandum adopted by the SecondConference of the International Trade Union Committee for Solidarity with theWorkers and People of SouthAfrica held in Accra, Ghana, from 9 to 11 March 1964Letter dated 31 March 1964 from Mr. Robert Serpeli, Chairman,Oxford University Joint Action Committee against Racial Intolerance (UnitedKingdom) addressed to the Secretary-GeneralReport of the delegation of the Special Committee on the policies ofapartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa on thehearing of petitioners in London, 13 and 18 April 1964Report of the Sub-CommitteeText of letter dated 27 April 1964 from Miss Mary Benson enclosingthe statement by Mr. Nelson Mandela at his trial in Pretoria on20 April 1964Report of the delegation of the Special Committee on the policies ofapartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa on the InternationalConference on Economic Sanctions against SouthAfrica, London, 14-17 April 1964Letter dated 5 May 1964 from the Permanent Representative ofHungary addressed to the Chairman of the Special CommitteeAppeal to Member States in connexion with the trials and death sentences in theRepublic of South Africa and replies theretoIndex of documents published between 30 July 1963 and 10 June 1964Report of the Sub-CommitteeLetter dated ]2 May 1964 from Mrs. Ruth First, LondonReport of the Sub-CommitteeLetter from Mr. J. Thorpe, M.P., Honorary Secretary of the WorldCampaign for the Release of South African Prisoners, addressed tothe Secretary-General of the United NationsReport of the Sub-CommitteeLetter dated 25 June 1964 from Canon L. John Collins, Chairman, Defence andAid Fund (International), LondonExtracts from a letter dated 30 June 1964 from Miss Margaret Roberts, HonorarySecretary, Joint Committee on the High Commission Territories, Richmond,United Kingdom

Statement by His Excellency, Mr. Diallo Telli, Chairman of the SpecialCommittee, at the 38th meeting on 30 July 1964 Report of the Sub-CommitteeLetter dated 3 September 1964 from the representative of the African NationalCongress of South Africa, LondonLetters dated August 1964 from the International Chairman of the Women'sInternational League for Peace and Freedom, Geneva,SwitzerlandResolutions adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Goveminent of the Organization of African Unity at its first ordinary session in Cairo,17-21 July 1964, on "apartheid in South Africa"and on "apartheid and racial discrimination"Letter dated 5 October 1964 from the Permanent Mission of Ghana Report of theSub-CommitteeResolution on South Africa transmitted by a letter dated 2 October1964 from the Canadian Union of Students, Ottawa, CanadaMemorandum dated 30 September from the X\V orld Campaign for theRelease of South African Prisoners, LondonLetter dated 7 October 1964 from the Permanent Representative ofIndiaStatement by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee at the 41st meeting on 9October 1964a See A/5707, annex II.

120' General Assen1bN-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesA/AC.115/L.90 A/AC.115/L.91 A/AC.l 15/L.92 A/AC.I15/LJ)3 A/AC.115/L.94A/AC.115/L.96 A/AC.115/L.97 A/AC.115/L.98 A/AC.1l5/L.99 A/AC.115/L.100A/AC.115/L1.0126th meeting 28th meeting 29th meetingLetter dated 16 October 1964 addressed to the Chairman of the SpecialCommittee by the Permanent Representative of Hungary Resolution adopted bythe Second Conference of the Heads of State or Government of Non-AlignedCountries, in Cairo, 5-10 October 1964, on "racial discrimination and the policyof apartheid"Statement by 7\1r. Ronald Segal at the 42nd meeting on 20 October1964Letter dated 22 October 11A4 addresscd to Chairman of the SpecialCommittee by the Secretary-General of the United NationsStatement by Mrs. Mary-Louise Hooper at the 45th meeting on 29October 1964Report of the Sub-CommitteeLetter dated 9 October 1964 from S. Abdul, Honorary Secretary, theAnti-apartheid Movement, LondonMemorandum dated 31 October 1964 from Dr. Hans Mcidner andMrs. Marion Friedmann, former members of the Liberal Party ofSouth Africa now resident in the United KingdomAppeal to Member States concerning relief and assistance to famrlies

of persons persecuted by the South African Government fur theiropposition to the policies of apartheidNote on repressive measnres against oipponents of the poic'es ofapartheidLetter dated 12 November 1964 from the Permanent R'u-rc ' atCeof India to the United NationsReport of the Sub-CommitteeMarch 1964 March 1)64 March 196413 April 1964 18 April 1964HEARINGS OF PETITIONERSMiss Miriam Makeba (South African singer)Miss Mary Benson (South African writer)Mr. Oliver Tambo and Mr. Tennyson Makiwane (representatives of the AfricanNational Congress of SouthAfrica)Mrs. Barbara Castle, M.P.. accompanied by Mr. S.Abdul, representing the Anti-apartheid Mowcment,LondonsCanon L. John Collins (Chairman, Defence and AidFund, London)6Mr. Barney Desai (President of the Coloured PeoplesCongress of South Africa)5Mrs. Ruth First (journalist)5Dr. Joost de Blank, former Archbishop of Cape Townand currently Canon of Westminster Abbey, London,5Mr. A. Manchanda, accompanied by Mr. Rashid Yousufand Mr. Mohamed Tickley, representing the Committee of Afro-Asian CaribbeanOrganizations, London54The summary records of the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 32nd, 35th, 36th, 47th, thesecond part of the 48th, 49th, 52nd, and the first part of the 53rd meetings arerestricted, as these meetings, devoted to the consideration of reports by theSpecial Committee and to the organization of its work, were closed.5 See A/AC.115/L.65-report of the delegation of the Special Committee on thepolicies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa on thehearing of petitioners in London, 13 and 18 April 1964 containing memorandaand written statements from:the Anti-apartheid Movement, London;Mr. Barney Desai, President of the Coloured Peoples Congress of South Africa;Mrs. Ruth First, journalist;Mr. A. Manchanda, Mr. Rashid Yousuf, Mr. Mohamed Tickley,Mr. Somahlenga Mokhonoana, Mr. Ted Stagg and Mr. Brian Hamilton ofthe Committee of Afro-Asian Caribbean Organizations;Dr. Yusuf M. Dadoo, representative of the South African Indian Congress;Mr. Leon Levy, National President and official representative abroad of the SouthAfricanCongress of Trade Unions;

Mrs. Rosalynde Ainslie and Miss Dorothy Robinson, of the Anti-apartheidMovement,London.SIN MARY RECORDS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEEA/A C.115/SR.22-534

Annex No. 12 12129th meeting(continued)0 See A/AC.115/L.92. 7 See A/AC.115/L.94.ANNEX IIIDirection of imports and exports of the Republic of South Africa1. The following tables, on the direction of the imports and exports of theRepublic of South Africa, are taken from the Monthlv Abstract of Trade Statisticscompiled by the Department of Customs and Excise of the Republic of SouthAfrica. 2. In considering these statistics, the following notes from the Monthly,Abstract should be taken into account:"Statistical tcrrilory -The statistical territory in respect of the external tradestatistics of the Republic of South Africa does not coincide with its politicalboundaries, but it does include the High Commission Territories of Basutoland,Swaziland and the Bechuanaland Protectorate, as well as the Territory of SouthWest Africa."Country of destination means country of destination as far as can be ascertainedat the time of shipment. A proportion of the goods declared to be for export to anyone country may be distributed from that country to other countries, but as theultimate destination is unknown when the consignment leaves South Africa theexport figures are credited to the country declared on bills of entry (export)."Country of origin-Imports are credited, where possible, to the country in whichthe goods have been grown, produced, or manufactured. Where the particulars ofthe origin are not available the goods are credited to the country whence shipped."Ualue-imports-The value recorded of goods imported is the free on board cost ofthe goods to the importer."T'alue-exports-The value of goods exported is the price of those goods free onboard at the place of dispatch."TABLE 1. REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA: IMPORTS-COUNTRIESSuummary of imports (including government stores) by countries of origin,refiectin.9 the percentage that each country bears to the total imports togetherwith comparative figures forthe corresponding period of the Previous year1963 1962Country of origin Rand* Per cent Rand Per centAFRICAMoroccoCongo (Brazzaville) .... Congo (Leopoldville) ......... A ngola ................. .South A frica .... ............Rhodesia and Nyasaland .... M ozam bique ...... ... .....

K enya .........................O ther A frica ...................TOTAL, AFIREUROPEN orw ay .........................Sweden .......................DenmarkUnited Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland ..............B elgium ............ .............N etherlands ......................Federal Republic of Germany ....... France ................Switzerland. A ustria ...........................P ortugal ....... ...... ......S pa in . .. .........................Ita ly ....... ........ ............F inland .....................Eastern Germany ...................* 1,399,956. . 732,165-.. 21,601,943 * *. 1,481,515 .. 2,287,145. * 32,816,008 ... 6,092,0914,161,197 ... 10,226,493ICA 80,798,5134.565,939 22,023,798 4,633,599361,434,208 13,746,151 30,095,780 129,675,983 31,316,398 19,615,0677,052,4252,236,597 1,674,481 34,096,546 5,665,843 1,785,38018 April 1964 Mr Thabo \lbeki, son of the African leader, Mr.Govan Mbeki, now on trial in Pretoria5 Dr. Yusuf M. Dadoo, representative ofthe South African Indian Congress5Mr. Lcon Levy, National President and official representative abroad of the SouthAfrican Co cc',s of Trade Unions,"20 ()cthcr 1964 Mr. Ronald Segal, convener of the International Conference onEconomic Sanctions against South Africa held in London, 14-17 April 19646 21()ctocr 1964 Mrs. Mlary-IAumise Hlooper, American Committee on Africa, NewYork742id meeting 45th meeting2,306,485951,771 22,540,830 856,7501,241,459 27.478.471 2,769,783 2,423,3249.930,87070,499,7433,582,713 18,051,652 3,605,282303,040,918 12,438,655 24,823,669 102,243,323 21,045,586 15,897,8246,230,671 2,402,169 1,232,272

28,811,079 4,621,627 899,269

122 General Assembly-Nineteenth Session-AnnexesTABLE 1 (continued) 1963 1962Country of origin Rand* Per cent Rand Per centEUROPE (continued)Poland ....... .........Czechoslovakia ..................H ungary ......... ........ ...Other Europe ....................TOTAL, EUROPEAMERICACanada ...........United States of America........M exico .. . . . ..................Netherlands Antilles ...............V enezuela ........................Brazil .......................U ruguay ......... ..............A rgentina .........................P e ru . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .Other America ....... ........TOTAL, AMERICAASIA767,7973,491,128951,244 913,788675,742,15240,614,763 204,519,560 2,537,926 2,192,035529,793 6,194,277 1,141,688 1,399,665650,0181,306,086261,085,811Israel ........................ .... 1,171,223Saudi Arabia ..................... 2,637,309A den .............. . ...... . 8,444,896Q atar ....... ..... .. .......... 2,323,092Bahrain ......................... 9,565,,i80Iraq ........................... 1,804.160Iran ..................... ........ 31,063,582Pakistan 12,771,389Ceylon ................... ... ... 13,254,567T hailand .. .................. .. 663,178British Borneo .................... 628,222Hong Kong ...................... 7,496,571C hina .................. ..... .. 1,815,913

Japan ............................. 56,420,036Other Asia ..... ..... ........ 18,135,649TOTAL, ASIA 168,195,467OCEANIAAustralia ......................N ew Zealand .... ...............Other O ceania ...................12,419,872 1,738.651 11,766TOTAL, OCEANIA 14,170,289TOTAL, ALL COUNTRIES 1,199,992,232 Unallocated imports through the post. 2,917,545 Customs value of immigrants' effects.. 9,765,506 GRAND TOTAL1,212,675,283409,4732,697,341799,361 706,863553,539,74724,933,628 166,762,6102,392,824 1,485,100 1,209,250 4,716,456 1,084,397 2,400,812658,7031,353,799206,997,5791,179,848 3,720,121 10,007,0349,343,577874,020 36,736,892 17,019,071 12,879,598 860,161 502,006 4,493,652 962,91141,464,245 13,884,491153,927,6271.0 13,739,4630.1 1,646,70329,7801.2 15,415,946100.0 1,000,380,6422,654,685 4,760,4111,007,795,738* 1 rand = $1.40.TABLE 2. REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA: EXPORTS-COUNTRIESSummary of expcrts of South African produce (excluding specie) according tocountries ofdestination, reflecting the percentage that each country bears to the total e.rports,alongwith comparative figures for the corresponding period of the previous year1963 1962Country of destination Rand Per cent Rand Per centAFRICAUnited Arab Republic..............Congo (Leopoldville) .............A ngola . ....... ..................

Rhodesia and Nyasaland...........M ozam bique .......................M auritius .........................0.3 0.1 0.155.32.516.7 0.2 0.1 0.10.5 0.1 0.2 0.10.120.70.1 0.4 1.00.9 0.1 3.71.7 1.30.10.1 0.4 0.14.1 1.415.41.4 0.21.5 100.0401,548 6,137,725 1,346,462 75,142,477 13,705,665 3,480,756627,337 7,473,293 1,021,245 84,670,008 12,131,767 4,173,849

Annex No. 12 123TABLE 2 (continued)Country of destsatisAFRICA (continued)Kenya .Other Africa ....... .TEUROPENorwaySwedenDenmark .........I'el:nd . .United Kingdom of GreNorthern IrelandBelgium ......Netherlands Federal Republic of Ge France . Switzerland ..........A ustria ........Portugal ...........Spain ..............Italy ........FinlandEastern GermanyP oland ..............Czechoslovakia .... Albania

G reece .........Other EuropeTAMERICACanada ..............United States of Amen Mexico .............Colombia ....... ..C hile .. ........ ...A rgentina ..........Other AmericaTa1963 1962Rand Per ccut Rand Per ccnt3,850,870. 3,302,793lorAL, AIRICA 107,368,2961,957,284... . 5,066,322 7,q-l,5443,278.218at Brita'n and.... ..... 272,02.,414...... 38,566,48324,526,870rmany . 49,114,892. .... 31,422,934 5,009,194...... 1,470,311......... 3,403,0885,948.38149,322,960.... 903,683 2,082,418............. 2,436,761............. 770,670............ 648,955............ 1,074,442........ ..... 676,512OrAL, EUROPE 500,493,399............. 13,290,111ca ... ...... 80,575,740 ............ 4,768.949430,757....... 451,670........ 1,213,7831 - .. . ..... 1,806,913rAL., AMERICA 102,537,923ASIAT urkey . .......................... 1,330,435Israel .... ...... .. ........... 2,838,517

A den .... ...... ................. 583,945Iraq .. .... ... . ........ 451,486Iran ........... 613,268Pakistan .......... ........... 794,592Ceylon ....... ............ 1,224,099Thailand . ... .......... ..... 483,629Hong Kong ..................... .8,53,854C hina ........... .... . .. ....... 4,263,359Japan ....... .... ................ 70,518,246Republic of Korea .................. 129,221Other A sia ..... .................. 11,746,478TOTAL, ASIA 103,517,129OCEANIAA ustralia ...... ..British Pacific Islands.New Zealand ....Other OceaniaToOptionalShip stores .............Parcel post .............Customs value of emigran....I......... 11,717.016............ 357,551....... 1,628,075... 53,903rAL, OCEANIA 13,756,5 4566,953,Q56......... .... 9,174,281......... .... 1,452,045nts' effects... 1,714.280GRAND TOTAL 906,967,8540.4 5,47 1,0230.4 4,032,62911.8 119,604,1510.2 2,704,5520.6 5,562,8670.1 1,457,9920.4 1,669,17329.9 241,933.6044.3 37,866,5982.7 25,180,7205.4 42,759,3003.5 31,306,2380.6 5,713,6830.2 3,045,867

0.4 1,591,3750.7 3,843,8175.4 44,258,6260.1 1,568,9630.2 1,627,6940.3 2,122,3880.1 581,4630.10.1 1,053,3020.1 1,021,93755.1 456,870,1591.5 10,385,1048.9 78,107,9170.5 379,474660,778 530,4310.1 1,578,9940.2 1,934,64911.3 93,577,3470.2 1,012.2800.3 2,886,7240.1 339,664802,0440.1 2,448,1110.1 1,545,1400.1 1,768,8850.1 468,4930.9 8.627,9250.5 938,3467.8 72,394,653492,2511.3 13,749,90611.4 107,474,4221.3 8,667.957420.1690.2 1,619,89846,2371.5 10,763.2517.4 74,390,6521.0 7,431,1510.2 1,396,5350.2 2.137.!Y-17100.0 873,(,44,7(5

6 General AssemblY-Twentyfixst Session-AnLnexesUNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS UNITED KINGDOMOF GR

[Original text: Rusriant][12 May 19663With reference to your letter concerning the enlargement of the membership ofthe Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of theRepublic of South Africa, I have the honour to inform you that the Soviet Unionis prepared to take part in the work of the Special Committee.The Soviet Union's position on the question of the racist policies pursued by theSouth African rkgime is widely known. The Soviet Union holds, as it always hasdone, that the inhuman policies of apartheid should be brought to an end. As youknow, the Soviet Union does not maintain diplomatic or consular relations withthe Republic of South Africa, nor does it have trade ties with that country. TheSoviet Union has repeatedly declared that it will continue in future to support anyappropriate action which will contribute to the speedy elimination of the infamouspolicies of apartheid in the Republic of South Africa.The Soviet Union attaches great importance to the activities of the SpecialCommittee on apartheid and takes the view that, whether or not it proves possibleto appoint the additional six members of the Committee pursuant to the decisionof the General Assembly at its last session, the Committee should begin its workwithout delay as at present constituted.EAT BmITAIN" AND NORTHERN ItrEAND[Original text: English][3 fuse 1966]Your Excellency will recall that the United Kingdom delegation abstained onGeneral Assembly resolution 2054 (XX), paragraph 3 of which recommended theexpansion of the Special Committee, and that in explaining the United King. domvote on the resolution to the General Assembly on 15 December, the UnitedKingdom representative made clear that the United Kingdom Government wouldbe unable to accept the recommendation in this operative paragraph. I am there.fore writing to confirm the decision of my Government, earlier conveyed to youorally, that it will not be possible for them to accept the invitation to be designatedas a member of the Committee.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA[Original text: English][31 Mal 1966]With reference to your letter concerning the enlargement of the membership ofthe Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of theRepublic of South Africa, I have the honour to inform you that, as I indicated toyou earlier this year, the United States is not prepared to take part in the work ofthe Special Committee.DOCUMENT A/6486* Report of the Special Committee on the Policies ofApartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa (25 October 1966)[Original text: English/French] [25 October 1966]CONTENTSLETTER OF TRANSMITTALI. INTRODUCTION ........II. R.E VEW OF THE WORK OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ....... ......

A. Reports of 17 June and 16 August 1965 by the Special Committee ....B. Action taken by the General Assembly at its twentieth session .......C. Postponement of consideration by the Security Council ..............D. Action by other organs of the United Nations .....................E. Programme of work of the Special CommitteeF. Invitation to the Organization of African Unity .................G. Consultation on the Seminar on Apartheid ......................H. Message to the International Conference on South West Africa ....I. Statement by the Chairman on the conviction of Mr. Abram Fischer, Q.C.J. Report of 29 June 1966 by the Special Committee ..................K. Consideration of development since 10 August 1965 ...............L. Work of the Sub-Committee on Petitions and the hearing of petitionersParagr aphs1-1011-99 11-35 36-42 43-45 46-53 5455-5758-60 61-62 6364-71 72-8687-99III. NEW DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM OF APARTHEID .... ............... 100-129A. A year of inaction by the Security Council ............. ........ 106-114B. Aggravation of the situation inside South Africa ......... 115-119C. Threat to adjacent territories .. ................ 120-129IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIALCoMMIrFErE .. 130-208A. The responsibility of the great Powers and major trading partners ofSouth Africa.............B. A programme of action by the United NationsC. The repercussions of apartheid in Southern Africa .................D. Economic sanctions and related measuresE. Moral and material assistance to those combating the policies of apartheid* Also issued as S/7565.137-143144-156 157-160 161-165166-169

Agenda item 34F. Efforts to promote supp-ort of n-n-gover:mental organizations and worldpublic opinion ... 170-191G. Humanitarian asistance to victims of racial discrimination and repression 192-204 H. Strengttlening of the Special Committee .20-20$V. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIO\S209-216ANNEXESPage

. Lit of documents (not including reports of the Special Committee) issued from10 August 1965 to 21 October 196 .. -..... ...... .9II. Review of devec-pmn:s in the Republic of South Africa since the report of 16A ugust 1965 . . ...... .... . . . ...... .. 30Letter of transmittalNew York, 21 October 1966 I have the honour to send you herewith the reportadopted unanimously on 21 October 1966 by the Special Committee on thePolicies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa.This report is submitted to the General Assembly in pursuance of paragraph 5 (b)of General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII) of 6 November 1962, and ofparagraph 2 of General Assembly resolution 1978 A (XVIII) of 16 December1963.(Signed) ACHKAR Marof Chairman of the Special Committee on the Policies ofApartheid of the Government of the Republic of South AfricaHis Excellency U Thant, Secretary-General of the United Nations, New York.I. Introduction1. The Special Committee on the Policies ofApartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa was established byGeneral Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII) of 6 November 1962. Under GeneralAssembly resolutions 1761 1XVII) and 1978 A(XVIII . it has the mandate "to follow constantly the various aspects of thisquestion and to submit reports to the General Assembly and to the SecurityCouncil whenever necessan-". It is composed of the following eleven members:Algeria. Costa Rica, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti. Hungary. Malaysia. Nepal, Nigeria,the Philippines and Somalia.2. During the period under review, that is, from 10 August 1965. Mr. AchkarMarof (Guinea) continued as Chairman of the Special Committee and Mr. PadmaBahadur Khatri (Nepal) as Rapporteur.3. The Sub-Committee on Petitions was composed of the representatives ofAlgeria. Ghana. Nigeria and the Phihivp, nes Mr. E. C. Anvaoku (Nieria) was itsChairman until March 1966. 'Mr. OlajideAlo (Nigeria) was elected Chairman on11 -May 1966.4. The following representatives served on the Special Committee:AlgeriaRerresentat?-.1"Mr. Tewfik BouattouraAlternate Representatives:Mr. Hadj Benabdelkader Azzout; .Mr. Abderrahmane BensidCosta Rica Representative:Mr. Eugenio Jimnez SanchoAlternate Representatives:Mr. Jos6 Maria Aguirre: 'Mrs. Emilia C. de BarishGhanaRepresen tatize:Mr. F. S. ArkhurstAlternate Representative:

Mr. Joseph Benjamin PhillipsGuineaRepresen tatize:Mr. Achkar Marof-Ilt-rnate Representatives:Mr. *M'Baye Cheik Omar. Mr. Tours HadyHaitiRepresentat'ze:Mr. Carlet R. AugusteAlternate Reprcsentatiz'es :Mr. Raoul Siclait: Mr. Alexandre Verret: Mr.Leonard Pierre-Louis

8 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-AnnexesHungaryRepresentative:Mr. KAroly Csatorday Alternate Representatives:Mr. Arpfid Prandler: Mr. Imre Borsanyi falaylsiaRepresentative:Mr. Radhakrishna RamaniAlternate Representatives:Raja Aznam bin Raja HajiAzraai bin Zainal AbidinAhmad; Mr. ZainNepalRepresentative:Mr. Padma Bahadur Khatri Alternate Representative:M,-. Devendra Raj Upadhya NigeriaRepresentotives:Mr. S. 0. Adebo; Mr. J. T. F. Iyalla.41tcrnate Representativcs:Mr. E. C. Anyaoku (until May 1966) ; Mr. OlajideAlo; Mr. A. A. MohammedPhilippinesRepresentatives:Mr. Salvador P. Lopez: Mr. Privado G. JimenezAlternate Representatives:Mr. Alejandro D. Yango: Mr. Virgilio C. Nafiagas,Mr. Antonio J. Uy; Mr. Rodolfo ArizalaSo iualiaRepresentative:Mr. Abdulrahim A. FarahAlternate Representatives:Dr. Mohamed Warsama; Mr. Mohamed Elmi5. On 27 June 1966, the Special Committee subnitted a special report (A/6356) tothe General Assembly and the Security Council on the question of

implementation of paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 2054 A (XX) of15 December 1965 which provided for the enlargement of the Special Committee.6. On 21 October 1966, the Special Committee decided unanimously to submitthe present report on developments since 10 August 1965 to the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council.7. The Special Committee wishes to put on record its sincere gratitude to theSecretary-General and pay tribute to him for his unfailing interest in the work ofthe Committee and for his warm encouragement and generous support. It recallswith great appreciation his efforts to save the lives of the opponents of apartheidcondemned to death in South Africa and to promote relief and assistance to thevictims of apartheid. By his deep concern over the racial problem in southernAfrica and by his ceaseless efforts to draw the attention of the world to thedangers of racism and to the need for urgent action through the United Nations, hehas earned the appreciation of all opponents of racism.8. The Special Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the Directors-General of the various specialized agencies of the United Nations, and to theAdministrative Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, for theirco-operation in the fulfilment of its mandate. It also notes with appreciation theassistance rendered by many non-governmental organizations and individuals.9. It also wishes to express its appreciation to Mr. Aleksei E. Nesterenko, Under-Secretary for Political and Security Council Affairs, Mr. M. A. Vellodi, Deputy tothe Under-Secretary, and to Mr. Enuga S. Reddy, Chief of the Unit for AfricanQuestions and Secretary of the Special Committee until December 1965, for theirassistance and co-operation.10. Finally, it wishes to express its appreciation to Mr. Irshad H. Baqai, thePrincipal Secretary, and to the other members of the Secretariat assigned to theCommittee for discharging their duties with remarkable efficiency and devotion.II. Review of the work of the Special CommitteeA. REPORTS OF 17 JUNE AND 16 AUGUST 1965 BY ThESPECIAL COMMITTEE (A/5932 AND A/5957)11. The special report of 17 June (A/5932) which the Special Committeesubmitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council referred in particularto the increased military and police build-up in the Republic of South Africa, withthe co-operation of certain other Powers; and the increase in investments byforeign-owned corporations in the Republic of South Africa.12. The Special Committee deplored the fact that since General Assemblyresolution 1761 (XVII) of 6 November 1962, and even during the deliberations ofthe Expert Committee of the Security Council, the major trading partners of theRepublic of South Africa had greatly increased their trade with South Africa andinvestments in South Africa had continued, directly or indirectly, to facilitate thebuild-up of the military and police forces in South Africa, A large part of therecent investment had been designed to assist South Africa to develop its militarypower, to promote self-sufficiency, to overcome the effect of economic measurestaken at great sacrifice by many countries and to resist international economicsanctions.

13. The Special Committee recommended that, as a first step to follow upon itsresolutions, the Security Council should call upon all States urgently to takecertain measures, under Chapter VII of the Charter, to stop encouragement to theSouth African Government to pursue its present racial policies. It expressed thehope that members of the Security Council, particularly the permanent members,would assume their responsibilities and obligations under the Charter and take theaction which was required by the Charter and which was essential to preserve theauthority of the United Nations and to forestall a dangerous conflict.14. In the annual report of 16 August 1965 (A/ 5957), the Special Committeestressed that urgent and

Agenda item 34 9decisive action was imperative, and that further delays or ineffective resolutionswere likely to embolden the South African Government to persist in and intensifyits policies of racial discrimination and repression.Delays or ineffective action would also add to the disillusionment of the SouthAfrican people with theUnited Nations.15. In this connexion, the Special Committee recalled that the failure ofcompetent United Nations organs to take appropriate measures over the years,particularly since the Sharpeville massacre and Security Council resolution 134(1960) of 1 April 1960. had led to continuous and rapid aggravation of thesituation in South Africa. The developments of the past year showed that theSouth African Government had been emboldened to continue on its disastrouscourse by:(a) the failure of the General Assembly during the first part of the nineteenthsession to consider the situation in South Africa. and the feeling that the UnitedNations had become weaker: (b) international developments which gave theimpression that attention was diverted from the situation in South Africa and thatthe great Powers were unlikely to agree on concerted action to resolve thesituation in South Africa; and (c) the impression in South Africa that the report ofthe Expert Committee of the Security Council,5 reflected little likelihood ofeffective economic sanctions in the near future because of the continuedopposition of certain great Powers and major trading partners.16. The Special Committee. therefore. considered that action under Chapter VII ofthe Charter. with the full co-operation of all the permanent members of theSecurity Council and the major trading partners of South Africa, wasindispensable to reverse the tragic course of events and move towards a solution.I. Economic sanctions and related measures[Paragraphs 17 to 21 inclusive reproduced paragraphs 153 to 156 inclusiz'c andparagraph 158 of A/5957 (see Official Records of the General Assembly.Twentieth Session. Annexes. agenda item 36, docufnent .q/3957).]2. Relief and assistance to victims of racialdiscrimination and repression22. The Special Committee recalled resolution 1978 B (XVIII) of 16 December1963, adopted on the recommendation of the Special Committee, by which the

General Assembly took note of the serious hardships faced by the families ofpersons persecuted by the South African Government for their opposition to thepolicies of apartheid: considered that humanitarian relief and other assistance tothem by the international community was consonant with the purposes andprinciples of the United Nations; and invited Member States and organizations tocontribute generously to such relief and assistance. The Special Committee feltthat the Member States which had made contributions in response to this resrtlution and the subsequent appeal by the Special Committee deservedcommendation. In View of the growing repression against the opponents of thepolicies of apartheid in South Africa, it suggested that a further appeal should bemade for larger contributions from all States. organizations and individuals.5 Official Records of the Security Council, Twenticth Y-ear. Special SupplementVo. 2.23. The Special Committee felt that, without prejudice to direct contributions toorganizations engaged in providing legal aid and relief. considerations :->uldgiven to the cta': lishment of a United Nations Trust Fund to receive voiunaryc,,n-,ri',utions, in cash and in kind, from States. organizations and indiv ci:ls forthe purpose of supplementing the efforts of v - >wtary organizations. Such a fund.adninistered 1,v an a-pro, priate group of trustees or a hoard, should te availableto make grants to voluntary organizations, Governments of host countries ofrefugees. or other bolie;. in case of special needs or emergencies.24. The Special Committee suggested -hnt the contributions should be utilized forproviding a i legal assistance to persons charged under discriminatory andrepressive legislation (described in reports of the Special Committee); (b) relieffor dependants of persons persecuted by the South African Government for actsarising from opposition to the policies of aparrhei,-': c j grants for education ofprisoners. their children and other dependants; (d) relief for refugees from'i SouthAfrica, and (e) appropriate assistance to all those South Africans who have beendeprived of equal iaci*;ties in education, health and other fields because ofthpolicies of apartheid.25. The Special Committee suggested that the groui, of trustees or the board beauthorized not only to make disbursements from the trust fund in pursuance of thepurposes indicated above, but also take steps to premote direct contributions tovoluntary organizations, a, well as to the United Nations Trust Fund, and tomaintain liaison with the voluntary organizations and oromote co-operation andco-ordination in their activities.26. The Special Committee commended the United Nations Programme for theEducation and Training Abroad of South Africans, established by theSecurityCouncil in pursuance of Security Council'resolution 191 (1964) of ISJune 1964. as an exrressirn of international concern over racial discrimi ,tin. andreir-s'o-' in the Republic of South Africa and a d r to,;sis in the promotion ofequal opportunities fo- Sout.h Afrcans irrespective of race. It hoped that theprogramme would receive generous siplort from M'.e'er 5tates.27. While attaching great imT ,rtance to 'he above programmes of a humanitarianchracter. tl-e S>ecim! Committee wished to emphasize that they -!,oud sutplement

and not be su'-situted f,'r effective rct . on t, rec~lve the situation in the Repu-.lic,- S, hAfrca.3. Dissemination of inf rajji *n2. The Special Committee attached great i:mportunce to the widest dissemination,f inf,,rmatin on zz'Ue dangers of apartheid to keep world .opir.in in,-rrned andthereby encourage it to support United Nation efforts to resc:ve the situation inSouth \fric. It recommended that the various measures suggested Iy theCommittee on this matter be endosed by the Ieneral Assemi ',v the SecurityCouncil. and that adequate a... "eci&r! visions be made in the budget for theirirmi.omventation.29. The Special Committee ne-d ',t reat .ciation the readiness of the Governrnen: of Brazi; invite the United Nations to or-ar.i;e :n in:ern 'tin-.[ seminar on apartheid in Brazil in lT6. Considering that theholding of such a seminar vould be ar, ,pri:e and highly desirable, it reconmen ledthat the invit- tirn be accepted and tha.t the nec.p-ssrv fun :! be -..,.ihorized andprovided.

10 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexes4. Promoting consultations among South -lfricanis30. The Special Committee recalled the suggestions in its report of 30 November1964 that the United Nations should promote consultations and discussionsamong all available South African organizations, particularly those subscribing tothe purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. regarding the future ofthe country; and that the United Nations should seek the assistance and advice ofinternational organizations concerned with race relations in pronioting suchconsultations and discussions.5. Investigation of the treatment of prisoners31. The Special Committee reiterated its recommendation for an impartialinternational investigation into the charges of ill-treatment and torture ofopponents of the policies of apartheid in police custody and in prisons in SouthAfrica,6. Promoting action by inter-goscrnmentaland non-governmenital organizations32. The Special Committee considered that the full co-operation of the specializedagencies, as well as regional and other inter-governmental organizations, inassuring implementation of economic sanctions under the aupices of the UnitedNations, was of crucial importance. It felt that the specialized agencies. as well asregional and other inter-governmental organizations, should be encouraged toconsider positive and active measures to counteract the policies of apartheid of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa. to render humanitarian assistance tothose persecuted by the South African Government for their opposition to thepolicies of apartheid and to help disseminate information on the dangers of thepolicies of apartheid and the United Nations efforts to resolve the situation inSouth Africa.33. Considering that the problem of apartheid in South Africa was of the widestinternational concern and that world public opinion should exert all its influence

to support and supplement the efforts of the United Nations, the SpecialCommittee considered it most essential that the United Nations activelyencourage and assist non-governmental organizations to develop their activitiesagainst apartheid.7. Budgetary and other support for theefforts of the Special Committee34. The Special Committeee considered it imperative that adequate provision bemade in the budget for staff, consultants, travel, etc., in order to enable theSecretaryGeneral to provide adequate assistance to the Committee.8. Membership of the Special Coimmittee35. Finally, the Special Committee recalled its reconimendation of 30 November1964 that its memh-ership he enlarged to ensure a wider geographical distrihution.B. ACTION TAKEN BY THE GENERAL ASSi'MIRLYAT ITS TWENTIETH SESSION36. The General Assembly at its twentieth session considered the SpecialCommittee's reports of 17 june and 16 August 1965 (A/5932 and A/5957) and tlereports submitted by the Secretary-General (A/5,50 and Add. 1 and A/6025 andAdd. 1) in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 1978 B (XVIII).37. On 15 December 1965, it adopted resolution 2054(XX), entitled "The Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa".38. Reference may be made to certain other resolutions, relating to the question ofapartheid under other agenda items.39. On 16 December 1965. the General Assembly adopted resolution 2060 (XX)by which it "requested the Secretary-General to organize in 1966, in consultationwith the Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of theRepublic of South Africa and the Commission on Human Rights, an internationalseminar on apartheid...".40. In its resolution 2105 (XX) of 20 December 1965, on the question of theimplementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples, the General Assembly stated that "the continuation ofcolonial rule and the practice of apartheid as well as all forms of racialdiscrimination threaten international peace and security and constitute a crimeagainst humanity".41. On 21 December 1965, the General Assembly adopted the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (resolution2106 (XX)) which, inter alia, stated that the States Parties to that Convention werealarmed "by manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areasof the world and by Governmental policies based on racial superiority or hatred,such as policies of apartheid, segregation or separation", and "particularlycondemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit anderadicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction".42. On 21 December 1965 the General Assembly also decided to take no actionon the credentials submitted on behalf of the representatives of South Africa(resolution 2113 (XX)).C. POSTPONEMENT OF CONSIDERATION

BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL43. It may be recalled that on 2 August 1965, representatives of thirty-two AfricanStates requested' the President of the Security Council to convene a meeting of theCouncil in order to resume consideration of the situation resulting from thepolicies of apartheid of the Republic of South Africa. in the light of the report; ofthe Expert Committee of the Security Council- and the Special Committee(A/5932).44. On 22 November 1965, however, the Foreign Ministers of Liberia.Madagascar. Sierra Leone and Tunisia, who had been authorized by theOrganization of African Unity to represent all African States on this questionbefore the Security Council requested8 the President of the Council to defer theconsideration of the question to a later date in view of the serious situation thenprevailing in Southern Rhodesia and the imiplications it would have on thequestion of apartheid.45. The Security Council has not considered the question of apartheid during theperiod under review.6 Official Records of the Security Contcil, Twentieth Ycar. Supplement for July,August and September 1965, docunitt S/6584.7 Ibid., Special Supplement No. 2.8 Ibid., Supplement for October, November and Decembif 1965, documentS/6964.

Agenda iiD. ACTION BY OTHER ORGANS OF THE UNITED NATIONS46. Reference may be made here to the consideration of the question of apartheidduring the year by other organs of the United Nations. 47. The Special Committeeon the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which is concernedwith the question of S uth West Africa and the colonial problems in SouthernAfrica. has, as in the previous year, adopted a number of decisions andrecommendations relating to the policies of apartheid of the Government of theRenni.lic o South Africa.48. During the past year. the Economic and Social Council and the Commissionon Human Rights have been increasingly concerned with the question ofapartheid and have adopted a number of decisions and recommendations relatingto this question. 49. On 4 March 1966, the Economic and Social Council adoptedresolution 1102 (XL), by which it. inter a/ia, invited the Commission on HumanRights. to consider as a matter of importance and urgency the question of theviolation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racialdiscrimination and segregation and of apartheid in all countries, with particularreference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories, and to sul-mitits recommendations on measures to stop those violations.50. At its twenty-second session (-arc1-.-\ri1 1966). the Commission on HumanRights adopted resolution 2 (XXII) on 25 March 1966, wherehy it. inter alia,requested the Economic and Soca' C,:,uncil to recommend to the GeneralAssembly to urge u'on all States which had not done so to comply with the

relevant General Assembly and Securitv Counci' reqolutions recommending theapplication of economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Republic of SouthAfrica, and to appeal to public opinion and, in particular, to juridical associationsto render assi]4an-e to the victims of the policies of racial discrimin:tion.segregation and apartheid.51. On 1 April 1966. the Commission adopted resolution 5 (XXII) by which it,inter alia, condemned racial discrimination in all its forms wherever it existed andappealed to Member States to take urgent and effective measures for its completeelimination: and requested the Secretary-General to take steps to ensure that thereport of the Seminar on Apartheid was made available to the General Assen;lvwhen it considered. ,t its twenty-first session, questions relating to apartheid andmeasures to implement the United Nti,, .- Dec]ration on the Elimination of AllFn.rm of Rxci ' D,. crimination.52. At its forty-sixth session in July and -\iiiugut 1966, the Economic and SocialCouncil. by reslutior 1146 (XLI) of 2 August 1966. recommended that theGeneral Assembly,. inter alia, condTemn, wherever they existed, all policies andpractices of apartheid. racial discrimination and segregation: recommend to.Mermhior States to initiate, where appropriate, progrmnmes of action toeliminate racial discrimination and aartih,'id. including, in particular, thepromotion of equal opportunities for educational and vocational trainin. andguarantees for the enjoyment, without distinction on the ground of race, colour, orethnic ,'ri'n. of basic human rights such as the rg'it- to vote, to equality in theadministration of Ju-tict, to equaleconomic opportunities and to equal access to So:a% services. The Councilrequested t'.e .to take the necessarv steps to ensure th-.t he rep,-t of the Seminar on Apartheilwas placed at the dp -o z' of the General Assen.' .lv when it examined, at itstventy-first session, qu sz , s relat ng to _partheid and measures for theeli.,iniatr011 of all .' - of r- C: crimination, and th.at the rep ort was madeavailab!to the Council at its :Crev-third se-S.3. By resolutirn 1164 (XLI) of Au-ust 1966. the Council. intc, ahmi.recommended tl ... .h ec Asseni',lv express its deep concern with the na,.vevidence ci persistent rra-tic-- of racial di :- minator. and apartheid in theRepublic of Sour!, Airic. Sout'i. West Africa and other terri,-ie . 1-ch 'rac-:, C-P-tIut'ng. according to Assern lV rez ..ut :-.- 2022 XX 1 and 2674 (XX . crimesagainst nim-anit:.. T'- Asembly was invited to irge all 5:-:t which ha2I n:, vetdone so to comply ;v, its rx: an_ re -,n recommending the aplic-:-ion ofeconon.I, and diomatic measures aast tile Rena,-' .ic o SOUt1,h A':i.a. ,is well ,swith the ;ecuritv C,-,nci' -e-olutions concerning an arms en;,argo aai-nst that c -un:rv. The Assembly was further ;nv:ed to -make an . o -u' lic opinion and inr.iula' t.-, iuridcal and o-tht appro,?rinte orzan:z-t'nn eeryata. . to v:ctinof - olati,'-s of humnan rizT- . in p-.ri -' . c. ;ni r: t pc-licies of racial dis.r-'-r'.lon ;e -aat:r,- and apartheid.F. PROGRA-M_[7. OF WORK OF THE SPECIAL CO:.IM,:TTEE54. The Special Committee met on 9 'March 1966 to consider its prc,ra..me ofwork in the lizh: of the General AssemYy resolution and deveonmen:; in S-tir

Africa. As the appointmert of six alditional members in accordance w-!, razra-3o; G~r'ra' A-senmb'v resolution 2054 A (XX " h! not been etec-ed, the SpecialCommittee deferrr, disct sson of this item as an enlargement of the Comr-tteev'v'd -rn important 1e rit g on tl1e work of e Com:- ite.F. INVITATION TO THE ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN U- NITY5. \t its 69th meeting on 9 March 1-66. the Special Committee noted that. by itsresolution 2011 (XX, of 11 October 1955, the General Assemblv had invited theAdministri-.ive Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) toattend sessions of the General Assemblv as an observer and expressed a desire topromote co-operation between the United Xations and the OAU. On 16December, the Secretary-General had reported' that the Administrative Secretary-General of the OAU had expressed a desire for reciprocal participation in alappropriate bodies.56. In view of the General Assembly resolution. and taking into account the factthat apartheid was a question of the greatest interest to both orzanizations, theSpecial Committee decided to invite the reresentative of the OAU to attend themeetings of the Soecia! Committee a- an observer. oe57, The representative of the OAU thanked the Committee for its invitatinn anddeclared that the OAU had come to the same conclusion as the Special Committeethat the situation in South Africa consti901,-ial PRW,'s ,f ' " n'a. .-'.s "Tuv.rtieth csion, ./it'.r's. agenda item ,n, , d rc,u ent A 617-1.

12 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexestuted a threat to international peace and security and that the problem of apartheidcould be resolved only by applying the measures provided in Chapter VII of theCharter and that universal economic sanctions were the sole means to a peacefulsolution. He pledged the OAU's close co-operation with the Special Committee inthe search for ways to apply the decisive measures that were called for.G. CONSULTATION ., THF. SEMINAR ON APARTHEID58. As noted earlier, following a recommendation by the Special Committee in itsreport of 16 August 1' 65 ( \ '5057), the General Assemibly. in resolution 2060XX), requested the Secretary-General to organize in 1966, in consultation withthe Special Committee and the Commission on Human Rights, an internationalseminar on apartheid.59. During the discussion at the 70th meeting of the Special Committee on 17March 1966, members emphasized that in formulating the agenda of the seminar,provision should be made not only for a comprehensive examination of apartheidand its effects, particularly on international peace and security, but also for athorough discussion of concrete measures for the elimination of apartheid and theachievement of a society free from racial discrimination. They felt that invitationsshould be sent not only to Governments which had supported the decisivemeasures recommended by the Special Committee, but also to the major tradingpartners of South Africa which had so far opposed such measures. Theyemphasized the need to invite representatives of organizations and individualsengaged in the struggle against apartheid. They felt that specialized agencies and

appropriate non-governmental organizations should also be invited to sendrepresentatives to the seminar.60. The Chairman of the Special Committee was authorized, in the light of thediscussion in the Committee and with the assistance of a sub-committee(consisting of the representatives of Algeria, Costa Rica and Malaysia) to consultwith the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights and the PermanentRepresentative of Brazil. Proposals which were formulate]l during theseconsultations (A/AC.115/L.167) were discussed by the Committee at the 71stmeeting on 7 April and the record of the discussions were sent to the Secretary-General so that he might take note of the views expressed by members of theCommittee.H. MESSAGE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCEON SOUTH WEST AFRICA61. The Special Committee received an invitation to attend an internationalconference on South West Africa, held at Oxford. United Kingdom, from 23 to 27March 1966. The Conference was convened by the same sponsoring committeethat had organized the International Conference on Economic Sanctions againstSouth Africa in April 1964 to which the Special Committee had sent a delegationto attend as observers. Several Chiefs of State and Government were patrons ofthe Conference and the list of sponsors included a number of prominent personsfrom various countries.'062. At the 70th meeting on 17 March 1966, the Special Committee decided toaccept the invitation in principle. As it was found not possible to send a dele10For a report on the Conference. see A/AC.IO9L.290.gation, however, the Chairman of the Special Committee sent a message to theConference in which he stated :"In the two decades during which the UnitedNations has considered the situation in South West Africa, the General Assemblyalone has adopted no less than seventy-three resolutions expressing the concern ofMember States for the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the UnitedNations.Neither these resolutions nor the three advisory opinions of the InternationalCourt of Justice have succeeded in persuading the Pretoria regime to abide by itsobligations toward the people of South WestAfrica and the international community."The South African regime has been emboldenedto violate its obligations and defy the United Nations mainly because its tradingpartners and friends, in.cluding some of the great Powers, have been unwilling to join in effectivemeasures to force compliance by that regime with its obligations. It has beenencouraged by the willingness of some Powers to compromise the fundamentalprinciples of selfdetermination of peoples, as reflected for instance in thesuggestion by the 'Good Offices Committee' in 1958 that the possibility ofannexation of part of South West Africa by the South African regime should beinvestigated. It has continued with its criminal policy in the hope that thedecisions of the United Nations will remain toothless so long as certain Powers

are unwilling to match their deeds with their words and the requirements for asolution."'The contentious proceedings instituted by theGovernments of Ethiopia and Liberia before the International Court of Justicewere designed to end the hesitations of these Powers and to confrontthem with a clear-cut choice."Whatever the exact terms of the judgement, thesePowers will soon be faced with the choice-whether they are prepared to take allpeaceful measures, and make the necessary sacrifices, to fulfil the internationalobligation to the people of South West Africa or whether they will prefer theprofitable intercourse with the racist r~gime in South Africa. The world cannotaccept any more excuses for inaction: it will demand that all States take therequisite measures to fulfil the responsibilities of the international community."The people of South lVest Africa are entitled to expect from the internationalcommunity decisive measures to ensure the fulfilment of the sacred trust of theMandate and all assistance to enable them to achieve the rights recognized in theUnited Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and theDeclaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples."The United Nations Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa. of which I have the honour to be theChairman, has repeatedly drawn attention to the grave dangers of racism in'SouthAfrica and recommended adequate measures to resolve the situation. It has calledfor universal economic sanctions against the South African rfgime as the onlyeffective peaceful means for this purpose. I may recall that the InternationalConference on EconomicSanctions against South Africa. held in London in April 1964, made concreterecommendations in this respect.

Agenda item 34 13"The Special Committee has emphasized thatracism in South Africa is not a local aberration but a serious threat to internationalpeace and security.The imposition of the inhuman policy of apartheid on the South West Africanpeople, the collusion of the South African regime with the racist authorities inneighbouring African territories and its plans for preparation of racism in thewhole of Southern Africa show clearly the imperative need to destroy the bulwarkof racism in South Africa without further delay and to promote a non-racialsociety basedon the dignity of man."The support of public opinion all over the world isessential to resolve, as peacefully as possible, this grave situation which threatenspeace in Africa and the world, and which carries the seeds of a disastrous racialconflict."1. STATU,1ENT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON THE CONVICTION OF MR.ABRAM FISCHER, Q.C.

63. On 6 Mav 1966. the Chairman of the Special Committee issued the followingpress statement on the conviction on 4 May 1966 of Mr. Abram Fischer, Q.C.,leader of the defence team in the Rivonia trial and an outstanding opponent ofapartheid :11 "The main 'crime' of Mr. Fischer, in the eves ofthe South African authorities, is his constant and brave fight against that racistr~gime's policies of apartheid. They have not forgiven him for his able defence ofthe accused in the five-year-long treason trial of 1956-1961 in which all 156accused were acquitted. He was also the leader of the defence in the Rivonia trialof Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and others. Persecution by the South Africanauthorities is not new to Mr. Fischer for. as he said in the JohannesburgMagistrate's Court on 24 September 1964:"'I have been harassed by the Special Branchfor the past fourteen or fifteen years.... They have been watching my house,tapping my telephone, my house and office have been raided on a number ofoccasions.... '12"All this was done because he had dared to opposethe inhuman and the cruellest of cruel policies of an authoritarian r~gime. In thishe is not alone. As Mr. Fischer himself said. at the time when he went into hiding,the 2.500 political prisoners being held in South Africa were not criminals but thestaunchest opponents of apartheid. At that time he also pointed out that in SouthAfrica discriminatory laws had multiplied each year. that bitterness and hatred ofthe Government was growing daily, that organizations were outlawed and theirleaders banned from speaking or meeting, that the people were hounded by lawsrequiring them to carry passes, and that torture by solitary confinement and worsehad been legalized by an elected parliament. Mr. Fischerwanted this intolerable system changed."There are hundreds of persons now in SouthAfrica gaoled because of their opposition to this system. They are still in gaol inspite of repeated General Assembly and Security Council resolutions askinz theSouth African Government to grant unconditional release to all political prisonersand to1lMr. Fischer was sentenced to life imprisonment on 9 May 1966.12 The Star. daily, Johannesburg, 24 September 1964.all persons imprisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for havingopposed the policy of apartheid."There are already world-wide repercussions ofMr. Fischer's trial and conviction. The various antiapartheid movements in theworld have made public protests against it. However, the South AfricanGovernment cannot feel secure as long as there are fighters and opponents ofapartheid. Yet the fight against apartheid is gaining strength every day.The United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 2054 (XX) of 20December 1965 firmly supported 'all those who are opposing the policies ofapartheid and particularly those who are combating such policies in South Africa'."Any sentence passed against Mr. Abram Fischerwill be considered by all freedom-loving people as a crime against justice andhuman brotherhood. As I have said earlier, Mr. Abram Fischer is not alone in his

courageous fight: he has with him the conscience of mankind and the sympathy ofthe UnitedNations."j. REPORT OF 29 iNE 1966 BY THE SPECIALCOM MITTEE (A./635664. As indicated earlier, the General Assembly, by paragraph 3 of its resolution2054 A (XX) of 15 December 1965, decided to enlarge the Special Committee bythe addition of six members, to be appointed by the President of the Assembly onthe basis of the following criteria:(a) Primary responsibiiity with regard to world trade;(b) Primary responsibility under the Charter for the maintenance of internationalpeace and security;(c) Equitable geographical distribution.65. On 4 April 1966, the Secretary-General transmitted to the Chairman of theSpecial Committee a letter from the President of the twentieth session of theGeneral Assembly in which he stated that his consultations with Member Stateswith regard to their availability to serve on the Special Committee had notproduced the expected indications in order to select the six additional members ofthe Committee in keeping with the very precise requirements set forth in theresolution of the General Assembly. He also did n:t think that the GeneralAssembly 'resolution had left any room for a selection based on criteria of adifferent nature, not exactly coinciding with those indicated in paragraph 3 of theabove resolution. He added: "Bearing in mind the preceding facts andconsiderations, it appears very tilikel- that any further probing would modify theabove-mentioned situation. Under these circumstances I believe that there is noother choice left but to have this matter re-examined by the General Assembly atit'. next session." (A/AC.l-15/C168.)66, At its 72nd meeting on 14 April the Special Committee authorized itsChairman to convey to the President of the twentieth session nf the GeneralAssembly, through the Secretary-General. its grave concern over the non-implementation of the decision of the General Assembly and authorized himfurther to request that the Member States concerned should be approachedformally by the President of the Assembly and that the Committee be informed ofthe results of that formal approach.

14 General Assemby]%_Twenty-first Session-Annexes67, On 15 June 1966. the Secretary-General transmitted to the Chairman of theSpecial Committee a second letter from the President of the twentieth session ofthe General Assembly (A/AC.115/C.168/ Add.i/Rev.1). In that letter the Presidentof the General Assembly stated that he had made formal approaches as requestedby the Special Committee and that he was still unable to designate the sixadditional members in accordance with the requirements of General Assemblyresolution 2034 A (XX), as fourteen of the nineteen Member States approachedhad by then indicated their unwillingness to be designated as members of theCommittee, and two had not replied. One Member State indicated willingness toserve in the Committee, and two had indicated that such an appointment could be

acceptable provided that some other assumptions, which had not materialized,were fulfilled.1368. The Special Committee considered the situation at its 73rd meeting on 20 June1966 and decided to submit a special report to the General Assembly and theSecurity Council in order to enable all Member States to give due consideration tothe matter and to facilitate appropriate discussions by the General Assembly.69. In its special report adopted unanimously on 29 June 1966 (A/6356). theSpecial Committee dealt with the situation created by the responses of theMember States which had stated their unwillingness to be represented in theSpecial Committee. It commended the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for itspositive response to the request by the President of the twentieth session of theGeneral Assembly which reflected its willingness to co-operate in effectivemeasures to end the policies of apartheid. It considered that the refusal toparticipate in the Committee, particularly of the major trading partners of SouthAfrica, including three permanent members of the Security Council-France, theUnited Kingdom and the United States-which bear a special responsibility onquestions pertaining to the maintenance of international peace and security,constituted a most disturbing precedent and had grave implications. Such refusal,furthermore, would seriously undermine the authority and prestige of the UnitedNations as an international forum for harmonizing the attitudes of Member Statesand for resolving international conflicts by peaceful means. This refusal alsorepresented, on the part of the Powers concerned, an unwillingness to join notonly in effective action to remove the threat to international peace and security,but even in earnest discussion to harmonize any differences in attitudesconcerning appropriate measures, and a most serious situation was thereforecreated which must require the urgent attention of the General Assemblv.70. The Special Committee considered it essential to state its view that if thatattitude reflected a hostility by the Powers concerned to effective peacefulmeasures provided in Chapter VII of the Charter to resolve the situation, they borea tremendous responsibility for the alternative of a violent conflict which couldnot but have the gravest repercussions on international peace and on the course ofhistory. It therefore once again appealed to those Powers to reconsider theirattitudes and facilitate effective peaceful action under the auspices of the UnitedNations. It expressed13 Subsequently. another Mcmner State conveyed it. inability to participate in theCommittee.the hope that other Member States and world public opinion would persuade thosePowers to take such a course.71. The Special Committee further considered it essential to state that, if themajor trading partners of the Republic of South Africa, in particular the greatPowers among them, persisted in their unwillingness to take effective economicmeasures to help resolve the situation in that country, it feared that Member Statesmight be obliged to reassess their approaches to the solution of the problem andseriously consider other appropriate and decisive measures, as they could notpermit the continued deterioration of the explosive situation in view of its graveinternational dangers.

K. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 10AUGUST 196572. After the adoption of the special report of 29 June 1966 (A/6356), the SpecialCommittee resumed consideration of the developments concerning the policies ofapartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa with a view to thepreparation of a report to the General Assembly and the Security Council.73. The Special Committee was particularly concerned with the effects of thesepolicies on the adjacent territories in southern Africa. It took note of twodevelopments during the period, namely, the judgement of the International Courtof Justice with respect to South West Africa14 and the granting of a loan to aSouth African company. After the conclusion of the Seminar on Apartheid, theSpecial Committee considered the conclusions and recommendations of theSeminar with a view to taking them into account in the Committee's report to theGeneral Assembly.74. The consideration of these matters by the Special Committee is indicated herevery briefly, as the results of the Committee's considerations are more fullyreflected in the following sections of this report.I. Examination of the policies of apartheid of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa, with particular reference toadjacent territories insouthern Africa75. The Special Committee gave particular attention to the effect of the apartheidpolicies of the South African Government on adjacent territories in view ofincreasing evidence, as foreseen by the Special Committee, of the wider dangersof failure to take decisive action to secure an abandonment of apartheid.76. Members of the Committee noted that South Africa continued to impose itsracist policies on the Mandated Territory of South West Africa in violation of thesacred trust of the international community and its own obligations towards theinhabitants. The situation in that Territory demanded urgent action by theinternational community.77. The South African Government had also provided crucial support to theillegal minority racist r~gime of Southern Rhodesia in open violation of theresolutions of the Security Council. It was increasing its collaboration with thePortuguese Government, which was continuing a colonial war in Mozambiqueand Angola in contempt of the resolutions of the General Assembly and theSecurity Council.14 South If'est Africa, Second Phose. Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6.

Agenda item 34 1!7S. Moreover, the South African Government had :nterer:e- un :ze !::era:m. :f .rsof Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. denied them the right of free transit andsought to control their destinv. The independence and territoria' integrit- of thesecountries was in great danger because of the desire of the South African regime to:n:egra te them into the apartheid system.79. Apartheid was no longer merely a domestic policy of South Africa. butthreatened the entire region. The Sout. African Government zouaht to retain :he

neighbouring territories in subjection in order to saferaard the continuance ofracism in South Africa. and had :herebv r zqravated the threat tn the peace beyondit- borderz. The problems created by colonialism and racism in .r:,uhern Aicawere inc-eacsing'v intertwined and acti:,n to root out this danger had to be takenwith no further delav.2. Jzd;;",:cnt of ;:c raficnn! Court of fustice wiith rc,.ect to South lFest Africa80. The Special Committee took note with disapoointment and regret of theJudzement of 18 July )k bv the In-e-national Court of TusticeU' in thecontentious pr-ceedings instituted by Ethiopia and Liberia concerning :heviolation Lv the South A fican Government of - mandate over South West Africa.81. Members noted that the Court had, by the cast:rg vote of it President.dismissed the case on a technical point and had avoided dealing with t-e substanceof the complaint.82. They affirmed that the judgement did not in any way affect the earlieradvisory opinions of the Court, nor the interest and the resoonsibi'litv that theUnited Nations had in the future of South \Vet Africa. Indeed. it wa s ,ne to totkevigorous action, in line with :he reso!utionz of the General Assemblv and therecom.endations of the Special Committee, to end the deiance M,- :he SouthAfrican Government and to secure the fufi!ment of the richt of the people ofSouth West Africa to independence..3. Stat.-wcnt 'v the CIa:'rn'.n on a loan by the International D7anik to a SouthAfrican company83. At the 79-h meeting on 2 Aazust 1966, the Special Committee took note of theannouncement on 29 July18 of the approval by the International Bank forReconstruction and Deve!orrent o" a loan of S20 Hion to the South AfricanEl'ectricity Supply Comm:ission (ESCOM,. despite the recommendation of thepec~a' Committee in its rerort of 16 August 1965 th suc assi-tance be &nied toSouth Africa (see A 595-7. paa. 171 and in violation of the decision of theGeneral Assemb'v. in paragraph 10 of resolution 2054 A (XX), inviting thespecialized agencies to take the necessarv- steps to deny technical and economicassistance to the ":.u-h African Government. The Commnte auteorized theChairman to issue a press statement, on its beha'f, expressing its indignation at theaction of the In:ernztiona! Bank. The statement read as folows :"According to a ,res release issued at Headquarters on 29 Julv 196-6, theInternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development has approved a kanesuiva'en to 520 million to the South African Electrici:y Supp'y Commission(ESCOM . Accord:ng to the Bank's announcement, the loan will be15 1.- .,4. .'" 'Ca.%. Press Pesear IB 7%. 29 79 '. 15.guaranteed by the Government of the Republic ofSouth Africa.Since its establishment the International Bankfor Recons truction and Development has made eleven loans to South Africa,totai;ng S241.8 million. The irst group of :oans. seven in number, were givendirectly to the Government of South Africa. The second group of loans weregiven to the Electricity Supply- Commi-sion w:th South Africa as a guarantor.

"It might be recalled here that the Special Committee, in its last annual report of10 Auzu-t 1965 had recommended that all international agencies, in particu!ar thesrec~a'ze d agencies, including the international Bank fr Reconstruction andDevelopment and the International Monetary Fund. should take all necessarysteps to deny all ec,,no:nic as,isan,-e to the Government of South Africa withoutprecluding, however, humanitarian assistance to the victims of apartheid. On thebasis of that recommendation, the General Asem'v in ,perative pararaph 10 of itsresolution 2054 A (XX) invitedtue specialized agencies:a To take the necessary steps to deny technical and economic assistance to theGovernment of South Africa, without, however, interfering with huianitarianassistance to the victims of the policiesof apartheid;" '(b) To take active measures, within their fieldsof c ,inpetence, to compel the Government of SouthAfrica to abandon its racial policies;"'(c To co-operate with the Special Committeein the imp'ementation of its terms of reference.'"'While most of the specialized agencies have extended their co-operation in thatrespect, it is a matter of great regret that the International Bank had decided togive another loan to South Africa in violation of the appeal contained in theGeneral Assembly resolution 2054 A iXX). Moreover, it seem; that tthe decisionof the International Bank was no: taken until the ,iudgement of the InternationalCourt f Tus'ice concerning South West Africa had been rendered. This showsonce more that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development islending its support to a r6gime who se criminal policies of apartheid have beenuniversal!v condemned, by generously rewarding it witha 20 "million !oang"On behalf of the members of the Special Comnittee I wou'd like to expressprofound indignation at the conno icitv of the Bank with the torturers ofthe African people."4. Considr';.oIn Of the conchlsions and recomniendations of thle Seminar onAtartheldS4. Member; of the Special Committee expressed satitaction at the work of theSeminar on apartheid held a: Brasi'ia from 23 August to 4 September (A'6412 .T- S-m':ar had renznr.d Theance of the work of the Special Committee and favoured an expansion ot its rolein a more vigorous United Na-ion; -truzze azaint apartheid. The recommendationsof the S-rrinar were entirely in conformity with the pa-t recommendations of theSpecial Committee." Thev nrted ti-at the Seminar had stressed that the United Nations had afundamental interest in combatting the doctrine of apartheid and should find,

General Assemnbly Twenty-first Session-Annexesas a matter of urgency, ways and means for its elimination. It had recognized, asthe Special Committee did, that the South African Government had challenged the

United Nations bv launching an oqensive in the neighbouring territories insouthern Africa. It had called for political, moral and material support to thoseopposing apartheid.86. The Special Committee decided to take all the conclusions andrecommendations of the seminar into account in the preparation of its report to theGeneral Assembly and the Security Council. It requested the Secretary-General toensure the widest distribution of the recommendations of the Seminar as a matterof urgency.L. 'ORK OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON PETITIONSAND THE HEARING OF PETITIONERS87. The Sub-Committee on Petitions submittedseven reports during the period under review (A/ AC.115/L.149,A/AC.115/L.163, A/AC.115/169, A/ AC.115/173. A/AC.115/174 and Rev. 1,A/AC.115/ L.178 and A/AC.115/L.180). These drew the attention of the SpecialCommittee to communications received from various non-governmentalorganizations and individuals concerning the policies of apartheid of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa. It decided to publish a number ofcommunications as documents of the Committee and draw attention to others inits reports. On the recommendation of the Sub-Committee, the Special Committeeheard two petitioners: Miss Mary Benson on 6 July 1966 and Mr. Franz J. T. Leeon 14 September 1966,1. Communications published as documents of the Special Committee. The following communications were published as documents of the SpecialCommittee:(a) Letter dated 7 July 1965 from Mir. Theodore E. Brown, Director of theAmerican Negro Leadership Conference on Africa (A/AC.115/L.150),transmitting the text of a resolution which had been adopted unanimously at theannual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of ColoredPeople. The resolution condemned the evil and oppressive racist policies of theRepublic of South Africa, the continuation of which would lead inevitably toviolence and bloodshed and possible escalation into world conflict. Itrecommended that the United States Government, in accordance with therecommendations by the Special Committee, "take steps to encourage economicand political disengagement from South Africa. and discourage, if not prohibit,further United States investments and loans to South Africa". It alsorecommended that the United States Government grant political asylum to SouthAfrican political refugees and put an end to all sporting and cultural exchangesbetween South Africa and the United States.(b) Letter dated 16 August 1965, from Mr. Mlaindv Msimang, Director of theBureau of African Affairs of the African National Congress of South Africa, Dares Salaam (A/AC.115/C.151). The petitioner drew the attention of the SpecialCommittee to the deplorable conditions in South African gaols and called uponthe United Nations, the International Red Cross and the Organization of AfricanUnity to appoint a joint commission to investigate the situation. He also calledupon the Security Council to enforce the UnitedNations resolution on the release of all South African political prisoners.

(c) Letter dated 20 August 1965, from Mr. Ian Henderson, Executive Officer ofthe Defence and Aid Fund, London (A/AC.115/L.152), transmitting a list of thenames of 614 children of convicted political prisoners in South Africa and theamounts required to provide for their educational needs. Mr. Henderson statedthat the list was only partial, as many more cases were being investigated.(d) Letter dated 22 April 1966 from the Reverend Canon L. John Collins,Chairman of the Defence and Aid International Fund for Southern Africa (A/AC.115/L.172), expressing appreciation for the statement made by the Chairmanof the Special Committee on the banning of the South African Defence and AidFund and drawing attention to certain facts which substantiate the Chairman'sdeclaration that the reasons adduced by the South African Minister of Justice forthe banning of the Fund were slanders.(e) Letter dated 7 June 1966 from Miss Mary Benson, a South African writer(A/AC.115/L.175/ Rev.1), transmitting the text of the statement from the dockmade by Mr. Abram Fischer, Q.C. who had been sentenced to life imprisonment.Mr. Fischer stated that he was on trial for his political beliefs and for the conductto which those beliefs had driven him. He said that if there was an appearance ofcalm in South Africa today, it was a false appearance induced by fear. The policestate did not create real calm or induce any genuine acceptance of a hated policy.All it could achieve was a short-term period of quiet and a longterm hatredculminating in extreme violence and bloodshed. There was a strong and evergrowing movement for freedom and f.r basic human rights among the non-Whitepeople of South Africa, who constitute four fifths of the population ; it wassupported not only bv the whole of Africa but by virtually the whole membership-,f the United Nations. Ho.vever complacent and indifferent white South Africamight be, that movement could never be stopped. In the end it must triumph. Thequestion for the future was not whether the change would come but whether itwould be brought about peacefully and what the position of the white man wouldbe in the period immediately following the establishment of democracy-after theyears of cruel discrimination, oppression and humiliation which he had imposedon the non-White peoples of South Africa. In conclusion, Mr. Fischer stated thatonly contact between the races could eliminate suspicion and fear, and breedtolerance and understanding. All the conduct with which he had been charged hadbeen directed towards maintaining contact and understanding between the races.If one day it might help to establish "a bridge across which white leaders and thereal leaders of the non-White can meet to settle the destinies of all of us bynegotiation and not by force of arms. I shall be able to bear with fortitude anysentence which this court may impose on me."(fI Memorandum dated 6 August 1966 from Ir. Robert H. Langston. ExecutiveSecretary of the Alexander Defense Committee, New York (A:/AC.115/ L.179),concerning certain cases of political persecttion in South Africa and the work ofthe Committee in aiding the victims of persecution. The Alexander DefenseCommittee thanked the Special Committee for its work and pledged to aid it inevery possible way to make the American public conscious of the apartheidtyranny.

Agenda item 34 17(g) Letter dated 1 September 1966 from Mr. DennisBrutus, Chairman of the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee(A/AC.11 5/L.181), describing his personal experience in South African prisonsand prison conditions in general in South Africa. Mr.Brutus who had recent:y arrived in the United Kingdom from South Africa. wherehe had sen-ed a prison sentence and had been placed under house arrest for hisopposition to apartheid, added that he had seen in South African gaols bruta'i-yand injustice on a massive scale. often in direct contravention of the regulationswhich the prison officials the-'.seYves had devised, He also stated that it was amatter of the utmost urgency that the conscience of the w:rd be roused on thisissue and that method; be consideredto bring that state of affairs to an end.(h) Letter dated 2 Sertember 19. 6 from Mr.Matthew Nkoana. Department of Publicity, PanAfricanist Conzress Su thAfrica'. European Branch.London (A AC.,1I L.1S 2. tranz:nui:ng a memorandum on the arrest of Mr.John N-at: Pokela. a leader of the PAC. who had sought asylum in Basutoard(Lesotho) in 1962. Mr. N.oana stated his belief that 'Mr. Pokela had been k-idnapped in Maseru. Basutoland. by the South African Police in col'usion with theTerritory's adm-nistrat:on and the Britizh Gv,'-rnment. He added that immediateaction b the - ,ecia! Committee in an" inT dilrhatic r and mobilizinginternational orinion and generally drawina attention to 'Mr. Pc':ela's , 'd be £re-V appreciated by the Pan-Africanist Concressit(i) Letter dated 14 Seat-_ytber1966 from Mr. Barney Desai. Secretariat of Foreizn Affairs. PanAfricanistConaress (Azaniai. London (A AC.115/ L.186) transmitzinz affidavits stating that'Mr. Pokela had been assaulted and abducted fr.om Basutoland by armed SouthAfrican nolicemen and arce:' nz for immediate action to secure his re'ea-e "2. Hezring of Ifiss Mar' Bensa. 6 July 1o6689. Mi:- Benson, a v.riter who had returned from South Africa after sptendinzsixteen months there, told the Special Committee that while ce-tain changes mightbe achieve.: frm......Sou h i-a itself, the calamitous situation in that country couldn-vs- be radically reformed from within. The trantr-rmrat:on of South Africa intoa ccountrv with policies bene-tinz" all its races vw-tho'- ricr naio :uld cer:.-nlvrequire the intenenion c external forces Since the Africans in the country.although -e:- zreat outnumbered the Whites. were already crn n d b ;evereadministrative restrictions and the,- ie-de v.e-e being imprisoned. banished orexecu-d "- never they seemed to threaten the stctu quo. : e. '-eretore. called forthe arplcatio- of economic sanctions. carefully planned and carried through by althe great Powers. in order to avoid the " r reen- ever :ntensifying ofpre~son andinevitable n of socie-"relaasjngr into race violence nece.s x military intervention.90. To those sympathetic with the non-White cause in South Africa. who feltimpatient and let down fecause there had been seeming.y so !lite action andcounter-violence to the violence of the State inside 'rAt its PrOth meeting. on 14eptent-er I,:. t'e Sote:a, Conitni-tee decAc d to dna; the ate-o- ,he 0e'tee on the

Situatnon with read To e Im-,7emr.Iazn C., the Declara*i ,n on -he Grant. l&..... to C~oi.aCountries and Peo;pes see AiAC (6-L 204).South Africa. she emphasized that there had been no lack of in:yidua, couragea:.:.ig the r gime's opponen:s but that. faced - hh the armed might of anexceptional>1y rich. hig-h23 industrialized and heavilyar-'-. - :.-er ?-L r : e c:zazt "to sacr:ncef:lIowers in possibly reck'esi acts".91. Miss Bnsr.n de-cibed the ceaseless policehrassment and political trias olf Africans taking place ;n Couh Africa (;ee annexII. para. 139). her own experence under the ho'-e arrest order Er ed on her on 15Fc'ruarv 106 n,-d drew attention to the p';ht of 5GWC Stu-h'AiCanz v.-h, werebanned or pnacedun2r houte arrest tro- onr.-.i: n to ararthid.... is-Ben Sd t the pic-ure drawn ofouth A-:ica as a model of .. - and 'an,- order" was onr a:'r_.artn. he ointed out that last Oc-ober "we had a zhast,'"gin of what seethes below. There was a train cahi .-nd of those montrcu:sR- oxer-pacl:ed trainlt-_ad of African vorker-in whic, in a-l. 91 .irrcans were 1 ed. Theenraged survivtrs turned on the first white man they saw. who in fact was comingto thi.r aid, and battered him to death".93. Viev,-ing South Africa as a microcosm of the world in its races, its p:i:icalbeliefs. and i 7.ei, us division into haves and have-er es. she said that if noconstructve sol0ution of the dead'- impsse was found soon. it was hard to see howth- world could ioe to survive.94. She reed to tvo immediate ctnr;ructve cpIPortun--t r to meet the situation: theUnited Nation; Broormr,, 7r the Education and Training Abroad o u,- A-7±cn-.whichrezre-b- emed to haveven-- Irareg-- e resources. and tL-e o:'n7tunitv to aroVide sL pasib e assistance t-,the Hizh Comumission Territ:rie; a- ti-er advanced to independence.95. Cc--r-A- the S5eci, Cm'ittee she said that South trican leaders St-ugg -ncag inst acartheid were ar-e-, tr work n 2trc4 n_ itsdntcul c, earne-nv IopeA zi at it would not tire, nor be d'sherpened by -he a uesof the maor trading par'tnr- Of S-u.b Africa ant tht unconcern of the Press. Seadedz-. s C 'u - in N :,'7 Comnittee feel dubiouof the value of the United Natrs; efforts, I hope you w-l' re7.eM -- rvo b .nV . Theis t tt. without L w. -ud Ure not have'ten such has been made: uclz a; thebans. even hr: A-er:Ca and Britain, on arms to 4.ruth Air:a the c0r>-uc-ie movessuch as the educati-n fund. for which. ot course. >canc:i--avaneer.e r-eat cro!: anc a-'-. a ze:,ral advance in;o in rec. .rds -ut e'- ;a v .@ 5: t s ! .: of105 natonc-n- on South' AfiCa ro release c':litica r:r>-ner Witheout you the'Asern Povers mizht we!l sn, back. And th- fa l rnt ou produce are y~r:ved t,be valuab'e b; tLe II"'h

A.:can Cover~ren:s rapid exp.Nion'ot is cosily:n:orr.t-tn services"3. Hcr-ing ci .'s- Fr:,: 1. T. Lee. Sc:x,;; yr 14.1o696. Mr. Franz T. T. Lee. a 5,uth A'rc writerand 'ec-urr-. s-ted t he c-nidered unwarranted the v ide!y sread beYi tt -e -h-a- -n rnoe ...nt within S-nuth Africa hadbeen crushed and that it was no ncer realistic to excrect :he cn-riszed peples cSouth Africa to rise andput an en- o e

18 General Aserbly-Twenty-first Session-Annexestyranny and oppression of apartheid. This despair in racial conflict. They haveproceeded to dispossess the the ability of the South African masses, he stated, hadoverwhelming majority of the people of South Africa "nurtured the idea that onlyoutside intervention can of its legitimate rights in the country and closed allprevail against that tyranny.". It had been hoped that avenues for peaceful changeso that international action economic sanctions or the threat of armed interven-or a violent conflict remained as the only means to tion would compel SouthAfrica to modify its racial secure the fulfilment of the purposes of the Charter.policies. The historical record, however, made all such 101. The SpecialCommittee concluded, in the light hopes appear Utopian. Neither the States whichwere of its study of the evolution of the situation and the in a position to bringpressure to bear on South Africa. realities in South Africa, that "the situation canonly nor the international bodies in which those same States be resolved, short ofviolent conflict, by international possessed great influence, had the slightest realinterest measures designed unmistakably to convince the white in significantlymodifying the conditions under which population of South Africa that theinternational conthe non-Whites of South Africa lived. munity cannotpermit the continuation of the present97. The reason for this state of affairs was not hard policies and that a change ofcourse towards complito determine. At the end of 1962, foreign investment ancewith the obligations under the Charter is imperain South Africa amounted to$4.222 billion, 60 per tive and urgent" (ibid., para. 108). It reiterated itscent of it British and 11 per cent American. In the firm conviction thatmandatory and universal economic same year. the ratio of average net profit to networth sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations for United States firmsoperating in South Africa was Charter were the most appropriate and effectivepeace25 per cent. Ninety-nine per cent of mining capital, 94 ful measures whichcould be taken under United Naper cent of industrial capital, 88 per cent offinance tions auspices to prevent a conflict which was bound capital, and 75 percent of commercial capital was con- to have grave international consequences.trolled by foreign investors. To expect the home 102. The Special Committeeemphasized that thecountries of these investors to impose sanctions on primary responsibility forthe failure of the efforts of South Africa was to expect them to impose sanctionsthe United Nations rested on the major trading part. on themselves.ners of South Africa,is including three of the perma98. Mr. Lee said that in spite

of the most intense nent members of the Security Council-France, thepersecution, the liberation movement in South Africa United Kingdom and theUnited States-which, by had grown not only larger but also tougher and moretheir opposition to timely and decisive action by the resilient. He believed thatthere was a very real pros- United Nations and by their increasing economiccolpect of revolution in South Africa and that the forces laboration with the SouthAfrican Government, enwhich would bring about that revolution had beencouraged the latter to persist in its disastrous course.developing for more than thirty years. He believed 103. The conclusions ofthe Special Committee werethat only through mass actions and the mobolization endorsed by anoverwhelming majority of Member of the oppressed peoples around a correctprogramme States in General Assembly resolution 2054 (XX) of could themonstrous system of apartheid be over- 15 December 1965. In that resolution,the Generalthrown. Assembly deplored the actions of thoseStates which99. In this connexion, he referred to a group of through political, economic andmilitary collaboration organizations which had clustered around the Unity withthe South African Government, were encouragMovement of South Africa, whichhad been estab- ing it to persist in its racial policies. It appealed tolished at the initiative of the All-African Convention, XThe South Africanoflicial statistics on the direction of a permanent federation of organizations inSout trade for the period January-October 1965 list the followingAfrica founded in 1935. The All-African Convention trading parners:and the Unity Movement, both of which adhered to a programme demanding fulldemocratic rights and to a policy of absolute non-collaboration with theoppressors and total self-reliance of the oppressed in their struggle, hadrecognized that the migratory peasantworkers were the key to the coming SouthAfrican revolution. A political party, the African Democratic Union of SouthernAfrica, had been formed in 1961 to organize the masses.Il1. New diniensions of the problem of apartheid100. Reviewing the evolution of the situation in the Republic of South Africa, inits report of 16 August 1965 (A/5957). the Special Committee noted that theconstant intensification of racist oppression in that countr:,, during the twodecades since the founding of the United Nations, had created an explosivesituation which could not but have grave international consequences. Ignoring thenumerous appeals by the United Nations and world public opinion to seek apeaceful solution in conformity with the principles of the Charter, the SouthAfrican authorities have attempted to perpetuate racial domination by force at thethreat and, indeed, the inevitability of a violentI ". ortj Exrportifnto fromS t;. SouthCo,,ntry I A frica Total(In millions of rand).

Unitel kingdni 4'8 293 711United States 239 76 36Federal Republic of Germany Io, 39 203Japan S S 60 149Italy 62 29 91Belgium 20 46 66France 41) 24 63Canada 42 15 57Netherlands I1 17 48Sweden .215 6 31Switzerland 25 6 31Australia i 7 10 261tong Kong 10 8 19Ceylon 13 1 14Austria 10 2 12Spain 3 8 itNew Zealand 9 I 11Denmark 6 2 8Finland 6 1 7Brazil 7 0 7Norway 7Portugal 3 3a A rand is equivalent to 10 shillings or $1.40. Figures will not necessarily add tototals because of rounding.

Agenda item 34 19South Africa's major trad'ng parme-s to cease their increasir.g econ:mc cc-ss':wa:h t½ 5ou;h African Government. as such co .ab.-,ation encouraged thatGovernment to dev -wor'd cpnion and accelerate the inplernentation 0: r.e ,.ies ofap.ted. The Assembr alo drev.- tXe aiten'on of :- C,:un§c;' tothe fact that the i ~n t A-rica constitutes athre::to internar:ona' re.c . - curwv that ,ti,:n under C½:er VII of the Churr-r wasesen:ia! in order to sn're the prrb'em cf a..ar-h:d and ta- unirersaf'...r : =«-Iie.econ:,n:ci snct:o¢n_ :'ete the ,on'v.eans of i -ecef 'Yut-.104. TI!: S-ecia! Commi:tee notes with di.-res. that, during the --.st vear. the i -ternatona. c:runit-vhas f1iled to take - c tive -otin because of the continued ....i....._ o the or trading partrers of South A frica tt s"no-- cuch lctitfn. As a're_':r,tht C:.-n in the Repub c of _.th Africa deteriorated e7ts In:ern.fna e- c.tr:cv'.rh- on theneag½rouring terri:r!-4 -u't '-es- Africa. S.:urhr .u_,_a Et:''a.-_ and .-'-hare as'umed gr-ve- r-or:rc as -th Specia. C=r'nee had te .... . r!c:. The S-eci Com ee e-:s h ra.e........'en-. . -tn4s r .he ra-: rea- ca1 r areassessrren-: -h 4e 8iut-ti:n and'a z c-,, Cs ;-ion of :e re ns ---- secure an end -a"atoLe å In -der to faci!a: c reaSsesment and d:;cu.;;., the Co.-.:ntmr 55-._z_to dra'.:" the a tin he Gener' Assemb,- J1 ' '- Ccno;: ro cerr e1Ma.

asecu - of the recent deve:r:ents and to -u _r ~Oc~t-r-lrc r.-'-e<ct.x-e a-d u' , X.d- 1< L~ karnon tr sr, z-e 'he r-r et.A. A YEkR OF INACTION BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL106. Desv:e Cenra. As .,.v re_-'uution 21XX ado:ed by an o,'erv,'e'ming ma:orL-.c crev,- tt; --en---n tol th reat to .nr .ona'peacand secun, -""-- f-;, -'-e rr of: u _.t- ...... ... -c,-----n . the Sec'K : Councilrl_ no- conzidr-ed :-e sa:-on during the -a;, vear. Inded. the Counc' has n d:uczed the -raäer -rce : d ed res'" .- e '--4, on 18 -:e 1'-4cvrn =nt. -n -. be'- .-. .. . .. ' c #; is ! vit t{cn "-o .-- ce -ha'-' .... "a!l -lie-::e o- South Airca z'-ou'd ,b,:-: h- -nc on-'lflo and zhr-l'd: be en'-!Yd c . decidethe .....r- C: ther countrv a- Le natn ,a" et -, and ,ho h Lbe rt.rt of the Co-mitteeest_-.-,pd hv thares c.t-nn to ztudv reasures which co.'d be ta.ken br the Counc »1'. becen bef.:e it since M_-rch 1965.107. T'e S-ecia1 Commi-t-e canno-t bu note that th- 'ong deas 'in deang with thc r-tter. the urgenov and zrav ; "" vn:cn are unrversaM.v recognized. due t& the: u-i . n"s of the rnicr t-d:nz arnerz ot Mu:t A-rcz s---'cujrl;-v :r ern--en': rrrrbers.-e '-ecuri., Counc:' to as-u-': 'er -e-r-ni'--ii:{esand to rake e zWe act:on in accordance with the Charter.1QO. The Srec-' Co.rm.tte=. in ts renort -f -19 Tne 1_5 A '356, on the non-im:.e-.en-ati n of the G- . .- decision : en' a-g the Commitee' mer-be-:, hasalreadv exreserd regret tha--es majr - .- d' _in-e4e or :_n partners were unw.ing ro-..v . .. -::-- a.nc- -r reme the threa-s to:'ern-in-l. peace and 'ecuri-v, bu- even in earnest é¼zcusji-n to harmonized:fýerenccs amon- Menlber Statec in atirudes concerning arnropriate rneazures.It -tated ti at this had created a most serious situation which must require theurgent attentikn of the General A-szen-lI-.109. The Soecial Comn;it:ee a'so "ntes in this connexin that, c,':I-. he 5ou,: -African Goernment has been wifur'v def ing the S:curitv Council resolutions onthe tra- s -arn in _ uf.ern Rhod-sia. thesePower 5-ave been unv:d!ing to surport action to stop such deflance. On 9 April196,. for instance, an amendent hr Mali Nigeria an, Uganda "to callthe G.f Sounh Africa to take all 'I.easurec necessarv to prevent the supplv of oil toSuther:: Rhodesia" was not ad,{rted by the SecuritC:,unci! eoase »": theabctentions of eight members ,China. France, Tarn. Ne.h.rland_. New Zealand,Uni.ted Kl-nr, i:,::..'Uniti -:':e- ana Lr'-g-:a< (9;,2.? Mar 1-'r a Iraf: re- ' : ov ,hose three t<te which, inter alfa, called for theimplementation O :e S-ouri'.v Council reolu:ion- on Southern RL,:d-esi bv :-eSouth Afr-can Government, was not ad..-t- b t Council because of one negativevote and - - btentionsz PIlE. In the mean:mrre, the major trading partners ot South A-ica hare defed theGeneral Assembi- and ser':rt- Council rePo1,tio:-s and con-inued to increasethimlr-a- and economic cnllab:raton with the S.uth African Government.

111. Evcn the arms enbarg), cal'cd for by the SeCU- _YCouni' in 1963 and 15Y4.has not vet been fullv' in-icr:ed in the annex to this repor. The -ca' C--m-"ite notes ws-it' grave concernthe reports concerning the supply of mi!itarv equipment to So:'- ca. :.- byFrance: the as-istancetrom It- 'v in the nanut.c-ure of aircraft. as well as the ttan-er of technical a.-,.ss:stnce from the 'United Kingdom f,-'that ra.e: and the a:zzis-tsnce, throughcce;an.ca. ?n( :r-- countries in the deverorrent of the muntions industrv.112. Th- ecornomic olaboration of a number of co',:ntries wit 5 rhAfrica hascontinued unabated. south Afric's tra-de has ur,:zre;sed further. Capital nvot.ent :nS,'uth Afica ,-rticularlv from the Uni-ed Kinzd,-t. U-!:ed 5tares, France and theFederal Re-:Y:c of Germanv has .real- increased. The So:ith African Gternment -nd South African com.an:'s hare rece:ved sub-tanti new: loans from Franec. theFede-ra Reprub'ic of Germant- and Sss'tzer'and.1,3. The Svecia! Committee, moreover. was obliged to note w-:h -ck- and indizn-tion that the g::onal Bank - R.tnstructin and Des-el-prnent had-r- --a !oan of S20 n:i'.i.n to the Eectrici- Supp Corporation of Sru-h Africa in uh-1965. in -v:oatn of rh- .- - of General" A'.sembh- resolution20IZ A (XX,.114, Enoo.razed by such c.l2 'Ucration and assistance, t-:e 5-uth Africn auttoritiescontinued to pursue their disastrous policies with scant respect for the re;cr'trns ofthoe General Assernblr and for world pub!ic o'union.B. AGGRA5VATION OF TIE S'r7-ATIOx INSIDE SOUTfl AFRiCA115. As noted in the annex to this report. the Souh -African Government has,during the past year,Y Nt- Ze'ard ,:-ted a-ainst. The fCUv-' abstaincd: Argect ra. C.ina, France.Japan. Netherlans Unitej Kingdom. V'e? Sa-cs and tr:va.

20 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexesnot only continued to implement its racial legislation and policies, but has takenfurther discriminatory steps of an extraordinary nature such as the new bill whichprohibits universities from discriminating against any society or individual whopractises and preaches discrimination.116. It has further intensified repression against opponents of apartheid and iswreaking vengeance on them. Indefinite imprisonment without trial, solitaryconfinement and ill-treatment in prison, arbitrary banishment and house-arrest,trials and harsh sentences under racist laws and mass removals of communitieshave become normal features in the administration of South Africa.117. The Government seeks to intimidate the great majority of the people. withthe power of the armed white minority and the ruthlessness of repression ofopposition, and to decide the destiny of the country by itself according to its owndiabolic plans. The millions who are oppressed are denied any possibility to seekchange by peaceful means.118. As Mrs. Helen Joseph, a social worker who has endured much persecutionand four years of house arrest for her opposition to apartheid, wrote recently:

"Today, all channels of negotiation between whiteand non-white are closed. The leaders of the African people are imprisoned,outlawed and silenced; the Government is even more determined to suppressall opposition to its apartheid policies."I can no longer be confident of there being apeaceful solution. I only know that the patience of the non-white people is beingstrained beyond endurance."20,119. By its ruthlessness, the Government is fanning racial animosities. risking thegrowth of a spirit of revenge among the victims of its oppression and greatlyaggravating the danger of violent resistance.C. THREAT TO ADJACENT TERRITORIES120. Moreover, in order to reinforce and defend the racist policy of apartheid, theSouth African Government has increasingly interfered in neighbouring territoriesto promote the perpetuation of colonial and racist ni nority governments and tohinder the development of non-racial societies. It has thereby challenged theUnited Nations and aggravated the explosive situation in southern Africa.121. The ability of the South African Government to pursue policies of racialdiscrimination, in defiance of world opinion, has encouraged the minority inSouthern Rhodesia to follow its example. Moreover the collaboration of theseminority racist forces with Portuguese colonialism, directed against the legitimatestruggle of the peoples of the area for independence, equality and human dignity,represents a grave threat to the peace of Africa and to race relations in general.122. The South African Government has openly defied the decisions of theSecurity Council designed to quell the rebellion bv the illegal racist minorityregime in Southern Rhodesia and provided it with vital assistance.123. It has steadilY strengthened its links with the Portuguese Government whichis engaged in colonial wars in Angola, Mozambique and so-called PortugueseGuinea.20 Helen Joseph, Tomorrow's Sun, London, 1966.124. Its policies with respect to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, designed tointegrate them into a bantustan framework, have posed a threat to theindependence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of these territories and causedgrave concern to the United Nations (see General Assembly resolution 2143(XXI)).125. It has sought to promote the development of a string of friendly anddependent States in Africa, tied to it in a "common market", in order to facilitatethe perpetuation of racism in South Africa and frustrate the fulfilment of thepurposes of the United Nations Charter in the region.126. It continues to implement the policies of apartheid in the Mandated Territoryof South West Africa where it seeks by force to deprive the indigenousinhabitants of half the territory of their homeland, to relocate them into tribalreserves and to deny them the right to genuine independence. The report of theOdendaal Commission, which the Special Committee analysed in 1964,21 wasessentially a plan for these purposes, combined with certain economic projectsdesigned to confuse public opinion. The Government took steps to implement this

plan despite condemnation by United Nations organs and its utter incompatibilitywith South Africa's obligations under the Mandate Agreement.127. After the decision of the International Court of Justice in July 1966,22avoiding a judgement on the substantive issues in the contentious proceedingsinstituted by Ethiopia and Liberia concerning the administration of the MandatedTerritory, the South African Government has proceeded to implement itsapartheid plan more vigorously.128. The reign of racism in the Republic of South Africa, reinforced by a militarypower which has been tremendously strengthened since 1960. constitutes now thecore of the threat to peace and progress in southern Africa. The failure of theinternational community to solve the problem of apartheid. because of theobstruction of the main trading partners of South Africa, including the UnitedKingdom. the United States and France, has thus resulted in a widening andaggravation of the challenge and threat to the United Nations.129. The Special Committee, therefore, considers it imperative that decisiveaction should be taken without delay to secure an end to apartheid, whichthreatens the peace in southern Africa and thus to meet the wider dangers of thatsituation.IV. Conel-sions and reci-'nme-da'ions of theSpecial 4to,"mittee130. The Special Committee, which has always stressed the vital interest of theUnited Nations in securing an end to apartheid, endorses fully the unanimousconclusion of the Seminar on Apartheid held in Brasilia in 1966 that "The UnitedNations has a fundamental interest in combating the doctrine of apartheid andshould find. as a matter of urgency, ways and means for its elimination" (seeA/6412, para. 138). It recommends that an "International Campaign againstApartheid" be inaugurated under the United Nations auspices as a demonstrationof its determina21 See Off cial Records of the General Assembly. NineteenthSession. Annexes, Annex No. 12, document A/5692, annex I, pa-as. 68-82.22,o, h West 'frica, Second Phase. rudqment. I.CJ. RePorts 1966, p. 6.

Agenda item 34 21tion to take all measures adequate to secure the eradication of apartheid.131. Before proceeding to a consideration of concrete measures which mightappropriately be taken by the United Nations, the Special Committee wishes torestate the purposes of the United Nations, as these have been distorted in thevirulent propaganda of the South African Government and its friends.132. The "mass violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms" in SouthAfrica, to use the words of the Secretary-General, has been a matter of vitalconcern to the United Nations as it contravenes the pledge of Member States inthe Charter to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, and as the rulinggroup in South Africa continues to intensify such violations, as its policies andactions have inevitably led to international friction and conflicts with other Stateswhich feel a sense of solidarity with the oppressed majority in South Africa and tothe aggravation of the explosive situation in southern Africa. The perpetuation ofracism in South Africa. with its wider repercussions, undermines all efforts to

promote international co-operation in accordance with the purposes and principlesof the United Nations Charter.133. But, above all, the racial policies in South Africa, leaving no choice to theoppressed majority except acceptance of subjection, which is inconceivable andviolent resistance, threaten a racial conflict. Such a conflict cannot but have thegravest international repercussions as other States which feel a sense of solidaritywith the oppressed people cannot remain indifferent. A violent conflict, moreover,will have world-wide repercussions which may threaten the survival of the UnitedNations.134. Moreover. as the Special Committee has emphasized, the policies of thepresent Government in the Republic of South Africa are suicidal for even thewhite community it seeks to represent and serve. As .Mr. Abram Fischer, Q.C.. adistinguished Afrikaaner, said recently in defence of his opposition to apartheid:"There is a strong and ever-growing movement forfreedom and for basic human rights amongst the non-white people of the country-i.e., amongst fourfifths of the population. This movement is supported not only bythe whole of Africa but by virtually the whole membership of the UnitedNZations as well-both West and East. However complacent and indifferent whiteSouth Africa may be, this movement can never be stopped. In the end it musttriumph. Above all, those of us who are Afrikaans and who have experienced ourown successful struggle for full equality should know this. The sole questions forthe future of all of us therefore are not whether the change will come but only (i)whether the change can be brought about peacefully and without bloodshed: and(ii) what the position of the white man is going to be in the period immediatelyfollowing on the establishment of democracvafter the years of crueldiscrimination and oppression and humiliation which he has imposed on the non-white rpop!es of this country." (A.'AC.115/L. 175 /Rev. 1. )135. The United Nations has repeatedly made it clear that a solution of thesituation in South Africa should be sought through consultations amongrepresentatives of all elements of the population in South Africa, based on therecognition of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all the people of SouthAfrica regardless of race, colour or creed. The South Africanr6gime, however, has rejected this reasonable course which holds the promise ofmeen:ng the legitimate fears of the privileged minority it seeks to represent, buthas instead pursued a -I rt-sigh-ed policy which cannot but lead to the gravestdangers.136. The Special Committee has u-zed the imposition of economic sancziciiagainst S,-uth Africa in order to make it clear to the white minority and its leadersthat their present course is unacceptable and untenable and to encourage a!l forcesand trends favouring an end to racial discrinzunatn. The purpose of economicsanctions is no: to cripple the South African economy but to secure a solution ofthe situation in South Africa which wou!d protect the legitirni:e rights of all thepeap~e of -hat country.A. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GRF-T POWERS AND MAJORTRADING PARTNERS OF SOUTH AFRICA

137. The Special Committee remains firmlv convinced that the economicsanctions and related measures it has recommended are the only effective meansfor a peaceful so'utiion to the situation in South Africa and that the UnitedNations should exert maximum effort; to seek a solution by such peaceful means.To be effective, however, the sanction; must be mandatory, and universallyapplied under the auspices of th- United Nations.138. The Special Committee notes with regret that the major trading partners ofSourh Africa have been unwilling to support this peaceful approach toward asolution despite the repeated appeals by the General Assembly and that they have.on the contrary, increased their profitable collaboration with the South AfricanGovernment. They have thereby frustrated timely and effective action by theUnited 'Nations and bear a grave responsibility for the consequences of delay indealing with the situation.139. The Special Committee shares the view expressed by the Secretary-Generalin the Introduction to hiz annual rerort on t -e work of the organization for 1965-66, in which he stated:"It seems to me that the permanent members ofthe Securit- Council and the main trading pa-:tners of South Africa have a specialresoonsibilitv as well as the mean to persuade t'ie South African Government toabandon its present course and seek a solution consistent with the Charter of theUnited Nations and the resolutions of the Security Council and the GeneralAssembly. Such efforts would be based on the very wide consensus which ha;developed in the United Nation; on the need to secure a solution of the situationthrough the full, peaceful and rderlv application of human rights ttndfundamental freedoms to all the inhabitants of South Africa regardless of race.c1our or creed and by consultations among representatives of all element's of thepopulation in Souh Afric-. Progress in this direction is indispensable to prevent afurther ggr avation .-,f the situation in southern Africa and to enable South Africato play a con ruct've tart in the destiny of Africa." (ee Ai6301 /Add.1. p.11.)140. The Special Committee consider; it e zential to issue the warning th- byre.usinz to lend theor co-oneration in such ind:;pensable action, the main tradingpartners of South Africa. includinz three permanent members of the SecuritvCouncil. bear the responsibility for the deteri:.ration of th2 situation in

22 General Assernbly Twenty-first Session-Annexessouthern Africa as a whole, and for the inevitable outcome of a violent conflict inSouth Africa with all its repercussions and effects, both national and international.Moreover, by their increasing collaboration with the South African Governmentand increasing involvement in South African economy, they are provokingsuspicion and hostility among the victims and opponents of apartheid.141. The Special Committee is gravely concerned that foreign business interests.which are greatly increasing their stake in South Africa and deriving excessiveprofits from the present system, are engaged in active propaganda in favour ofthat system and are attempting to influence other Governments against action tocounteract apartheid. The development of these foreign interests is bound to put

the professed beliefs and traditions of the countries concerned to a severe test in aviolent confrontation in South Africa. (See also A/6412, para. 86.) The SpecialCommittee is compelled to warn that any actions designed to defend theirinterests in such confrontation mav well lead to conflict with the forces ofliberation in South Africa and all those xvh, support the liberation movement toachieve its legitimate goals.142. The Special Committee, therefore, considers it essential to secure thespeediest disengagement of these Powers from South Africa. It considers that. asa minimum, they should withdraw their nationals and investments from theRepublic of South Africa, except for persons engaged in humanitarian activities.until the problem of apartheid is solved.143. The Special Committee, moreover, notes that the involvement of foreignbusiness interests in South Africa and in the other territories of southern Africahas developed in complex relationships between foreign and South Africanconcerns. It strongly supports the proposal by the Special Committee on theSituation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for a consideration of theactivities of foreign economic and other interests which are impeding theDeclaration on the granting of independence in Southern Rhodesia, South VestAfrica, the Territories under Portuguese administration and other colonialterritories. It feels, however, that for the most fruitful consideration of this matter,the activities of foreign economic interests in the Republic of South Africa and ofthe South African economic interests in neighbouring colonial territories shouldbe fully taken into account.B. A PROGRAM ME OF ACTION BY THE UNITED NTATIONS144. Faithful to its mandate from the General Assembly, the Special Committeehas attempted to promote a comprehensive programme of action, under theauspices of the United Nations, to solve the problem of apartheid.145. It has given primary importance to economic sanctions and related measuresdesigned to secure the speedy eradication of apartheid and the development of anon-racial society in South Africa. It has suggested measures to persuade the maintrading partners of South Africa to co-operate in facilitating universal economicsanctions.146. It has suggested the arms embargo and various other partial steps to securecertain minimum but vital objectives.147. It has emphasized the importance of public opinion in reinforcing andsupporting United Nations action and suggested various measures to inform worldopinion of the dangers of apartheid and of the United Nations efforts to solve theproblem. In this connexion, it emphasized the particular importance of informingopinion in the countries which maintain close economic and other relations withSouth Africa and of counteracting the deceitful propaganda by the South AfricanGovernment and by business and other interests collaborating with it.148. While constantly concerned with efforts to secure a solution, and withoutdiverting attention from the need for urgent action for that purpose, the SpecialCommittee has also given attention to various humanitarian, cultural and other

programmes. It made it clear that these programmes should in no way be regardedas alternatives for action to solve the problem.149. In this connexion, the Special Committee has been concerned withprogrammes and measures by which the international community can preventserious aggravation of the situation and the growth of racial bitterness and hatred,and can help alleviate distress among the victims of apartheid. It encouragedvarious initiatives to save the lives of opponents of apartheid threatened withexecution and to prevent the torture and brutal ill-treatment of prisoners. Itencouraged programmes to provide for legal defence of persons accused underarbitrary laws. aid to families of political prisoners and education of theirdependants, and relief to refugees. By emphasizing the humanitarian nature ofthese programmes. and keeping them distinct from efforts to secure an end toapartheid, the Special Committee has sought to enable wide segments of theinternational community to demonstrate, by action, their concern for a peacefulsolution of the problem in South Africa.150. In the same spirit, the Special Committee commended the United NationsProgramme for the Education and Training Abroad of South Africans. designed toassist South Africans to receive higher education and technical training andenable them to contribute effectively to the progress of their country inaccordance with the purposes of the Charter.151. The Special Committee is awaiting a report, being prepared at its request bythe United Nations Educational. Scientific and Cultural Organization, on theeffects of the policies of apartheid in the fields of education, science, culture andinformation in South Africa. It feels that such a report will provide authoritativeinformation t, non-governmental organizations and interested individuals andenable them to provide appropriate assistance to the millions who are deniedequal opportunities because of racial discrimination.152. The Special Committee has commended the efforts of the InternationalLabour Organisation in pursuance of its declaration on the policy of apartheid ofthe Republic of South Africa and its programme for the elimination of apartheidin labour matters in the Republic of South Africa.153. The Special Committee has encouraged various ameliorative measureswithout diverting attentionl from the primary task of contributing to theeradication of apartheid. It has maintained contact with other United Nationsorgans, as well as specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations, inorder to promote meaningful action at all levels. It has thus sought to play ahelpful role in promoting a comprehensive

Agenda item 34 23approach to deal with various aspects of the apartheid policy and its ill-effects,with emphasis on action rather than mere condemnation of apartheid. It has beengratified by the endorsement of its recommendations by the General Assembly, aswell as the Seminar on Apartheid held at Brasilia in 1966, and by the responsesfrom States and numerous non-governmentalorganizations concerned with this problem.

154. These efforts of the Special Committee demonstrated its intense concern todo all in its power, in accordance with its mandate from the General Assemblyand the needs of the situation, to promote all possible peaceful measures towardsa solution of the problem of apartheid during a period when the actions of theSouth African Government were precipitating a conflict. While the SpecialCommittee had no doubt that the hopes of the South African Government that anarmed racist minority can for ever dominate the country would fail, and that non-racialism and justice would triumph, it was always anxious to promote the widestinternational support and understanding of the struggle against apartheid.especially in the predominantly "white- and "Christian" nations, in order topromote the most peaceful transition and to mitigate the dangers of racialbitterness.155. While the Special Committee respects the right of the oppressed people toliberate themselves by means of their own choice, and recognizes that avenues forpeaceful change are increasingly closed by the Government, it may well be thatthe constant concern of the Special Committee. and the support it received fromthe Member States and public opinion has helped to contribute toward mitigatingviolence and racial bitterness and hatred. It recognizes. however, that the dangerof violent conflict cannot be eliminated unless decisive steps are taken toeradicate apartheid.156. The Special Committee feels that, in view of the aggravation of the situationin South Africa and neighbouring territories, these manv-sided efforts should beredoubled in a comprehensive international campaign against apartheid under theauspices of the United Nations. It has attempted to ensure that the Seminar onApartheid would -ive particular attention to concrete measures for a programmeof action and has noted with satisfaction that the Seminar has made a number ofrecommendations which deserve consideration and endorsement by the competentUnited Nations organs.C. THE REPERCUSSIOJNS OF APARTHEID IN SOUTHERNAFRICA157. The Seminar on Apartheid held at Brasilia has emphasized the repercussionsof apartheid in the whole of southern Africa and the importance of effectiveaction on the colonial problems in the area toward a solution of the problem ofapartheid in South Africa. In this connexion. it made various recommendations.(See A '6412. chap. III. recommendations VII. IX. XXIV, XXV. XXVIII andXXIX.i158. The Special Committee emphasizes the importance of co-ordination in allUnited Nations efforts dealing with the problems of racial discrimination andcolonialism in southern Africa, For this purpose. the Special Committee has keptin contact with and followed the work of the Special Committee on the Situationwith regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence toColonial Countries and Peoples. It feels that co-operation between the twocommittees should be strengthened and that the) should establish close relationswith any other United Nations organs which may be concerned with the problemof apartheid, racial discrimination and c.olonialism in southern Africa.

159. The Special Committee, moreover, feels thatan international conference or seminar on the problems of apartheid, racialdiscrimination and colonialism in southern Africa would be useful in promotingeffective United Nations action and recommends that the Secretary-General berequested to organize such a conference or seminar, as soon as possible, inconsultation with the two Special Committees of the General Assembly. It furtherrecommends that the report of the proposed conference or seminar should besubmitted to the General Assembly for consideration at the twentvsecond session.160. The Special Committee strongly supports provision of internationaleconomic assistance to Botswana. Lesotho and Swaziland, and recommendsactive efforts to secure the effective implementation of General Assemblyresolution 2143 (XXI ).D. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND RELATED MEASURES161. The Slpeciai Committee reaffirms its conviction that universal economicsanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter are the only effectivepeaceful means by which the international community can help solve the problemof apartheid. Such sanctions deserve the strong support of all who seek a peacefulsolution or even to contribute to a mitigation of violence.162. The General Assembly, in resolution 2054 A(XX) of 15 December 1945. supported by an overwhelming majority of MemberS',atez. drew the attention of the Securit:y Council to "the fact that the situation inSouth Africa constitutes a threat to international peace and security, that actionunder Chapter VII of the Charter is essential in order to solve the problem ofapartheid and that universally app'lied economic sanctions are the only means rfachieving a peaceful solution". The Security Council. however has not vetconsidered the situation and most of the main trading partners of South Africa,except Denmark and Sweden. remain unwilling to co-operate in ensuring decisiveaction.163. The Special Committee no-es that the attitudes of the main trading partnerswere reflected in reservations bv a small minority of participants to many of therelevant recommendations of the Seminar on Apartheid. (See A/6412. Chap. III,recori iendaticns III-VI and XIX-XXIII.)164. Having considered the situation created by the unwillingness of the maintrading partners of South Africa to assume and discharge their responsiilities, theSpecial Committee considers that efforts should be redoubled to persuade them tochange their attitude and to secure action by the Security Council. It feels that it isdesirable, with'out detractin.g from such efforts. to take immediate steps withregard to measures on which the report of the Seminar on Apartheid indicateswidest support. It makes the following sugcestions in this respect!(a) All Member State should be requested to undertake that, when the SecurityCouncil should decide on mandatory sanctions against South Africa. they wouldapply them faithfully and scrupulously.

24 General Assembly-TwentY-first Session-Annexes(b) All States should be called upon to comply fully with the decisions of theSecurity Council solemnly calling on them to cease forthwith the sale and

delivery to South Africa of arms, ammunition of all types, military vehicles andequipment and materials intended for their manufacture and maintenance. TheSpecial Committee should be authorized to draw the attention of 'Member Statesconcerned, through the Secretary-General, to any information which may becomeavailable on failure to implement this decision fully, and to report on this matterto the Security Council and General Assembly as appropriate.(c) All States should be requested immediately to discourage closer economic andfinancial relations with the Republic of South Africa. particularly in investmentand trade, as well as loans by banks registered in their countries to the SouthAfrican Government or South African companies, and report on measures takenin this respect. The Secretary-General should be requested to transmit such reportsto the General Assembly and the Special Committee. Countries, which have notyet developed any or extensive economic and financial relations with SouthAfrica, should be requested not to establish such relations or to disengage.(d) The Secretary-General should be requested to take steps, in consultation withthe Special Committee, for timely publication of statistics on South Africa'sinternational trade. He should be requested. further. to provide all necessaryassistance to the Special Committee to publicize information concerning thedevelopment of closer economic and financial relations by other States with theRepublic of South Africa and to report on this matter to the General Assemblyand the Security Council as appropriate.(e) The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and theInternational 'Monetary Fund, as well as their members, should be requested totake measures to stop all further assistance to the Republic of South Africa bythese two specialized agencies. _165. WAhile calling for mandatory and totaleconomic sanctions universally applied, the Special Committee has suggestedcertain partial measures designed for limited purposes. It feels that. in view of thesupply of petroleum from the Republic of South Africa to the illegal racistminority rogime in Southern Rhodesia in order to frustrate the decisions of theSecurity Council, urgent consideration should be given to an embargo onpetroleum and petroleum products to South Africa and on all assistance in therefining and distribution of petroleum products. The Special Committee notes thatsuch an embargo can be made effective with the full co-operation of a fewcompanies which are involved in the petroleum industry in the Republic of SouthAfrica. These companies are mainly from the United Kingdom, the United States,the Netherlands and France which have supported measures to quell the rebellionin Southern Rhodesia. The Special Committee feels that an embargo by theseStates, with the assistance of the United Nations, will not only help secure theimplementation of the decisions of the Security Council concerning SouthernRhodesia, but will constitute a clear warning to the Republic of South Africa todesist from challenges to the authority of the Security Council.E. 'MORAL AND MATERIAL ASSISTANCE TO THOSECOMBATING THE POLICIES OF APARTHEID166. In view of the continued unwillingness of the major trading partners of SouthAfrica to join in effective international action, it has become essential to consider

other appropriate means by which the international community may assist in thesolution of the problem of apartheid.167. The Special Committee has emphasized that the struggle of the people ofSouth Africa to end apartheid is a legitimate struggle and that the provision ofassistance to the oppressed people of South Africa is a duty of the internationalcommunity fully consistent with the purposes and principles of the UnitedNations (A/5957).168. The Special Committee feels that a clear distinction should be maintainedbetween material assistance in the struggle to secure an end to apartheid andhumanitarian assistance to the victims of that policy which is considered in asubsequent section.169. As regards the former, the Special Committee suggests thatrecommendations X, XI and XIV of the Seminar on Apartheid be drawn to theattention of States. (See A/6412, Chap. III.)F. EFFORTS TO PROMIOTE SUPPORT OF NON-GOVERN'MENTALORGANIZATIONS AND WORLD PUBLICOPINION170. -\Vhile considering that a solution to the situation in South Africa requiresdecisive action by States, under the auspices of the United Nations, the SpecialCommittee has always attached great importance to co-operation by thespecialized agencies of the United Nations. by non-governmental organizationsand by world public opinion in general to facilitate and supplement such decisiveaction.171. It recommended that specialized agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations should be encouraged to consider positive and activemeasures to counteract the policies of apartheid of the Government of theRepublic of South Africa, to render humanitarian assistance to those persecutedby the South African Government for their opposition to the policies of apartheidand to help disseminate information on the dangers of the policies of apartheidand the United Nations efforts to solve the problem of apartheid in South Africa.172. Considering that the situation in South Africa is of the widest internationalconcern and that world public opinion should exert all its influence to support andsupplement the efforts of the United Nations, the Special Committee considered itmost essential that the United Nations actively encourage and assistnongovernmental organizations to develop their activities against apartheid.173. It has attached great importance to the widest dissemination of informationon the dangers of apartheid in order to keep world opinion informed and therebyencourage it to support United Nations efforts to deal with the grave situation inSouth Africa.174. Accepting the recommendations of the Special Committee, the GeneralAssembly, in resolution 2054(XX) requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the SpecialCommittee, to take appropriate measures for the widest possible dissemination ofinformation on the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa andon United Nations efforts to deal

Agenda item 34 25with the situation, and requested all Mem._:er States. specialized agencies andnon- governn:ental orzan:zadons to co-operate with the Secretary -Gen-ral rnd theSpecial Committee in this regard. 1- invted the specialized agencies to take activemeasures, within their fields of competence. to compel the Go;vernment of SouthAfrica to abandon its racia! poicies and to co-operate with the Special Commit-ecin the i'p'.ementation of its terms of reference. 1- requesred the Secretarv-Generalto organize, in consultation with the Special Committee and the Commission onHuman Rikhts. an intern:tiona' seminar on ar.r¼M 175. The Seminar onApartheid has s 5r"ng s.ported the views c; tbe Special Committee on thenced to encourage appropriate act:nn by non-z.,vern--en-rl organizations and toinfarm world public op-nirn and encourage it to influence the situation in SouthAfrica. Manv participants in the seminar felt that a val-:ab!e contribution to theso'ution of :he nreb'e- ra be made bi Gnvrn'n ) i non-go-ernnental ranazåtion:and groups, re'irous assciations and profe;:inna' bodies, through the dis-eminationof in .-rmuon re'z-:. th sit:aton in Scuth Africa. Thev f-'t that a spc:a!information service mtght be estrabihed to acquaint world nninion with the trueimplica:ions and dangers of arthed, Thev considered that such a sen-ice woud beof particular va.ue in -iv 1 the international network of .rora-anda rraintainedwith zreskill and at great cost ý, -.he South Afr-cn G-*vernment and by othersuroorters ,i apartheY -eeA 6412. narn. :fl176. Some partici-ilnnts expressed the hoa :!at the existing lnter-zvc-ernmen.-'admiriztrative mnac-.' ner,.for handmn the r;n=ir.X ruezticns reilt:hz to n.artheidwtud be reformed and :ad- mo-r-e eeetie. The Secreta.,---Genera! of the UnitedNation; should. in their view. est-:'ish a speca' admin:--r-t--e -:n:t within t'-e>acreari - - ' - -' V nmatters. Such action cn is -art ,vu'd be of n-vchlo-icalvahue and remind Me.nber Sta-es of ct continued exictence of the problem andtheir ob'--tions under -he different resolutions of the United Nti-nz (bid.. para. 113;.177. Several particirants -urported the prc--.' to establish an internationalinfomation cen:-e, ihin te framework of the United Nationz, to dissemina:e dataon the meaning and d-_nzrs of ara- heM. Mo-" oarticipants also ;urzýzed that t-United Naticns, in co-operation w:th UNESCC,. zhou'd unde-ake aneducational campaign --red at peon'e. both inside South Africa -nd elsevhere (i'd..paraz 11-l6.17,9. In this connexion. tl, Semin-- made a number of recommendations, (fY3d.Chan. II. ra: f.'-'n dations XVI-XVIII and XVT-XXVII.)179. TI- Sp ecia Corroittee fu'lv endorme- these recommendati,- . w-hiah .rve inline with its earlier pronoals and the rce A-nt rjv,:.',ns o General Assentb- reso'u-ifn 2054 A i'XX , and commend- theni tor RIrrorri-.:e action at -he current -ess on,i ahGenra' .A--semlv 1- -',,- t~ta- these re---n-'-.rhave rec-i,, 3fljf:','a n a.r ,:,-at the hut-r lut k-r the act th- a fraw of the p.rticn fiel: that the nature of theco:nex:-n of the pro:.oed in.-rna:on centre with the Un:ed .N - ti-s zhou'l he s:u.-!ied.

180. The Speci-i C .*:n-ittee considerc it r;ze.tia! that the above rronros-,.! of theSeminr fl,:,ud be zeen as ,a~ of tbe inte=r,,onal camrnaie-n av-in_-t -.aprtlkeidwhicb it has r.,ori,ed in order te, encourage ::'-revigorsus action by world public opinion. The United Natin shou-d pI'.-y a vitalro'e in such a campaign.-U -t.em Zng and e:couraging aci:n by ot0er i-.ter'. rmnrent: or-anizatian-. Pates.non-governmental or-nizati.:n; and :' orld pubba opinion in general.181. Colaectirn and dis.,mination tf information on the rnjor de;. lopm-nt- whichhave caused and continu to, c--se inemnat:-nal c:-cern, on the interest of zLhUnted Nations in securing the ehiminaton of apa-:h-al. on the activities of UnitedNations organs concerned with this question, including hu:nanitarian and cu uraactivitieS, and cn the progress in the implementation of decisions of competentUnited Xa-.,-,ns ,:r'an- :s an essentia asect of such a campaign. The Uni-edNation- is also coma 2ed to countema: the v-ru.ent propaganda by the Scul \iric-nGovernn:ent de-izne1 to discredi: the Or-ani,.e and its actions on thiz sue:t:an.182. The Saeciil Committee considers that these tas- need to 'e, and can:ppr.upriazell be. undertaken by the United N-.tion an part or itz acaivi- in dealingv-:t u ,robem f 0' ar.-eid. Thev cannot be transformded 1. anv out-i$ group. withcn'y- a tenucu; connexi,n with the United Nations, which would be dependtn: onvo'untar- contributions and which mav not faithfuly reflect th- concerns of thecompetent Unir-d Nation; organs. The Special Committee, thereIrae, rec,:nmerdsthat nec;eý_ary provision be made W-thin the budzet of t1e Unix-dNatirns ior thispurpose,!>3. The Special Committee recalls that it has a'readv t-.ken variou; ;e- for thecollection and dissen.:.--:i:n of ;n:ornun on the po'icies of apartheid. Vith !-eas;istance of the Secrerai-Genera! for wv-ole co--peratinn :t again records itsappreciation. It hasr -'e4: th'3 aecret5.r--.-Genera to tak- stens to ensure th- v-tdest disnen{nation eÅito reports. through the:-at-,n cent-e and -ariou- infrrn.aricn media. Åt -n eq'est, a rur¾ ol ' tt r-s havebeen pubn v uz hn_-.. for wide distribution.and an :,ccazonal b;?e n.U'ed l'--,:s and Apar5'- :d, has been bui-re by the UnitedNation'. It has rc-:,ested and encn,'r.nzed fetiioner; before the Cornmr::- and rher0'-,te non-z'overnmental orv-n:z-.i- to he, d ": nae itz reports and d.ncu1,4. It has. :_ Secretary-Ge-nera', recuet'eed the United at!-:,rs ducariorall Scientic and. :al Chr n{z ,,,n t,- vepor- a r u - - on t. etfects : ~aga-hbe-'1 1- 8.h_ itd ? - e tv,-n. 'czenc-, cu'ture and ii'r -n in Sc;:h\'rir, It has commended t v:- r, tiie; e. -Intcrn--'r:n' ..¾our Orzniat-in o-n"c:on with i- dealarati n on ar,'r-_.ed It ho3n:anvi: - ion 1-t* h (lrs-n-iz.'i,-n rif .frican Unit- in oreer tÙaon-,c:. -CO-o,'er-'tro-, cj 'e:ie+sde-ip--'- t: zecure the a ý:,'2 7 1 . -f anatid>,' The Sar Co-,-itlee :1s z- t a de!eza:ion-. :tend the In'_ro::: Co'nfr:nc ein Ec-nonlic f.C'no; a ain~:t "i- \*-lcn he'd in.on!rn in 1964 It ha; rro:---r 4e orn!zaý::f the Seo:n-a on -Apaarhid he'd at r'.1 - in19(, and z'.igested that due bttern-n 'e ziv-n t to , uesi,-n of a-tt-id 1': act'. :ie-.1.ann.' 1 .-, the In-er a '' l 1-It-'-":

Rizh:- <'-at.1 '-,. Hz-inu a',ven care,:' c ''Ad-r.cion to the most al:,lropr!ae rar-nuc-en's n the!;ih' of its experience in i- "ater, the S--<j Crnr-it';ee f"' tha.t it wvo:ld 1-,ro;- rebp'o en-:- the. SCerta,.-Gerer tl

General Assernbly-Twenty-first Session-Annexesestablish a special centre or unit in the Secretariat charged with the responsibilityfor assisting the United Nations organs in the campaign against apartheid. Such acentre or unit, staffed adequately. might be given the following responsibilities.(a) It should prepare studies on the various aspects of the question of apartheid inthe Republic of South Africa and on the actions of United Nations organs, withthe assistance of competent departments and units concerned with the economic,social, legal and human rights fields, as well as appropriate specialized agenciesand other bodies. Such studies should be made available to organs of the UnitedNations, to Member States and to appropriate non-governmental organizationsand disseminated widely through the public information facilities of the UnitedNations and specialized agencies.(b) It should maintain liaison with appropriate specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations.( c) It should act as a clearing-house for information on the activities byspecialized agencies, 'Member States and non-governmental organizations on thequestion of apartheid and publicize such activities.(d) It should provide the necessary services to United Nations organs concernedwith the question of apartheid, particularly the Special Committee.187. The Special Committee emphasizes the need to make provision for adequatestaff and consultants for such a centre or unit. It suggests that specializedagencies, Member States and non-governmental organizations be invited to co-operate with and assist the centre or unit.188. The Special Committee strongly endorses the recommendation of theSeminar that an unofficial international conference of non-governmentalorganizations, such as trade unions, church, student and youth groups, drawnespecially from countries trading with South Africa, should be held soon toconsider the )roblem of apartheid and to explore ways and means of overcomingit.189. The Special Committee has established contact with a large number of non-governmental organizations and has had under consideration the desirability ofconsultations with them on the means by which the United Nations might helpthem to develop their activities in connexion with the problem of apartheid and lvwhich they can in turn assist the United Nations more effectively. In thisconnexion, the Special Committee recalls the views expressed by the Group ofExperts established in pursuance of Security Council resolution 182 (1963) of 4December 1963:"'We emphasize the special importance of worldopinion. Many countries, particularly the African countries, are directlyidentifying themselves with the cause of the oppressed people of South Africa.

but there is a wider international concern. The conscience of the world has beenstirred, and there is a recognition in world opinion generally that the SouthAfrican problem is unique, demanding exceptional treatment. There is aninternational crisis of coniscience; it arises from the fact that in South Africa thereis a government professing to speak in the name of Christianity and the 'Europeanrace' which is the only government in the world which chooses as its guidingpolicy not a striving to attain justice.equality and safeguards for human rights, but a determination to preserveprivileges, defend dis-crimination and extend domination to such a degree that it amounts to theorganization of a society on principles of slavery. In South Africa the denial ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms is openly pursued as an avowed policy.There are many in the Christian churches and amongst those who can claim tospeak for European civilization who can be expected to feel an exceptionalresponsibility in regard to developments in South Africa. Their influence in manyways and through many channels might be more effectively deployed."There is another major international interest involved. That is the interest ofcommerce, industry and banking, often acting through great business concernsand organized on an international basis, which draws high profits and specialbenefits from investments in and trade with South Africa. They too should feel anexceptional responsibility, for it is largely from the cheap labour maintained bythe policies of apartheid that their profits derive. These business interests andfinancial houses, together with chamber of commerce and industrial tradingconcerns and associations, could exercise effective influence on the South AfricanGovernment, andspecially might make a constructive contribution by demanding and putting intoeffect a 'fair employmentpolicy'."The situation can also be influenced by voluntary action undertaken by tradeunions and other such co-operative groups in many countries. The protests ofthese groups have occasionally been expressed in the form of boycott of SouthAfrican goods. Though the direct economic results of such boycotts have beenlimited, their psychological effectis valuable.'23190. The Special Committee feels that a conference of non-governmentalorganizations would be useful to consider concrete steps which may be taken inthe light of the recommendations of the Seminar on Apartheid, as well as those ofthe Special Committee and the Group of Experts. as many of theserecommendations are designed to enable the United Nations to encourage furtheractivity by Special Agencies. States and non-governmental organizations. The co-operation of the latter is indispensable and it should be invited.191. The Special Committee is particularly concerned about the means ofinforming the people of South Africa about the situation and the concern of theUnited Nations, especially in view of the efforts of the South African Governmentto distort the purposes of the United Nations and prevent the free flow ofinformation. It feels that Member States and nongovernmental organizations

should be encouraged to take steps to reach the people of South Africa throughradio broadcasts and other appropriate means.G. HU1AN1ITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF RACIALDISCRIM I NATION AND REPRESSION192. \Vhile emphasizing the imperative need for decisive measures to secure anend to racist oppression in South Africa, the Special Committee has repeatedlyrecommended appropriate humanitarian assistance to the victims of racialdiscrimination and repression. It felt that such assistance, rendered by States andpeoples from all regions of the world, would be a2, See Oficial Records of the Secturit, Council, Nineteenth Year, Spplemcnt for.ipril, .lfay and-June 1964. docuiment S/5658, annex, paras. 89-91.

Agenda item 34 27clear and effective expression of international concern. and would help counteractthe growth of racial bitterness and hatred.193. On the recamn:endation of the Special Committee, the General Assemblyappealed in resolution 1978 B (XVIII) of 16 Decerber 1963 for contributions byStates and organizations for relief and assistance to fan'ilies of persons persecutedfor their opposition to the Poicies or apartheid. The Special Committee's appeal :f26 October 19a24 to Member States. through t e Secretar-General. in the light ofthis resolution. resuked in contr'bution or pledges 0f contr"bu-ion to voluntaryagencies concerned. ttalling neariy S300.000 during the next vear.5194. Subsequent:%y. agair: on the recom.-.endation of :he pc: v.:::e-. theGeeral At-eZb-.ad..pted reso utoin 204 B t XX, on 15 December 1965estabishing a Un:ted Narions Trust Fund for South .Arica az a means to encouragegreater contributions and set up a Co:mmittee of Trustees to decide on the uses ofthe Fund.195. The Special Committee has followed the progress of :he Trust Fund and isheartened by the fact that a 'arcer number of States have made contributions in1966 for this humanitarian purpose.- It feels that14 See O-7:o! It: .ds : the G aer:2 ..: , . .,:: ,r St,:', A~,r..res. Annex N-. '2, dc-cument A-SSsra 118.-" The following con.tr.i: or r.e-ies wereree:e:vec :n resionze to eseC' C:..heat_.5eDe.:ark GreeceH-=ngary Irac Malaysia P . reLU'.CRZ.US Z :;*-*. 002 500100''Paki:sa.r and Nether'ands ao aledred contributi.:n in resz'ne to the a.,peal o t-eSrecia: C:,.='-ee. and paid the a'tunts susqu'enIv to t-e Un::r Nat:r.-n T-ust Fundi,:r orus Afrca. ,See f t-r'e 26.6To date t'ne fo2;-irg ..rbear States have ributeorpld-d c -,r -r.- the Trus'Furd:

Carn.'dra CbeDen.-cratir::c of' --... .,D .=al-k . ra 1s-'.q00'aat-" US d;=. 2, (d) I par d 2 r,0 '.aid3 .hO.ag c28. --6.085f.o'.x 14027-:s-' 213to., (C, 1I.CA1.rw6 3. CC',7a; .ard,'aid,,aidDa:A paid- adpaidthe Committee of Trustees and the contributors deserve c,n:rnendation fr theireifort to meet the enormous needs caused by incresin-' ruthless repression ofopponents ot apartheid in South Africa.I,. The Special Committee notes. however, that the respnses to its own appeal andthat of the Committee o Trustees have come from a limited number of Staes. Itcannot but express surprise and serious re-- that many of the economicallyadvanced countr,, have failed to respond to the appeals, despite their support ofthe relevant reso!uion; of the General A-en.v.197. In this conrexion, the Special Committee corn,tends recommendations XIIand XIII of the Seminar on Arartheid. (See A '6412. Chap. III.)198. The Special Committee, moreover, continues to be -rave',- concerned overthe il-treat-:ent of political risoner in South African prisons, as decsribed in theannex to this report. I- considers it essential that States r.nd w:r'd opinion shouldurgently exercise all poIbl.e influence to stor, .his brnt-Iliry which can have graveconsequences.199. AS stated in the previous report. the SecretaryGenera: has kept the SpecialCommittee informed of the pr, zre z of the United Nations Programme for theEducation and Training Abroad of South Africans, eztab!i.hed in pursuance ofrararraph 11 of Security Council resolution 191 (1l_4, of IS- Tune 1964. Thez:ecal Committee has commended this programme as an expression ofinternational concern over the situa_:'n in the Repu.bl'ic of S uth -rica. and of adesire to asssz in the promotion of eq'ni opportunities for South .Africansirrespective of race.200. Thr Special Committee has taken note of the report of 9 November 1965; bythe Secretar--Generale; concerning the establshnent" of the prozramme and themanner of its operation and follo'ed its progress since that tinse. It notes that the

Secretary-General's appeal for voluntary contributions to finance this prov-ranm.ehas received a disarpointing reSponse.2S Againcannot but exT.ress its surprise and serious regret that many of the economicallyadvanced countries. includin ,st o7 the major trading partner; of South A .:.r.cuarx those who ;trrnn'- suprorted theocurhv -Counci' rezolution estab~i;hinz this programm e. have faired tr, extendthe necessary financial S..rt,.. tr the pro--anme -nd this failure must result in theinability of the rgroarm.nte to deal with the27 0ficiai Recrrds -f the Y-cu'it, C,:-.'; T d,',crnen : 4 . 91'c ter andr2'The ir_:!-,.x. r pledges and o'ntr;'uti,nc have -, iar been ann.,:ed in -. t ,the anoeal ,,f the SacretarNGe-eraL - ime--.-::'. of the p thScram re a,am"_ r,L 9e r ia (tab. n Liberha Malawiaorwa1 .00014;, 1 .4r1 it 9'-marler. in 1065. 'ri. r to the re-,- r r f -h e the >. on, had b;77 rece aran:tera>" ..:,:: :r-- t'yr-ra:rt ; 352 ': cixav " '2= a:. : 'wrden.z"'i United Knedom. S737: and the U'n-ed ' te.2:,. udertan other c 'In-r s,-- -.: t r :,-erf -,,'jn,_ u er this Trog-rmme, "

28 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexesvarious practical problems and fulfil the expectations in the report of theSecretary-General.201. The Special Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the contributorsto the two humanitarian programmes, especially the Governments of Sweden andDenmark, as well as the Governments of developing countries which havecontributed out of their scarce resources because of their intense concern for thevictims of apartheid.202. While emphasizing that these programmes were no alternative to effectiveaction to resolve the situation in the Republic of South Africa, the SpecialCommittee has always attached importance to them as appropriate programmesunder United Nations auspices for specific humanitarian purposes. The SpecialCommittee feels that the General Assembly should make a renewed appeal foradequate contributions to the two programmes to cover the needs.203. The attention of the Special Committee has been drawn to the difficultiesfaced by South Africans who seek education abroad such as those connected withasylum, travel documents and employment after training. It feels that energeticefforts should be made by the United Nations, in co-operation with MemberStates, to solve these difficulties. In this connexion. the Special Committeecommends recommendation XV of the Seminar on Apartheid. (See A/6412,Chap. III.)

204. The Special Committee will continue to lend its co-operation to theSecretary-General in promoting the effective functioning of the United NationsProgramme for the Education and Training Abroad of South Africans.H. STRENGTHENING OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE205. The Special Committee notes that the recommendations contained in thisreport, designed to strengthen 'nited Nations action on apartheid, will substantiallyincrease the responsibilities of the Special Committee.206. It recalls that the General Assembly had decided at the last session to enlargethe Special Committee, as recommended by it. but that such an enlargement couldnot be effected because of the unwillingness of certain Powers, approached by thePresident of the General Assembly in accordance with the criteria enumerated inparagraph 3 of Assembly resolution 2054A (XX), to serve on the Committee andthereby help to promote efforts to eradicate apartheid (A/6356). It recommendsthat the General Assembly leave open the possibility of enlargement when thesePowers recognize the implications of their refusal and change their attitudes. Inthe meantime, the Special Committee will strive to the best of its ability topromote the proposed international campaign against apartheid.207. The Special Committee recells further that, in its report of 16 Auzust 1965(A/5957). it referred to the imperative ieel to make adequate provision in thebudget for staff. consultants, travel, etc., in order to enable the Secretarv-Genera!to provide adequate assistance to the Committee. The General Assembv,, inresolution 2054 A (XX requested the SecretaryGeneral to provide the SpecialCommittee with all the necessary means, including appropriate financial means,for the effective accnmplishment of its task.208. The recommendations in the present report would make it essential that theSpecial Committee receive greater services in 1967 than in the past.Moreover, the recommendations may necessitate the Special Committee, or a sub-committee of the Special Committee, to undertake travel outside the Headquartersto consult with specialized agencies and nongovernmental organizations and toinvestigate various aspects of the problem of apartheid. It, therefore, considers itessential that the budgetary provision for the work of the Special Committeeshould be strengthened.V. Suninary of recomlnendations209. In conclusion, the Special Committee wishes to state in brief therecommendations on which it suggests action by the General Assembly at itstwentyfirst session.210. First, the Special Committee recommends that the General Assemblyreaffirm its earlier resolutions on the problem of apartheid, particularly itsresolution 2054 (XX) of 15 December 1965: deplore the failure of the maintrading partners of South Africa, including three permanent members of theSecurity Council (United Kingdom, United States and France), to abide by theappeals and requests in resolution 2054(XX) : note the aggravation of the situation in South Africa mainly as aconsequence of the attitudes of these Powers; emphasize the urgency of solvingthe problem of apartheid in view of the increasingly explosive situation insouthern Africa; warn the Powers concerned that their non-co-operation in

implementing resolutions of the General Assembly is aggravating the danger of aviolent racial conflict which will endanger the peace of the world and presentthem with agonizing alternatives; request these Powers to take urgent stepstoward disengagement from South Africa; and encourage all efforts to persuadethese Powers to change their attitudes to conform with the convictions of the greatmajority of Member States so that decisive action may be taken under theauspices of the Security Council.211. Secondly, the Special Committee recommends that the General Assemblynote and endorse the proposal in this report for an international campaign againstapartheid under the auspices of the United Nations.212. Thirdly, the Special Committee recommends in this connexion that theGeneral Assembly appeal to all States:(a) Especially the main trading partners of South Africa, to undertake that whenthe Security Council should decide on sanctions against South Africa, they wouldapply them faithfully and scrupulously:(b) To comply fully with the decisions of the Security Council solemnly callingon them to cease forthwith the sale and delivery to South Africa of arms,ammunition of all types. military vehicles and equipment and materials intendedfor their manufacture and maintenance:(c) To discourage immediately closer economic and financial relations with theRepublic of South Africa, particularly in investment and trade, as well as loans bybanks registered in their countries to the South African Government or SouthAfrican Companies, and to report to the Secretary-General on steps taken in thisrespect, such reports to be transmitted by the Secretary-General to the GeneralAssembly and Special Committee:(d) To consider effective political, moral and material assistance to all thosecombating the policies of

Agenda item 34 29apartheid, in the light of the recommendations of theSeminar on Apartheid;(e) To make adequate and generous contributionsto humanitarian programmes designed to assist thevictims of apartheid:(W To endeavour to grant asylum and extend travelfacilities and educational and employment opportunities to refugees from SouthAfrica.213. Fourthly, the Special Committee further recommends that the GeneralAssembly request theSecretary-General :(a) To organize, as soon as possible, in consultation with the Special Committeeon the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africaand the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation ofthe Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples. an international conference or seminar on the problem of apartheid,racial discrimination and colonialism in southern Africa and to transmit the report

of that conference or seminar to the twentysecond session of the GeneralAssembly;(b) To take steps, in consultation with the Special Committee. for timelypublication of statistics on South Africa's international trade:(c) To provide all necessary assistance to the Special Committee to publicize andreport on closer economic and financial relations by other States with theRepublic of South Africa:(d) To establish a special centre or unit in the Secretariat with the responsibilityof assisting the United Nations organs in the international campaign againstapartheid, as suggested in paragraph 186 above; and(e) To provide the Special Committee with all the necessary means, includingappropriate financial means, for the effective accomplishment of its task. 214.Fifthlv. the Special Committee suggests that the General Assembly shouldauthorize and encourage the Special Committee to redouble its efforts todischarge its mandate of c:,nstant'v fo!'nwing the various aspects of the problemof apartheid. to promote the international campaign against apartheid and. in thisconnexion:(al To follow the implementation of the decisions of the Securitv Council on anarms embargo against the Republic of South Africa, and the General Assembly'sappeal to the major trading partners of South Africa to cease their increasingeconomic collaboration with the South African Government, and report to theGeneral Assembly and the Security Council as appropriate;(b) To take steps to encourage further aci,.'itv by the specialized agencies,regional organizations, S'tate's and non-governmental organizations to solve theproblem of apartheid, and to this end, to convene a conference of non-governmental organizations if it considers such a conference essential: and(c) To hold sessions outside the Headquarters. or to send a sub-committee on amission to consult specialized agencies, regional organizations. States and non-governmental organizations on means to promote the international campaignagainst apartheid, and to investigate various aspects of the problem of apartheid.215. Sixthly, the Special Committee further recommends that the GeneralAssembly;(a) Consider the activities of foreign economicinterests in southern Africa impeding the efforts to eliminate apartheid, racialdiscrimination and colonialism in that region;(b) Encourage active efforts to secure the effectiveimplementation of General Assemblv resolution 2143 (XXI) concerningBotswana, Lesotho and Swaziland;(c, Call on the In:ernationa. Bank for Reconstruction and Development and theInternational Monetary Fund to stop all further assistance to the Republic of SouthAfrica. and request the members of these specialized agencies to take necessarymeasures towardsthis end:(di Call for an embargo on petroleum and petroleum products to the Republic ofSouth Africa and on all assistance in the refining and distribution of petroleum

products, in order to secure the implementation of the resolutions :f the Securin-Council and the General Assemb. concerning Sout'-.ern Rhodesia:(e) Encourage the employment of suitably trained South African refugees in thesecretariat and prograrnres of the United Nations and specialized agenc:es: andf Authorize the President to en!arge the Special Committee, in accordance withthe provilons of operative paragraph 3 of resolution 2054 A (XX) whenever heconsiders such enlargement feasible.216. Finally, the Special Committee recommends that the General Assemblyinvite the specialized agencies. regional organizations, States and non-governmental organizations to co-operate with the SecretaryGeneral, the SpecialCommittee and the proposed centre or unit on apartheid in the accomplishment oftheir a,_ks.AN-NEX IList of docuinents (not including reports of the SpecialCommittee) issued from 10 August 1965 to 21 October1966A AC.1:5 LIS A I.!. Nore n re-ress:,'-e - r theRepub!ic of Sc.--th AfricaA/AC.115'L.;6 'Rev.2. Note .n i.regnr invezrr.ent ;: heRe-b:c of South Afrc.,aA \AC.1: L.. ReDxr: ,i :he Sub-C,:--mrtee on Pe t. :ns SAC.1t- L.';". Le-er 4a -.T- 1'rm NP Tz, ,Te E. Br,.wn. Dir-et.. A: era- n N er- Le:-. - r Cence , :ca. New Yo,.rk. --'2 dated 15 ~-kugn. - .-= r Mr.?.-%:~y 2is~ma:. D e -_r.Bueau of Afican .A.air,.Ar Nat:,a : A-:ical, P-r es Sal'amA,"5 L,:2 Letter-a-e, 20 -\ ,)s 9. rm ..Ir. inH n : Exe 'e - C'r r~s~~~ iA......D ceand A ! Fuel;, Lo--dnA 'AC. I: .7_'5,. Le-er datef.. -.r.b- 5 f'r, -'rePer:~n- R - " " " "A.,\17.11: L.1-4a. Letter dared 2; -':: " ! -.5 io he Permanent Renresenat:ve ofth- P,.-'-AC.115 L.L% Let:er dated 17 .- - : irmPermaient Ren resen-a- xe of .\ .A,. :... . Letter d2ted 22 - j95 fr,. Permanent Reo;earive M Ja-,an A .Cl 5I;L..7. Letter da:e-i 6 oc:. bu 1- frcmn :he P'inanern Repjesenta:{Ve <f NgeriaAi-AC.115 L.!Sf. Letter datei 27 October 195 from the Permane- Rt rese::a-ivofMafNyalsa A'AC.!i L. 1 9 Letter dates 30 Oc: ,.ber 1"5 ir.n the P-- e T-n! :iait

30 General Assembly-TweA/AC.115/L.160. Letter dated 13 December 11.5 from tilePermanent Representative of HungaryA!AC115/L.161. Note addressed to the Secretary-General bythe Permanent Representative of Brazil

_\/AC.11S/L 162. Statement by Mr. Achkar Marof, Chairman of the SpecialCommittee, at the sixty-ninth meeting,on Q March 1966A/AC.l15/L.163 and Corr.l. Report of the Sub-Committeeon PetitionsA/AC.1l i/L.164 and Add.1. Review of recent political trialsin South AfricaA.'XC.l15L.165. Statement by Mr. Achkar Marof, Chairmanof the Special Committee, at the seventieth meeting, on 17March 1966AiAC.115'L.166. Statement by Mr. John P. Humphrey,Dircctor of the Human Rights Division, at the seventiethmeeting, on 17 March 1966A/AC.15/L.167.a Advisory services in the field of HumanRights: organization of the international seminar on apartheid.AACA1:5 L.16 and Add.1 and Add.l/Rev.1. Letter dated 4April 1966 from the Secretary-General to the Chairman ofthe Special Committee.A/.\C.115/L.169. Report of the Sub-Committee on Petitions A/AC.I15/L.170.Statement by Mr. Achkar Marof, Chairman of the Special Committee, at theseventy-first meeting,on 7 April 1966A/AC.] .iL.171. Statement by Mr. Tesvfik Bouattoura, Permanent Representativeof Algeria. at the seventy-secondmeeting, on 14 April 1966A/AC.115/L172. Letter dated 22 April 1966 from the Reverend Canon L. JohnCollinsA AC.11L 173 Report of the Sub-Committee on Petitions .\/AC.115/i.174 andRev.1. Report of the Sub-Committee on Petitions..\C.115/L.175 and Rev.1 and Corr.l. Letter dated 7 June 1966 from Miss MaryBenson, transmitting a statementfrom the dock by Mr. Abram Fischer, Q.C..A/AC.115/L.176. Statement by Miss Mary Benson, at the seventy-sixth meeting.on 6 July 1966A/AC.II5/L.177. Note on the build-up of military and police forces in theRepublic of South Africa since the report of16 August 1965A,'A '.113 1.178. Report of the Sub-Committee on Pe'itions .\ ACA 11/L.179.Memorandum concerning certain cases of political persecution in South Africaand concerning the work of the Alexander Defence Committee in aiding thevic'ims of that persecutionA/AC.l15/L.80. Report of the Sub-Committee on Petitions A/AC.115/L.l81.Letter dated 1 September 1966 from Mr. Dennis Brutus, East Twickenham,Middlesex, United KingdomA/AC.115/I.1S2. Letter dated 2 September 1966 from Mr.

Matthew Nkoana, Department of Publicity. Pan-Africanist Congress (SouthAfrica) European Branch, London, United Kingdom, transmitting amemorandum on thearrest of Mr. John Nyati Pokela, a leader of the PA.C. A/AC.115/.183. Note ondevelopments in the Republic of South Africa since the Special Committee'sreport of 16 August 1965: Measures of racial discrimination and separation./AC.115/1.184. Note on developments in the Republic Cof South Africa since theSpecial Committee's report of 16 August 1965: Repressive measures againstopponents ofapartheidA AC.115/I..I;. Note on developments in the Republic of Souh Afri,'a since theSpecial Committee'.- report of 16August 1965: the huild up of military and police force,A/AC.115/L.186. Letter dated 14 September 1966 from Mr.Barney Desai, Secretariat of Foreign Affairs, Pan-Africanist Cong'ess (Azania .Londona Alo issued as E/CY.4/l.,850.ity-first Session-AnnexesSummary records of the Special Colmuitt'ceA/AC.]13/SR. 69 to 81bHearing of Petitioners76th meeting,' 6 July 1966. Miss Mary Benson, SouthAfrican writer.80th meeting, 14 September 1966, Mr. Franz J. T. Lee,South African writer and lecturer.ANNEX IReview of developments in the Republic of South Africasince the report of 16 August 1965CONTENTSI. INTRODUCTIONII. MEASURES OF RACIAL DISCRIIINATION ANDSEPARATIONA. Implementation of the Group Areas Actof 1950B. Denial of rights of freedom of movement,residence and employment to AfricansC. Segregation in beaches and public amenitiesD. Segregation in university societiesE. Segregation in charitable organizationsF. Moves to change representation ofColoured voters in Parliament ........G. Implementation of the Immorality Act.H. Developments in the TranskeiIII. RaPnEsStva MEASURES AGAINST OPPONENTS OFAPARTHEID ... ..... ...........A. New legislation

B. Implementation of the "180-day law"C. Political trials ... . . . .......D. Ill-treatment of prisoners ..........E. Banning orders and house-arrests .....F. Banning of the South African Defenceand Aid Fund ........IV. THE BUILD-UP OF MILITARY AND POLICE FORCESA. The Emergency Planning BillB. Expansion of military and police forces C. Manufacture of arms and defenceresearchD. Import of armsE. Military co-operation with other countriesAppendix: REVIEW OF POLITICAL TRIALS ......17-8621-3132-3637-4243-49 50-5253-6768-73 74-8687-210105-118 119-135136-145 146-167 168-189190-210211-256 219-223 224-236 237-246247-254 255-256 Page541. Introduction1. The year since the last report of the Special Committee of 16 August 1965(A/5957), was an eventful year in the recent history of South Africa. It saw theunilateral declaration of independence by the racist minority r~gime in theneighbouring territory of Southern Rhodesia; the generalelections in which the ruling National Party increased its majority in Parliament;the Judgement of the International Court of Justice, by the casting vote of itsPresident, that Ethiopia and Liberia had not established any legal right at interestin connexion with their complaint with regard to South African administration ofSouth West Africa: theb The summary records of the 74th, 75th, 79th and 815t meetings are restricted, asthese meetings, devoted to the consideration of reports by the Special Committeeand other matters, were closed.e For the text of the statement by Miss Benson, see A/AC. 115/L.176.

Agendaassa;stnati,-n of Prime Mi-'"r Hendrik F. Verwocrd, the :orenos: s !ostle of"separate develoomen:", and his sucession by Mr. B. J. Vorster. who had directed

the ruthless repression of the op'i-nent- of apartheid in recent %ears: and theaccessi-'n of the ::eghb.:,u-iz terr )res of Botwxana andLisotho t- independence.2. The year also sa, no- only a continue: unm'iilin :essby the South African Governne-nt to abide by the resolutions of the GeneralAssemb" and the Security Council. but anincrcasing dfiance of tlhe United , ..3. In Nrvem'er itS, a'. the twentieth session of theGeneral Assembly, the S*..: African ,'eation declined to re-pond to the zc::re o theSpecial P.itical Committee, wh:ch unanimouz'y insK:! -l to participate in tI-"Corrnitrees d:'zu-icn of th question of apartheid.1 The South African Gvernmentalso rejected the 'nvitati: t,-, -aric.-ipate in the Semina- on Anartheid held atBra'iLia r.om 23 August to 4 5:''emnb-r 19s%.2 While refus ne to co-onerate withthe Unit'ed Na'ions, it threatened to i'hraw f7rn-, the Organization if its votingr:ghts were curtailed.3 It strongly criticized the Secretary-General for anunexeepti.inabie statemen' in an interview on I May 966 that a sat;sfacto-rs,.'u't,-n of the situati,t tn S,.uth Africa required the unity of or ct,me ge.nera!c*nse-sus among the big Powers -egard.ne methods to be adopted to enf.,r-ce theresnlutions adozted by the Gereral Assembly and the Security Cuncil.44. -'eanh'le. the S outh African Government reif-ed the i:vita:-;on ,', the Sccuri-yCouncil in N.vember 1955 t,- particirae in ;it debates on the grav situation createdb, the rebellion of the illegal racist minority r6gime in Southern Rhcdes:a.5 On 11No-ember P. ::'e day xwhen this rei:.ne proclaimed "independence', PrimeMinister Mr. Verwvoerd announcei a r, 1 .:y cf "non-in:erventi n" anddeclared that5'::-h Africa V..uld not take part in "any f,-rce of bvctt". H-e t-called that hisGovernment "'ontinuously condemned" the interxen:'rn or "other States orcrganiza'ions" in the-tt'-!at:cn in Southern Rhodesia... Behind the cover of "nn-intervent'on". the Sou.h African Government, inopen challenge to the decisions of the U-ited Nations. increased it; economicrelations with Sou'hern Rhodesia, supplied it wvith oil and other strategi:materials, and provil-ed :,ther -aci'izies t-, sustain t-'e 7e'_cllion. Various privategr' 'u'm s.ranz up in South Afri-a to render moral and material support to theillegal rc-gime.I O~cial Records of the General Assem. Jv, Tz, ';ti,'tJ: Session A;,tres. agendaitem 36, document A 'SPC 107.2 E/L.1119.3 In a New Year message on 31 December 1965. Prime V ,f:'r-tre. Verw ,erd said:"I give fair warning, ho.ever, that although SouthAfrica-reeting herself as she does part of the Western r a!ton;, with obiiaat',ns torhem ho'wever often they have lert her in the lurch-ha' continued as member ofthe United 'a'cns 'hr,-'gh man,- years ,-.f strain and stress since its f.ndat-, sh- .'. i!lnot be prepared to suffer the indignity and injustice rf having her voting powerscurtailed or with'-rawxn. T;- Rerublic will then leare the United Nations withouthesitation." (South African Digest, Pretoria. 7 Januarv 19%.

Speaking in the Hou-e of Aszsemly on 23 January 1966. Mr. Verwoerd rei'era'ed:... there is no dosubt whatever that this Government xwouldtake the Re-'ub'ic o; 5n:u- Africa out of the Uni'ed Nations in the even ''fcrue' b'inra!lo-wd to vote." (Republic of South Africa. H:s. of -sc:en y Debates (Hansards.2'5 lanuarv 1966. c'l. 45.14 Unit-d .'.: s Press Re!._-.c, SG SM 4J3, 3 ) l 196. in a stat-mnt cn 10 May. theSouth Air:za-: F.re _: Mnister, Dr. 'Eul'er, said that hi' Go;erine' nt tpk z"r:,n-esttxcep:n to the Sec-ear,-0-reral's statement ard alleged hat the Sec-etarv-Ge'.eralhad ziren su-, rt to a In- of thought not a:h' I- h - Orega:a'in:,n an4 had c:A'-dwi'h'ar tte a-A -ed' - S'at-z '.'.i. h vere "cEeloga themselves f,Veicence aza!nt -c'hthAfrica. (Thc Cape T''cs, 11 Max' 166,,, Orc'al Records ,f the Sc:,rit' Council, TzcLnt-tth YI 'r. SupPl~c.: ' i-,r Oct',r'r,Vm-enber and December 10i5. document S 6935.6, The political develo::,ment; I.'!- S-,uth Africa alsoreflected a determination to press ahead with apartheid.t7. On 30 March 1966. the Government arranged generalelections in the hope ,:f ane 'ltl:, it' strength in Parliament in ord-r to carry fr.vardthe apartheid po:licies. The repre-enta-i, n of the ruling National Party wasincreasedt.- ta;.tially as a reult of these electi. _'in.8. Shortly after, at the end of May 19c',, the Gjovernment.rganic massive cl,brations on tLe fifth anniversary of the Reublic, w:th hugedisplaN of tnil try mgh; and reanrx..at'i nt of the aparthieil p,'Ai..9. The Judgement of the Int.'rnati. nal Court on the SouthlWest A.,: a case led to jub~lation an-',, that there Noull 6, lessencd interna-ionaIpre'''mre and. io!' ed, gr a'er forein -cooni:ti c,!labc ratir,n. Th . ssion ,f '.heParl~anrent which opened in July l966 saw the intro duction of several drasticdiscriminarc'ry and repressive bills.0. The assassination of Mr. Verwoerd on 6 Settemb'r1 6 wa' foll ,wed by the election of Mr. B, 3, \'orster, frn 5,:.ni',ter of Justice, a'Prime Minister, and the racial roleU X.were reafermcd. In a ''eech be'ore be'ngcworn in as Prime Minister, Mr. Vo:-ster said: "" u ask me viat cour'e I willfollow, Mv cpur-e is togo furj:.her on the road which M, Ver.. 'r fl.owed, What ,1 , I beleve in? I believein the Naional Pary and its principles and the full implementation of th m ineveryresp-ct, whatever the con'equesc'.Mr. X'i-.tec further declare in hs z>teento the H,-,u.e ',,f Assembiy that "under no,:rcu-t:nana:,-n-iher under :'res-cr nor frce-will we rart:cixat in either boycotts orto:..' -on'' Th- '-,as seen as i.'iicating that hi; Government w ,u'd 'left- "n- meres to:rnpose ntandatorv sanctions against the illegal r6girne in S.'uth rn Rhode;'a.11, M-anwhle, the S uth African Gove-nm-nt has grea!stepped up its pre' agandaefforts in order to deceive pulic opinion at home and abr!ad ' It has also takenvarious steps designed to resist any ecnmi:ani :n

6The new House of Assembly has 170 seats, compared to 160 in the previousHouse: the elections did not affect the four seats reserved for whiterepresentatives ,.f Coloured voters in the Cape. The National Party- won 126seats, increasing its representation by 20; the United Party representation droppedto 39 seats, a loss of 10 and the Progressive Party retained its single seat, held by -Mrs. Helen Suzman.Both the leading parties in the election campaign advocated1 a policy of whitesupremacy, and complete white control over all aspects of life in the cotmtrv. TheNational Party, however, maintained that the p,_.lic' of apartheid, or "separatedevelopment", was the only means of continuing white domination. Mr. H. F.Verwoerd. speaking in the House of Assembly on 25 January 1966, argued thatthe United Party's concept of a united South Africa under xvhte command wouldultimately lead to a "head-on collision betsween Black and White such as SouthAfrica has never known before". He added:"In that head-on colli'ion in this one united fatherland ,fall the races the maj,-ri.y group is going to have the svmpathy of all the nation-who are fighting against us tolay, because it is on those grounds that they arefightng against us: that is to say. the African States., the Asian States, the VesternStates, and the whole oi tie U.N." i Republic of South Afri._, H.:,se of.'fAssembly Dcha','s (Hansard), 25January 1966. c:,l, 66.1Vcws ' fr,.i: South .Uirca. New York, undated.s Reieence niay be made in this connexion to th0 development of in ternalbr,:adea. tno services In November 1965, Prime .iVni-ter Verwoerd opened anew station of tlle Suh African Er,.arca-tina Cor ration at Bloemendal. wvh h is totransmit in nine !a:- euaezc to all 'tart. -,f th:- ,rid The e.A.B.C. is 'o ;'end pt-!lea-4,40.,; '0 Rane (6,150,000) onnecv. external service, called "Ralio RS.A.-The 1-nice 'i ,-,th Africa". Lv S-nember 19y';, the new -ervice is to 'av. --ur 2-11 t-',at "'ra'tnsmitters in oo'rati n.(Sothr. P" D '. Pr'c 'ria, - Novemher 1965: Business Report, New Y,:rr-. 'Mav I'5M ."-' it ha'. f. 'r 'nstance. increased 'toraze facilitie. fo- r'etr,' au, ac'u're a tank.:r,stepped up exil "rati,.n for oil, andordered in'urance unerw. r r - to retain a ubstantial part of :heir ;,remiure incomein South Airica.

32 General Assembly-TwentY-first Session-Annexes12. As shown in detail in the sections which follow, the Government hasproceeded vigorously with ruthless intensification of discrimination andsegregation and repression of opponents of apartheid, and continued the build-upof military and police forces.13. Though the Government has boasted of the alleged calm which prevails in thecountry and of the confidence abroad reflected in massive foreign investmentsince the beginning of 1965, there has been grave concern over the danger ofviolent conflict because of the seething discontent and tension under the surfacecalm. The danger of such conflict was revealed, for instance, by a few incidents,

such as the violence which followed a railroad accident in Johannesburg recently.To quote The Economist, London, cf 6 August 1966:"But then on August 1st occurred one of those incidentswhich periodically expose the shallowness of :1i calm and give a glimpse ofemotions and resentments which smoulder beneath the surface and which could atany moment erupt, with unpredictable consequences, into something likeanother Sharpeville. A train crowded with Africans travelling to work inJohannesburg from their dormitory township area of Soweto rammed into theback of another. In the old wooden coaches there was chaos: five commuterswere killed and more than 450 injured."As the survivors spilled out into the clear winter sunlight, the heat of angerengulfed them. Matches to paper, paper to wood and within minutes the splinteredcarriages burst into flames. Then the mob surged forward to hunt down the whitedrivers of the two trains. One managed to hide, but they found the other andstoned him. As the unfortunate driver. Mr. Van Tonder, fell battered and bleedingto the floor of his cab, two railway policemen sprang to his aid, drew theirrevolvers and opened fire on the crowd. One African was shot dead and at leastone other was wounded. By the time the police had gained control two whiteticket collectors had also been attacked and injured and five carriages had beenburnt to ashes.Some hours later another train was set alight nearby. That night trains travellinginto Soweto carried heavy policeguards; even so, some were stoned."It was not the first time this had happened. On October4th last year after a train crash near Durban in which eighty-nine Africans werekilled, anguished passengers attacked all white railwaymen in sight, stabbing oneto death and seriously injuring a signalman. In fact, the whole train service forAfricans has become a focal point of racial bitterness . . . it is all part of thepolitics of inequality.". ' *incidents such as these do serve as reminders ofthe inherent explosiveness of the apartheid society."14. Another indication of the tension is the report, confirmed by the police on 15September 1966, that a clash had occurred between Africans and the police atHarrismith, Orange Free State, when the police tried to remove the Africans to anew location. Three Africans were admitted to the hospital and several membersof the police were injured.1015. Moreover. 'Mr. Vorster, then Minister of Justice, stated in July 1966 that asmany as 5.00 people may have left South Africa for training in sabotage andguerilla warfare and that the danger was when they come back. The police hadpicked up more than 150 trained saboteurs on their return, but there were otherswho had not been caught.1116. In the context of this tension, the further measures of racial separation,ruthless repression and military and police build-up, which are reviewed in detailin the following chaplers, give cause for the greatest international concern.II. Measures of racial discrimination and separation

17. During the past year, the South African Government has continued toimplement the mass of discriminatory legislation it had enacted over the years.Instead of abandoning apartheid, as demanded by the competent United \ations10 Agence France Presse, 15 September 1966.11 Sunday Express, Johannesburg, 3 July 1966.organs, or even taking a pause, it has proceeded with further measures to enforceapartheid in the few areas of life where luoph,-,le seemed to remain.18. Thus the Government is, on the one hand, proceeding with removal ofthousands of non-Vhites from their homes to the outskirts of cities or the reserves.19. On the other, it has threatened to tamper with the noinnal representation ofColoured voters in Parliament, to segregate all public amenities evefn against theresistance of local authorities. and to force universities and charitableorganizations to impose strict segregation.20. Some of the main developments of the past year are reviewed below.A. IMPLEMENTATION' .,F TtE GRouP AREAs AcT OF 195021. The Group Areas Act, which provides for the forcible separation of racialgroups, continues to be implemented actively. Between 16 August 19J5 and 16September 1966. seventy group areas declarations were published: these ordersrequired the removal of thousands of non-Whites from areas in which they hadresided, in many cases for several generations.22. A few cases are illustrative.23. In December 1965, notices were served on about 120 Indian families living inPageview, Johannesburg, requiring them to move to the segregated community ofLenasia, twenty-two miles away. Police "assisted' the operation, as the familiesresisted accepting the notices. Pageview. a largely Indian residential area for thelast seventy-five years, had been proclaimed a "white" group area in 1963. Indiansowned 170 businesses there and were concerned that they would not be able tomake a living by trading in Lenasia.1224. On 11 February 1966, District Six, the heart of Cape Town, was declared awhite g-oup area,t3 though the Coloured community had originated in this areaand lived there for three centuries. The Government claimed that the decision hadbeen made for the purpose of slum clearance. It required the removal of about5,700 Coloured families: it was reported that many of them would be virtuallyunhouseable because they could not even afford to pay sub-economic rents.25. The proclamation aroused great dismay and widespread protests. SheikNaziem Mohamed, a Cape Town City Councillor representing the area, said on 11February 1966:"This is one of the greatest blows suffered so far bythe non-white people of this country. Apart from the question of having to moveaway from the centre of the city and being involved in transport costs andsubjected to other handicaps and inconveniences, the number of sentimentalattachments that will have to be severed is incalculable." He also charged that theorder was an encroachment on the religious rights of the Mu~lim community, asthree of the largest mosques in Cape Town were in the area and under Islamic lawa fosque may not be removed or used for any other purpose.14

26. A group known as the District Six Defence Committee, representing allsections of the population, was established to find ways of meeting the "gravesituation".15 At a protest meeting on 21 February 1966 attended by about 1,500people. a resolution was unanimously adopted calling on the Government towithdraw the proclamation described as callous in its disregard of the welfare,sentiments and interests of the residents of District Six.1627. The Cape Malay Association protested to the Ministers of CommunityDevelopment and of Planning. The General Purposes Committee of the ChristianCouncil of South Africa called for a day of prayer and charged that the "peoplewere treated as pawns rather than human beings".17 The Institute of RaceRelations (Cape Western region) and the Progressive Party joined in protests.12 The Star, daily, Johannesburg, 3 and 21 December 1965.13 Government Gazette, 12 February 1966.14 The Cape Times, 12 February 1966.15 Ibid., 14 and 26 February 1966.16 Ibid., 22 February 1966.'7 Ibid., 23 February 1966.

Agenda itein 3-4>ý Thc r,-Mcrrrnc nt. o e r re:ected th - ranlsrcetsTh- y - f pa:nn e and the Prs7-t I:ev'en refused. to rccve a deputati i-fom the Ca-.City CGuUCiIl 1%hicjo-uh toapea: i. r te rcep i the79 In*- ..h.* a.dbu2r Mr. N, n --"- 'xD cL'e''' a 5 t-e Tc,wn G Cu andi a"ntra- in termn ox ne -n---.-ez-- of .--'-". Act ofk-ern -ut cf Tw D-~~er - rx-- e- .z va g - a n.- r be-t,e-: cra aMd prr ted xc x.jat:n oen:e--:r the oroce et a .2, ~ i < Ab, H r.i-:f a? e 5 : x . v r r t , : ' - Dv e - - -:re rÄ. ..- :.e vjrk oftnLofitmitece -cete to a tasthas a res: of ýtc-rMr~te tsures.<30. On 2,i: tt r A-:: are -were-r:tit fur.of wi-icihnal 1'e-rrrMr. G. V. \aidoo. Cha'--'-- L - P-n.-- Irnia Fa spavrce- A"-xa- - .a '-,2he azfdaxc3:. Ma.v cxi the x-ý-m ox L e G ra Äc--- - hadvef:ven. up a -pc-! - D co-u-- or 5 hathe G-vrrn-re.. i - . -nid l uproot t'e cflmnnå-es n s-- t has ;homt%- no ht to¾'e1apv; to cirr.mivent, advrse- judgmar:z nr to e te-"e c,ý be-' re-:1 ance by;4ctms 5,to=e. h-ov. ca-r hare -nf----! & ez;-_- ce to~aa ~ > law a- a mnat-ter of prn-ir. z - '.-- x-MrSt.a5 a irt- r ?re-hde- of tt~_ ra--idn n n Ccng-ezs.

. sck man inhs- xis ht has a-rea-_ v ;nved tv. nofofZ tntrtsra-en -_r2fD., nx &rzj-:ct:r--t:r -.D c.b- the orde t ov 0V6 m hr inFretota, vý. bob e hna- occupied i-,f:. -evaag-a:n charordc under t.he Groupj Ar-azA- ;n Aue- IW- 3B. DEs Okt or uerics or xa:, oFy "- --MNPLO~YM'EST Tui AYM-CANS32. Pur-torn its of .r t eertzte -tenCape forWhites and h oer nia con tnuedrenv1r- .....a ;=:- rtt the ar~~ BVecase of the temand h S -,.;et-er. wht"e settledfamih!,es are rccý-det langeI:tbr it :rratx-ttv rAr,- are br-_ught in ard the rxtmber of frian. er-e area haz- tn'_d to inrasi'4x.c.z4.Aof the tv - -: n cab - A:-.-_- n-Ä' in Ca: Towna rre uX --k- who;a-e t.-,;xrcir- und:er c-n-rala ýa:cu- - a.enz-h of tiMe.25 There are zui, nz., mnen an:, 4.KY3.A Scn-a--- ------------ - åtAm-z raki:n the Ca-:....- * .!r. . A. ra- W~ra'tntcrnrfl, ovei Alri:an rvn Nin ;.az=t- com-leteTh1NV.. 6 April and 24 May 1956."H ' 7 Turue 196f6.2The Stoar di:xban. 29 April! 1966.4POnr, N5a eittn 8 May 19t6.23%,ý 2Mr- Sima's statemmnt~~ at, his fict trial, seeA'C.1 LÄ.24.A- th-2 end of 5:"t-.nb-r 1565 -,here tr s1 fer in Ca-e on or 7.-. n--- -etn-.-an :n (k-vlv TA--arne;burez 1H ,-'-ermber I? T earCr-nof t;ne PZ.a- 'Mae-trate rra C:n1 Tnr. 1966 st-edcc t1-t- were Äf ~Ar:onsin tat aa. as azain;t8280 at Se IVO census <The Cope Tim es. 13 Janua.nr 1941. 23The S!:r. daily.Jchancsburg. 28 November :96,". 24The Cope Timnes, 9 D-cemnber 19-5_-gac~- ft~ Ari-n in -',e ife c4tf.the We."mrn rape ccu'-tclo>y b1Ärt~t~das a ectnm~ 't--ea äi there wazc\-er,0 0- an --conrntc decine -:n tse XXcztCf Ca *e attc acer r- ne buz:ness actix-srt. the alm- st mmc tate ffvc.ýwcu b.en the Z'lee in t-e -.urt'cer Gf .Xiican. .cs.34 The Governrnente -s p-ho;v of depriving urb-an .-irxvan-.o-Y at--d r-vrtn-m to trblrcr.es has beenpr-z -.r r-. '- u---- ' : rird o-r-re:-ea, 1:., therth -e.ot In renr-'=- 196-, abcxt 4-5' Af-ic:n ieW. et rtr-'" yre. thm o att's- - canro at Hd han 'oT'-[~ B1 h-) etNci :'. the Ritýt R. C, E.Cco-mher ret yr- d- ----was no azcormtd- onno xa'c: a-d no iool at Marnuthia and that the people hat bten -vitn:u: .o-d :' - '-n-to fire dar, -' W'hen he att-tt- V e-n-r - r-ef by- , ~ unz e! hGoern-rer- -etu-- h= pe-r Ivi t en~' ther.r- rtt ver: -A -ed tthare adthat theBio.

ra- tterv- n-Ut tunnt :.f theJ.Tbc Dc- amtnctcEantu Xdnn rt.-.and D;cr en:n 12 a-a--1966, undertr-k wha åta perhapz the c'-ze- noaf nr ai jfrisan. vet oari- ou, in theNo-tb-rn. Gpe, by bez ting the remno-al of aku- 2 'men, :rvmnr and children ;:--ihe Zarn¾e-i Lo:-tion and sett-le-rn n the Wind-.,.-rt'-, area, a'_u- 31) mies fr, -rKim3in AU-g-- 15 ,-h Lýa'ab-.ing tribe was moa-ed byi:.-,,rnsevenn- -o m-ic awy Thebrbz. n!ad o- -:-ett rn~ve f-Dr threte years. Over fifty cJctmen azd sever-a]goývecnment Dfflcäal entered the village, den-,:- ,:-r 'j tA h:'oses and cen'.zrethe tribe. 1' 'tration was repor-_-e, t'ý 3-> been -arrfid ett like aC, Dn 31 EC-- t IX BEACHES A.ND FBSE' AaeENIrIES- The Gcrernatent- has co:-t'dmo-ct i-rc tIarlsdin area; wbh-re :t hat not -- -tbeen rizidl'v Alm-n-o e~eJl:vin the Ca-,e. de-pite resistance by local8. On F, D- -entber 196"-. the MIni-:er of Plarnnor MrýHnat. an -uo:dthe alkocation ni beaches 10or the different -uat n gre-tas in te :nt-r6-al ireas cf Miiner--n Cape'-1-- 11-k>H k 4 adCovrd'cn'z: Ray,the diAls onal oc:._i aroa- ot 1,-- nd 5tcMertesoh, and the a-o. n" n rh- 'to-alcouncil areas ofx Pvrt Eibe:n cm.. g tis dc io,u he -nro-ed th- -'-o- -al- of the cape D - Uunc4 and th Ca eTown G lp- Council and.-e ncrIWh e- ox te ue r. znt-ral beaches to whichVa n - --y had accez 'fr. 0 ( -rn-1r-rt-rin the 1 r ~ C- ,compla:ne2 h--a i --hepei'-'e had been giren the m-ost-b -r---us and L "leaza.-, bcache., attd that anr - b-ac>- a11,c:a*er- o f XX le W tehad been atocatetuniv a ----:-1 - reHd3339. The Cap-e Tom-n City Counolj pressed i:- "a fairer-n f ba t: nhie mnakingi clear that it w-as 0'-oszd to the P,' Wc; of c~~-ler-s:regat:on of beach fäci:tie; as it ;x-u*c cause bittemnes; and rescenter.nt,34 Eutits re,7resentat:,ns were n:: heedn-d br the Geverfiment. 4t. Ir-x-a6ý t-Go:rn-nintrod'o ed a bil to amnend theRe'e; or e r-are A:eitoXt- f1963 to enab!e it to,e-t-- --7 r--- on -t bea,'-< s and c-el unco---- '-a:velea! at'- -% *s fe- a-ar-hoe nr-time im-- ttl. Tlhe bill also provie ',Der resAn-ati-flcof pu* ,tO tpre--;es f--r specifiedýThe & or, da'rhansbr 18 Novemrber 1965,zThe Cape T 'es, 22 December 19~(5The Star, da ¾ .jo.hannesb'årg. 31 December 1965. 30 The Co'-ý- Times. -25~ -t19-23 sa ýred Vc! i71, Joharaesburg, 24 AXugust 1966.-3 Thf:' Cape T-, it-s, 7 December jsf'id, 11 F-brmary 1966,

34 General Assembly-Twenty

or unspecified periods and may be applied to such amenities as municipal halls,swimming pools and parks.541. On 31 August 1966, the M:nister of Planning, Mr. Haak, amended the bill toexclude from its ambit, "a church ,r rther building used for religious purposes".Mrs. H. Suzman, Pr, ,gr ,sive, said on 31 August 1966:"It's quite clear this Bill will go very much further thanProclamation R 26, which led to such absurd decisions."36 She added that outsideof this amendment to exclude churches, "there seems to be absolutely no areawhich falls outside the Minister's strictures against social contacts across thecolour line-except, of course, on the streets or in private homes".,742. On 19 July 1966, the Cape Town railway station was completely segregated,viih the opening of a new railway concourse for non-white suburban passengersalongside the new station fo- Whites. Coloured and African passengers wereseparated within the non-white section.3"D. SEGREGATION IN UNIVERSITY SOCIETIES43. The Government has embarked on further moves to enforce racial segregationin the universities.44. It may be recalled that the National Party Government had segregateduniversity education by the Extension of University Education Act of 1959 whichprohibited non-white students from enrolling in the universities and provided forseparate colleges for non-Wlhites. Under that Act, however, non-VNrhites couldbe admitted to the universities by special permission of the Minister in subjectswhich were not offered .st the separate colleges. A small number of non-whitestudents were enrolled in some of the "white" universities under this provision.3t'45. The Governmcnt is now taking legislative steps to prevent the continuation ofthe traditional practice at the "open" universities, particularly the University ofCape Town, of admitting all students to societies, clubs and sporting facilitieswvithout racial separation. It reacted violently to a decision by the Student'sRepresentative Council of the University of Cape Town in l9c3 re:usa4 o, -aiyi',an amendment to the constitution of the Conservative Students' Association (CSA which provided that only white students could be admitted as members ofCSA. and the rejection by the University Council of an appeal by the CSA. TheMinister of Education, Arts and Science, Senator De Klerk. warned in a statement.on 17 February 1966:if a Students' Representative Council of the University should threaten to force aconservative group of students to accept non-Whites as members of theirassociation, the Government %sould view such a step in a very serious light-because such action would be diametrically opposed to the declared policy of theGovernment... per severane with such an attitude could nossibly be a contributorycause towards the reopening of the entire question of the so-called 'openuniversities' . . . the Government will consider, with or without legislation, tocheck the efforts of this unbridled liberalistic Students Council who are nowbeing supported by the Univer- ity Council."40a The bill was published on 25 January 1966, but was held over from the shortsession of Parliament at that time. It was reintroduced in the new session ofParliament on 1 August 1966.

36 Proclamation R 26 of 12 February 1965 required permits for mixed audiencesat any public place of entertainment. (For a discussion of the effects of theProclamation, see A/3957, annex I, paras. 58-81.)3t The Cape Times. 1 September 1966. A lawyer was quoted in this newspaper asstating that the bill could be used to require permits for multiracial politicalmeetings and lectures of a general nature before a mixed audience.38 Ibid., 9 March and 19 July 1966.31) In 1957 the non-white enrolment of 456 made up 10 percent of the student hody at the University of Cape Town. In 1965 there were 422nnn-Whites-290 Coloured, 129 Asian and three African students constitutingabout 7 per cent of the student body of nearly 6.000 (The Cape Times. 1)February1966).40 The Cape Times, 18 February 1966.-first Session-Annexes46. The students protested against this statement at a large meeting on 25February 1966 at which the President of the National Union of South AfricanStudents, Mr. Ian Robertson, declared that if the Minister insisted on tamperingfurther with the rights of universities, he would meet:"...not only with the resolute opposition of the academiccommunity in this country, but also with the unqualified condemnation of thewhole free world, and particularly thegreat \'estvrn democracies."4147. Senator De Klerk, however, proceeded \v: th a further warning on 2 March1966 that the Government contributed 75 per cent towards the finances of theuniversities and was intensely interested in what happened there. It could nottolerate undesirable contact between Whites and non-Whites nor attempts whichwere being made to force communist-inspired doctrines on students and tosabotage government policy. He disclosed that the Government was consideringlegislation to end these undesirable conditions.42 Though the University Councilof the University of Cape Town attempted to pacify the Government byappointing a commission to study the constitution of the Students' RepresentativeCouncil,43 the Government proceeded wvith the publication of two bills on 4August 1966. 48. The first, the Extension of the University EducationAmendment Bill, will prohibit a non-white student at a "white" university frombecoming a member of any student association unless it is an academicassociation occupied exclusively with his course; provide for "ethnic"associations of non-whites at "white" universities; and give the Minister powers toexpel a non-white student at a "white" uni,:e7-sity at any time if he considers it"in the public interest". Though the immediate purpose seems to be to destroy themultiracial character of the National Union of South African Students, which hasopposed apartheid, the bill has much wider implications. As Mr. J. Daniel, Vice-President of the National Union of South African Students, declared:"It spells the end of academic freedom as it still existsafter the many blows which have been dealt to that concept. It brings an end toorganized freedom of association

on the campus."It will make it illegal for two people of different racesto meet and worship together on the campus. It will be a crime for different ethnicgroups to meet for a game ofchess or bridge as members of these clubs."It will now be a criminal offence for a non-white history student to attend ageography society meeting unless he is a geography student. A non-white artsstudent will no longer be permitted to attend a scientific society meeting-something which cuts right across the very concept ofeducation."A noi-White at a 'white' university may no longerattend NUSAS functions or take any part in the activities oi the organization. Thislegislation could well spell the death of NUSAS as a multi-racial organization,which isno doubt the Government's intention,.."But this is a tribute to the spirit of democracy on tieSouth African campus, for it shows that the Government has failed in its efforts toconvince students of the 'virtues' of racial separation. It now requires all themight of a totalitarian Government to bend the students of this countryto its will."And we will fight this legislation as never before. Weare confident we will have the support of all 'decent people',as the Minister of Justice calls them."444'i The second, the Universities Amendment Bill, will empower the Minister ofEducation, Arts and Science to withhold granis-in-aid from any university whichhas "prejudiced ''r skljhicd to aty form of discrimination" any student, staffmember or association advocating racial separation on the campus. rhe Minister'sopinion, as to whether there has been discrimination, is to be final. UniversityCouncils are to be held responsible for implementing any directives concerning41 Ibid., 26 February 1966.42 Ibid., 3 March 1966.',3 Ibid., 4 March 1966.44 Ibid., 5 August 1966.

Agenda item 34 35the carrying out of the prov.sion; of the bill, the main clauseof which reads:"No student, member of the staff, aszociatic i )i studentsor of stat, research worker or other person at any university shall on tile groundthat he advocates, promotes -,r maintains ary form of racial separation beprejudiced or subjected to any form oi discrimination by such university or anyperson or body which may exercise any power at suchuniversity Cr in connexion with any activities thereat."E. S--'..eAs..su iN CAR3. tBLE ores' zll-TI, 5'53'. The I. epartment of Social Welfare 'suages-2-" in April

1966 that charitable organizations should reconstitute themselves on a racialbasis, so that white welfare organizations cater only for Whites, and non-whitecharities would cater to a single racial group.45 The Government, it was reported,;ntends to introduce legislation to provide mach'nery to enforce its wishes.4651. On 3 May 1966. the Dir'.tor of 'he South AfricanNational Council for the Blind, Mr. S K. Wentworth, announced that the Councilhad decided to reconstitute itselfalong racial lines.452. The G,vernment's move has caused particular concernbecause of the scarcity of the non-white social workers and the consequent dangerof reduction ,f -ocial services to themost reeJy Fecti,'- of the p'pulatirn,F. Mosts TO CHANGE REPRESENT.TION OF COLOURED VOTERS INPARLIAMENT53. Annoyed at the opposition of the Coloured voters to apartheid, theGovernment is contemplating moves to change the rere-cn-st:,-. of Colouredvoters to make it even less meaningwiu.n4. Under the Se;,arate Representation of Voters Amendment Act (No. 36 o fi9J6S, the Coloured cers of the Cape were piaced on a ;enarate roil and entitled toelect four white representatives to the House -f Assembly and two whiterepresentatives to the Cape Provincial Counci! " .5. A large section of theColoured v)ters, f'7Ilowing the eader.hir, or anti-apartheid organizations of" theColoured eope boycotted subsequent elections in the Coloured con-t.tue:,cizs.The Progressive and Liberal Parties did not contest the elections in protest againstthe .egrega:ion of the Coloure: Voters and the discrimination against the Colouredpeople. In the March 1965 elections to the Cape Provincial Council. however, theProgressive Parry entered candidates and w,.n both the seats on a platformopposed to apartheid. This vict ry and the announced intention of the ProgressiveParty to contest the Coloured seats in the House of Represetatives in 1966 led theG,-vernment to threaten changes in Coloured r-"re-entaticn and mcasure to rr'_vent interference of "white" nar'ies in C.oured constitue:cies. Unter the separateRepresentation of Voters Amendment Act (N, 72 .f 196r. it wvas provided that theelections in the Coloured45Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, 21 April I9646 The Cape Times, 19 April 1966.4TIbid., 4 -May 1966. The Rev. H. V. Bekker, a member of the Council's nationalexecutive committee, said that he doubted whether at this stage the Colouredpeople on the Council would be able to cope with their section as there were farmore blind Coloured people than Whites. "Our problem is not political", headded: "It is one of sound human relationships. We have been blinded bypolitics." iApartheid News, London. June 1966.)48As of 1 January 1961, there were 24.043 Coloured men voters registered on theseparate roll in the Cape province (Republic of South Africa, [louse of Assenibl.Delates (Hansard). I7 February 1961. col. 147?). In Natal. on the same date, 511Coloured men were registered on the common roil (ibid.). No further Coloured

voters were registered in Natal. Coloured men in the remaining provinces, andColoured women all over the Republic, are not entitled to register as voters.constituencies would be held at the end of the five-year termsof the representatives and not during general elections.4"no. Mr. P. XV. Botha, then Minister of Community Development, told the CapeNational Party Cingre_5. on 15 September 1965 that the Government had alwaystaken the standpoint that it was bound to the maintenance of the arrargeintot madea number of years ago for the representation of a limited number of Colouredvoters who had jreviouly qualified, but warned:"If this limited representation by Whites is misused by theOpposition and the integrai,,nists in increasing measures, as an argument to attackthe National Party's policy as .<.gical, the time will come when the basis of thisrepre'entation wvill have to be re-'rnsidered."'aThe Government is reported to be contemplating indirect election of Colcuredrepresentatives by the Coloured Per-,orsRepresentative Council.5'i7 The Government k taking various steps to ensure thatthe representation of the Coloured people, among whom the National Party haslittle following, should not add to the strength of the Opposition in Parliament orprovide the Coloured people with opportutiie for meaningful participatio.: in thenation's political life.8 The Government promulgated regulations on 3 September 1965,52 under theColoured Persons Education Act ("'o. 47 of 1963) prohibiting Coloured teachersfrom '.,ecoming members of or taking part in the activities of the existing politicalparties.55 The significance of these regulations was explained by Dr. Jan Steytler.national leader of the Progr- ive Party, who said on 3 September 1965: "Amongnon-\Vhitcs, teachers are, because of bars andhandicaps in other professions, a much higher proportion ',i the intelligentsia thanin the white group. Barring teachersmeans to a great extent, barring leadership.'5459. The Department of Coloured Affairs promulgated regulations in theGovernment G azett- on 15 September 1965, barring any person from holing,presiding at or addressing any meeting or gatherina in the rural Coloured areas atwhich more than five persons are present or permitting his home or land to beused for such purposes without the approval in writing of the Secretary ofColoured Affairs. (Under previus regulations, Members of Parliament and theProvix'cial Council had been exemp'ed from the prohibition against ho1dingpublic meetings without permission.) Mr. 0. Wollhelm. Member of the CapeProvincial Council, charged that these regulations were "obviouly aimed at theProgressive Party. now that two of its representatives have been elected tO IieCape Provincial Council by the Coloured people."n560. On 19 September 1966, the Government introduced in Parliament the"Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill" providing that no person can beelected as a member of the House of Assembly or the Cape Provincial Council ornominated a- senator to rcpre-ent Coloured vters. if he had

49 The last general elections were held in March 1966. but elections were notheld in the Coloured constituencies as the terms of representatives end in October1966.50 The Cape Times. 16 September 1965.51 Ibid., 13 June 1966. For a review of the Coloured Persons RepresentativeCouncil Act of 1964, see Official Records of the General Assemblv, NineteenthSession, A-lnexes, Annex No. 12, document A/5825, paras. 261-27S. TheCouncil, which is to consist of thirty elected and sixteen nominated members, isexpected to be established late in 1966 or early in 1967.-"-'Governinent Gazette. 3 September 1965.53 On 2 September 1965, the Minister of Coloured Affairs, Mr. P. XV. Botha,said that there would be no objection to Colurrd teachers becoming members andtaking part in a sensible way in the activities of "Coloured" political parties whichs'ught to achieve their aims and objects by constitutional means. (The CapeTimes, 3 September 1965.)--I The Cape Times 4 September 1965. It may b2 noted further that Mr. F. P.Joshua, president of the Cape Teachers A'socation. which renresents 1,000teachers in the C,lourcd Affairs Department, said on 28 June 1Q66 that it wasbelieved that the Security Branch of the Police had a file on every Colouredteacher in the Republic. (Ibid.. 29 June 1966.)5, Rand Daily 'Ja1', Johannesburg, 23 September 1965.

36 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexesbeen a member of or in any way connected with a political party of the whitepopulation group during the three years preceding his nomination as acandidate.56 The immediate purpose of the bill was to prevent the ProgressiveParty from contesting the elections for the House of Representatives in theColoured constituencies in October. As only Whites can be elected, they must ineffect be non-partisan and politically inactive.61. In addition, the bill contains more sweeping provisions. It provides that noperson may engage directly or indirectly in the following activities in anypopulation group except the one to which he belongs :T(a) assistance in registration of voters;(b) taking part in or helping with the establishment or organization of politicalparties or groups; and(c) taking part in the political activities of members of the group.62. Political parties will belong to one population group and will not be able tohelp or oppose the political parties of other population groups. Members of onepopulation group may publicize their own political convictions to otherpopulation groups, but such activity should not be in support of a specificcandidate at an election.63. Members of any group may criticize the actions of the Government of the day,but a member of a population group other than the population group out of whichthe Government is constituted cannot criticize the political party of whichmembers of the Government are members. In other words non-Whites cannotcriticize the ruling white party.

64. The penalty for a first conviction is a fine of not less than 300 rand or morethan 600 rand or imprisonment for a period of not less than six months or morethan twelve months. For a second or subsequent conviction the penalty is a fine of1,000 to 2,000 rand or imprisonment of one to two years. A second convictionmay also result in disenfranchisement for five years.65. The provisions of the bill are not applicable to registered newspapers. TheMinister of the Interior is empowered, by notice in the Government Gazette, toexempt any person or class of persons from the provisions of the bill.66. The United Party opposed the bill at its first reading. In a statement issued on19 September, Mr. S. M. Connan, chairman of the United Party Coloured AffairsGroup, said that this proposed legislation would make South Africa look "stupid,ridiculous and foolish". Mrs. H. Suzman, Progressive, said that it would have theeffect of "amputating the Coloured people from the South African body politic".She added that "a good deal of the bill is unintelligible and what is intelligible isunspeakable".67. On 26 September, the Government announced that it had reached anagreement with the opposition United Party to refer the bill to a Select Committeefor consideration and report by 31 March 1967. It would be replaced by an agreedbill to extend for up to one year the terms of the sitting members of Parliamentrepresenting Coloured constituencies.58G. IMPLEME TATION OF THE IMMORALITY AcT68. The harassment of people under the "Immorality Act" which prohibits sexualintercourse between members of different racial groups continues. Two recentcases, in which the magistrates have found grounds for acquittal, are illustrative ofthe humiliation and embarrassment caused to victims of the zealousness of thepolice.56 The sitting members are exempted.57An explanatory memorandum on the bill says that for purposes of the bill theRepublic is divided into four population groups-White, Bantu, Indian andColoured-on the basis of classification in terms of the Population Registration Actof 1950.58The Star, weekly, Johannesburg, 1 October 1966. The national committee ofthe Liberal Party had decided earlier to dissolve the Party immediately after thebill became law as non-racialism was fundamental to the party. (Ibid,)69. Miss Willyoumine Thorpe, a twenty-four-year-old woman classified asColoured, and Mr. K. Borgotte, a German immigrant, who had been livingtogether and had an eight-month-old child, were brought to court recently underthis Act. Miss Thorpe said that her parents were mixed and she was classified asColoured as she wanted to be the same as her parents and sister. But she hadalways been employed as a White and had associated with Whites. She could notmarry Mr. Borgotte under South African laws and they intended to leave thecountry.70. At the suggestion of the defence counsel, the magistrate examined MissThorpe in natural light outside the Court, and acquitted the couple after acceptingher for the purposes of the case as a white person under the definition provided inthe Act.59

71. In another case which lasted from May to August, the Deputy Mayor ofVereeniging, Mr. Peter Mitford Collett, and a seventeen-year-old Coloured girlwere charged of an offence under the Immorality Act.72. In a four-hour address to the Court, the defence counsel argued that Mr.Collett had merely given the Coloured girl a lift in his car, and that the act shouldnot be interpreted as an impenetrable barrier to any form of association betweendifferent sections of the population. He added :"This act is not intended to cut off any gesture of synipathy or kindness by a whiteman towards a non-white woman. It would be a sorry day for this country if awhite man seeing a non-white woman in urgent need of help should leave herlying in the gutter and deprive her of his help because he was afraid somepoliceman would arrest and drag him through the courts with all the attendantunpleasant consequences and repercussions."73. The magistrate acquitted the accused in view of contradictions in theevidence of policemen.601. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TRANSKEI74. The bantustan experiment in the Transkei, described in earlier reports of theCommittee,61 is being continued under strict control by the Republic'sGovernment. The Matanzima Government remains in power despite its failure toobtain a majority support among the voters. Proclamation 400, which provides fordetention without trial, has been retained in force in view of the tension in theterritory, and between January and April 1966, a total of sixty-twoTranskeians were detained by the South African authorities.6275. The Government has issued two proclamations during the past year topromote the development of Transkei as a tribal state.76. The first proclamation, issued on 31 December 1965, dealt with the problemof the white towns and villages in the Transkei by zoning.63 Ten towns andvillages were zoned to59 The Cape Times, 17 August 1966.60Ibid., 26 August 1966.61 Official Records o the General Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Annexes,addendum to agenda item 30, document A/5497, paras. 97-153 and ibid.,Nineteenth Session, Annexes, Annex No. 12, document A/5825, paras. 340-365.82The figure was given by the Chief Minister of the Transkei, in reply to aquestion in the Legislative Assembly. (The World, Johannesburg, 8 June 1966.)On 24 February 1966 the Commissioner General of Police, Lieut.-General J. M.Keevy, announced that five members Of the Transkei Legislative Assembly, allbelonging to the opposition Democratic Party, and two other Africans, had beendetained under Proclamation 400 on charges of alleged conspiracy to murderChief Matanzima. The five members of the Legislative Assembly were releasedon bail on 25 April and resumed their seats in the Assembly. The trial wasreopened on 6 June 1966 in the Supreme Court at Grahamstown, and on 10 June1966 two of the accused, Mr. Jackson Nkosiyane and Mr. Nicodemus Nogcantsu,were each sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. An application for leave toappeal was granted but bail was refused. (Rand Daily Moil, Johannesburg, 26April 1966; The Cape Times, 11 June 1966.)

85 Government Gazette, 31 December 1965.

Agendibecome entirely African and thirteen were to be zoned into African and whitesections. Three others (Matatiele, PortSt. Johns, and Umzimkulu) were to remain White.77. Representatives of the Whites, particularly Mr. T. GrayHughes, United Party member of the House of Assembly, pressed for governmentfunds to buy out white properties in areas zoned African so as to avoid Whitesfrom being obliged to remain in those areas. They complained that there were notenough buyers for their properties. The Minister of Bantu Administration andDevelopment, Mr. M. C. Botha, stated that in the last two financial years theGovernment had provided nearly 3,000,000 rand for the expropriation of whiteproperties in the Transkei. He added that so far 256 white trading stations hadbeen offered for sale and of those 140had been bought for 798,000 rand.6478. The second proclamation, issued on 1 April 1966, transferred to the TranskeiGovernment all the land and property in the Transkei which had so far beenvested in the South African Bantu Trust.65 It excluded, however, land or propertycontaining prescribed, restricted or strategic materialsor minerals.79. While taking these steps in line with its declaredpolicies, the Government has continued to be vague about the pace of furtherdevelopments. It was, on the one hand, under continued pressure from the UnitedParty which has held that independent bantustans might become bases for hostileforces66 and endanger the Republic, and, on the other, under a compulsi, n toadhere to the propaganda that it sought unlimited development for the Africans intheir "homelands". 80. The Government's position is that it would be prepared togrant independence to the Transkei "at the right time".67 Prime Minister 'fr.Verwoerd explained in a broadcast on 4 April 1966 that in promoting self-government in the Bantu homelands "the Government, acting as guardian, will notallow itself to be driven to such undue haste as had led to disastrous resultselsewhere in Africa .... The development of the Bantu homelands must be suchthat it will promote the real well-being of all members of each national entity.Such a spirit of goodwill and realization of economic interdependence, must growso that a form of organized co-operation and consultation will come naturally".68Earlier, on 22 March, Senator de Klerk, Minister of Interior, declared that theSouth African Government had not yet granted the6e Cape Times, 5 August 1966. Earlier, in reply to a question in the TranskeiLegislative Assembly, the Minister of the Interior, Chief J. Moshesh, was reportedto have said that Africans who wished to buy properties in the zoned areas of theTranskei towns could, with the permission of the Minister for BantuAdministration and Development, obtain loans from building societies. (Ibid., 27April 1966.)65Government Gazette, I April 1966.

68Speaking on a no confidence motion in the House of Assembly in January1966, the leader of the Opposition, Sir De Villiers Graaff, said that the granting ofindependence to bantustans would be dangerous for the Africans as well as for theWhites. The Africans would become foreigners in their own country; while theWhites would become surrounded by many hostile and envious African States,which might seek assistance from other outside powers. (Republic of SouthAfrica, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 25 January 1966, col. 38.)Another Opposition member, Mr. S. J. M, Steyn, said that the Government'smagnificent plans for new factories and dams were all dependent upon Bantulabour."At its best the bantustan can be no more than a remote corner where the poor,under-privileged Bantu will be restricted, filled with envy of the rest of theRepublic of South Africa and with resentment in his heart, because he will knowthat the riches of the Republic are being provided by the labour of the Bantu whoworks for the Whites in the land of the Whites. That is the state of affairs whichwill be created. That is the most frightening glimpse one would have of the futureof South Africa, this juxtaposition of poverty and riches, with the poor grantedpolitical power by the Prime Minister with the political organs by means of whichto express their resentment in the wrong places, against the Republic." (Ibid., col.84.) 57 Statement by Prime Minister Verwoerd, (Ibid., cols. 65-66.) 68Rand DailyMail, Johannesburg, 23 March 1966.Transkei a single essential right enjoyed by a sovereign, independent State, norhad it said that it would give full sovereign independence to eight Black States orgive it soon."We shall first have to see how the Transkei's affairs go.Independence might come to the Transkei in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years-and in allthere might eventually be two, three,four, seven, or eight black States in South Africa."6981. Meanwhile, there has been dissatisfaction in Matanzima's Transkei NationalIndependence Party, over strict control by the Republic's Government on mostmatters. The banning order issued on 14 October 1965 on Mr. C. M. C.Ndamse, a leading African educator, frustrating the decision of the TranskeiGovernment to appoint him professionalassistant in its Department of Education, aroused protests.7082. Branches of the Transkei National Independence Partyadopted resolutions calling for full independence. Mr. J. Z.Kobo, a supporter of Mr. Matanzima, who advocated independence in 1967 withthe right to join the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity, wasquestioned by the Special Branch of the Police in January 1966.71 In April 1966,Mr. S. M. Sinaba, the Government Chief Whip, and Mr. J. Z. Kobo resigned fromthe Transkei National Independence Party and announced that they would form anewparty, the Transkei People's Freedom Party.7283. Paramount Chief Matanzimna7a denied rumours thatthe Cabinet or his party had split on the issue of independence and that the partyhad sought negotiations with the South African Government on independence. He

attempted to win support in the territory by declaring that his Government soughtthe removal of Whites from all aspects of economic and political life in theterritory in order to provide greater opportunities for the African population, andby asking forthe transfer of greater powers.84. In May, a government motion asking for the transfer of three moreDepartments was passed by 46 votes to 32 in the Transkei Legislative Assembly.Government speakers stated, however, that it was not intended to take them overimmediately in the next year or two, but merely to give the South AfricanGovernment an indication of the feelings of the Transkei people.7485. Chief Minister Matanzima claimed on 20 April 1966 that the day was not faroff when Bantu would control all the police stations in the Transkei. A week later,he told the Legislative Assembly that within ten years the Transkei would haveAfrican administrators capable of managing the affairs of the territory.75 TheMinister of Justice, Mr. George Matanzima, told the Assembly on 10 May 1966that he would announce in the near future the appointment of the first Transkeiancitizens as magistrates.O 86. While hopes of greater self-government are thusspread by the Transkei Government, the budget of the terri69 The Cape Times, 5April 1966.o Subsequently, the Minister of Justice agreed to lift certain provisions of thebanning order to allow Mr. Ndamse to take a post in the Transkei Department ofEducation, but not the post to which he had been recommended by the TranskeiPublic Service Commission.T' Evening Post, Port Elizabeth, 29 January 1966.72 The Star, daily, Johannesburg, 22 March and 5 April 1966; Rand Daily Mail,Johannesburg, 26 April 1966.In May 1966, Mr. Sinaba moved a motion in the Legislative Assembly calling forindependence after a year. The Government amendment that Transkei was not yetripe for independence was carried by 49 votes to one. The Opposition DemocraticParty abstained on the motion and called for full citizenship rights for all in theRepublic.fl It was announced on 4 April 1966 that Matanzima had been made ParamountChief. (The World, Johannesburg, 4 April 1966.)74 The Cape Times, 24 May 1966, and South Africa Digest, Pretoria, 3 June1966. The motion covered the Departments of Posts and Telegraphs andTransport and Information. The Department of Health had been the subject of anaffirmative vote in 1965. The Transkei Constitution allows the territory'sGovernment to hold a maximum of nine departments,. The Cape Times. 27 April 1966.-61bid., 11 May 1966.

38 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexestory for 1966-67 introduced on 4 March 196, showed the his African clergyhad complained of "informers" in theircxtent of its dependence on the Republic's Government. congregations.80The Anglican Bishop of Kimberley, the Rt.

Tralske '. own revenues covered only 3,433,000 rand of an Rev. EdwardCrowther, a United States national, was threatestimated expendture of 16not.t01_rand. The budget was to ened wth harassment because of his concern forAfricans be balanced by a grant of 10,466,000 rand from the Republic's displacedfrom their homes. The Government refused to grant Government and the surlusfrom last year. - him a re-entry visa in August 1966 when he had toleavefor a lecture tour in the United States.11. Repressive measures against opponents of apartheid 93. As Dr. BenEngelbrect, assistant editor of Pro Veritate,87. The South African Government has continued with an independentreligious magazine, wrote in an editorial inthe course of cons:ant intensification of repression against August 1966: theleaders of the non-white population and all opponents of "From the credo oiapartheid there issues an angry conapartheid,tempt of dissentient elements, regardless of whether they88. Some are -tied under arbitrar laws which violate all liagree on the basis ofconvictions which may be uncanons of justice and have become an essentialelement of deniablv Christian and Biblical.the apartheid policy. Many others are harshly punished by "Apartheid isbeing elevated to the status of a nationaladminitrative action alone, without recourse to Courts or aith to such a degreealready that dissenters are brandedeven tie statement of reasons. Score, of persons have been eneries of thepeople without further ado: and inasmuchdetained and kept in solitary confinement for no reason but as they areChristian believers, the integrity of their beliefthat the Government claims to consider them possible vit- is under the gravestsuspicion. ne,-c,. About (10 have been placed under house arrest or"Apartheid has unleashed a hate propaganda campaign,ervc;l with banning orders, and the restrictions on them have not only against itsopponents, and political sceptics. but become increasingly intolerable. A numberof persons have even against Christians and churches who refuse tosubremained under indefinite banishment.75 The treatment of stitute the ideaof apartheid for the one eternal Gospel orprisoners in gaol; has continued to be a cause of gravest to allow it to bedefiled by its heresy."'Ianxiety. 94. A second observatixi which needsto be made is that89. The developments in these respects are reviewed in the ruthless measuresof the Government have taken such athe following sections. Attention oay, however, be drawn turn that they seemdirected not only at suppression of rehere to a few aspects of the present situationsistance, but increasingly designed to wreak vengeance against90. The logic of apartheid has led the Government to the opponents ofapartheid.

spread the net of repression wider and wider. Q5. Opptens ofapartheid are harassed mercilessly and01. Under the notorious Suppression of Communism Act, conztantly throughcourt actions, arbitrary imprisonments andthe Government has victimized not only counlists but restrictions, and ill-treatment in prisons. Entire families arenumerous other persons xw-hose only offence is resistance t, victimized. Thelives of the victims are made so intolerable apartheid or even to specific actions ofthe Government in that many have been obliged, with great reluctance, to leavethe name of apartheid. f The Government has even begun to their homeland onexit permits which prohibit their return.82take action against persons and organizations for assistance 96. There is littleassurance that the opponents of aparto the victims of its tyranny, as in the cases ofthe South theid can regain liberty and resume normal lives even after AfricanDefence and Aid Fund and several lawyers who serving long sentences inprison. They are tried again on newdefended political prisoners. charges or retroactive laws orplaced under house arrest92. Churches and churchmen are no more immune to arbi- and banning ordersor detained without any charges. Excepttrarv ,:i,n. The Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, Dr. for the few whosuccumbed to pressure and became informers,Leslie Szradling. disclosed in November 1965 that several of they face theprospect of indefinite persecution unless they can leave the country. It isapparently this prospect which'tSouthern Africa. London, 16 May 1966, p. 370, led Mr. Benson Ndimba,a leader of the African National78 In May 1966, 'Mrs. Jean Sinclair. national President of Congress in PortElizabeth. to tell the Court: "I do not inthe Black Sash movement, sent an appealto the State Presi- tend to plead for mercy and do not care whether I am sendentfor an amnesty to the "forgotten people"-the thirty- tence to ten or fifty years.''-four African men and women who had been banished from their homes under theNative Administration Act of 1927. She said:"They have been convicted of no crimes and yet they arebanished far away from their homes. And the worst thing of all is that theirsentences are indeterminate-they do notknow if or when their sentences will end...."One of these men has been banished for fifteen yearsnow. He is a very old man and in poor health. Another has been banished fortwelve years and is mentally unstable -he is unable to accept or understand hisconditions of banishment and has been sentenced several times for wanderingaway."The Government, however, took no action. (Rand Dail' Mail, Johannesburg, 17June 1966; The Star, daily, Johannesburg. 28 June 1966.)

T0The Suppression of Communism Act is ostensible designed to prevent personsfrom furthering any of the objects of communism. But, as Mr. Alan Paton,President of the Liberal Party, said recently:"Some of the objects of communism would be the sameas some of the objects of any Government imaginable, including our own."It appears to me that the Minister of Justice would beable t. ban almost any persons who took any interest inpolitics or social welfare."It is because the law is so thoroughly bad that the courtsire prevented f-om passing any judgement on whether theMinister was justified in the action he has taken."It is a fine situation, is it not. when the law of the landis used to silence the courts of the land." (The Star, daily. Johannesburg, 9 July1966.)97. Much inhumanity has come to light, but the Governmnent has generally failedto attempt to meet or answer public concern. It seems intent on conditioning thewhite public opinion to cruelty and to spread fear among the non-Whites andother opponents of apartheid as a safeguard against resurgence of open resistance.98. Finally, one of the most disturbing aspects of the recent situation has been itseffect on the legal profession and the judicial process.99. While some members of the Bar have courageously opposed the inroads intothe rule of law. many others scem to have succumbed to fear of the Governmentor seem to share its view that the application of the rule of law is inappropriate inthis 'energency'.8 Southern Africa, London, 8 November 1965.,' Quoted in Sunday Times, Johannesburg, 14 August 1966..12 Exit permits have been granted to many opponents of the Government's racialpolicies. Mr. Vorster, then Minister of Justice, said in July 1966: "As far as I amconcerned, the more communists who quit South Africa the better." (SundayExpress. Johannesburg, 24 July 1966.) Many of those who have left on exitpermits had not been accused of affiliation with the Communist Party, butpresumably fell under the Government's definition of communists.sa Mr. Ndimba was sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment in May 1966,after serving thirty months in prison for ANC activities. (Anti-Apartheid News,London, June 1966.)

Agenda item 34100. The Association of Law Societies of 5'_uthern Afri a There is norefused to oppose the bill which armed the Minister _f Justice that they la withthe power to debar members from the practice of the lacking in thlegal profession on political grounds because, as it said, of of the impEc "thespecial circumstances which presently prevait".> The ideals c4 indTransvaal Law S, cieetv rtu -ed even t, p-o:est agatns: the would be wr,arbitrary ban imposed on M:ss Ruth Hayman, an atr.:,rne to 1e politicawhose only offence was that she defended a number of political pla:r The id

,:isoner'. the refusal being based on it- stated view that the and warp of Sncietycould not involve .tse:f in a political di<'ute about '.-rvng for a the ex-ten-e ornon-existence of an emergency in Suth great legal sxAfrica.85 in :ear andha n er and101. The pNwe. of the Courts has been made largely, if have n:terzre'hc ,e resoundnot wholly, ineffective, by reason of a mass of repressr relegislation which denied them any jurisdiction, whereas the n:iced and mGovernment ha. not hesitated to use it to implement other -, ,eak. but thelegislation to its liking, but which patently violates the iunda- "There is ar mentalprinciples of te rule oi law. Effective use of the been dangerouCourts, where it is convenient, has h'ped the Government to to the courts deceivepublic opinion. But the judiciary notorious as an the courts hainstitution serving the cause of atar:heid-the judges and gramme of lamagistrates are all white-has by slow ercs~on 1,st even the cerned now windependence maintained by it in the past. especalv a: the the fact that t higherlevels, and has nere-re become th. ha:.dmaiden cLf a ma:.y people raciallyinspired Government. th fault of t102. Even ws1ithn the 'im t of the languag: of thie laws, courts have n thejudiciary has more often than no, tended to a-cept a- even faintlyinterpretation less concerned with the rights of the victi s There have be thanthose of the -p-res-ive regime, presumabiv on the have spoken o:assumption that the police ,,wer ot the State was --,f greater on so me occassignificance in the present emergency, and that the rights They added: ofindividuals must give wtay before it. "'In the fir-:103. The Courts have freely admitted evidence of w:t- signed to presenesses whose testimony has been obtained after a threat oi about them...detention or who have in fact been detains .d under inbuman and dras.Aca!lyconditions, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence of of Parliamentundue pressure by the police in the procurement of such these measuresevidence. Such evidence has been decisive in numerous cases, and cannot claiThe judges have turned a blind eye to even the most brutal tion which apptreatment of detainees when brought to their attention, emergency andWhether they have given up in despair any attempt to uphold vanishing libertthe law in view of the prevalent practice of the Government Court appearsto meet judicial restraints with fresh legislation or whether rights for as Io theyare themselves the victims of the dominant opinion in about the permthe white community, the result has been the inevitable and a situation in Nincreasing loss of confidence in the judiciary, between the pr104. Mr. A, S. Matthews, Professor of Law in the Univer- the power of tity of Natal, and Mr. R. C. Albino. Professor of Psvchology subversion. Thi atthe University, wrote recently: people for activallow, but enco"We have to face the fact that some South Africans may to Aaw this fno

have lost faith in the courts. The line of cases already discussed in this article doesnot present a picture of judges fired by ideas of individual liberty or personalsanctity.-10). Not conte84 South African Digest, Pretoria, 25 February 1966. with which it ar85The Sunday Times, Johannesburg, commented on 31 the policy of apaJuly 1966: legislation in the"If a Road-gangers Union gave this reply we could AmendmentActsunderstand it. But the Law Society is a very different kind prisoners after coof body; and its members have a greater duty to the rule of existing repressiv, lawthan to party politics. arbitrary. A Radi"The Law Society is not a sports club in which membersof varying political, religious or other views meet on neutral 1, The Supprcssioground. It is a body of men whose daily life is supposed I'n. The Supprto be dedicated to law and justice. There is no room in dclined to extensuch a body for the flaccid statement that 'open trial before -was approved by ajudge minimizes the danger of punishing the innocent but which was first e thisbrings us back to the socio-political problem whether whice to detain in presentconditions the legislation in question i- right Justice to or wrong ..of Communism"We quite believe that some members of the Law Society aity of the Scat areprepared, for political reasons, to accept the attack oil the sentence if lie the ruleof law. Should a Law Society that is worth its encourage any of 1 cal: defer totheir opinions? be known as the"Members of the Law Society who do object to the banning of one of theirmembers without trial ought to come A. S. .Matthesout and say so. The fact that others refuse to go along the Temporary" inwith them is hardly a reasoti Ior preventing the Law 1966.Society from doing its duty, .R Ibid.assertion here that the judges are partial or ck integrity. \'hat does seem to havebeen e cases analy-sd above is an imaginative grasp rtions of z . Varyconfinement and of Wc'tern ividual freedr. It may be argued tlhat it 7.g for judge,to have regard for what a-.ear I values. TB - an-wer to such an arz:nnIt i' eal ofwhich we speak is - .rt -.f the wx.f Roman-Dutch law and it can surely never bejudge to give effect to the very ,oiri: oi that-tem unless Parliarcn- fi,.rbid. him to do so unambiguous terms. In recent yearsthe courts ted laws which have cried out for one oi ing defences of individualliberty in the digajestic language in which judges sometimes opportunity has beenpassed by. tother reason why faith in the courts may have sly weakened. Menhave over the years looked for protection of basic rights. In South Africa ve had toenforce and apply a heavy- prows which deny basic rights. We are not conith thereasons for the laws but merely with he courts have become an instrument for'what regard as ,pp-e-iV legi>laion. This is not he courts, but it i- hard to deny thatour ot shown themselves to be the reluctant, or roubled, instruments of theenforcement ... en many occasions in the past when judges f laws with a stemvoice of disappro-al and ions their protest must have had influence."56

place, the so-called emergeny measurcs derye order have an amazingly permanentlook Laws allegedly designed to preserve order. limitirg individual rights, haveflowed out in a stream of growing turgidity. Many of are a permanent feature ofthe legal system m the title 'emergency legislation'. The situaarently c'-nfronts usis that of the permanent there is no sign of respite but rather of ty and permanentinsecurity... Instead. the to have authorized the neglect of individual ng as one canforesee... Our final comment anent emergency is that it has brought about vhich itis no longer possible tw distinguish eservation of order and the preservation of heruling party and between opposition and e judicial and extrajudicial punishmentof ifies which a democracy should not merely urage. makes it difficult., if nitioninsible.A, NEW LEGISLATIONnt with the mass of arbitrary legislation med itself for punishing the opponents ofrtheid, the Government has sought further form of to Suppression of Communism-one to extend a provision for detention of mpletion of sentences and another tomake e legislation even more far-reaching and o Amendment Bill has beenintroduced.'n of Communism A nendnrent Act of 1966esion of Communism Amendment Billd the "Sobukwe clause" for another yearParliament in February 1966. This clause. nacted in 1963, empowers the Ministerof a person convicted under the Su)ri.s-ion ct. or of certain other crimri az.e -:het:. for further periods after the ex,,i-v of is "likely to advorate .dvis. defend or :heobjects of communin"t It has conic to "Sobukwe clause" a. only M:'. Robertvs and R. C. Albino, "The Permanence of the South African Law Jaurnal,February

General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-AnnexesMangaliso Sobukwe, leader of the Pan-Africanist Congress, has been detainedunder it since 1963.107. The Minister of Justice stated in defence of the bill that for security reasonshe did not consider it advisable to release Mr. Sobukwe. Mr. Sobukwe, he said,was still regarded as the leader of the Pan-Africanist Congress and wouldundoubtedly resume his subversive activities as he had not changed his attitude.The Opposition United Party members, opposing the bill, stated that they did notadvocate the liberation of Mr. Sobukwe but felt that there were other ways ofdealing with him.88-. The Suppression of Communism Further Anendment Bill108. Another Suppression of Communism Amendment Bill was introduced inParliament early in 1966, deferred and reintroduced on 12 August 1966. Itprovides for the debarring of anyone listed or convicted under the Suppression ofCommunism Act from practising as an advocate, attorney, notary or conveyancer.It provides that if a person has had cornmunication with a "listed" or bannedperson he will be presumed to have known about the listing or banning unless hecan prove to the contrary. Another provision seeks to prohibit any banned or listedperson from receiving or making any financial contribution for the benefit of,being an officebearer in, or taking part in the activities of any organizations

specified by the Minister of Justice. The bill further lays down additional groundsfor deporting South African citizens who are not South African by birth ordescent.109. The bill would seem to have far-reaching implications. No less than twentyadvocates have been listed as Communists under the Suppression of CommunismAct and half of these have left the country, and some others are in gaol or on trial.The debarring of those who are able to practise despite various restrictions placedupon them by decisions of the Minister of Justice, would make the legal defenceof opponents of apartheid even more difficult. Moreover, the bill would affect anumber of others who, though not communists, have been convicted and may beconvicted of any of the many offences under the Suppression of Communism Actor may be listed by the Minister under his arbitrary powers.110. The provision on communication with banned persons would make it moredifficult for persons charged under the Suppression of Communism Act to provetheir innocence. About 600 opponents of apartheid are "listed" or banned, andbanning orders continue. Up-to-date lists of those listed or banned are notavailable. The difficulty of avoiding harassment under this provision can beimagined.111. The bill has aroused strong protests in South Africa and abroad.89112 In a joint statement issued on 28 January 1966, the Cape Town. Natal andJohannesburg Bars said:"Ihe bill will restrict the hitherto unfettered jurisdictionof the Supreme Court to decide whether a person is a fit and proper person tocommence or carry on legal practice."The Supreme Court has, throughout South Africa's histn"y. on the application ofthe societies of advocates or of the law societies or of the Attorney-General,exercised this jurisdiction with proper regard to all the circumstances ofthe particular case before it."The bill is therefore unnecessary and an unjustified reflection upon the adequacyof the Supreme Court to discharge its duties. It may well discourage somepractitioners from carrying out the duties of the court and to the iublic fearlessis'and without regard to the popularity orotherwise of the case entrusted to them.Sa Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 2 February1966, cols. 566-576. 89 The comment by the International Commission of Juristswas quoted in the Special Committee's earlier report (see A/5957, annex I, para.104),"It is an unwarranted interference with the administrationof justice."90113. The Law Students' Council of the University of Witwatersrand decided inJune 1966 to record its "extreme disapproval of, and opposition to, the terms ofthe proposed bill" and stated:"Political beliefs should never be the absolute criterionfor withholding the rights to practise."In the past, the Supreme Court of South Africa and the

professional legal bodies have shown themselves zealous of, and able and willingto protect the integrity of the profession by taking immediate action againstpractitionersguilty of professional misconduct."The effect of the bill would be to discourage lawyersfrom defending political accused for fear of being associated with the beliefsunderlying such trials, and thus becomingvictims of the provisions of the proposed bill."'The proposed bill would deter law students from indulging in legitimate politicalactivities."The Minister of Justice refused to see a deputation of the Council.9114. Mr. Jack Unterhalter, Chairman of the Transvaal branch of the Liberal Party,said that it was only one step from this bil to exclude banned people frompractising law."Any lawyer taking part in politics will then expose himself to the wrath of theMinister of Justice and can find himself without a profession. The level ofpolitical activity among lawyers would fall considerably because of this.'t123. The Radio .,mendmneit Bill115. In August 1966, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Albert Hertzog,reintroduced the Radio Amendment Bill in Parliament. It would empower thePostmaster-General to publish a list of radio stations which transmit broadcastswhich may "disturb the peace, order, or public safety in the Republic," or may "beinjurious to the morals, religion or morale of any section of the population of theRepublic, or may prejudice any industry or undertaking in the Republic". It wouldmake it an offence for anyone resident or working in South Africa from assistingsuch a station directly or indirectly. It provides for a penalty of up to six months'imprisonment, or a fine of 2,000 Rand ($US2,800) or both, for each day on whichan "offence" is committed.116. On 18 August the bill was referred to a select committee.4. General Law Ainendmnent Bill117. On 13 October 1966. the Government published the General LawAmendment Bill which will enable any police officer above the rank oflieuteniant-colonel to detain for fourteen days anyone suspected of certainsecurity offences for interrogation. No court may interfere during the fourteendays. After that period, the Commissioner of Police may apply to a judge forextension of the detention: the judge would decide solely on the representationsmade by the police.118. Another provision of the bill states that any person who had been prosecutedat any time for undergoing training in sabotage or for obtaining information tofurther the aims of communism would be presumed to have undergone training insabotage if it had been proved that he had previously left the country without apassport. The onus would be on the accused to prove that he had not undergonetraining in sabotage.9390The Cape Times, 29 January 1966. The Johannesburg and Cape Town Barsreiterated this criticism in mid-August 1966. The Association of Law Societies ofSouthern Africa, compnsed of the four provincial law societies, however, said in a

statement on 2 February, that it could not oppose the bill because of "the specialcircumstances which presently prevail". (South .4frican Digest, Pretoria, 25February 1966.)at Sunday Times, Johannesburg, 3 July 1966.92 Evening Post, Port Elizabeth, 29 July 1966.93 The Cape Times, 14 October 1966. The new Minister of Justice, told theHouse of Assembly on 14 October that when this bill was enacted, the "180-daylaw" would be needed solely for the protection of witnesses and to prevent themfrom absconding. (Ibid., 15 October 1966.)

0tAgenda item 34 4113. IMPLEMENTATION -)F THE 180-DAY LAW" an application byhis wife, Mrs. Anne Heymann, the Pretoria119. Rference was made in the last report to Section 215 Supreme Courtordered his reieae on 9 Seternher 1965 and bs of the Criminal ProcedureAmendment Act of 1,65 xhich awarded costs of the actinn against therespondents. theempoer the mAl o dure mentoodenth arre of ay w h Attorney-General and theCommissioner of Police. Mr. Justice empowers the AttorneaGenet order thearrest of any Kotze found that, as the Minister of Justice had failed toperson 'ikely" to be a State witness in certain clastes 05 frame the r zulan-gzverning the detention of persons as offences and hold him islcolniunsicado forup to six months Parliament had intended, the re'evant securon of the Act was ata time (see A/5957, annex I, paras. 105-110). As theInternational Commission of Jurists observed: inconmplete.125. The police, however, evaded the Court order by re"This must be one of themost extraordinary powers that !eas:ng Mr. Heymann from a side entrarce of aprison, and have ever been granted outside a period of emergency. Itimmediately re-arresting him under arntlher law. Mr. Heymannauthorizes the detention of an innocent person against whom again was "reeased'"and redetained under the 180-day clause no allegations are made and no suspicioneven exists: it on 10 Se',-ember when the regulations were promuigated.97authorizes detention in the absolute discretion of the Attor- 126. Mr. Heymannwas subsequently called to give evidence ney-General. It denies the detainees a.cess to a lawyer ior the St,.tc at the trial ii or Afrians charged % ith m:liarywithout special permission; and it precludes the courts from training outside S.uth Africa to further the aims of the examining the validity of the detention evenwithin the African National Congress. He was sentenced to eight days'already very wide powers of the Act. It further authorizes impris nment on 8November 1965 and to twelve months on the subjection of the detained witness tosolitary confine- 15 November as he refused to take te oath or airm unless mentfor a period of six months and, with the object. iter he was allowed to take legaladvice ccnter:i-tg his obligaticn alia. cf excluding 'tampering with or intimidation'of any to ers, n. places him in a situation where he s in the almost toanswer

questions and the consequences of answering or un ct es powem in atuaton wherehve ain nterst refus'ng to answer Subsequently. while in pris on, he wasuncontrolled power of the police who also have an interest charged with membe-ship in and participation :n the activities in the evidence he may give."94of the Commurist Party and sentenced on 6 May 1966 to120. The Minister of Justice told the House of Assembly five years*imprisonment.on 2 August 1966, in reply to a question by Mrs. Suzman, 127. Mr,. VioletWei::bcrg, a leader of the South Africanhat a t, tal of 115 persons had by then been detained under Federation ofWs'omen. was detained on t, Noe:ber 19(. his section, as follows:(Her h:batad. Eli, and her daughter. Sheila, were then :nEto ropeani Indians Colouredi Africans prison.) After deteottn for over sixm,_Inths, she was charged Females 8 1 - on 18 Mayl9t6.S w th assisting Mr. Abram Fischer whileI . he was in hiding. She alleged that a statement had beenMaics 23 11 1 68 extracted from her by the police byunlawful methods (seehe Minister claimed that it was neither in the public inter- para. 160 below). stnor in the interest of the people concerned to disclose 128. Mrs. Les'eySchermbrucker. a mother of two children,ieir names, the dates when they were detained and released. was detained on ISNovember 1965. (Her husband was servthe criminal proceedings in which theywere each required ing a sentence of three years' imprisonment. She had annoyedwitnesses, or to give any other information which had the police by applying tothe Court in August 1964 to restraineen asked fL~r.5t the police from unlawful and cruelmethods of interrogation12. Press reports indicate that the detainees have been of her husband: theapplication was rejected by the Supremept in solitary confinement and subjected to pressures, that Court in October 1964and the Appeal Court in September any of those released have been banned, andthat many 1965.) In January 19 . 5, she was brought as a State witnesshers have been charged with political offences rather than in the trial of Mr.Abram Fischer and was sentenced to 300 ing called as witnesses.96days' imprisonment for tvice refusing to give evidence.122. During the discussion of the Criminal Procedure 129. Mr. Zollie'Malindi was detained on 8 December 1965mendment Act in 1965, the Government had told Parliament and released inMay 1966. but was immediately re-arrestedat the Act was needed to protect State witnesses against on a charge oirmemer-hi') in the African National Congressimidation. The implementation of the Act shows, however, though he had beenacqutted on this charse in 1964. He was

at it has been used by the Government to extract evidence again acquitted on 5luly 1966. He had it all spent more ruthless means and to punish opponents ofapartheid againstom it was unable to prove any offences even under its chargeibitrary laws. 130. 'r. Alexander La Guma, aprominent writer and lee1,. The cases oi some of th~se detained under this Actcurer and a member of the national executive of the Coloureduld show that it is used for the same purposes as the People's Coitoress, wasdetained on 27 January 1966. He hadtorious 90-day law of 1963, the implementation of which already facedconsta:Tt persecution fir a de-a~e.9' Mr. Las Suspended in January 1965, after widespread protests and Guma left SouthAfri,-a on an exit permit in Se- tember 10 6. emand for :ts repeal by the SecurityCouncil in is resolu191 19t4) of 18 June 1964. 7 _Mrs.Heymann, meanwhile, brought a habeas corpus24. Mr. Isaac Heymann, the first person to be detained application and, on 13September, the Court awarded hercosts against the officer commanding the Security Police iner this Act, was arrested on I Septemb r 1965 in Johannes- Pretoria and censuredthe police. The Court. however has g. where he was a manager of a !e:,armentst re. On no jurisdiction on detentions under the 180-day clause.9S fr. Malindi, a taxi-driver and leader of -.1. AfricanBulletin of the International Commission of Jurists, National Congress itt heCape, was detained without trial eva, September 1966. f. rf .ur months in 190. In 1961. he was banned from atRepublic of South Africa,House of Assembly Debates tending meetings. In February 1963, he wasserved withansard), 2 August 1966, cols. 18-19. Earlier, the Minister s'rinzent banningorders. In 1963, he was detained under the told the House of Assembly on 28January 1966. also in '"l)-cav law" for five months and then charged with memyto a question by Mrs. Suzman, that twenty-three per- bership in the A.N.C. Hewas held without bail until 16 Tunehad been detained under the section and that four of 1%'!4 ohen he wasacquitted.had been released. One had given evidence and two ', Mr. La Guma hadbeen accused in the treason trial Inrefused on being called to give evidence. (Ibid., 28 Janu- 1956 and acquitted afterseveral years; detained during the 1966, cols. 243-245.)State of Emergency in 1960 and again for twelve davs inThe Minister stated on 28 January 1966 that relatives of May 1961; served withbanning orders in July 196f and flees had been informed of the detentons and theplaces placed under 24-hour house arrest in December 19-62; arrested etentionand allowed to see the detainees if they obtained in October 1963 and detainedfor a long period under the tission from the Attorney-General. (Republic of South"90-day law"; sentenced on the charge of Pissession of

ca, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 28 January banned publications in1964 and had the sentence suspendedcols. 244-245.) But this statement is contradicted by Press on appeal; and taken tothe court again on a simiar charge rts. in 1965and found not guilty.T esth0r as beke in otbeAt tlh int tha bywharlwonot wa ad tionand bur94Gen95(Hahad repl sons then had ary96detai of d PermAfri 1966,repor

42 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexes131. Mr. Albert Louis Sachs. a Cape Town barrister and former deputy chairmanof the Defence and Aid Fund in Cape Town, was detained under this law on 27January 1966 after continuous persecution by the Government.1°° He wasallowed to leave South Africa on an exit permit in August 1966.132. Mr, Bernard Huna was detained in March 19fY3 after he .Nas acqu'tted, onalpiel. of a six-year snis-l:icc on the charge of membership in 'he African XationalCongreq'. After three months in det:-nion, he was again charged under theSuppression of Communism Act and remanded without bail.133. The purpose and manner of operatien of the "180-day law'" may beunderstood from the foliowNing extracts romn the d:ar3y by .Ir-. Caroline deCrc,.ig:ny, who was ,lctaned in solitary confinement under -he lSi-day clause for144 days.''V'December 21: ... I have been interrogated continuouslysince lunchtime yesterday. And now it is morning and nf, one has used thetruncheon that the Lieutenant brought in and placed against the cell wall in themiddle of the night.... The Captain's police team conducts all the political interrogations in thecountry. They 'interrogated' Looksmart Solwandle. who was 'found hanged' in hiscell and Babla Saloojee who 'fell to his death' from a seventh-floor window in

security police headquarters in Johannesburg. The Lieutenant mentioned Saloojeeto the Captain last night. He said 'uit die venster' (Afrikaans for 'out of thewindow"iand they both laughed. I am afraid of them."To all the questions so far I have replied: 'I havenothing to say'. They have 384 recordings of conversations in my house in Capetown. Personal and political discussions with iriend,-nothing they could use in acourt case. But abasis for interrogation."There are eight of them. They work in shifts. Two ofthem seem to have special roles to play. The Lieutenant is the 'bully' who shoutsand swears at me. The other licutenant (the quiet one) tells me he wants to be myfriend."'Lunchtime. The Lieutenant comes in alone. He look- atthe truncheon, says that as I 'won't talk' they are now going to use 'other methods'<i interrogation. Exit. Replaced by the quiet one, who tells me he is afraid ofANhat they are going to do to me. I say to him: 'You are playing the part of thesympathizer-the one who tries t,, soften me up'. I find it an effort to say th:s.Intellectually. I know it's true.But emotionally? No. And when he says 'If you take up that attitude, there isnothing I can do to help you'. I beginto cry."Mid-afternoon. They have told me C. has made a statement. I don't believe them.I ,ay 'Well, show it to me'They do."December 22 : ... Lunchtime, I have signed the statement written by the Captain.It is in such bad English that I console myself by thinking that I can always proveI didn't write it. The Captain says: 'Well, you've confirmed the things we've toldyou. But you'vc told us nothing.Now you're going to s'art.' He goes out. The Lieutenant comes in. He picks up thetruncheon. He pulls a chair round until it is almost touching mine. He sits dwn. Ican smell his sweat. He starts tapping on the floor with the truncheon. 'Talk,' hesays. 'But there's nothing I can say.' He goes on tapping. I sit with my handsclasped in my lap to stop them shaking. I look down at my feet. They are filthy.I have been sitting for so long on this hard chair in this cramped position, jammedbetween the table and the wall.that my ankles are swollen and my calvs are veined and100Mr. Sachs was banned in 1955 and 1963. He had spent one of the longestterms in detention without trial under the "90-day law"-a total of 168 days from 1October 1963 to 16 March 196.0 Mrs. Crespigny, a British subject who had lived inSouth Africa for eleven years, was arrested on 8 December 1965, when she waswriting a novel on detentions without trial under the "90-day law". Released on 30April 1966. she was re-arrested immediately and charged with membership of anillegal o-ganization. The charges were withdrawn on 23 May 1966 on conditionthat she left the country immedi

ately: she left for the United Kingdom on the next day.mottled. The Lieutenant rises, puts down the truncheon. He starts swinging at thewall with his fists. I tell myself: 'Wait till he hits you. See how you can manage.Take it minute by minute.' 'Start talking, he says. I repeat: 'But thcres' nothing Ican say.: He goes out. I wait for him to come back. After a few minutes theCaptain comes in. He ,ays: 'We're taking you back to the prison now. We'll befetching you again in a few days.''(On Christmas Eve, I saw the British Consul and described the interrogation tohim. I believe this to be the only reason why I was never questioned in the sameway again-and why when, later, in Cape Town, I refused to answer questions, nopressure was put on me to do so).."January 15: They have charged Fred Carneson. He was 'detained as a witness' onthe same day I was. He has never been called to give evidence-they can neverhave intended to call him. They must have forced him to make a statementincrinsinating himself-and then charged him. Now they tell me I am detained togive evidence in his case. So, presumably, for the past six weeks I have been'detained as a witness' in connection with a case which didn't exist. More likeKafka every day. I tell the Major from the Cape Town security police that in nocircumstances will I give evidence. lie says: 'Well, first you'll get a year forrefusing to testify. Then we'll charge you with furthering the aims r-fcommunism--"uu can get five years for that. And while you're serving yoursentence we'll bring you to court to give evidence in other cases. Each time yourefuse, you'll get another year.' He concludes: 'So you'll be inside for about 11years.'..."April 30: The other lieutenant tells me that the case against Fred has closed. 'Asyou have persistently refused to give evidence, we are charging you.' (Under theSuppression of Communism Act and with contempt of court for havingpublished an article criticizing the verdicts in certain political trials) .., ".02 134.Mrs. de Crespigny added: "When the South African Minister of Justice, Mr.Vorster, introduced the 180-day clause, he stated that it would only be invoked tohold potential state witnesses. Events could not have demonstrated more clearlythe blatant falsity of this assertion. The actual purposes of the clause have nowbeen conclusively shown."Fir-t, it has given the security police unchecked opportunity to obtai informationthrough brutal and illegal techniques of interrogation. Secondly, i* has been usedto coerce detainees into giving state evidence by means of psychological pressureexerted through solitary' confinement and threats of prolonged imprisonment. (In1964 the Criminal Procedure Act was amended to extend the penalty for refusingto give evidence from eight days to one year. Mr. Vorster has now declared hisintention of extending this penalty, tleugh legislation, to five years.) Thirdly,information obtained by interrogation has been used to lay charges againstdetainees who are never brought to court as witnesses at all. This happened toFred Carneson, to me and to two Africans. Zollie Malindi and Bernard Humna."Fred Carneson was recently sentenced to five years and nine monthsimprisonment. (His case raises another issue. Four years of his sentence resultedfrom his making admissions of guilt on certain sections of the cha-ges. He made

these admissions to prevent 180-day detainees, including myself, being called aswitnesses-because he knes that we could be sentenced for refusing to giveevidence against him. We owe our liberty to him, and not to the South AfricanGovernment. The position has now been reached where South Africans accused inpolitical cases will plead guilty on counts on which they might well be acietted, inorder to save their friends front imprisonment for refusing, on principle, totestify)...'Zollie Malindi and Bernard Huna, detained for nearly five months, brutallyinterrogated and never called as witseses. are now awaiting trial in Cape Town.They have been refused bail and both face long terms of imprisoi102 Caroline deCrespigny, "Prisoner of Venvoerd", it' .Vczt' Statesman. London. 8 July 1966.

Agendament if they are c' 'vcted Thi is what it means to be 'detained as a witness" inSouth Africa to-av."'08135. S'niifican--. the Governrnent has been able to obtainvery few willing State wt:neses despite the ruthless use of the'180-day law".C. PCL-717I,TA TRIALS136. Numerous ,;,ponenti of aparthe d have been broughtto trial ard iv n harsh sentences durin- the past year underthe ar' 'itrary re-res-ve legilatin:o104137. These trials hate involved an :ncreas'nz violat:in ofelementary prrcip~e- of justice, e.auz-e C t e nature f rect Ht'lation reviewed h;the tec:al C, n:.c1 '-e rts and the unconcern o. th Goverrment even with thefrmalitie' of judicial process.13$ Ce of the in,st di-turbing feature, in the past yearis the retrial and re-cntencing 3i -e'-:,s who ha'd -m-peed term, of :enri:on-n for:Cai esar in 1 6,the ,xernnat began retrials Af 161 .riatis ron twnships in Port Elizabeth who hadbeen -rving "-tar-ce of, on the averaze, tw,: and a half years r:- .nc-it sincel-O.-rc4 mainiy on charges of - em'ersh'o of -he banned Xtrican NationalCongres-. Tlit wee - t up or trial again on charges a-:s-i'm e--er.:.- from the -a eacts. in remnte to,-n, where c- asi -sance - - and ch'nln g sen-enc13'.. These trials were 2escrbf' in a s-atement beforethe S;ecia: C''r-nmtt-e by M:- - '-in Een,--n, a ri-ter who had v-isite the area andnve-:ga-_ - tc e stuat:ion :>": Ste aid.:In the ha-t. Ca-e important Amertcan and 'r::t';hauto-mbie and other fac:cr'e; rcur:'h. You may rec-alX that tnis 1 :.g the scen- ofthe rm-,t mili:ant Airi-an act-on.\:x% the Sc.uIt P,,i:ce are intent on r -he areaiart:Stuar.- Port Fizab-h'- African ofi-,ou the lastcrow c.i political con--c,, But the t;urie goes further; :t r- aired at the verx nhart o-ociet-, at the qualities - , ndepenoetnce. seific-rs; -,and ..'. tru-t. ithoutvh h. ua:. rr -.iings beec-ne corruptilie."..-urmg the -,a-t and a half years. at t 1.000 men

and tx-omen !ave been rre'ted iti--, and tn - -nru erable :ria.s mr,: have been hacwit-rh ce-rbe--hi2 of the un:awful African Nat:onal Congres A:C -r, in fewerca-es, c7 the Pan-Ari:anrizt Cotngress 'PACj. None of trese case, is ccncernedwith ats of vialence. which would-, -r the ''-,rime Co-art. but tncrea-ingy the Stateroduces evidence of talk of vioence."The I-c Press had barey :c-- rcc .1:ho-e trial, andI was the n-t overseas corr;,:.ndent - do so, Virtually all the trials are hel in c7o:.2in villages remote from Pc.rt E zabez' on the ,round. that S-at- xxtn--es fear- or re-risal, ri-h re-ul'tn: A mclt- in findinzdetente 7oun-e! and :7 -he Pre- being able to attend. soat a re--ad , an-nov.. s-tt' . etr tm."B-tore :he tria'-. ie a-cnued are held for between fiveto nineteen nt onth- in - -on. F he" -crack under i7:-errogation. which may includeassaul- and mental -r- andagre -, give the necessa-- exi 'ce, they "',',me State wimezte', Thi; :z h,',w "any i-f*r nrs are made, h.e-ceforth t., Corru-pt -ociet Th who omehjw hold outbecome the accue'"'The ha:tne;Iaur brar , has spoken .:4 'the --act-ce orare-: nz in ha;e and c,-;,i'etinv eviden--e at Ie-ore' Freiutv te 'harzm relata - a:onzatec-di" n-mtecd in 1961 and 1h62. making it almost impos-ible to prove an aur:pet S.ae witnes'es ::.', . re- cot cc::t event' can give preci- 'evidence' a-'it 1961v. ih, N oe -er ncnserical, t.he:- : -n recite wi'h an air of pride. Clearhthe- areccho.:-d by the Seonritr Polce. and by r,.) means-ubth ' I found one zea- wit:.c -" -z a..aSvn evdence azair'nt x- peorl anothcr lear t his103 k ,id.1"Brief part iular- concerning the trial concluded durrg t'-,triod are even th a,-'Ini . "0.151See also The Pure of 'he Eas,'-n Care. pan-hle- ublished by Chri'sian ActionLenin in 1($ and "C,,tied re, rerior in South Airtca" in the Bulletin of theInternationa Comnilisfon of Jurists, Geneva. September 1.%-.item 34 43evdenee off by heart, one had the hi-tory of a man in the ray of the polite. an i 4oon. Th- would vehemently dent t.'rtre or pr'-ure )f any kind. They had come tocourt t: -eU 'the tru-h' and-in a star-tlicnl repetitive manner-they would v.-iunteer:J was n -t forced to make a statemen' , rlnraing. ticr corroboration of small detailsof what hap-,ened .n 1-96 or 9-2 stretcled one's credulity.It wa- like hearng actors come t: cour:. In several instances, the defence eicted thifact that State witnesses during a trial had -isp' --met-nt, two or -hree toge-her at atime-in a room with an Afri-an security sergeant, hUt 'h-- in'isted nothingcorcernint the case was everdi- -ussid."Lut 'where injutice is most a-arent. though blessed bythe 'a,-' in the framng of the charges, for these have been broken down undermultiple counts: membership of an unlawful organizati.n. furthering its aims,

colet ng fund- for ic, attending meetings, aiioxw ng premises to be use ror it- mee-tng;. dstributing 'enicts; the traxrnum setence on each count being thr-e year-with, in some ca'-, each meetinc. "ach ieath, treated as a separate count.The o-xerit - o -ent-nee- can be imagined: whereas in-:,ann -a'. whites who were admitted rank-and-filememb-rs ,f the Commu.-t Party, ani who collected subcn.c, distributed leaflet-.pa:nted slogans and attendedMnore than t.venty cell metings were sentenced to two years, in the Eastern Cape,ANC and PAC members have been enoered to up to ten years for a leser sertec ofactivities.'The charges are framed under the Suppresion oi Communism Act which, as youknow, covers any particularly rietirve and active i---n-nt cf the Government andhas been used far more waidit aga:.-t African nationalists and"'dye liberals than acainz- the small group of 'Marxists..."One man, an A:rican trade unioni-t aged about sixty,alter being ;mariconed in four different gaols for a total of nineteen months, wasreleased in De-r-mber 1964 without an,.- charge beng laid. In January ol' . he%rote to the M'i-ter of Ju-i.- claiming ana - for loss of health and waces, lie -".asthen re-arr,-tc, and charged xith ANC mm-nbership and rther counts emergingfrom a meet'in in November 7-;2. He waz f:-und gal:y and -entenced to eightYears. On appe al his sentence twas reduced, I be'iev:. by tiree tears.' attended severai days of the trial of a nursing sister,a :v:ea-. a - ',ama:'. 'xh, iad b-e- held in prison-apartfrom a brief coup, le of weeks, when bail was allowed, for ixteen months, axat'lgtrial. Wlen detence counsel questi'ned c S-curity Police se:art in charge of hercase ab-ut thi -r 2, he re':'-rl it was 'perhaps not too long'.He added: 'There were other. who were more importahnt who had ,.' aited , 'neer.'Yet bail had been wthdrawn from h-r fii-een month, before ard tie StateProsecutor had given as a reason that she was the 'mo; danz'r. 'us' of thne '::t,-on-pi-is_,ner' awaitng -rial bec,:re th- c :rt at the time. Fifteen m-nth in pri':-,n, a'most dar-nerus' wx' oan, and When it came to her trial, the Prosecutor deca-e hercase centred on the "disp, _al of a mit.'r van'. It was ai:e,", 'that her man had beenzcv'n the tan by the ANC, and, after hi; arrest she had taken over its sale. SheAenied the ciarges. State witness-s said she told them the --de wa- to raise mineyfar the ANC. and would be u e!-acori::g t:, o: ',r an,-'h r of t '--ror ammitnitmonexp' - e. : r tr I b.)n---t r F ahi ';. -g-n ,r:e and revolve-C. F r h tg (ays. ster Mpendu was male t') -it ,n a ba.-kle bench -eb'hla the case tile] on. The tort. -it':g in a -malcr'oT under a hairdressinz-al-n. -ot t. a raT, ay sid nz in a rich ''ca-ce-nio.ing a.- a. wa, co,:anti:- adiourne'because of the 'I' ,f >',n. inz 'rat. ' ventualiy the eirrs-, describinz he- a; an evasive,: e-:ant witiess. i,',rnd her guilt;y -n four counts: ANC memb-rsh- raising -uI:;,having an ANYC meeting in her house, and -tamprng a recept with an ANC sign.Allot' no for th- eighteen in,,-s-I she had hy this time been 'n custody he rentettcelher to a furti'er two and a half years: in all then f:,ur year-."In some PAC cases, though State witne.-ts alleged the ac u'ed were planing tomassacre whites and take -,vr

44 General Assembly-Twenty-first Sesion-Annexesvillages, no evidence of actual violence was led. Indeed the Abram Fischer. Mrs.Violet Weinberg was sentenced t3 three sentences were only one to three years.months' imprisonment on 18 May 1966 for refusing to give"You may remember that Govan Mbeki was among the evidence in the trialof Messrs, Isaac Hey'ann and Michaelaccused in the Rivonia trial. While I was in South Africa Dingake.'07he was brought, on four or five occasions, from Robben 14,3, The Minister ofJustice, Mr. Vorster, threatened inIsland prison, to give evidence for the defence in these January 1966 to raise thepenalty for refusing to give evidence Eastern Cape trial-. And on all but the firstoccasion, the to five years' imprisonment if the existing maximum of oneP -ess was pru'u7:ly turned out of the courts! year d:d not have the desiredresult.1(s"And to break again from the prepared statement, I would 144. Another no'ablefeature of the recent tits-especiallylike to tell you about another man who was brought from the trials of Mr.Abram Fischer. Q.C., and Mr. Fred Carneson Robben Island to give evidence forthe defence in one of -,was the unsuccessful attempt by. the .ro'cu:ot. to insinua'ithese cases. His name was Terence Mkwabi. He was an that the i'legal S h,uthAfrican Cominist Psr:x" had dir:ctc,:.African labourer from Port Elizabeth and he was scrving the African NationalCongress and the underground Umkonto a sentence -if, I think, two and a halfyears. When he came We Sizwe (Spear of the Nation).Yt It seemed to havehoped to give evidencc, the Prosecutor warned him that by giving by this meansto d;rreJit the liberation movement, -,rt:this evidence for the defence he mightwell lay himself uiarh- in the eyes of some sections of the public in Southopen to further prosecution and prolonged imprisonment. Africa and abroad.'Yes. I know', Mk'wabi said. 'Why then', asked the Prosecutor, 'are you giving thisevidence?' and Mkwabi, who 145. In the Fischer trial, the pro-ecuiion alsomade unwas speaking in Xhosa, replied 'Andisoyiki'; and the inter- substantiatedallegations that humanitarian and liberal organipreter interpreted. 'Because I amno longer afraid.' zations such as the Defence and Aid Fund, the Christian"Men alrady fined or imprisoned for an offence are Institute and the SouthAfrican Institute of Race Relationsbeing recharged, years later, for the same offence. Thus had been used aschannels for funds to banned political orthe employees of a bus company in PortElizabeth were ganizafions, Mr. Fischer denied the allegations which hefined 6.16s each in 1961 for having gone on strike. Now. described as an effort"to smear innocent persons... whosethree and a half years later, about twenty-two of them only sin is theirunpopularity with the present Government"."0have been re-arrested and it Iris then been alleged that thestrike was organized by the ANC and, after more than a D. ILL-TREATMENr OF PRtSOs-ERS121

year awaiting trial in prison, they have now been sentencedto four or four and a half years' imprisonment. 146. In its report of 16August 1965, the Special Colnomeror fournd ntg have een imprsometl mitteenoted with grave concern the massive evidence of"Some found no guilty have been promptly re-arrested. ill-treatment and tortureof political prisoners and persons inAnd now a refinement has been thought up by the State: police custody andrecommended an impartial internationalinstead of releasing those who are completing their sen- piest odn decommnded an iparal internan tences, it is charging them again with violationsof the investigation of the situation (see A/5957, paras. 172-173 andsame law. 'So far, 160 or more have been named for this ibid., annex I, paras.167-172).repeated incarceration. Imagine the feelings of the prisoner 147. Earlier, in June-Jul), 1965 the Rand Daily Mail and and of his or her family-just as they arepreparing to be the Sunday Tines of Johannesburg had published a series oftogether again, The first man, Dixon Fuyani, after serving articles on the ill-treatment of prisoners by Mr. Robert Harold two years, was sentenced to sevenmore. The second, Benson Strachan, an art teacher who had just been releasedafter Mximba. who was in the Treason Trial, after serving Lwo imprisonmenton political charges. His testimony was corand a half years, has now beensentenced to four and a roborated by interviews with ex-warders in prisons,alsohalf more. He was the first accused, by the way, to suffer published by the twopapers.from going undefended after the Defence and Aid Fund 148. Theserevelations led to demands for a full-scale publichad been outlawed." (A/AC.115/L.176.) investigation of prisonconditions. On 30 July 1965. Sir De140. As indicated by Miss Benson. a notable feature of Villiers Graaff. leaderof the United Party, demanded thethese trials is the character of State witnesses, motly per- appointment ofa judicialcommission to investigate 'horrifysons who had been intimidated by detention,manhandling ing allegations" about conditions in some prisons.11- Theand threats of persecution tcr give evidence for the State.The arbitrary powers of the Government to detain persons 107 Mr. JusticeViljoen said he had intended to sentenceand hold them in solitary confinement, without access to her to nine months buthad taken into account the fact that lawyers or the courts, in addition to its powersof banning she had already spent six months in gaol under the "180-day andhouse arrest, have thus gravely impaired the judicial clause". processIns10s The Observer, London, 30 January 1966.141. In this connexion, reference may be made to the see- 109 For this purposeit relied on a State witness, Mr. Bartion 27 of the General Law Amendment Act of1964 xxhich tholomew Hlapane, alleged to have been a member of the

increased the penalty for refusal to give evidence from eight Central Committeeof the Communist Party. (Mr. Hlapane days' imprisonment to one year'simprisonment: the sentence stated that he had attended meetings of the -CentralCommitdays imprioet o one yer imrifso t tHe setence tee of the CommunistParty between 1962 and 1964. He had may be repeated for any" further refusal.Hea ' sentences been detained without triai for 172 days in 1963. He was havebeen imposed under this Act on persons who refused to again detained under the"180-day law" in March 1966 and give evidence f, r the State in political trialsagainst their released shortly before the Carneson trial.) He alleged thatcolleagues. the Communist Party had issuedinstructions to the National142. Mr. Isaac Heymann and Mr. Phillip Sello were sen- Command of theUmkonto We Sizwe.tenced first to- eight days' imprisonment and then to twelve His evidence wasnot corroborated and was contradicted months' imprisonment in Novembr 1965for -rfuin to give by that of another State witness. Mr. Petrus Beyleveld, al:evidence for 'he State at the trial of four Africans charged legedly also a formermember of the Central Committee W1 with obtaining military trainne abr-ad tofurther the aims the Communist Party. Mr. Beyleveld testified that the Central ofthe banned African National Cunzress. Mrs. Lesley Scherm- Committee hadnever issued instructions to Umkonto and brucker wnc. sentenced to 3M0 day-' rome~n: on 28 janu- was only concerned with preventing the possibility of thelatter becoming a terrorist organization.ary 1966, for refusing to give evidence in the trial o Mr. In the Carneson case,the Court ignored the Hlapane testmony by finding him not guilty of membershipin the Central10 Evidence of State witnesses has, on a sumber of occa- Committee of theCommunist Party and of planning and sion, been rejected by courts when theaccused were able to advising acts of violence. The judge in the Fischer case.howobtain able counsel. The Court in \Volmaransstad. in the ever. accepted theHlapane testimony.case against Mr. Dawood Cajee, for instance, on 8 September1966, granted the defence application that the evidence of 1lOThe Cape Times,3 February 1966.the two State witnesses was "utterly unreliable", One of them t See also PrisonConditions in South Ifr ca (London. had admitted that he had lied to the policefor fear of being Armnesty International, 1966).detained. 112 The Cape Times, 31 July 1065.

Agenda item 34Minister of Justice rejected such an investigation and said years thatthat he was awaiting a departmental report and invited any com-x-(e hmember of Parliament to visit the gaols.113 been incess149. On 7 February 1966, in the House of Assembly, Mrs. police stani,H. Suzman appealed to the Government for a full-scale "He indicommission of inquiry into South Africa's entire prison sys- thzre becau

tern and a revlew of penal reform. She said: terrogation"The two gaols I visted were unbelievably overcrowded, and that heThe cells accommodated nearly double the number of pris- to relieve honers they were meant to accommodate. The sanitary ar- "He i:,dicrangements were nothing short of med'aeval, and as for been no sanormal hygiene the faciitiee are simply not there, nor are been told t there anyfacilities f r recreation in the two non-White gaols bang on the I visited, and thereare no facilities for the long-term "He addeprisoners."1'4 this. no one150, The -Minister of Justce, however, again r-jeczed an had accordiinvestigation, convenience.151. 'Meanwhile, instead of attempting to :mpr ,.: the con- to accept frditions, the Government proceeded to take action against that this wethose who had publicized the conditions in prisons. It seized there would thepassports of Mr. Lawrence Gandar, the editor of the Rand "He saidDad Mail, and Mr. Benjamrn Pogrund. a staff writer.ih sice he hadIt charged Mr. Strachan and the ex-warders who had ex- of clothingposed the prison condition, with perjury and violation of the in changing PrisonsAct. which makes it an offence to publish false in- "With regformation about conditions in South African prisons and was beingplaces the onus of proof on the accused. Convict,-Ins were they were rsecured on the strength of evidence largely by prison officials, same questio152. Significantly, however, Mr. Dennis T. Goldberg, one he had giveof the accused in the R'o:,nia tria' who is serving a life sen- occasions, tence, sa.don 5 November "965. under cross-exa'ninati. n by "The infethe State, that after the publication of the articles in the been interrRand Daily ffail. conditions in his prison had improved. The team of interimprovements included more recreational facilities, better and "When Icleaner eating utensils, less harshness in the attitude of the said he had tauthorities and more time for recreation at week-ends.l26 since s den153. Any hopes aroused by these trials that the prison "I respectfconditions might be made to conform to the regulations as clear that tha result of the courageous actions of Mr. Strachan and others information i weresoon dissipated by reports of trcatnent of persons de- priving himtained without charges or trial under the "ISO-day law". the regulatic,154. The experiences of Mrs. de Crespigny have been noted venting himearl er (see above paras. 133-134). Sec-al other cases of am apprill-treatment have recently come to light. Police to cons155. Mr. Bernard Louis Gosschalk, a Cape Town architect unlawful metand father of four young children, was detained on 27 Janu- "I have beeary 1966 under the "l0-day law". After a visit to the prison, a warrant is Mrs.Gosschalk brought an urgent application before the Cape purpose of erSupreme Court on 2 February, on behalf of her husband, to criminal procrestrain the Special Branch from "wrongful and unlawful" authorize theinterrogation of her husband. Mrs. GosschaIk stated in an does not authaffidavit: 'he clock. pre

"I aver that sin..e some time on Monday 31 January 1966, them to s;eakthe applicant has been subjected to in:errugati',n by various "I respectftmembers of the South African P. lice, and that such in'erro- invasion of tgation has taken the form of continuous questioning by ateam of interrogators for lengthy periods at a stretch and " am advi.has continued uninterrupted round the clock, during day and normal way night,without affording him the opportunity of sleeping. respondent, it"In this connexion I state that pursuant to a request questioning wby me I was permitted to see the applicant this morning... "I res.ectulWhen I saw the applicant I observed the foll wing: as a matter ofex Parte relic"He was dirty and unshaven and was wearing the same upon the resiclothesas he had been wearing early on Thursday when honourable cohe was arrested. The clothing was dishevelled and soiled. strained, pendiHe looked fatigued and exhausted. He smelt dirty and in- motion,sanitary. In appearance he looked bewildered, did not know 'The aplica"hat day of the week it as ith me or l i"When he saw me the applicant: broke down and began Police resumesobbing: this is something I have not een in the eleven interrogation,1131bid., 2 August 1965. relief."11n4Republic of South Africa. House of Assembly D,'batcs 15". Mr. Justi(Hansard), 7 February l06, cols. 967-968, head of the Sec15 The Cape Times. 23 August 196511ibid., 6 November 1965., 17 Ibid.. 4 FebI have been married. When he had managed to imself the applicant informed methat he had antly interrogated ever since he had got to thecated that he had not slept since he had been .,e oi intCrrogat:on. He irca-ed thatthe inh..d taken place in a zmali ;oun,-!root to. :n had nc, been permitted to leavethis r*: ever mself.ated that wNhile h.:- had been i:i a cell, there had nitary conveniences providedfor him. He had hat ii he wanted to relieve himself he 'hould door of his cell toattract attention. d that he had banged re;ea:edly but. in snite of had come to seewhat he wanted and that he ngly not been able to have access to sanitary He wasso distressed by this that he refused uit that I had brought for him on the eriundsiuld make his stomach work and he feared that be no proper sanitary outlet forhim. that he had not been permitted to wash at all I been at Caledon Square andrefused a change I offered him, stating that there was n: point into fresh clothingin a filthy state. 'ard to the interrogation, he indicated that he nterrogated bv anumber of people and that tot leaving him alone. He indicated that the n wasbeing put to him repeatedly even though n a nega-:ve answer thereto on a numberofrente was irresistible that the applicant had gated day and night withoutinterruption by a 'rogatocr.asked hin whether or not he had exercise he sot been given any opportunity tohave exercise ention.

ully submit that from the above it was quite e Security Police are endeavouring toobtain rom the applicant, in order t. do so are deof facilities to which he is entitledin terms of ns governing his detention and also by prefrom sleeping.ehensive that it is the intention cf the Security inue interrogations and to employwrongful and hods of persuasion.n advised that the detention of witnesses under sued by the Attorney-General ... isfor the nsuring their attendance as State witnesses in cedings against otherpersons, and.. .does not interrogation of detainees and more particularly orize thepolice to question detainees around venting them from sleeping in order to induceilly submit that this constitutes a wrongful ie applicant's rights and is notauthorized... sed that if this application proceeded in the nd the notice of motionwas served on the would not be posible t, stop any further hich might beproceeding today and tonight. lxy submit that on the balance of con.videnceurgency the applicant is entitled to an urgent f by way of a temporary interdictcalling onde.t to show cause on a date fixed by this urt why he should not beimmediately reng the return day in terms of the notic.- ofant has not the legal right to communicate th his legal advisers and should theSecurity their wrongful and unlawful mc hods of t will not be possible for him toobtain anyce Van Z)l issued an order calling ,: the et?-Iv Branch in the Western Cape..Majorruary 1966,.

46 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-AnnexesD. J. Rossouw, to show cause why he should not be "restrained from exerting anyunlawful pressures on Bernard Gosschalk in the attempts to influence him toanswer questions or make a statement". The case had to be twice adjourned as theapplication by counsel for Mrs. Gosschalk to be permitted to see Mr. Gosschalkwas refused by the Attorney-General.157. On 16 February, Mrs. Gosschalk filed an affidavit submitting that MajorRossouw's denials were unacceptable and requesting that the case be tried. Shestated:"... the interrogation and treatment of my husband whileunder detention, as deposed to me, was part of a system and technique of unlawfulinterrogation and treatment which has been and is being applied by a speciallydeputed team of interrogators from the Transvaal, headed by Captain TheunisJacobus Swanepoel. to a number of persons who have recently been detained interms of section 215 bisof Act 56 of 1955, as amended."I submit that ths system and technique is characterizedby the following illegal practices:( a) The interrogation of detainees under the sectionwithout their consent and against their will, and this with such persistence and forsuch lengthy periods as to bringthem to the point of exhaustion.-(b) As a further means of coercion, the withholding

of the ordinary privileges to which such detainees are inlaw entitled."(c) The abuse of the section to detain persons againstwhom it is intended to bring criminal charges and the failure to warn in terms ofthe Judges' Rules detainees wvho are thenselves suspected of havingcommittedoffences."I alo subimit that this evidence goes to show thatthere are strong grounds for apprehending that this unlawful treatment is likely tobe further applied to myhusband.. .1"I158. Giving judgement on 24 March 1966, Mr. Justice Corbett granted an orderthat oral evidence be heard on the manner of detention of Mr. Gosschalk, andadded that the Secority Branch was not entitled to use thrd degree mcth,- . orsubject a detainee to any form of assault or cause his health or resistance to beimpaired by inadequate food, lack of sleep or the like.159. Faced with the prospect of a trial, the Government releasei Mr. Gosschalk rn30 April 1966, but immediately placed him under a twelve-hour house arrest andserved him with banning orders which prohibit publication of any statement byhim.160. Mr. Vioi t Weinberg, another detainee under the "180-day law", told thePretoria Supreme Court on 18 May 1966 that she had made a statement to thepolice only after relax- of scuiny men had questioned her continuously for threedays. .\ccording to a bulletin of the World Campaign for the Release of SouthAfrican Political Prisoners, London: "Mrs. Weinberg described her nightmareseventy hoursof third degree interrogation by a team of six Security Branch men who hadworked on her in relays. When she refused to tal:, they were insistent that sheshould do so and ordered her to remain standing. During the interrogatioi, x hichla-ted fron the Mndat th Thursday night without interruption, she had sometimessat on the floor and sometimes --n the radiator for short intervals, She wasallowed to leave the interrogation room only to go to the toilet, when she wasaccompanied by a policewoman who,,5nt with h,:r int', 'he tnil-t."She had not been allowed to sleep and when she had'how n ien; of dropping ff, thcv banged on the table until she wakeit-'d. O' one ,ccasion. when sleep had overcome her. they had xxakened her, filled a glass withwater and told her if she slept again they would 'douse' her with it, They ke;"saying. 'You are going to land in WVeskoppiesMental Aylum'. and repeating, 'we will crack you'."She was further threatened by three things. Firstly,that the '90-day law' would he reintroduced and every one118 Iid., 17 February 1966.of the people with whom she had been in contact would be detained. Secondly,that her son, Mark. who is completely deaf, would be detained, and thirdly, that

their daughter. Sheila, on bail awaiting her appeal in a slogan painting case, wouldhave her bail withdrawn.'By the Wednesday of her interrogation her legs were grossly swollen. 'Myankles', she said, 'were literally hanging over my shoes and my eyes were swollenuntil they were niere slits.' "114161. Mr. Fred Carneson, another detainee under this law who was subsequentlycharged and sentenced, told the Cape Town Criminal Sessions on 25 May 1966:"While held incommunicado in the custody of the SecurityPolice, I was on three different occasions subjected to well-practised, expertlyapplied methods of refined physical and psychological torture. On Wednesday 8December 1965, 1 was taken into detention under the '130-day clause'. Myinterrogation began a few hours after my detention. I was kept awake allWednesday night. On Thursday I was flown to Pretoria and on arrival thereimmediately subjected to further interogation, which continued until the earlyhours of Saturday morning. I was deliberately kept awake during this wholeperiod and frequently made to stand forlong periods."During one of the interrogations, he said, he was made to stand for most of thetime, "I collapsed and water was thrown over me. I collapsed again on two furtheroccaxi, ,ns."12o162. The Government has been anxious to avoid trials on charges by prisoners ofill-treatment by the Security Branch, The Gosschalk case has been referred toabove (see above paras. 155-191.163. Another case was initiated by Miss Stephanie Kemp, a twenty-five year-oldphysiotherapist, who sued the Minister of Justice and a Security Branch detective,for 2,000 Rand ($2,8001 for assault during detention in July 1964.121164. She alleged that she had been subjected to excessively prolongedinterrogation, denied food for an unreasonable length of time and kept standingfor several hours. Moreover, the detective had struck her blows on the face withhis hands, grabbed her hair and pullled her to the ground, and banged her headrepeatedly on the floor, thereby rendering her semi-conscious."iAs a r,.ult, Miss Kemp suffered shock, injuries, exhaustion, hunger and bodilyinjuries, more particularly bruising of the face and head, hair pulled out of herhead, extreme tenderness of the bridge of the nose and stiffnessof the neck and body."'22119 Mrs. WVeinberg is one of those whose family life had been destroyedbecause of political persecution. Her husband, Mr. Eli Weinberg, is serving a longprison sentence on charges under the Suppression of Communism Act. Herdaughter, Miss Sheila Weinberg. a student, was the youngest woman to bedetained under the "90-day law" in 1964. Subsequently, she was sentenced to sixmonths in prison, for painting the letters "A.N.C." on a bridge. She was releasedin July 1966. Her son, Mark, was found dead in their fiat in September 1966. Mrs.Weinberg herself refused to repeat the statement she made to the police asevidence in court and was sentenced in -May 1966 to three months' imprisonment.She appealed but, while on bail pending the hearing, she (and Mrs.Schermbrucker) was arrested and charged with helping Mr. Abram Fischer, Q.C.

when he was in hiding. In August, they were each sentenced to two years'imprisonment on this charge. Their counsel said that the two women had not beenniembers of the Communist Party and that because of the unique personality ofMr. Fischer, people with liberal views tended to follow him.120 The Cape Times, 26 May 1966.121 She was subsequently convicted of membership in an unlawful organization,the African Resistance Movement, and served a year in prison.122 The defendants denied the allegations, but admitted that the detective had"lawfully inflicted a single blow in the face to pacify her as she had becomehysterical during interrogtion". They admitted bruising the left eye as a result ofthe blow.

Agenda165. Before the case came up for hearing in the CapeSupreme Court, the State settled her claims by agreeing to pay 1,000 Rand($1.400) and all court costs "without admitting the liability, and to put an end tothe litigation".ia166. The State also settled out of court the claims ofMr. Alan Keith Brooks who filed a suit for damages against the Minister ofJustice for alleged assault during detention in 1964. He was released from prisonon 21 June 1966 oncondition that he left the country within three days.167. The case of Mr. Zepth Mothopenz, who sued theMinister of Justice for 5.000 Rand (S7.000) however, came before the Pretoria Sureme Court for trial in August 1966.Mr. Mothopeng claimed that, during his detention, in October 1963, he had beenassaulted by the police and subjected to electric shocks.12 The defence called Mr.Goran Mbeki and Mr. Ahmed Kathrada, both sentenced in the Rivonia trial, aswitnesses. The State denied the charges and the case was adjourned pendingexamination by doctors of the plaintiff'sstate of mind.E. BANNING ORDERS AD: HOUSE ARRESTS16S. The arbitrary powers of the Minister of Justice toissue banning and house arrest orders have continued to be used widely to silenceand harass opponents of apartheid in what Mrs. Helen Suzman, ProgressiveParty member of Parliament, described as "scandalous abuse of unbridled powerof the State to condemn people without trial to a twilightexistence in their own country".12169. Under the Suppression of Communism Act, the Minister is empowered toissue such orders if he is satisfied that the persons concerned "engage in activitieswhich are furthering or may further the achievement of the Objects ofcommunism"Ye6 He is not required to give any particulars and the victim has norecourse to courts. The use of the powers by the Government appears to be basedon the assumption that the pur7.ose of the prnvision is to penalize opposition toaparthed by defining it as the furtherance of "the objectsof communism".

170. As of 19 August 1966. banning orders, which had been published in theGoezerin.-nt Gazette and the terms of which have not yet expired, restrictedapproximately 600 person-.'7 These include not o.uh- members of organizationswhich have been declared unlawful, but many who have been active in the LiberalParty, the Natonal Union of South African Students. the Distr'ct Six DefenceCommittee, the South African Institute of Race Relations. the South AfricanIndian Congress, the Coloured People's Congress and other lawful organizationswhich have, in one way or another, opposed the Government's racial policies. Thefunctioning of123 Mi-s Kemp left South Africa on 31 August to marry Mr. Albie Sachs, abanned advocate, who had left earlier on an "exit permit".124 Mr. Mothopeng, aged fifty-one, a leader of the PanAfricanist Congress, 6vassentenced to two years' imprisonment in 1960. He was again arrested on 6 April1963. When he was brought to trial on 7 August, the charges were withdraAn, buthe was immediately detained under the "90-day law" and interrogated about 'hisalleged connexions with Reverend Blaxall. He alleged that he had been assaultedand given electric shocks on 3 October, and forced to make a statement.He is now serving a three-year sentence for belonging to the PAC and furtheringits aims.125 The New York Times, 13 May 1966.1260n 3 August 1966, the Minister of Justice. Mr. Vorster, defined the groundsfor banning as even wider than the wide sweep of the law when he told the Houseof Assembly:11 * * you restrict them [people] not necessarily because they have donesomething in the past, but because their associations, their actions and theirutterances are such that they might lead to the achievement of the aims ofcommunism." (Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates(Hansard), 3 August 1966, col. 95.) '27The Minister of Justice said that, as of IJuly 1966, there were in South Africa 453 persons on whom restrictions had beenimposed. (Ibid.. 3 August 1966, col. 95.) Many other banned persons are outsidethe country and a few have died.item 34 47these organizations has been greatly hampered or broughtto a standstill because of these bansi2s171. The banning orders served recent; are even morecrippling and restrictive than those with which the processbegan, in that many' embody provisions for house arrest.172. Banning orders have been used to restrain a largenumber of persons who had completed prison sentences for poli'ical offences. Mr.George Edward Peake, a former Cape Town City Councillor, and Mr. DennisBrutus, Chairman of the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee, wereserved with banning and house arrest orders after release from a long period inprison. Many former members of the underground Poqo have been banned afterrelease.'29 Apart from inflicting additional punishment, these orders preventpub:cations of anything written or said by former prisoners.173. Protest against banning has itself been penalized.

Mr. C. K. Hill, a lecturer of mathematics at the University of Natal and a LiberalParty member, wrrte an open letter to the Minis-er of Justice in February 1966criticizing the banning of more than thirty Liberal Party workers for "open.legitimate activities alone" and the crippling or the constitutional activities of thePart) by intimidation1.-30 Mr. Hill was himself served on 19 April 1966 withbanning orders placing him under twelve-hour house arrest and restrictinghim to the magisterial district of Durban.S1174. Many of the recent banning orders, while imposingincreasingly stringent restrictions on the victims, prohibit them from writing ortransmitting any information. The Government's purpose in including thisprohibition seems in part to prevent information reaching the outside world.175. Mrs. Helen Joseph, the first person placed under house-arrest in South Africaand who has now been thus restricted for four years, was served in February 1966with extensions to her banning orders. In terms of the extensions, Mrs. Josephmay not prepare, compile, print, publish, disseminate or transmit any publicationor drawing. (She was reported to have completed her autobiography just beforethe extension of the ban and smuggled it to publishers in London). The neworders also prohibit Mrs. Joseph from entering a building in which there is a tradeunion: she was deprived of her job as welfare officer for the Transvaal clothingworkers as her office was in a building which houses a trade union.132128 Banning orders, once issued, are rarely withdrawn. Recently, however, theGovernment withdrew or relaxed the banning orders on several Liberals. Theorders on two lecturers at Rhodes University, Mr. Terence Beard and Mr. NormanBromberger, were lifted by the Minister of Justice after discussion with theMinister of Education and the ViceChancellor of the University. (The CapeTinies, 25 August 1966.)The Minister of Justice told the House of Assembly on 30 August 1966 thatrestrictions on forty-five persons had to date been withdrawn and that cases of allbanned persons were under review. (Ibid., 31 August 1966.)In September, the banning orders on the following Liberals were reported to havebeen withdrawn: Mr. Hammington Majija, Mr. Elias Mngadi, Mr. MichaelNdlovu and Mr. Selby Msimang. The banning orders on Mr. ChristopherShabalala and Mr. Enoch Mnguni were partially relaxed. The banning orders onMr. Thulani Gcabashe (son-in-law of Chief Luthuli), Mr. Prince Faya and Mr.Emah Sibisi were also withdrawn. (The Star, weekly, Johannesburg, 17September 1966.)129 The Minister of Justice, Mr. Vorster. said on 3 August 1966: "Several dozensof these people (banned persons) are Poqos in whose case we deemed it advisable,after they had been released from prison, to keep them under observation for aperiod of two years and not five. as in the other cases, so that we could keep aneye on them in order to prevent any further acts of violence." (Republic of SouthAfrica, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard). 3 August 1966, col. 95.)t30 The Cape Times. 26 February 1966.131 Rapid Daily Mail, Johannesburg, 20 April 1966. Mr. Hill's wife, who wasassociated with the Defence and Aid Fund, was already banned.132 The Cape Times, 26 February, 1 and 2 March 1966.

43 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexes176, The banning orders served on 1: February 1'0 on Miss Maf1ry Benson, awriter and petitioner before the Special Cnrnmittee. prohibited her from takingany part in preparing or trensmzure any publication.177. In May 1966, -Mrs. Winnie Mandela was served with an additional banning -rder prohibiting her from pre.aring, comiilinz, publiShing, priintsg or transnittingany d cumen., bo ,k, ..a phic:, record, oter, photograph or draw.ng13317.'. In July : .66, Miss Gillian Gane, a student at the Unlver'izv of Vitwatesrand.xwas served with a banning order -rchibi'ng her from [repar-ng matter for _ubliat4i". a~tnding any gatheri;-g-, giving educational instruta-,n, takpng part in theart'tes cA an:, h . or enering any educational building or n,.,n-v.iite area. She wasalso required to report weekly at the police station. She cc-i I not continue h-rstudies in linguistics because of the pochibitions.'34179. Mr. Peter Brown, the former chairman of the Liberal Party, who was bannedin 1964. was erved with a further order, dated 5 April 1966, adding furtherrestrictions o.rohibiting him from uttering Coloured or Asiatic group areas, andfrom compiling. publi-h.ne )r tranti.ntng information or comment.1351%l. The arbitrary banning orders have made the life of the victims so difficultthat several have been forced to leave South Airica on exit permits which prohibittheir return.'38 Mr. and Mrs. Walter Hain, respectively f rne- chairman andsecretary of the Pretoria b'ranch of tre Liberal Party, left in March 1966. Both ofthem had been banned and Mr. Rain, an architect, had found it almost im..,_ihie toget commissions.137 Miss Ann Tobias, former editor of the Liberal fortnightlyConnact. left on an exit permit to continue her studies in the United Kingdom: thebanning order had pr-,hibited her from entering any educatrnal institutioi-t3 Mr.Benjamin Turck. former member of the Cn.) Provincial Council and formersecretary of the Congress of Democrat, who had been placed under house arrest'mmed-:v " -after he had c_--npleted ,erv"nr a sentence under th- "Sabotage Act",fled from South Afri a early in Jannarv U S6: 'i'- wife left ott an exit lpernnt on 25February 1 4S1. Among other banned persons who have eft oit exit permits, in the past year,were Mr. Peter Hjul. a journalist. former chairman of the Liberal Party and of theDefence and Aid Fund in the Cape Western region; Mr. Barney Zackon, Mr.Hjul's successor as chairman of t'he Lberal Party in the Cape Western region; Mr.Alex La Guma. a writer and jcu-nalist: Mr. Li, o' r't', a rcet and 1'rP.6a nt of theSouth Africa Yon-Racia: Olympic C, 'rmnite i -ee -o"{ 172 above; see alsoAiAC.11 !.ltSi : Mr. Abxrt Louis Sac.n' an advocate and f runer DEruty Chairmanof the Souh African Defence and Aid Fund (see para. 131 above); and Mfi.sGillian Elsie Jewell, former lecturer of French at the Umersty of CapeTeown1411 Mr. Bernard Gotcchak was reported to have applied for an exitpermit, Many other; are reported to be unable to leave because of the lack ofmeans.133 Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, 26 May 1966.34 .Sunday Express, Johannesburg, 17 July 1966.135 The Cape Times, 12 May 1966.

136 In answer to a question by M-s. H. Suzman, the Minister of the Interior, Mr.P. M. K. Le Roux, said on 5 August 1966 in the House of Assembly that thirty-seven exit permits had been issued in 1965 and twenty-one in the first six monthsof 1966. as follows:195 196 tirst . =xh m SnsiWh~tes 21 11/6Bantu S 1ti',:b-c of South Africa, House of Assembly ,','s (Hansard). 5 August 1966. col.264" 1.7 Th Cape Times, 15 March 1966.138 ibid., 16 March 1966.t135bid., 17 January 1966 and 26 February 1966.140 Miss Jewell and her fianc. Mr. David Jack Tarshish, were both banned. Thelax, i,rbids banned persons from communicating with each other.132. Special mention may be made of a fete' recent banning cr-,r5 which showthat the net is covering vider segments xf the opposition to apartheid.183. On 14 October 1965, the Government served banning ,c¢der' on Mr. C. M.C. Ndamse, educator and supporter of senr,rtte development". Educated in SouthAfrica and the United ata-ez. he had i een a lecturer at Fort Hare College until hewas dismissed from this post by the Bantu Education Department for alleged"insubordination'. Shortly 'heeaiter, he was appot :t-d by tho- TranskeiGovernment as lecturer at Jongelizwe College for sons of chiefs and headmen andthe Transkei Public Servce Commission recommended him for the post of pr irsional assistant in the Transkei Departirent of Education. He was, however, servedo ;th a oanning order which, amang other things, restricted him to Umtata and p:-oh:bited him from entering schools, c.:7leg. s and -ix r- . Afterrepresentations by the Tran.,e: Government, it was revealed in May 1566 that the-1uh .\fri:an Government had agreed to change the reztrictcn order so as to allowMr. Ndamse to take up another p,:st in tho Education D!:7ar:ner,'.l41P4. On 18 March 1966, Mr. J. C. M. Mbata, a field j ttcer of the South AfricanInstitute of Race Relations and secretary of the Bantu Welfare Trust, was servedwith a five-year banning order which efn-ctively prevented him from continuinghis work. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Vorster, refused the request it a di'tngu&'he d'putat on to relax the term- o" -he order. The Sour> African Institute ofRace R.Ka' n- i;'ued a statement recording its solemn protest .gan- "a ;ystemwhich s'rins a man if his life's purpose, and denes him tkc right to use thequalifications which it has taken him a lIfetime ,-f application to acquire, withoutlaying any charge against him, without informing him of the reaso:is for hisrestriction, and without giving him any opportunity to be heard".43!52. Mr. Ian Roh'rcr n. President of the National Union of Souzi Aican SuIen'- ,NUSAS ), was served with ban:.ng orders on 11 May >'o. Tt:' was generally seenas a vindi:'ve act because cf the eci:-ion of NUSAS, under his leadership, to invi'eUnited Sates >e:-a'or Robert F. Kennedy to lectu-e in Soo'h Africa. The bann'ngorder provoked Protests by students throughout the c:.untrt44 and by theChancellor of the University of Cape Town, ecx-chief Justice A. van de SandtCentl.vres. the leaders of all opposition parties and frntinent members of the

community.45 A protest march was staged by 2,1'0o students and lecturers at theUn v'rsity of Cape Town on 13 Mayt4 and later those atWitxvater'rand and Natal Universities3;.l Many student organizations abroadjoined in protests to the Minister of Justice.1,6. On 25 May 1966 a deputation from NUSAS presented a n en,' r.ndum and a4.ui') s:gnature petition to the Minister of Ju~tice calling on him to charge orrelease Mr. Robertson. In a statement ' sud af-er thie interview, the NUSAS-tated that 'hc sM r e did not contest the fact that the a.tcv ties of '..b'SAS fell"whxx ly withn the law". He said .hat Mr. Robertson did not have to be acommunist to be banned. snd rejected the request that Mr. Robertson be given anon,runttv of defending himself in a court of law and ,,f reiutng whatceverallegations had been made against him.141-. The matter uas raised in Parliament on 2 August 1966 when the leader of theOpposition, Sir De Villiers Graaff, emtnedi that Mr, Robertson be brought to trial.i he was guilty' of any ffenCe.149 Mr. Vorster replied by141 The S'ar, daily, Johannesburg, 16 December 1965.4 lhe C ace Times. 3 May 106.t43 Ibid. Th. restrictions on Mr. Mbata were partially relaxed in Soember 16 andhe applied for a passport to accept a posti-,n in Zambia (The Star. weekly,Johannesburg. 24 September 106.)144 The CI.tc YTits, 12 May 11coM. Ibid., 13 May 1966.146 lb d. 14 May 1966.t47 R~id., 25 May and 2 June 1966.t45 Ibid., 26 'May 1966.149 Republic of South Africa, House of Assemby Debas (Hansard), 2 August1966, col. 28.

Agendaasking Sir De Villiers if he knew what Mr. Robertson had done in Swaziland andBasutoland, with what overs-as organizations he had sought liaison, and that "hescrv e or, the committee of a communist front organizaion, Defence and Aid" 5oDescribing the Minister's rep: a- "one .-i the flimsiest and t'nCt fatuous" she hadever listened to, Mrs. H.Suzman told the House of Assembly that Mr. Robertson had paid to "entirelyinnocent" visits to Basutoland and that he had never been to Swaziland. Mr.Robertson had acted as the liaison, ex officio, for NUSAS on Defence and AidFund, when it was a legal body. Mrs. Suzman added that the Minister had "runout rf communists" and wa; "using his extensive powers to ittititidate citizens whohave:no connexion whatsoever with communism"'15188. The harassment of banned persons for 1etty and innocent infringements ofbanning orders continues. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Vorster. told the House ofAssernbl- cn 8 Februar- 1,:',6 that twenty-two ersons had been sentenced toimprisonment for failure to report at police statonu in terms of their banningorders. In twenty cases the sentence had been suspended in whole or 'n part. The

sentences had ranged fre-.m four day,' ininr15unmcn: to tiso years'imprisonment.152189. One of tho-- 'entonced rccen;v for infringement ofbanning orders was Dr. G. M. Nacker, President of the Scuth African Indian C-ngre;-. who "a: -ei tenced t,, fourteen months' im'wisonment for entortainng Mr.and Mrs.Alan Paton to dinner and for failing to notify the police of the change of addressearly this year. (iHe had been evicted from the house he had occupied for thirtyyears because the area had been proclaimed white. I All but f' ur 'ays of thesentence were 'us,ended.153F. BAxNING OF THE SO'Ti AFRICAN DEFENCE ANO AIo FU.D190. Not content with the mass ,f repressive laws andvengeful acts against the opponents of apartheid, the S'urh African Governmenthas proceeded to undermine legal assistance to the victims by a proclamation on18 March 1966 declaring the South African Defnc, and Aid Fund an unlawfulorganization in ters of Suppr-sion of Comnanuniscn Act.' 54191. Immediately after the pro:lamatlo:, police raided the offices of the Fund andof the Christian Council for Soial Action, Port Elizabeth. which provided relief todependents of pri' ,ner', as well as the homes ctf a number of persons assocatedwith these organizations. A senior magistrate, Mr. D. P. \ilcorks, was designatedas the liquidator of the Fund. 192. The South African Defence and .Aid Fund hadcome into existence after the Sharpeville masacre of 1960 when an appeal waslaunched by a commcttee under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Johannesburg.the Right Rev. Ambrose Reeves, to help the bereaved ard the in;ured. So-,n after,the Government declared a state of emergency and a-r-sed n-on 20,000 per-on---l90 political detainees and about 1-,Africans who were rrundd up as ' dlers--ardthe Fund reorganized itself so that it could he!-, ,ris-,nr- and their families whosuffered because of lawrinr, " aws or arbitrary action by the authorities.The needs f-r such relief increased steadily as the Government proc-eeded withmore150Tbid., 3 August 1966, cols. 97. 98.151Ibid, cols. 145-8. On 4 August. Mr. Vorster told the Press that he had intendedto say Bechuanaland and not Swaziland. Later the same day Mr. Robertson'sfather said that his son had never been to Bechuanaland. (Th' Cape Times, 5August 1966.) Mr, Robertson has since left for- the United Kingdom for furtherstudies, under a bursar' offe-ed to him by the British National Union of Students.'ibid., 8 February 1966, col. 10"5tlA atal Mercury, Durban, 31 August 16,6114 Proclamation R-77 of 1966, signed by the State President on 10 March andnublished in the Government Gazette Extraordinary on 18 March. The Chairmancf the Special Committee commented on the ban in his statement at the meetingon 7 April 1966 (see A/AC.115/L.170).itei 34 49and more repressive measures. The Fund performed a significant humanitarianservice which was otherwise unavailable.5193. Though the effectvenes of the Fund was incr-a'i iuy

limited by' the grwng arbitrarn 's of the re-restzve legislation and re-:ricto-i ofjud'cia dikcretion, it' ativitie; were greatly resented by the Government -ince legaldefence of the accused helped to restrain the police and exposed their worstabuses. The G-vernntent. thereitrc, sought to paralyse theactv~ties of the Fund by the use of us arbitrary powers.194. In June 196l, after the announcement of the decisionof the Netherlands Government to make a contribution to the Defence an-l AidInternati'tal Funi for Sou'h rn Africa.,onl'on, in res:'nr'e to the ap eal f the Spec'al Committee, the G.ern.ment launcheda 'io'ent atta.:k on t'e Furd. It served bannirg orders on several of the ofi_-ers andstaff of 'he South Xtrican D-f-n-e and Aid Fund, which had rec-ived contribu-tons irvm the London Fund as well as from ''thr sources, thlough it was acompletely independent body which made it own deci':ons on the use of itsresources .156J The p'ozamat'cn banning th3 Suth African Fund wasapparently resorted to when these arbitrary measures did not'ucceed in intiatii'ng all those connected with the Fund.196. In a statem, nt on the proclamation, the Minister ofJust::e, Mr. Vorster, aileged on 1 March 1966 that the Suzli Afri.'an Defence an:dAid Fund was not an in-,endent organzatto: but a bran ch ot the I efence and AidFund of Chr- tan A'-tion, Lrndc-n. He alleged further that the Fund in SouthAfrica was connected with tae I o',mun'st Party and was suoportcd by theccmmu.ts. and that it had made its finances available to the Afri-an Na-ionalCongress and the Coc-nuito:- Parry, both ,ut'aweed in terms of South African?at,- It wast he said, strivng to bring about social, economic and political changein the Republic even at the cost of using violence. The Minister relied largely on asworn statement signed on I October 1964 by a forme- member of the Si)uthAfrican '-,mmu-- Party who had become a State xvitness in political trials after along period of detention.197. The allega-ions cf the Min:-cr and the ar',-itran' ban wv -r: den-,unc:-d by ra--, nsibe o,''als ): the Defence and Aid Fund as 51anderous.19S. Five prominent Cape Town c'tiztns, who had been members ,, he fanagementCommittee of the South African Defence and Aid Fund-Dr. R. IIoffenb-rg, Mm.Leo Marquard, Mrs. Moira Henderson, Mrs. R. Robb and the Rev. VictorCarpenter-s.ued a statement -n 19 Marh 1966 denyi-g the m:uc o money andder'ar-ne that the Fund had only a;ss tud in the de'fence c. P'rs, ns charged withcriminal offences of a political net'-me. and had never made mones axa'abl' 'o theAir'can Ntional Congress o- to the Comrlun -t P-ry. They denied that the SouthAfrican Defence and AAI Fund was a suhsid:ax- of the D-;once and Aid In erpt.at Fund though it had a-m'ere dlv r-eeved funds from the Iatter. as well as fromother -rganizatons such a; the Vorld Council of Churches, for the z- 'e pur-,cse oflegal defence of n-litical prisoners.!99. In a letter dated 22 A-riI 1966 to the Chairman of the Spe,al Commit'ee, theReverend Canon L, John Collins, Chairman e f the Defence and Aid In te'unatonalFund, said that the alleation of the South African ,fonis:'r of Justice that the So,th

African Idefnce and Aid Fund had made its finances available to the AfricanNational Congress and t',e Communist Part-' of South Africa, was slanderous."(a) On 20 March 1966. two day' after Mr. Verster'ad mae this allegat,,n. the Johannesburg Sunday Times15The Government provided pro dco defence only for persons charged withoffences which c-uld carrv death 5t-nalty. Other organizatons such as Ieasl . -l net extenl help to persnns farin" political charges or had cea-ed to function for lackof funds.156 In June !''E. Mr, T. XW. PBndell. Cha-rnisn of the Western Cape Branch ofthL Futtt was derte,'. In Iul-y Mrs. Laura H-m-h:n;, -'ecr ,- of the Jeohanresbtirebranch. and Mr. Andrew Chamile. an Ari-an attendant in the bran-h. were banned(fr. Isv- Cra:ehea . hi-'rma, cV ''p Jrha.nsburg brpnrb, had been banned in fav-)In Octber MrA Jean Ferre Hi, a so-iat'd with the Derben b-an-h, was banned.

so General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexesquoted Mr. W. M. van den Berg, Attorney-General of the not be published orquoted and they may not participate inCape Province in South Africa, as saying: 'There is noth- public organizations.Moreover. "listed" lawyers would be ing definite at this stage. If my suspicionsare correct, debarred from practice, and this could nearly put an endcertain aspects of the operation of the Fund may lead to to legal defence ofvictims of political persecution.action.' (in Court cases). In other words, the South African 204. Meanwhile, tomeet the criticism that the banning of Government first declared the Fund guiltyof malpractice the Fund was designed to deprive the opponents of apartheid andsubversion and will now look for the evidence to justify of legal defence, theSouth African Government issued a this verdict,background memorandum on 18 March claiming that a legal"(b) The South African Government, though challenged aid system organizedby the Department of Justice in coto do so, has produced ont one shred of validevidence in a operation with the legal profession functioned in South AfricaCourt of Law to justify its calunnies against the Fund. and that "legal assistancein both civil and criminal matters"(c) As President of the International Defence aid Aid is given free of charge ona voluntary basis by South AfricanFund and Chairman '-,f the British Defence and Aid Fund, lawyers. The systemensures that in all suitable cases inI offered to appear in Court before any HighCourt Judge digent litigants and accused persons will receive legal repreorJudges and to submit to cross-examination covering the sentation". It added thatat all centres "where there is an use of the Fund's monies, but I have so far notbeen in- attorney or attorneys willing to assist, a legal aid bureau vited to do so.has been established". Centres without aid bureaux were"We feel that the statement made by Mr. W. M. van den served by adjoiningbureaux. No distinction was made beBerg and these other two factors should bemade known tween political offences and other offences.162

as widely as possible; they expose the deliberate lie told 205. Members of theSouth African legal profession and by the South African Minister of Justice forwhat it is." the Press, however, denied the cla:ms of the South African(A/AC.115/L.172). Government and said that the systemof legal aid existed200. The South African Defence and Aid Fund and its mainly on paper. Theincome qualifications for obtaining freechairman, Dr. Raymond Hoffenberg, applied on I May 1966 legal aid were solow that few people qualified to receive it.to the Cape Town Supreme Court for the setting aside of Those in need wereoften afraid of visiting the legal aidthe proclamation on the grounds that it had referred to "the officer as he is amagistrate. Help for criminal cases hardly Defence and Aid Fund" and not to "theSouth African De- existed and there wvas even less help for political cases. Asfence and Aid Fund". They also asked the Court to order the Department ofJustice had withdrawn subsidies from thethe Minister of Justice to show all documents relating to the legal aid bureaux,offices had closed down in most centres appointment of a committee so prepare afactual report on of the Republic: those remaining open could now offer negliitsactivities. They claimed that such a committee should gible assistance and onlyin the most trivial cases. Pro deo have been established under the terms of theSuppression of defence supplied at the expense of the Government wasCommunism Act and was obliged to allow the Fund to be granted only in theSupreme Court in trials in which theheard before any proclamation could be issued. The Minister death sentence maybe imposed: even then an advocate alone of Justice said, in a replying affidavit,that he had appointed is supplied and he is unassisted by an attorney. There was aCommittee on 13 September 1965 to prepare a factual re- no system of pro deodefence in magistrates' or regional port. He admitted that the Fund was notnotified of the courts'XGappointment of the Committee, but claimed that he was under 206. Themisleading nature of the Government's claim was no legal obligation to do so. Herefused to disclose documents further confirmed by a statement in the House ofAssembly relating to the appointment and functioning of the Committee on 24August 1966 by a National Party member, Mr. T. J. on the grounds thatpublication would be "prejudicial to the Kruger, who said that the presentfacilities for legal aid in public interest and inimical to the national security".'37civil cases were limited to people who owned almost nothing.201. On 16 May, the Court rejected the application of the He proposed theappointment of a commission to investigate Fund and Air. Hoffenberg. It said theapplicants were unable the possibility of establishing a legal aid fund and the extocontrovert the statements of the Minister of Justice. that tension of pro dco aid.'04the Parliament had excluded the rights of the party concerned 207. Faced with theexposure of the facts, and criticism to be heard and that no question of mistakenidentity had at home and abroad, the Government is reported to have arisen asthe intention of the Minister was clear' s The made a limited provision for legal

aid in political cases in applicants have appealed against the judgement.the Eastern Cape where, as indicated earlier, the Government2i12. The Minister of Justice, however, described the De- has institutednumerous political trials. Government spokesfence and Aid Fund in the House ofAssembly on 3 August men also stated that they had no objection to theprovisionas "a communist front organization",'9 The former members of legal assistance toaccused. of the Fund's Management Committee in Cape Town de- -208.However, in June 1966. Mr. J. N. Oberholzer, Deputyscribed the accusation as "flagrantly untrue" and challenged Secretary for Justice,claimed that it would be "paradoxical" him to charge them before the court. Theyadded: for the State to provide legal aid that would 'undo" the work"We can only assume that Mr. Vorster is abusing his of the police.tes In areport tabled in the House of Assemblyposition as a Minister and hiding behind his privilege as a oil 23 August 1966,the Department of Justice stated that member of the House when he alleges thatthe Defence no obligation rested on the State to ensure that all indigentand Aid Fund was a 'communist front' organization and accuqed weredefended by advocate or attorney, and that legalthat those who worked with it were aware of this fact."'160 aid in all criminalcases would "undermine the administra203. Grave concern has been raised by theconfirmation tion of justice" and "be completely inconsistent with theby Mr. C. J. Greeff, Secretary of Justice, in August 1966 general juridical andsocial pattern of the country".'" that a list of office bearers, officers, members oractive sup- 209. In view of this attitude of the Government, the proporters of theSouth African Defence and Aid Fund was vision of limited legal aid throughmagistrates has arousedbeing compiled.161 Such a list could include prominent lib- suspicion that it ismeant to deprive the accused of the right erals like Mr. Alan Paton and Mr. LeoMarquard, a number to seek counsel of his own choice and to justifyharassmentof clergymen, and many lawyers and other professional men. of voluntaryorganizations interested in providing legal aid. It could include numerous SouthAfricans who contributed The Evening Post. Port Elizabeth, reported on 30July 1966to the Fund. Under legislation on the statute books and the bills now beforeParliament. the writings of listed men may' 57 The Cape Times, 3 May 1966.158Ibid., 17 May 1966.150 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 3 August1966, cols. 97-98.160 Evening Post, Port Elizabeth, 6 August 1966.161 Sunday Times, Johannesburg, 21 August 1966.1e2 The Cape Times, 19 March 1966. 163 Ibid., 19 March 1966; Sunday Express,Johannesburg, 20 March 1966.

164 Republic of South Africa, House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), 24 August1966, cols. 1331-33.165 Reference in the editorial in The Star, weekly, JohaiW0' burg, 11 June 1966.166 The Cape Times, 24 August 1966.

Agenda item 34 51that none of the fifty-one accused in the sixteen political trials which had takenplace in Humansdorp this year, on charges of activities in the African NationalCongress. had acceptedthe Stare'- offer of pro deo defence.166210. Meanwhile, he Defence and Aid internat'onal Fund.London, has announced that it is continuing legal assistance through availablelegitimate channels and would continue such assistance. The Reverend Canon L.John Collins, chairmanof the Fund, told the Seminar on Apartheid in Brasilia:"How Defence and Aid operates is a question aboutwhich, particularly since the banning of the Defence and Aid Committees inSouth Africa, we need to be cautious; during this Seminar it is imperative that Ishould neither say nor imply anything that m-ght assisz the South AfricanGovernment in its effort to hinder our work."But there are certain things I would like to say: First.there is, I hope, little need for me to emphasize that the Defence and Aid Fund is aproperly constituted body and that its accountb are i,roperly audited and open forinspection by any who may wish to see them. Secondly, I w'sh to give acategorical assurance 'lhat the banning of the Committees in South Africa, thoughit has created difficulties, has in no sav stopped the Defence and Aid Fund fromfunctioning. And thirdly, and equally categorically, let me add an assurance thatwve still function through channels that are legal not only outside but also insideSou'h Africa."The time may come in South Africa, as it came in naziGerman', when it will no longer be possible to provide, through normallylegitimate channels, any proper legal deien.e fo: those accused of politicaloffences or any aid for their imcoverishied fam!!lies .... But, until there remainsno further possibility of any proper defence of victims of apartheid in the SouthAfrican Courts of law, Defence andAid will continue to function within the law."168IV. The build-up of military and police forces211. The massive build-up of mibtary and police forces in South Africa, initatedin 1960, has continued during the period under review.212. South African officials have been claiming tremendous advances in thebuilding up of the Defence Force as the best trained and equ pped in Africa, 213.The MI:nister of Justice, Mr. Vorster, claimed on 8 March 1966 that the SouthAfrican Police alone could clean up any trouble from an African State "beforebreakfast".169 214. The Minister ,-f Defence, Mr. Fouch, declared on 14 MarchIX6 :

"We know exactly what military preparedness the African States have reachedand I can az:ure you they haveno hope in heaven if they attack us."170213. Military leaders have, in this connexion, emphasized the danger of a conflictwith an internal and/or external enemy and claim that the Defence Force can meetsuch a danger.'75216. In an address on 8 October l965, Commandant-General R. C. Hiemstra saidthat during W''orld War II, and again during the Korean War, South Africa'smilitary thinking was consistently confined to her forces taking part in a majorconflict as a component of allied forces ,n which she could567 Two Port Elizabeth lawyers who were to have defended the accusedwithdrew after the banning of the South African Defence and Aid Fund. TheSunday Times of Johannesburg quoted the Attorney-General of the Eastern Capeas admitting that not all political accused who could not afford their own defencemade use of the opportunity now provided by the State.168 Seminar document WP/EX/6.'69Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, 9 March 1966.'10The Cape Times, 15 March 1966.1 On 8 December 1965, in Pretoria, Brigadier D. A. du Toit, Chief Commandantof the Tactical Group, said that People who thought South Africa was notthreatened and that their houses need not be defended, lived in an insane paradise.South Africa. he said, was living in difficult times. (Rand Daily Mail,Johannesburg, 9 December 1965.)depend for logistic support and the necessary hardware. A threat against herinternal security either from within or without was hardly ever given a thought;neither was it considered likely that she might have to fight alone. The rapidacquisition of independence by the African States and world reaction to a "minorincident" like Sharpeville changed allthis. He continued:-'To complicate matters, we were soon faced with anarms embargo, fairly completely enforced by most of ourerstwhile friends."We had to turn our minds to the establishment of alocal munitions industry, and in a broader field to counter measures for a possiblecninlete economic boycott. Timewas against us."Time may still !e against us, but I am glad to say thatwe have succeeded in a large measure to bridge the gap."On the Air Force alone some 200 million Rand ($280million) was spent on new equipment. Of what was available to us we havepurchased the best and most modern that money could buy, in quantities that wecould afford."We bought Mirage ail-weather fighters, Canberramedium bombers, Buccaneer maritime strike aircraft, Hercuies C1.S0 transports.Alouette and Westland Wasp helicopters, Cessna light reconnaisance aircraft andjet trainers, the majority of which are to be manufactured in the

Country."As far as ammunition is concerned, we shall soon bemanufacturing in the country about 140 different types ofammunition."There are still some gaps to be bridged. It may cost ussome tens of millions more, but I am confident that with what we've got weshould be able to give a very goodaccount of ourselves against any comer."r2217. In a radio broadcast on 13 December, he claimed that the Defence Force wasreasonably well prepared for any type of aggression, but changes in training mighthave to be made to meet the threats of guerrilla warfare173 218. On RepublicDay, 30 May 1966, the Government arranged a massive display of the defenceforces: 16,500 troops and airmen took part and 190 aircraft-including Buccaneerstrike aircraft, as well as Vampire, Sabre and Mirage jets-flew in variousformations. The equipment displayed included Centurion and Comet tanks,Panhard and Ferret armoured cars. Bofors and Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns, andGreen Archer and Fledermans radar equipment.A. THE EmEieeoaxcy PLAyNING BILL219. The Emergency Planning Bill which was first introduced in 1965 andreviewed in the Special Committee's report of 17 June 1965 (see A/5932 annex I,paras. 42-46). was reintroduced in the Parliament and read for the third time in theHouse of Assembly on 11 August 19"6.22). The bill, described as designed to create machinery for protecting the civilianpopulation in times of national disaster, is applicable not only in relation to warbut also in case of any other disaster such as sabotage or revolt. It provides for theestablishment of the Directorate of Emergency Planning in the Ministry of Justice,and regional controllers in the thirteen so-called target areas in the Republic,174responsible for the ,rtection of strategic industries and trades and for trainingpeople in specialized tasks. It providcs for calling up persons for compulsorytraining in case enough volunteers are not forthcoming fo:' such tasks as firt-fighting. Every able-bodied man and woman from seventeen to sixty-five who hasn,:t had militarv training and who does not fall under spccified categories ofpublic service, will be liable to be called r- for cnmrTn-orv training. The l12l alsoentitles the Minister to provide for the "continuation of... government", ifnecessary.172 The Cape Times, 9 October 1.5.IT3 Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, 13 December 1965.74 The bill was subsequently amended in the House of Assembly to apply toSouth West Africa.

52 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexes221. The leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff, supported the bill thoughhe doubted whether the legislation was necessary in view of the powers theGovernment had under existing legislation. He did not agree that the Departmentof Emergency Planning should fall under the Ministry of Justice or that the billshould be in operation even when no state of emergency existed. He was unhappy

that the regulations to be made under the bill by the Minister were in no waysu'.)ject to review by Parliament or any other body. T222. Opposing the bill, Mrs. H. Suzman. the Progressive Party member, said thatit conferred on the Minister unqualified powers of interference with the daily lifeand the property rights of citizens and, indeed, with the national economy; andthat it did not define the powers of the Minister in respect of any emergency; andthat it did not provide any safeguards in respect of the duration of any periodduring which emergency powers may be taken by him. She also objected to the"blanket powers of conscription" which the Minister may apply without evenhaving to declare a state of emergency.176223 The Cape Times commented on 5 August 1966:. . . W.hat sort of emergency are we thinking of?Typhoons, tornadoes, tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanic erupt'cn; and othernatural disasters are so improbable that they can be dismissed. The greatest risk isclearly of war and insurrection. Here is something concrete to think about and itimmediately suggests interesting questions. If there is an invasion how rigidly arewe going to cling to apartheid? Will African and Coloured doctors and nurses beallowed to help white casualties and vice versa? Will mixed ambulances beallowed? Or mixed air-raid shelters?Getting our minds clear on questions like these should probably be the startingpoint of emergency planning. An enemy could so easily make use of inter-racialtensions, He could bomb Soweto and cause chaos on the Rand; or he could bombthe white areas of Johannesburg and showerrevolutionary leaflets on Soweto."B. EXPANSIOIN OF MILITARY AND POLICE FORCES224. The budget for 1966-67, introduced in the House of Assembly on 17 August1966, provides for a defence expenditure of 255.9 million Rand ($358.3 million).The estimates show an increase of 25 million Rand ($35 million) for the DefenceSpecial Equipment Account, used for major purchases abroad. The Minister ofFinance, Dr. Donges, announced increased expenditure on new aircraft, radio andradar units, and added:"The verdict of the International Court on the SouthWest Africa case may perhaps have reduced the immediate danger of militaryaction against the Republic, but it has not lessened the malevolence of those whowish to bring about the Republic's downfall and we would be foolish andunworthy of our trust if we were to relax ourvigilance or our preparedness."He expressed the hope that "the great increase in defence expenditure has nowcome to an end and that it should be possible to stabilize this expenditure atroughly the same level, i.e., with only normal increases from year to year".1772 _'Mea'while, the command of the defence forces has been reorganized in viewof the expansion of the Defence Force,178 and all branches of the military and thepolice have been strengthened. Some of the recent developments in thisconnexion may be noted.226. The training of the defence forces is planned to be increased. The need of theDefence Force administration, Combat-General C. H. Hartzenberg, announced on

18 December 1965 that from next year the professional training of yourPermanent Force officers would be increased to four'75Republic of South Africa, House of Asseuibly Debates (Hansard), 8 August1966, cols. 333-38. 16 Ibid., cols. 352 and 356.177Ibid., 17 August 1966, col 900,175 Statement by the Mini-ter of Defence, 6 December 1965.years, instead of one to three years.'79 The Minister of Defence, Mr. Fouch6, saidon 14 March 1966:"In four or five years' time every youth in the countrywho is capable will undergo military training."At the moment it is not physically possible, but therehas been tremendous expansion. Military training in 1964was thirty-two times greater than in 1960."180His successor, Mr. Botha, appealed to employers on 19 August 1966 to encouragetheir workers to serve for more than the required four years in the CitizenForce.181227. Mr. Botha announced in the House of Assembly on 29 September 1966 thathe would introduce legislation next year to abolish the ballot system now used forthe Citizen Force and introduce compulsory military training for all medically fityoung male citizens, except those who joined the Permanent Force, the Police orthe Prisons Department, (Such a move, according to the Defence Departmentspokesman, would increase the number of Citizen Force trainees by about 50 percent.) He was in favour of extending the training period of members of the CitizenForce and Commands.182228. The Air Chief of Staff, Combat-General H. J. Martin, said on 6 February1966 that the Air Force might soon be activating air bases built during the SecondWorld War as new aircraft were being acquired.183 A strategic new airfield wasopened in August 1966 at Nalspruit on the northern border of South Africa. SouthAfrican Air Force aircraft will use the field in the course of border patrols.184Earlier, in November 1965. South Africa's first early-warning radar defencesystem, engineered by the Marconi Company, came into operation. The station atDevon covers about 60,000 square miles in the Transvaal and is part of a networkwhich will eventually cover the country. The system gives warning of theapproach of hostile aircraft hundreds of miles from the country's borders.185229. The Navy Chief of Staff, Vice-Admiral H. H, Biermann, announced in June1966 that a larger harbour and a new headquarters building would be built for theNavy at Simonstown. These extensions, he said, were necessary in view of thegreat expansion of the Navy in the past five years.186230. A naval tactical school for training officers and ratings in anti-submarinetactics, built at a cost of 150,000 Rand ($210,000), is expected to be finished inAugust 1966. It is reported to have "very, very secret" equipment.187231. The Minister of Defence, Mr. Botha, told the House of Assembly oii 4October 1966 that a second naval base would be established at Durban, but notbefore 1968.188

232. In Augu't 1966, a spokesman of the CommandantGeneral's office disclosedthat a new army combat group, known as the "Task Force", had been formed onthe instructions of the Supreme Command,233. Its strength was not disclosed for security reasons, but the spokesman statedthat it would comprise some of the best-trained troops who would be equippedwith the most modern weapons available and assured of full and adequate airsupport in any emergency. The unit would be available for any eventuality in anyarea.189234. It was reported on 15 December 1965 that extensions to the Police College inPretoria had been finished and that179 The Cape Times, 20 December 1965.2s°Ibid., 15 March 1966.1sl Ibid., 20 August 1966. Mr. D. W. Botha was appointed Minister of Defence on4 April 1966 succeeding Mr. J. J Fouche,I181 Ibid., 30 September 1966.IP' Ibid., 7 February 1966.184Soulh African Digest, Pretoria, 2 September 1966.S" The Star, weekly, Johannesburg, 20 November 1965; South African Diqest,Pretoria, 19 November 1965.186 South African Digest, Pretoria, 24 June 1966.187 The Cape Times, 18 November 1965.'8 Ibid., 5 October 1966.189 Sunday Express, Johannesburg, 14 August 1966.

Agenda item 34more than 2,000 police trainees could receive training thereevery year.190235. Brigadier H. van den Bergh announced in May 1966that the expansion of the Security Branch of the police was continuing. It hadalready trebled its strength in the pastthree years.191236. It was reported in August 1966 that about eightywhite policemen from newly independent African countries had joined the SouthAfrican police force in the past three y'ears as a result of a special drive by thepolice force and the Department of Immigration. These included Mr. Victor J.Bissley, who had been a colonel in Ghana; Mr. David Joseph Parnell King, formerActing Assistant Commissioner of Police in Malawi; Mr. Michael Griffith, formercaptain in the Congo; and a former Assistant Commissioner ofPolice in Tanzania.192C. 'MANUFAC URE OF ARMS AND DEtENCE RESEARCH237. Government spokesmen have claimed great advancesin manufacture of arms, ammunition and equipment in thecountry.238. The Minister of Defence, Mr. Fouchi, noted on 18August 1965 that the amount spent on manufacturing of arms had increased from3H,225 Rand ($441,315) in 1960-61

to 33,002,500 Rand ($46,203,500) in 1964-65, and added:"The experience of the past few years has given me suchconfidence in the capacity and adaptability of our industry that it is no longer aquestion of whether we can make a certain article but whether we can make iteconomically"193239. State President Swart said in his opening statementto Parliament on 21 January 1966:"Defence research and development and the expansionof the South African munitions industry have assumed important proportionsresulting in an ever-increasingmeasure of self-sufficiency.-is240. Commandant-General Hiemstra said in Port Elizabeth on 16 March 19f6that South Africa would shortly be manufacturing about 140 different types ofammunition and bombs and was capable of manufacturing the whole range ofinfantry weapons and armour plating equal to the best quality produced overseas.It would not be long before South Afri can-built jet trainers would be rolling offthe assembly lines at the 30 million Rand ($42 million) Atlas factory, and thepossibility of building her own naval craft, including submarines, would be withinSouth Africa's reach in the foreseeable future. Referring to the great advances inSouth African manufacturing industries, he warned that, if necessary,manufactures of "ploughshares" could switch to making "swords". Everyindustrial concern in the country, he added, was potentially a member of theDefence Force, and every worker a soldier in civilian clothes.195 241. On 24August 1966, the Minister of Defence, Mr. Botha, announced the establishment ofa Defence Research Council which would combine the functions of the variousexisting bodies and would define research and development and determine theorder of priorities; advise on financing of research and other projects; investigateprogress reports and research results; advise on defence requirements and thedesirability of local manufacture of any product as opposed to its importation;advise on stockpiling and control of essential supplies; determine the extent cf theconvertibility of industry in time of war; and examine any other matter referred toit by the -\Iinister.1961 The Cape Times, 15 December 1965.191Sunday Express, Johannesburg, 8 May 1966.192 South African Digest, Pretoria, 5 August 1966; Evening Post, Port Elizabeth,13 August 1966. 1"8 The Cape Times, 19 August 1965. '9 Senate of the Republicof South Africa, Debates (Official RePort), 21 January 1966, col. 11. '" The Star,daily, Johannesburg. 17 March 1966. 1'" Republic of South Africa, House ofAssembly Debates Hansard), 24 August 1966, cols. 1328-1383.242. The Minister of Planning, Mr. Haak, told the Houseof Assembly on 7 October 1966 that the Department of Defence had provided theCouncil for Scientific and Industrial Research with 10,220,600 Rand($14,308,840) for secret defence research projects during the current financialyear.'97243. A demonstration flight of the Macchi MB 326 jet

trainer assembled by the technicians of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation andrenamed "Impala" was held at Ysterplaat airfield on 11 May 1966.19AManufacture of the aircraft at the company's factory was expected in 1967.199 Itmay be recalled that the establishment of this factory had beenmade possible by foreign assistance.244. It was reported, on 8 November 1965, that Bonuscor.which organized the Atlas Aircraft Corporation, had received a loan of 3,500,000Rand ($4,900,000) from WesternEuropean sources for this purpose.20o245. Major U'. T. C. Rogerson, Managing Director ofMercantile Italo Brittanica, Rome, and Sir Robert Foster, a director of the firmand a former Royal Air Force Chief Marshall, arrived in South Africa on 9February 1966 to inspect the Atlas Aircraft Corporation factory and visit theDepartment of Defence. They stated that they would have talks with officials ofthe Atlas Aircraft Corporation on behalf of Piaggio. the Italian aircraft companywhich manufactures the British Bristol Siddely Viper jet engine under licence andwill export it to South Africa.201 They also planned to study South Africa's salespotential for Italianbuilt Agusta helicopters and Piaggio business aircraft.202246. Vorkers for the Atlas Aircraft factory have beenrecruited in the United Kingdom and other countries.D, IMPORT OF ARMS247. The South African Government has claimed thatit has been able to obtain substantial quantities of arms and equipment fromabroad despite embargoes imposed by manyStates.248. It has been receiving some arms and equipment ordered before theembargo. Seven of the sixteen Buccaneer aircraft ordered in the United Kingdomarrived in Pretoria on 3 November 1965.203249. Moreover, press reports have indicated that licences for the export to SouthAfrica of a substantial number of Macchi MB 326 jet trainer aircraft, someassembled and some unassembled, have been granted by Italy.204 The first batchof the aircraft, fully assembled, are expected to arrive in South Africa about theend of 1966.205 250. On 12 March 1966, it was revealed by an official of theUnited States Department of Commerce in Washington that it had rejected along-pending application to ship $1.5 million worth of aircraft to South Africa,as the proposed use would have been inconsistent with the United Statescommitments to Security Council resolution 181 (1963) of 7 August 1963. Hedescribed the aircraft as small and non-military.. 20197 The Cape Times, 8 October 1966.18 Ibid., 12 'May 1966.199 Ibid., 7 February 1966. The Impalas are to replace the Harvards of the SouthAfrican Air Force as basic trainers. 200 The South African Financial Gazettereported in June 1966 that negotiations for a loan of about 20 million Rand ($28million) from Europe were in progress. A consortium of French banking andindustrial interests said that it was willing to make capital available. Sud-Aviationof France was actively interested in the project as technical advisers and as a

supplier of many of the plans and some of the equipment. (South African Digcst,Pretoria, 10 June 1966,)201 The British arms embargo prevents export of these engines from the UnitedKingdom.202 Rand Daily Mrail. Johannesburg, 10 February 1966.203 The Cape Times, 4 November 1965. Another aircraft was lost at sea on theway to South Africa.204 The Star. daily, Johannesburg, 16 November 1965.251Ibid., 31 January 1966.206 The Cape Times, 14 March 1966. These were reported to be Cessna aircraft.

General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexes251. Commenting .n this announcement, the Minister of Defence, M7. Fouchl,claimed on 14 May, "don't worry, we can buy this type of plane any afternoon"and "within three years we will be able to make them in our spare time". He ,aidthat during the past few weeks, he had been approached by representatives ofthree big P,_,%crs with offers of heavy armament.207"li we want to buy submarines I can get as many as Ican write cheques for, 'e cannot always bay the weapons Me want, but we canalways get a very good substitute.'208 2' The Daily Telegroph of Londonreported on 14 May 1966 that the South African Defence Force had ordered anumber of Nort Transall freight planes and sixteen SuperFrtlon helicopters fromFrance at a cost of £0 million. The Tralisall has a range of 3.000 miles and cancarry a payload of 32.000 pounds. The Super-Frelon can carry either afreight payload or thirty fully equipped men. It is said to be ideally suited forhunting guerrillas or bush warfare.209 Brigadier P. M. Retief, Director of GeneralServices of the South African Air Force, disclosed on 29 September 1966 that thefirst of the Super-Frelon helicopters, costing £300,000 each. would be deliveredso' n and that the Air Force expected to have them in operation early nextyear.2102:3. The Guardian, London, reported on 1 September 1966, that the sale of threeFrench Myst~re-20 jet aircraft to the South African Air Force had been forbiddenby the United States Government cn the grounds that it would violate the UnitedNati.-ns embargo on selling military material to the South African Government.(The Mystre. an executive aircraft holding ten people, is built by Dassault andSudAviation. but the two turbo-jet engines are supplied by General Electric. aUnited States company.) The order was said to be worth $4.5 million. Dassault,the French firm which also makes the Mirage IV jet bombers of the French forccIra,*pe, was report-d to be intending to appealagainst the batt un the grounds that the aircraft were not, str clv.pea..r g, militarymaterial. SoLu'h African pilots were bc r.e tra:,e I to fly the aircraft when theban was reported.']254. Press reports indicate that the Shackleton aircraft of the maritime group ofthe South African Air Force are due har replacement, but "South Africa has beenunable to evade American interpretation of the United Nations embargo for the

purchase of Lockheed Orions and cannot buy the Bregutt Atlantique because of it,high proportion of United States avionics".2t227 The Star, daily, Johannesburg, 15 March 1966.208 The Cape Times, I5 March 1966.209 The Star, weekly, Johannesburg, 14 May 1966. According to SouthernAfrica, London of 30 May 1966, the sixteen helicopters were estimated to cost£10 million: discussions were under way for the purchase of Transall aircraft.South Africa had already bought the naval version of the SuperFrelon.210 The Cape Times, 30 September 1966.-1 Earlier, on 8 August 1966, Southern Africa, London, reported that the threeMystres had been ordered at the end of 1965. These aircraft are manufacturedmainly for "General Staff communications" and can also serve as trainers fornavigators of the Buccaneer aircraft ordered from the United Kingdom.The paper also reported that the United Kingdom had concurred in the sale of theMyst~res fitted with Hawker Siddeley 125 engines, The Anglo-French version ischeaper, but has a somewhat lower cruising speed and carries only eightpassengers.12 Flying Rcvctt International, quoted in South .lfrican Summary, New York, 10August 1966.The position of the United States with regard to South African orders for aircraftwas explained in a Congressional hearing on 2 March 1966 by Mr. AlexanderTrowbridge, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, as follows:"There have been a number of applications, M-fr. Chairman, for permits to exportaircraft to the Republic of Soutil Africa. Licensing of military aircraft is under thejurisd'ction of the Office of Munitions Control of the Department of State.Military aircraft are denied licences in accordance with the United NationsSecurity Council reso-..MILITARV CO-OPERA'ION WITH OTH4ER COUNTRItE5255. Reference may be made, in addition to the developMents indicated earlier, tothe continued visits of foreign naval vessels to South Africa. In December 1965,the Belgian naval training chip Kamiria called at Cape Town and Durban on agoodwill visit to South Africa. It was reported to be the first ship of the BelgianNavy to call at South African ports, 1:a256. It has been indicated that the 1955 Agreement between the United Kingdomand South Africa concerning the Simons. town naval base may be revised. On 28September 1966, the Miister of Defence, Mr. Botha, confirmed British pressrep..rts that the United Kingdom had informed the South AiriLin Governmentearlier this year of its intention to terminate the presence of the UTitedKingdom fleet inSlntons;owvn ir economc reasons, with the retention of certain privileges. H.'asEud that "in the light of these intentions of the British Government which havenow been publicized, and in the light of the manner in which the RritishGovernment has honoured the spirit of the Simonstown Agreement, a revision ofthe Agreement has become essential."'14At;ipet,,'!xRsViiW .,F POLITICAL TRIALS Iy THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH

AF.IILA SicE 10 AUccir 19651. On 13 August 1965 in Humansdorp, six persons were found guilty of beingmembers of the banned African National Congress and taking part in its activities.Mr. James Tashaka was sentenced to three years and nine monthsimprisonment, and his wife, Hilda, and son, Patric, to three years each. Mrs.Florencia Tswana and Mr. Melford Filile were sentenced to three years and threemonths each, and Mr. Pubane Hude to three years and nine months.a2. On 19 August in Johannesburg, Mr. Joseph Gqabi was sentenced to tea years'imprisonment on charges under thelutions which have dealt with the questions of arms, ammnition, and militaryequipment. Most civilian aircraft is licensed for export by the Department ofCommerce, In implementing the United Nations arms embargo, the Departmentof Commerce has denied licences for the sale of civilian aircraft to South Africawhere it was determined that the aircraft would likely be used for militarypurposes.There have been other cases where the end use was of a purely commercial natureand the export has not beenprevented ..,"\What we try to do to the best of our ability is todetermine the end use of the particular item that is up before us for licensing, forpermission or denial. We consult with our Embassy officials. We try to determineexactly what the circumstances are, who is going to operate it, or fly it, or, how itis going to be used, Where we see a clear use in defence terms, the presumption isfor denial."(United States-South .African Relations; Hearings before the Sub-Committee onAfrica of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. House of Representatives, 89thCongress, 2n;d sesSion, Part 1, page 53.)Mr. William F. Lang. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for the Africanregion, said on 8 March 1966:"Another illustration would be the case where the SouthAfrican Government sought to buy some Orion aircraft; these aircraft arespecially configured with electronic equipment for antisubmarine warfare. Fromthe defence viewpoint we considered it would be important for South Africa tohave this capability, because of the submarine threat in the area. Yet we did notpress this importance, when the State Department judged that it would be in ournational interest not to sell the aircraft." (Ibid., p. 109.)213 The Cape Times. 7 December 1965.214 ITid., 29 September 1966. According to press reports, the United Kingdomwould withdraw its only naval vessel, the frigate Puna, and possibly theheadquarters staff of Conmander-in-Chief, South Atlantic, Vice-Admiral John M.D. Gray. Frigates and submarines based in the United Kingdom would makeperiodic visits for the anti-submarine training of ships of South African Navy.a In each case, the total sentences imposed were considerably heavier, but becauseportions will run concurrently, the mammum term to be served is three years andnine months.

Agenda item 34Suppression of Communism Act, including one of inciting 15. OnAfricans to undergo military training outside South Africa. were foun He wasalready serving a sentence for simlar offences. and were3. On 23 August in Pretoria, Mr. Cyril Solomon Jones The casewon his appeal against a twelve-month sentence imposed upon gro::nd Pc himin February 1965 on the charge of contravening the by the acSuppression of Communism Act by keeping under his control il-trvcat.dcommunist literature for the purpose of distribution. crate lies.4. On 25 August in Cape Town, Mr. Bethwell Booi was 16, Onsentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for perjury. His Xakana wevidence at the trial of -Mr. A. S. Sishuba (acquitted oi charge ofbelonging to an underground organization, Poqo) conflicted piece of cwith an earlier statement he made to the police, at the raiO On 31 August, the Pretoria Supreme Court dismissed damage Stthe appeals of Messrs. J. Schermbr-cker. E. Weinberg. N. 17. In SLevy and L. Baker, and Mrs. E. Barsel and M-rs. M. Doyle a bannedagainst sentences imposed on 13 April 1965 on charges of tence impmembership in the Communist Party. All but Mrs. Doyle banned perwere given leave to appeal to the Appellate Division. cnus on a6. On 31 August 1965 in Johannesburg, Mr. Petrus banned perWillem Letlalo, a seventy-six-year-old banned African, was IS. Infound guilty of receiving visitors in contravention of the were ze:,erebanning order. The magistrate cautioned and discharged tio.n-- C, ni Mr.Letlalo who had told the Court that the two visitors had prison sentcome to his home with his son. The total7. On 1 September in Pretoria, -Mr. Steve John Makgogo Mgalonkuluof Sekikhuniland was sentenced to twelve months' impris-,i- months; M mentfor wearing the badge of the Communist Party. He Bikie. Philotold the Court that he had been threatened with death if he months: M did notwear the badge and Mr. W8. On 7 September in Pretoria, Mr. Peter Metshane of 19. in SRustenburg and Mr. Mnyamane Hlaya of East London were missed withsentenced to ten years' imprisonment each on the charge oi brucker agaleaving South Africa illegally from February to April 1964 Court on 6 andproceeding to Nanking for military training. The ac- that her hicused, alleged to have been associated with the African person abouNational Congress, were unrepresented and pleaded guilty, said in his9. On 8 September in Wolmaransstad. Mr. Dawood Cajee, the personala sixty-three-year-old Indian businessman. was acquitted on hmendmentcharges of contravening a banning order. The Court grantedthe defence application that the evidence of the two State .0. In Sewitnesses was "utterly unreliable". One of them had testi- missed the flied thathe had lied to the police f( r fear of being detained, and sentence 10. On 8September in Humansdorp, Messrs. Diliza Malk- terms of anana, Mqcini Luzipo, Temba Xandekano and Mk-ekeza duced from

Mnya.mana were sentenced to thirteen years' imprisonment years to oreach on seven charges of contravening the Suppression of months.Communism Act. The charges included membership in the 21. On IAfrican National Congress and furthering its aims. Six a mine woryears of each sentence will be served concurrently, reducing Cinderella P thegaol terms to seven years. imprisonment11. On 9 September, the Cape Town Supreme Court dis- prison conditmissed the appeal of Miss E. A. M. Tobias against a sen- 22. On Itence of two months' imprisonment passed in May 1965 on charges undthe charge of breaking a banning order by attending a Brown, a whbraaitleis or barbecue on Table Mountain with two friends, student. TheyLeave to appeal wa5 refused. the former h12. On 9 September in Addo, Mr. Tim Gqwakasa was latter kept iifound not guilty' of charges of membership in the African drawal.National Congress and of taking part in its activities. 23. On 1413. On 15 September in Port Elizabeth, Mrs. Zebia was sentencedNotemba Mpenda, a nursing sister who had been in custody the aims offor eighteen months, was sentenced to eighteen months' A. N. C. leaimprisonment for having been a member of the African months of thNational Congress (A.N.C.). to twelve months for solicit- Constantino (ing subscriptions for the A.N.C., to six months for allowing Mr,. Schc -n, anA.N.C. meeting to be held in her house and to twelve of which wi:1months for displaying an A.N.C. symbol. Part of the sen- serving. In etenees will run concurrently and in all she w i!l serve two (Secret Agen and ahalf years. had been me14. On 17 September in Grahamstown. Mr. Malgid Ntebli South Africarand Mr. Mxolist Jayiya were sentenced to five e im- team in pastiprisonment each, and Mr. Xholisile Rhoxo and 'Mr, Lizo 24. On 14Sithoto to six years each, on charges ',f attempting to leave Juhn Mjaba, SouthAfrica to undergo military training in Dar es Salaam Stanley 5 ke.on behalf of the African National Congres,. were sentence23 September in Port Elizabeth, thirty Air cand guilty under the Suppression ofCommunism Act sentenced to a total of 123 years' imprisonment. arose from thealleged plans 111 1964 of the undersqo organization to Zak.- over Molteno.Allegations cUqe,i that they had be-n as-aul-..-d, t,rture3 and by the police wererejected by the Court as delib30 September in ,eniontein. Mr. Coingre.;-as sentenced to sis years imprisonment on a-abotage. He was found guily of throwing a ast iron into the work'ng parts of aconveyor belt ilway workshop at Blomfontein with intent t, ate property. Hepleaded not guilty. eptember in Johannesburg, Mr. Ghana Mohamed. person, wonan appeal against a one-month senosed cn him for communizating withanother son. The judge found n) regulaton placing the banned person to acquinre alist of naiies of o-her sons.Sep-embr, in Humansdorp, nine African mennced on charges of belonging to the Airica Nagress and furthering its activities.Some of the ences imposed will run concurrently with others. sentences they will

serve are: -fessrs. Mountain and Mzwtand le Tsha i. -ix years and three essrs.Charlie Krisjin, Jacksc n Maseti, Michael emon Buti and Sorf M<ss. six years andthree r. Jackson Pendu, four years and six months: ellington Rulashe, five yearsand six months. eptember, the Bloemfontein Appeal Court discosts the appea. ofMrs. Leslev E. Schcrnainst the Judgement of the Transvaal Supreme October1964, when it dismissed her application usband should be allowed to giveevidence in .t maltreatment in detention. Mr. Justice Botha majority judgementthat a court order requiring 1 appearance of a detainee would interfere with of hisdetention prescribed by the General Law Act of 1963 and defeat the purpose ofthe Act. ptember the Grahamstown Supreme Court disappeal of Mr. TerenceBeard against conviction on the charge of failing to comply with the banningorder. The sentence was however retwelve months' imprisonment suspended forthree e month's imprisonment suspended for twelveOctober in Johainesburg. Mr. Filisberto Taimo, ker from Mozambique serving asentence in risen. Boksburg. was sentenced to six months' on a charge of givingfalse information about ions.October in Cape Town. the S'ate withdrew er the Official Secrets Act against Mr.M. iite clerk, and Mr. R. Meisselheimer, a coloured had been charged on 9September 196-5, and ad been released on bail of 500 Rand, and the n custody.No reason was given f:r the withOctober in Johannesburg, Mrs. Diana Schoon dto twelve months' impri-onment for furthering the African National Congress bypasting up flets in Johannesburg on 21 Marc: 1962. Ten e sentence was suspendedfo- three year-. Dr. ;azides and Miss Ann Nicholson, charged with were sentencedto twelve months, nine month* run concurrently with sentences they are now vidence, De:ective-W\arrant-Officer G. C. Ludi it Q018) said that he and the three accused mber- of th-"Volu',teers", a branch of the Congress of Democrats and had operated as a ng upthe leaflets.October in Pretoria, Messrs. Johames ML ze, Simon B Xl.,.i. -\plius Madumo,Jak Thebe,Pau'os Seoto. Douglas Molife and Jerry Dooms d to three year-' i r-ri, cit each f)rbeing

S6 General AssemblyTwenlty'first Session-Annexesmembers of the banned Pan Africanist Congrss and further- 34. On SNovember iing its aims. Mir, Alie Radebe was found not guilty and dis- her appeal against ase charged. All the accused were convicts at Baviaanspoort imposed on her inAugPrison. The Magistrate, Mr. L. van R. Luyt, quoted Mr. four copies of thebanneMkize as having said in evidence: "God gave the country for ruled that herexplanatic everyone to enjoy. The white people have taken it and journalsshould have bemade a slave of me." He commented that statements such as 35. On 8November

these necessitated a serious view by the Court. won his appeal against a25. On 25 October in Cape Town, Mr. Pieter Hlatswayo for membership intheand Mr. Mshyeni Gumby were sentenced to twelve years' Umkonto WeSizwe. T]imprisonment each and Mr. Eliphas Mashigo sentenced to documents relatingto thten years on the charge of sabotage. All three pleaded guilty. writing, which werefou The case was a sequel to an escape of thirty-one convicts of hismembership. when they were being taken to prison. The State alleged 36. On9 Novemberthat the prisoners had plotted to attack Ladysmith after Joseph Brutus was senteescaping and that the plan had been engineered by the under- for contravening hisba ground Poqo. Two years of the sentences of Mr. Mashigo and South AfricanColoured Mr. Hlatswayo are to run concurrently with sentences they threegatherings. He wa are now serving, a meeting andleaving26. On 25 October in Cape Town. charges of furthering 37. On 19 Novemberthe ainis of communism were withdrawn against Messrs. Dun- langu. IsakMasigo, Cyli can 0. Human, Albert H. Thomas and Achmat Osman. They andPhineas .Itotywayhad been in prison under the "no bail" clause (Criminal tenced to death on 14AProcedure Act of 1965, section 6a.1). fellow long-term prisor27. On 27 October in Grahamstown, Messrs. Julius Matla- BaviaanspoortPrison. Tlana, Kolisile Willem and Washington Magogongo were sen- to be members ofthe Itenced to five years' imprisonment each on charges of sawing operated in theprison. off a telephone pole and cutting off telephone wires. the secrets oftheir gro28. In October in Grahamstown, Mr. Titus Jobo of Port Division wa' refusedonElizabeth was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on the 3S. On 19Novembercharge of sabotage. Four years will run concurrently with a Tangala, GeorgeMogor sentence of eighteen years he is serving for similar offences. of attemptingto leave tI Mr. Jobu was found guilty of setting fire to the South to turther theaims ofAfrica Wood Working Company's factory near Korsten on Tangala wassentenced24 October 1962, with the assistance of two other persons. Mr. Mogoro to sixyea The damage was estimated at 12,500. also recruited men for29. In October in Grahamstown, Messrs. Gilbert Yonke, to twelve years'impriso

Mhleli Mngayi, Samuel Peter and Wilson Fanti were each demus Twana, wasfoursentenced to five years' imprisonment on the charge of sabo- 39. In November intage. Two years of the sentences of Mr. Fanti and Mr. Peter sentenced to sevenyear will run concurrently with sentences they are serving for ing people toundergo similar offences. They were charged with having set fire to of theAfrican National and damaging a motor truck belonging to a Mr. Vasco de areto run concurrentlyGama Hlangwana, a former police sergeant, who had ar- is already servingforrested people in Pondoland during political disturbances. bership in the A.N.C,30. In October in Grahamstown, Messrs. Stanley Matcha, 40. In November inUniversity of Tashavanduka, Peter Nongene. Mxolisi Bardien wassentenced Magaba, Muyisile James Didiza, Clopas Ndunana. Ephraimparticipating in the aftNdzenga and Makosi Ndumo, all of Kwazakhele, Port Eliza- People's Congresswhilbeth, were found guilty of sabotage and of belonging to an days, suspended, forpC unlawful organization, and each was sentenced to five years' cation, FightingTa!k. imprisonment on the first count and two years' imprisonment 41. lnNovember in on the second count. The two sentences are to run concur- yeassentence imposed o rently. Suppresson ofCommu31. In October in Cape Town, Mr. Mashack Mampunye was found guilty oftaking part in underground Poqo activities and of being a member of theunderground Poqo. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the firstcount and to three years' imprisonment on the second count. 32. On 8 November,Mr. Isaac Heymann was sentenced to eight days' imprisonment and on 15November to twelve months' imprisonment for refusing to give evidence for theState at the trial of four Africans charged in connexion with military trainingoutside South Africa to further the aims of the African National Congress.Another State witness, Mr. Phillip Sello, who also refused to give evidence for thesecond time, was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.b33. On 8 November in Johannesburg, a State witness was sentenced to eight days'imprisonment for refusing to give evidence at a trial in camera under theSuppression of Communism Act. (Publication of the name of the witness isprohibited.)b In October 1966 the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein set aside the one yearsentence on Mr. Heymann but dismissed the appeal of Mr. Sello.three years.42. On 2 December sentenced to four and being members of the their involvementin th Elizabeth Bus Company43. On 14 December from Gamkaspoort Pri, years' imprisonment on fromcustody. It was inspired by the under police station and pee Basutoland. Messrs.Js sentenced to twelve yea tage; Messrs. William Mabika, Jackson Gcebe dula.

Richard Ndungt" Michael Nkosi, Joseph Willie Nompondo, Wi Thomas Bbolatiwere each on the same char to four years' imprisonn Pretoria, Mrs. Pixie Benjamin won entence of six months' imprisonment ,ust1965 for being in possession of ed journal, Fighting Talk. The Court in that shedid not know she had the en accepted.in Pretoria, Mr. Louis Mnimkulu sentence of five years' imprisonment AfricanNational Congress and the lie Court accepted his argument that heseorganizations, some in his handnd in his possession, were not proofin Goodwood, Mr. Wilfred Cecil enced to fifteen months' imprisonment nningorder by holding office in the People's Congress and by attending s acquitted ofthe charge of attending the magisterial district of Wynberg. in Pretoria, Messrs.Victor Mahon Mebaso, Corry Tyini, Joel Leballo were executed. They had beensenpril 1965 on a charge of murder of a ner, Mr. Mhlonkonjo Madellala, in hemen and their victim were alleged ?an Africanist Congress group which Mr.Madellala had allegedly divulged up. Leave to appeal to the Appelate2 August 1965.in Johannesburg. Messrs. Shadrack o. and Jackson Fazile were convicted hecountry to receive military training the African National Congress. Mr. to sevenyears' imprisonment and rs. The Court found that Mr. Faile military training andsentenced him inment. A fourth accused, Mr. Nicond not guilty and discharged.Grahamstown, Mr. Ngaze Zweni was s' imprisonment on a charge of helprainingwhich could further the aims Congress. Two years of the sentence with a seven-year sentence Mr. Zweni cutting telephone wires and for memCape Town, Mr.Mogomat Toufie to three months' imprisonment for airs of the South AfricanColoured e under a banning order, and thirty ossessing copies of the bannedpubliGrahamstown, the four-and-a-halfn Mr. Louis Leo Mtshizana under the nismAct was reduced on appeal toin Port Elizabeth, ten Africaiis were a half years' imprisonment each for AfricanNational Congress and for e 1961 strike by workers of the Port The trial opened -n 27 July 1965. in Cape Town, twenty-two prisoners son were sentenced to a totalof 204 a charge of sabotage and escaping alleged by the State that the men,ground Poqo planned to attack the pie of Ladysmith and then flee to ohn Sitoleand Stanley Nduna were rs' imprisonment on a charge of sabo*Mbata. Joseph Culaya, Bangunolin ni, David Pieterse, Government Han' ana,Alfeus Motji, Jackson Blaauw, Ngwenya. Isaac Sobekwa. Tiba Gudle. illiamGcanga, Andries Mbanga and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment ge. Mr. AlbertBobovi was sentenced ment and Messrs. Kolekile Mashala

Agenda item 34 57and Samuel Lekgowe to three years each for escaping from banned PanAfricanist Congress, and one year each, suscustody. Mr. Justice Diemont, indirecting that part of his pended. on a charge of taking part in its activities.judgement be sent to the Commissioner of Prisons for a 56. On 29 March inthe Cape Town Regional Court, Mr.

"long and careful" inquiry, said that "the evidence of callous Benjamin JosephJanuary was sentenced to six months' imtreatment" of the prisoners "is strong".prisonment, conditionally suspended for three years, on a44. On 15 December in Pretoria, Miss Shcila Weinberg, a charge of illegalmembership of an organization. Mr. Januarynineteen-year-old student, who had been sentenced to eighteen was listed as acommunist in 1955 and, under the terms of months' imprisonment on 15September on a charge of having the Suppression of Communism Act, listedcommunists aretaken part in the activities of the African National Congress prohibited frommembership of any organization. Mr. Januand the underground Umkonto VeSizwe (Spear of the ary told the Court that he had been secretary of theNationalNation), had twelve months of her sentence conditionally Union of LaundryWorkers since 1941. When, at the beginsuspended upon appeal.ning of the year, he was told of the illegality of his position,45. On 20 December in Durban, Mr. Rowley Lionel Aren- he had resignedimmediately and had since applied for hisstein was acquitted on six counts of contravening the name to be struck fromthe list of communists.Suppression of Communism Act. He was found not guilty 57. On 31 Marchin the Grahamstown Supreme Court, theon another count at the close of the State case earlier in appeal of Miss SylviaNeame was allowed and a four-year the trial.sentence imposed on her on 23 July 1965 in Humansdorp on46. On 2.S January 1966, in the Johannesburg Regional charges under theSuppression of Communism Act was setCourt. Ms. Lesley Schermbrucker was sentenced to 300 days' aside.eimprisonment for refusing to give evidence for the State on 58. On 4 April inPretoria, Mr. Joseph Tamsanqua Tselethe previous day at the trial of Mr. Abram Fischer. was acquitted on acharge of breaking the house-arrest order47. In January 1966 in Umtata, Mr. Ezra Mvuyisi Siqwela served on him.was found not guilt' of a charge of carrying or displaying 59. On 4 April in theFree State Supreme Court, Messrs.posters reading "South Africa on Trial", "Brute Force" and Amos Ndoni,Reginald Mbonya, Desmond Mcamane, Discipline "Chapters in the March toFreedom". It was alleged that Nkonyami and Vulindlela Nanakosa wereacquitted on appeal.these indicated that he was, or had been, connected with They had beensentenced to a total of seven years' imprisonthe African National Congress. Mr.Siqwela is at present ment each in November 1965 on charges of belonging to,serving a prison sentence of fourteen months imposed on contributing funds toand furthering the aims of the underhim on 26 November 1'W65. for being inpossession of copies ground organization Poqo. Mr. Justice Klopper said:

of ANet APc and Fighting Talk. "It seems to me that theState assumes that when ac48. On 3 February in Cape Town, a charge against Dr.cused are indicted as Poqos they must be guilty. All thatGeoffrey Dean of publishing false information about South remains is forevidence to be led and the court must do theAfrican prison conditions was withdrawn. No reason was rest."given for the withdrawal. 60. In April in the Port ElizabethRegional Court, Mr.49. On 4 February in Cape Town, Mr. Kwedi Mkhalipi Capetown Dlepu.Mr. Paulus Lusa and three others chargedwas sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, Mr. Jack Jaxa with incitement tocommit public violence at a public meeting to seventeen years', Mr. WilsonMketshane to eleven years on at the Ntolweni Location. Fort Beaufort, on 2November the charge of conspiring with others to send people beyond 1956,were found not guilty and discharged. Mr. Lusa, aged the borders of South Africafor training in guerrilla warfare seventy-eight, was brought from his hospital bedfor the final and sabotage. Another accused. Mr. Sokongo Muleka, washearing of the case. The Magistrate found that the Statefound not guilty and discharged, witnesses had contradictedeach other to the extent that no50. In February in Krugersdorp, Mr. Frederick Neill was reasonable man couldfairly convict on their evidence.sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, the entire term 61. On 3 May inthe Umtata Supreme Court, Mr. Zantsiexcept for one day was suspended. He had been found guilty Kweqyir Mzimxa,an articled clerk, was sentenced to twelve on a charge of not reporting his changeof address to the months' imprisonment, of which nine months werecondiSpecial Branch Police, which, as a listed communist, he was tionallysuspended, for being found in possession of copies obliged to do.of the banned publications, Fighting Talk and New Age.51. On 23 February in the 'Velkom Regional Court, four 62. On 5 May at theCape Town Criminal Sessions, fourof seven Africans charged with belonging toand furthering teen Africans, who had appeared with sixteen others charged theaims of the banned Pan Africanist Congress were sen- with sabotage, weredischarged on the grounds that theretenced to a total of fifteen years' imprisonment. Mr. Henry was insufficientevidence against them. All the men were Mfonyameng was sentenced to six years'imprisonment, Mr. prisoners at Gamkaspoort and it was alleged that they hadErnest Tengeni and Mr Petrus Taoa to four years each taken part in activitiesof the Pan Africanist Congress orand Mr. Michael Molefane to one year. Messrs. Johan Poqo. The acquittedmen were Messrs. Mziwandile Booi,Monyameng, Elias Molefane and Simon Morek; were found Miti Mahanga,Koko Kula. Vuvadi Mbakombe, Mpengwananot guilty and discharged. Hagile. Tumata Matross, JacobLusekile, William Ngcenge,

52. On 8 March in the Grahamstown Magistrate's Court, John Biyana, MbekiDuma, Dambile Tokota. Buyana Gweba,Nfiss Gillian Gane. a former Rhodes University student, who Bafana Nzimandeand John Ga'i. had been living in Swaziland as a political refugee, was sen- o.On 6 May in the Pretoria Supreme Court, Mr. Michael tenced to three months'imprisonment, all of which except Dingake, a Bechuanaland national, and Mr.Isaac Heymannfour days was suspended, for leaving South Africa without were sentenced tofifteen and five years' imprisonment repassport.spectively. They were both found guilty on charges of being53. On 21 March in Cape Town, the appeal of Miss Gladys members of thebanned Communist Party. Mr. Dingake wasEmma Lee, aged sixty-nine, against a suspended fine of 4 also found gulty ofhaving procured people for training andRand (or twenty days) for obstructing the traffic was dis- of obtaininginformation for the Communist Party. the African missed. She had displayedplacards, one of which stated: National Congress and Umkonto We Sizwed"Verwoerd copies Hitler, Smith copies Verwoerd"54. On 23 March, the Cape Town Supreme Court dis- cShe is still servinga two-year sentence imposed on herin a previous trial in April 1965 in Johannesburg. also onmissed the appeal of Mr. Willem Jacobus Bock against a charges under theSuppression of Communism Act.sentlence of nine months' imprisonment imposed in November '5Mr. Dingake,a former leader of the African National1965 for being a member of the South African Coloured Congress, had beenarrested in Southern Rhodesia and transPeople's Congress in contravention of abanning order which ferred to South Africa by the Rhodesian police. He refusedforbade such membership. to plead or take part in theproceedings of the Court. On18 July 1966, Mrs. I White. United Kingdom Minister of55. On 26 March in the Humansdorp Regional Court, seven State for ForeignAffairs, said in the House of CommonsAfrican men from Port Elizabeth were sentenced to three that the SouthAfrican Government had not acceded to aYears' imprisonment each on a charge of membership in the request to releaseMr. Dingake for deportation to Bechuana.

58 General Assembly-Twenty-first Session-Annexes64. On 9 May in the Pretoria Supreme Court, Mr. Abram 72. On 10 June inthe Grahamstown Supreme Court, Air.Fischer, QC., was sentenced to life imprisonment on a Jackson Nkosiyaneand Mr. Nicodemus Nogcantsu. bothcharge of sabotage. In addition he was sentenced to twenty- members of theopposition Democratic Party of Transkei, were four years' imprisonment on six

charges under the Suppres- sentenced to seven years' imprisonment each oncharges ofsion of Communism Act; to three months on two charges of plotting to killChief Kaizer Matanzima, Chief Minister offorgery: and fined 120 Rand (or six months' imprisonment) the Transkei, Anapplication for leave to appeal was grantedfor contravening the Aliens Act. but bail was refused.6. On 11 May in the Humansdorp Regional Court, Messrs. 73. On 15 June inthe Pietermaritzburg Supreme Court,Gerald Peter N\guna, Cecil Nagqabi, Alf-ed Mcosa, Baba the two-and-a-half-year sentence imposed ,n Mr. RobertBolo and July Tungu were sentenced to four years' imprison- Harold LundieStrachan on 27 January on charges of pubmerit each on charges of contributing to,or soliciting funds lishing false information concerning prison conditions wasfor, the banned African National Congress and allowing their reduced on appealto eighteen months. The charges arose homes to be used for A.N.C. meetings. Themen were al- from articles publihed in the Rand Daily Mail in July 1965ready serving sentences of two and a half to five and a half concerning hisexperiences in prisons. years' imprisonment for political offences.74. On 16 June at the Cape Town Criminal Sessions, five66. On 18 May in the Pretoria Supreme Court. Mrs. prisoners weresentenced to a total of forty years' imprisonViolet Weinberg, who had beendetained under the 180-day ment on charges of taking part in and attendingthe meetingsclause on 8 November 1965. was sentenced to three months' of undergroundPoqo, and of conspiring to attack and murderimprisonment for refusing to give evidence in the trial of four other prisonersand the warders and to escape. Mr.Messrs. Isaac Heymann and fichael Dingake. She alleged Alfred Bell wassentenced to twelve years' imprisonment,that a statement to the police had been extracted from her Mr. Xavier Matu toeight years', Mr. Douglas Zakumba toby improper methods, ten years', and Mr. NosikoCharlie, who was found guilty67. On 23 May in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court. the of becoming amember .-f Poqo, to four years' imprisonment.charge of membership in a banned organization against Mrs. Parts of thesesentences are to run concurrently with senJean Caroline Champion de Crespignywas withdrawn, Mrs. tences of imprisonment they are already serving. Mr.Georgede Crespigny, who had been detained under the 180-day law, M rwentyana andM-. Joseph Sentence were acquitted.left South Africa on a British passport the next day. 7.5. Oii 22 June it wasdisclosed in Cape Town that the68. On 25 May at the Cape Town Criminal Sessions, Mr. suit of Mr. AlanKeith Brooks against the Minister of

Fred Carneson was sentenced to a total of five years and Justice for damagesof 4,000 Rand for alleged assault in prisonnine months' imprisonment on charges under the Suppression while underdetention in 1964, was settled out of court, Theof Communism Act. He was sentenced to eighteen months terms of thesettlement were not disclosed. Mr. Brooks wason the charge of membership in th:i banned Communist Party, released fromRoeland Street Jail on 21 June, nearly five four years for taking part in itsactivities and three months months before he was due to complete his two-yearsentence for being in possession of banned literature. (He had pleaded on thecharge of membership in an unlawful organization, guilty to the charges ofmembership of the Communist Party the African Resistance Movement. Therelease was conand possession of banned literature.) He was found not guiltyditional on his being out of the country by the next day. of charges of sabotage, ofmembership in the Central Coin- 76. On 22 June in Durban.Mr. MthandazoAaron Masangomittee of the Communist Party, of planning the activities of was scntenced toone year's imprisonment, of which all except Umkontofour daysas suspended conditionally for three years, forTranskei. Mr. Carneson told the Court that, while held f a ys to re p eneoit e ears, orisconnunicado in the custody of the Security Police, he failing to report to thepolice in terms of a banning order.had "on three different occasions been subjected to well- 77. On 24 June inthe Goodwood Regional Court, Mr.practised, expertly applied methods of refined physical and Martin Masilo wassentenced to six years' imprisonment on psychological torture",charges of membership in the underground organization Poqo69. In May in Umtata, Mr. Zantsi Kweygir Mziba, an and of furthering itsaims. 'Messrs. Justice Malusi, Simonarticled clerk, was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, Kandi andMlandeli Tshomane were also sentenced to three of which nine months wereconditionally suspended for three years on each of the two counts, the sentencesto run conyears, on charges of possessing, on 12 April 1965, a copy currently,Messrs. Douglas Dladla. Wilson Jena, Robertof Fighting Talk and one of New Age, two periodicals which Mbohazi,Kleinbooi Mwali, Dick Faro Kumalo and eighthave been banned. He had been in custody for five months others were eachsentenced to three years' imprisonment. (Inbefore being released on bail of 400 Rand. some cases a year of thesentences was conditionally sio70. In May the Grahamstown Supreme Courtreduced pended.) Fourteen others of the thirty-one men originallyupon appeal, the four-year sentence imposed on Mr. Nelson charged werefound not guilty and discharged.Pindani and the four-and-a-half-year sentence imposed on 78. In June in theGrahamistowis Supreme Court, \fessr'

Mr. Samuel 1Majoni to three years' and to two and a half Zolile SamuelPityana, Ernest Tshazibana. Jabulani Patrickyears' imprisonment respectively. They had been sentenced Mkuzo and VelileSovizwapi were each sentenced to fivein Huniansdorp on charges of being members of the banned years'imprisonment on charges of belonging to the bannedAfrican National Congress, contributing to and soliciting Pan AfricanistCongress, going to Basutoland without valid funds for the A.N.C. and allowingtheir homes to be used travel documents and undergoing training for use infurtherfor A.N.C. meetings. The two-year sentence on a third man, ing the aimsof the PA.C.Mr. Meglory Magwayi, was upheld. He had been convicted 79. In June, theGralhamstow-n Supreme Court refused anon two counts. application by Dr. MasilamoneyPather for leave to appeal to71. On 3 June in the Cape Town Criminal Sessions, seven the AppellateDivision against further convictions under theprisoners-Messrs. Duismond Mpondo, Freddie Malvern, An- Suppression ofCommunism Act.eton Ciliza, Jack Zinga, Petrus Majala. Stanley Balasana andGeorge Ngxali-were acquitted of charges of sabotage. The e Mr. Pather hadserved a sentence of three years' imprisonState had alleged that the men, and nineothers who ap- ment, nine months of which were suspended, for allowing hispeared wth them, had taken part in the activities of the home to be used for ameeting of the African National Con,banned Pan Africanist Congress. or Poqo, and had attended gress in April1961. After release, he was again sentencedmeetings of Poqo. It had also been alleged that the men had on three charges-allowing his home to be used for a meetconspired to attack and murder four otherprisoners and their ing of .\.N.C. in 1961, allowing his home to be used forcollection of A.N.C. funds in 1961, and contributing findsto the A.N.C. The Grahamstown Supreme Court on2land, and that "further representations" were being considered. March 1966,dismissed his appeal against these further conIn September, Mr. Heymann'sapplication for leave to appeal victions on similar charges. The DefenceCounsel Mr. lsaac* was refused. Air. Heymann is already serving a sentence ofsoi, Q.C.. argued that it was a sort of "refined 'cruelt"" forone year's imprisonment for refusing to give evidence in a man t, be chargedand convicted and charged again afteranother political trial, (See paragraph 32 above.) release.

Agenda item 3480. On 5 July in Cape Town, Mr. Zollie Malindi, who had 86. In August in tspent more than two years in prison without any conviction, thura MohambryNai was acquitted of the charge of membership in the banned of the SouthAfrica

African National Congress. two months' imprion81. On 5 July in the Goodwood Regional Court, Messrs. prohibiting him fromMkotlane Yangaphi, Felinyaniso Njamela, Dwashu Nqikela, Mr. and Mrs.Alan PZwelibagile Jchn Caciso. Ntlokwebomvu Ngcwangushe and year'simprisonment fBernard Huna were acquitted of charges of membership in by failing to notifyththe African National Congress, or alternatively of furthering but four days of thethe aims of communism. The magistrate, Mr. J. J. Slabbert, pended. Bail wasfixedagreed that the defence had no prima facie case to answer. 8 In August in1S2. In July in the Roodepoort Magistrate's Court, charges Morris Maku, Aaronwere withdrawn against Messrs. Vinod Patel, a student, Iqubal sentenced to fourand Ansary and Saleem Karodia, both teachers, Cassim Karodia ofcontributing to, soand two school boys. The State alleged that they held an o co bu ioillegal meeting at the Roodepoort Asiatic School between 9 homes to be used orand 10 May this year. No reason was given for the with- gress. In anothertrialdrawal. tenced to six years'83. In Juh- in Humansdorp, Messrs. Archibald Skefile, four men were, at theSikumbuzo Mleve and Enoch Bombisca were each sentenced tences Tei-weeato four and a half years' imprisonment for subscribing to Graaff Reinet inDecenthe African National Congress and holding A.NC. meetings of the A.N.C.)in their homes. Mr. Joseph -Mpongoshe was sentenced to 88. In August inthethree years' imprisonment for subscribing to the A.N.C. The Eric Zuma,Llewellyn men had been brought to trial from Robben Island where AlfredZambetha, Matthey were serving three-year sentences imposed in 1964 for Richard Kass,Arnoldb e lo n g in g to th e A .N C .R i h r K a s , A n lb e l o g i n g t o t e A , , C .h a d t h e i r s e n t e n c e s r e d '84. On 4 August in the Cape Town Regional Court, Mr. ment. They had beensDennis Wessels and Mr. Ahmed Osman were acquitted on ber 1965 to fourand aappeal against six-month sentences imposed on them for re- participated in the1960fusing to testify in the trial of Mr. NV. J. Bock who was theappearing on charges under the Suppression of Communism AfricanNational C

Act. (Their legal representatives had told the court that 89. In August, in antheir clients were unwilling to testify against Mr. Bock and 1.000 Rand wasmade asked leave to appear when the objections to giving evidence MissStephanie Kemp, were heard. The public prosecutor objected to counsel appear-Mr. 13. J. \rster. Mni ing at the hearing of the objections on the grounds that thedetective for alleged a Criminal Code made no provision for a witness to berepresented.) Giving judgement, Mr. Justice van Zvl said: had been beateninto se"Failure to allow audience through a legal practitioner her arrest in 1964.to a person who objects to giving evidence in a criminal 90. On 2S September,trial is a gross irregularity." was sentenced to six n85. In August in the Johannesburg Regional Court, Mrs. take the oath and giveeViolet Weinberg and Mrs. Lesley Schermbrucker were each stein. Ernst andFinkesentenced to two years' imprisonment on charges of taking detained under theI8Opart in the activities of the banned Communist Party. (See Security Policeduringannex II. paras. 127-128 and 160 above.)" traitor to his people iff Both Mrs. Weinberg and Mrs. Schermbrucker were al- 91. On 9September Iready serving sentences for refusing to give evidence for MalafetsaneGeelbooi, athe State. Their husbands were also serving sentences on iS70) for invitingfarmpolitical charges. Mrs. Weinberg's daughter, Sheila, had frmrecently been released from prison after serving a sentence sentenced to ISmonths' on charges of taking part in the activities of the African wereconditionally suspeNational Congress. three.he Durban Regional Court, Dr. Gangacker. a medical practitioner and leader nIndian Congress, was sentenced to ment for contravening a banning orderattending so ial gatherings by having aton to dinner at his home; and to one orcontravening another banning order e police of his change of address. All secondsentence was conditionally susat 100 Rand pending an appeal.Iumansdorp, Messrs. Jackson Busakwe, Mahantsa and Joel Hoyi were each a halfyears' imprisonment on charges liciting funds for and allowing their meetings ofthe African National ConMr. Washington Mabongo was senmprisonment onsimilar charges. (All time, on Robben Island serving senOng seventy-four personssentenced in nber 1964 on the charge of membershipGrahamstown Supreme Court, Messrs. Yawa, Daniel Magongo, Milton Baleni,thew Mpolongwvana, Amos Zembetha, Nhanhana and Welcome Duru, each ced,on appeal, to one yearIs imprisonentenced in Port Elizabeth in Septemhalf yearseach on charges of having bus strike and of being members of-ongress.

* out-of-Court settlement, payment of by the South African Government to insettlement of her suit against ster of Justice, and a security branch ssault. MissKemp alleged that she mi-consciousness by a detective afterin Johannesburg, Mr. Albert Dhlomo nonths' imprisonment for refusing tovidence in the trial of Messrs. Aren[stein. Mr. Dhlomo. who had been day law,alleged maltreatment by the detention. He said he would be a he gave evidencefor the State.966 in Bloemsfontein, Mr, Majesane Basulo national, was fined 50 Randlabourers to destroy pass books, and imprisonment. of which 12 months ided. forburning the pass books ofDOCUMENT A/6494United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa: report of the Secretary-General1. In paragraph 2 of resolution 2054 B (XX) of 15 December 1965, the GeneralAssembly requested the Secretary-General to establish a United Nations TrustFund for South Africa, made up of voluntary contributions from States,organizations and individuals, to be used for grants to voluntary organizations,Governments of host countries of refugees from South Africa and otherappropriate bodies, towards:(a) Legal assistance to persons charged under discriminatory and repressivelegislation in South Africa;[Original text: English][1 December 1966](b) Relief for dependents of persons persecuted by the Government of SouthAfrica for acts arising from opposition to the policies of apartheid:(c) Education of prisoners, their children and other dependents;(d) Relief for refugee, from South Africa.2. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the resolution. the General Assembly requested itsPresident to nominate five lember States, each of which should appoint a personto serve on a Committee of Trustees of the United Nations Trust Fund for SouthAfrica, which