Extract from a speech at the opening of the National Party Congress of the Orange Free State at Bloemfontein on 18 September 1973

Important and significant events preceded this address of the Prime Minister. There was the accusation from the Herstigte Nasionale Party concerning territorial claims by the Government of Lesotho, to which the Government the Republic was attending, according to conditions of this party. The English-speaking press was responsible for reporting which branded the Prime Minister irresponsible and dangerous to the Republic. There were disturbances on the Carletonville goldmine, to which the Government Lesotho reacted irresponsibly and undiplomatically. Lesotho was using these mine disturbances to bring about a confrontation between the Republic and the UN to its own advantage. The Prime Minister reacted to all these events in his speech in a characteristic and unambiguous manner.

The National Party has grown because it has never shied away from the demands of the times and the demands of the times change every day, for we do not live in a static world. And this National Party -just look at the political and other history of South Africa - this party is the one that has brought about most changes in South Africa. It was the National Party that changed South Africa's status and ele­vated it from subordination to an independent Republic which can stand on its own feet in the world.

The National Party did not bring about changes simply because changes are changes. The National Party did also not do this precipitately. And do you know, nothing illustrates this point better than the Party's ideal of making South Africa a Republic. We could have done it in 1948 with the slender majority we had then. Had we wanted to go about things head-over-heels, our leaders of that time could, with that slender majority they had in Parliament, have declared a Republic. It would have been completely constitutional and legiti­mate. There was legally nothing that prevented them from doing tins, And yet they did not do it, but they laboured on doing the work of persuasion and did this until they concluded that the time was ripe and that not only would the people accept the Republic, but the Republic would endure for all time. Not only was the Republic established as a result of what they did, but even the fiercest opponents of that Republic, save in the frustration of the first few months following it, never again raised the question of whether we should return to that constitutional position we had formerly occupied.

In any society, in any country, there are three kinds of people. The one group are those who dig in their heels and refuse to go ahead. We know them too, they distributed pamphlets in the conquered territory. ¹ And perhaps I should refer to those pamphlets, because I have read a few letters from people about them. That pamphlet reads: Conquered territory OFS. Lesotho claims eight White towns, Government to negotiate. The towns are Fouriesburg, Ficksburg, Clocolan, Ladybrand, Wepener, and Zastron. People are now frightened with two untruths. In the first instance: I have been Prime Minister of South Africa for seven years, and Lesotho has certainly never made demands of me in respect of these areas. After all, they know what my answer would be if such demands were made, and it would be: No. ² So the first claim is an un­truth. And the second untruth is that the Government is to negotiate, and to lend this statement credibility, they say that the Government announced in Hansard on n May 1973 that it would negotiate. On 11 May Mr. Douglas Mitchell did in fact ask Dr. Hilgard Muller a question in connection with this matter. I want to tell you what the question was and I want to read you Dr. Muller's reply. Mr. Mitchell asked if the Government of Lesotho had directed representations to him with a view to discussing the appointment of a border committee. If so, with what result? And the Minister answered: "No representations have until now been received from the Government of Lesotho." The Re­public from its side, however, suggested the appointment of a joint border commission to Lesotho, which about a year ago indicated that the suggestion was being actively considered. Further reaction from Lesotho is still being awaited. It is not a question of the conquered territory. It is not a question of Ficksburg and Clocolan and Wepener. What is it all about? Simply about the mere fact that in places it is not clear exactly where the borders lie because of the geographical terrain. That in the past the border between Lesotho and South Africa was in places not clearly defined by surveyors. And this was true not only of the border of Lesotho, but also of the border of Botswana. And at the same time that we raised this matter with Lesotho we raised it with Botswana, and the end of the matter was that a judicial commission was appointed to precisely define the border between Botswana and South Africa, so that we would know how it ran - over this stone or that one, and through this valley or that valley. In other words, it is exactly the same situation as when a survey has to be made between two farmers to determine precisely where the borders run. But do you know, - I cannot say it surprises me, because one expects anything - what seems strange to me is that the Herstigte Party is producing the argument the UP produced when the late Dr. Verwoerd was still alive. ³ Then Mr. Etienne Malan came with the tale that Dr. Verwoerd was busy negotiating to return the conquered territory to Lesotho. The old remnants and remains of UP policy are now good enough for the Herstigtes.

But I said this was the Party that had not shied away from the demands of the times, and one of the demands of the times we are facing in these next three, four, five, years that lie ahead, is that South Africa can afford many luxuries, but South Africa cannot afford to let subversion gain a hold in South Africa, just as it could not afford it at the beginning of the sixties. And for that reason, we will fight subversion with all the power at our disposal, as we have done in the past, whatever anybody in or outside South Africa may say about it. But it is not only subversion that we have to face squarely in these times in which we live. A much more urgent matter has come to the fore. It was always in our midst, but the time in which we are hell living has rendered it increasingly urgent. It is namely that we cannot, - apart from undermining, which is something on its own - we cannot afford to have people, institutions and newspapers sowing racial hatred in South Africa.

We cannot afford their doing it deliberately, we cannot afford their doing it directly, and we can also not afford their doing it indirectly. Tonight, with all the responsibility at my disposal, I want to appeal once more to our people, to those that talk and those that write. You have the responsibility of not saying or writing anything that can incite racial hatred to such a degree that it could lead to revolt and violence. Times are too grave for that; South Africa's interests are too sacred for that, too sacred to be damaged along that road. And I have said it is so: He who talks has a great responsibility, but he who writes has an even greater responsibility, because his words travel much farther than those of the man who merely talks.

If I were to speak irresponsibly tonight, it would strike only you who sit here before me, but the moment I write irresponsibly, it travels across the whole country and to the whole world. And that is a tremendous difference. I do not in any way want to condone people's saying the irresponsible things, I or any other man in any position whatsoever.

But I have asked the press to discipline themselves. I have asked the press to carefully examine the impact of the things they write, whether intentional or not, to determine whether they could have the effect of inciting racial hatred with the results I have already mentioned. One has pleaded and talked and threatened through the years, and now we have come to the point where the Rand Daily Mail has told me it refuses to be subjected to censorship. Now I have stated my case very clearly. I will do many things in South Africa and I see my way clear to doing many things, but there is one thing I do not see my way clear to doing, and that is to play censor for newspapers. I do not see my way clear to doing that: (a) I think censorship is an insult to them because they should know better and I am not prepared to do their work for them; (b) It is an impossible task to fulfil.

But when a newspaper comes and throws this back in my face and says I am not prepared to apply self-censorship to myself, then I say that newspaper is seeking a confrontation and will get it as surely as you are sitting here tonight.

I can tell them that I am studying legislation to be introduced next year and that in that legislation there will be a clause that if a newspaper continues to violate and be guilty of that sort of thing, that newspaper will simply not appear on the streets. And when I say, as I also said at the Transvaal Congress, that well-meaning friends on my own side will tell me I am going too far, then I know I shall be criticised in circles where I do not expect to be criticised. But, my friends, South Africa's interests are more important than all those institutions. I am not saying this because I want the Government criticised, I have stated in the clearest way that it has nothing to do with criticism of the Government's policy, or its action, or its person. It is not a question of that. To tell the truth, the more they attack us, the stronger the National Party becomes, for if they side with you, you must of necessity be wrong, in the view of most people. And this is one of the reasons for the United Party's degeneration. It is not a party led by its leaders, but a party ruled by a few newspaper reporters. I said it had nothing to do with criticism, it had to do with incitement, and I was asked for various examples. I must give examples of the kind of thing that is not per­missible. I read a letter that appeared in the Rand Daily Mail at the Transvaal Congress and said most clearly that it was a letter with con­tents against which one should take measures. What is now being told to the Black people, who, I understand, are almost the largest circulation group of this newspaper: "Separate development or Apartheid robs an African of his land and produce." To tell the Black man his land is being stolen from him - no matter under what circumstances and how you say it, or whether you say it in an article or a report or a letter, but to tell the Black man the White man is robbing him of his land, is not the truth and must lead to hatred and animosity. To tell the Black man that "it forces him to live in poverty, misery and disease" is a downright lie as I will show you later. And to go and tell this to people who some­times cannot judge in a mature fashion has to lead to frustration of such a kind that it ultimately must lead to violence. To tell him "it denies him higher education" must make him revolt against the schools and the universities that have been built for him and which are of the same standard as those of the Whites. You break his faith in them and tills ultimately leads to violence. And it is not the truth when he is told: "It hurls him into barren reserves called Bantu Stans" - that is not true. It is, after all, the land he selected for himself from the start, where he settled when he came to Southern Africa for the first time and where our forefathers and this Government protected his right of ownership that he still has today. For were it not for us, he would not have had an inch of land left. To come and tell him now it is the Government who is forcing him into these "barren reserves" is surely fanning hatred. I think I have mentioned sufficient examples. If the Rand Daily Mail should ask me what it should not write, then I would say in particular not this sort of thing and many other things that they ought to know as well as I should not be written. And when the legislation comes next year, the blood will be on their head. And if it should have the results I predicted here tonight, there would also be blood on your heads.

I say it is very clear that confrontation is being sought and I said this in respect of certain acts of violence in South Africa a few weeks ago. There are too many people in South Africa who think that because of the international position in which we find ourselves as a result of the delicate relations existing in the world today, because of the fact that the whole world is eyeing South Africa and waiting to pounce on it, we would be afraid. They would be making a mistake if they thought so. And people seeking a confrontation with the Government on any front will get that confrontation. There should be no doubt whatever about that.

And then the Rand Daily Mail comes to me and says, how should it know it is contributing to racial incitement? Our common law has for years been that no libel may be published in a newspaper. A newspaper may not communicate what someone said libelously to someone else. How do newspapers know what is libel and what not? If they know it, it will make it much easier for them to recognise what I am referring to tonight as well. They have known about not printing libel for years. All I ask them is to treat this matter as they have treated libel. But the State cannot be defamed, the State can only be placed at a disadvantage. South Africa cannot make a claim for its good name, but South Africa has to guard against people in the country not dragging that name through the mud themselves and stirring up feelings in sin a way that it ultimately leads to violence.

But this party has grown because it is a party which has for years been conscious of its calling, because, in respect of its own people and in respect of others who have found themselves in South Africa and in respect of countries beyond its borders, it was always pre­pared to help. You will remember that I stated my view in the House of Assembly, shortly after I was elected, when Mr. Waterson asked me how I would help states in Africa and how I would be of assistance to them. My answer was that Africa had been good to us, very good - I wonder if we always appreciate what we have - and while I am talking about that, do we realise how well off we are in South Africa? If you look at Die Volksblad tonight, look at the National Party's advertisement. Like you, I know that the cost of living is high, like you I would have preferred it to be lower. But my friends, it was brought about by factors, factors over which South Africa has no control, factors which even other countries do not control. It is true that everything has become more expensive, but it is also true that salaries and wages have in­creased over the years. To say that things have become more expensive is to make mention of only one side of the coin.

The other side of the coin is that we are receiving higher salaries. Because of that I asked statisticians. I said to them, look, I have a task and a duty to the people of South Africa in this regard. If a man buys a pair of shoes today, how does this compare with a man buying a pair of shoes five, six, seven, eight years ago? And they gave me the length of time a man needed to work to be able to earn the price of a pair of shoes in those times and now. And today he has to do less work to buy those shoes, because he is earning a higher salary. The same applies to motor cars, expensive as they have become. Where it took a man so many months to buy a car, it now takes less work to be able to acquire that car. So one can continue to prove one's point of view. But, my friends, let us look at the number of cars in our possession, and not only in our possession, but in the possession of the other nations of the world, for one can gauge the living standard of nations that way. I know that many people, when arguing about these matters say, do not tell me what is going on in other countries. I am not interested in those coun­tries. But one must have a standard. What do we find? In the United States there are 447 cars for every 1 000 people - nearly half of each thousand has a car. The EEC countries, that is, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy and so on, have 232 cars to every 1 000 people. A prosperous country like Japan, which is one of the world's economic giants today, has 102 cars to every 1 000 people, and South Africa's Whites have 365 cars to every 1000 people. More, therefore, than Japan; 1 000 per 1 000 more than the European countries, France, Germany, Italy and others. But do you know what I found interesting? Of our Bantu four out of every thousand already own a car. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, 23 out of 1 000 is the figure, and for the Indians it is 69 out of 1 000. And another interesting figure is that in Soviet Russia there are only six cars to every 1 000 people. But just as one can measure the prosperity of a country, as one can measure the industrial activity of a country by the amount of electricity it uses - and you may look at South Africa's figures in that regard - so one can measure the standard of living of a nation by the number of cars it has per 1 000 people. And with the exception of the United States there is not a single country that has more than South Africa. I say this is the other side of the coin we have to do with and I once again want to appeal to you, for time will not permit me to deal with it in detail and I do not want to go into all those figures with you, to study the informa­tion in Die Volksblad tonight and you will have food for gratitude. For when you have said everything you wanted to say, and when you have complained about everything you wanted to complain about, you will still have to come to the conclusion that, considering the standard of living in South Africa, it is still the cheapest country in the world in which to live - the cheapest and the safest.

I said that the party was conscious of its calling, and from the outset I took the view that on behalf of South Africa, I wanted to help other countries in Africa to help themselves. And one of the countries we went out of our way to help was our neighbour, Lesotho. It was never a subordinate of ours, it stood under Britain for 100 years until it became independent. We owed Lesotho absolutely nothing, and I repeat, we were under no obligation to it whatsoever. We did Lesotho good when and wherever we could, and I can quote numerous examples. When its people were hungry, we did not look the other way. You will recall that this happened in the days of Dr. Verwoerd and after. When its people were snowed in, we did not question the risk to our pilots to go to Lesotho's aid - we pushed our young people into that task. The country also needed to ensure order and stability.

But everybody is now aware that relations between South Africa and Lesotho have recently not been what they ought to be. I want to state clearly that there is nothing wrong with relations between the people of Basutoland and South Africa. I also want to state very clearly that there are many leaders in Lesotho with whom there are no problems whatsoever, but I want to lay the blame for this situation which has arisen between South Africa and Lesotho squarely on the shoulders of Chief Jonathan. He must take the responsibility for it. For years we did him only good, him personally and him as the government. We did his country and his people only good. Notwithstanding that, he has missed few opportunities in the UN, few opportunities in the Organisation of African Unity, few opportunities when he was abroad, few opportunities at the congress of the so-called non-aligned countries, where he not only dealt blows at South Africa, but also made attacks. But now, now Lesotho has gone too far and I want to put the blame, as I have said, squarely on the shoulders of Chief Jonathan. There were the unfortunate events at Carletonville. ⁴ I want to say immediately that, within 20 minutes of receiving full details of the citizenship of the people involved, South Africa's Department of Foreign Affairs informed Lesotho of the circumstances. But it was not something you could know all about by the next morning. You had to wait for reports and be sure. You know yourselves how confused conditions and circumstances were before the full details could be given. But Lesotho immediately flew to the UN and asked permission to address the UN committee that was debating this issue, and it was on that occasion that the Lesotho ambassador said at the UN: "Upon instructions of my Government", and please note, he did not act on his own in an emotional moment or impetuously, he began by saying he was ordered by his government to make this state­ment. "Upon instructions of my Government I have been asked to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that of eleven innocent African mineworkers who were yesterday massacred in Carletonville at the Western Deep Mines in South Africa, five of these miners are citizens of my country. This is not the first time that a life of citizens of my country has been taken by deliberate acts of irresponsibility on the part of the South African Police." I reject this allegation with contempt. Chief Jonathan has more reason to be grateful to the South African Police than most others I know. "My Government has in addition asked me to inform you that an enquiry has been sent to Pretoria purporting to elect an official confirmation on the part of the South African Government that citizens of Lesotho have been killed. Up to the time when I received this instruction from my Government no such response had been elected from Pretoria. This then makes abundantly clear to you the official attitude of the South African Government in regard to this incident. It is a very well-known fact, particularly to members of this committee, that a very substantial number of the citizens of my country, through no fault of their own find themselves having to go to seek em­ployment in South Africa". Is it our fault that Lesotho's people have to come to work here? Is it our fault that Lesotho was so rottenly managed, both by the British and Chief Jonathan and his predecessors, that they cannot give their own people work? Imagine, you make an accusation against South Africa at the UN because your people are forced to work in South Africa and because you cannot look after them yourself. He continues: "This is a situation which my Government is seriously working on with a view to reversing it." As far as I am concerned, the sooner the better. "A number of projects have been placed before the organs of the United Nations seeking assistance to enable my Government to reverse this unfortunate state of affairs." Imagine, they now want to accuse us before the Security Council, they suggest it here.

"You also throw in words on our behalf that the United Nations does something more than words to help countries such as my own to lessen their economic dependence on South Africa." Chief Jonathan is now begging for help at the UN - I have nothing against his asking as much as he likes, but he is certainly not going to ride on South Africa's back to get that assistance. That is not good neighbourliness. It is not good neighbourliness, and I am surprised that a country which has received so much from South Africa, is prepared to sacrifice South Africa like this under these circumstances. "In due course my Government will make its position known in this matter and I will be given proper instructions to convey to you the full details of the incident to enable you to take the appropriate actions." Today Chief Jonathan decided that he would appoint a legal representative when the enquiry is held at Carletonville. I find no fault with that, it is his good right to do that and there is nothing wrong with it. But he has also decided that he will consider asking the UN to send an observer to the enquiry "to see that justice is done". I want to state very clearly that this is an insult I will not suffer, and it is an insult South Africa will not suffer. And if Chief Jonathan thinks he will embarrass us by doing this - however delicate our position at the UN - such a representative will never be allowed into South Africa.

Here you have a country who has had nothing but goodwill from South Africa. You have a country which made this statement through the mouth of its leaders before being in possession of the facts. It made it at that stage according to information it had and that must have been in its possession. It was already very clear that those who had lost their lives had not done so because they were Black. They had not lost their lives because they were workers and they had not lost their lives because they were agitating for an increase or because there had been no negotiations with them. They unfortunately lost their lives because, according to evidence which was at that stage there for all to see and which will later be tested in the courts, because they were part of a plundering gang who murdered a Black worker, injured several seriously and destroyed property, and probably would have injured a number of others seriously and destroyed property and would probably have murdered and maimed even more people had the South African Police not stepped in. And I want to state it clearly tonight, because we will still hear much about it. The Police have strict orders not to use arms unless it is absolutely necessary and in these cases the Police have in past years acted with the greatest circumspection. I know that, because I was Minister of Police for years and because I hold the office I hold. And the Police use arms only when all other methods have been unsuccessfully applied to restrain fierce violence. I am sorry that I had to talk to the leader of a neighbouring state as I had to tonight. It is not pleasant to do this and it disturbs relations unnecessarily. But one cannot go on like this, and I want to repeat in case I am incorrectly quoted. My experience with the people of Basutoland is that they do not share this view, my experience of many leaders in Lesotho is that they do not underwrite this view, but for the sake of good relations I want to say to Chief Jonathan: Leave these things alone, they cannot bring about good relations between South Africa and Lesotho. And to my own people I want to say very clearly that we gave no cause for this attitude from Lesotho's side. I want to tell you very clearly, ladies and gentlemen, I will go out of my way to seek goodwill in other states and other leaders. I have gone far out of my way and I shall still go very far out of my way, but I am not prepared, I am not at all prepared that South Africa's honour and good name should be brought into the fray as a result of it.

The National Party has grown as it has in the years because it has shown itself to be a party which is prepared to face the logical consequences of its policy. And it is good and necessary that at this 25th annual congress we should again ask ourselves what the basis of our policy is, at what it is aimed and what its logical consequences are. Firstly - and I ask no pardon for saying it, because it is the cornerstone on which the National Party is built - the cornerstone of the National Party is the retention of the identity of the White Afrikaner and the White South African. I, ladies and gentlemen, as an Afrikaner do not want to lose my identity as an Afrikaner, I do not want to lose it to the Englishman, I do not want to lose it to the German, I do not want to lose it to the Frenchman. They might be very much better than I am, I am not arguing that point at all, but the fact remains that I am an Afrikaner and even if I have less than the other man I am still proud of what I am and that which is mine. Therefore, the question of superiority or inferiority does not come into the picture at all.

We as South Africans - whether we are Afrikaans or whether we call ourselves South Africans - we are proud of our nationhood and it is exactly for that reason why we as Afrikaners fought those in South Africa who wanted to anglicise us in the distant past. And I do not want to dwell upon that part of our history because, ladies and gentlemen, fortunately that belongs to the past, that belongs to history, it is well behind us and we must look to the future. Today the White South African nation consists of Afrikaners and English speakers, each with a White identity of its own but bound with a bond of common love and loyality to South Africa. We have different languages, different cultures, different traditions, different outlooks but we have the same roots, the same aspirations and the same destiny in South Africa. That identity which I have described to you in these few words we have every right to maintain and we will maintain it under all circumstances. And I know that there are those in the outside world who take exception to it. Only tonight I heard over the radio that Mr. Whitlam, the Prime Minister of Australia, went out of his way again to attack South Africa and frankly admitted that he was meddling in our affairs in doing so and he attacked us because we wanted to maintain our identity. ⁵ Australia of all people. And I want to say in all sincerity to Mr. Whitlam: When you are just an unpleasant memory in your country the National Party will still be governing South Africa. And I want to say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that regardless of what the Whitlams of the world have to say, regardless of what the Den Uyl's have to say, because it also came over the news tonight that the Dutch Government had decided that they will no longer in future pay subsidies to those immigrants who want to come to South Africa. Firstly, I am not aware of any subsidy that the Dutch Government does pay in this regard. But I might be wrong, if there is a subsidy which the Dutch Government has been paying up till now, then I will seriously ask the Government to consider South Africa's paying that subsidy to allow Dutchmen to come to South Africa, if they want to do so.

Not only do we want to retain our identity, we wish, and this is equally important if not more important, we wish to retain political sovereignty over ourselves. The standpoint and policy of the National Party is that we do not share the political sovereignty of our people with any other nation. White, Yellow, Black, however well-disposed it may be to South Africa. For shared sovereignty leads to destruction and shared sovereignty would lead South Africa to destruction. And that, after all, is the basic difference between us and the United Party today. Let us reflect for a moment. Yesterday, the day before yesterday, they told us the only way to rule South Africa was to give certain denned representation in the White area to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu, and they swore this was the only way South Africa could be saved. And before you could say "Jack Robinson", they had a new policy. It is not unusual for them to do this. To tell the truth, if they were cattle one could have farmed them extremely prosperously.

But what is interesting to those of us attending the 25th annual congress is what they have told us all these years. They told us it would not work to give Black states self-government, they told us the Coloured Persons Representative Council was evil, they told us that the Indian Representative Council we want to establish would be wrong, they said they had never in their lives seen anything as stupid as people working here and having to live and exercise their franchise in the territories from which they came and of which they were subjects.

They said it was the most stupid policy they had ever heard of. And what do you find now? That it is the corner-stone of their own policy! The basis of their own policy is now those selfsame Bantu Represent.' Councils and Coloured Representative Councils and Indian Representative Councils. All that has been added is that they give the urban Bantu a parliament of his own. How they would do this in practice I have no idea, but they have even less idea. But it is of no consequence, they will never be called upon to execute it. But we reached the end of the Session and then I asked Senator Horak, who is a very honest and open-hearted gentleman, and their General Secretary. I asked him:

"Look, you now have a parliament for every man. There are parliaments wherever you look. What about the Bantu on the farms, are they to have a parliament too?" Then he said: "No, they will not have a parliament, they have to vote in the homelands because they are still part of the tribes." Notwithstanding the fact that some of them may have been on the farm for ten or twelve generations! The United Party suddenly considers them part of the tribe. So I said to him: "Suppose the urban Bantu also considers himself part of the tribe, will he also have the right to vote in the homelands?" And he said: "Yes, that is what makes our policy so attractive. You can do either." He said: "We give the people a much wider choice than you do." Yesterday, the day before yesterday, it was wrong, and when they were pushed into a corner, they said it just shows what a wide choice they give people.

But what is the essence, the germ of death in the Federation -the United Party policy - is Mr. Mike Mitchell's admission that that federal parliament will ultimately have full say and the White man's parliament will disappear. This is the essence and in that federal parliament you will have representatives of the Coloureds, Indians and Bantu. I repeat, he who plays with divided power over his people, who is prepared to give any other person, however well-disposed, a say over his own people, he is an enemy of his people. He should know one thing and that is that it will lead to the downfall of his people, particularly if the ratio of numbers is as it happens to be here in South Africa. Therefore I again want to state my view very clearly. I do not echo the opinions of the leaders of other people. I have told each and everyone of them. I have told them I seek co-operation and friend­ship, but one thing they can never expect from me is that I will share the sovereignty of my people with them.

The strength of the National Party lies in the recognition of the fact that it is the first party to have taken that view when it was un­popular to hold the view that in South Africa one had to do with various nations, different colours, languages, levels of civilisation and customs. But the National Party not only wrote this into its policy and regulated and drew up its policy according to it. The National Party went further and said there were different nations, but they were all worthy human beings, and I cannot talk enough to you about this aspect of human dignity. It is not only a thing I am talking about today, there are those of you who may perhaps remember that on 14 September 1966, I spoke from my heart, and there was not even time to prepare myself when I broadcast for the first time as Prime Minister. I then said:

Separate development is not the disregard of human dignity. On the contrary, it is the recognition of the human dignity of every nation here in South Africa.

And however small or insignificant this matter may appear to you tonight, this doctrine of human dignity and otherness will be the subject of discussions in the entire political future in South Africa. There are those in South Africa who refuse to admit that differences exist between nations here in South Africa. Unfortunately there are those who by their behaviour, by the way in which they speak, like to create the impression that there is no human dignity on the side of the coloured nations. The differences that there are cannot be explained away for it is, after all, the lesson of history familiar to us all, young and old, that differences of whatever kind, differencess in language, differences in colour, differences in religion, differences in customs, give rise to friction and violence in many parts of the world. Think of Cyprus, Iran, India, Pakistan, the Middle East, the Sudan. If you think about South Africa's future and speculate or philosophise about it, I want to put it to you very clearly that the solution does not lie in pretending it does not exist. The solution far rather lies in the recognition, both from the point of view of the Whites, and also from the point of view of the Non-Whites, of both parties, that it does exist and that it is therefore essential to limit to a minimum the levels of friction between nation and nation. The solution lies in the acceptance of borderlines, borderlines not based on mere prejudice, but borderlines that should serve to protect identity and ensure co-existence. Your problem lies in the disregard of borderlines; the germ of friction and violence is contained in that. Because, as I say, we as a party have from the start recognised that difference and because we as a party have from the start by our behaviour and in word and deed recognised the human dignity of people of another colour, and appreciated it, we went out of our way through the years to provide opportunities and chances, to make facilities available, as required by the needs of people of other colours from time to time. And I want to tell you tonight that as they develop, so greater needs will arise and this Government will at all times, with regard to its resources, with regard to the circumstances in which it finds itself, answer to those demands, because it is prepared to face the logical consequences of its policy. We have given them educational opportunities, we have given them medical care, we have given them job opportunities in our part of South Africa. We gave this on the borders of the homelands and in the homelands themselves. We brought about consultation and contact at constitutional, academic and scientific level with the intention of making them as independent as we are on those levels. At all times our starting point was that what we asked for ourselves we would be prepared for them to have, and, my friends, this is the only viable policy a political party can have. You can be as popular as you like with a policy based on hatred or abuse or anything whatever, but in a country like South Africa, in the whole world in fact, a policy which does not answer to the demands of Christianity and morality cannot endure in the long run. We went further. We said we would lead them on the road to self-determination and would make them independent if they wished, independent in every sense of the word.

And when we said that, it was averred, and it will probably be said again by the United Party at their Congress and it will be said at the next election, that they cannot become independent. It is ridiculous, according to them and other critics of ours here in South Africa, because their territory is too small, they are too underdeveloped and too poor. Since when, I ask you, has independence been only for the great, the developed and the wealthy? Is it not a gift that belongs as much to the lesser and the poor as to the greater and the rich? But let us now examine these double standards of which you will hear a great deal in future. We are told that we cannot make the Transkei and KwaZulu and Bophuthatswana and the others independent, for they will be too small to stand as independent states. There are to­day dozens and dozens of countries which are members of the UN and which are much smaller than our homelands. To tell the truth, the Transkei is 30 times larger than Singapore and Singapore is independent. Swaziland is much smaller, Israel is much smaller, the Lebanon is smaller, Mauritius is smaller, the Bahamas is smaller. You can continue to name at least three dozen countries smaller than our own, but because South Africa is concerned, the Transkei is too small. Then they come along and say there are too few people. It does not matter that there are 4-million Zulus and 3-million Xhosas. They are, I understand, too few people. But there is a country that has 100 000 people that is a member of the UN. Iceland has 200 000, Malta has 300 000, Liberia has 1,5-million. They have enough people to be mem­bers of the UN, but our own three and four million people are not enough to meet the requirements. We are told that they are not sufficiently developed, they cannot be independent. But do you know - to mention but two, KwaZulu and the Transkei: of their total population, 21 per cent is at school today? They may not become independent and members of the UN as independent nations, but Burundi, with one per cent of its people at school, may become a fully-fledged member of the UN. Ethiopia, our main critic at the UN, much-vaunted in the council chambers of the world, has three per cent of its people at school and Zambia, which wants to teach us how to rule a country, has 15 per cent. I could continue to name dozens and dozens of these people.

But the argument goes further. They are too poor, so they cannot be independent. The Transkei's budget is approximately four times that of Lesotho. It is four times that of Guinea, twice that of Swaziland and by half more that of Botswana. They can be independent and members of the UN, they may even lay charges against us there, as Lesotho did, but our own territories, because it is South Africa that is involved, are too poor to be independent. But the per capita income of the Black man in South Africa is three times that of his brother in Burundi, twice that in Ethiopia, and twice that in Nigeria, still one of the crown jewels in the British Commonwealth of Nations. But because it is South Africa, it matters what wages are paid in South Africa and the world may agitate against South Africa because of them. But that South Africa pays twice as much as the rest of Africa does not count and that it pays three times more than certain countries in the East, does not matter. Then certain people became personal and the agitation calmed down. And one will probably not hear about it again for a while.

These are the reasons why South Africa could develop like that and why after 25 years there is still the faith in the National Party that you are demonstrating tonight. I have told you that as there is development and as needs arise, greater facilities will have to be created. I want to talk very frankly to you about this tonight. In dis­cussions I held with leaders of the various colour groups, it came to my notice that they have a real need. I mentioned the number of cars they have on the road. There is a real need among them that did yesterday or the day before yesterday, namely for places beside the road where they may stop, as you and I can. Such facilities they consider as essential as you and I do. It is normally not the function and duty of the State to provide such facilities, and in this instance it will also not be the case, but the State will do everything in its power to get private initiative to provide those facilities. They are entitled to them. But what is more, these are not only those facilities required. In the urban areas there is a need for facilities for people who in the past only came there to fulfil a task, to do a job, but who today do not come there are workers in someone's employ, but as independent people. In our policy of the recognition of the existence of various nations we, the National Party have from 1948 until today, not only recognised those nations, but we have given their leaders status. And we have seen them as the leaders of their various nations. When I negotiate with them today I do not negotiate with them as subordinates, I do not negotiate with them as people to whom I give orders. I speak to them as the leader of the Whites, to the leaders Mr. Tom Swartz of the Coloureds, Paramount Chief Matanzima of the Xhosas, and Mr. Rajab of the Indians. There is no way to talk to them other than as man to man and leader to leader, for we have given them that status. And it is good and right that we have given it to them. Because this is so, greater needs have arisen as they have developed, and we have given them the opportunity to develop, in the field of education, not only at school but at university too, and as they develop, their needs will increase and we will have to satisfy those needs. This flows inexorably from our policy. But always, as I have told you, always subject to the two conditions that one's identity is not involved and that extra levels of friction are not created and that one does not lose sovereignty over one's own people. This is the guarantee the National Party gives you. This is the guarantee the National Party is at all times prepared to give you. Because of that the National Party could grow, because of that the Party can still rule, notwithstanding the fact that it has been in power for 25 years with a two-thirds majority. Because of this you have this unique phenomenon in South Africa's political life - that I as the Leader of the National Party can look at my opponents after 25 years and say there are some in their fold that do not belong there - come over to us and come to help us build and protect South Africa.

One does not do this because of weakness, one does not do this because one needs seats, one does not do it because one needs votes; one does it from a position of strength for the sake of South Africa, our mutual fatherland.

You will ask me, my friends, why I am making this appeal. Then I shall tell you that when I read the signs of the times, it is very clear to me that the next three, four, five, years are going to be of decisive significance not only for our existence, but for our survival. Each of you who reads the news carefully, who studies world events in detail, will know that the next three, four, five years will lead to a climax in the world and South Africa is part of that world. The whole world is shouting for peace. The whole world is travelling from east to west and from north to south to bring about lasting peace. The whole world pro­claims that peace is the password for all nations and people and yet the one is arming more than the other, violence is increasing and one can smell the fumes of gunsmoke in the air. For this reason you know that the next few years will be difficult years - certainly more difficult than the past years. And when I say this, do not think I am a pessimist. On the contrary, I believe that despite everything that may lie ahead of us, South Africa will pull through, it will reach the other side, because I believe wholeheartedly - and that is why I am still here under these circumstances - that we have a calling to fulfil in South Africa. Had I not believed this, I would not have stood before you this evening. Had I not believed that we have a task to accomplish here in South Africa, I would have been wasting my time standing before you. Had I not believed that a beautiful future lay ahead of us, there would have been no point in tiring myself. I believe it with all my heart. What is more, taking account merely of the facts, it will be the National Party that will be called to accomplish that task for South Africa. And the National Party will have enough seats in the House of Assembly and will have sufficient voters to be able to do so. But it is more than a question of the House of Assembly, more than a question of seats in the House, it is a question of a united front to face that outside world that wishes to bring South Africa to its knees. Do you understand why I am making use of this opportunity afforded by the Congress, as I make use of others, to appeal, from a position of strength, to those who feel as we do to stand by us? Do you understand why I have again brought to the fore the clarion call of my first predecessor in these 25 years. Dr. D. F. Malan -"Join together what belongs together"?

I believe that that historic role is ordained for the National Party. I believe and I am thankful to have that faith and knowledge that the National Party can and will fulfil it for South Africa.