This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 26 October 2014, At: 06:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Round Table: TheCommonwealth Journal ofInternational AffairsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctrt20

South Africa: White paper onSouth West AfricaPublished online: 15 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: (1964) South Africa: White paper on South West Africa,The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, 54:216,416-420, DOI: 10.1080/00358536408452517

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00358536408452517

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:26

26

Oct

ober

201

4

SOUTH AFRICA

WHITE PAPER ON SOUTH WEST AFRICA

ON April 30, 1964, the Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, tabled a WhitePaper in the House of Assembly, setting out the Government's attitude

to the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission on South West Africa.The Commission had proposed political development in the territory on rigidseparate development or apartheid lines, coupled with a large economicdevelopment programme.

The White Paper affirmed the Government's agreement with the broadtrend of policy contained in the recommendations, but made it clear thatdecisions on the implementation of the political proposals and those affectingthe financial and administrative relations between the Republic and SouthWest Africa were to stand over. The White Paper mentioned the proceedingspending before the International Court of Justice concerning South WestAfrica and said that the South African Government would refrain from actionwhich might unnecessarily aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court.This attitude accorded with the subjudice principle. Decisions on the imple-mentation of these proposals would stand over until the conclusion of theCourt case.

The parliamentary opposition welcomed the Government's decision. Sirde Villiers Graaff, Leader of the Opposition, said: "This change of attitudecan be attributed to world, especially Western, reaction. It is probably duealso to reaction in the territory itself."

(In March, reports had reached South Africa from London that warningshad been given to the South African Government by both the United Statesand Britain that there was a serious danger that, the moment any attemptwas made to establish Bantustans in South West Africa, Liberia and Ethiopiawould apply for an injunction at the International Court to stop such adevelopment. This might result in bringing the matter before the SecurityCouncil and involve serious consequences.)

In a speech in the House of Assembly on May 5, Dr. Verwoerd referredto the case before the International Court and said it was well known thatthe South African Government was a stickler for doing what was juridicallycorrect and had always taken a strong stand on the subjudice rule. He saidthat the Government had had to take into consideration the possibility thatan interdict might be sought to prevent South Africa from dealing with thepolitical proposals of the report until after the case had come to an end.The Government had been fully aware of the implications of the Odendaalreport and the possible effects of anything South Africa might do. He saidthat "friendly warnings" through diplomatic channels from Britain and theUnited States had been based on wrong assumptions.

Taking part in the same debate, Sir de Villiers Graaff said that he believed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:26

26

Oct

ober

201

4

SOUTH AFRICA 417

that the decision taken by the Government to put the political proposals intocold storage pending the decision of the Court had been wise.

Sir de Villiers said:It certainly temporarily averted the danger of any international action in

respect of this matter. It seems that this issue will now not be complicated bythe somewhat revolutionary proposals of the Commission . . . it is a pity thatthis matter was allowed to reach the stage it did before the Government madeits views clear.

Sir de Villiers said that he believed that the Government would now bewise to reject the Commission's political proposals outright, thus endinguncertainty and removing the threat of international involvement.

First Session of the Transkeian Legislature

TO the accompaniment of a good deal of pomp and circumstance (thoughwithout the civic reception which was offered) the State President opened

the first session of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly on May 5.The general election in November last year helped the Nationalist-sup-

ported group under Chief Kaizer Matanzima to a narrow majority over thefollowers of Chief Victor Poto, a majority which depended on the supportof ex officio chiefs to offset Mr. Poto's stronger following among the electedmembers. Mr. Matanzima was accordingly elected as the Transkei's firstChief Minister, and his nominees were duly elected without opposition tofill the other five Cabinet seats. When Mr. Poto announced the formation ofan Opposition Democratic Party in February, and Mr. Matanzima repliedby forming the Transkeian National Independence Party soon afterwards,it became clear that the House would operate on two-party lines. There hadpreviously been some doubt whether this would happen.

The new legislature got off to a lively start. Mr. Poto moved a no-confidencemotion almost as soon as the State President had performed the officialopening. In the course of the hot debate that ensued the Speaker, N. J.Busakwe, a member of the Opposition, was removed from office on a motionby the Chief Minister. His deputy, Chief Petros Jozana, who supportsMr. Matanzima, was elected in his place. The Government then defeated theno-confidence motion by 61 votes to 39—a larger margin of safety thanMatanzima had obtained in the earlier election for the Chief Minister, andan indication perhaps of the success of his private approach to individualOpposition members before the session. On no occasion during the sessiondid he in fact come near to defeat, and he showed his ascendancy on June 4,for example, when a motion by J. B. Nkosiyane (Democrat), asking for a selectcommittee to examine the Chief Minister's allegation that he was an associateof Patrick Duncan, was thrown out by 5 5 votes to 40.

Bouts of name calling, of which this was one example, punctuated thesession. But in this respect the Transkeian legislature fared no worse thanthe Republican House of Assembly, and to dwell on it would be to detractfrom the considerable measure of agreement manifested between the twosides of the House. The Opposition abstained from voting on the R 15-5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:26

26

Oct

ober

201

4

4i8 SOUTH AFRICA

million appropriation bill; but it did not resist the measure. Many Opposi-tion motions, dealing with a variety of subjects, were carried. Noteworthyamong these was Mr. Nkosiyane's motion to ask the Republican Govern-ment to relax its policy of influx control into the urban areas, which wascarried on June 10. Both sides gave evidence of dissatisfaction at theRepublican Government's official distinction between ordinary and "Bantu"education. The Chief Minister even hinted that he might admit white men'scapital to assist in the development of the Transkei—provided it was under-stood that his policy was separate development, aimed to keep the wealthand resources of the Transkei in Transkeian hands. At the end of the session,Mr. Matanzima crossed the floor of the chamber to shake hands warmly withChief Sabata Dalindyebo, the least nationalist-inclined of the Oppositionleaders.

The Press CommissionA FTER 14 solid years of solid work, the Press Commission reported during

- L A the session and announced that it had had enough: it did not proposeto go on with the main point in its terms of reference, which was the SouthAfrican Press. There can have been few more curious phenomena in this orany other country.

Within months of the coming to power of the Nationalist Party in 1948the English-language and almost entirely opposition Press of South Africawas steadily attacked. In 1950 a motion was carried in Parliament, and theGovernment of the day set up the Press Commission with terms of referencewhich fell under three main heads—the control of the Press, the activitiesof correspondents in South Africa for newspapers and news agencies abroadand the South African newspapers themselves, their accuracy, responsibilityand patriotism. A junior judge was appointed as chairman and the memberswere a few Nationalist members of Parliament, two United Party members,one a former Speaker and one who subsequently became a NationalistCabinet Minister, and two newspapermen. With the passage of the years theother members fell away—some died, some resigned, others became CabinetMinisters and ambassadors. One of the United Party M.P.'s joined as a ladof 75 and retired from the Commission last year, at the age of nearly 90.The second and last report of the Commission was signed by the chairman,Mr. Justice Van Zijl, and Dr. Coertze, a Nationalist M.P. and the solesurvivor.

From the beginning the chairman conceived his work on the broadestlines. Every newspaper and nearly every newspaperman, from managingdirectors to reporters, were required to complete question papers, many ofwhich contained literally tens of thousands of questions. This was followedby prolonged oral hearings when individuals appeared for days before theCommission. This took the Commission to about 1953 or 1954 and then, asfar as public activity was concerned, it disappeared from sight. Away backin 1955 one of the many Ministers who have been responsible in Parliamentfor the Commission said that the report was expected "in the course of thepresent financial year". The years rolled on and each session the Minister of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:26

26

Oct

ober

201

4

SOUTH AFRICA 419

the day would tell Parliament that the report was expected "this year" or"early next year". Three or four years ago parliamentary patience ran a littlethin and the Minister in charge read a statement provided by the chairman—it ran to about 2,000 words, yet the Minister had to explain that, because ofits original length, he had had to summarize it drastically. The effect of thestatement was that the investigation was involved and complicated andrequired time.

In 1962 the Commission presented its report on one of the terms ofreference, "the control of the Press". The report was a vast document,nearly ten solid volumes running to many thousands of pages. However,nothing much that was sensational emerged. It appeared that South Africannewspapers were owned by limited liability companies with widely-heldshareholdings and with boards of directors who did not concern themselvesmuch with the day-to-day running of their journals.

This year the second—and, it now appears, the last—report appeared. Itdealt with the question of the reporting abroad of South African affairs bycorrespondents, news agencies and "stringers" in this country. The reportis an enormous document. There are something like 11 huge volumes ofclosely-typed matter, the total work weighing something over 50 lb. Thefacts that are stated must set some sort of record for number and compre-hensiveness. The cables of about 100 correspondents over a considerableperiod of time are minutely analysed and, from elaborate tables, the earnestsearcher after truth can determine, for instance, that the Reuter man in agiven period sent 10,724 words to 21 newspapers in India, 7,899 words to14 newspapers in Holland, 26,663 words to newspapers in the United States;and so, for every correspondent and every country and almost every news-paper in the world.

The Commission proceeds to sort correspondents and messages into "good","faulty", "bad" and "very bad", arbitrary terms which are defined at greatlength in special senses but which bear little relation to the colloquial meaningof the terms. Thus "bad" does not mean inaccurate. The reports of a "bad"reporter were said to be full, fair and objective but in, for instance, fairlyreporting a parliamentary speech by the Leader of the Opposition, he appa-rently failed to add a note to explain that these opposition sentiments didnot represent the sentiments of the Afrikaner people.

The vastness and complexity of the report were probably the cause of itscool reception by the public in general and by the politicians on both sidesof the parliamentary fence. A few enthusiasts tried to use its findings to assertthat all English-language journalists are scoundrels and that every newspaperin the world, from The Times and the New York Times to the smallest conti-nental journal are imbued with a hateful prejudice against the Afrikanerpeople. The Government could hardly have been less enthusiastic; in acountry which is touchy on these matters, the Commission's findings werepresented only in one language—English. And it was not considered worthwhile to print even those volumes which contained the Commission's find-ings as distinct from the volumes which enshrine the evidence.

There have been sporadic demands in some Nationalist quarters for some

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:26

26

Oct

ober

201

4

42o SOUTH AFRICA

sort of control or "disciplining" of newspapers, by which is meant controlof the English-language newspapers. These ambitions will not be helpedmuch by the Commission's report, which stopped sharply short of the topicwith which control would be concerned, which is the South African Press.

Another Commission"VXTTIDESPREAD concern about the Broederbond (see previous numbersW of THE ROUND TABLE) led Sir de Villiers Graaff to press strongly for

a commission of inquiry into its affairs. The Prime Minister was not veryenthusiastic and at first countered with the demand that Sir de Villiers shouldalso ask for an enquiry into the Sons of England and the Freemasons. Sir deVilliers promptly responded by doing so and the two organizations concernedstated that they had not the slightest objection to a public enquiry into theirmembership and activities. Dr. Verwoerd then said that a commission wouldbe appointed, but there was a considerable delay while terms of referencewere discussed.

It was generally expected that there would be a judicial and public enquiryunder the South African Commissions Act. However, Dr. Verwoerd even-tually announced that there would be an enquiry, but that it would be inprivate, and the terms of reference were restricted. It will not be possible,for instance, to examine the Broederbond's part in the South African Broad-casting Corporation, the chairman of which is said to be also the chairmanof the Broederbond. A judge of the Appellate Division has been appointedas chairman and sole member.

To make the private enquiry possible, the Commissions Act has had to beamended. Opposition spokesmen have said that there is little point in havingan enquiry in private with restricted terms of reference and it is possible thatas a result the opposition will not take any part in the proceedings.

South Africa,August 1964.

O

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:26

26

Oct

ober

201

4