Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Jun 1990

Vol. 125 No. 9

South Africa: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann welcomes the prospect of substantive negotiations involving all parties in South Africa; notes the announced intention of the South African Government to abolish apartheid; encourages all sides to proceed with the further efforts necessary to achieve that objective, which is not yet near realisation; and calls on the Government to maintain the necessary pressure on the South African Government with a view to promoting the profound and irreversible change that is required.

It gives one great pleasure to be able to come into this House to propose a motion in which, at long last, we are welcoming the end of that appalling system of apartheid which was a blot on civilisation. It is also a great pleasure for us all to be here discussing a motion in which we are considering the real progress which is now beginning in South Africa. In many ways perhaps 1990 will go down in history, certainly so far, for a changing mood which seems to be worldwide, the astonishing changes that we have seen in Eastern Europe, the changes which we are seeing now in South Africa, changes which I hope we will see in Central America and indeed nearer home as well in which people will get together to solve difficult bitter problems, but to solve them by peaceful negotiation with concern for the rights of other people rather than just simply and totally selfishly looking at their own particular point of view, immediate advantage or interest.

However, as regards South Africa, let us be quite clear we are only at the start of the process. There is a long and very difficult way to go. That is why we are anxious in this Government motion that the necessary pressure, whatever that may be, including sanctions, will continue to be applied. This is absolutely essential. We do not lightly advocate such matters as sanctions and the process of these procedures. I sincerely hope that sanctions can be lifted as soon as possible, that any necessary boycotts can be lifted as soon as possible and that South Africa as a country, and all the people of South Africa, may once again participate in economic progress, sport and all the international events in which all the people of that beautiful and great country should participate.

We have to proceed very cautiously. It is no pleasure advocating sanctions. Sanctions very often strike at the weakest section of the community. I say this without imposing anything of that nature on the South African population who have shown great heroism under the most harrowing circumstances. Nonetheless any form of economic sanction inevitably bears on those who are least able to protect themselves. Equally, I find it very unpleasant that we have to impose such things as a boycott of athletes. In terms of general principle this is repugnant but unfortunately, they are necessary. Basically, these sanctions and pressures were necessary. They were imposed as a peaceful means of ensuring an end to apartheid — which we are beginning to see and of which we have promises — and other developments. Just ending apartheid is a great advance but it is certainly not enough in itself. It is a hideous, uncivilised system but there is a lot more to development in South Africa than simply ending apartheid. Apartheid is, perhaps, the most obnoxious and obvious manifestation of the injustice of the system out there.

The United Nations declaration has been referred to in one of the amendments. The United Nations, of course, laid down a whole series of fundamental principles. I will mention a few of them; South Africa shall become a united, non-racial and democratic state; all its people shall enjoy common and equal citizenship and nationality, regardless of race, colour, sex or creed; all its people shall have the right to participate in the Government and administration of the country on the basis of universal, equal sufferage under a non-racial voters roll, and by secret ballot, in a united and non-fragmented South Africa; all shall have the right to form and join any political party of their choice; all shall enjoy universally recognised human rights; South Africa shall have a legal system that will guarantee equality of all before the law; South Africa shall have an independent and non-racial judiciary; there shall be created an economic order that will promote and advance the well being of all South Africans; and a democratic South Africa shall respect the rights, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and pursue a policy of peace, friendship and mutually beneficial co-operation with all peoples.

We have agreed that each of us should only have a limited period to speak. Although I appreciate Senator Upton's general comment that 20 minutes is sufficiently long for any one speech, it is indeed very difficult to do full justice to the points that I would like to make. I am sure speakers on this side of the House, and indeed on the other side of the House, will be expanding on these and mentioning other very crucial issues.

Let us for a moment look — and it could be a total debate in itself — at the history of South Africa, a history of some of the worst aspects of colonialism, on the one hand and, on the other hand, a history of tremendous economic achievements. Let us in no way denigrate these. There are great achievements. This gives hope not only for South Africa itself but for the whole southern region of Africa. There have been great achievements by the various groups there, not least, let me say quite clearly, by those of the Dutch groups, the Afrikaners, who went through their own very difficult times. Remember the words "concentration camp" started in South Africa. Let us briefly glance back. Basically it has been a history of colonialism and oppression, whatever else may have in some ways slightly modified that.

It is really almost a miracle of history that at this particular time the South Africans should have found a person of the calibre of Nelson Mandela, somebody who is capable of going through so many years of imprisonment, some of it very foul imprisonment, whatever slight amelioration there may have been for the past year or two, and is still able to come out and say: "It is better to let bygones be bygones", to come out also and talk in terms of love, that that is what one should have for one's fellow South African. He is a great man. How fortunate we are also that, on the side of the whites, President de Klerk is attempting with great difficulties — let us clearly understand that — to extend his hand of friendship and co-operation to Nelson Mandela. Each of them appreciates the other and have paid very warm tributes to one another. Earlier today we had tributes to that other great man who tried so hard in this country to bring communities together. Let us not underestimate the difficulties which President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela will have in their infinitely more appalling circumstances than we have experienced here.

There are certainly grave dangers on both sides, the various African groups. Let us remember that these are various peoples —"tribes" is a totally inappropriate expression — the Xhosa people, the largest group, of which Nelson Mandela is a hereditary chief, as well as being Vice-President of the ANC; the Zulu group, an almost equally large group of about 17.5 per cent of the South Africans led by Chief Buthelezi. We rightly pay tribute to Nelson Mandela but I would like also to pay some tribute to Chief Buthelezi, who, despite tremendous pressures and inducements, refused to negotiate with the South African Government while Nelson Mandela was kept in jail. He and the other various important South African leaders all must come together if there really is to be a peaceful prosperous development in South Africa.

However, Mr. Mandela and Chief Buthelezi have people behind them who may not be quite so tolerant. President de Klerk has certainly got a very strong white opposition. We are already beginning to hear talk of an enclave in South Africa which would be a white enclave with a certain number of non-white Africans in it and, no doubt, if they could cutoff that region they would begin to talk about democratic processes and so on. It is going to be a very difficult situation for some years to come in South Africa. We must hope that Nelson Mandela, de Klerk and like-minded people will be able to come together and bring the peace and justice in South Africa which that country deserves, that by raising living standards there for all the peoples of South Africa they will in turn improve the living standards, and the appalling circumstances in Mozambique, Angola, Namibia and other adjacent territories.

We support the declaration of the 12 EC member states in relation to South Africa. I would reiterate the words of the Taoiseach in hoping that there will be an agreed attitude of maintenance of pressure on South Africa but, at the same time, a recognition of the moves of President de Klerk and of the way in which Nelson Mandela has endeavoured to bring the majority population in South Africa with him. I have great pleasure in moving this motion.

Is the motion being seconded?

I formally second the motion.

Acting Chairman

I have to announce the following correction to amendment No. 1. The words "in December 1989" are to be inserted after "sixteenth session of the UN".

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"while welcoming the prospect of substantive negotiations involving all parties in South Africa; noting the announced intention of the South African Government to abolish apartheid; encouraging all sides to proceed with the further efforts necessary to achieve that objective, which is not yet near realisation; calls on the Government to maintain the necessary pressure on the South African Government including the continued imposition of sanctions in accordance with the five principles enunciated by the sixteenth session of the UN in December 1989, with a view to promoting the profound and irreversible change that is required."

The debate today certainly will be different in tone and in content to anything we could have envisaged perhaps even a year or two ago at a time of extraordinary changes in so many parts of the world, changes which very few of the experts in any of the areas predicted — certainly very few predicted the speed or intensity of these changes — the consequences of which for the most part are still very uncertain with, as the last speaker said, no guarantees of any happy endings. The changes in South Africa have at least been as profound and as far-reaching as those in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

In the past in debates in this House and elsewhere on sanctions against South Africa have often been prone to a great deal of moralistic self-righteousness and postering by speakers. There should be no place in today's debate for any attitudenising or striking of postures. The simple fact is that what we are talking about today is a question of tactics and strategy. The basic fact is that all Members of this House and all parties are, and have for some considerable time, been opposed to the system of apartheid and have sought to support steps which would lead to its destruction. There is no monopoly or exclusive rights on indignation or self-righteousness on this issue.

I have to say in a positive way that over the years this House has taken a much more active and positive part then the other House in debating this issue and in highlighting the steps that needed to be taken. Back in the sixties the then Senator Garret FitzGerald was one of the first to raise the issue here. Over the years other Senators from all parties — Senator Robinson and Senator Katherine Bulbulia, who are both, sadly, gone from this House — have sought to raise this issue, to give it attention and to promote effort towards action on the matter. In facing this debate we can be quite clear that this is not a party issue; it is an issue upon which all of us speak for the vast majority of the Irish people in wishing to see the best tactics used to bring to an end this abominable system of apartheid.

The debate today to a certain extent has been sparked off by the action of two of our colleagues who recently visited South Africa to see for themselves some aspects of the situation there. I want to say a word or two about that before I go on to the substance of the motion. It was courageous on their part to go there. They risked being misunderstood and misrepresented, because there is in this country a type of knee-jerk reaction to any contact with South Africa. This is a frame of mind which is particularly strong, I am sad to say, among certain sections of the academic community and among certain sections of the media. It is an attitude which perhaps is almost certainly less understandable today than might have been a few years ago. It is an attitude which I personally have never liked. I have always believed in the value of contact, in the exchange of views, in persuasion, in seeing things at first hand. I hope from this point on that more Members of this House and more members of the Irish public will, within the confines of sanctions, at least take the opportunity to see for themselves and to use whatever means they have to bring about the change we all desire in South Africa.

I also find a certain persuasiveness in what has been said by the two Senators so far and I am looking forward to hearing their contributions today because I am sure they will elaborate on the statement by Senator Murphy in the Sunday Independent and the contribution of Senator Ross to the “This Week” programme last Sunday. I find particularly powerful the view that Mr. de Klerk — the view expressed by Senator Conroy — needs to be buttressed and supported, that he needs friends, he needs to be able to show that his extremely courageous policies which were undertaken with a speed none could have predicted, do bring results and, to a certain extent, that the only real result he can show is that sanctions are being lifted. This is a very powerful argument.

Again, as the last speaker said, it is an argument that is particularly strong in view of the recent by-elections and in view of the obvious and increasingly growing threat of white reaction against the policies of Mr. de Klerk. The glowering presence of Mr. P.W. Botha, the former Prime Minister, is there in the background, a focal point for drawing together those who oppose the line taken by the present Government. All of us must be disturbed by the crude manifestations of a new form of white fascism which is emerging in South Africa and which in the right circumstances could become a hugely destablising force in that country. We cannot underestimate the strength of that backlash. We cannot underestimate the chaos it could unleash, the inevitable blood bath which it could very well provoke. All of this could happen without any guarantee that apartheid would go eventually, or that the state of the blacks would be any better as a result.

I am not going to pre-empt the arguments which my colleagues will almost certainly make in the debate, but against these two arguments — there are other arguments as well and, as is noted in the motion, the various areas of improvement which have taken place — it would certainly be a view that the process in the state it is in at present is not irreversible; it still could come to a halt and there could still be a great deal of chaos. There is a feeling that to give in now, to ease sanctions now, might send a signal to the white extremists that they have created a situation in which sanctions are being lifted. I think that would be a very unfortunate signal to send out.

Anybody in this House who is honest with themselves will have to say it is not a question upon which any of us can be certain as to what exactly is the right policy. I have many friends in South Africa, people who were at school and at university with me and with whom I keep contact. I have had phone calls, letters and documents from them and they are confused, frightened and fearful. They know that change is inevitable. Many of them want to see an end to a system under which maybe they have done reasonably well over the years. They also have this sense of terror and fear that events are going too fast, that events will get out of control and they they will end up, as in other parts of Africa, with a situation of vindictiveness and a blood bath. One can understand their fears, one can sympathise with them, but nonetheless I am not sure at this point that I can accept their basic premises.

It would be our considered view at this time that this is not the time just now to lift sanctions. We note in particular that the ANC have been extremely conthey have been controlled. This is something which is deeply encouraging and which we all wish to see continue. But the ANC, who are at the forefront of the debate, have signalled very clearly their obvious concern that sanctions not be lifted at this particular stage. They want to keep the lid on the trouble, they want to keep the talks going, they want to make progress through dialogue. The ANC itself is adamant that the pressure must be kept up and, as Mr. Mandela said at the European Parliament yesterday:

Any reduction in pressure on the Pretoria Government would diminish the impetus which is obliging the white population to accept change.

This, I think, is the nub of the matter. The ANC is, I believe, the body best positioned to judge the rate of change and tactics. The ANC has shown itself— and I have to emphasise this — in very difficult circumstances to be a moderating influence, to be highly responsible, to clearly want to see progress if at all possible made through dialogue and discussion. The ANC and Nelson Mandela are saying to us now: do not lift sanctions, do not ease sanctions, the pressure must be kept up no matter how strong the countervailing arguments. This is a point of view that we must all take seriously.

For the record, the Fine Gael view — and I suspect this is the view of most parties in the House; the other amendment showed there are obvious differences of tactics — is that the declaration which was adopted by consensus in the UN General Assembly in December 1989, in terms both of the goals to be achieved and the conditions, must remain the basis of policy. The goals, the objectives, as expressed then by consensus was the abolition of apartheid, which included among other things that South Africa should become a united, non-racial and democratic state, that all its people should have the right to participate in the government and administration of the country on the basis of universal equal suffrage under a non-racial voters role and by secret ballot in a united and non-fragmented South Africa.

That, obviously, is the long-term objective but that declaration lists the five conditions which are mentioned in our amendment today as preconditions to create the necessary climate for the actual negotiations. These five are: first, the release of all political prisoners and detainees unconditionally and to refrain from imposing any restrictions on them; second, to lift all bans and restrictions on all proscribed and restricted organisations and persons; third, to remove the troops from the townships; fourth, to end the state of emergency and repeal all legislation, such as the Internal Security Act, which is designed to circumscribe political activity; and, fifth, to cease all political trials and political executions. These are the five conditions which the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus as the preconditions which should be satisfied before sanctions are raised. I think at the present time it is wiser for us to follow along that particular line and those preconditions. For that reason we will be saying there should be no easing at the present time on the question of sanctions.

I would say, however, that it is comparatively easy for us in this country to strike attitudes on questions like this because it does not cost us a great deal. If we are serious about helping events in South Africa there are a number of smaller specific things we could do in promoting good relations. Again, I think within the confines of sanctions, there is scope for a great deal of academic exchange in the bringing over here and training of people who will be assuming positions of great responsibility in the future in South Africa. I would like to see some of the leading young blacks of South Africa, as part of university exchange programmes in this country, being trained for the day when they will have to accept responsibility, whether it be in financial, economic or educational matters in their own country. Irish business, some of our bigger companies, could play a part in bringing people and arranging exchange programmes to train some of these people for the conditions in which trained expert black people will be essential to the survival and development of South Africa. There is plenty of room in our Civil Service to help in the training of people such as this for a role which they could play in the future of South Africa. Likewise, for our trade unions, who have taken a leading part in the fight against apartheid and in the imposition of sanctions, there is plenty of scope for them to become involved in a practical way in matters like this, as indeed there is for the Churches. There is a whole range of ways which we do not particularly look at maybe because we are a little to obsessed with the major issue of sanctions. If we are serious and if we are putting our money where our mouth is, if we want to see practical steps taken to show our sincerity in this matter, there is plenty of scope for all sections of our community, led perhaps by Government, led by academia or by unions, to get involved in developing measures along the lines I have just indicated.

I can be very brief about the other part of the amendment, that is, the failure of this House — I am not going to assign any particular blame on this — to arrange for Mr. Nelson Mandela to address a joint sitting or for Members of the Seanad to be part of the occasion when Mr. Mandela arrives to speak to the other House. I do not think there is any need to labour the point. I would simply urge the Leader of the House, the Government side, to make every effort to ensure that this House is fully involved in welcoming Nelson Mandela, that we are present, not as spectators but in some official capacity, and to ensure that this is a fully bicameral welcome which is made to Mr. Nelson Mandela.

On that point I conclude by saying that I accept totally the sincerity of the two Senators who proposed the other amendment. I applaud them for having gone to see for themselves. It is something which I hope will become a regular part of our relations with South Africa on this subject over the future months.

I second the amendment. In a way there is a certain sense of Skibbereen Eagle watching the Tsar in aspects of this debate in a sense that matters are in train in South Africa which have developed their own internal dynamism and which will certainly continue to do so. The question of South Africa is one that always evokes a very emotive response because it is probably an aspect of deteriorated anti-democracy in other parts of the world to which people have been most exposed over a long period of years and because of that any development or any movement in it always leads to a great deal of soul searching. I would also like to put on the record my views, as Senator Manning has done — I do not wish to personalise the debate — about the decision of my colleagues, Senator Murphy and Senator Ross, to visit South Africa. I really believe there has been an awful lot of claptrap spoken about it. There has been an awful lot of facile, indiscriminate comment about it. It is as well that it should be looked at. I have taken the view from the very beginning that I did not agree that they should have gone to South Africa. I still maintain that view. I did not agree to it for the reasons I propose to outline. Having said that, they are public representatives in their own right and they made a decision on consideration of the facts available to them. It has been presented by some people as if they were simply going on a junket just to travel at all costs. That is unfair, unjust and incorrect in the case of the two people involved. I respect their judgment although I do not agree with their decision, but they have been there and I think their arguments and the positions they have taken are worthy of consideration.

I have always opposed intolerance at all levels. I think it is our function as public representatives to argue from philosophical positions. I want to put clearly on the record that my colleagues adopted a very strong philosophical position on the question of South Africa both before they went and since their return. I also want to put even more strongly on the record that I utterly disagree with the point of view they have decided to adopt, but that is not new. However, I think their point of view should be listened and responded to. I have no doubt that this type of discussion and argument will always lead to modification of views on all sides. That is the purpose of discussion; that is the purpose of argument. This idea that it is all black and white — to coin a phrase and not to make a pun of it — is certainly not the case. There are points of view that need to be addressed.

I feel that the whole question of the future of South Africa and the future of Africa are closely bound together. We need to look at South Africa in the context of the new Africa, an Africa which over a period of years has become post-exploration, post-colonisation and indeed post-proslytisation, an Africa which will be free and democratic. In that context South Africa itself and its democracy, if there is an emerging democracy there, is certainly a very fragile flower at this point and needs to be nursed along. The point of this debate is: how does one nurse the flower of democracy to grow through the democratic wasteland of South Africa? That is the responsibility of states and public representatives the world over. That is the reason for the debate here and that is the way we need to develop. I think that responsibility includes all of us.

Senator Manning referred to the trade union movement. That is one group. The trade union movement has always been to the fore in looking at the needs of the Third World and indeed of the Second World and other aspects of global affairs. The trade union movement, on a number of occasions over the last number of years, has been invited by the South African unions to travel to South Africa. Indeed, the Churches have regularly been invited to send representative groups to South Africa. Third World groups and committees have been asked to send representatives to South Africa. I want to put that point firmly on the record, because it has been clearly the position of many groups that it has been necessary to send observers to South Africa.

In looking at what has happened there, I do not profess to be an expert. We have a problem 60 miles away on this island, where it is impossible to find experts, and I certainly do not set myself up as being an expert on the situation in South Africa. However, I have given it a fair amount of study over a course of years, I have considered the situation in South Africa and I have learned a lot from colleagues in teacher unions, from teachers in the trade union movement in South Africa and through internationalists of various hues and types. Therefore, I speak from that ground; I do not put myself forward as being an expert. I will reject the views of anybody who set themselves up to be the experts on South Africa. The reality is that with a country of that size it is hard to know who is an expert.

Having said that, one has to decide from where does one take one's cue and direction. I certainly will be dealing with that as well. Apartheid itself has been a system of social engineering for the last 40 years in South Africa and indeed probably far beyond that. From my point of view it, more than anything else, has been an educational system. My introduction to apartheid was as an educational system, a system of social engineering. That is the way it was explained to me the first time I studied it. It was under the heading of comparative education.

When I hear people talking about situations in South Africa, the use of words is important to me in describing the educational system or any other social system there. There are certain words which to me are key phrases. One classic cliché is the multiracial one; I reject that one. "Multiracial" is racist and it can be nothing else. It is either racist or non-racist as far as I am concerned. Multi-racial is just controlled racism; it is racism under another name. I do not accept the concept, for instance, of multiracial schools, multiracial educational systems or multiracial anything in South Africa where people have tried to present this as moving forward. It is not that. It is racist controlled.

Over the period of 40 years we have seen in apartheid a constitutionalised, legalised doctrine of white supremacy. It has enshrined the concept of discrimination. Of course, it has been opposed, it has been seen as pernicious, invidious, and it certainly has been seen as undemocratic. It is anathema to civilisation at any level. I am conscious in saying this that I am stating well known truths and it is important that during the discussion we keep that clearly in mind. The view is often held that so much has already been said about apartheid in South Africa that no more remains to be said but I like to hear people talk about it. I would like Members to clearly state their views on apartheid because not everybody is opposed to it. Somebody referred earlier to the new emerging white fascism but I have always considered fascism to be white. It is certainly a white tradition. Some people support the idea of white supremacy, some support the idea of fascism and others support the idea of racism. Part of the problem with regard to education is that people have not made a distinction between those different labels.

In South Africa the system of apartheid has permeated and controlled all aspects of life, whether it be health, education, employment, or housing and we are all aware of this. That has been recorded in books, films, songs, documentaries, folklore and surveys down through the years. Recently a film on apartheid won Oscars and a book based on the apartheid system won the Booker Prize. Therefore, it is a reality, and we must ask ourselves where we are going at this stage.

The key figures for me in South Africa — this again is a subjective opinion — are de Klerk and Mandela. I accept the point made about Buthelazi, and there are others also, but speak from the point of view of the people who represent both sides of the argument. Perhaps that is a facile statement, but the people who represent both sides of the division are de Klerk and Mandela. They are both world leaders by any standard.

I see de Klerk as a figure, tragically similar to Terence O'Neill and, perhaps, President Gorbachev and others, who try to bring change. Change is always dangerous. The nature of the beast is conservative, that of maintaining the status quo. Change is resisted in all walks of life. President de Klerk has been making changes but I do not want to go overboard on that. The change taking place in South Africa is a direct result of pressure from the rest of the world, pressure which has clearly been the result of the policy on sanctions against South Africa. The views, policies and movement by de Klerk would not have taken place of their own volition. They have been the result of pressure from the world outside South Africa and I believe were that pressure to be relieved in any way the speed of change would slow down. The speed of change is a direct result of the force and pressure of the sanctions in place at the moment.

Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk have worked closely together — this is a personal view — over the past number of months. The release of Mandela, his various speeches, including his initial speech in support of the armed struggle and all the developments since that time have been part of a pattern. It is a credit to both men that the recent talks on the armed forces, for instance, were dealt with and disposed of with such speed. That aspect alone has been phenomenal.

What is leadership about, if it is not about courage? What is leadership about if it is not the desire to modify, improve and to make progress? It must do these things. It is not a question of thanking Mr. de Klerk for bringing us an infinitesimal move forward from where we were before. The decision last week to lift the state of emergency takes us back to where we were some years ago. The requirement of leadership is to seek change, bring about modifications of the system, consolidate that position, to put forward new policies, argue new positions, to make progress, to consolidate and to begin again. Change must take place gradually.

I accept the point, which was made by the mover of the motion, and which I believe will be the view of all, that there should be a significant recognition of the change that de Klerk appears to want and has brought about so far. In cultivating the flower of democracy in South Africa we need to respond to what de Klerk has done already and assure him that it is recognised. That should give him the power to consolidate support for himself. That does not mean lifting sanctions and opening doors, I firmly believe the opposite.

There is a tightrope of leadership which both Mandela and de Klerk are going to have to walk at this point. With the pressures from the radicals in their own groups, is significant that some of the fascist groups in South Africa are now issuing statements along the lines of those that were sent out by the ANC in recent times. Perhaps that is a sign of the change that has taken place there. The fact that white supremists now believe they are suffering in the same way as black people suffered at other times is important.

The sanctions and the embargoes have worked. They have led to the position where de Klerk found it politically expedient to make changes. The sanctions and embargoes have convinced de Klerk to take a risk with his own people in order to save South Africa, because those were the stark choices facing him. There are no options in South Africa, there are merely alternatives. It is either change or revolution and they will both eventually lead to the same result. It is a matter of doing it in a peaceful, structured and democratic way or forcing people to resist by force the oppression which they have experienced.

There is no case for the lifting of commercial, financial and economic sanctions in South Africa. Arguments have not been put forward which convince me on those issues. The hard economic pressure must be maintained. Over the last week developments have taken place which have convinced me further on this. Nelson Mandela, speaking in Strasbourg this week, pleaded with the European Community to maintain — not to lift — the sanctions against South Africa. The argument might well be made as to why one should listen to Nelson Mandela as opposed to Chief Buthelezi or somebody else. I see Nelson Mandela as the person representing the other side of the argument, as it were. I take my cue from his statements, policies and views articulated, expressed and developed by the African National Congress.

This week in his capacity as President of the European Community, the Taoiseach made the case that sanctions should be continued. I suggest that the amendment which I am seconding is in line with Government policy and with the articulated Government position taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs recently and by the Taoiseach this week. It is also in line with the policy of the European Community. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment in good faith.

Since the original Government motion was framed last Thursday statements have been made by Nelson Mandela in Strasbourg and by the Taoiseach in Europe which I articulate in my amendment. I see no case for the Government not accepting amendment No. 1 and I ask the Minister to consider it. It calls on the Government to maintain the necessary pressure, including the continued imposition of sanctions, in accordance with the five principles enunciated by the 16th session of the UN. Those five principles have been put on the record by Senator Manning. The point has been made that the UN will continue to promote profound and irreversible change but that is not the position. Those five conditions, outlined by Senator Manning, must be met before the UN agree to lift economic sanctions.

We should make some gesture towards President de Klerk to show him that we appreciate movement and change. Economic, financial and commercial sanctions should be maintained and pressure in the placing of those sanctions should also be maintained.

Nevertheless, the question of cultural interaction should be examined. Sporting contacts should be reviewed, and I use the word "reviewed" carefully. I am not saying that these sanctions should be lifted at this point because I do not know enough about the changes which are taking place in South Africa. However, as there is some change, we need to review our position. There should be balance on both sides and I am prepared to look at the question of culture interaction and sporting contact.

I will make a final reference to political visits. I have given this matter much thought over the last number of months. I disagreed with my colleagues going to South Africa and I gave the reasons. There should be a controlled approach to this question but the embargo on political contact and political visits should be lifted. I am not talking about people going as guests of the South African Government or institutions of the South African state. I do not want to hear about the position in South Africa from people in different countries in the Western world but from parliamentary colleagues who go in a properly structured context. It is time we reviewed our position on cultural interaction, sporting contacts and political visits to South Africa.

The final aspect of the amendment deals with welcoming Mr. Nelson Mandela to Ireland. I want to clearly state the position. The protocol of the Houses of the Oireachtas to date has been that only Heads of State address joint meetings of both Houses. That might well be the case but we are talking here about change. The whole debate has been about change. I want to tell the people in the Department of the Taoiseach that change also extends to their Department and that the protocol section needs to be reassessed. Nelson Mandela may not be a Head of State but he is the head of a nation and chief of his people and he should be accorded the dignity and respect which goes with that. I will insist that Members of this House are invited to hear the address of Mr. Nelson Mandela. I am not saying he should address both Houses or that he should address a joint meeting of both Houses, but Members of this House should be invited to the session which he will address. Out of respect for Nelson Mandela and in deference to this House, an invitation should be extended to its Members to participate in that function.

I am delighted that the debate has taken place and I look forward to hearing other points of view. Later we will decide whether these matters need to be put to a vote. Again, I ask the Government side to accept the amendment, which is completely in line with Government, European and UN policy.

We are having a useful debate on South Africa which includes the motion by the Government which I moved. It also includes an amendment moved by Senator Manning and seconded by Senator O'Toole. The third amendment has been referred to by both Senators but there is another amendment and if it is agreeable to the House we will be willing to allow one of the movers of that amendment to contribute now because they have a slightly different point of view. We are all agreed, in principle, on our abhorrence of apartheid and our anxiety to see things progress. There is a point of view and we believe it would be helpful if one of those speakers was permitted to address the House at this stage.

First, I welcome the motion and I would like that the House would see our amendment as a qualification of the motion rather than being in direct confrontation with it. We would have no intention, even if we had stronger support, of actually pressing the amendment. We disagree with some of the emphasis in the motion and therefore, we have substituted the word "welcome" for "notes" because we think that the intentions are so clear and so positive that we should signal a welcome instead of the rather neutral business of "noting" the reform programme. More importantly, however, we disagree with the implications of the phrase "necessary pressures" and we disagree, more specifically, with the other amendment which calls for the maintenance of sanctions. We do not think that is the right strategy to ensure a continuation of the reform policy now under way, we would stress.

The House knows by now that Senator Ross and I have come back from a two week tour of South Africa. I would like to thank Senators Manning and O'Toole for their understanding of our position and, indeed, to Senator Manning, particularly, for his outright vindication of our decision to go. It is interesting that the debate has somehow shifted to the middle, even in the context of Senator O'Toole's more radical contribution. I would like, however, to emphasise that I never agonised for a moment about going to South Africa. I did not lie awake at night wondering whether I would or would not go. I never believed in censorship of any kind and I never believed in cultural restrictions. I do not believe any good has been done by preventing intellectuals from going to South Africa and arguing with their counterparts. In any case, in the context of the last few months, any talk of restrictions is increasingly idiotic and when we went there we found that that was very much so. We found we need not have agonised about our visit. Our visit was accepted as quite natural on the Left as well as on the Right. Nobody asked us for our credentials in that regard. I would like to point out, too, that we were not on a junket, that was a silly point to make; we were on a quite intensive, hard working schedule for two weeks. We came to certain conclusions and it is on those conclusions that I wish to dwell for the remainder of my contribution.

Of course, I assure Senator O'Toole that both Senator Ross and I regard apartheid as an absolutely heinous system, to quote the words of an Indian Minister of Government whom we met and who was extremely critical of the ANC but who shared with blacks a philosophical and profound emotional objection to the whole system of apartheid. I do not see how anyone can justify the system as such. White South Africans are now becoming ashamed, rather like liberal Unionists in Northern Ireland. They went along with the system because it suited them but would not we all? Does the House not think that if we had a helot and suppressed community here who were ensuring our standard of living we would rise and revolt against the Government which represented us?

The white South Africans' position is understandable in that regard. The whole world changed for them on 2 February. In conversation they drop the date 2 February again and again. It is rather like the way revoluntionary Americans must have felt about the 4th of July. It is a critical date in their history; they do not know how extensive the change is going to be, but the sense of change and the sense of their awareness of change is absolutely palpable.

Everyone is convinced that de Klerk's Government is sincere, and by everyone I mean opinions in ANC circles as well as in white South Africa. We have been told — and we have no reason to disbelieve it — that personally he is going for broke and that he has no interest in his own future political career if it involves back-tracking on what he has promised so far. The lifting of the state of emergency is another proof of the sincerity of his intentions. There is no going back; reform is irreversible, irrespective of the attitude of the international community. The abolition of apartheid now has its own momentum and cannot be stopped. It is not a question of abolishing apartheid, it is a question of when and in what political and constitutional circumstances the whole system will crumble.

F. W. de Klerk is a courageous man, rather like Brian Faulkner in 1974 or, perhaps, the late Lord O'Neill in 1968-69. He realised — let us put aside for the moment what caused him to realise it — at a certain point that his people had to be taken by the scruff of the neck and brought into a new post-apartheid South Africa. He did this without any mandate from them. The National Party whom he leads are in disarray to a certain extent because he took their core values — if I will be forgiven for using the phrase — away from them overnight and they are not sure what they stand for any more. He is a man of great courage, a man in the Faulkner, O'Neill tradition and praised even by his enemies.

Apartheid, taking the word in total, cannot be abolished overnight. The Taoiseach was asked on a television programme on Tuesday night what further steps the South African Government would need to take in order for sanctions to be dropped. He replied by quoting Nelson Mandela's own phrase, that Mandela went into jail 28 years ago and had no vote and when he came out he had no vote. The Taoiseach's implication seems to me to be rather simplistic, namely, if de Klerk announces that there will be universal franchise in the morning and that is implemented, then sanctions will be lifted. The fact is that apartheid forms the basis of the present constitution. Apartheid in its entirety is not going to go until that constitution is replaced by another, which is the subject of the talks which are going on at the moment.

I would like the House to know that much of apartheid in the informal or petty sense, as the word is used, is a thing of the past and that much of apartheid is a dead letter in the sense that the separate amenities as far as the eye could see no longer apply. Certainly, segregation no longer exists on beaches, trains, hospitals or public transport. One is no longer conscious there of any segregated policy. Education, of course, will be much more controversial, as we discovered when we were out there. Whether integrated education will be mandatory in the new South Africa or whether well off whites will have the choice of keeping their children at white schools in a private system, is not yet clear. Even the Group Areas Act, from what we could gather, is not rigidly enforced. In fact, much comment was made in a case where a very persistent Indian businessman had moved into a white area, had defied local white sentiment and was belatedly being prosecuted by their counterpart of the Attorney General. The fact that so much publicity was given to this, indicated that the Group Areas Act itself is also falling into disuse.

It may well be that the South African Government are allowing the legal structures to crumble as a way of conditioning the white South Africans to accepting the more formal ending of apartheid. Let us remember also that the formal ending of apartheid is not going to solve everything. The fact that the Group Areas Act is abolished does not mean that the person living in the black shanty town of Crossroads can immediately move in to the affluent white suburbs of Cape Town any more than the unemployed labourer in Ballymun can purchase a six figure house in Dublin 4. You do not need a law on apartheid to ensure that type of division. The psychological problems against the abolition of apartheid are enormous. There is no doubt that we met with racist attitudes — in a few honest cases, open racist attitudes. I met a businessman who told me, quite frankly, that blacks are not ready for political participation and will not be for several centuries hence and that the whole thing was a ghastly mistake; South Africa should have stood firm against the outside world and handled its own resources properly to keep the apartheid system going. You do not get that kind of blatant attitude everywhere but you learn to read the signals. For example, a common phrase is "culturally different". We were told again and again, "You must understand, of course, that blacks are culturally different from us". There is obviously the legacy of centuries of unconscious attitudes of white ruling black for over three centuries. This kind of ugly racism raised its head in particular places, particularly in the bloodshed that took place in, ironically named, Welkom, in Natal, when we were there and which was due to flagrant white racist attitudes. Attitudes vary from region to region and from one kind of white South African to another. Obviously the English speaking South Africans are less racist than the Afrikaners and so on.

There is widespread private discussion of what the change will mean. There is no shortage of private argument but curiously, there is little public discussion. It seemed to me that newspapers, and particularly radio and television, were very bland in their attitude towards it. It is remarkable how little public discussion there was on the Government controlled television. The Minister for Communications would probably be very happy to be part of the South African Government in that regard. What is emerging is a belated liberal Afrikaner opinion and my view that opinion should be encouraged by every means at the disposal of the international community.

We are not talking just about the repeal of apartheid, we are talking about the wider matter of constitutional change, and there are enormous difficulties here, although talks about talks are going well. The peculiar thing is that while Mr. Mandela is maintaining a particular ANC line of propaganda in Europe, back at the ranch they are getting on with the business of talking about talks. Our information is that they are going reasonably well.

How are you going to get a constitution which will give universal franchise, on the one hand, but which will protect the rights of whites to individual freedom? Will their rights to property be maintained? Will that be enshrined in a bill of rights? If so, will the new South Africa have any real social and economic meaning? These are some of the questions being discussed and they are enormously complicated.

It is all very well for Mr. Mandela to say the other day, somewhere in Europe: "Why can we not have one man one vote, universal franchise. It is good enough for the Europeans, it should be good enough for South Africa". It seems to me that ignores the realities of the situation. There is there a white minority, a white ascendancy, well entrenched, responsible for the infrastructure of the country, responsible for developing the country. I do not think it will contribute to peaceful change in South Africa if you simply brush them aside, if you say: "We are not interested in consensus, we are simply going to establish a `winner takes all' system". That way you are not going to have peaceful change. In some way that has to be taken account of in a new constitution, however that is done — proportional representation, a bill of rights, a second chamber, etc. — but that will all take time and infinite patience. I agree with Senator O'Toole that it is only the ANC-Government dialogue which can hold out any hope of a peaceful solution. Let us remember that to the extent that we can influence and can contribute to a successful outcome in South Africa, it is a peaceful outcome we are interested in.

Beyond all those problems again, you have the problem of how you are going to get 30 million or so South Africans of varying shades, tribes, regions and classes to acknowledge that they are all South Africans and give South Africa a common allegiance. God knows, historically and politically, we find it difficult enough in this country to give practical affirmation to our lip service to the common name of Irishman. Our problems are very small scale compared to theirs.

It is interesting to see the alignments in the amendments. I did not think I would live to see the day when Senators Joe O'Toole and Brendan Ryan would be pillars of the Establishment, not only the Irish Establishment, against which Senator Ryan continually rails, but pillars of the European Establishment as well. I notice Senator Ryan's name is not down to the amendments; perhaps he is going to enter one of his own in the name of the armed struggle. That remains to be seen.

Curiosity was expressed in our presence numerous times——

The establishment is where you pay your mortgage.

——by South Africans about the Irish attitude. They are very interested in why Ireland is particularly adamant about maintaining sanctions. We tried to express the situation according to our own prejudices. Some of them are aware of the historic rapport that existed between Irish nationalists and the Boers a century or so ago. They were interested in why Ireland was particularly adamant. They are aware of the Presidency of the Community and they are aware that we have exerted a disproportionate influence on Community policy at present.

The Senator has two minutes.

All this gave our visit and our attitude particular relevance. Why are we maintaining a line different from the accepted view? First of all, our view is not entirely an isolated one. It is now becoming a reasonable minority European view. It is the view of such a respected South African progressive as Helen Suzman who is a great friend of Nelson Mandela and of other ANC leaders. She is going to be conferred with honorary degrees in these islands in the next month or so and she is absolutely certain that sanctions have, to say the least, done their work.

Acting Chairman

Would the Senator now conclude, please? His time is almost up.

Excuse me, by my reckoning I have had only 17 minutes.

Acting Chairman

Your time is up at 1.08.

I will defer to your ruling. We think the whole thing about sanctions is inconsistent and hypocritical, that it is not the only catalyst of change, that it does cause suffering to blacks and that cannot be sneered away or scoffed away. It does not affect people like Archbishop Tutu living in his magnificent quarters in Bishopscourt in Capetown. It does cause suffering to the small businessman and to the lower level of blacks. We believe that change is irreversible. We believe the de Klerk Government must now be encouraged, not censured, that he must be encouraged against his own right wing. We believe that sanctions are targeting the wrong enemy, that de Klerk is not the enemy any more, and that what must be done now is to strengthen him against the white backlash which is the great fear of all the South Africans we spoke to.

Let me conclude by giving a warning here. It seemed to me that when Senator Manning was making his case about the maintenance of sanctions, his firmest card was that Mr. Mandela had said sanctions should be maintained. We should ask ourselves whether Mr. Mandela really represents the voice of black South Africa. He is given to speaking about the people of South Africa as if he represented the whole people. We should, of course, respect his nobility and his generosity of character but let us not think he is infallible. That is a mistake we may make in the next month or so. We should not give his utterances automatic assent.

It all depends on what we want. What do we want to see? There are people here in this country who from their armchairs shout "Amandla" and raise their clenched fists. It is easy for them to do that, irrespective of what will happen in South Africa. Those of us who want to see a peaceful outcome, a consensus, who realise how complicated is the situation in South Africa would do well to bring a great deal of responsibility to this question.

I would like to support the motion which I think is a good one. It is worth while taking a look at what happened originally. It is worth going back a little on history. It was by the South Africa Act of 1909 that the British Parliament decided that the country should become independent as a dominion in 1910 but the British, as they have a habit of doing, left the vexed question of the native franchise to the South African Government to determine. It was after the British handed over control that the seeds of white supremacy were sown. During the next four decades the political status of the non-white, particularly the black African, deteriorated considerably. The Miners and Workers (Amendment) Act, 1926 which permitted discrimination against native blacks and the Representation of Natives Act, 1936 which removed qualified Africans from the common voters roll at the Cape are two examples of copper-fastening this white supremacy. It was in 1948 that D. F. Malan's Nationalist Party won the election when he defeated Field Marshal J. C. Smuts United Party. Malan's appeal was almost exclusively to the Afrikaner "Volk". He told them they had suffered at the hands of the British but, more importantly, he stirred up fears that the growing threat of native Africans moving closer to traditional white areas would threaten them. He argued that if this urban influx was not halted it would threaten not merely white employment and white lifestyle but the very purity of the white race. It was in this way really that the seeds of apartheid were sown; it was born and it developed very quickly.

Apartheid involved the separation of white and non-white in all spheres of life except work. Malan and then Strydom and then Verwoerd proceeded to enact legislation that wrote "race" into the whole constitutional fabric of South Africa. There is a huge list of oppressive laws and legislation but the three principal ones are the Population Registration Act, 1949, the Group Areas Act, 1950 and the Separate Amenities Act, 1953. These were the main supports of the apartheid system and these are still on the Statute Book and still enacted today. The examples of discrimination are manifold.

We are talking here about sanctions and their maintenance. A previous speaker asked for a review. Of course we should have a review of what we are doing and I support that idea but I am opposed to changing our stance until a substantial reciprocal change really takes place.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the third report of the Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries entitled "Apartheid and the Development in Southern Africa". I want to refer to section 14 which says although cases involving parole labour rarely reach the courts, court proceedings are the principal source of information. Evidence was quoted from the Amnesty Report — South Africa (Imprisonment under the Pass Laws), January 1986 — to illustrate both that the parole system was deliberately used a source of cheap labour and that working and living conditions of parolees are inhuman. That slave labour still exists today despite what anybody says. I have proof of that. There is a whole section of the African population who live in abject poverty. Slave labour and poverty exist and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

The only way to bring about change is by exerting, and indeed extending, pressure on the South African Government. F. W. de Klerk has been praised as being a courageous man — perhaps he is, I will not say he is not. I would prefer to think he is a pragmatic man and he sees the writing on the wall. It is only because multinationals pulled out of South Africa and it is only because of the work of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and because of economic sanctions that there has been any response from the South African Government.

I listened with interest to one of the recent visitors to South Africa. I agree with Senator Manning that the two Senators who visited South Africa recently had absolutely every right to visit the country both as private individuals and as parliamentarians. In fact, they have a duty and not merely a right to go and to listen and learn. I am interested in the views they bring back because they have obviously been to South Africa while the rest of us have not. We have to listen to some extent to what they say. The previous speaker said that the whites, of course, have rights. They have rights, natural human rights, but they also have a lot of so-called rights which are based exclusively on their white status. It is these rights that should not be preserved.

One of the previous speakers said that it would not be timely to bring in the concept of one man, one vote as asked for by Nelson Mandela. It is precisely because this vote does not exist that the whites can exercise so much control. I would hope that we would maintain sanctions. To say that Nelson Mandela is not the voice of the African people is true in one way but it is rather a sweeping statement. Who is the voice of South Africa if he is not? Above all, people in the world today look to him as that particular voice and he has called for the maintenance of sanctions. The Taoiseach as President of the European Council has called for the maintenance of sanctions and the only one out of step is perhaps Margaret Thatcher who probably has a lot of interests in South Africa. I do not know.

I urge the House to support this motion because it has shown that the only way change can be brought about is by the continual agitation from inside and by force from outside exerting pressure for change. The whites in South Africa had a very comfortable relationship. I have met many people who lived in South Africa. They had very cheap black labour who lived in hovels at the bottom of their gardens or in townships far away from them. They were not going to change of their own accord because life was too comfortable. It is rather like the way the unionists had a comfortable existence for a long time with the old Northern Ireland Parliament.

I agree with Professor Conroy who said it is difficult. Mandela could be outflanked by younger and more radical elements in the ANC and the PAC which does not believe in multi-racial democracy. Also the paramilitary Afrikaner Wehrstands Bewegung might release a white backlash in support of the Conservative Party, which would open up the possibility of a civil war. We should try to help in any way we can to stop it.

I agree with one or two of the previous speakers who said that change must come about slowly. So it must. But there are some changes which must come quickly and that is basic human rights; the right to vote, the right to work, the right to participate in everything that a person does which is not based on colour. That really is what this is all about. The sooner those rights are granted then the sooner sanctions can be lifted. If there is anyway we can help, we should do so. We should support perhaps de Klerk and Mandela at the same time. I believe that because de Klerk has shown his willingness to change, and he has made remarkable strides, he should be supported. Nevertheless the sanctions should stay until substantial change has been shown to have been effected.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the issue on South Africa once again. We debated it last February after the release of Nelson Mandela and we had a good discussion at that time. It is most appropriate that we now have a wide-ranging debate on the issue again considering the developments that have taken place since that historic moment and the fact that it is going to be a major item on the final EC Summit to be held in Dublin under the Irish Presidency on 25 and 26 June. It is a most appropriate time for this House to debate and put on the record its position in relation to the situation in South Africa and in relation to sanctions.

I welcome and I agree with the motion from Fianna Fáil. It is a correct motion and I will be supporting it. I have no problems with the first amendment. I have problems with the second amendment and I will be supporting the third amendment as well which, of course, is one which reflects statements that were made in this House on a number of occasions in relation to welcoming Mr. Nelson Mandela to Ireland and inviting him to address the Members of the House during his Irish visit. We have requested that and my memory of the situation is that we were the first House of the Oireachtas to ask that Mr. Mandela be invited to Ireland and to address this House. I understand now that at least we will have the opportunity of being present when he addresses the other House. It would be preferable to have him address this House and thereby add that status and respect to this Upper House of the Oireachtas.

We discussed this matter after 2 February when we heard the joyful news of the release of Nelson Mandela who had been a prisoner for 27 years. It was a matter for considerable celebration in this country which had been so involved in the whole issue of the apartheid movement nationally and worldwide because apartheid in South Africa is an international issue of major proportions. Nelson Mandela was the symbol of a whole generation, a symbol of courage, a symbol of hope and a symbol of progress for a people who were in a huge numerical majority — 27 million blacks compared with six million whites — who had been deprived of human and civil rights for a long period.

To achieve a movement in the apartheid system which had been widely condemned throughout the world, the United Nations were the first body that proposed a programme of sanctions at all levels, but concentrating on economic sanctions. This was taken up throughout the world at various levels and degrees of operation. The EC played its part in imposing collective sanctions on South Africa. We, of course, as a member of the EC were to the fore from the beginning. There is a strong anti-apartheid movement in Ireland and there has been for years. We have to pay tribute to the contribution that has been made by this country in opposing the apartheid system. We have the anti-apartheid movement, and we have the Congress of Trade Unions and individual trade unions raising this issue at every level throughout the country. The Dunnes Stores strikers raised the issue for well over 12 months. They did so in difficult circumstances and highlighted it as a national issue among ordinary men and women. Fruit imports were banned specifically arising out of the Dunnes Stores movement. The Irish Rugby Football Union initially took a decision to get involved and go to South Africa for their centenary celebrations. They subsequently apologised and said they would never again get involved with South Africa as long as the apartheid system existed and that they would abide by the sanctions.

The question of course now is should sanctions be dismantled. Have we reached the stage where sanctions have fulfilled their function, and we can think about dismantling the sanctions? The release of Nelson Mandela is the first major step in the direction of dismantling the apartheid system because he is such a potent symbol of opposition to that system. President de Klerk and the Nationalist Party have embarked on a reform programme. We have seen the unbanning of the ANC and the lifting of the state of emergency. These are extremely important developments. We have seen a degree of segregation not being enforced as rigidly as in previous years. Senator Murphy said that the Group Areas Act is no longer as potent a force as it was in the past. We will have to take his word on that.

At the same time we see part of the fallout of the situation. The more steps that are taken towards dismantling the system the more momentum and impetus is given to those who do not wish to dismantle the system. That has been obvious in relation to the Conservative Party which has been making a lot of noise, having a lot of rallies and indeed has been successful in the recent by-election in Umhlatuzi. The people of the Right, the people who want to maintain the inequality, who want to maintain the subservience of blacks even though they are in the vast majority, have been given a certain amount of impetus. However, we should not pay too much attention to that last election because that election in Umhlatuzi was in a very strong white, English speaking area and is not representative of the country nationally.

We have on the other side, to my mind, an even greater problem, that is the question of black versus black. South Africa is still very much a tribal nation. We saw that in so many other African countries that got independence where boundaries had been established by colonial nations on a geographical basis, not on a tribal or ethnic basis. In South Africa there certainly is a very strong Zulu population. The Zulus are very powerful, quantitatively speaking, and traditionally and historically a warlike people. In terms of their present numbers, particularly around the Natal Province there is a major problem of who exactly represents the black people of Africa and whether black man and black man can come together in unity rather than as at present, where there is considerable diversity and a tremendous amount of violence, injuries, maimings and deaths taking place. That to my mind is the wider context in which this discussion has to take place. It is one thing to see the black majority versus the white minority and dismantling the apartheid system, but within the black majority there is a need for peaceful integration and peaceful power-sharing. Those are the forces that have been unleashed since we were debating this issue three or four months ago.

I listened to the radio interviews yesterday on the death of Terence O'Neill and the movements that had been made by him towards the dismantling of what one might describe as an apartheid system in Northern Ireland, where one community was discriminated against in every sense, economically, socially, culturally and so on by another community. The one thing that came through all of the interviews with those who had been civil rights leaders in Northern Ireland was that no matter what step was taken there was the demand for one man one vote — nowadays we would say one person, one vote. That was the bottom line. That was the line that prescribed equality; one person is equal to another, irrespective of the colour of his skin, religion, cultural or ethnic difference, or whatever. There is a sense of déjá vu about South Africa, the call for one person, one vote. The dismantling of any system of apartheid or inequality comes about only when individuals are treated equally. There is no way around that; no way of saying that some person for whatever reason has not got the same 100 per cent entitlement. That principle can be demonstrated in political terms only in the context of democratic voting rights. That involves powersharing — one person, one vote — and must require the dismantling of apartheid. That must be granted. We have to think in those terms. Until that is done, we have not got to the core of the system. Until political rights are there and all people have a say in the governing of the country and in the political system, until each person is treated as an equal, no matter what we say about progress, we have not achieved equality. That must remain the bottom line.

I have read what Senator Ross and Senator Murphy have said about their visits to South Africa I acknowledge all of that, that there is concern and anxiety from President de Klerk's point of view, from the nationalists' point of view, from the whites point of view, that it has been all "give" since 2 February. They have been conceding right down along the line. They have been giving away along the line in releasing Mandela, unbanning the ANC, lifting the state of emergency. All of those measures have been very welcome developments and have been seen as concessions. But, what has been got in return? The obvious thing that should be got in return from the whites point of view is the lifting of sanctions so that they would then be regarded as an equal community with any other community in the world.

But how can you have a community equal to any other community in the world unless there is equality among the citizens of that community? That is the question, the core, why I have a problem in coming to terms particularly with amendment No. 2. I recognise the difficulties, the concerns, and anxieties and the polarisation that may take place. I read in the paper today where 80 Members of the European Parliament have already signed a resolution to be debated today in the European Parliament calling for the lifting of sanctions, so there is a movement in that direction. We know that Margaret Thatcher clearly wants sanctions to be lifted. She wants a move in relation to the EC.

The final Summit is coming up on 25 and 26 June when the EC will address the situation in the light of the developments that have taken place. Mandela, certainly for my generation, has been a symbol, he has been one of the people I have looked up to on the international stage. He has acted very effectively since his release from prison. He is a man of peace. He won the Sakharov Peace Prize in 1988. He is a Freeman of Dublin and we will be delighted to see him addressing this House and the City on 2 July. He addressed the Plenary Session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg yesterday and he put the case. I have been following his journey since 4 June and all along the message was the same: that any relaxation of sanctions now would threaten negotiations that are talking place. He stressed the need to maintain not just economic and political sanctions but also cultural and academic sanctions. We have to acknowledge that.

Nelson Mandela showed himself to be a fine leader in prison and since he came out he has lived up to the respect he had earned inside. His actual words in the European Parliament were as follows:

The masses of our people must, therefore, continue the struggle within our country. The international community shares the same obligation. That is why we continue to call on the peoples of the world to maintain sanctions. We address the same call to this August Parliament with all the force and authority at our command.

Therefore, I would say that, he having so far used skilful judgment, having been a diplomat since his release and being the man at the heart of the developments that are taking place, this is not the time for us to go against his express wishes. The summit is about to take place, the man is about to address us here in the Oireachtas, he is to receive his honour as Freeman of the City. Let us stand by his judgment, recognising that it has been good to date in diplomatic terms and in his negotiations and that he sees the continuation of sanctions at this point in all their force as being not just desirable but as a necessary part of the present negotiations. Let us depend on his judgment, by what he stands for and let us continue with the sanctions until we get a strong indication that they have succeeded in dismantling the system and that the people who have been the victims of the system are prepared to acknowledge that and to say so. That is where we should take our cue.

This is a very important debate and I fully support our motion. I would like to avail of this opportunity to pay a special tribute to Nelson Mandela, Deputy President of the ANC, who has spent many years in prison and over the years continued the struggle from behind bars. The 1988 Peace Prize was presented to him this week. This in itself is a tremendous achievement as it was recognition of his work over many long years in prison. Yesterday, he attended the European Parliament where he was given a standing ovation and the keynote of his address was that any relaxation of the sanctions would threaten the very process of negotiations on the future of South Africa.

Many speakers here this morning have referred to sanctions. At this juncture I would like to congratulate Senator Murphy and Senator Ross on their recent visit. I think they were quite entitled to visit there, both as private individuals and as parliamentarians and I certainly looked forward to what they would have had to say. They had first class knowledge of the position there. Nelson Mandela also pointed out that it was essential to maintain cultural, economic and political boycotts of South Africa. He also pointed out that the ANC would not be expected to disarm while the South African Government continue to use force. Mr. Mandela was awarded the 1988 Peace Prize for his commitment to the struggle against apartheid and recalled the political prisoners who died in custody in South Africa including the famous student leader Steve Biko.

With regard to the EC Summit, I welcome the statement of the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gerry Collins, that it is hoped the EC will take an agreed position on South Africa. It is accepted that there is a lot of support for the progress being made by President de Klerk. Our position has been confirmed, we will fully support what Mr. de Klerk is doing, and it is agreed that he has made great progress and should be encouraged to continue. The time has not yet arrived to change the position of sanctions and there is no doubt that dialogue is taking place between Mr. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela and that only good will come out of such dialogue.

Mr. Mandela has to be congratulated for his drive and initiative. He has pointed out on numerous occasions that any reduction in pressure on the Pretorian Government would diminish the impetus which is obliging the white population to accept change. For this reason, the ANC insisted that the struggle continue as de-escalation would and could perpetuate the apartheid system. Mr. Mandela availed of the opportunity when addressing the European Parliament this week to point out that the masses of his people must continue to struggle within the country and he was pleased that the international community shared the same obligation. He called on the people of the world to maintain sanctions and he was seeking the full support of the European Parliament for this purpose.

He went on to point out that sanctions were imposed as a peaceful means of ensuring an end to apartheid, that this has not yet been achieved, that it was only logical the existing sanctions be kept in place, that the situation should not be created where the people of South Africa would point an accusing finger at the Governments and peoples of the West, if, just when it seems movement was possible, they acted in a manner that denied positive development. He said the ANC regard President de Klerk and his colleagues in the National Party as people of integrity who speak honestly when they claim to seek an end to apartheid.

There is no doubt, Nelson Mandela is a figurehead, a courageous man, who speaks with authority. I trust and hope that the world will continue to listen to him. I believe the sanctions should be maintained, as requested by Nelson Mandela, until such time as changes have taken place, and are accepted, in dismantling the apartheid system.

I would be the last person who would feel in any sense entitled to act judgmentally on a colleague and to impugn any wrong motivation on the part of the Senators who travelled to South Africa. I would not set myself up on that basis at all, nor would I feel qualified to do so. I would just make the point to the House — and it would be less than honest of me not to say it at the outset — that I am one of the people who believe that that visit was a mistake. I am also prepared to accept that the motivation for it may have been of the very best kind, but I do believe the visit was a mistake because of the pivotal position of the two Senators in our society and, secondly, because of the stage reached in the evolution of South African society. I did not lightly or flippantly, or in any populist way, make that point. I make it in a controlled fashion because this is not an occasion for mob rhetoric nor is it an occasion for scoring points.

I genuinely believe that, given that apartheid outside of Nazi atrocities, has been the great abomination of the 20th century, we must handle the evolution of South African society with great care. Essentially, I believe there is still too much wrong in South Africa. I do not propose, in a boring fashion to insult the intelligence of the House by going through every facet of existing South African society because they have been well documented in the media and book and film. I want only to make the general observations that the black Africans still have no vote in parliamentary elections, the Population Registration Act dividing the population into four categories of whites, coloureds, Asians and Africans, has not yet been repealed nor has the Land Tenure Act. While I take the point made by Senator John A. Murphy in relation to the breakdown of social apartheid, the Group Areas Act still remains on the Statute Book. All of this, with the general state of apartheid, makes a very bleak picture and leaves a cause for major concern.

I would argue that President de Klerk could not have moved to the degree that he has done without international pressure. This movement is welcome. I propose to make that point in every conceiveable way, using fact and judgment and we should indicate our approval of what he has done. It is worth remembering that President de Klerk could not have moved without international pressure. He is having sufficient difficulty with his right wing as it is. I do not accept the view that President de Klerk's movement can be interpreted as merely the action of one person. He is probably an enlightened visionary of the same type as Lord O'Neill. That I would accept. At the same time, were it not for the background of international disapproval, international sanctions, international public uproar, I do not believe the movement could be there.

As somebody who did some study of history, I have a lot of personal regard for Senator Murphy and for his work, but he did make the point that he believed that irrespective of attitudes among the international community, the process of disintegration of apartheid would continue. I have great difficulty in accepting that view. Were we to give a green light to President de Klerk or were we to remove sanctions and tell President de Klerk that all is rosy all is well, we would let his right wing loose on him and undermine his work. Contrary to Senator Murphy's viewpoint, I think it is a necessary part of President de Klerk's machinery that we maintained international pressure and fight for further breakdown of apartheid.

A number of Senators spoke about cultural and sporting exchanges with South Africa. Senator O'Toole said he could conceivably go along with sporting exchanges. We have not arrived at the stage where we could realistically consider sporting exchanges with South Africa. I am studiously avoiding claiming a complete knowledge of the way South African life is as we hear from the media, because I think that would be painful for the House, but we all know why I argue that position. It is still such an abominable society and there are so many injustices and criminal aspects to that society that I would be of the view that we have to be reserved in our position about sporting exchanges. We would want yet to keep that on hold. We are still only at the stage of talking about talking.

It is the nature of my party to facilitate diversity of view and diversity of discourse. The point was made by Senator Manning and he generally believes, that the visit of the two distinguished Senators was in order. I differ from him on that. He also made the point that it is to the black people in South Africa we should offer an olive branch in the sense of organising training programmes and support systems for them in this country. I go along with that and would applaud it as a reasonable suggestion. We have a tradition of doing that in relation to developing countries and that would be perfectly in order.

While I have argued consistently that we have not gone far enough yet to remove sanctions, that we have not even gone far enough yet to look at sporting exchanges, I think the point has to be made here today that just as there is an onus on President de Klerk and on the white community to move further there is an onus on the ANC to compromise. Whatever about President de Klerk as an individual, let us never forget that the majority of the white community were very, very happy to remain acquiescent in respect of a terrible system and the greatest travesty of natural justice and natural rights of the 20th century. We cannot escape that reality.

But, while President de Klerk and the white community must go on moving, I would argue that there also is an onus on Nelson Mandela and the ANC to compromise. There is an onus on them to work extremely hard to heal divisions among the black community, to obviate the portents of civil war within the black community. I believe Nelson Mandela has an important role to play and he should be urged in that direction. It should also be remembered that Nelson Mandela's major weapon has been people power which was also the major weapon of many of the democratic forces in eastern Europe. It is people power that has brought Mandela to the stage where he is now. I am one of the those who believe that at the earliest opportunity the ANC should show the courage to denounce violence. While I am opposed to any improper or premature acts of mediation on our side, I also believe there is an onus on the ANC and on Mandela to reject violence.

My summation of the situation would be that there are too many things still wrong in South African society for us to wave aside the sanctions. I still see it as a sick society, a society founded on injustice, and that injustice is manifested in many ways. I also argue that the movement of President de Klerk could not have become a reality without international pressure and international sanctions and, contrary to the view that he needs a release of sanctions now in order to prevent his right-wing swallowing him up, he needs maintenance of sanctions to give his movement a legitimacy as a political tactic; it was out of that context that it was born. The view that international pressure is irrelevant and that reform will continue is not acceptable in my view. No matter how sincerely this view is put forward, I cannot see that that is the case. I believe international pressure will have to remain.

The message we should send out from this House is that we maintain the sanctions as of now, not as an end in themselves, not as something that we would want to maintain indefinitely but rather as tactically correct and as being still necessary. That should be our first position. Our second position should be that we go on welcoming the initatives of President de Klerk but arguing that we need more dismantling of the society, remembering that no matter how benevolent he may be the society he leads has a rotten core, is based on all the wrong principles and must be disintegrated in its present form. That should be our second position.

Our third position should be that we should be the people who would argue that the ANC give up the gun, that the ANC rely on people power, on the massive support of the ordinary people that was sufficient to undo dictatorships in eastern Europe. They should look to people power, de Klerk should look to further reform and go down that courageous road and the international community should see themselves as something of a referee maintaining the pressure until there is a real sign of movement towards change. It would be a tragedy if we moved too quickly. We must gauge it. I do not think the time for releasing sanctions has yet arrived.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few brief words in relation to this very important issue. I am not going to dwell on the pros and cons of whether Senators Ross and Murphy were entitled or should have gone to South Africa. I listened attentively to Senator Murphy and I appreciate what he was saying. I do not agree with a lot of the views he expressed but he did give us a fair insight into developments that took place there. By and large, I would not agree with the reasons he was giving as to why sanctions should be lifted at present. He instanced that in practical terms quite a number of the sanctions had already been removed. He mentioned integrated beaches and other facilities that have been provided in South Africa. That, in itself, is an expression of the fact that we have now reached a decisive stage in the history of South Africa and in the struggle to overthrow apartheid.

On paper, a lot of progress has been made. The freeing of Nelson Mandela the partial lifting of the state of emergency, the lifting of the ban on the ANC and other organisations, the release of a number of political prisoners would appear to be very positive moves but to suggest that, as a result, it is now time to remove the sanctions is a misguided view because one would have to accept that the imposition of the sanctions has resulted in the progress that has been made in South Africa. I acknowledge the fact that President de Klerk appears to personally be of the viewpoint that apartheid should go. If I were in his position and sanctions that had an enormous effect on the country were being imposed from outside and if I was trying to achieve a particular aim the one thing I would not like to see would vbe the abolition of those sanctions. The developments that have taken place will hopefully pave the way for early negotiations on the future of South Africa.

It is important to restate the United Nations General Assembly Declaration on South Africa made in December 1989 which all member states of the EC supported. It states:

To ensure that international community does not relax existing measures aimed at encouraging the South African regime to eradicate apartheid until there is a clear evidence of profound and irreversible changes bearing in mind the objectives of this declaration.

That sums up the whole emphasis of what we are about here today. We must ask again why progress is being witnessed in South Africa and why it is taking place. I must reiterate that I think sanctions have been a major factor in the attitude of the Pretoria regime along the road to reform. It is absolutely essential that we maintain those sanctions if we are to gain the result one wishes. Everybody is of the same view that apartheid is an absolutely horrible system and that it should be got rid of as quickly as possible. If at this point we were to remove the sanctions it would undo a lot of the good that has been achieved. The South African Government would feel at that point that they have done enough and the impetus for change would slow down.

Senator O'Reilly appealed to the ANC to lay down their arms and reject violence. The method of sanctions is a peaceful way of ensuring that some changes are made. Even from the point of view of encouraging the ANC to lay down their arms sanctions are a very positive and important vehicle to use to encourage the ANC to reject violence. If we removed sanctions at this time it would be very easy for the ANC to say that sanctions have been removed, although they have been advocating at length that they should remain. If we removed sanctions then it would give the ANC a free hand to continue with the violence and hostilities.

Senator Murphy said this morning that Nelson Mandela represents the majority of the black community in South Africa, and we must accept that he speaks for them. When he was released it was a momentous occasion. It would be impossible now for the Pretoria regime to reverse the present trend. I believe it is inevitable that apartheid will be dismantled in the future and by keeping sanctions we will speed up the dismantling of this dreadful system of apartheid in the short term rather than the long term.

There is a misguided view that the sanctions are causing huge problems for the black community in South Africa. One recognises that the black community are suffering enormous difficulties through economic blockades and that sort of thing, but we have to recognise that these people have always suffered. There was atrocious suffering in South Africa long before sanctions were imposed. I believe the African community are prepared to accept that there have to be difficulties if they are to have control over their own destiny, and in fact have a say in their own destiny. Comments are being made about unemployment in South Africa where enormous numbers of black people cannot get any work because of the sanctions. We have to take this in perspective. It is extremely important that we recognise what a free person is. Senator Murphy referred to the fact that the Taoiseach was asked when he would see the sanctions being lifted, bearing in mind the fact that Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in jail to get the vote; the inference was that we would be satisfied when there was a system of one man one vote. That is not in fact what the Taoiseach would have intended. When everyone in a country can walk free, can hold the same positions and have the same respect from all sides, irrespective of creed or colour, that is the time we can say we have achieved the aim that everyone looks for in South Africa.

I share the Taoiseach's view on what he hopes to achieve at the Summit. I accept that some of the member states will feel this is the time for sanctions to be lifted. I share the Government's view that this is not the time to consider lifting sanctions. I have to disagree with Senator O'Toole in relation to reviewing the ban on sporting activities in South Africa. The movements that have taken place in South Africa to date have resulted from the pressures from the international community outside South Africa. I can appreciate the reason a number of people would say they have shown they are able to change their views, that they can do something about this regime and that we should reciprocate by easing some of the conditions we have laid down against them. I believe now is the time to stand firm; now is the time to say that sanctions must be maintained until the apartheid regime has been dismantled. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak those few words, I will support the motion.

May I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the opportunity to debate a subject like this so soon after our return from South Africa. I am very grateful that this subject has been debated so far in a very temperate, reasonable way, without too much acrimony from people on both sides who obviously feel very strongly about this.

I should, first of all, partly because of what Senator O'Reilly said and partly because of other points that have been raised in the debate I think I should defend our visit to South Africa. Senator O'Reilly specifically said we should not have gone to South Africa. I can understand those who say that we were breaking the cultural boycott but that is overridden by one or two of the things which we discovered there. Despite the pressure we came under not to go and despite the fact that we are bombarded with information about South Africa day in and day out in both the right wing and left wing press, having gone there with as open a mind as is possible, I could not claim to have had no prejudices, indeed I did before I went there — I certainly changed my mind about certain things. My perception of what happened there changed enormously by going there. It was an insight.

Let me give two examples to start with. One of those who was most vocal in criticising the visit and also one of those who was most vocal in his condemnation of the apartheid regime said it was a disgrace we were going there because blacks and whites could not share buses in Pretoria. I was not in a position to contradict him and I found that accusation uncomfortable. When I went out there I discovered that blacks and whites happily share buses in Pretoria. I confronted him with this when I came back and he said that he had read it in the Guardian. It seems to me there is a great deal of misinformation; there is only one way of finding out the truth, that is by going out there yourself.

Another perception on the other side which changed — it is a very important perception — was my perception of the ANC. Having read about them over the years I certainly felt they were somewhat soft on the issue of violence and much more aggressive than I found them to be.

The ANC, despite the condemnation of the Anti-Apartheid Movement here of the visit, gave us a welcome and were very enthusiastic about putting their point of view. They also changed my mind and my vision of them by being quite obviously men and women who were looking for a peaceful settlement.

We have to understand the position of the ANC. A lot of what they are doing and saying in private is different from what they are saying in public and people should understand that. It is important to make the following point — I do not know about Senator Murphy — my understanding of the situation changed dramatically, my position on South Africa and sanctions changed dramatically as a result of going out there, as a result of information which I got which I could not have got by reading newspapers here.

Maybe I should put it on record that during our visit we met an extraordinarily wide range of people. We had a very tiring schedule. The accusations made by some more prominent members of the Anti-Apartheid Movement that it was a freebie and that nobody would meet us were quite absurd. We came back maybe not with any monopoly of wisdom of the South African situation but certainly with an enlightened view by virtue of having been there to see what was going on.

The amendment in the names of Senator Murphy and myself is about sanctions. It specifically calls on the Government to consider easing sanctions at this stage. First, we should admit quite openly that sanctions have been a catalyst for change in South Africa. I do not think anybody denies that. I do not think we can find out, as is true in so many of these things, how far they have been a catalyst for change, how far they persuaded the Nationalist Government to change their mind but know the Government there have changed their mind and we know that sanctions were being imposed at the time. There is no doubt that sanctions have changed the minds of the Government and have changed the course of South African history to a certain extent, maybe not totally, as the whole system of apartheid was grinding to a halt for lots of reasons, the tri-cameral system of parliament was not working, the system of apartheid which insisted that there were numerous Departments of Education and Health and other Government Departments made it almost impossible for apartheid to continue.

Sanctions certainly were a factor in changing the mind of de Klerk and others. It should also be pointed out that there is a great deal of hypocrisy attached to the sanctions issue, that whereas we beat our drums loudly about continued imposition of sanctions, especially in Ireland, trade with South Africa does not just thrive, it increases by the year. I do not remember, I openly admit, what the figures were but I believe trade with South Africa in Ireland increased threefold last year, but I am open to correction on that. That seems to be a strange situation when we are making a great virtue of not trading with that country. We really ought to get this one right and be consistent about it.

The prime reason sanctions ought to be lifted is simply the position of President de Klerk. It is simply a matter of whether you believe him and whether you can support him. It seems so clear, having come back from South Africa that what de Klerk is doing is so good, so revolutionary, so radical but also so dangerous in his own internal political terms that we should do everything, if we believe him, to support him. Those who do not believe that de Klerk is in danger should only look at the result of the Umhlatuzi by-election last week, the day we come back. It was dramatic in any terms; the sort of swing you do not see in elections in Ireland or England, a 115 per cent swing. That was a direct swing from his party to the Conservative Party. If people think that is not the result of the reforms, they are wrong and they are fooling themselves. There is a swing to the right which is very very dangerous.

We met an MP member of the Conservative Party and he warned us fairly triumphantly about what was happening but he said quite openly, that de Klerk was giving everything and he was getting nothing back from the western powers, that if the western powers were to ease sanctions or to give him some hope that maybe the swing to the right could be stopped. If that sort of swing continues de Klerk will certainly lose power in the parliament there. Obviously he stated there will never be another all-white election but that is not the only way, as everybody knows, that power is transferred in countries of that sort. It is an open secret that many members, if not the majority, of the security forces, certainly the police, are sympathetic to the point of view of the Conservative Party. If it becomes legitimate to take that point of view and enough people take it the outcome will be a disaster for South Africa because the right wing have the power to disrupt what is going on, to disrupt the State. They have the power to carry out a terrorist campaign.

One of the things the ANC impressed upon us, more than anything else, was that the right wing were well armed. It is very easy for us to say "push on, it will be all right" but we do not understand the consequences of the right wing gaining ground there. The consequences would be an absolute disaster. Unless we send signals of some form to de Klerk — I must say I like Senator O'Toole's idea of possibly "reviewing", although I would say "lifting" the boycott on sports because it has a huge psychological impact on people rather than sanctions — people will flock to the Conservative Party, the extremists will win and they will take over by armed force or any other means. That is the only way that apartheid can be discontinued in South Africa.

Apartheid from what I found out and from talking to people, is as good as over. It is absolutely fair for people, like Senator O'Reilly, to say "Well, the Group Areas Act is still there, there is no one man, one vote, at this stage". That is correct. The intention has been declared and is not disputed. Senator Manning said he felt that the process was not irreversible. That is not my understanding of the situation. My understanding of the situation now is that so long as de Klerk is there in charge of his party the situation is irreversible. Apartheid will be dismantled in the shortest possible time. The steps have been taken from which there is no going back.

There is a way back if the Conservative Party gain enough power. We have a choice. We can either assist apartheid being dismantled peacefully by easing sanctions or we can assist apartheid being dismantled by bloodshed by keeping sanctions. That is the choice we have. Either way it will go but it is irresponsible not to respond and to throw a lifeline to de Klerk who, after all, is one of the two great men in South Africa at this moment.

It is unfashionable, as Senator McKenna said, to talk about the people who suffer as a result of sanctions. There is a reality and it is something which I find the proponents of sanctions never answer satisfactorily. The reality is this: black people are the people who are suffering under sanctions, black people are the people who are out of work, black people are the people who are poor, black people are the people who are hungry, who cannot get education, health-care and who cannot get all the vital necessities of life as a result of sanctions.

They never had it.

Sanctions are a source of discomfort for the white people. It is inconvenient. They have to by-pass them, they are not quite as rich as they normally would be, it is more expensive for them to live. The people who suffer are the people at the bottom of the pile and they are the black people. We met black people on the ground in Soweto, in Crossroads, and in many other places. I took the opportunity, when I met people in those places and in factories, to ask what they thought of sanctions and I did not come across one who wanted them continued, not one. These were not people who were chosen for me, these were people, to whom I spoke at random. They tell you it causes them poverty and discomfort. They wanted negotiations and they wanted talks but not one of them said: "Yes, this is a marvellous thing, we love suffering, keep it going, it is tremendous for us". I am tired of people, from the comfort of the west and the comfort of cosy positions in Cape Town advocating sanctions, when other people have to suffer as a result. If there was a case for sanctions I believe that case has now gone because the process is irreversible. There is no excuse for continuing imposing suffering on black people in South Africa in order to salve our consciences here and in order to pursue a goal which has already been conceded.

I would like to say a few words about the strongest emotional arguments made for sanctions by those who have been proposing them today. It is that Nelson Mandela wants them to continue. Speaker after speaker today said that the real reason we should have sanctions is because the ANC are asking for them and that Nelson Mandela would be undermined in some way by this. It is very strong and it is a very difficult argument to counter, especially in view of the fact that Nelson Mandela holds a position of great moral authority and is undoubtedly a man of great stature in the 20th century. However, we should stand back from the situation now and ask ourselves, should we blindly follow the ANC line in South Africa simply because apartheid is wrong, and it is, as the previous speaker said, an abomination and an offence to humanity. But it does not mean that we should necessarily blindly follow the requests of one person and his organisation. Those who say that fail to recognise that there are others in South Africa in opposition to the apartheid system who begged us to bring one message back from South Africa and that was that sanctions should be dropped. These included Helen Suzman and Dr. Denis Worrell, both well known and, certainly in one case, long-standing opponents of the South African regime, some of them who held positions of great respect in the world some years ago but whom it is fashionable now not to take so seriously because they do not follow blindly the ANC.

The ANC have great men. There is no doubt about that. They have a position in South Africa of great influence, great power and great support. We should not just say until we know what that power is that they are right and, as speaker after speaker today said, "Follow Mandela because Mandela asks it, we must take it". That is not a justifiable position. We must examine it on its merits. Those people who say that fail to mention consistently Buthelezi. We met him and we had a long meeting with him. I do not know what support he has. I do not know what support the ANC have because neither of them has been tested. Buthelezi has consistently been anti-apartheid, he has consistently been a man of peace, he is a friend of Mandela, he consistently refused to negotiate with the regime while Mandela was in prison. He is straightforwardly and openly against sanctions. It is no good, as is the fashionable position now, to say Buthelezi does not represent the Zulu people any more. All we do know is that he is the accepted leader of the largest tribe out there. It may be he does not represent them all. It may be the ANC who represent them but we should take his position seriously and when he says we should lift sanctions we should take him seriously as one of the leaders of black African opinion in South Africa.

We should also not fail to mention — something not mentioned by anybody in this debate except Senator Murphy — namely, the position of the coloureds and the Indians in South Africa who comprise four million people of the population of South Africa. We should take them into account. I do not know if Mandela represents them or not. I suspect they are diversified, they are desperate and they have different opinions. Certainly the Indians and the coloureds, to whom I spoke, were against sanctions. Mandela is a great man but we should not follow his line unquestioningly. We should also consider the position of de Klerk and whether we want to throw him to the lions. It should be acknowledged that what de Klerk has done is absolutely revolutionary. Not only did he release Mandela, not only did he unban the ANC, but he has put before parliament proposals for repealing the Special Amenities Act which is almost gone anyway in practice. He has fulfilled ANC demands on the emergency powers.

It seems, from my reading of the situation in South Africa last week, that it was de Klerk who wanted to lift the emergency powers everywhere including Natal but, as a result of the by-election, the Cabinet held back and they did not lift it in Natal. My reading of the situation there is that there is already a move to the right within the Cabinet. There are encouraging signs, there are tremendous things happening behind the scenes. The talks on the security forces, the talks on the economy are going tremendously well with unexpected success.

I ask this House for the sake of the economy of South Africa which the ANC will probably inherit, for the sake of the black people who are suffering, for the sake of de Klerk, to take a responsible attitude and to consider easing sanctions to avoid a possible blood bath in South Africa.

I believe that the terms and the spirit of this motion summarise the best way forward in the light of the present situation in South Africa. We can all say that we are gratified by the extremely hopeful developments in South Africa in the course of the past year or so. We must acknowledge that under the de Klerk Administration real progress towards racial harmony and fair and equal treatment of all South Africans has been made. In particular the declared intention of the South African Government to abolish apartheid, if sincerely meant, goes a long way towards meeting the justified objections of the international community to the South African system of Government.

It has been suggested by many public representatives whose motives one must respect that it is now time to ease sanctions against South Africa. Indeed, the amendment put forward in the names of Senators Ross and Murphy expresses this point of view. I appreciate the good intentions behind the amendment and acknowledge that the views it expreses is shared by many sincere people and by many knowledgeable people. However, I believe that the time is not yet right for the lifting or the easing of sanctions against South Africa. For one thing, all we are sure of is that the South African authorities have declared an intention and this has not been translated into concrete form.

Despite what Senator Ross has said, apartheid still exists. Repressive legislation is still in place to support the hateful mechanism of apartheid. Detention without trial, which, I suppose, one could say has nasty overtones in this part of the world, still operates. Until solid evidence is forthcoming that apartheid is really being dismantled I believe that sanctions should be kept in place for the present as a sign of the determination of the international community to ensure that praiseworthy aspirations are fulfilled.

It is generally agreed that sanctions have been among the most effective weapon in changing the attitude of apartheid in South Africa. To end or to ease them now might well be interpreted by the South African authorities as a sign of weakening determination or even of indifference on the part of the international community. In addition, it can be said that sanctions provide strong moral support for those people who are working so effectively against apartheid both within and outside of South Africa; and their ending or easing should be timed to coincide with the removal of the abuses against which they are directed. The bottom line for me would surely have to be that it does not make sense to withdraw an effective weapon before its aim has been achieved.

Let me say in passing that I think it right to pay tribute to our own Government, and particularly to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gerry Collins, for the very constructive and helpful role that he and the Government have played in relation to this problem. Deputy Collins in particular has performed a very delicate set of tasks with admirable diplomacy and statemanship. I feel that we here in the Seanad should continue to uphold the policy on sanctions which has been formulated by the EC and which has been strongly supported by our own Government. It is my sincere hope that the time is not far away when solid reforms in South Africa make it possible for sanctions to be eased and eventually to be lifted.

In this sense I would have to say that I sympathise with the sentiments of the amendment in the names of Senator Ross and Senator Murphy, but I feel, for the reasons I have given, that it is somewhat premature at this time. I also want to make the comment, in the hope of having a consensus opinion, in the hope of having a consensus/majority motion agreed, which would be to meet the obvious wishes of the majority of the House, that I am prepared to amend our motion as follows. On line 5 after the words "necessary" to include the following nine words "including sanctions for as long as these are necessary". This is being done in the hope of having a consensus or a majority opinion. I might mention that Senator Manning from the Fine Gael Party, Senator Upton from the Labour Party and Senator O'Toole, the three people with whom I spoke, would have been happy with that particular change. Unfortunately, procedural difficulties at this late stage dictate that this is not possible. However, I wanted to have inserted in the record of the House what I was prepared to do in an effort to have this consensus/majority motion agreed.

I am glad Senator Fallon has listened so carefully to the debate and has seen that the insertion of these few words would go a long way towards alleviating the problems that have been shown today. I welcome those words. Unfortunately, they can be stitched into the record but not, for procedural reasons, into the motion itself.

In supporting both Fine Gael amendments and this new notice of motion, I would like to comment on the visit of the Independent Senators to South Africa. I feel that they were quite entitled to go and see for themselves. I do not think we should sit at home when we do get an opportunity to visit such places. That is the only way forward for all of us. Unfortunately, not all of us had that opportunity and it was very interesting to hear the different viewpoints. There is one point I would make in relation to the press statement from the two Senators. I find it difficult to refer to the period now as "post-apartheid". It will take quite a while before we can actually apply the term "post-apartheid" to the period we are at now.

Going back to the basics of what apartheid is — the Afrikans word for separation, Senator Murphy referred to the complexity of South African society, the multiracial society. Going back to the figures of 1987, the only ones I have, out of a population of 35 million you have 75 per cent African, 14 per cent white, 9 per cent coloured or mixed race and 2 per cent Asian. Those statistics in themselves are sufficient to show us the complexity of the issue before us. The four groups have been kept apart, which was the stated aim of apartheid, and we would want to take heed of this. The real aim was to enable the country's white minority retain control and to continue to dominate the political, economic and social life of the country. We should not forget that. That is what apartheid is, was and will be until it is dismantled.

Looking at this multiracial society and looking at South Africa as an entity, geographically and physically, a climatically divided region, again I would agree with Senator Murphy's reference to the complexities of tribal tensions. Having spent some time in Africa I now realise that the notion of nationhood is absolutely foreign to their psyche. They think in terms of tribal loyalty. There are tremendous complexities in what we are trying to do.

The apartheid regime, though it has taken its first concrete steps towards a negotiated end to apartheid, has not irreversibly committed itself to that path. It has retained and has continued to use an armed repressive capacity inconsistent with a climate conductive to negotiations. We have heard the speech by President F.W. de Klerk at the opening of Parliament in early February and subsequent statements by Government Ministers. They initiated steps which, although widely expected, came sooner than most observers had predicted. By the beginning of March the unbanning of political organisations and the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela, along with other moves, had opened a new phase in the struggle to end apartheid.

A very important point to make is that the regime remained committed to constitutional principles and positions regarding the process of negotiation as fundamentally different — this is what is in the Fine Gael amendment — from what is envisaged in the Organisation of African Unity's Harare declaration, which again incorporates the United Nations five conditions referred to in our amendment. The Harare declaration is based on the ANC's guidelines for a genuinely negotiated end to apartheid, and adopted by the non-aligned movement and the United Nations General Assembly.

I will briefly mention the five steps Senator Manning referred to today which the apartheid regime needs to take to create the political conditions in which negotiations could take place. The steps initiated or implemented since President de Klerk's speech on 2 February represent only a partial move — through I welcome it in the direction required. The first step is the release of political prisoners. The release of political prisoners and detainees was supposed to be unconditional and refraining from imposing any restrictions on them. Yes, we had the release of Nelson Mandela, which we welcomed, and a number of other political prisoners released last February, and more were due to be released. However, only a small proportion of those imprisoned as a result of their participation in political protest were due to be freed unilaterally. There was no mention of those held in detention without trial. There are still 300 political prisoners being held in Robin Island, although that number was reduced the other day by 28. They are on hunger strike to demand the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners and detainees. As I said, and I will repeat it, 28 were released since February. They rejected, through the Press, through their lawyers, de Klerk's categorisation of political prisoners where he said that all politically motivated offenders are political prisoners. That is still there.

The second step is the lifting of all bans and restrictions on all proscribed and restricted organisations and persons. All prohibitions on organisations under the Internal Security Act were lifted in February as well as all emergency regulations imposing restrictions on 34 named organisations. A ban on a number of newspapers and periodicals was also lifted, but even after the lifting of restrictions the United Democratic Front and the National Union of South African Students remain, and I quote, "affected organisations under the Foreign Funding Act preventing them from receiving overseas funds". Also, even though the South African Communist Party was unbanned, section 55 of the Internal Security Act makes it a serious offence — when you read the small print you see that all is not as it seems — punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment "to advocate, advise, defend or encourage the achievement of any of the objects of Communism;" and the Act defines the term "Communism" far beyond the political philosophy of that name. On one hand, there is an unban, and on the other hand, it is not so.

The third step is the removal of all troops from the townships. Since September 1984 the South African Defence Force has stationed units in the townships. In 1985 there were 30,000 troop deployed in these areas. This was announced by the régime. The régime refused to disclose further numbers until February, when the Minister for Defence stated that there were fewer than 800 troops in the townships, despite the fact that previously they had acknowledged that there were 30,000 troops. I do not see how 30,000 and 800 troops can equal.

The possibility that the troop withdrawals could be completed in the foreseeable future — and this is an important point — has focused attention on the role of the police. Over the past four years there has been a substantial build up of the police force in comparison with the army. In October a plan was devised to double the size of the police force for the next ten years. We can see that the police will be the first line in the enforcement of control over the population. There are reports of considerable confusion and frustration among the police. In the days following the announcement of the unbanning of the ANC and the release of Nelson Mandela we read in the newspapers that there were frequent police attacks on people celebrating — just celebrating. We were celebrating here. There was no attack on us in any way by any subversive groups. There were attacks on people there genuinely celebrating or protesting against rents and housing conditions. Could you imagine what would happen here if we were to forbid protests against rents and housing conditions and apartheid education? In most cases the police used the Internal Security Act to declare the meeting illegal, even though technically they were not meant to do so. But they were able to use the Internal Security Act to legalise their attacks. Given the planned build up of the police force, the continued existence of laws which give them the power to use armed force against people participating in political protest is of critical importance.

The next step was the ending of the state of emergency and the repeal of all legislation designed to circumscribe political activities such as and including the Internal Security Act. Substantial parts of the emergency regulations were lifted on 3 February, the media emergency regulations and the education emergency regulations were abolished. However, one aspect of the media regulations was restored — again behind closed doors — by inserting into the main body of the emergency regulations a clause prohibiting the publication and dissemination of any visual representation, whether it was a photograph, a film, a video or whatever of any scene of unrest in security action.

Obviously I welcome, as we all welcomed, de Klerk's announcement of the ending of the four year nationwide state of emergency, though special security powers are still being retained in the troubled Natal Province. That has happened since February. So, the continual implementation of sanctions has caused further developments from February right up to the other day. Nothing can be done immediately; it has to be gradual. But I believe that this would not continue on a gradual basis if the sanctions were lifted.

The ANC have stated that the Government have not gone far enough. They say that it is an obstacle to formal talks. The Internal Security Act, as I said already, has not been repealed. There is much more to be done in that area. The last step, in relation to the United Nations five points, is the ceasing of political trials and all political executions. A moratorium on all executions was announced by President de Klerk, but during that period changes in the law provided for capital punishment to be discussed. In fact, it was for changes, not abolition. At a time when we are debating the abolition of capital punishment here, it is interesting that that does not appear to be taking place in South Africa. According to the Human Rights Commission, and we must believe them, 300 political trials were still in progress in February. Progress is gradual, it is slow, but we have always to read between the lines.

Looking to the future, what do we say about President de Klerk and his courageous step forward? As a result of his courage he has access to world powers which none of his predecessors had. He has not had to endure the pariah status inflicted on his predecessors. This is really de facto recognition that he has embarked on the right road, which should act as an encouragement to him to continue, despite the pleas today that the right wing will eventually do him in. I do not see that. He is now a world figure in the same way as Nelson Mandela has become a world figure. You have two great visionaries. I would hope he will be able to stand up — at least he did not have 27 years in prison to cause any debilitation to his physique — and have the moral courage to continue to go on that road. I think this in itself should be enough to show to the right wing that he means business and to demonstrate that, if he does continue, further recognition will come. The first step to ending South African isolation is a recognition by world powers and the initiation of the right policy. I would have to say here that good intentions are not sufficient to cause a major change of policy. To appease the conservative wing he can show that his advances have got a response, the world media have shown that his advances have got a response, and that is why we are debating this issue here today.

Can I assure Senator Jackman that there is no imputation on either Mr. Nelson Mandela or President de Klerk?

I think what I said was that there was a reference today in the debate that he would not be able to continue his role of reform because of pressure from right-wing forces. What I was saying — maybe you misunderstood me — was that you have two visionaries——

We have two visionaries, Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk and I said I hoped President de Klerk would have the physical and mental strength necessary — because, Nelson Mandela gained a tremendous amount of strength while in prison — with Nelson Mandela to continue as the builders of democracy in South Africa. As I was saying, President de Klerk can use the continuing isolation as a stick with which to beat the conservative opponents. But, unless real progress is made as distinct from good intentions, South Africa will continue to suffer economically.

I would like to make a brief reference to inputs from Senator Murphy, who said that the black population are suffering. I do not think for a moment that the sanctions are affecting everybody in South Africa. But in regard to those black people who are suffering, I have spent time in South Africa and I have seen them suffering. Sadly, it will take quite some time before that suffering is alleviated because it is suffering in the deepest sense of deprivation; it is poverty; it is an accumulative lack of exposure to education of any kind; it is so complex that it will take a long time before it will be eliminated. But that does not necessarily mean that if we lift the sanctions the black population will not suffer. You can apply that to any part of Africa — the Sudan, the countries in the Horn of Africa. We know that it is a long term situation. The fact that we are debating this today is actually a step towards the alleviation of suffering.

It should also be made clear to President de Klerk that when reforms are specified by the United Nations and are put on the Statute Book — many things are put on the Statute Book, as we well know in this country, and they are not implemented — then the dismantling of sanctions will begin. It is not just enough that they will be on the Statute Book; they must be implemented on the ground. Intentions in South Africa must be paralleled by United Nations intentions. Action and reform in South Africa must be paralleled by reform in the United Nations and the EC as regards sanctions.

One of my last points is the use of international observers from the UN to ensure that changes get on the Statute Book and that real change takes place on the ground. There must be a timetable for legislation, because this is not going to happen overnight and the implementation of a similar timetable as regards the reduction in sanctions. A question: why did President de Klerk embark on a change of course? I would have to accept, out of a certain conviction, but also in response to world pressure.

Rules must be implemented when they are on the Statute Book. It is not very long ago since we saw intense pockets of resistance in the Southern States of the United States of America at a time when their form of apartheid was technically ended. That is going to be very hard to root out in white middle class and working class areas — I do not want particularly to categorise them. I can see insecurities there as they will see their jobs threatened as more and more of the population of South Africa will come on the job market. These areas must not be allowed to become traumatised areas of resistance which will only cause suffering for all eventually. As I said, we should learn by the mistakes, by the intransigence of certain little towns in the deep South of the United States of America where intense resistance caused intense suffering.

Ireland, as we have said today — and we have been applauded, small as we are within the EC and the United Nations — must stand firm against the removal of sanctions. The pressure is essential. Of course, it is not an all or nothing situation. There are grades of sanctions, ranging from a ban on coal, steel and military exports to those covering sports, cultural and academic contacts. These should be kept under review, as several Senators mentioned today, and perhaps the more symbolic ones should be the first to go.

Restraint is needed on all sides so that a gradual flow towards democracy does not become a torrent. Leadership and vision were never more needed. Both leaders, Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk are men of integrity. Again in support of the Fine Gael amendment, I would say that when Nelson Mandela comes, despite protocol, because of the extraordinary history this has made, surely a case can be made for his addressing the House which is a forum for reasoned debate and expressing opinions on global issues. The present situation is that on substantive matters the South African Government have so far delivered promises. It would take an enormous leap of faith to withdraw official sanctions on that basis. The sanctions — and they are a peaceful means of protest — should remain in force until there is an assurance of political stability.

I will finish by supporting Senator Fallon's proposed added words to the motion which make it easier for all sides of the House to adopt the motion and the amendments as proposed by Fine Gael.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht. Tá sé oiriúnach go bhfuil an cheist seo á plé againn agus go bhfuil fear a bhfuil a leithéid sin de chlú agus cháil air chun cuairt a thabhairt orainn go luath. Tá sé thar a bheith in am dúinn a rá arís, mar a chreidim anois atá ráite sa rún atá curtha os ár gcomhair ag an Rialtas, go gcaithfear leanúint le smachtbhannaí go dtí go mbeidh athruithe bunúsacha, nach féidir dul siar orthu, curtha i bhfeidhm ag Rialtas éigin san Afraic Theas. Tá sé deacair a chreidiúint go bhféadfaí athruithe bunúsacha a chur i bhfeidhm san Afraic Theas fad agus atá Rialtas i réim atá tofa ag mionlach.

It is virtually impossible, in my view, to visualise irreversible changes in South Africa as long as the entire power of the State still rests in the hands of the white minority. There is a contradiction there that all of us ought to tease out at some stage because, while we have talked of certain conditions and while everybody is prepared, there is a remarkable act of faith contained in the suggestions by some representatives of the ANC that after a certain number of objectives have been met, like the release of all political prisoners, the end of the state of emergency etc, then they are prepared to make the extraordinary gesture of trust in what is still a minority white Government. Let us remember that until the end of the state of emergency simply to refer to the South African Government as a white minority Government was a subversive statement that could land you in jail. But the extraordinary generosity of the African National Congress, the extraordinary generosity of black South Africans in being prepared to accept the bona fides of those who have ruled them, murdered them and oppressed them for close on 50 years is something that ought to be firmly enshrined on the record of this House. I do not think I need to rehash the arguments about South Africa and about apartheid. I am going to devote a considerable part of what I have to say here to the regrettable activities of two of my colleagues. I think there are a number of reasons for dealing with them in some detail.

First, may I say I was in southern Africa five years ago. I was there with the full approval of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and with the full approval of the United Democratic Front which was then a legal organisation. I was not in South Africa, I was in Lesotho. We agreed on very tentative communications lines because they were frightened to meet the United Democratic Front. They were frightened and they were nervous and they were extremely alone and isolated and this was only five years ago. The arrangements did not work out because on the day we were supposed to meet them in Smuts Airport in Johannesburg something happened, yet another massacre in another place in South Africa, and their entire resources were devoted to dealing with the consequences of that massacre. When I got back here I phoned them — seeing myself as what I am, an obscure, backbench Member of the secondary House of the Parliament of a small country on the periphery of Europe. Perhaps the most eloquent testimony to the state of affairs in South Africa was the extraordinary gratitude of a body that at that stage had international headlines in every newspaper in the world because somebody bothered to ring to say: "We are concerned about you".

What that particular limited experience suggests to me is the enormous importance of international solidarity with those who struggle. We may not realise here with all the pressures of the international media but those who struggle in a country like South Africa know the importance of solidarity, they appreciate solidarity and they are the best judges of what form of solidarity is best and most useful for their struggle.

While I was in Lesotho I met the ANC, I met black citizens of Lesotho who could tell you graphically about what it was like to cross from Lesotho where you were a free citizen, where the colour of your skin made no difference, into South Africa and suddenly discover the difference that made to how you did business with everybody because you were black. I met white South Africans who epitomised everything that was wrong with apartheid and who less than five years ago were quite certain their system was going to last forever, quite certain that the Western powers could be relied upon not to impose excessively severe sanctions.

One does not have to go to South Africa to meet people. I met Dr. Nadoo here in Dublin in the past three years who was a member of the team that began preliminary negotiations with the South African Government. I did not need to go to South Africa to hear from him what reality was like in South Africa. I did not need to go to South Africa to know that black South Africans suffer, and suffer both from the system and also from the sanctions. I know that the one legal body that is allowed to go out and look for support among black working-class industrial workers, among the black community, is the Congress of South African Trade Unions and they believe that sanction should be retained. They believe there is no case yet to be made for the abolition of sanctions.

Because I have been involved in the campaigns, like other Members of this House have been involved, in the struggles of black South Africans, I know what the suffering of South Africans is like. I know about the poverty in South Africa. I know, in spite of the propaganda, that the infant mortality rate in the so-called homelands is higher than in many other areas of black Africa. The incomes per capita in some of these so-called homelands are lower than the per capita incomes in many areas of black Africa. That was before we had sanctions, long before even the pathetic, limited, marginal sanctions the Western powers grudgingly agreed to impose in the face of murder on a grand scale. I know what it was like. I know the things that South Africa have done. For instance, during 1986 some 85,000 children died in Mozambique because of South African-inspired aggression against that country. This is not South African or liberation movement propaganda, these are the figures used by the United States State Department. I did not need to travel to South Africa to find out about that because there is plenty of information available and I do not have to look to the newspapers — there are plenty of sources of information.

I do not think my two colleagues should have travelled to South Africa. I think they gave signals to people that are the direct antithesis of the signals that should be given. Because they are perhaps less than well informed on the issues in South Africa they are capable of making less than well informed judgments on what they saw in South Africa. I was prepared to be reasonably tolerant about their decision to go but I am horrified by their decision to use the platform of that visit to fly in the face of the opinions of everybody that I am aware of who has any credible record in South Africa of struggling against apartheid. I do not include white liberals who could not even say that they were in favour of one man, one vote as having a credible record in the struggle against apartheid. Most assuredly, I do not believe that we should listen to Mrs. Helen Suzman who says that the time has come to end sanctions, bearing in mind that she was never in favour of sanctions in the first place. I do not find that sort of view particularly credible and I am horrified at my colleagues. I have no problem working out who to listen to, I have no problem working out who to believe, if I have to choose between the opinions of two friends and colleagues of mine whom I respect and whom I believe to be profoundly mistaken on this issue, and those who have suffered, not people who were just the other politicians in a political struggle.

Calls for retribution are entirely pointless. We should not forget the difference between F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela. The fundamental differences are first, F.W. de Klerk has a vote and Nelson Mandela does not and, secondly, and much more profound, F.W. de Klerk has never spent a day of his life in jail. Nelson Mandela has spent 27 years in F. W. de Klerk's jail, jails run by a party that F.W. de Klerk was a member of and of which he is now leader. That is a part of the reality of South Africa we should not forget. If I have to chose between the views of those who suffered for 27 years and the views of those who spent a fortnight there and come back telling us how they are right and everybody else is wrong——

That is just what we did not do.

The first public statement from Senators Murphy and Ross was a call for the end to sanctions, not a call to listen to F.W. de Klerk, not a statement of respect for F.W. de Klerk, all of which is perfectly valid, but a call to end sanctions. I have no problem if I have to choose between two people and the combined weight of those who have suffered, not just the treatment of the South African security forces but 27 years, more than two-thirds of my life, in prison. Nelson Mandela entered jail when I was 17 years old. People whom I know to be of considerable compassion in many areas ought to have a stem of sense and not give encouragement, aid or comfort to those in Britain and all over Europe who would still prefer F.W. de Klerk to be in charge of the old style white South Africa, who have never supported the end of apartheid. Those people who opposed sanctions all over Europe never, ever, until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the realities of life, supported the end of apartheid. Now they have to do it because they are told to do it.

When it comes to the suffering of black South Africans, again I am aware, as anybody involved in the struggle for liberation in South Africa would be, of the sufferings of black South Africans. I was aware of it before there were sanctions. I am aware of it now that there are sanctions and I am painfully aware that that suffering will continue after sanctions end and after democracy is installed. I am also aware that people whom I trust spent 27 years of their lives in jail on behalf of those people. If I have to weigh the arguments, the judgments and perceptions of those who have spent 25 years in jail on behalf of black South Africans against those who spent a couple of weeks there and saw what I know to be a horrific situation, then I have no problem about making up my mind as to who is the more committed to the cause of black South Africa.

Finally, if I am asked to choose between people who look and people who struggle, as far as I am concerned I am a participant in the struggle for liberation, I am not a detached observer pronouncing on the rights and wrongs of a conflict. I am unashamedly and proudly partisan on the issue of the struggle in South Africa. I stand with those who have suffered, those who have been in jail, those who have been oppressed, and I make no apology for it. Things have been said in the past couple of weeks that I find profoundly regrettable and I want to go on the record of the House and refute them. I am quoting from an article by Senator Murphy in the Sunday Independent of last Sunday where he said:

It may be that anti-apartheid movements worldwide regard South Africa in terms of 20 years ago, that they lag behind the actual pace of developments, and that they are determined to see things in a simplistic perspective which is itself as racist as the apartheid mind they are concerned to challenge.

On a point of information, where did that comment come from?

I am quoting from the Sunday Independent of last Sunday, an article written by Senator John A. Murphy.

Attributed to——

Written by Senator Murphy.

In the absence of Senator Murphy, is there a suggestion that he is a racist? If so, that suggestion should be withdrawn.

The problem is that Senator Murphy is suggesting that those of us who are insisting on the maintenance of sanctions have and I quote: "a simplistic perspective which is itself as racist as the apartheid mind they are concerned to challenge". That is what he said about those people who do not want to end sanctions.

On a point of information, you are attributing that to Senator John A. Murphy as being his——

I am quoting what Senator Murphy said about those who do not agree with him about the ending of sanctions.

You are attributing that to Senator Murphy.

I am not attributing it to him.

(Interruptions.)

I am sure Senator Lanigan is not just trying to waste my time. He would not descend to that. In my time in this House I have disagreed with Senator Murphy on many issues. In my time we have had different views on many issues, including Northern Ireland. It is the first time he has ever implied that I am a racist and that I am a racist on the scale of those who implemented and supported apartheid in South Africa. If that is what two weeks in South Africa does for his thinking, he should have stayed away. If that is how Senator Murphy's thinking has been affected after two weeks in South Africa, then I know I am right when I suggest that both of them should have stayed away.

When you say both of them would you, please, tell me who the other person is because you have only identified Senator Murphy.

Acting Chairman

I must ask the Senator to stop interrupting, please.

I quoted Senator Murphy. I said both of them. I do not know what Senator Lanigan is doing. It is not his form usually to be so unhelpful, particularly when I know he agrees with every word I am saying.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Senator Ryan without interruption.

Senator Ryan is doing his best.

On a point of information, you said "both of them".

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

I will have to ask Senator Lanigan to stop interrupting.

Senator Lanigan is right.

What I most profoundly regret is that about three or four minutes of my 20 minutes is used up by Senator Lanigan's interruptions. I have said what I wish to say about Senator Murphy's unfortunate choice of words. Whether Senator Murphy appreciates it or not, it is a quite serious matter because for 20 years I and other people have taken the issue of South Africa seriously. If you choose to go to South Africa at the invitation of a university which has become rich on the proceeds of apartheid, which has become powerful on the proceeds of apartheid, and having made itself rich and powerful can now make a token gesture in the direction of the small number of black South Africans who have the background education because of the system of education to get into it, you are actually accepting the funds of apartheid to visit and observe apartheid, because other countries cannot afford to have universities and cannot afford to bring visitors from half-way around the world to see the conditions. When you travel there at the invitation of any institution which is a beneficiary or apartheid you are travelling as a guest of apartheid, you are travelling as a guest of the system that long ago should have been abolished and that has only survived because misguided liberals of the type of my two colleagues forgot that there is a distinction between right and wrong, between good and evil, and between those who suffer and those who inflict suffering.

May I say that I only wish my two colleagues who have been so influenced by the suffering of the vulnerable and the oppressed in South Africa by a fortnight's visit would spend a fortnight in west Belfast, south Armagh or south Tyrone and see the sufferings of their Catholic fellow-Irishmen and it might have a profound effect on their views on a number of other issues.

I am disappointed Senator Ryan had to bring the situation in west Belfast and Northern Ireland into his closing remarks in a debate on South Africa. There is absolutely no parallel between the two situations. There are problems in Northern Ireland to which we must address ourselves and there are problems in South Africa to which we must address ourselves but I do not think that when we address ourselves to a problem in South Africa we should start equating it to the problem in the North of Ireland. I have a certain empathy with him when he talks about people going to South Africa for two weeks and coming back with definitive statements as to what should happen. I would always agree with people travelling to areas of contention in the world and listening to the people who are involved in conflict, talking to the people on both sides, but not putting into their minds some of the contentious opinions that Senators Murphy and Ross brought back as a result of their two week visit. They suddenly seem to be people who know everything about the problems in South Africa. The problems of South Africa will be there after they have gone.

On a point of order, if Senator Lanigan had been here for my speech he would have me heard saying exactly the opposite.

I am suggesting that the Senator's fortnight in South Africa was informative for him, it is probably informative for us, but it is not going to make any difference to what happens in South Africa. We do not agree that sanctions against South African should be eliminated because those sanctions have been a very effective method of proving to the South African Government that they cannot live on their own, they cannot deal with the black South Africans in the manner in which they wanted and whether it was Verwoerd, Botha or Vorster, it does not make any difference. Over the years the Afrikaners did not believe that anybody of a different colour had any credibility. They have tried to prove that if your colour was different you were inferior. From 1946 to 1960 and from 1975 to 1982 having had various attempts by the Afrikaners to prove to the majority that they were superior. They cannot win. What they have to do now is to try to accommodate themselves to reality. In 1965 they produced the Bantustans — 13 per cent of the land of South Africa was given to 75 per cent of the people by diktat.

I am glad Senator Ross recognises that the argument is going against him because he has left the House. I am talking to myself at this stage.

Acting Chairman

The Senator should not refer to other Senators when they are absent from the House.

The people who obviously are protective of the South African Government have left the House. Obviously they are not interested in the debate, and I might as well stop now because I think the debate has gone against them.

What I want to say is that if change is to take place in South Africa the majority of the population will have to be involved. We will support de Klerk in his attempts to bring reality into the South African situation. The debate has broken down because the people who are interested in this——

It is not finished yet. The Senator is not concluding.

I would not let the debate lapse because Senator Costello might be——

Acting Chairman

Sorry, Senators, could we deal with the matter in hand and we will decide whether the debate is over. There are other Senators offering.

There are two genuine members of the Labour Party sitting on the opposing benches, and there is no way they are going to provide an opportunity for us to get into difficulty. Senator Costello has gone.

Acting Chairman

The Senator should not refer to Senators who are not present in the House.

Acting Chairman

It is a ruling of the House that you cannot refer to absent Senators.

The people who are proposing the motion have gone, so we cannot address ourselves to the people who are opposing the motion.

Acting Chairman

I ask the Senator to continue with the discussion or resume your seat, please.

Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Apartheid has been approved by the Government of South Africa. de Klerk has said that he will change this and that he will eliminate these crimes against humanity. In 1960 Verwoerd said that he would eliminate, Botha said he would eliminate, Vorster said he would eliminate, these crimes against humanity, and what happened? We have seen an escalation of institutionalised violence against the black people of South Africa.

I would ask that this motion be passed unanimously and we should ask President de Klerk to ensure that the white people of South Africa have no more rights than the black people. The minute he comes out and says straighforwardly that the rights of individuals in South Africa are for whites and blacks, then we will support everything he does. He is moving in the right direction. This motion before us suggests that he is moving in the right direction. We should support him. We should ask him to accelerate the movement towards integration in terms of support for blacks and whites. If we do not, we might as well forget about it.

Acting Chairman

I understand Senator Upton wishes to share his time with Senator Cosgrave.

That is true. I hope to take about ten minutes.

We support the motion, particularly the part which is causing the Government to maintain the necessary pressures. I would certainly be in agreement with what Senator Fallon suggested, including sanctions until apartheid is completely demolished and that is the position as far as I am concerned, and indeed as far as the Labour Party are concerned.

The other parts of the motion, while they are welcome, talk in terms of prospects of substantive change, announced intentions and encouragement, all fine, highly commendable stuff, but when you go for the brass tacks, the basic reality still remains that apartheid is in place and that is quite unacceptable. I know, accept and appreciate the fact that there have been changes in South Africa but there is a long road to go before South Africa reaches the standards which would be acceptable to the majority of people in this country. The real question now is: where do we go from here, and how do we best facilitate the development of those types of standards in South Africa.

As far as I am concerned I want to say without equivocation that I am fully in favour of the maintenance of sanctions until the whole apparatus of apartheid is demolished. That is a matter of fundamental principle as far as I am concerned. It is a matter that relates to the simplest and most basic principles of decency and fair play. I cannot see how anybody can find themselves at variance with that if they believe in those fundamental principles which relate to equality and justice. If anyone doubts why we should remove sanctions, there is the question of the political prisoners in South Africa, there are the enormous powers of the police and there is the whole apparatus of apartheid still in place. All we have got to at this stage is some talk about the possibility of dismantling it. That is up in the air. There is no point in lifting sanctions until there are firm achievements. If you want evidence as to why that should be, I am prepared to take the word of Nelson Mandela who states quite clearly that after 27 years in prison he still does not have a vote. I find it hard to see how anybody could want sanctions to be removed when it appears, and there is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest very clearly, that sanctions are working and that they have played an important part in bringing about the changes which have taken place and, indeed, will have an important part in continuing that process until the ultimate is arrived at namely, full equality.

In relation to the visit of our colleagues to South Africa I do not want to say anything. I certainly do not want to enter into the controversy between Senator Ryan and his colleagues. What I say is this; for myself I would not go to South Africa. I have not been invited. I do not expect to be invited. But I would not go and that is as much as I can say in relation to my own position on it. I certainly would find it quite unacceptable to go to South Africa under the present circumstances. I am not going to get into the business or abusing, reprimanding or castigating people who went. That is my position and where I stand in relation to that whole business. There are also people who talk in terms of the effects of sanctions and the damage and the problems they create for black people in South Africa. Maybe it does but in as far as you can judge, those people want sanctions maintained to achieve the goal which everybody else would take for granted, a basic right. There are also people who talk in terms of a backlash from the far right and so on in South Africa.

The other side of that is the question of justice. I do not know how people can put aside the question of justice. How they can put aside the idea and the notion of fair play, all on the basis that there might be a backlash? Those things remain. They are enduring concepts and I do not think we can walk away from them on the basis of some sort of threat. Certainly people in this country who are part of a struggle for what they would consider to be basic rights would not have been impressed by the idea that people should say we should back off on the granting of those rights on the basis of what some people who had power might do. The question of justice cannot be put aside on the basis of might will be right or people will start throwing their weight around unless we are nice to them when they are unfair or and unjust. The principle of justice is something we have to stand by in this matter. I do not think we should be frightened or intimidated by notions or talk of what the far right will do.

In relation to some of the points made earlier in the debate, I agree with Senator Manning when he suggests that in relation to the black community in South Africa this country should try to provide them with as much help as possible to gear them up to be able to properly run South Africa in a post-apartheid society. I would certainly be very much in favour of getting people from the black community, from the various communities who have been the victims of apartheid across to this country, so that they can benefit from what we have to offer them by way of our experience in the Civil Service, in the academic world, in the business world and in the trade union movement. It is very important that people from those communities who have been the victims of apartheid should be helped in any way that this country can help by way of gearing them to be able properly and effectively to run South Africa in a post-apartheid situation.

I will conclude by saying that I regret the fact that Nelson Mandela is not going to be able to address the Seanad. I hope that even at this late stage it might be possible to reach some accommodation whereby he could be allowed to address the Seanad or a joint sitting of the Oireachtas.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are running tight on time. I would ask Senator Cosgrave to try, if possible, to finish in five minutes because we have the Minister and Senator Conroy to speak.

We did give a 4 p.m. finishing time for this debate. If it does go a little past 4 p.m. I do not think the Chair should stop the debate. I ask that people confine themselves to points that have not been raised before and to give the Minister and the proposer of the motion a chance to reply.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Everybody agree with the spirit of what Senator Lanigan has said. It has been ordered that the House should finish at 4 p.m. and we will aim for that time.

I will try to co-operate with your wishes. First, I would like to support the motion and amendment all in relation to maintenance of sanctions until such time as certain progress has been made in South Africa. Obviously, we all welcome developments there. Like Senator Upton, I welcome the fact that Nelson Mandela will be coming here in a couple of weeks time. It is unfortunate that he is not addressing either the Seanad or joint sitting of the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, I am sure most Members of the House will be in the Dáil Chamber. We will all welcome him and look forward to hearing him.

We are aware of the situation that has existed in South Africa and, hopefully, we will see, progress in the not too distant future. As one who has not been to South Africa I certainly would not object to Members of this House going there. While I would not necessarily agree on many things with the two Senators who went there recently, they are both experienced campaigners and I accept their right to go. I do not think they would be too easily duped into believing a situation exists when it does not. I believe in trying to find out the facts on the ground, from talking to people, from first-hand observation.

In relation to sanctions, if I thought it would result in further acceleration of progress I would say have a small lifting of sanctions. They can be replaced if there is not a quid pro quo. We have seen certain progress in South Africa. The majority population has to be involved. There has to be a proper timescale. Issues have to be thrashed out. We are aware of the far right situation there. I do not minimise the difficulties that exist. We have to encourage all sides. We should do whatever we can do in Ireland and as a member of the EC, in the latter days of the Presidency. I am sure the EC will hold their position in relation to sanctions but if there is a possibility of progress being made there should be some give and take. Obviously some progress has been made, not enough and not quick enough for most of us here but I firmly believe we have at least to attempt to go down that road. We have to attempt to put things on the agenda, to negotiate, to talk. As with the problem we have had in this country for so many years, it is only by having dialogue, by talking to the individuals involved, that the problem can be solved. Following the visit of Mr. Mandela we will be better informed. People who have been in South Africa and have talked to people there have been given first hand information. Even if it is not necessarily the total picture, it is more than we are getting from other quarters. We have to work towards progress. Every individual in this House without exception wants to see progress in relation to the apartheid issue, wants to see negotiations take place, wants a timescale.

I am glad to have been able to contribute briefly to the motion and the amendments. The majority of Senators are at one in relation to this matter. On the question of lifting sanctions obviously we will be guided by what people in South Africa say. What they are saying at the moment is that they do not want sanctions lifted. If further progress can be made, I for one would say that maybe some sanctions at some stage could be relaxed if there is a quid pro quo, if the people on the ground think it might benefit them. Obviously in all this there have to be negotiations and discussion.

I have pleasure in supporting both the motion and the amendment. I am sure all of us in this House are at one on this.

I dtús báire ní mór dom a rá go bhfuil áthas orm go bhfuil sé mar phribléid agam labhairt ar an rún seo, rún atá molta ag Comhaltaí an Tí seo, agus ba mhaith liom chomh maith leis sin tréaslú dóibh siúd a mhol an rún agus dóibh siúd uilig a chuidigh leis agus a thaispeáin cé chomh tábhachtach is atá an rún seo, faoin Aifric Theas.

I am glad to have been afforded this opportunity to give the Government's view on recent developments in South Africa. As many speakers before me have indicated the developments are truly dramatic. Who could have imagined, even a year ago, that we would see the sight of the President of South Africa sitting down to negotiate with Nelson Mandela, the prisoner of an apartheid regime for 27 long years and the embodiment of the oppression of the majority by the white minority under the insane policy of separate development? This image, flashed across the newspapers and television screens of the world, symbolises the hope which we all share for a new dawn in South Africa, a new beginning which holds out the prospect of a new South Africa, free of violence and racism, which takes its proper place as an African nation in the international community.

The potential of these developments, not only for South Africa but also for the African continent, has rightly been compared in its significance to the impact of the developments of the past year on the continent of Europe in which countries of central and eastern Europe one after another have succeeded in freeing themselves from the legacy of misguided ideology. In the case of South Africa, the limelight must surely be shared by two men, President Frederick W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela. On the one hand, a man whose spirit 27 years of imprisonment could not crush and whose dignity and statesmanship have amazed all of those with whom he has come in contact; on the other, a representative of the party that imposed the regime of apartheid on his country but who has come to see that the ideology that sustained it was bankrupt. To the extent that hopes for radical change can reside in the qualities of individuals, then, for South Africa, the hopes, not only of South Africans, but also of the world reside in the trust that has been established between President de Klerk, the elected representative of a minority, and Nelson Mandela, the unelected but charismatic leader of the unenfranchised and dispossessed in South Africa.

The changes that have taken place in the past six months have been truly dramatic when measured against the years of oppression, the release of Nelson Mandela and of many other imprisoned leaders; the unbanning of organisations such as the ANC; the suspension of the application of the death penalty — these early indications from President de Klerk's Government heralded a new phase in South Africa, so unaccustomed in its nature that it took time for many — both inside and outside South Africa — to adjust to its significance. After the brief "honeymoon period", both President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela had to commence the difficult task of bringing their respective constituencies with them towards the far more difficult task of negotiating the future of South Africa, a process to which neither side is accustomed. In many ways, opposition and hatred is the easier path; the path of negotiation, with the inevitable compromises that it involves, is a far more difficult one, one that is a true test of leadership.

Happily, we can also say today that — again thanks largely to the inspirational leadership of both Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk — the remaining obstacles to substantive negotiations on the future of South Africa seem close to being overcome. The lifting of the state of emergency in South Africa has long been recognised as a key precondition to the start of negotiations, since its existence severely restricts the freedom of action of political movements. The recent decision by the South African Government to lift the state of emergency, except in the strife-torn province of Natal, is therefore a development of major significance. There is hope for an early resolution of the related issues of political prisoners and exiles, based on the work of the Government/ANC Working Group which was given the task of coming up with an agreed definition of political crime and recommending an appropriate mechanism for screening those involved. The agreed conclusions of the talks-about-talks which took place at the beginning of May also committed both sides to work towards peaceful solutions.

These recent developments all point the way towards an early commencement of substantive negotiations on the future of South Africa. It is urgent that such negotiations, involving all parties — not just the government and the ANC — should commence without delay. Ideally, all the participants in negotiations would be elected; in reality, this is not feasible and so it is necessary to ensure that all significant strands of opinion in South Africa are represented. Statesmanship and compromise are also required on this issue so that unnecessary or unrealistic obstacles are not placed in the way of the commencement of negotiations.

We must be clear what the negotiations are about, namely, the constitutional structure of a new, non-racial, democratic South Africa in which all traces of apartheid will have been eliminated. Since the whole structure of the present South African state has been erected on the misguided policy of separate development, this is a major undertaking. President de Klerk's Government have taken the first steps towards dismantling the apartheid system by introducing legislation to repeal one of the so-called pillars of apartheid, the Separate Amenities Act. This legislation, which authorises so called petty apartheid involving the degrading provision of separate facilities for different races — with the facilities provided for the majority being, of course, vastly inferior to those provided for the ruling white minority — is due to be passed through Parliament by the end of this month.

President de Klerk has also promised to introduce legislation in the next session of Parliament to amend two other pillars of apartheid, the Group Areas Act and the Land Acts, which underpin the strategy of separate development, with different races being confined to separate areas, again with most of the land and the best areas being reserved for the white minority. Finally, President de Klerk has stated that the fourth pillar of apartheid, the Population Registration Act which denies the franchise to the black majority, will, together with the full abolition of the Group Areas and Land Acts, be dealt with in the negotiations on a new constitutional order for South Africa.

In terms of action to abolish apartheid, we are therefore at present at the stage of promises rather than action. Furthermore, while President de Klerk has stated that he is committed to the abolition of apartheid and the establishment of democracy in South Africa, his statements about the need to protect the rights of minorities and about the unacceptability of an unqualified system of one man, one vote raise some questions. While constitutional protection of cultural and religious minorities is, in itself, unobjectionable, the suspicion inevitably arises when seen against the background of South African history, that what may be involved is the entrenchment in the new constitution of the privileges unjustly acquired by the white minority under the system of apartheid. This will have to be clarified.

We must also take account of the fact that, while most people — including Nelson Mandela — accept the sincerity of President de Klerk, he faces increasing opposition from white extremists who are unwilling to give up the privileges acquired under apartheid. The opposition to reform seems also to come from the security forces, who continue to use excessive and lethal violence in dealing with members of the black majority.

It can safely be said that South Africa is at a crossroads. The way forward is along the path of the abolition of apartheid legislation and the establishment, through negotiation, of a new constitutional order in which all South Africans can benefit from true freedom and democracy. The principles underlying the new South Africa were clearly set out in the declaration adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly at its special session last December. The task of the international community is to support the process of reform in South Africa. This includes maintaining pressure on the South African Government until, in the words of the declaration, "there is clear evidence of profound and irreversible changes".

Within the European Community, foreign Ministers have agreed that the Community's measures in relation to South Africa can be reviewed when the state of emergency has been lifted and all political prisoners freed. As I have already indicated, these conditions have not yet been met, though there is hope that they may be met in the near future.

The Government's view is that, while recent developments in South Africa are encouraging, they do not yet meet the test of being "profound and irreversible". We must remember that the actions taken to date by the South African Government welcome though they are, are still only in the realm of creating a suitable climate for negotiations in South Africa. Even this objective has not yet been fully achieved and we have still to see concrete action to abolish the monstrous system of apartheid. To abandon all sanctions at present, as some would suggest, would be a betrayal of Nelson Mandela and the difficult path he has embarked on. We must remember that international pressure and moral authority are the only weapons Nelson Mandela has when dealing with the might of the South African Government and its security forces.

We, therefore, must not rob him of that weapon until we are satisfied that it is no longer necessary to help achieve the profound and irreversible changes which are required in South Africa. On the other hand, we must not elevate sanctions to the status of a principle; they are there to help achieve an objective and when we are satisfied that objective has been achieved, we should move to relax them, particularly bearing in mind the fact that President de Klerk also deserves and needs encouragement. We must also remember that some of these sanctions bear heavily on the black community and that they should, therefore, only be maintained for as long as is strictly necessary.

In conclusion, a Chathaoirligh, let me say that the Government view developments in South Africa with great hope, tempered by prudence and realism. We welcome the prospect of a new non-racial and democratic South Africa taking its due place, as an African nation, in the United Nations and in the world community in general. A dynamic and prosperous South Africa, which had harnessed the potential not only of its physical but also its human resources, could act as a dynamo of growth in its region, helping to relieve the image of poverty and backwardness which, sadly, is the one that Africa generally projects at present. Let us, therefore, look forward to the early realisation of such a South Africa, without neglecting the steps needed to bring it about, including the maintenance of pressure on the South African Government.

I would like to make brief comments on some of the amendments. Senators Manning, Doyle, McDonald and O'Toole proposed that the original motion be amended by a call to the Government to maintain sanctions in accordance, they say, with five principles enunciated by the United Nations. I assume that they are referring to the declaration issued by the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly previously referred to by me which met last December.

As I have already indicated, this declaration calls on the international community to ensure that it does not relax existing measures aimed at encouraging the South African regime to eradicate apartheid until there is clear evidence of profound and irreversible changes, bearing in mind the objectives of the declaration. As I have already said, the Government fully support this position.

Nowhere does the declaration lay down five principles as a condition for lifting sanctions. The condition laid down is that there should be profound and irreversible changes. I am sure if any Member wishes to get a copy of the declaration it would be readily available. It is, therefore, obvious that this amendment, is based on a misunderstanding. I hope the Senators involved will realise that and take the necessary actions as they see fit.

Senators Murphy and Ross, on the other hand, proposed that the motion be amended by substituting "calls on the Government to maintain the necessary pressure" by "calls on the Government to consider the easing of sanctions as an encouragement to the Government of South Africa". Again, I will amplify what I have already said in my statement. The Government, while wishing to encourage the South African Government along the path of reform, do not consider that the time is right to relax the pressure. The time to relax the pressure will be when the Government are satisfied that profound and irreversible change leading to the abolition of the apartheid system has been brought about.

I commend to Senators the original wording of the motion which I believe best reflects the spirit of the debate which has taken place here today. I conclude by complimenting all the Senators on a long day's debate, their commitment to, their understanding of and the serious manner in which the motion was dealt with. It is a serious matter indeed. I appreciate the courtesy extended to me here in the Seanad all day and acknowledge on behalf of the Government and myself the sincerity of the contributions made by all Senators.

On a point of information, may I ask the Minister to clarify one point. In his statement he makes it clear that the Government regard sanctions, retention or maintenance, as a strategy, not a principle. How can that be reconciled with such emotive language as saying "dropping sanctions would be a betrayal"? It seems to me that no purpose is served——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

As it is now 4 p.m. and in accordance with the Order of Business, I must now bring the debate to a conclusion. Is the amendment withdrawn?

Can I very briefly reply as mover of the motion? I ask your indulgence, because on this motion we have had broad agreement right across the House in expressing our abhorrence of apartheid. We have also had broad agreement——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am in a difficult situation, in so far as it is an order of the House. I ask the Senator to try to confine himself to two minutes.

I thank you for your indulgence. It is fair to say also that there is broad unanimity in the House in relation to the fact that the time has not yet come to lift sanctions. I understand from the Leader of the House and from his speech that in fact were it not for procedural matters we could perhaps have moved some quite considerable way to ensure that it was a virtually unanimous motion of the House. I would like to put that on the record. It was also clear that we all agreed that some progress has been made and we would like to encourage that progress. I would like to thank all the Senators for what all of us would agree was a very interesting, constructive and informed debate. I thank the Minister also for coming here.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is amendment No. 1 withdrawn?

No, it is not withdrawn.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I wanted to make the point in relation to that amendment——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have put the question. In my opinion the amendment is defeated.

I wanted to get in the point——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The discussion on it has finished. It is now five minutes past 4 o'clock.

The five principles were not initiated for the first time in December.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must resume her seat. Amendment No. 2 cannot be moved. Is amendment No. 3 being pressed?

I want to make a point here. Our amendment is not being pressed because we welcome the main motion but——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have already ruled——

Nobody is going to get a train at ten past four. Please let me make my point.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator, I have already ruled Senator Jackman out of order and I must ask you to resume your seat.

Senator Ross and I cannot go on record as agreeing to the main motion. That is very definite.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the motion agreed?

Question put and declared carried, Senator Murphy dissenting.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

It is proposed to sit again at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 June 1990.

Top
Share